Sherwin-Williams disputes lead paint series
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Cleveland paint giant Sherwin-Williams is pushing back on Cleveland.com's recent series linking the company to the lead poisoning crisis.
Why it matters: The series documented its complicity in the decades-long crisis, but Sherwin-Williams calls the reporting historically inaccurate.
State of play: Company spokesperson Julie Young told Axios it submitted a five-page response to editor Chris Quinn before publication, but none of its content was included.
What they're saying: In the statement, shared with Axios, Sherwin-Williams argues it never had any greater knowledge or foresight than public health officials about the dangers of lead paint and says it "often was ahead of" federal, state and local regulations.
- The modern focus should be on protecting vulnerable families from predatory landlords, the statement reads, not manufacturers that "made a legal product 50 to more than 100 years ago."
Between the lines: The Cleveland.com series showed how Sherwin-Williams promoted the concentration of lead in its paint because products from competitors with lower levels were deemed inferior.
- Sherwin-Williams now says it was actually a leader in moving the market away from lead-based paint.
The other side: "We continually innovated to lower lead content in our exterior paints, using lead pigments where it was necessary to impart specific qualities like water-resistance, adhesion, and durability," the statement reads.
By the numbers: The statement notes that from 2021 to 2025, Sherwin-Williams made sizable local charitable contributions as a member of the Lead Safe Cleveland Coalition, including:
- $1 million to the United Way of Greater Cleveland for the Lead Safe Resource Center.
- $750,000 to MetroHealth's Pediatric Lead Clinic.
- $625,000 to CHN Housing Partners to provide loans to property owners for lead abatement work.
The other side: Quinn told Axios almost every paragraph of Sherwin-Williams' statement is misleading, and contradicts documents he obtained in his reporting.
- "For the series, we relied on the historical record, not misleading spin," he wrote in an email.
What's next: Sherwin-Williams says it will publish a rebuttal to Quinn's series, while Quinn says he may eventually do the same to Sherwin-Williams' response.