apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

What about the American Pride line of paint at safepaint.net?
(I am very sensitive to vapors and loved using their paints.) A thumbs up from me!

What about the new BM Aura line? Anyone used it yet?

I painted a guest bedroom a dark gray color using Olympic Premium paint purchased through Lowes.

I was really impressed by the coverage ability, and I was shocked at the low price. I had previousy paid $42 per gallon for the best quality paint at Duron. At something like $16.99 a gallon, I expected the Olympic paint to be crappy. It was just as good, if not better, and environmentally friendlier than the paint I purchased at Duron.

We've used Pittsburgh Paints Pure Performance several times and been very pleased with the paint and the lack of odor.

Go to Parr Paints or Jane's and really check out the various finishes and coverage. The milk paints aren't really going to cover land-lord white in one coat.

I used the DunnEdwards and had it mixed to match Farrow and Ball and it's great.

I'm shocked to see that AFM Safecoat didn't make the list. They've been making low and zero VOC paints for over 30 years (way before almost everyone on your list) and they're regularly recommended by doctors for chemically sensitive patients. You should definatly check them out.

whoa!

just found an email from Fine Paints of Europe in response to this article that makes some very interesting points about the rather simplistic way the whole "green paint" approach is going in the U.S., versus the way it was approached in the Netherlands.

Here is the letter in response to the NYTimes article in its entirety:

May 15, 2008


Sarah Kershaw

The New York Times

620 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10018


Dear Sarah,


I enjoyed your article in today's Home Section. There has been much ink devoted to this topic of late but yours was the first attempt to address some of the trade-offs and confusion concerning the green paint movement. Your reference to domestic paint manufacturers “furiously researching technologies” contrasts markedly with the positions of several Dutch paint manufacturers who focused on environmentally friendly coatings more than two decades ago at a time when the green movement was being born in the Netherlands.


A few points which you might consider exploring if and when you return to the topic of green coatings.



The world’s scientific community generally is in agreement that the only rational means of comparing the "environmental friendliness" of different coatings is on a life-cycle basis. The real issue is the total environmental impact resulting from the production, use and ultimately removal of a given can of paint. It is absolutely absurd to focus the consumers attention upon VOC level of paint “in the can" without taking into account the environmental damage done in creating the components necessary to produce such a coating. Most of the damage done in the life cycle occurs away from the point of application during the productions phase. Most homeowners and “green consumers” are shocked to learn that waterborne coatings typically require three to four times the “smokestack” energy input required to produce solventborne coatings which possess higher VOC’s “in the can”. Low VOC coatings like electric cars are not going to protect the environment if the energy required to produce these coatings and power these cars is “dirty”. The use of a raw VOC score to document the environmentally friendliness of a coating is as accurate as using a single digit cholesterol score to convey the general health of a patient.


VOC comparisons are also misleading to the extent that the real issue is not VOC’s but reactivity – the tendency for a particular solvent to produce ozone when introduced into the environment. Most Americans are unaware that all VOC’s are not created equal, that some solvents containing VOC’s have no environmental impact whereas others create significant damage. Domestic paint regulators have chosen to adopt the VOC approach rather than the scientifically correct reactivity approach because it is far easier to do so. The American scientific community is well aware that significant distortion is created as a result of this decision. When reactivity is accounted for in the calculations, it is entirely possible to have a coating with a VOC of 50 which is kinder to the environment than another coating with a VOC of 20.


There are environmentally friendly, oil-based coatings, which will replicate the sheen, consistency and lasting power of traditional solventborne oil paints. These coatings, known as waterborne alkyds represent a significant break-through as they replicate traditional oil paints modified to include harmless water rather than solvent is used as the vehicle – the VOC waterborne alkyds is less than 50 and these coatings were developed in the Netherlands almost thirty years ago.


EVERY TIME THAT ANY PAINT IS APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE WILL RESULT. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COATING FREE OF NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Release of harmful VOC’s by any coating must be evaluated on an annualized basis. Thus if we had two coatings with VOC’s of identical reactivity and coating A had a VOC of 100 and expected life of 20 years and coating B had a VOC of 25 and expected life of 5 years the coatings would be equal on a release basis but the tie would certainly be broken by the fact that much more energy would be required to acquire, manufacture and apply coating B four times as frequently.


Our firm has been at the forefront of the green paint movement in America since our founding in 1987. We are an active member of the U.S. Green Building Council and more than 75% of the paints we sell qualify for LEED® certification. We strongly believe that the environmental impact of coatings is a complex scientific issue, which is currently being oversimplified for presentation to a well meaning population of homeowners who want to do the right thing. You will be doing a great service to your readers should you decide to investigate this topic more thoroughly.


Cordially,



John Lahey

President

Fine Paints of Europe

I actually have to strenuously object to Olympic paint. Pros: Available at Lowe's, low odor, pretty responsible. Cons, in my experience: Looks like utter crap. Hubby and I tried 5 shades in eggshell and they all were matte, blotchy and awful. A real disappointment. I'd love to hear that others have had better experiences but we wasted a lot of time, and a bit of cash, on Olympic.

I can't imagine most of the people here painting once in 25 years and then not again. If you are going to paint more often than once every 20 years, it seems you should go with the lower VOC.

I used the Lowe's Olympic paint to paint much of my townhouse. The only thing lower than the VOCs is the coverage and the color quality. Now I'm repainting and will pay more to get more.