Does your Valspar paint smell of cat urine?

I have only used Valspar paint in an outdoor application and was unaware of any unpleasant odour. I was not over-impressed by the paint at its high price but I was after a particular colour and with only a B&Q in our nearest town I could only get the colour in a Valspar gloss paint. Through a trade source I have since discovered a specialist decorators’ merchant that can match-mix other brands.

Soggy Mouse sounds like the sort of name another well-known brand of high-priced paint might use for its snob-laden coatings.

Modern paints are now water based – much easier to clean your brushes as well as for the environment.

Easier to clean brushes but water-based paints need potentially harmful chemicals as preservatives.

Preservatives will either kill or inhibit the growth of bugs. Many of these products are also potentially harmful to humans and wildlife, hence the restrictions in their use. I don’t know which preservatives have been phased out by the EU but there is probably a very good reason.

There could be more restrictions on preservatives – often referred to as biocides – used in water-based paints. Maybe we should thank rather than criticise the EU for wanting to get rid of carcinogenic and reprotoxic chemicals from paints. https://chemicalwatch.com/51520/paint-manufacturers-struggle-with-lack-of-approved-preservatives

A few years ago, some preservatives were removed from fence treatment. We bought Cuprinol wood preserver, ran out, bought some more only to realise after painting a dozen fence panels that we had used protector instead of preserver. The tins looked identical, bought from the same shop, on the same shelf, but the word preserver had been replaced by protector. It was basically just a colourant.

I did a very satisfactory follow-up with Cuprinol and was able to collect replacement preserver from a trade outlet.

Wood preservers seem to be back so new preservatives must have been found to replace the banned ones unless they are only available from specialists.

I doubt if any really effective wood preservers are now on sale to the general public. I think the best solution is to buy wood that has been pressure-treated and then treat fences with a suitable coloured product. Products are banned for good reason and I question whether some of them should ever have been used.

My grimace was on the use of an extra comma after “interestingly” . Essentially if you remove the commas and what lies between them the sentence should still work.

I am all in favour of tighter controls of chemicals that have the potential for harm.

The commas aren’t really the issue; it’s the problems with plurals… “recent changes in EU law, which restricts“.

Commas have many functions, and you’re referring to the appositive comma, Patrick: where a subordinate or dependent clause or pronoun can be enclosed with two commas. In the case you quoted, however, the commas are not technically incorrect, but they do serve to make the sentence lumpy, to use the technical term 🙂

There’s quite a comprehensive explanation here.

Many (of us) misuse commas. Remember the Oxford comma.
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/grammar/grammar_tutorial/page_06.htm
We need to check our sentences to see whether they could be misread. I think the sentence Patrick refers to is incorrect as the first comma, after interestingly, should be deleted. You could eliminate the “which restricts…..” but you do need the “recent changes….” bit for the sentence to make sense.

Talking of sentences…”With experts noting that the culprit is likely to be a bacterial contamination.” isn’t……

But maybe I’m a wrong pedant.

@ldeitz, it is simply that some think good English is worth preserving, I suspect, Lauren. We are all guilty of it.

It would be useful to ask Valspar for a statement about their compliance with EU regulations, and the reason why they changed their formulation in the first place. Was it not fully tested before it was released for sale? Were Valspar products affected in other EU countries?

Ouch. Restrict is a verb; “changes” (a plural) requires “restrict” – as in: they restrict, it restricts. Very sorry. 🙂 Think that’s right. I’m going to cut the lawn now, you’ll be pleased to hear.

I’ve never bought Valspar paint. My local preferred paint supplier is the Dulux Decorator shop that supplies both trade and retail. I get a discount by asking. The paint and woodstain are not the cheapest but they cover well, and last. Given the time involved in preparation, and in applying paint, I’d prefer to spend a little more on a good product (in my eyes).

I don’t remember that last time Which? reviewed paints. It is a long term investigation, as durability is important. Are any tests of water-based paints and preservatives being undertaken, either by Which? or one of its European sister organisations?

Which? has (or had) a list of products they don’t review, and this includes paints.

I became interested in durability of paint when I had a red car that faded badly – a common problem with red paints at the time. I have used marine paints such as International and had no problems with fading for more than ten years. The last time I bought some, it was about three times the price of Dulux. I’m referring to oil-based paints and the new water-based paints could well be different.

Hi Lauren – I can think of various reasons why Which? does not test paint, but it would be interesting to know why not.

For some products where relevant standards (BS, EN, ISO) exist it could be useful for Which? to list them so the discerning consumer could check whether their proposed purchase claims compliance,

If it seems cruel to note these matters when one considers the alternatives such as a decline in quality , and perhaps the subconscious noting by readers that something is not right. The brand image for the charity one imagines is fundamentally to be serious and correct.

It may be helpful to have a back-channel where style or possible error matters are flagged as then the general reading public would be spared the diversion from the Conversation thread. The back-channel to be open to readers rather like the Lobby.

Incidentally the BBC is also often guilty and given it’s profile even more upsetting. This today from digitalhealth.net : ” information on electronnic forms”. I do not pay for the feed but my opinion of a site where simple spellchecking appears beyond them is not high.

Lauren: still off topic, so apologies, but in the sentence you dispute we’re dealing with a classical ambiguity. If we assume the subject is “recent changes which is plural, and the modifying verb is “restricts, then that’s simply incorrect. Changes can only restrict, not restricts.

However, what I suspect you meant was not “recent changes in EU law, which restricts the types of preservatives” but “EU law restricts the types of preservatives“. By preceding “EU law” with “recent changes in” you’ve made the subject of the sentence “Recent changes” and not “EU law“, which now appears as a subordinate or modifying clause whereas, in reality, you’d intended “Recent changes” to be the modifying clause. In effect, the sentence ‘plays poorly’ in the mind of the reader and distracts from the substance because the waters have been muddied by the inclusion of both plural and singular nouns in the subject clause.

For homework…

See “The Lobby” perhaps, or maybe we should start a new Convo on grammer.
Has anyone used the Which? Legal advice to seek compensation not only for the paint, but for the decorator’s labour charge. Glad to see them contributing. This is a little ambiguous; does it mean if your paint was initially applied by a remunerated decorator you can claim for their charge, or does it mean if you employ a decorator to remedy your own work you can make a claim for labour?

If, as Valspar appears to claim, the bad odour is temporary (naturally wears off over time), does this affect the claim – should we be patient? And do we have evidence that the odour ” occurs very rarely and when used on walls that are particularly porous, and where the wall is exposed to excessive heat or direct sunlight”.

“On March 21, 2016, Sherwin-Williams announced its intention to pay $9.3 billion to acquire Valspar. The acquisition finalized on June 1, 2017.”

March 2016 when it was clear the company was going to lose its 200 years of independence.

From http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2017/07/bq-offers-refunds-after-paint-found-to-smell-of-cat-wee

“Valspar said the stink was caused after an additive was removed from eight of its 140 paint products earlier this year. It has now re-added it to solve the problem – although we’ve seen dozens of complaints on social media from those who’ve already painted their homes……………………………………..

Here comes the science bit…

So what exactly went wrong with the paint? In a statement Valspar said the issue was related to an additive which had been removed and since replaced.

A spokesperson said: “The ammonia-type odour occurs very rarely and when used on walls that are particularly porous, and where the wall is exposed to excessive heat or direct sunlight. The odour naturally wears off over time. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and ask that anyone similarly affected contact B&Q’s customer services.””

I cannot find any information from Valspar, Beryl. The widely quoted press release does not seem to be in the public domain.

The growth of bacteria and other microorganisms requires water and a range of essential nutrients (food). These can be provided in cans of water-based paint, hence the use of biocides (preservatives). Whether bugs can continue to grow when paint has been applied will depend on the availability of moisture. Tiling bathrooms helps ensure that even if there is moisture available periodically, the bugs have no access to nutrients. I presume that use of a special primer is to help prevent moisture in a wall from reaching the paint layer and promoting growth of bugs.

I don’t think we have evidence that Valspar is the only manufacturer to comply with EU regulations, and I would be very surprised if this was the case.

Malcolm’s referral led me to research the dangers of formaldehyde exposure and ways in which to reduce exposure to it Wavechange. See: learn.eartheasy.com – 7 Ways to reduce your exposure to formaldehyde.

Also Lakeland paints which claim to contain zero VOC’s zero solvents, zero heavy metals: @ lakelandpaints.co.uk.
Has anyone ever used them or have Which? carried out any tests on them? Lakeland are always rated very highly in their lists of creditable retailers.

Formaldehyde was mentioned as a questionable material in one of the links I posted earlier. Many will be more familiar with formalin – a solution containing formaldehyde that was used to preserve biological specimens. It is still a problem in household products: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/formaldehyde/formaldehyde-fact-sheet

I very much doubt that Lakeland makes paints. It would be good to know which biocides are in products sold under this and other names.

I am very satisfied with Dulux Trade paints, mixed on site if the colour is not in stock or has to be matched, from Brewers Decorator Centres. Mainly trade but they sell to anyone with or without an account, but anyone can have a cash or credit account [subject to status]. They sell several other makes of paint as well as wallpaper and have an impressive range of professional tools and supplies for making the job go well. They have 157 stores, mainly in the south-east of England.

For ordinary, standard range, Crown and Dulux emulsions I use Wilko or Homebase.

That’s certainly relevant, if not bedtime reading. What matters to users is which biocides are in different paints. The information can usually be found in material safety data sheets, but this not indicate the amounts and the formulation of products can be different for different countries. I would like to see the information on each paint can.