| Summary: | <p>This thesis examines how changing approaches to the study of toxicity shaped responses to the industrial and occupational hazards of colour production and use in France and Britain between 1814 and 1914. During this period, investigations conducted by toxicologists, chemists, pharmacists, medical practitioners and veterinarians motivated conflicting discourses on the risks posed by toxic elements used for colour production such as lead, arsenic, copper, aniline, or picric acid. Tensions arose due to disagreements over scientific methodologies of investigation, conflicting conceptions of state intervention and disease, and the unstable nature of nomenclatures used to classify colour, disease, and industrial nuisances. Despite structural differences in terms of educative systems, legal frameworks and access to resources used for colour production, environmental and occupational risks of colour production thus became rationalised and naturalised in both France and Britain. Examining the rise of synthetic colour production through the lens of environmental history therefore challenges narratives according to which the age of synthetic colours marked a ‘colour revolution’. Instead, it consolidated risk management regimes which pre-dated the production of synthetic colours.</p>
<p>Reassessing the notion of expertise, this thesis demonstrates that knowledge on toxicity was not produced exclusively by trained toxicologists, chemists and medical men but was often co-constructed by different actors in a variety of spaces of investigation. It furthermore highlights that understandings of the sanitary and environmental impact of dyes and pigments was shaped by the observation of animal organisms, both as experimental objects and as accidental poisoning victims. Additionally, responses to risks tied to colour production were in both cases significantly impacted by understandings of toxic elements as a form of regenerable waste pertaining to a circular economy of nature. As a result, responses to the industrial hazards of colour production and use often differed depending on the environments and organisms these colours affected, the scale of their use and the intended purpose of their application. This explains why exposure to toxic substances came to be accepted as a normal risk and why the development of toxicology did not lead to a better recognition of occupational diseases by 1914.</p>
|
|---|