Dear DuPont Shareholder,

We are writing to urge you, as a DuPont shareholder, to vote
?FOR? the stockholder proposal, Agenda Item 6, in DuPont?s 2006
proxy statement.  The proposal would require the management to
prepare a report to shareholders evaluating the feasibility of
an expeditious phase-out of the use of perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) in the production of all DuPont products, including
materials that may degrade to PFOA in use or in the environment,
and the adoption of safer alternatives.

PFOA is the controversial substance that is linked with
signature DuPont products such as Teflon cookware as well as
stain and grease repellants used in food packaging, textiles and
carpets. PFOA has been targeted by experts and regulators due to
an array of concerns about persistence in the environment and
potential health impacts. Some DuPont products are made using
PFOA, some contain PFOA residues, and some are believed to break
down to PFOA during use or in the environment. DuPont is the
only current US producer of PFOA.

As you may know, DuPont management recently entered a voluntary
agreement with the EPA in which it promised to reduce
environmental emissions and product residues of PFOA over the
next ten years.  Although the EPA program requires companies to
commit to ?working toward? the elimination of PFOA and PFOA
precursors in products, in our close reading, DuPont
management?s commitment to that goal seems ambivalent. Nowhere
in its letter of ?commitment? to EPA does DuPont management
agree to eliminate the use or production of PFOA on any
timeline.  Instead, the management targets PFOA emissions and
states its plans for ?caps? on residues in products.  In other
words, as things stand now our company may be planning to
continue to produce and use PFOA not just over the next ten
years, but indefinitely, and may even allow some ?capped?
amounts of PFOA or PFOA precursors in DuPont products.

We believe that this places shareholder value at risk, as
consumers, manufacturers and retailers are increasingly seeking
non-PFOA products. The market is not necessarily going to
tolerate so-called ?trace? amounts of these materials. Major
players such as Wal-Mart and McDonalds have already announced
their intentions to seek alternatives.  If DuPont does not
provide the products, competitors may fill the breach. In
addition, we believe the continued use and production of PFOA
poses enormous potential for environmental and product
liabilities. Our company needs to act far more decisively to
eliminate PFOA.

DuPont Shareholders for Fair Value (?DSFV?) is an informal group
of DuPont shareholders that includes, among others, Amalgamated
Bank?s LongView Collective Investment Fund; USW International
Union (?USW?), and Sisters of Mercy, Merion Regional Community,
Merion, PA. USW also represents approximately 1,800 DuPont
employees in New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky.

This communication is not a proxy solicitation, and DSFV will
not accept any proxies. DSFV urges shareholders to vote ?FOR?
this stockholder proposal on DuPont management?s proxy.

We hope that you will join with us in pressing DuPont management
to quickly pursue a genuine phase-out of PFOA uses and
production, beginning with a report to shareholders, by voting
in favor of item 6.


Sanford Lewis
DuPont Shareholders for Fair Value

Shareholder Value Remains at Risk from PFOA
PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) is a chemical used to help make
fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers. E. I. du Pont de Nemours &
Co. (DuPont) is the only US producer of PFOA. Fluoropolymers are
used in architectural fabrics; chemical processing piping and
vessels; automotive fuel systems; telecommunications and
electronic wiring insulation; and computer chip processing
equipment and systems, and consumer products such as cookware
and apparel.  PFOA is used as a processing aid in the
manufacture of fluoropolymers for use in non-stick surfaces such
as Teflon coated cookware. Fluoroelastomers are synthetic,
rubber-like materials used in gaskets, O-rings and hoses.
DuPont?s 10-K report estimates that these product lines are
worth about a billion dollars in annual revenue.
Over the last year, DuPont reached a record $16.5 million
settlement with the USEPA to settle civil charges that the
management had concealed information related to the health and
environmental risks of PFOA.  The company has also received a
criminal subpoena from the Department of Justice related to the
same information.  In February 2006, the EPA?s Scientific
Advisory Board, a panel of independent experts convened by the
EPA, announced its determination that PFOA should be declared a
?likely human carcinogen.?
Also during the last year, DuPont share prices dropped as much
as 30 percent. Some of this drop may have been attributable to
energy costs and other factors, but it is notable that the drop
in share value was more precipitous than many competitors, and
was concurrent with the repeated bad news about PFOA.
While DuPont has agreed with EPA to work to reduce emissions of
PFOA and residues of PFOA over the next decade, and to search
for ?breakthrough? products, to date the management has made no
commitment to eliminate the production or use of PFOA and its
precursors on any timeline.
Our review of current developments demonstrates serious exposure
of our company.  Threats to shareholder value that may have
imminent or longer term impact include the following:
? Manufacturer, retailer and consumer migrations from DuPont?s
PFOA products. Major retailers, such as Wal-Mart and McDonalds,
have recently indicated intentions to seek alternatives to
products containing PFOA. Moreover, DuPont?s Teflon non-stick
cookware products continue to receive media scrutiny.
? Entry of competitors into DuPont markets. The search for
alternatives is driving DuPont?s competitors, who are bringing
PFOA-free products to market.
? Possible expedited US, state or foreign regulatory action.  A
petition filed under California?s Proposition 65 on February 22,
2006, seeks to list PFOA as ?a chemical that is known to the
state to cause cancer.? If the listing petition prevails,
businesses would be prohibited from knowingly discharging the
chemical into sources of drinking water, and be required to
provide warnings before knowingly exposing anyone to PFOA,
unless they could show that the exposures create no significant
risk of cancer?. On March 7, 2006, the USEPA published a Federal
Register notice asserting that it can no longer presume that
long chain polymers similar to PFOA ?will not present an
unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.?  The
agency proposed withdrawing a longstanding exemption to
premanufacture notice under the Toxic Substance Control Act for
those seeking to manufacture or import new substances of this
? Potential liability related to consumer and environmental
exposures to PFOA at DuPont and other companies.   PFOA
contamination has been detected at several new sites over the
last year, and a purported $5 billion class action lawsuit was
filed alleging undisclosed health risks associated with Teflon.

To read the entire DSFV report please go to: