According to The New York Times, manufacturers and their customers are using materials made without the clouds of dust that have sickened workers in quartz-cutting shops. The article is framed around a "Potential Quartz Ban" in California, and its headline says that prospect is pushing contractors and retailers toward alternatives.
The headline and summary name different groups. The headline refers to contractors and retailers moving to alternatives, while the summary refers to manufacturers and their customers using them. The summary does not say whether those groups overlap.
The New York Times credits Rebecca Davis O'Brien as the author of the article. This report is based only on the article's headline and summary, not its full text, and no quotations from officials, manufacturers, retailers, or workers appear in the material reviewed.
The summary does not name the alternative materials, the manufacturers or retailers involved, or the number of workers affected. It also does not describe the illnesses or any official findings about the dust.
The headline links the shift to the potential ban, and the summary describes the replacement materials by the dust they avoid. Neither the headline nor the summary states which factor businesses weigh more heavily, or how far the proposal has advanced.
The New York Times summary places the reported illnesses in quartz-cutting shops, and the headline places contractors and retailers in the response to the potential ban. Beyond those points, the material reviewed does not describe prices, sales, or customer reactions.