December 2007
What's a safe level?
Consumers Union and a growing number of scientists and public health officials argue that the CDC should change its official
definition of an elevated blood level to 5 micrograms per deciliter. "This is important because official governmental acknowledgment
that these lower blood lead levels are harmful may influence regulations," says Joel Forman, M.D., an associate professor
of pediatrics at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine in New York. He also is a member of a CDC work group and the American Academy
of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health.
The CDC's advisory committee on lead poisoning prevention in August 2005 said it was keeping the status quo because reducing the level would be arbitrary and benefits were uncertain.
If the CDC lowered its standard to 5 micrograms per deciliter, the number of American children under 5 classified as having elevated levels would rise to about 1.8 million, a fourfold increase. "The impact on legal liability claims against the lead industry is obvious," says Gerald Markowitz, a professor of history at John Jay College and co-author of "Deceit and Denial," a book about industrial pollution.
A Rhode Island jury in 2006 determined that three companies involved in making lead pigments found in paints and coatings used throughout the state knew for decades that lead was hazardous and continued to sell their products, contributing to a public health hazard. The state has proposed an abatement plan under which Sherwin Williams, NL Industries, and Millennium Holdings could face costs of up to $2.4 billion to cover an effort to eliminate lead paint hazards in 240,000 homes. They are appealing the trial court decision. Bonnie Campbell, spokeswoman for the companies in the suit, would not comment.
Given lead's potential for harm, Consumers Union believes manufacturers should eliminate its use or reduce it to the smallest trace amounts.
"There is no safe dose of lead," says David Jacobs, former director of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. "Manufacturers and regulators should be working to eliminate the unnecessary use of lead in consumer products so that we can avoid yet another wave of lead exposure that's entirely preventable."
The CDC's advisory committee on lead poisoning prevention in August 2005 said it was keeping the status quo because reducing the level would be arbitrary and benefits were uncertain.
If the CDC lowered its standard to 5 micrograms per deciliter, the number of American children under 5 classified as having elevated levels would rise to about 1.8 million, a fourfold increase. "The impact on legal liability claims against the lead industry is obvious," says Gerald Markowitz, a professor of history at John Jay College and co-author of "Deceit and Denial," a book about industrial pollution.
A Rhode Island jury in 2006 determined that three companies involved in making lead pigments found in paints and coatings used throughout the state knew for decades that lead was hazardous and continued to sell their products, contributing to a public health hazard. The state has proposed an abatement plan under which Sherwin Williams, NL Industries, and Millennium Holdings could face costs of up to $2.4 billion to cover an effort to eliminate lead paint hazards in 240,000 homes. They are appealing the trial court decision. Bonnie Campbell, spokeswoman for the companies in the suit, would not comment.
Given lead's potential for harm, Consumers Union believes manufacturers should eliminate its use or reduce it to the smallest trace amounts.
"There is no safe dose of lead," says David Jacobs, former director of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. "Manufacturers and regulators should be working to eliminate the unnecessary use of lead in consumer products so that we can avoid yet another wave of lead exposure that's entirely preventable."
