11
Regulation of some sources of lead poisoning
and Mexico. Thus, 123 years after recognition of this issue, a
significant proportion of the world’s population still remains
at risk to exposure from lead in paint both in industrial and
domestic settings (ICCM 2009).
The Plan of Implementation of theWorld Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) in 2002 called to:
“57. Phase out lead in lead-based paints and in other sources
of human exposure, work to prevent, in particular, children’s
exposure to lead and strengthen monitoring and surveillance
efforts and the treatment of lead poisoning.”
(WSSD 2002).
Subsequently, in its Resolution II/4 B (May 2009), UNEP’s
International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM)
endorsed the establishment of a global partnership (the Global
Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint 1) to promote the phase out
of use of lead in paints as an important contribution to the
implementation of paragraph 57.
Lead paint has been identified as a major emerging policy
issue by UNEP’s Strategic Approach to International Chemicals
Management 2 (SAICM), a global policy framework to foster
sound management of chemicals (ICCM 2009, 2012). ICCM
(2012) noted:
“that lead paint remains widely available in both developing
and developed countries. ... although the economic and social
costs of eliminating lead paints are minimal and non‑lead
paints with similar colours, performance characteristics and
costs are available. It is of serious concern that the use of lead
paint appears to be increasing with economic development
and that exposures to lead may continue over many years as
paintwork deteriorates or is removed during repainting and
demolition.”
Lead in petrol
A very significant literature exists on the multiple initiatives
to initially reduce levels of, and ultimately remove lead as an
additive from petrol (Wilson 1983, Rutter and Jones 1983,
Nriagu 1990, Needleman 2000, Tong et al. 2000, Landrigan 2002,
Wilson and Horrocks 2008, Needleman and Gee 2013). The
recent detailed history by Needleman and Gee (2013) gives a
detailed and perceptive account especially of the development
of the case for regulation in the USA and based on Needleman’s
personal involvement (also Needleman 2000).
REGULATION OF LEAD IN PETROL IN THE USA
In summary, in 1921 tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) was discovered
to be a suppressant of premature ignition of petrol in high
compression engines. Its use as a fuel additive eliminated
engine ‘knock’, thus significantly increasing engine
performance. However, from the outset it was recognised that
the word ‘lead’ had negative connotations with the public –
being associated with poisoning in the public mind – such that
TEL was produced and branded as“ethyl”(Needleman and Gee
2013): an early example of brand ‘spin’.
Over 300 cases of acute poisoning (including several fatalities)
in TEL production factories, and public health concerns as to
the implications of use of TEL as a fuel additive, resulted in the
early involvement of the US Surgeon General who ultimately
organised a high level conference in 1925 between public
health officials and industry. Needleman and Gee (2013) give a
detailed account of the events leading up to this conference and
its conclusions. The immediate outcome was a temporary ban
on the sale of leaded petrol whilst an independent committee
assessed risks.
After a time-and-data-limited investigation, the Surgeon
General’s Committee concluded in 1926 that
“at present there are no good grounds for prohibiting the use
of ethyl gasoline … provided that its distribution and use are
controlled by proper regulations”
(Needleman and Gee 2013).
Important caveats however, highlighted the incompleteness
of available data, the poorly-understood risks of long-term
exposure to low levels of lead, and the need for continued
research to better understand these issues: “this investigation
must not be allowed to lapse.” However, the US Public Health
Service never undertook further investigations and for the
next 40 years substantially all studies into the health impacts
of TEL were conducted and funded by the industry i.e. Ethyl
Corporation, E.I. DuPont and General Motors (Needleman and
Gee 2013).
Much of the debate within the Committee and the earlier
Conference had centred around the nature of risk and where
the burden of proof lay – with manufacturers to demonstrate
that their product (TEL) was safe, or with the health sector to
demonstrate that their product was unsafe. These issues were
to be repeatedly revisited in future debates.
1 Global alliance to eliminate lead paint
Default.aspx 2 Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management