=======================Electronic Edition========================
. .
. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #591 .
. ---March 26, 1998--- .
. HEADLINES: .
. MAKING THE POLLUTER PAY .
. ========== .
. Environmental Research Foundation .
. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .
. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: [log in to unmask] .
. ========== .
. Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send .
. E-mail to [log in to unmask] with the single word HELP .
. in the message; back issues also available via ftp from .
. ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com .
. and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/ .
. Subscribe: send E-mail to [log in to unmask] .
. with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. .
=================================================================
MAKING THE POLLUTER PAY
The Governing Council of the American Public Health Association
(APHA) on November 12, 1997 unanimously adopted a policy
statement urging lawsuits against the manufacturers of products
that contain lead and against the lead manufacturers
themselves.[*] APHA is a professional society founded in 1872
representing all disciplines and specialties in public health.
APHA is urging lawsuits against manufacturers and users to raise
funds to protect the nation's children from toxic lead. Under
the influence of the lead corporations, the U.S. Congress has
dragged its feet on lead abatement for 50 years (see REHW #294,
#376), refusing to provide adequate funding to solve this
problem, which continues to reduce the mental capacity of
millions of American children. In keeping with the
well-established principle that "the polluter shall pay," the
APHA is urging that lawsuits be brought by governments,
individuals, and others, seeking monetary compensation for the
damages knowingly caused by the producers and users of lead.
Clearly, this is an important recommendation, coming, as it does,
from the heart of the American public health establishment.
Perhaps, by extension, in future years the APHA will urge
lawsuits against the manufacturers and users of PCBs,
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), mercury, cadmium and other persistent
pollutants that are demonstrably poisoning the world's wildlife
and human populations.
Here we present the APHA's policy statement verbatim:
9704: Responsibilities of the Lead Pigment Industry and Others to
Support Efforts to Address the National Child Lead Poisoning
Problem
The American Public Health Association,
Noting that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
considers lead poisoning to be one of the most common and serious
environmental diseases in young children in the U.S., completely
preventable;[1] and
Noting that early and recent research has found
neurodevelopmental delays in children at increasingly lower
levels of lead exposure;[2-12] and
Recognizing that 4.4% of children aged 1-5 years have blood lead
levels above 10 mcg/dl [micrograms of lead per deciliter of
blood; a deciliter is a tenth of a liter and a microgram is a
millionth of a gram];[13] and
Noting that children who live in poorly maintained, older housing
are at disproportionate risk of being lead-poisoned;[1,13,14] and
Noting that the single most important source of lead poisoning in
children in the U.S. is lead paint;[1,14] and
Noting that over 50 million housing units in the U.S. have lead
paint;[15] and
Noting that the cost of abating the nation's residential lead
paint hazards and treating the short-and long-term effects of
lead poisoning is many billions of dollars,[15] and that there is
no source to fund abatement efforts on a consistent, large-scale
and long-term basis, which means that the public health problem
will remain fundamentally unaddressed; and
Understanding that lead paint was recognized as a source of lead
poisoning in young children as early as 1904;[16] and
Being aware that scores of articles on child lead paint poisoning
were published in medical and scientific journals between 1904
and 1950;[17,18] and
Noting that the major lead paint and lead pigment manufacturers
became well aware of the dangers of lead paint to children in the
early 1900s, yet continued to sell lead paint well beyond
1950;[17] and
Understanding that lead pigment manufacturers, despite the
knowledge of the hazards, continued campaigns to promote and
increase the sale of lead-based paint and minimize the public and
governmental knowledge of the hazards;[17,19] and
Recalling that the principle of "polluter pays" is
well-established in cases of environmental damage and public
health problems, some examples being: tobacco (taxes, state
government law suits);[20-23] asbestos (governmental[24] and
private law suits); Superfund (trust fund, governmental law
suits);[25] Florida Everglades pollution from sugar production
(state constitutional amendment requiring that the polluter
pay);[26] and
Noting that over the 1920-1936 period alone, the lead pigment
industry sold over $455 million (in 1920-1936 dollars) worth of
white lead pigment;[27,28] and
Noting that the largest manufacturers of lead pigment in this
century, or their successors, are still in business as profitable
companies (combined net assets in 1995 of approximately $30
billion)[29,30] and have not been held financially accountable
for the damage caused by their products; and
Recalling that there are precedents (such as the cases of
asbestos,[24] cigarettes,[20-23] Superfund[25]) for governments suing
polluting companies to recover damages; and that doing so in the
case of lead paint poisoning could help increase public
visibility of the issue; and that doing so may help discourage
corporations from engaging in future irresponsible behavior that
damages the environment or the public health; and
Recognizing that residential lead-based paint abatement has been
found overall to be safe and effective in reducing children's
exposure to lead,[31-34] despite some conflicting data;[35,36]
Noting that data are lacking on the optimal methods of lead paint
abatement to maximize safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness;
Recognizing that HUD-proposed standards and EPA guidance levels
for lead in dust and soil do not adequately protect children from
sub-clinical lead toxicity. In fact, these standards and
guidance levels are 4-to 10-fold higher than levels estimated to
be associated with 10% of children having a blood lead level in
excess of 10 mcg/dl.[37] Further recognizing that other studies
indicate that dust lead levels considerably lower than 100 mcg/dl
on floors are inadequate to protect children from undue lead
exposure;[38,39] therefore
1. Supports efforts to increase the resources devoted to lead
abatement, reduction of lead hazards in housing, and
community-based prevention and health education;
2. Supports efforts to raise such resources through a variety of
means including litigation against manufacturers of products that
contain lead (such as lead manufacturers), legislation,
negotiation, and fees;
3. Urges the federal government to pass legislation establishing
a tax on the production of lead to be used for a trust fund for
removing lead paint hazards in low-income housing and for
community-based prevention and risk reduction health education;
4. Reaffirms the recommendations provided by APHA policy
statement #8909: Reducing Health Risks Related to Environmental
Lead Exposure;
5. Urges the EPA to promulgate a health-based standard for house
dust and residential soil that are adequate to protect preschool
children from unacceptable lead exposure;
6. Urges HUD to conduct a national survey of housing,
incorporating sources of lead exposure and children's blood lead
levels; and
7. Urges HUD, EPA and CDC to collaboratively fund or conduct
research on the optimal methods of abatement to maximize safety,
efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
--Peter Montague
(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)
===============
[*] "[Policy Statement] 9704," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Vol. 88, No. 3 (March 1998), pgs. 498-500.
[1] Centers for Disease Control. Preventing Lead Poisoning in
Young Children. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human
Services, 1991.
[2] Byers R, Lord E. Late effects of lead poisoning on mental
development. AM J DIS CHILD 1943;66:471-494.
[3] Needleman HL, Gunnoe C, Leviton A, Reed R, Peresie H, Mager
C, Barrett P. Deficits in psychologic and classroom performance
of children with elevated dentine lead levels. N ENGL J MED
1979;300:689-695.
[4] Winneke G, Lilienthal H, Kramer U. The neurobehavioural
toxicology and teratology of lead. ARCH TOXICOL 1996;
18(Suppl):57-70.
[5] Landrigan PJ, Todd AC, Wedeen RP. Lead poisoning. MOUNT
SINAI J MED 1995;62:360-364.
[6] Bellinger D, Dietrich KN. Low-level lead exposure and
cognitive function in children. PED ANNALS 1994;23(11):600-605.
[7] Needleman HL. The current status of childhood low-level lead
toxicity. NEUROTOXICOL 1993; 14(2-3):161-166.
[8] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The Nature
and Extent of Lead Poisoning in Children in the United States: A
Report to Congress, 1988. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service.
[9] Needleman HL, Gastonis CA. Low-level lead exposure and the
IQ of children. JAMA 1990;263:673-678.
[10] Schwartz J. Low-level exposure and children's IQ: A
meta-analysis and search for a threshold. ENVIRON RES
1994;65:42-55.
[11] Shukla R, Dietrich KN, Bornschein RL, Berger O, Hammond PB.
Lead exposure and growth in the early pre-school child.
PEDIATRICS 1991;88:886-892.
[12] Needleman HL, Riess JA, Tobin MJ, Biesecker GE, Greenhouse
JB. Bone lead levels and delinquent behavior. JAMA
1996;275:363-369.
[13] Centers for Disease Control. Update: Blood lead
levels--United States, 1991-1994. MMWR 1997;46:141-146.
[14] Sargent JD, Brown MJ, Freeman JL, Bailey A, Goodman D,
Freeman DH. Childhood lead poisoning in Massachusetts
communities: its association with sociodemographic and housing
characteristics. AM J PUBLIC HEALTH 1995;85:528-534.
[15] HUD. Comprehensive and Workable Plan for the Abatement of
Lead-Based Paint in Privately Owned Housing. Washington, DC: US
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1990.
[16] Gibson, JL. A plea for painted railings and painted walls
of rooms as the source of lead poisoning amongst Queensland
children. AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL GAZETTE 1904;23:149-153.
[17] Rabin R. Warnings unheeded: a history of child lead
poisoning. AM J PUBLIC HEALTH 1989;79:1668-1674.
[18] Lin-Fu J. Lead poisoning and undue lead exposure in
children: history and current status. In: Needleman HL (ed): Low
Level Lead Exposure: Clinical Implications of Current Research.
New York: Raven Press, 1980.
[19] Environmental Defense Fund. The Hour of Lead. Washington,
DC: Environmental Defense Fund, 1992.
[20] Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Philip Morris, Inc. et al.,
Civil No. 95-7378, Massachusetts Superior Court.
[21] Moore v. The American Tobacco Co. et al., CN 94-1429,
Chancery Court of Jackson County, Mississippi.
[22] McGraw v. The American Tobacco Co. et al., 94-C-1707,
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.
[23] The State of Florida, Lawton M. Chiles, Jr., Individually
and as Governor of the State of Florida, Department of Business
and Professional Regulation, and the Agency for Health Care
Administration v. The American Tobacco Co., et al., CN95-1466,
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida.
[24] State v. Owens Corning Fiberglass, et al., Massachusetts
Superior Court, Civil docket #90-3791-A.
[25] Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, US Congress.
[26] State of Florida Constitution, Amendment No. 5.
[27] US Bureau of Mine: Minerals Yearbook. Washington, DC: US
Bureau of Mines, 1921-1935.
[28] Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter: Lead, zinc pigment sales:
1936. June 28, 1937.
[29] Moody's Investors Service. MOODY'S INDUSTRIAL MANUAL. New
York: Moody's Investors Service, 1996.
[30] Moody's Investors Service. MOODY'S OTC INDUSTRIAL MANUAL.
New York: Moody's Investors Service, 1996.
[31] Farfel MR, Chisolm JJ. An evaluation of experimental
practices for abatement of residential lead-based paint: report
on a pilot project. ENVIRON RES 1991;55:199-212.
[32] Farfel MR, Chisolm JJ, Rhode CA. The long-term
effectiveness of residential lead paint abatement. ENVIRON RES
1994;66:217-221.
[33] Staes CJ, Matte T, Copley G, Flanders D, Binder S.
Retrospective study of the impact of lead-based paint remediation
on children's blood lead levels. St. Louis. AM J PUBLIC HEALTH
1994;139:1016-1026.
[34] Swindell SL, Charney E, Brown MJ, Delaney J. Home abatement
and blood lead changes in children with class III lead poisoning.
CLIN PED 1994;September:[536-541.
[35] Farfel MR, Chisolm JJ. Health and environmental outcomes of
traditional and modified practices for abatement of residential
lead-based paint. AM J PUBLIC HEALTH 1990;80:1240-1245.
[36] Aschengrau A, Beiser A, Bellinger D, Copenhafer D, Weitzman
M. The impact of residential lead-based paint hazard remediation
and soil lead abatement among children with mildly elevated blood
lead levels. AM J PUBLIC HEALTH 1997;87:1698-1702.
[37] Lanphear BP, Weitzman M, Winter NL, Tanner M, Yakir B,
Eberly S, Emond M, Matte TD. Lead-contaminated house dust and
urban children's blood lead levels. AM J PUBLIC HEALTH
1996;86:1416-1421.
[38] Rabinowitz M, Leviton A, Needleman H, Bellinger D, Waternaux
C. Environmental correlates of infant blood lead levels in
Boston. ENVIRON RES 1985;38:96-107.
[39] Clark S, Bornschein R, Succop P, Roda S, Peace B. Urban
lead exposures of children in Cincinnati, Ohio. CHEMICAL
SPECIATION BIOAVAILABILITY 1991;3:168-171.
Descriptor terms: lead; children; apha; american public health
association; toxic heavy metals; resolutions; polluter pays
principle; housing; paint; paint industry; lead industry; tobacco;
################################################################
NOTICE
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money
to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL.
--Peter Montague, Editor
################################################################
******************************************************************
The cabinet minister lies in his bath. With one hand he tries
To force the wooden brush below the glassy surface.
This childish play hides a serious core.
-Bertolt Brecht
******************************************************************
Dennis Raphael, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Acting Director,
Masters of Health Science Program in Health Promotion
Department of Public Health Sciences
Graduate Department of Community Health
University of Toronto
McMurrich Building, Room 101
Toronto, Ontario, CANADA M5S 1A8
voice: (416) 978-7567
fax: (416) 978-2087
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
