Calls for Removing All Lead Paint From US Housing Are Misguided

Datos Bibliográficos

ID11023976
AutoresDon Ryan (Don Ryan is with the National Center for Healthy Housing, Columbia, MD., autor de correspondencia)
Año2013
Volumen103
Número5
Páginase5-e5
Fecha de publicación2013-05-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaAmerican Journal of Public Health (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0090-0036 • E-ISSN: 1541-0048
EditorialAmerican Public Health Association (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2105/ajph.2013.301262
PMID23488513
PMCIDPMC3698819
OpenAlexW1965610615
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas2
Referencias citadas11

Rosner and Markowitz’s conviction that removing all lead paint from US housing is the best way to protect children from lead exposure1 is not supported by the facts or the principles of public health. Their article ignores the shift from reaction to prevention and discounts the role of science in shaping lead safety strategies. First, full removal of lead paint was never a practical option. The literature is replete with evidence that attempting full removal significantly increases lead exposures.2–6 Second, the one-size-fits-all approach of full removal ignores enormous variation in risks posed by homes with lead paint and wastes resources by failing to calibrate the response to the hazard. Third, the best estimate in that time period of the cost of removing all lead-based paint, present in fully 60% of US housing, was $442 billion,7 not the $32 billion Rosner and Markowitz erroneously cite. “Low-balling” the cost of abatement disserves children’s health and history. Fourth, protecting children’s health required both short and long-term strategies because abating the 20 million homes with lead hazards would take decades, even if cost were no object. Immediate action was required to control lead hazards in these 20 million homes, as well as different strategies to prevent hazards in the 37 million homes with intact lead paint.8 National policy shifted from using children as “lead detectors” (relying on elevated blood lead levels as the primary trigger for investigating hazards) to prevention (preemptively controlling lead hazards in housing) by engaging multiple housing-based triggers for action by property owners. Rosner and Markowitz completely ignore the 1992 federal law9 that effected this shift. Fifth, determining the cost-effectiveness of prevention measures is vital to protecting those at highest risk and is one of the greatest contributions research can make. Studies that concurrently tracked blood lead and dust lead levels in 3000 homes in 14 cities documented the significant and enduring benefits of a range of lead hazard control methods.10–13 This research guided the investment of funds to protect children at highest risk and helped achieve significant reductions in children’s exposure to lead. The battle to end childhood lead poisoning is far from over. But calls for removing all lead paint from US housing are as misguided today as two decades ago. Lead is but one of many health hazards posed by substandard housing. Protecting the health of families at highest risk requires preventing and controlling all hazards in the home using proven methods and the most cost-effective strategies possible based on sound science

Business · Environmental health · Forensic engineering · Lead (geology) · Engineering · Environmental Justice and Health Disparities · Heavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity · Heavy metals in environment · Medicine