I have included here a link to a useful article that discusses the intersection of race, crime and lead poisoning in America. I think it expertly draws upon themes we have discussed in Politics of Health and applies it to TEL exposure in the US.
This is a sign I found online communicating that Tetraethyl Lead is contained in the gasoline.
This is a picture of Bruno Latour’s (1999) blackbox theory, along with a quote that adeptly explains what the implications are of ‘blackboxing’.
These are graphs analyzed in a Huffington Post article looking at the intersection of race and lead-poisoning health risks in America.
Background: What is Tetraethyl Lead?
Tetraethyl lead (TEL) is an organic compound commonly found in vehicle and aviation gasoline. Typically, TEL has been used in order to boost the octane rating in fuel, so as to ameliorate automobile functioning and gas economy.[1] Although ethanol was a more available, inexpensive and less noxious octane booster, TEL became a more preferable choice during the 1920s due to its sheer potency. Patent holders quickly realized that mixing TEL with gasoline all over the world would deliver them an immense financial profit, namely in the transportation industry.
Beginning in the 1970’s, however, the viscous, colorless chemical was progressively removed from gasoline. Although mankind has been using lead for thousands of years (lead mining likely predates Bronze and Iron Ages), contemporary lead mining strategies and production of man-made products prompted the release of TEL’s toxic potential.[2] Early scientific evidence showed that TEL-based fuel had vast consequences on the environment; TEL damages the catalytic converters in gasoline-powered engines, which ultimately inhibits the toxic pollutants in exhaust gas from being ‘converted’ to less toxic ones. As a result, these gaseous toxins are released into the atmosphere, severely damaging our environment’s homeostasis.[3]
Throughout the 20th century, scientists had begun to examine the effects of the TEL- contaminated atmosphere on our own lives. They progressively discovered that, unlike ethanol and alternative octane boosters, tetraethyl lead possesses intense, neurotoxic consequences if inhaled or consumed, even in small quantities.[4] Some of these consequences include: diminished IQ ratings, behavioral deficits, auditory problems, growth delays, antisocial personality disorder and frontal lobe-related cognitive malfunctioning.[5] More acute symptoms of lead poisoning were also identified, such as: vomiting, muscle weakness, seizures, sleep problems, coma, encephalopathy, and severe abdominal pain.[6] TEL is not solely found in gasoline, soil and the atmosphere either; historically, lead has been used in house paint, toys, household items, bullets, jewelry, batteries, and even makeup – exponentially increasing risk of lead poisoning in the general population.
Controversy: Lead corporations, policymakers and health activists in America
While simply ridding these products of TEL seemed like a straightforward solution to mitigating these symptoms, it proved to be a slow-moving and unnecessarily complicated task.
The United States showed a “deep ambivalence [in the early 20th century] over how to confront the impact of growing industries, such as the auto industry- which touted lead as a ‘gift of God’”.[7] Car manufacturers and policymakers argued that although lead poisoning was a serious issue, transitioning older cars (pre-1975) that were designed to use lead-based fuel would take time. Instead of adeptly redistributing funding to address the issue, many policymakers employed “stalling tactics” like calling for “more scientific research” before making any policy decisions.[8] The presence of conflicting research on TEL and lead poisoning allowed policymakers to assert that “there is no [responsible] reason to hold up production of useful products if no danger has been proven”.[9] Policymakers’ lack of action gave large lead corporations the latitude to hide the “toxic nature of their products” by falsifying results of scientific studies, and hiring researchers had financial conflicts of interest.[10] The profits that industry actors and researchers could make from lead-based gasoline were overwhelming- and so was the amount of money they stood to lose if TEL was eliminated.[11]
Alternative stakeholders in our physical and sociopolitical environment have historically taken measures to address the business entanglement and government inaction with regards to the lead industry. Doctors, public health officials, and local community actors have used legal and political activism to achieve new standards for health and safety in the US. These actors touted the ‘precautionary principle’ in support of their argument: TEL should be held off the market until its potential dangers are more clearly understood and its safety is better established; waiting for ‘objective studies’ to prove further danger is political in nature and ultimately fails to protect Americans from risk.[12] Today, public health officials (and activists alike) still encourage policymakers to use the precautionary principle when creating effective environmental and health policy in the US.
Historical Context
The US government eventually began the process of eliminating TEL from gasoline in 1975, when it mandated that scientists create catalytic converters that are better suited for dispensing TEL’s toxic pollutants. Engineers and petroleum chemists also began to work on finding safer methods of mining, less toxic octane boosters and more lead-replacement additives. It wasn’t until 2000 that TEL was completely eradicated from vehicle gasoline in most industrialized countries.[13] Today, lead poisoning still poses grave legislative and health concerns in the US, and has brought about a variety of lawsuits concerning “recovering costs for housing rehabilitation, Medicaid reimbursement for damaged children and special education costs for lead poisoned children”.[14]
General Motors’ use of tetraethyl lead in order to “join the automotive arms race…of ever-increasing power” provides a useful historical context for TEL’s role in the US in the last century.[15] In the early 1920’s, GM was on the verge of bankruptcy due to intense competition with Ford and other car manufacturers. In order to gain an edge over its competitors, GM discarded their renewable, nonpolluting fuel blends in favor of TEL. In fact, TEL was actually discovered by a GM-employed researcher in 1922, Thomas Midgley Jr. At this point in time, Midgley, scientists, policymakers and industry actors were all well-aware of the potentially harmful physical and environmental effects of TEL. Instead of warning the public about lead-related risks, these forces simply offered excuses of “time”, “serious consideration” and the “[impossible task] of detecting the absorption [of lead]”.[16] It wasn’t until the U.S. Bureau of Mines conducted an investigation at GM’s facilities that the public began to learn more about the effects of leaded gasoline. Even then, GM’s prime negotiator made sure that the U.S. Bureau of Mines used the word “Ethyl” instead of “lead” in order to muddy public knowledge and avoid poor publicity for the corporation. Furthermore, GM created “The Ethyl Corporation” which acted as an intermediary between the US government and its people, mandating that any statements on ethyl must be “submitted to [them] for comment, criticism and approval”, effectively giving this corporation “veto power” over the US Government.[17] Amazingly, the Bureau acquiesced to GM’s requests, reflecting the complicated relationship between the Government and Business in the US.
Politics of Health
In 1942, when preliminary studies showed that TEL exposure posed “no health risks”, both the Ethyl Corporation and the US Government broke their contractual obligation to withhold information until adequate research was conducted, and decided to share these findings with the public.[18] By releasing only the information that would be profitable and reputation-protecting, these entities “blackboxed” the American public. Bruno Latour’s blackboxing theory suggests that the more a system (in this case, the lead industry and government) works efficiently, the more we simply focus on the inputs and outputs of the system, rather than its internal complexity. In this way, we give a free pass to these stakeholders to tell the public only what is suitable for them, ultimately disregarding knowledge about the true effects of TEL on the body and the environment.[19] In this way, fiduciary and political incentives outweigh “research because of the carefully executed tactics of special interest groups”. This suppression violates the underlying tenet of democracy that affords us access to objective information and the ability to make our own health-related decisions.[20] The opposing interests of political leaders and industry actors, compared to those of the general population contributed to the controversial and political nature of the TEL “phase-out” process.
In these ways, we can see that TEL is directly related to politics of health. TEL- a single chemical agent- has a massive effect on our environment, the food, drink and air we consume, and ultimately the health outcomes we experience. Because the Government and Big Business regulate TEL consumption in the United States, they ultimately maintain authority over our ability to survive and thrive – a fact that is inherently political in nature.
It is important to note that not everyone possesses the same opportunities to ‘survive and thrive’ in the US. Black Americans are disproportionately exposed to high levels of lead; according to CDC estimates (1999-2004), Black children were 1.6 times more likely to have lead poisoning than their white counterparts. Although Black Americans constitute 13% of the US population, they make up the racial majority of those with lead poisoning.[21] These disparities in health are compounded with and explained by structural violence in the US. A variety of institutional factors place minority populations in lower SES brackets, forcing them to live in poorer neighborhoods with old, lead-painted houses, thereby increasing their risk for lead poisoning and behavioral issues that may contribute to high incarceration rates for minority peoples.[22] Although this is undoubtedly reductionist, we can use this example to examine the social and medical risk that minority races are situated in. In this way, the government’s inadequate action racializes TEL-exposure and lead poisoning, situating Black Americans (and other minorities) in the margins of society. Ultimately, these factors collectively revoke the biological citizenship of minority populations and create fertile ground for ‘disorder’ to fester.[23]
[1] “Tetra-Ethyl Lead As An Addition To Petrol,” British Medical Journal 1, (1928): 366-67.
[2] Erin Schumaker, and Alissa Scheller, “Lead Poisoning Is Still A Public Health Crisis For African-Americans,” The Huffington Post 1, (2015): 1.
[3] Kim Dietrich, Ris M. Douglas, Paul A. Succop, Omer G. Berger, and Robert L. Bornschein, “Early exposure to lead and juvenile delinquency,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology 1, (Nov. & Dec., 2001).
[4] David Rosner, “A Lead Poisoning Crisis Enters Its Second Century,” Health Affairs (2016): 756-59.
[5] Dietrich et al., “Early exposure to lead”, 511-518.
[6] R. Jones, D. M. Homa, P. A. Meyer, D. J. Brody, K. L. Caldwell, J. L. Pirkle, and M. J. Brown, “Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead Testing Among US Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004,” National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 (2009): 1-13.
[7] David Rosner, “A Lead Poisoning Crisis,” 756-59.
[8] Gerald E. Markowitz, and David Rosner, Deceit and denial: the deadly politics of industrial pollution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013), 10.
[9] Gerald E. Markowitz, and David Rosner, Deceit and denial, 6.
[10] Ibid., 4-5.
[11] In the US, for example, it can cost between $10-20 million annually to replace only 7% of the lead-tainted water pipes in Washington, D.C. Nationwide programs to reduce lead levels via soil replenishment can, likewise, cost up to $20 billion per year for two decades, according to some estimates. See: Sammy Zahran, et al. (2011) below.
[12] Gerald E. Markowitz, and David Rosner, Deceit and denial, 6.
[13] It took some countries longer than others to legally ban TEL-based gasoline. Not surprisingly, these countries are among those with the biggest oil mining industries in the world: Algeria, Iraq, Yemen, Myanmar and Afghanistan.
[14] Gerald E. Markowitz, and David Rosner, Deceit and denial, 2.
[15] Ibid., 17.
[16] Ibid., 18.
[17] Ibid., 19.
[18] Ibid., 19.
[19] Bruno Latour, Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), 2.
[20] Gerald E. Markowitz, and David Rosner, Deceit and denial, 5.
[21] R. Jones, D. M. Homa, P. A. Meyer, D. J. Brody, K. L. Caldwell, J. L. Pirkle, and M. J. Brown, “Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead Testing Among US Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004,” National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 123, no. 3 (2009): 1-13.
[22] Dietrich et al., “Early exposure to lead”, 511-518.
[23] See Nadia Gaber, and Anthony Wright, “Protecting Urban Health and Safety: Balancing Care and Harm in the Era of Mass Incarceration,” Journal of Urban Health 93, no. S1 (2015): 68-77.
Bibliography
Dietrich, Kim N., Ris M. Douglas, Paul A. Succop, Omer G. Berger, and Robert L. Bornschein. “Early exposure to lead and juvenile delinquency.” Neurotoxicology and Teratology 23, no. 6 (Nov. & dec. 2001): 511-18. doi:10.1016/s0892-0362(01)00184-2.
Drum, Kevin. “Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element.” Mother Jones. February 11, 2016. Accessed February 28, 2017. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health.
Gaber, Nadia, and Anthony Wright. “Protecting Urban Health and Safety: Balancing Care and Harm in the Era of Mass Incarceration.” Journal of Urban Health 93, no. S1 (2015): 68-77. doi:10.1007/s11524-015-0009-6.
Jones, R. L., D. M. Homa, P. A. Meyer, D. J. Brody, K. L. Caldwell, J. L. Pirkle, and M. J. Brown. “Trends in Blood Lead Levels and Blood Lead Testing Among US Children Aged 1 to 5 Years, 1988-2004.” National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 123, no. 3 (2009): 1-13. Accessed February 28, 2017. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-3608.
Latour, Bruno. Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Markowitz, Gerald E., and David Rosner. Deceit and denial: the deadly politics of industrial pollution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013.
Rosner, David. “A Lead Poisoning Crisis Enters Its Second Century.” Health Affairs 35, no. 5 (2016): 756-59. Accessed February 28, 2017. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0362.
Schumaker, Erin, and Alissa Scheller. “Lead Poisoning Is Still A Public Health Crisis For African-Americans.” The Huffington Post. July 13, 2015. Accessed February 28, 2017. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/13/black-children-at-risk-for-lead-poisoning-_n_7672920.html.
“Tetra-Ethyl Lead As An Addition To Petrol.” British Medical Journal 1, no. 3504 (March 03, 1928): 366-67. Accessed February 28, 2017. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.3504.366.
Zahran, Sammy, Howard W. Mielke, Stephan Weiler, and Christopher R. Gonzales. “Nonlinear associations between blood lead in children, age of child, and quantity of soil lead in metropolitan New Orleans.” Science of The Total Environment 409, no. 7 (March 1, 2011): 1211-218. Accessed February 28, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.11.036.
« Back to Glossary Index