Exposure to lead is likely harming our health and our economy. In this blog, Lee Crawfurd makes the case for greater screening, tracking and awareness to address the 'silent epidemic'.
I used to enjoy watching small planes flying over York from nearby recreational airfields. Until I realised they still use leaded petrol, and are poisoning my children.
Lead poisoning is seen as yesterday’s problem in the UK, even as the US government moves to end the use of leaded fuel in small planes, and spends billions on removing every leaded water pipe in the country. Too many of us assume the issue doesn’t apply here.
That assumption is not based on evidence. We don’t know exactly how many children in the UK are lead poisoned, because we don’t bother to test. But UNICEF and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimate that the number is over 200,000, about the same share as are exposed in the US.
This shouldn’t be a surprise – we also have many old buildings with lead paint and lead water pipes. In fact, we banned lead paint later than in the US, have more buildings built before it was banned, have more buildings with lead pipes remaining, and banned leaded petrol later. Dr Tristan Sturm, senior lecturer in geography at Queen’s University Belfast, estimates that a quarter of water supply pipes owned by water companies still have lead. My office in Westminster and my home in York both have lead window frames (I checked with a cheap home test kit for lead paint that you can buy for around £20). Atmospheric lead from petrol remains measurable in London even decades after it was banned in 1999.
At relatively low doses, lead is an invisible and symptomless poison that nonetheless stunts brain development and IQ, and has lasting health consequences. Research consistently links lead exposure in children to lower IQs, attention disorders, and behavioral problems. This includes research from Scotland showing children exposed in-utero perform worse in their exams at age 16. The American Heart Association released a statement last year highlighting the fact that low level chronic exposure is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So lead is contributing both to low UK productivity and to the burden on the NHS.
The current British government approach, primarily reactive, is inadequate. Government counts just 191 cases per year of lead exposed children, based on those referred for testing due to showing symptoms or having a clear environmental exposure. But we know that most cases are symptomless, despite storing up long-term social and economic costs. There’s a need for a more aggressive preventative strategy. This would involve widespread testing and remediation programs, focusing on high-risk areas and homes with young children. Public awareness campaigns are crucial to inform citizens about the risks and encourage testing.
The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) currently recommends against universal screening of children for lead exposure. The arguments underpinning that advice are tautological, wrong, and irrelevant. The fact that we don’t know how many children are affected is a tautology, not a reason to avoid screening them. We would know if we did the screening! Second, the UK NSC argues the test is not reliable enough, which is just plain wrong. If the test is good enough for New York, its good enough for the UK. Third, the absence of proven treatments for children with mild symptoms is true but irrelevant – the point of screening is so we can identify and remove sources of exposure to stop continued poisoning.
In addition to universal child screening, the Lead Exposure and Poisoning Prevention (LEAPP) Alliance campaign group has also called for legislative action to ban leaded aviation fuel and lead ammunition, improve regulations on consumer products and on working with lead, and develop better public information. None of this should be too hard. Denmark has banned lead ammunition since 1996, and all non-essential uses of lead since 2001. Alternatives are available, just as there are unleaded aviation fuels on the market.
Some actions to remove lead are not cheap. The Biden administration expects to pay up to $30 billion to remove all the lead pipes in the US. But even at that price, its a high return investment – generating between $10 billion and $35 billion in economic benefits each year through less cognitive impairment and health disorders, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. There are few investments as good as that, especially as we try to boost productivity. Plus some actions to combat lead are cheap – warning tradesmen and DIYers not to sand old paint, testing homes for lead on sale or rent, and increasing awareness among health care professionals would be cheap, quick and easy. But the UK Health Security Agency is dragging its “boots of lead” on this, says Tim Pye of the LEAPP Alliance.
Lead poisoning is a silent epidemic that the UK can no longer afford to ignore. The government must take decisive, comprehensive action to address this issue. It’s not just a matter of public health, but of social justice and economic prudence. The cost of inaction is far greater than the investment required for prevention and remediation. The time to act is now.
