Neurotoxicity of low-level lead exposure: History, mechanisms of action, and behavioral effects in humans and preclinical models.

Lead is a neurotoxin that produces long-term, perhaps irreversible, effects on health and well-being. This article summarizes clinical and preclinical studies that have employed a variety of research techniques to examine the neurotoxic effects of low levels of lead exposure. A historical perspective is presented, followed by an overview of studies that examined behavioral and cognitive outcomes. In addition, a short summary of potential mechanisms of action is provided with a focus on calcium-dependent processes. The current level of concern, or reference level, set by the CDC is 5 µg/dL of lead in blood and a revision to 3.5 µg/dL has been suggested. However, levels of lead below 3 µg/dL have been shown to produce diminished cognitive function and maladaptive behavior in humans and animal models. Because much of the research has focused on higher concentrations of lead, work on low concentrations is needed to better understand the neurobehavioral effects and mechanisms of action of this neurotoxic metal.

The politics of lead toxicology and the devastating consequences for children.

At virtually every step in the history of the uncovering of lead's toxic qualities, resistance was shown by a variety of industrial interests to the association of lead and toxicity. During the first half of the last century, three primary means were used to undermine the growing body of evidence: first, the lead industry sought to control lead research by sponsoring and funding university research. In the 1920s, the General Motors Company, with the aide of DuPont and Standard Oil Companies, established the Kettering Labs, a research unit at the University of Cincinnati which, for many decades was largely supported by industry funds. In the same decade, the lead industry sponsored the research of Joseph Aub at Harvard who worked on neurophysiology of lead. A second way was to shape our understanding of lead itself, portraying it as an indispensable and healthful element essential for all modern life. Lead was portrayed as safe for children to use, be around, and even touch. The third way that lead was exempted from the normal public health measures and regulatory apparatus that had largely controlled phosphorus poisoning, poor quality food and meats and other potential public health hazards was more insidious and involved directly influencing the scientific integrity of the clinical observations and research. Throughout the past century tremendous pressure by the lead industry itself was brought to bear to quiet, even intimidate, researchers and clinicians who reported on or identified lead as a hazard. This article will draw on our previous work and add new documentation of the trajectory of industry attempts to keep out of the public view the tremendous threat of lead poisoning to children.

The Rhode Island lead paint lawsuit: where do we go from here?

Reports of child lead poisoning from paint date back over a hundred years. The lead paint companies were well aware of that hazard long before they ceased the sale of lead paint. Throughout the 20th century there was a gradually increasing acknowledgment by public health officials of the need to remove lead paint from the environment of young children, but minimal public resources were made available to do so. Beginning in the 1980s, lawsuits were filed against the industry; however, for legal/technical reasons, none was successful until a Rhode Island jury held that three former paint manufacturers had knowingly created a "public nuisance." Consequently, ongoing and future lawsuits may yield the resources for an end to child lead poisoning.