Skip to main content
Open access
Invited Perspective
16 July 2024

Invited Perspective: Why Aren’t We Doing More to Ensure Consumer Products Are Free of Lead?

Publication: Environmental Health Perspectives
Volume 132, Issue 7
CID: 071301
Numerous case reports and news bulletins, as well as a few carefully completed studies,12 demonstrate time and again that certain consumer products remain potential sources of lead exposure. Ever since its first issue in May 1936, the consumer product testing and advocacy group Consumer Reports (previously known as Consumers Union) has highlighted dangerous levels of lead in the marketplace (Figure 1).3 From cinnamon and applesauce to stainless steel cups, vinyl backpacks, and beaded jewelry, recent headlines suggest that the lead problem is far from over.48
Figure 1. The first issue of Consumers Union Reports (Volume 1, Issue 1, May 1936) includes a cover story on lead in toys.
Regulatory limits on the lead content in consumer products—such as paint, gasoline, food packaging, and toys—have contributed to successful efforts by federal agencies to lower blood lead levels in the US population.9 However, given the overall reduction in environmental and housing-related sources of lead over time, the relative contribution of lead in consumer products remains an important consideration. Lead exposure can have serious detrimental consequences, particularly for children, because even low levels of exposure can affect neurodevelopment and cause long-term health issues.10
So, why are we not doing more to ensure consumer products are free of lead?
In a commentary in this issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, Porterfield et al.11 reviewed data from home lead investigations conducted in California; Oregon; and King County, Washington, over the period 2010–2021, and in New York City in 2019. Consumer products were consistently identified as one of the main sources of lead exposure—and the only identified source of exposure in 15%–38% of cases—in investigations of children with blood lead levels 5μg/dL. In California and Oregon, consumer products were identified as the sole source of exposure in comparable proportions to housing-related sources alone and, in certain years, exceeded housing-related sources as the only attributed potential source of lead exposure.
This commentary is particularly important because the relative contribution of consumer products to lead-exposure risk has not previously been evaluated in comparison with other sources in the home environment. In addition, although consumer products have previously been tested for lead content, there has not been a such a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of these sources in relation to blood lead levels. Some reports, for example, indicate that certain immigrant and refugee populations are at increased risk for exposure to lead-containing products,12,13 and others suggest there are only isolated incidents of consumer products containing lead.14,15 The surveillance study by Porterfield et al.11 shows the extent to which consumer products have been associated with actual cases of elevated blood lead levels in children over an extended period of time in four US jurisdictions.
Hundreds of millions of children globally are exposed to lead, with about 800 million at or above the World Health Organization’s recommended action level of 5μg/dL.16 A wide variety of consumer products—such as certain foods, dietary supplements, spices, and food additives; ceramic and metal foodwares; cosmetics, ceremonial and cultural powders, and traditional health remedies; children’s toys, clothing, and jewelry; vinyl miniblinds; and ammunition, among others—are increasingly recognized as important sources of potential lead exposure.17,18 With increased globalization19 involving transnational travel, global commerce, and the cross-cultural exchange of foods and other products, the potential risk of lead exposure from consumer products is real.
Lead has been intentionally added to various products for centuries due to desirable properties such as its ability to improve durability, flexibility, and coloring, as well as its purported health benefits in some cultures.20 To reduce the risk of lead exposure from consumer products today, regulatory agencies impose restrictions on the amount allowed in various products. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for establishing and enforcing regulatory limits and for reducing lead in certain products intended for children under the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972 [(16 CFR &1303) and amended by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–314)].21 However, testing products for lead can be expensive and time consuming, so some companies may forego testing as a cost-saving measure, whereas others may not fully understand the importance of ensuring their products are lead-free. Additional CPSC authority and jurisdiction over a wider range of products could be provided to help bridge this gap.
The US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) monitors and regulates the level of lead in some consumer products, including certain domestically produced foods, cosmetics, and foodwares, as well as imported products intended for consumer distribution in the United States.22 This excludes any products that may go undetected, such as those transported from other countries by individuals, or products that may go uninspected, such as those purchased online or for “off-label” use, and those products that are currently unregulated. Recent investigations in two US states implicated food decorating products collectively known as “luster dust” in toxic metal poisonings.23 In one of the cases, home-baked goods had been decorated using luster dust purchased online; in the other, a commercial bakery used a product whose source ingredients were traced back to a fine copper powder that had originally been imported for use as a metallic pigment for consumer goods such as industrial floor coverings.23 Clearly, increased FDA monitoring and enforcement are needed.
In other circumstances, lead is inadvertently added as a contaminant during manufacturing, processing, or distribution processes, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where environmental lead levels remain high.16 In 2021, the international food standards-setting body Codex Alimentarius revised the “Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Lead Contamination in Foods,”24 but these industry “best practice” guidelines fall short of adopting science- and health-based limits for lead exposure in foods. Consumer products sold in the United States are often manufactured in countries with varying levels of regulatory enforcement and oversight.25 Sargsyan et al. conducted a market-based assessment of lead in consumer products across 25 LMICs that included more than 5,000 samples from a wide range of product types and geographic locations.25 The authors found that 18% of sampled products exceeded the relevant uniform reference level (i.e., established international regulatory or public health threshold values selected from existing regulatory standards and guidance values promulgated by United Nations agencies, the European Union, and the United States, and applied this study to each product type to facilitate comparisons across countries). In many instances, median levels exceeded reference levels by several-fold, with maximum levels up to 10 times the reference value for certain products.
In addition, although the use of lead has declined significantly in many US products, there are still lingering effects from historical use. For example, from the 1850s to mid-20th century, Trenton, New Jersey, was a major US pottery manufacturing center, home to more than 150 pottery factories26 where lead was commonly used as a glaze.27 Lead was released during the manufacturing process, impacting nearby residential properties and other areas of the city. Lead concentrations in soil currently exceed federal threshold levels at several parks and school playgrounds, prompting testing of more than 100 residential properties in East Trenton.27,28
Finally, as we are still dealing with legacy contamination from historical industrial and manufacturing processes related to lead in consumer products in the United States, the challenge of e-waste from the vast proliferation of consumer technology has emerged.29 E-waste contains both valuable and hazardous resources, including metals such as lead. However, international rules and regulations for sustainable product design, safe disposal, and recycling are limited, with LMICs bearing the brunt of the burden.
It is clear that existing national and international measures to control lead in consumer products—through the entire product lifecycle, from production to point of sale, consumer use, and eventual disposal—are not sufficient. Improved laws are needed—including enhanced monitoring efforts and attention to increasing public awareness—and existing regulations need to be enforced. Consumers must remain vigilant and take precautions, such as avoiding imported products with unknown or unverifiable lead content, checking for product recalls, and heeding warnings issued by regulatory agencies and consumer watchdogs. US consumers can learn about product recalls from six federal agencies with different jurisdictions through a single website at www.recalls.gov. There is also a need to analyze e-commerce and global supply chains for consumer products, particularly contaminated food products and foodwares, to determine their origins and how they end up in local markets and the hands of consumers. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has provided thought leadership in this area and called for a national data repository of consumer products identified with lead to systematically monitor and allow for better communication of ongoing risks to the public.30,31 Porterfield et al.11 provide valuable data highlighting that the problem is more than just theoretical and is not limited to one geographic area of the country.
Ensuring that consumer products are free of lead and mitigating historical sources of lead from the production, manufacturing, and disposal of consumer goods are critical actions for public health. Environmental lead exposure is a global problem with local solutions tailored to relevant sources; however, lead in consumer products is a global problem that requires increased international attention and cooperation, with a concerted global effort32 for an integrated and multifaceted approach to address these ongoing challenges.

Article Notes

The author declares no conflicts of interest related to this work to disclose.

References

1.
Angelon-Gaetz KA, Klaus C, Chaudhry EA, Bean DK. 2018. Lead in spices, herbal remedies, and ceremonial powders sampled from home investigations for children with elevated blood lead levels - North Carolina, 2011–2018. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 67(46):1290–1294. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30462630/, https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6746a2.
2.
Hore P, Alex-Oni K, Sedlar S, Nagin D. 2019. A spoonful of lead: a 10-year look at spices as a potential source of lead exposure. J Public Health Manag Pract 25 Suppl 1, Lead Poisoning Prevention:S63–S70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30507772/, https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000876.
3.
Welborn A. 2020. Consumer Reports Archives Come to Duke. https://blogs.library.duke.edu/magazine/2020/02/04/consumer-reports-archives-come-to-duke/ [accessed 6 May 2024].
4.
US FDA (US Food and Drug Administration). 2024. FDA Alert Concerning Certain Cinnamon Products Due to Presence of Elevated Levels of Lead. https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-information/fda-alert-concerning-certain-cinnamon-products-due-presence-elevated-levels-lead [accessed 6 May 2024].
5.
Jewett C, Fitzgibbon W. Lead-tainted applesauce sailed through gaps in food-safety system. New York Times. 27 February 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/world/europe/lead-applesauce-food-safety.html [accessed 6 May 2024].
6.
Holcombe M, LaMotte S. 2024. Stanley and other drink cups contain lead. Should you be worried? CNN. 26 January 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/health/stanley-cups-lead-wellness/index.html [accessed 6 May 2024].
7.
Hsu T. 2008. Hannah Montana gear has excessive lead, group says. Los Angeles Times. 19 March 2008. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hannah19mar19-story.html [accessed 6 May 2024].
8.
Garcia P, Haile J. 2017. Notes from the field: lead poisoning in an infant associated with a metal bracelet—Connecticut, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 66(34):916. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28859054/, https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6634a6.
9.
Dignam T, Kaufmann RB, LeStourgeon L, Brown MJ. 2019. Control of lead sources in the United States, 1970–2017: public health progress and current challenges to eliminating lead exposure. J Public Health Manag Pract 25 Suppl 1, Lead Poisoning Prevention(Suppl 1 LEAD POISONING PREVENTION):S13–S22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30507765/, https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000889.
10.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2020. Toxicological Profile for Lead. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf [accessed 6 May 2024].
11.
Porterfield K, Hore P, Whittaker SG, Fellows KM, Mohllajee A, Azimi-Gaylon S, et al. 2024. A snapshot of lead in consumer products across four US jurisdictions. Environ Health Perspect 132(7):075002, https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14336.
12.
Fellows KM, Samy S, Rodriguez Y, Whittaker SG. 2022. Investigating aluminum cookpots as a source of lead exposure in Afghan refugee children resettled in the United States. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 32(3):451–460. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35501355/, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-022-00431-y.
13.
Marquez E, Kappel M, López EB, Haboush-Deloye A. 2022. A multistage public health response to pediatric lead exposure: a case study on lead tainted turmeric in an immigrant family. J Community Med Public Health 6(3):251, https://doi.org/10.29011/2577-2228.100251.
14.
Nasidi A, Karwowski M, Woolf A, Kellogg M, Sucosky MS, Glass-Pue RM, et al. 2012. Infant lead poisoning associated with use of tiro, an eye cosmetic from Nigeria—Boston, Massachusetts, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 61(30):574–576.
15.
Hore P, Alex-Oni K, Bardhi N, Sedlar S. 2022. Notes from the field: lead poisoning in a family of five resulting from use of traditional glazed ceramic ware—New York City, 2017–2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 71(22):743–744. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35653305/, https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7122a3.
16.
Burki T. 2020. Report says 815 million children have high blood lead levels. Lancet 396(10248):370. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32771095/, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31684-6.
17.
Wessel L, Anderko L. 2023. Assessment and prevention of lead poisoning in refugee populations. J Health Care Poor Underserved 34(1):447–465. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37464505/, https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2023.0029.
18.
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Lead in Consumer Products. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/sources/consumer-products.htm [accessed 6 May 2024].
19.
Labonté R. 2015. Globalization and Health. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 198–205.
20.
McRae A, Vilcins D, Le HHTC, Gorman J, Brune Drisse MN, Onyon L, et al. 2022. Lead in traditional and complementary medicine: a systematic review. Rev Environ Health 39(1):111–120. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36322973/, https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2022-0079.
21.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2008. Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008. P.L.110–314—Aug. 14, 2008. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/cpsia.pdf [accessed 6 May 2024].
22.
23.
Viveiros B, Caron G, Barkley J, Philo E, Odom S, Wenzel J, et al. 2021. Cake decorating luster dust associated with toxic metal poisonings - Rhode Island and Missouri, 2018–2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 70(43):1501–1504. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34710080/, https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7043a2.
24.
Codex Alimentarius. 2021. Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Lead Contamination in Foods (CXC 56-2004). https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cc0579en [accessed 6 May 2024].
25.
Sargsyan A, Nash E, Binkhorst G, Forsyth JE, Jones B, Sanchez Ibarra G, et al. 2024. Rapid market screening to assess lead concentrations in consumer products across 25 low- and middle-income countries. Sci Rep 14(1):9713. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38678115/, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59519-0.
26.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Preservation Snapshot: New Jersey’s Pottery Industry. https://nj.gov/dep/hpo/1identify/nrsr_18_Feb_Pottery.pdf [accessed 13 June 2024].
27.
US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Historic Potteries. https://response.epa.gov/site/site_profile.aspx?site_id=14801 [accessed 6 May 2024].
28.
Office of the Mayor, City of Trenton. 2024. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Addresses Lead Contamination in East Trenton. https://www.trentonnj.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=1090# [accessed 6 May 2024].
29.
Heacock M, Kelly CB, Asante KA, Birnbaum LS, Bergman ÅL, Bruné MN, et al. 2016. E-waste and harm to vulnerable populations: a growing global problem. Environ Health Perspect 124(5):550–555. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26418733/, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1509699.
30.
Hore P, Ahmed M, Nagin D, Clark N. 2014. Intervention model for contaminated consumer products: a multifaceted tool for protecting public health. Am J Public Health 104(8):1377–1383. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24922141/, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301912.
31.
Alex-Oni K, Sedlar S, Hore P. 2023. Why we need a national repository of consumer product lead surveillance data. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 33(2):157–159. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36750746/, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-023-00525-1.
32.
US Agency for International Development. 2024. Administrator Samantha Power Calls for a Global Effort To Eliminate Toxic Lead from Consumer Goods. https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jan-17-2024-administrator-samantha-power-calls-global-effort-eliminate-toxic-lead-consumer-goods [accessed 9 May 2024].

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Environmental Health Perspectives
Volume 132Issue 7July 2024
PubMed: 39012762

History

Received: 8 May 2024
Revision received: 13 June 2024
Accepted: 14 June 2024
Published online: 16 July 2024

Notes

Conclusions and opinions are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of EHP Publishing or the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Authors

Affiliations

Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey, USA
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA

Notes

Address correspondence to Adrienne S. Ettinger, Rutgers Health, 89 French St., Suite 4100, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

About Article Metrics


Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click DOWNLOAD.

View Options

View options

PDF

View PDF

Get Access

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media