Tom Scott’s April 20 guest opinion portrays litigation against lead-based paint manufacturers as a cynical money grab by trial attorneys.
Over 110 years ago, Sherwin-Williams told its employees that lead in paint is a “deadly cumulative poison” causing “permanent mental impairment of youngsters.” It expressly acknowledged what the paint industry already knew: the only “solution to the problem … would be to remove the source of lead or put it behind barriers so that children could not get it.”
Sherwin-Williams, NL Industries, and ConAgra Grocery Products, three of the largest former lead paint manufacturers, aggressively promoted lead paint for use in homes, including children’s rooms and play areas. As a result, all homes in California built before 1978 are presumed to contain lead paint. These firms made billions in today’s dollars by intentionally placing the health of infants and young children at risk. Those profits have come with a significant price tag for everyone, except the manufacturers.
Indeed, a recent economic analysis calculated the current cost of childhood lead poisoning to be $43 billion per year.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explained, “[l]ead is a poison that affects virtually every system in the body. It is particularly harmful to the developing brain and nervous system of fetuses and young children.” Even low levels of lead exposure permanently lower children’s IQs and cause long-term behavioral changes. The CDC, the EPA, HUD and the American Academy of Pediatrics have concluded that removal is the only certain way to prevent exposure by children to lead paint in homes.
In 2013, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge ordered Sherwin-Williams, NL Industries, and ConAgra to pay $1.15 billion to fund lead paint removal from California homes. The court found that “lead paint is the primary source of lead poisoning for children … who live in pre-1978 housing.”
Scott takes issue with the judgment, arguing that lead paint no longer is a threat to California’s children. But, in 2010 alone, over 21,000 California children under 6 were poisoned by lead. In Monterey County in 2011, 416 children were identified with elevated blood lead levels.
Because detecting lead in paint requires specialized testing, most families have no idea whether their homes contain lead that may be poisoning their children. Even well-maintained paint can be damaged with friction or normal wear and tear. Many people repaint or remodel without taking adequate precautions to protect workers and children from lead. And young children not infrequently chew on painted woodwork. Many Monterey County landlords aren’t much better off financially than the people to whom they rent, and cannot afford to remove lead paint.
Government efforts have reduced lead poisoning through education and outreach, but are limited by dwindling resources. These programs, moreover, do not remove lead paint.
Worse, inspections for lead paint currently are triggered by children with elevated blood lead levels. By that point, the damage may be irreversible.
Scott claims the lead paint judgment will reduce property values. He fails to mention that, since 1996, home sellers and landlords have had to disclose lead-based paint hazards. This has not caused property values to plummet. The lead paint judgment will, for the first time, make resources available to remedy lead hazards that sellers already must disclose.
The court’s ruling is a victory for every child whose health and development could be irreversibly damaged by lead paint. It is a victory for their families, for communities that otherwise would be deprived of productive members, and for every person who believes that corporations that poisoned our children should be held accountable. Put simply, the court’s decision is about justice.
Dr. Edward Moreno is the Monterey County health officer. Charles J. McKee is the county counsel of Monterey County. Deputy County Counsel William Litt has been directly involved in the lead paint litigation since 2006.
