Historians have documented that the dangers of lead poisoning were known as far back as the early 19th century. In 1897, it was noted in Australia that children were becoming ill after chewing on porch railings. Again in Australia in 1907, specialists noted that lead poisoning was a direct result of paint powder that stuck to children’s fingers, which they then put in their mouths. In the United States, the toxicity of lead pigment and paint to workers was well known by 1910; however, the toxicity to children was not acknowledged until the mid-1920s. By the early 1930’s a consensus had developed among specialists that lead paint posed a significant hazard to children.

As a sponsor of research, the lead industry was in a position to educate the public about the hazards of lead paint and lead poisoning. Although the LIA had a unique opportunity to advocate for the health of children, they chose their economic security instead. The lead industry did nothing to discourage the use of lead-based paints but rather began waging a campaign promoting the use of lead paint for both the interior and exterior of homes from the 1920’s through World War II. Sadly, this marketing was often directed at children.

National Lead Company’s most famous logo, the Dutch Boy, was widely used in a “Don’t Forget the Children” promotion to paint stores. National Lead produced several paint books for children including The Dutch Boy’s Lead Party and Dutch Boy Conquers Old Man Gloom in which the illustrations show the Dutch Boy mixing white lead with colors and painting walls and furniture. Another ad shows an infant crawling on the floor and touching a painted wall. The caption states “There is no worry when fingerprint smudges or dirt spots appear on a wall painted with Dutch Boy white-lead.” This message implies that the walls and woodwork covered with lead paint were safe for a child to touch.

In 1938, the Lead Industries Association (LIA) launched a campaign that would “help dispel fear or apprehension about its use” as well as “to offset the stigma attached to lead.” This campaign specifically promoted lead paint for interior use in low-cost homes due to its affordability in comparison to non-lead paint. By 1940, this campaign was expanded to include promotion of lead paint in municipal, state, and county institutions, including public schools and health facilities.

In December 1943, TIME magazine made childhood lead poisoning a national issue when it reported on an article by pediatrician Randolf Byers and psychologist Elizabeth Lord, originally published in the American Journal of Diseases of Children. The TIME article reported that, “parents’ lack of understanding of the dangers of lead-based paint led many to use the toxic material on toys, cribs and windowsills. When children chewed the painted surfaces, a variety of physical and nervous disorders resulted.” Byers and Lord discovered that of the children they tested, all but one were school failures and only five had normal IQs. The LIA refuted this report by stating that the data collected by Byers and Lord was unreliable and that their proposed relationship between childhood lead poisoning and later mental retardation has not been proven. Furthermore, the LIA stated that many previously identified cases of lead poisoning had not been conclusively proven.

Two years later in December 1945, the LIA again proposed a campaign to counteract the negative image of lead. The industry believed that the use of anti-lead propaganda caused a prejudice against lead and that the campaign to counter this problem was essential to the entire lead industry in the United States. The LIA outlined a program focusing on safety and hygiene meant to counteract the existing literature propounding that lead represented a health hazard to workers and consumers. The LIA continued to argue that there was minimal danger to the public from lead paint.

Continuing into 1952, the LIA promoted the usefulness of white lead for both interior and exterior covering, while ignoring the mounting evidence of its harmful qualities. For example, the Director of Health and Safety of the LIA noted 197 reports of lead poisoning in nine cities. Forty of the cases proved to be fatal. His only reaction was to say that childhood lead poisoning was a “major headache” and a source of increasing negative publicity. Throughout the 1950s, reports continued to surface in newspapers around the country emphasizing the growing nature of the lead paint hazard. In 1952 alone, there were 500 newspaper reports detailing lead poisoning. Finally in July 1956, PARADE magazine ran an article titled “Don’t Let YOUR Child Get Lead Poisoning.” PARADE magazine reached more than seven million readers and CBS carried a broadcast on childhood lead poisoning.

Despite the mounting evidence and widespread acknowledgement throughout the medical community that lead paint was hazardous to the health of consumers, the lead paint industry in the United States did not removed lead from its paint or warn consumers of the dangers until very late. In 1970, federal legislation was enacted that prohibited the use of lead paint in federally financed and subsidized housing. The Consumer Products Safety Commission also passed a ban on the use of all lead paint after February 1978. Unfortunately, the lead paint industry still haunts us today. The National Safety Council estimates that 38 million homes still contain lead paint and 25% of homes contain some type of a lead hazard. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are currently 434,000 children between the ages of one in five with elevated levels of lead in their blood.

Source:

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “History of Lead Advertising”. http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/research/project/enviro/hazard/
lead/leadadvertising/industry-role.htm

top