Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

STEPHEN JOHN: It's All Things Considered for Minnesota Public Radio, I'm Stephen John. Minneapolis representative Keith Ellison today introduced legislation that would double the level of protection provided to Minnesota children to prevent lead poisoning.

The bill would set a more stringent standard, both for the level of lead in a child's blood that is considered to be too high, and for the level where government is required to act to remove lead contamination from a child's surroundings. Studies have indicated a link between lead exposure and lower IQ. Health officials say although lead is found throughout the environment, the major exposure pathway for children is through deteriorated, lead-based paint.

Representative Ellison Minnesota has a so-called 2010 plan in place whose goal, as I understand it, is to eliminate the threat of lead exposure by 2010. Are you concerned the state isn't on pace to reach that goal?

KEITH ELLISON: I'm quite sure we're not-- I think that we need a more aggressive, more accelerated pace. And so that's why I introduced the bill to reduce the definition of lead poisoning down to 5, in mandatory case of 10.

STEPHEN JOHN: What protection exactly does the state currently provide?

KEITH ELLISON: Well, at this point, if a child tests at 10 micrograms per deciliter, they're considered elevated. And if they have 20 micrograms per deciliter, that is a mandatory case. So my bill would reduce both of those measures by half. What we know now is that medical science says that there is no tolerable level of lead exposure to a child that is not harmful.

So at 10 micrograms per deciliter, we're way above what medical science today says is harmful to a child. And at 20, we're definitely not protecting children in the way that we should.

STEPHEN JOHN: In a biennial report to the legislature just last month, the Minnesota Department of Health said the average lead level reported to their agency has been declining, which is consistent with national trends. Why do you feel this new legislation is needed if lead levels are going down?

KEITH ELLISON: Because it's not going down fast enough. The fact is that a child that is exposed to lead is a child whose life chances literally been cut, because we're looking as high as 15-point decrease in IQ, and we're looking to increase impulsivity and behavior control. I mean, the IQ is a very serious problem. But in addition to that, lead-exposed children typically have behavioral problems. And that often can lead to school disciplinary problems, if not even juvenile court.

STEPHEN JOHN: So what exactly happens when levels of lead are found? In a child's blood, they trace it back to a dilapidated home with old lead paint deteriorating or lead dust in the air or whatever. What actually is the process to clean that up?

KEITH ELLISON: Well, we learned a while back that you can actually make a house lead-safe as opposed to lead-free. And what that means is that you have to encapsulate the lead under fresh new coats of paint. But you also have to change often the windows, which are a major mode of transmission, opening and closing those windows sends lead dust into the air. And that is a very chief way that the kids ingest lead.

STEPHEN JOHN: I think painting over some existing paint would be a fairly inexpensive process, but replacing entire windows in an apartment or home would get kind of costly. Who pays for this?

KEITH ELLISON: Well, right now, the kid pays. The kid pays in the form of reduced life chances. The kid pays in terms of being poisoned by lead and all that implies. But also we as taxpayers pay. We pay in terms of special education classes. We pay in terms of remedial education. We pay in terms of juvenile court proceedings. We pay huge.

STEPHEN JOHN: Why is it the state and the taxpayers responsibility to remediate the paint, the lead paint? Shouldn't this be the homeowner's or landlord's responsibility to clean up their own act?

KEITH ELLISON: Well, it is in part. We need a multi-modal approach. One is to have the landowners remediate the lead hazards. Another is to try to get industry to be responsible. And they've been the missing man at the table. But also, we have had taxpayers pitch in as well. And this is a public hazard. It is a shared harm. So it makes sense that taxpayers would do their part as well.

STEPHEN JOHN: Anytime you talk about doubling the state's responsibility, like your bill is saying, does that mean it's going to double the cost and make it doubly hard to get it through the legislature?

KEITH ELLISON: Yeah, I would say so. I'd say it will be difficult to get through the legislature. But the fact is that this is a very important public health issue. And so we should pay for it.