One from the vault: An email I wrote *years ago* about funding cuts made to the CDC Lead Program.

Thursday: December 8, 2022
Introduction

This email was re-shared with me by a colleague this week. I had sent this out to Leadnet (a national Lead poisoning prevention email exchange board run by the National Center for Healthy Housing) over ten years ago. In re-reading this email I thought it would be worth publishing here since the story and facts represented are an important part of my Lead poisoning prevention advocacy journey – the journey that has led me to where I am now, doing what I do now. When I sent this email I got quite a bit of push back from some (in the Lead poisoning prevention community) who disagreed with me – however 10 years later the ideas expressed here have stood the test of time. I felt then as I do now that as citizens we must hold people in positions of responsibility and leadership accountable to the highest standards even when those actions expose us to political disfavor or personal hardship.

[For Context: Mary Jean Brown (M.J.B.) was the director of the CDC’s Lead Poisoning Prevention Program at the time.]

---

Original email in full

Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Leadnet] CDC lead funding
Reply-To: leadsafe@me.com

When I met Mary Jean Brown in Baltimore in 2008 … I asked her: “Why are
you doing this?”

Why was the CDC using a proprietary definition of a “child” as someone “1
yr. to 5 yrs. of age” and limiting the definition of “lead poisoning” to
just “(current) BLLs of 10 micrograms per deciliter or higher”.

Why would the CDC only include children ages 1 to 5 in their statistics and
public statements when it is well known that the cognitive development in
the brain is still going on through age 25 – and other official policies
separating “child” from “adult” are consistent in recognizing this –
including people being considered an adult at the age of 18 (voting /
military draft) or the age of 21 years old (drinking / car insurance
discounts.) ???

Why was the CDC creating language that would diminish the perception of the
concern (with an “action level” of a BLL 10)  – when many, many studies
(Dr. Lidsky recently told me there are at least 31 such studies) show
significant long term health impacts at lower levels… even at levels as
low as a BLL 2. ????

Why would the CDC knowingly do this when a recent study – which has Mary
Jean’s name on it – shows 1 in 3 American children have a BLL of 2.5 or
higher (I’ll send you a copy of the study if you like.)

Why would the CDC lead program be doing this –through the use of creative
language (and creative definitions of “child” and of “lead poisoning”)–
effectively lying to the American people – making parents and pediatricians
alike think lead poisoning is no longer a significant problem.

On the surface, that makes no sense.

When I asked Mary Jean this question – she looked me in the eye (I’ll never
forget it – I was holding my newborn Charlie in my arms) and her response
was: “I just want to retire a success.”

I was shocked.

She said this to me in a room full of parent advocates – all of whom had
children poisoned by lead.

I cried at first – and then I got mad.

It was this conversation and the related deception of the American people
that made me decide to found the Leadsafe America Foundation and make our
film.

She wanted to retire a success….

…apparently, to her that meant redefining childhood lead poisoning so it
would look like the CDC had met their 2010 goal. In effect… “How can we
redefine this to make it look like the program was successful?”

In many ways I see that this policy strategy, developed by the
administration of the CDC lead program  (which must reach out beyond M.J.B.
personally) actually clearly precipitated their recent funding cuts. Why
would the Feds want to continue to fund a successful program that had met
its goals (formulated to make itself unnecessary!)?

That day in September of 2008 I had explained to M.J.B. & others that if
she could just change the action level to 2 (or even 5 – but my goal was 2)
then it would be millions of children that were considered at risk (I did
not realize at the time that it actually worked out to 22,000,000+
children) and a number like that would effect change.

If parents knew it was one in three children with unsafe levels of lead in
their blood they would be outraged. Parents would test their children. They
would test their homes and they would call on their representatives and
our President to allocate MORE funding for these programs – to make them
more effective – so they would have the means to actually educate the
public, enforce legislation and protect children.

Instead… She wanted to meet her goals … And “retire a success.” … And
this is the result we get – the funding has been eliminated completely.

I’ve heard from many experts I have interviewed for my film along the way
that M.J.B. was a passionate advocate at one time, that she cared, that she
wanted to make a difference. It seems at some point along the way she may
have lost her passion and her direction – lost sight of what really
mattered.

Some have said having her at the helm to this day was better than having no
one – or some other person without her experience and history. I disagree.
I feel that the CDC’s position on this issue over the last 10+ years was a
major factor that contributed to countless American children being
needlessly poisoned–including my own. The agency’s lack of progressive
action (that would have been consistent with recent research and findings)
effectively fostered a complete unawareness of the problem among parents,
pediatricians and policy makers–which contributed to producing and
extending this needless, tragic American epidemic that has already robbed
our society of at least a generation of normally healthy and productive
citizens!

Interestingly enough … The CDC is the one Federal agency that I have not
yet lined up an interview with for the film… Mary Jean said “no” and I
have yet to confirm with another representative (in all fairness – the ball
is now in my court to follow up with them) but representatives of the EPA
& HUD each agreed early on to be interviewed for the film.

Wouldn’t it seem logical to expect the “lead agency” to want to take
advantage if an unprecedented opportunity to directly reach a broad
spectrum of moviegoers specifically there paying attention to (literally a
“captive audience”!) and SOMETHING about the subject that was their
high-profile mission all these years?

Odd indeed, but perhaps understandable, given the revelations contained in
the statements by so many experts in the film–from scientists and medical
researchers to historians and statisticians–that dramatically and
thoroughly contradict and discredit much of the CDC’s public message.

When one is looking to blame someone for something…. One often has to
look no farther than oneself…. If the CDC looks to their own message and
stand on this issue  – the reason for the budget cuts are clear … And
even predictable.

– Tamara

---