Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you’ll have noticed an explosion of recent interest in microplastics and “PFAS” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances)—sometimes called "forever chemicals". These plastics and chemicals are garnering headlines for good reason—they’re everywhere, and studies keep documenting new harms. It’s striking though just how little comparative attention lead (pb) gets, when we’re much more certain of its impacts.
We don’t yet have perfect comparable data on the relevant health burden of lead and other chemicals. But a 2016 WHO report found that nearly half of all deaths from chemical exposures were due to lead exposure. A recent estimate puts the total cost of chemicals in plastics at around 1.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States. Whereas lead exposure is thought to cost about 5 percent of GDP across high-income countries. A recent survey of experts found lead to be by far the most harmful of 16 common chemical pollutants.
It’s one thing if your newspaper and social media feed are all about the new buzzy PFAS trend and have little to say on lead exposure. But you might expect better from the United Nations Global Framework on Chemicals. You’d be wrong. Last month a new $26 million fund was launched under the framework, with no mention of lead. Neither was lead mentioned in last year’s “Bonn Declaration for a Planet Free of Harm from Chemicals and Waste”. Or in the actual framework text itself. There is a brief reference in the fun “Did you know?” section of the framework target documents: “the global cost of lead exposure was US$6 trillion in 2019, equivalent to almost 7 percent of the gross domestic product”. But no mention of lead specifically in any of the 28 different targets.
2024 has been a great year so far for getting lead (pb) on the international agenda, with the launch by USAID and UNICEF of the Partnership for a Lead-Free Future. But only a brief passing mention to 7 percent of global GDP in a set of UN documents on chemical regulation suggests that we still have a way to go. Evidence-based policy-making this is not.
If the UN is serious about tackling the most harmful pollutants, it needs to prioritize lead—starting with binding commitments and funding for remediation.
CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise.
CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.
