Trump’s EPA Pick Hasn’t “Looked at the Scientific Research” on Lead Poisoning

Scott Pruitt said he’s “very concerned” about lead contanimation. But his lack of familiarity with the science is surprising.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged Wednesday that he isn’t familiar with basic science on the health effects of lead. At his confirmation hearing, Scott Pruitt was asked by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md) whether he believes there is any safe level of lead in the human body. “That’s something I have not reviewed nor know about,” Pruitt responded. He went on to say that he would be “very concerned about any level of lead” in drinking water or human consumption but added that he had “not looked at the scientific research on that.”

You can watch the video here.

It’s heartening to know that Pruitt is concerned about lead poisoning. But his lack of familiarity with research on the issue is surprising for someone who is seeking to run the nation’s top environmental regulatory body. After all, the science on the issue is clear: According to the Centers for Disease Control, “No safe blood lead level in children has been identified.” The EPA itself agrees, stating that “there is no known safe level of lead in a child’s blood.”

The city of Flint, Michigan, has been in the headlines since 2015, after it was revealed that the city’s water supply had been contaminated with lead, leaving thousands of children exposed to poisoned water. During the hearing, Pruitt criticized the EPA for not responding quickly enough to the Flint crisis.

4 DAYS LEFT—AND EVERYTHING RIDING ON IT

A full one-third of our annual fundraising comes in this month alone. That’s risky, because a strong December means our newsroom is on the beat and reporting at full strength—but a weak one means budget cuts and hard choices ahead.

With just 4 days left, we need a huge surge in reader support to get to our $400,000 year-end goal. Whether you've given before or this is your first time, your contribution right now matters. All gifts are 3X matched and tax-deductible.

Managing an independent, nonprofit newsroom is staggeringly hard. There’s no cushion in our budget—no backup revenue, no corporate safety net. We can’t afford to fall short, and we can’t rely on corporations or deep-pocketed interests to fund the fierce, investigative journalism Mother Jones exists to do. That’s why we need you right now. Please chip in to help close the gap.

4 DAYS LEFT—AND EVERYTHING RIDING ON IT

A full one-third of our annual fundraising comes in this month alone. That’s risky, because a strong December means our newsroom is on the beat and reporting at full strength—but a weak one means budget cuts and hard choices ahead.

With just 4 days left, we need a huge surge in reader support to get to our $400,000 year-end goal. Whether you've given before or this is your first time, your contribution right now matters. All gifts are 3X matched and tax-deductible.

Managing an independent, nonprofit newsroom is staggeringly hard. There’s no cushion in our budget—no backup revenue, no corporate safety net. We can’t afford to fall short, and we can’t rely on corporations or deep-pocketed interests to fund the fierce, investigative journalism Mother Jones exists to do. That’s why we need you right now. Please chip in to help close the gap.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate