Accusations on lead poisoning bill appear unfounded
HYANNIS — In the increasingly contentious state Senate race in the Cape & Islands District, even blood lead levels in children have been turned into political fodder.
During a tense debate earlier this month, Republican challenger John Flores accused state Sen. Julian Cyr, D-Truro, of “doing the bidding” of the insurance industry and “endangering the lives of children, especially infants and toddlers” with recent legislation he sponsored.
Flores’ contention that his opponent was influenced by the insurance industry and accepted money from special-interest groups appears to be unfounded.
The bill is defended by state officials, lead poisoning experts and pediatricians as “good legislation” that offers more protection for children.
The allegations stem from “An Act modernizing childhood lead poisoning prevention,” a bill Cyr filed to reduce the measure of blood lead level in children required to trigger intervention from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
Cyr worked for the department for six years and was involved with lead poisoning protection programs for much of that time.
The bill was approved by the Senate in late July and awaits review by the House Ways and Means Committee.
Massachusetts law currently identifies a threshold of 25 micrograms per deciliter of lead in a child’s blood to prompt a mandatory home inspection and lead abatement activity, while a level of 10 to 25 micrograms per deciliter triggers outreach and offers for educational and other assistance from the health department.
Cyr’s bill lowers each of these thresholds, to 10 and 5 micrograms per deciliter, respectively, indicating more children would qualify for intervention programs. He said the lowered thresholds are a “foot in the door” for stronger laws in the future, but special interests would have killed the bill if levels of concern were defined at levels below 5 micrograms per deciliter.
Department of Public Health regulations already had stipulated the lower levels, but a law would codify the blood lead levels so they could not be easily increased on the whim of future administrations.
During a segment of the Oct. 13 debate when the candidates asked questions of each other, Flores asked Cyr why he would “allow lead poisoning and reporting of such thresholds to increase by 100 percent from 5 micrograms per deciliter to 10.”
Several attempts to reach Flores, a Barnstable town councilor, for comment and clarification Tuesday and Wednesday were unsuccessful.
“There’s few policies more important than protecting children’s health,” Cyr said. “I don’t play politics when it comes to children’s health. The legislation we filed and passed in the Senate protects children. To say anything else is false.”
Cyr’s office produced a list of lobbyist campaign donations from firms that may be connected to industries with an interest in the lead poisoning legislation. The four donors contributed a total of $500 in 2018, according to a document provided to the Times.
Asked in the days following the debate if he could identify special-interest groups that may have influenced Cyr’s legislation, Flores referred the Times to Nathaniel Mulcahy, a Rockport man whose children are affected by lead poisoning.
“He’s the one that explained that to me,” Flores said. “He’s done his homework on this.”
Mulcahy is well-known to legislators, media outlets and state agencies for theories of wrongdoing by legislators, including Cyr, propelled by a concern that the blood lead level legislation does not go far enough to protect children in the Bay State.
Mulcahy could not provide a “smoking gun” or cite specific Cyr donors from special-interest groups when contacted last week.
An email to Mulcahy on Wednesday requesting names of medical or public health officials that share his concerns about the bill was answered with a long message demanding the Times answer several questions before he would provide contact information.
It is unclear whether Flores fact-checked Mulcahy’s allegations before they were brought forth at the debate.
“I think it’s outrageous for somebody to be twisting the purpose of this bill to suggest it’s the opposite of what it is intended to do,” state Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, said about Flores’ allegations.
If Flores is elected, Spilka, in effect, would be his boss on Beacon Hill.
“As a former social worker, I would never allow anything to pass on my watch that would decrease the quality of life or safety of children,” Spilka said.
Cyr’s advocacy for stricter regulations and laws related to blood lead levels has been ongoing for years, according to Suzanne Condon, retired associate commissioner of the state Department of Public Health, who supervised Cyr when he worked at the agency.
“This borders on the absurd,” said Condon, who recalls Cyr going undercover to investigate whether vending machines or stores were selling children’s jewelry with high lead levels. “He’s been passionate about this for years.”
Massachusetts has the strongest lead laws in the country, and no other state has a level of concern under 5 micrograms per deciliter, according to Condon.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention takes the position that there are no safe levels of lead in a child’s blood, but Condon contends — even with a level of 0 — every child in Massachusetts is monitored by the department.
Massachusetts requires universal blood lead level screenings multiple times for all children through the age of 3, and even more if they live in a high-risk community, with results reported to the department.
“It’s such an incredible safety net,” Condon said. “This is an area that our state has taken incredibly seriously.”
The medical community appears to be on board with Cyr’s legislation as well.
The Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, representing approximately 1,700 doctors in the state, sent a letter to Spilka in July, urging passage of the bill.
Dr. Sean Palfrey, a longtime pediatrician at Boston Children’s Hospital and other hospitals and a professor of public health at Boston University Medical School, has worked on lead poisoning prevention programs for more than 25 years. He believes detractors of the bill may have been confused by the often cumbersome text of legislation.
“It is understandable that he (Flores) was confused due to wording, but the conclusion is entirely wrong,” said Palfrey, who now serves as medical director for the Boston Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.
“This is a good bill,” he said. “It is what physicians and public health officials want for children. It enables us to act on environments that are placing children at risk for lead poisoning.”
No comments:
Post a Comment