Elisabeth Maxwell, MS and Dr. Cathy Neumann
Elisabeth Maxwell, M.S., Doctoral Candidate
Elisabeth Maxwell is a Graduate Research Assistant in the Environment, Safety and Health Program at Oregon State University. She is a PhD candidate and currently investigating the link between business decisions and occupational health and worker safety outcomes.
Catherine Neumann, Ph.D.
Catherine Neumann was most recently an Associate Professor in the Environment, Safety and Health Program at Oregon State University. She also served as the program’s Graduate Program Coordinator. Her areas of research have been in lead-tainted consumer products, hazardous waste disposal, toxicology, and air quality issues. Dr. Neumann is currently retired from teaching at OSU.
Detrimental lead exposure is common in industry and is a leading cause of workplace illness. Because of this, OSHA has made the reduction of lead exposure a high strategic priority. The goal of this article is to highlight how a food source exposure from lead might exacerbate an occupational exposure, and that it is worthwhile for SHE professionals to keep these other sources of exposure in mind when working with occupationally exposed individuals. Moreover, the results of this study may also be used to inform university instructors and their students in the study of unusual or complex occupational exposures to lead. Tiendas were chosen using information obtained from the Oregon Department of Agriculture, local environmental health specialists, and local Hispanic service organizations. Once candies were purchased, they were labeled, placed into sterile containers, and kept in a temperature-controlled environment until they were sent to an EPA certified laboratory for analysis of lead content. Forty-five percent (57 out of 128 samples) of the Mexican candies tested had detectable levels of lead (ranging from 0.08 ppm to 2.2 ppm). Eighty-seven percent of candies with detectable levels of lead met or exceeded the new FDA guideline of 0.1 ppm lead. Elevated levels of lead were also found in candy wrappers and sticks. When an occupational exposure occurs and is documented with an elevated BLL, it is worthwhile for the ESH professional to consider not just the work-related exposure, but also any home sources that could make the health impacts worse. This study provides preliminary evidence to inform how ESH investigations are conducted for the worker’s own health (as well as their family’s health), liability issues in the workplace, and the long-term retention of healthy workers.
Detrimental lead exposure is common in industry and is a leading cause of workplace illness. Because of this, OSHA has made the reduction of lead exposure a high strategic priority. “OSHA's five year strategic plan sets a performance goal of a 15% reduction in the average severity of lead exposure or employee blood lead levels in selected industries and workplaces” (Occupational Safety & Health Administrations, 2008).
Unfortunately, occupational lead exposure is not the only pathway through which workers and their families are exposed. Lead can also be present in hazardous concentrations in food, water, soil, and air. Workers and their families can be exposed to lead from many sources including, food, house paint, toys, dust, and folk remedies. In 2007, 15.7 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force age 16 and over, were foreign born (United States Department of Labor, 2008). This could mean that workers consume imported foods, or use imported medicines, or participate in recreational activities that can be a significant source of lead exposure. Most of us have been aware in the last few years of lead exposures from foreign imports that have significantly impacted the health of people in the U.S. (candy, Mattel toys, metal jewelry, lunchboxes, etc). Therefore, what should managers and Safety, Environment and Health (SHE) professionals understand about the ways in which workers can be exposed occupationally and at home to lead? Moreover, how might these different pathways of exposure interact with one another? The goal of this article is to highlight how a food source exposure from lead might exacerbate an occupational exposure, and that it is worthwhile for SHE professionals to keep these other sources of exposure in mind when working with occupationally exposed individuals. It may be that what initially appears to be an occupational exposure is actually due to an exposure to lead from a home or non-work source; or that an occupational source is exacerbated by a home-source. Moreover, the results of this study may also be used to inform university instructors and their students in the study of unusual or complex occupational exposures to lead. It is also worth noting that such an assessment must be undertaken with the utmost in sensitivity to individual cultures.
First, it is important to briefly review why lead is such a health problem for humans, but especially for children. Lead poisoning is the leading illness caused by an environmental exposure in children (Occupational Safety & Health Administrations, 2008). Fetuses, babies, and young children with developing nervous systems are particularly sensitive to adverse health effects associated with lead. Lead poisoning in children can result in decreased intelligence, impaired neurobehavioral development, stunted physical growth, hearing and kidney problems, juvenile delinquency, and a propensity to commit criminal acts (Bellinger, Sloman, Leviton, Rabinowitz, Needleman, & Waternaux, 1991; Bellinger, Stiles, & Needleman, 1992; Dietrich, Ris, Succop, Berger, & Bornschein, 2001; Fels et al., 1998; Needleman, Riess, Tobin, Biesecker, & Greenhouse, 1996; Needleman, McFarland, Ness, Fienberg, & Tobin, 2002; Otto & Fox, 1993; Sanin et al., 2001).
Symptoms of lead poisoning in adults can include the following:
Moreover, lead poisoning, neurological effects, and mental retardation have occurred in the children of workers engaged in occupations where the worker is exposed to lead (NIOSH, 2008).
The current definition of an elevated blood lead level (BLL) in children established by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is ≥ 10 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dL). The CDC’s BLL has been reduced four times over the past 30 years due to evidence indicating adverse effects at lower levels. The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES III) 1999-2000 estimated that 434,000 children or 2.2% of children aged 1 to 5 years had BLLs ≥ 10 µg/dL (Meyer, Pivetz, Dignam, Homa, Schoonover, & Brody, 2003). The highest BLL acceptable by the standards of OSHA for workers is 40 µg/dL (MMWR, 2006). However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends that BLLs among all adults be reduced to <25 µg/dL (MMWR, 2006).
Historical sources of occupational and environmental exposure to lead have been from mining, smelting, gasoline and paint (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2006a). Mexican folk remedies such as Alarcon, Azarcon, Coral and Greta have also been shown to contain up to 90% lead (ATSDR, 2006b). Lead has also been reported in a number of products used by children including imported crayons (Arreola, Fowler, Schaller, Weaver, Neumann, & Boyer, 1996: Neumann, Kauffman, & Arreola, 1996), jewelry (Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), 2006), lunch boxes (United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2006a), chocolate (Dahiya, Karpe, Hegde, & Sharma, 2005; Onianwa, Adetoal, Iwegbue, Ojo, & Tell, 1999; Rankin, Nriagu, Aggarwal, Arowolo, Adebayo, & Flegal, 2005) and tamarind-based candy (Lynch, Boatright, & Moss, 2000). Recently, Dagoba, an organic chocolate company in Ashland, OR, recalled 10,000 pounds of bars, bricks and drops because of lead (O’Neill, 2006, FDA 2006b). Routine testing showed widely varying levels of lead in some Dagoba products. The raw organic cocoa came from a single supplier in Ecuador in a region of volcanic soils (O’Neill, 2006).
Lead-tainted candy wrappers and other labels have also been on-going concern (CPSC, 1998; FDA, 2002). Lead-based inks are used in labels and wrappers due to their bright colors. Recently, Pepsi settled a lawsuit with the state of California over labels on bottles manufactured in Mexico that contained up to 45% lead (Associated Press, 2006).
Lead is on the FDA’s list of poisonous and deleterious substances which was established to control contaminants in food (ATSDR, 2006c). FDA’s current recommendation for the Provisional Total Tolerable Intake for Lead (PTTIL) that children under age six consume less than 6.0 µg lead daily from all food sources (Carrington & Bolger, 1992). Moreover, a recent review of the regulatory role that the FDA, the State of California and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) played in the lead in candy issue has demonstrated that these agencies have been dealing with this issue for many years (Maxwell & Neumann, 2007).
Since the early 1990s, the FDA, the California Department of Health Services (CA DHS), and independent investigators (Lynch et al., 2000, Orange County Register, 2004) detected lead in a number of brands of imported candies from Mexico, Philippines and other countries. The authors are aware of only one published report on lead in candy. Lynch et al. (2000) found over 50% of tamarind suckers tested exceeded FDA’s original enforcement level of 0.50 ppm (Lynch et al., 2000). This study was initiated after a child was found to have continued elevated BLLs even after remedial action was taken to reduce environmental sources of lead. Tamarind-containing suckers were implicated as the source of on-going lead exposure in this case. Lynch found that in two kinds of tamarind candy lollipops, lead levels were high enough that a child consuming one-quarter to one-half of either of these would exceed the maximum FDA’s tolerable intake. FDA recently reduced the acceptable level of lead in candy to 0.1 ppm (FDA, 2006c).
According to CDC, there have been five other documented cases of elevated BLLs (>10 µg/dL) in young Hispanic children in the U.S. from eating imported candy (United States Center for Disease Control (CDC), 2002). Of approximately 1,000 cases of elevated BLLs among children that were reported to CA DHS during May 2001 - January 2002, candy produced in Mexico was identified as a possible source of lead exposure in approximately 150 cases (CDC, 2002). As can be readily seen, if a worker engages in a job where he or she may experience a lead overexposure and also regularly ingests a food that contains a significant amount of lead, a serious health crisis could occur.
Four counties were selected in this study based on percent Hispanics (2000 census data): Hood River (24.3% Hispanic), Multnomah (23.9% Hispanic), Marion County (16.4% Hispanic), and Benton (5.3%).
Candies were purchased from small Mexican markets called tiendas in the selected counties. To select these stores, a list of retail stores in each county was provided by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (OR DOA). In some counties, such as Hood River, there were only two tiendas, while Multnomah County had numerous small Mexican markets. Tiendas in Multnomah County and others with multiple tiendas were selected using the following two criteria: (1) a large and varied selection of candy brands; and (2) a large volume of business. Information was kept on the exact location where the candy was bought, the manufacturer, and the lot number of the candy (when available).
In the current study, 142 candies were collected from four counties in OR and analyzed for lead. Some candy wrappers and lollipop sticks were also tested for lead. Candy samples were selected by ingredient. Candies were chosen that had ingredients previously implicated for lead contamination such as tamarind, chili and salt (FDA, 1993; FDA, 2001; FDA, 2004a; FDA, 2005a, OCR, 2004). Although chocolate candies have not been singled out as having lead contamination, several chocolate candies were also selected. Each candy with its wrapper was placed in individual sealed plastic bags and labeled. Pictures were taken of the wrapper and candy, and all other identifiers on the package were recorded. Each sample was also assigned an identifying code and securely stored at room temperature until it was sent to the laboratory for lead analysis. The chosen laboratory is accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) and the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) in association with EPA National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP).
Chi-square calculations for lead values by ingredient (chili, tamarind and salt) were analyzed. Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient was used to determine whether a relationship exists between lead in Tama Roca (n=18) and lead in the wrappers or sticks of this candy.
To assess the total micrograms of lead in a serving of candy, the following equation was used: Micrograms (µg) lead= µg/g* (gram) X wt of candy (g)
*Note: µg/kg is converted to µg/g via the equation: µg/kg X 1kg/1000g
For example, candy sample 3AK weighed 28.35 g and had 2200 µg/kg of lead: 2200 µg/kg x 1kg/1000g= 2.2 µg/g x 28.35 g = 62.37 µg lead in the entire piece of candy. For all of the candies collected, the serving size listed on the label is one piece.
Lead levels in the 140 candy samples collected from four counties in Oregon ranged from <80 µg/kg to 2200 µg/kg. Forty five percent (%) (64/142) of samples exceeded 80 µg/kg (analytic reporting limit). Twenty-three (16.1%) had lead levels between 80 to 130 µg/kg; 28 (19.7 %) had lead between 140 and 260 µg/kg; eight (5.6%) had lead between 300 and 460 µg/kg of lead; two candies (1.4%) had lead between 540 and 650 µg/kg; and 3 (2.1%) had lead from 1000 µg/kg to 2200 µg/kg.
Table 1. Lead in Imported Candy in OR (> 80 µg/kg, Reporting Limit) (n=64)
|3Ab||220†||Tamarind fruit roll coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Ac||540†||Lollipop with chili powder||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Ae||200†||Fruit-flavored candy in a plastic tube||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Af||190†||Candy with hazelnut and strawberry flavor||Sugar||Multnomah|
|3Ag||190†||Sweet/sour mango powder||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Ai||140†||Cucumber-flavored lollipops with chili powder||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Aj||110†||Chili coated lollipop||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Ak||2200†||Tamarind-flavored candy in a tube||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Al||310†||Tamarind/mango flavored candy coated spoon||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3An||240†||Mango-flavored lollipop with chili powder||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Ao||180†||Fruit-flavored soft candy||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Ar||650†||Candy wrapped in tamale-like corn husk||Appears to have chili||Multnomah|
|3Ba||240†||Lollipop with a fruit gummi||Chocolate, marshmellow||Multnomah|
|3Be||200†||Fruit-flavored lollipop with chili powder for dipping||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Bi||80||Mango-flavored powder||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Bk||170†||Fruit-flavored candy in a tube||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Bl||180†||Fruit-flavored lollipop||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Bm||80||Tamarind fruit roll coated with chili/salt||Tamarind||Multnomah|
|3Bo||300†||Vanilla/hazelnut flavored candy||Sugar||Multnomah|
|3Ca||140†||Lollipop with a fruit gummi||Chocolate, marshmellow||Multnomah|
|3Cg||230†||Tamarind-flavored soft candy in a tube||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Ch||170†||Tamarind pulp in a clear packet||Tamarind, chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Cp||210†||Lollipop with a fruit gummi||Chocolate, Marshmellow||Multnomah|
|3Da||300†||Lollipop with a fruit gummi||Chocolate, marshmellow||Multnomah|
|3Db||160†||Tamarind fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Dc||100†||Mango-flavored fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Di||180†||Hot/salty powder||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Dj||110†||Strawberry-flavored hard candy||Sugar||Multnomah|
|3Dk||130†||Roasted chicken-shaped lollipop||Chili, salt||Multnomah|
|3Dn||360†||Dried mango||Mango, chili||Multnomah|
|4Ac||250†||Loose in bulk jar: appears coated with chili||Unknown||Hood River|
|4Ag||110†||Lemon-lime powder||Salt||Hood River|
|4Al||180†||Fruit-flavored soft candy||Sugar||Hood River|
|4Ao||2000†||Sweet/sour fruit powder||Chili, salt||Hood River|
|4At||300†||Watermelon-flavored hard lollipop||Chili||Hood River|
|4Bb||460†||Lollipop with a fruit gummi||Chocolate, marshmellow||Hood River|
|4Bf||190†||Strawberry/vanilla flavored soft candy||Sugar||Hood River|
|4Bj||400†||Fruit-flavored hard lollipop||Chili, salt||Hood River|
|4Bo||220†||Mango-flavored hard lollipop||Chili||Hood River|
|4Bp||1000†||Tamarind fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Hood River|
|4Bq||260†||Tamarind fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Hood River|
|1Bg||100†||Tamarind fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Benton|
|1Ab||150†||Chili-coated lollipop||Chili, salt||Benton|
|1Ac||150†||Fruit-flavored candy coated plastic spoon with chili/fruit sauce||Tamarind, chili, salt||Benton|
|1Ba||90||Sweet/sour mango powder||Chili, salt||Benton|
|1Bb||80||Mango flavored lollipop||Chili, salt||Benton|
|1Bc||120†||Fruit flavored lollipop||Chili, salt||Benton|
|1Bd||100†||Clear packet of tamarind pulp||Tamarind, chili, salt||Benton|
|1Be||110†||Tamarind fruit roll coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Benton|
|1Bf||80||Mango flavored lollipop||Chili, salt||Benton|
|1Bg1||150†||Tamarind fruit roll coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Benton|
|1Ca||100†||Lollipop with a fruit gummi||Chocolate, marshmellow||Benton|
|1Cb||110†||Hard candy lollipop||Chili, salt||Benton|
|1Cc||90||Sweet/sour powder||Chili, salt||Benton|
|1Ce||130†||Loose in bulk jar: appears coated with chili||Unknown||Benton|
|2Ab||80||Tamarind fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Marion|
|2Ac||80||Tamarind fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Marion|
|2Ad-c||300†||Tamarind fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Marion|
|2Ae-c||100†||Tamarind fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Marion|
|2Bb-c||140†||Tamarind fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Marion|
|2Be-c||130†||Tamarind fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Marion|
|2Bf-c||200†||Tamarind fruit roll on a stick coated with chili/salt||Tamarind, chili, salt||Marion|
|†Meets or exceeds FDA Guideline for candy 100 µg|
Table 1 shows lead content, candy descriptions, main ingredients and county collected for the 64 samples that exceeded the analytic reporting limit. Fifty-six out of sixty-four (87.5%) samples met or exceeded FDA’s guideline of 0.1 ppm lead (100 µg) (FDA, 2006c). The most common ingredients in candies exceeding FDA’s guideline were tamarind, chili and salt. However, elevated levels of lead were also detected in candy containing sugar, chocolate and marshmallow.
The Chi-square calculations for lead values by specific ingredient (tamarind, chili or salt) were not found to be significant (df=6, χ2 =1.688). Therefore, no specific ingredient was associated with lead levels in the candies in this study. Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient found a negative correlation (ρ = -0.495; p-value = 0.037 between lead in the candy and sticks. However, there was no significant relationship (ρ = 0.049; p-value = 0.848) between lead in the candy and wrappers.
Table 2. Total Lead in Imported Candy by Weight
|Total Lead (µg)
|Total Lead (µg)
|*Meets or exceeds FDA's PTTIL 6µg lead/day|
Table 2 depicts calculations of the total lead content per individual serving size of candy (for 1, 2 and 4 pieces). As shown, as the number of lead-tainted candies consumed increases, so do the number of brands that exceed FDA’s PTTIL of 6 µg lead per day. For example, when one piece of candy is consumed, 33% of the samples exceed the FDA’s PTTIL and total lead content ranges between 6 to 62.4 µg lead (up to 10-fold over FDA’s PTTIL). With two candies consumed, 63% of the samples exceed the PTTIL and range from 6.4 to 124.7 µg lead (21 times over FDA’s PTTIL). With four pieces is consumed, 86% of the samples exceed the PTTIL and the range is 7.2 to 249.5 µg lead (41 times over FDA’s PTTIL).
Limited laboratory testing was also done on one brand of candy, wrappers and sticks. This candy is packaged in a bright yellow wrapper that contains a tamarind roll containing chili and salt. Fifty percent (9/18) of the samples met or exceeded the analytic reporting limit with values ranging from 80 µg/kg to 1000 µg/kg. The mean for lead in this candy was 118 µg/kg ± 236 µg/kg. Calculating total lead per piece of candy ranged from 3 to 40 µg with a mean of 10 ug. Lead in candy wrappers ranged from 90 µg/kg to 5900 µg/kg while lead in candy sticks ranged from <80 µg/kg to 96,000 µg/kg. Seven of the sticks had lead levels greater than 1000 µg/kg and four exceeded 10,000 µg/kg.
Identifying and eliminating sources of lead is critical in the primary prevention of lead poisoning in children, but also in assessing occupational exposures to lead. Results from this study indicate that lead-tainted candies are available in the four selected counties in OR. Moreover, for workers already being exposed to an occupational source of lead, it is apparent that a food or other source could easily exacerbate the health issues. In this study lead was detected in 45% of candy samples tested with levels ranging from 80 µg/kg lead to 2,200 µg /kg. The health impact upon children is obviously concerning, but also is an important consideration when assessing occupational exposures as well. A worker could be getting a much larger dose of lead exposure when home or extracurricular sources are taken into account.
In past advisories, FDA advised parents to not let their children consume candy from Mexico with chili and/or tamarind (FDA, 2004c; Maxwell and Neumann, 2007). However, in the current study, elevated levels of lead were also detected in candy whose main ingredients were sugar or chocolate. There was no relationship found in this study, with respect to specific ingredient and lead content of candy.
The current study also found that consuming even one piece of some brands of lead-tainted candy can result in a child exceeding FDA’s PTTIL of 6 µg/day up to 41-fold. Importantly, the PTTIL is established for lead in food, and does not consider other sources of lead exposure such as in traditional medicines, lead-tainted soil, paint, or possible occupational exposure from a parent’s clothes or skin.
Another objective of this study was to compare the differences in lead levels between candy, wrapper, and stick of one brand of Mexican imported candy. This brand has been identified by OCR as having unacceptably high levels of lead (OCR, 2004). In this study, lead ranged from below the reporting limit up to 1000 µg/kg. With respect to lead in the candy wrapper, levels ranged from 90 µg/kg to 5900 µg/kg. Importantly, this study is the first to report lead in the candy sticks with levels ranging from 80 ug/kg to 96,000 µg/kg. It is unclear at this time why there is lead in the candy stick. Perhaps during the synthesis of sticks, lead is added as part of the manufacturing process. Given the large variation in lead levels in the sticks, further study is warranted to determine whether this poses a risk to human health. Children (and adults) with mouthing activity often chew on lollipop and candy sticks and it is unknown at this time whether this could be another source of lead exposure.
Statistical analysis using Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient test did not detect a relationship between lead in the candy and lead in the wrappers. The CPSC regulates lead in consumer products including candy wrappers (CPSC, 1998). Products are subject to action by CPSC if the leaded inks contaminate the candy either upon storage or once the candy is opened and eaten. In December 1998, CPSC issued the Codification of Guidance Policy on Lead in Consumer Products (CPSC, 1998). This document directs candy manufacturers to eliminate lead in their products and test for lead periodically. A negative relationship was found between the lead in the candy and the lead in the sticks. Some candy samples had very high levels of lead in the stick with low levels in the candy indicating little or no lead migration occurred.
Given the limited number of candy samples tested in this study, additional sampling and analysis is warranted by FDA and state health departments to ensure the candy supply is safe for children and adults. Clearly as new evidence mounts suggesting there is no safe level of lead in children, federal agencies such s FDA, CPSC and CDC must revise their policies, guidance documents, and enforcement criteria in order to more fully protect all children, including high risk groups.
FDA has been aware for approximately the last twelve years that the issue of lead-tainted, imported candies has been a problem. FDA has issued import alerts, health advisories, and guidelines to try to gain firm control of this issue and to protect children from the insidious adverse effects of lead poisoning (Maxwell and Neumann, 2007). However, this study suggests that lead-tainted candies are still widely available in Oregon.
Some of these same children may also bear burdens of poverty which make them more vulnerable to the harmful effects of lead. Moreover, due to how ubiquitous lead is in the natural environment and from anthropogenic sources, it is imperative to control lead exposures which can be easily prevented, such as from food or industry.
Although the health impacts upon adults from lead over-exposure are not as dire as they are in children, high lead exposure can damage adult organs, cause brain damage and even death. Therefore, when an occupational exposure occurs and is documented with an elevated BLL, it is worthwhile for the ESH professional to consider not just the work-related exposure, but also any home sources that could make the health impacts worse. In addition, it is important to keep studies like this one in mind when training and teaching new occupational health students. There is an art to determining the possible sources of exposure, especially with a substance as universal as lead. Students should be taught to think creatively and even outside the box when conducting investigations. With the high levels of lead found in the food products in this study, it is even possible that an occupational exposure may not be responsible for an elevated BLL in a worker. For the worker’s own health, liability issues in the workplace, and the long-term retention of healthy workers, it is worth considering all the sources of lead exposure when conducting an investigation. In addition, if a home-source of lead exposure is discovered, this important information needs to be communicated to the worker and his or her family, so that appropriate action can be taken to protect any exposed children or other vulnerable members of the household.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2006a. “How might I be exposed to lead?” Retrieved on February 2, 2007, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs13.html#bookmark03
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2006b.Lead toxicity exposure pathways. Retrieved on February 2, 2007, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/lead/exposure_pathways.html
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2006c. “Health effects.” Retrieved on May 8, 2007. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13-c3.pdf
Arreola, P., Fowler, C., Schaller, K., Weaver, Z., Neumann, C.M., and L. Boyer. “Lead-Tainted Crayons Imported from China. II. Secondary Prevention in Arizona.” Journal of Environmental. Health. 58(7): 6-10, 1996.
Associated Press. Pepsi settles lawsuit in California over lead in bottle labels. 2006.
Bellinger David, Sloman Jone, Leviton Alan, Rabinowitz Michael, Needleman Herbert L, and Waternaux, Christine. 1991. Low-level lead exposure and children’s cognitive function in the preschool years. Pediatrics 87(2):219-227.
Bellinger, David C, Stiles Karen M, and Needleman, Herbert L. 1992. Low-level lead exposure, intelligence and academic achievement: a long-term follow-up study. Pediatrics 90(6):855-861.
Carrington, Clark D. and Bolger, Michael, P. 1992. An assessment of the hazards of lead in food. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 16:265-272.
Dahiya, Sudhir, Karpe, Rupali, Hegde, A.G., and R.M. Sharma. 2005. Lead, cadmium and nickel in chocolates and candies from suburban areas of Mumbai, India. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 18:517-522.
Dietrich, Kim, N., Ris, Douglas, M., Succop, Paul, A., Berger, Omer, G., and Bornschein, Robert, L. 2001. Early exposure to lead and juvenile delinquency. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 23:511-518.
Fels, Luder, M., Wünsch, Markus, Baranowski, Jacek, Norska-Borowka, Irena, Price, Robert, G., Taylor, Sarah, A., Patel, Sharmila, De Broe, Marc, Elsevier, Monique, M., Lauwerys, Robert, Roels, Harry, Bernard, Alfred, Mutti, Antonio, Gelpi, Emilio, Rosello, Joan, and Stolte, Hilmar. 1998. Adverse effects of chronic low level lead exposure on kidney function-a risk group study in children. Nephrology Dialysis Transplant 13:2248-2256.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment. 2009. “Occupational exposure.” Retrieved on January 29, 2009, http://www.kdheks.gov/ables/occupation.html
Lynch, Robert, A., Boatright, Daniel, T., and Moss, Samuel, K. 2000. Lead-contaminated imported tamarind candy and children’s blood lead levels. Public Health Reports 115:537-543.
Maxwell, Elisabeth D. and Neumann, Catherine M. 2007. Lead-tainted candy: A possible source of lead exposure to children, Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry, 1 – 13.
Meyer, Pamela, A., Pivetz, Timothy, Dignam, Timothy, A., Homa, David, M., Schoonover, Jaime, and Brody, Debra. 2003. Surveillance for elevated blood lead levels among children—United States, 1997-2001. MMWR 52(SS10);1-21.
Needleman, Herbert, L., McFarland, Christine., Ness, Roberta, B., Fienberg, Stephen, E., and Tobin, Michael, J. 2002. Bone lead levels in adjudicated delinquents. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 24:711-717.
Needleman, Herbert, L., Riess, Julie, A., Tobin Michael, J., Biesecker, G.E., and J.B. Greenhouse. 1996. Bone lead levels and delinquent behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association 275:363-369.
Neumann, Catherine, M. and Kauffman, Kenneth. 1996. Lead-tainted crayons imported
from China: I. primary prevention in Oregon. Journal of Environmental Health 58(8):11-16.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2009. NIOSH safety and health topic: lead. Retrieved on January 29, 2009, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/lead/
O’Neill, P. 2006. Dagoba recalls organic chocolate because of lead level. The Oregonian, April 3, 2006, p.C4.
Onianwa, P.C., Adetoal, I.G., Iwegbue, C.M.A., Ojo, M.F., and Tell O.O. 1999. Trace heavy metals composition of some Nigerian beverages and food drinks. Food Chemistry 66:275-279.
Orange County Register. 2004. Food safety lags boom in imports. April 24, 2004. http://www.ocregister.com/investigations/2004/lead/intro.shtml
Otto, D. and D.A. Fox. 1993. Auditory and visual dysfunction following lead exposure. Neurotoxicology 1993:14(2-3):191-208.
Rankin, Charley, W., Nriagu, Jerome, O., Aggarwal, Jugdeep, K., Arowolo, Toyin, A., Adebayo, Kola, and Flegal, Russel, A. 2005. Lead contamination in cocoa and cocoa products: isotopic evidence of global contamination. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(10):1344-1348.
Roscoe, R.J. and Graydon, J.R. 2006. Adult blood lead epidemiology and surveillance—United States, 2003-2004. MMWR 55:876-879. Retrieved January 29, 2009, http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/296/11/1346
Sanin, Luz, H., Gonzalez-Cossio, Teresa, Hernandez-Avila, Mauricio, Romieu, Isabelle, Peterson, Karen, E., Ruiz, Silvia, Palazuelos, Eduardo, and Hu, Howard. 2001. Effect of maternal lead burden on infant weight and weight gain at one month of age among breastfed infants. Pediatrics 107(55): 1016-1023.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control. 2002. Managing elevated blood lead levels among young children: Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2002. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/CaseManagement/caseManage_main.htm
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 1998. Federal Register,16 CFR, Part 1500 / Vol. 63, No. 245 / Rules and Regulations, http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/frnotices/fr99/lead.pdf
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (U.S). 2006. Reebok recalls bracelet linked to child’s lead poisoning death. March 23, 2006. http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06119.html
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Foreign-born workers: labor force characteristics in 2007. Retrieved on January 28, 2009, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/forbrn.pdf
United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administrations. 2008. Safety and health topics: Lead. Retrieved on January 28, 2009, http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/lead/
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. September 8, 1993. Enforcement Report, Picarindo Tamarind Fruit Candy in Ceramic Jars, Manufacturer: Alfredo Zacarias Fiqueroa. Retrieved on July 11, 2006. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ENFORCE/ENF00257.html
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. May 11, 2001. Mojave Foods recalls Dulmex Brand Tamarind Candy Rolls because of possible health risk. Retrieved on July 11, 2006,
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2002. Regulatory status of lead-based and other metal-based pigments in candy wrappers. Retrieved on July 11, 2006, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/forum02/a235l18.htm
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. March 18, 2004a. State health department warns consumers not to eat Chaca Chaca, lead-contaminated candy from Mexico. Retrieved on July 11, 2006, http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/chacachaca03_04.html
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. April 9, 2004c. FDA statement on lead contamination in certain candy products imported from Mexico. Retrieved on July 11, 2006, http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01048.html
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. June 23, 2005a. Import Alert 33-10. Retrieved on July 11, 2006, http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia3310.html
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. July 20, 2006a. Letter to Manufacturers and Suppliers Concerning the Presence of Lead in Soft Vinyl Lunchboxes. Retrieved on March 7, 2007,
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. March 31, 2006b. Dagoba organic chocolate recalls ‘Eclipse 87%,’ ‘Los Rios 68%,’ and ‘Prima Matera 100%’ dark chocolate products because of high lead levels. Retrieved on March 31, 2006, http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/dagoba03_06.html
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. November 6th, 2006c. Guidance for Industry: Lead in candy likely to be consumed frequently by small children: recommended maximum level and enforcement policy. Retrieved on March 31, 2006, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/pbguid3.html