Siddhartha Roy is a research associate at the Water Institute within the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health.
The IJB’s ongoing investigation into drinking water contaminated by lead — which found that half of all public schools in Ontario have exceeded federal safety guidelines — led me to Siddhartha Roy, an environmental engineer and assistant professor at Rutgers University-New Brunswick, who helped uncover the Flint, Michigan water crisis in 2015. I wanted to ask Sid, an expert in water quality and lead exposure, how Ontario can clean up its act — and its water.
The question is particularly timely. The Ontario government has just taken over control of four school boards, and environmental lawyers have called on the Province to address the issue of contaminated taps.
“At a minimum, transparency on what lead levels really are at the [school fountains] should be publicized,” Roy told me after reviewing our school and daycare lead tracker.
But transparency isn’t enough, Roy told me. Those results need to be contextualized so that people can make sense of them. It can get confusing, especially when different governments have different safety thresholds. While Health Canada sets a limit of 5 parts per billion, the province of Ontario has a lead safety guideline twice that — 10 ppb.
That’s high, Roy says.
While the World Health Organization says there is no safe amount of lead in blood has been identified, the most stringent guideline for lead in water in schools, made in 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics, is 1 ppb.
But Roy isn’t expecting miracles. “One part per billion is just not possible,” he told me. “[My Virginia Tech colleagues] did leaching tests with the faucets that are on the market that are marketed as “lead free.” Even the newest, best faucets cannot meet that guideline.”
I asked Roy what level he would consider safe for his own family.
“Ten parts per billion is high,” Roy said. As for the federal standard of 5 ppb, “Maybe that’s acceptable. If I see lead levels above 10 ppb repeatedly, then I’ll say no, let’s not drink from that fountain.”
Getting lead levels below the federal cutoff of 5 ppb can be tricky. “[My Virginia Tech colleagues] did some testing with the newest faucets that are on the market and even those leach lead up to three parts per billion.” As for infrastructure buried underground, lead isn’t released consistently; it could be particulates that get loose or vibrations from nearby construction impacting the pipe that allow lead levels to spike. Flow also affects lead concentrations; if a tap is off even for a few hours, lead levels can rise.
But it’s not all doom and gloom. Governments have successfully lowered lead levels by replacing infrastructure and treating water to reduce corrosion.
Some schools are taking action to reduce lead exposure by installing lead filters in school drinking fountains on a mass scale, as opposed to ripping out lead infrastructure entirely, which can be cost-prohibitive.
Ripping out all lead-containing pipes and faucets is a daunting infrastructure task, says Roy. “We cannot possibly go into every classroom and try to find what kind of pipes and brass fittings [have lead].”
“Instead, we can designate certain locations from which kids can drink water and install lead filters. And that is a lot more manageable.”
It’s a compromise that seems politically appealing. In the United States, Michigan has turned this lead-reducing measure into state-wide legislation through its 2023 Filter First Act, mandating that all schools and childcare centers have lead filters on drinking fountains.
In a recent story by the IJB, Ontario’s opposition education critic Chandra Pasma advocated for the same solution as a cost-effective measure, seeing as the province is already facing a $12.7 billion shortfall over the next decade to bring all schools into a state of good repair.
But Roy says that even the filter fix comes with complications. “You have to constantly monitor when the cartridges are supposed to expire and replace them,” he explained.
Roy stressed that “we should be doing everything we can to reduce exposure, no question,” but also pointed to how far high-income countries have come with regard to lead in drinking water when contrasted with other nations.
“If you live in a high-income country, I think lead in water should still be a key focus. Over time, we’ve done a phenomenal job of reducing and eliminating lead from pipes and plumbing fittings, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that we have legacy infrastructure.”
But the biggest human burden of lead lies elsewhere.
In India, lead battery recycling is often done by children working with their bare hands. In Africa, water hand pumps being installed today contain parts with high lead. In southeast Asia, lead is found in paint and spices.
Stanford researchers recently found that lead powder was purposely added to turmeric in Bangladesh to make the spice a more vibrant colour, which would sell for a higher price. After advocates successfully raised the issue of lead in turmeric and red chili spices in Bangladesh, there was a change in national policy.
“My understanding is food manufacturers no longer add these colours to spices. And that has undeniable implications for the 170 million people who live in Bangladesh, right?”
Roy has his eyes set on the developing world.
“There is limited research on lead exposure in low- and middle-income countries. And we’re trying to fill that gap in Sub-Saharan Africa, and lay the groundwork for projects in India.”
“There, we have much bigger fish to fry.”
