Lessons to learn from the past
Are we doomed to repeat history if we do not heed historical lessons?
The history of why we added lead to petrol is instructive.
In the early 1920s, a chemical engineer employed by US car maker General Motors, copatented the chemical tetraethyl lead, as an anti-knock formulation for petrol engines. General Motors commissioned the science to eliminate problems with the pre-ignition of fuel in its increasingly high-compression engines.
Rather than solving the problem by detuning engines, GM chose to boost petrol’s octane rating. This realised greater power and lowered fuel consumption but at a cost to public health.
In the 1920s, tetraethyl lead was known to cause health problems and had been banned in Europe because of its toxicity. Despite knowing this, Standard Oil (later to become ExxonMobil) and GM gave unqualified assurances that it was ‘entirely safe to handle’. The manufacturer had done no research on the human health consequences of tetraethyl to justify this assurance.
But serious health issues there were, and deaths, at the US manufacturing plant.
When states banned the chemical, GM responded to the profit-reducing costs and delays by demanding the federal government’s intervention. A federal report concluded tetraethyl lead posed ‘‘no danger’’ and ‘‘... no reason to prohibit the sale of leaded gasoline’’. Consequently, all bans on the production and sale of leaded petrol were revoked.
The health dangers of leaded petrol became public in the 1970s and, following its banning, societal impacts - lead explained 93 per cent of the variation in our crime rate over three decades - began to decline.
Interestingly, GM and the scientist went on to patent Freon in 1928. Variants of this chemical were used as refrigerants and propellants in aerosol sprays for 30 years before being shown to be green house gasses responsible for ozone depletion.
This story ought be a cautionary tale about the power of big corporates to skirt the precautionary principle and influence governments to back their interests ahead of the public health.
It is also a now familiar tale - the same story is playing out around genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We see some big corporates like Monsanto and their scientists, assure us that their GMO products are safe, that they do not need safety assessments and that their science is to be believed without question.
If we believe this, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Instead, we must demand that our politicians apply the precautionary principle and put the health and welfare of people ahead of corporate profit interests.