Environmental health and democracy. The example of lead in gasoline through a case study (1921-1970)

Résumé 0

In 1921, General Motors chemists decided to add tetraethyl, a highly toxic lead additive, in gasoline to reduce ‘knock’ or ‘pinging’ in internal-combustion engines. Despite the opposition from health authorities, the lead additive would come to dominate the global market, particularly during ‘The Great Acceleration’ (1950-2000). Before the progressive elimination of its use, and throughout the 20th century, many voices in the USA, like in Europe, spoke out against the use of, and the environmental contamination from, this additive.How was the acceptance of widespread poisoning such as lead possible? We analyse the case of Switzerland to explain the acceptance of lead poisoning beyond the USA. Switzerland prohibited its use from 1925-1947, which was a worldwide exception. But it was not to last : indeed, as soon as 1947, the country authorized the use of leaded gasoline.Several researchers have recently been interested in explaining how problems do not emerge in the mediatic space and consequently are not treated. In other words, they study elements that prevent an actual problem from being considered as such. The political scientist Emmanuel Henry (2021) proposes a reading based on the vast literature on this subject. His approach defines the methodological framework of my study. Henry highlights three processes that block a community's treatment of a given problem: invisibilization; manufactured ignorance; political inaction.Our aim here is to show how concerns over human health and environmental impacts from toxic lead are not publicized in democratic countries and how corporate interests trumped concerns over the well-being of the community, despite known human risks. This case shows the limits of instruments in parliamentary democracy. Our findings show how actors in the political sphere suppressed those critical of the use of lead through two primary tactics: First, critical voices were marginalized primarily through intimidation and threats paired with the use of biased scientific studies. Second, some of the criticism was addressed by political decision-makers through introduction of measures like control commissions or lead- concentration limit, which appeased critics.The ‘government of the critic’ through marginalization and absorption is a part of the democratic system in the field of pollution. Governing the critics therefore contributes to a political acceptance, and even legitimization of a worldwide contamination.