Objective This systematic review evaluates the evidence on the association between lead exposure and cardiovascular end points in human populations. Methods We reviewed all observational studies from database searches and citations regarding lead and cardiovascular end points. Results A positive association of lead exposure with blood pressure has been identified in numerous studies in different settings, including prospective studies and in relatively homogeneous socioeconomic status groups. Several studies have identified a dose–response relationship. Although the magnitude of this association is modest, it may be underestimated by measurement error. The hypertensive effects of lead have been confirmed in experimental models. Beyond hypertension, studies in general populations have identified a positive association of lead exposure with clinical cardiovascular outcomes (cardiovascular, coronary heart disease, and stroke mortality; and peripheral arterial disease), but the number of studies is small. In some studies these associations were observed at blood lead levels < 5 μg/dL. Conclusions We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship of lead exposure with hypertension. We conclude that the evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship of lead exposure with clinical cardiovascular outcomes. There is also suggestive but insufficient evidence to infer a causal relationship of lead exposure with heart rate variability. Public Health Implications These findings have immediate public health implications. Current occupational safety standards for blood lead must be lowered and a criterion for screening elevated lead exposure needs to be established in adults. Risk assessment and economic analyses of lead exposure impact must include the cardiovascular effects of lead. Finally, regulatory and public health interventions must be developed and implemented to further prevent and reduce lead exposure.

Although it is often acknowledged that social and environmental factors interact to produce racial and ethnic environmental health disparities, it is still unclear how this occurs. Despite continued controversy, the environmental justice movement has provided some insight by suggesting that disadvantaged communities face greater likelihood of exposure to ambient hazards. The exposure–disease paradigm has long suggested that differential “vulnerability” may modify the effects of toxicants on biological systems. However, relatively little work has been done to specify whether racial and ethnic minorities may have greater vulnerability than do majority populations and, further, what these vulnerabilities may be. We suggest that psychosocial stress may be the vulnerability factor that links social conditions with environmental hazards. Psychosocial stress can lead to acute and chronic changes in the functioning of body systems (e.g., immune) and also lead directly to illness. In this article we present a multidisciplinary framework integrating these ideas. We also argue that residential segregation leads to differential experiences of community stress, exposure to pollutants, and access to community resources. When not counterbalanced by resources, stressors may lead to heightened vulnerability to environmental hazards.

Background: There has been increasing interest in the concept that exposures to environmental chemicals may be contributing factors to the epidemics of diabetes and obesity. On 11–13 January 2011, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Division of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) organized a workshop to evaluate the current state of the science on these topics of increasing public health concern. Objective: The main objective of the workshop was to develop recommendations for a research agenda after completing a critical analysis of the literature for humans and experimental animals exposed to certain environmental chemicals. The environmental exposures considered at the workshop were arsenic, persistent organic pollutants, maternal smoking/nicotine, organotins, phthalates, bisphenol A, and pesticides. High-throughput screening data from Toxicology in the 21st Century (Tox21) were also considered as a way to evaluate potential cellular pathways and generate -hypotheses for testing which and how certain chemicals might perturb biological processes related to diabetes and obesity. Conclusions: Overall, the review of the existing literature identified linkages between several of the environmental exposures and type 2 diabetes. There was also support for the “developmental obesogen” hypothesis, which suggests that chemical exposures may increase the risk of obesity by altering the differentiation of adipocytes or the development of neural circuits that regulate feeding behavior. The effects may be most apparent when the developmental exposure is combined with consumption of a high-calorie, high-carbohydrate, or high-fat diet later in life. Research on environmental chemical exposures and type 1 diabetes was very limited. This lack of research was considered a critical data gap. In this workshop review, we outline the major themes that emerged from the workshop and discuss activities that NIEHS/NTP is undertaking to address research recommendations. This review also serves as an introduction to an upcoming series of articles that review the literature regarding specific exposures and outcomes in more detail.