After researching the claim “Stanleys contain lead,” I found that the claim is technically true but misleading and pretty exaggerated. Stanley has acknowledged that some of its products use a l material that contains lead during the manufacturing process, however, the lead is sealed underneath a stainless-steel layer, so it does not come into contact with the drink or the person using the cup.
Evidence from Stanley’s website, Nebraska Medicine, Harvard School of Public Health, and Verywell Health all supports this conclusion. The main issue with the claim is that it leaves out the most important part, that the lead is contained inside the cup and is not normally accessible to consumers.
Stanley confirms that its manufacturing process does use a material that contains lead, however, the company explains that the material is sealed and covered by stainless steel. Stanley states, “the sealing material includes lead. Once sealed, this area is covered with a durable stainless steel layer”. Stanley also came out and said “no lead is present on the surface of any Stanley 1913 product that comes into contact with the consumer nor the contents of the product”. This is very important because it shows that the statement “Stanleys contain lead” leaves out where the lead actually is. The lead is part of the manufacturing process, but it is not supposed to be on the surface of the cup or in the part that actually hold the drink.
Nebraska Medicine interviewed Dr. Joseph Clemons, who is an emergency medicine physician and associate medical director of the Nebraska Regional Poison Control Center. He addressed the controversy over this specific claim directly and said that “All the media attention on this is probably overblown and should not cause alarm or over-concern" (para. 4). He also explained why an intact Stanley cup is not dangerous, “The lead is sealed underneath a stainless-steel layer preventing it from leaking into the contents of the mug unless the water bottle has been severely damaged” (para. 4), This evidence goes strongly against the idea that just by simply drinking from a Stanley cup you are going to be exposed to lead. Dr. Clemons does acknowledge that lead exposure is dangerous, but he makes a clear distinction between the danger of lead and the actual risk you have to being exposed by using an intact Stanley Cup.
Harvard explains that the lead-containing material is covered by a steel barrier. Harvard expert Ronnie Levin warns that lead is dangerous as he calls it “an all-systems toxin” (para. 3). However, the most important piece of evidence for this specific investigation is her explanation of an intact Stanley cup where she says “if that barrier [on the Stanley cup] remains intact, you won’t be exposed to any lead and won’t suffer any negative outcomes” (para. 5).This supports the argument that the original claim is misleading. Levin acknowledged that lead is present inside the manufacturing system, but it also explains that the protective barrier prevents exposure as long as the water bottle remains intact.
Verywell Health interviewed Kelly Krisna Johnson-Arbor, who is a medical toxicologist at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital. This article quotes Stanley saying that the lead containing material is covered by stainless steel. Johnson- Arbor then explained that “If people have the Stanley cups that are intact and not damaged, and not falling apart, this is really not an issue” (para. 5). Verywell Health also said that “You shouldn’t have to worry about lead exposure unless the base cap or the seal is damaged” (para. titled “what this means for you”). This provides yet another opinion from a medical professional that supports the conclusion that normal use of an undamaged Stanley cup does not mean that you are going to be exposed to lead.
An article from BBC investigates whether consumers should actually be concerned about the lead used in Stanley cups. I thought this article was interesting because it provides us with additional context about the controversy and explains the difference between lead being used inside the manufacturing process and actual lead exposure. BBC talks about their interaction with Stanley and says ‘The BBC reached out to Stanley for additional comment and they responded with the same statement available on their website. The online statement concludes that Stanley products ’meet all US regulatory requirements’ “ (para. 5). This shows that even when reached out to by other big time companies, Stanley is persistent that their water bottles are safe to use.
Stanley ultimately has a financial interest in making its products appear safe because that's what helps them sell their product. Therefore, their statements should not just be considered by themselves. However, the company’s explanation is supported by multiple medical experts, such as Nebraska Medicine and Harvard. These are both medical and academic organizations, so they do not have the same direct financial interest in Stanley. Their experts are useful because they focus on the health effects of lead exposure.
Verywell Health and the BBC are news organizations, so they have an interest in attracting readers. However, they rely on medical experts and other sources rather than simply just making claims without any evidence.
The claim that “Stanleys contain lead” is somewhat true, however it is misleading because it leaves out important context. Some Stanley products use a lead-containing material during their manufacturing process, but that material is sealed underneath stainless steel and is not accessible when consuming the content you put into the cup. The evidence from Stanley, Nebraska Medicine, Harvard, Verywell, and BBC all point to the same conclusion, that an intact Stanley cup does not normally expose the user to lead. A more accurate and less misleading version of this claim would be “Some Stanley cups use a material that contains lead during the manufacturing process, but the lead is sealed underneath stainless steel and is not normally accessible to consumers”.
