Leaded fuel, or aviation gasoline (avgas) containing tetraethyl lead, has long been banned in most sectors, including automotive fuel. Yet, in the world of aviation, it continues to persist, spewing toxic lead into the atmosphere, contaminating our environment, and threatening public health. Despite the known dangers of lead, the aviation industry remains one of the last major holdouts in the fight to eliminate leaded fuel. The reasons for this are complex and rooted in regulatory failures, industry resistance, and weak legislative efforts. But make no mistake—this is a public health crisis in plain sight, one that could have been solved years ago if not for the industry’s lack of urgency and the government’s failure to act decisively.

The Continued Use of Leaded Fuel: A Public Health Catastrophe

The continued use of leaded fuel in aviation is not a mere inconvenience or a matter of bureaucratic oversight—it is a genuine public health crisis. Lead is a neurotoxin, particularly harmful to children, and even low levels of exposure can result in serious cognitive, developmental, and behavioral problems. Lead exposure has been linked to reduced IQ, attention disorders, and even violent behavior. While other sectors phased out leaded fuel decades ago, general aviation—the small planes that operate out of local airports—remains the largest source of lead emissions in the United States.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), piston-engine aircraft that burn leaded avgas emit around 500 tons of lead into the air each year. This figure is staggering considering that the EPA has declared there is no safe level of lead exposure. Communities living near airports—often low-income or marginalized—are the most affected, as lead particles from aircraft exhaust settle in the soil and water, posing long-term contamination risks. Schools and daycares located near airports are at the highest risk, exposing children to this invisible but potent poison every day.

Why Is Leaded Fuel Still Used?

The question that naturally follows is: Why is leaded fuel still in use, despite its well-documented dangers? The aviation industry, regulators, and lawmakers have known about the harmful effects of lead for decades. Yet, leaded avgas continues to be the fuel of choice for nearly 170,000 piston-engine aircraft in the U.S. The reasons for this are varied, but they all point to a troubling pattern of inertia, resistance to change, and prioritizing industry convenience over public health.

1. Lack of a Widely Available Alternative

One of the most frequently cited reasons for the continued use of leaded fuel is the lack of a widely available, FAA-approved alternative. Piston-engine aircraft, which make up the majority of general aviation planes, require high-octane fuel to prevent engine knocking (pre-ignition). Tetraethyl lead has been used in avgas since the 1920s because it raises the octane level of fuel, making it suitable for high-compression engines. While there has been progress in developing unleaded alternatives, none have yet been widely adopted or made universally available at airports.

The FAA has been slow to certify new unleaded fuels, and the industry has been equally slow to adopt them. For decades, various pilot programs and research initiatives have attempted to create a lead-free fuel that meets the performance requirements of piston engines, but with limited success. A few alternatives, like 94UL and Swift Fuel's UL102, have been developed and certified, but they are not available at most airports and remain expensive compared to leaded avgas. As a result, the aviation industry has continued to rely on the toxic status quo rather than invest in meaningful change.

1. Cost Concerns

Cost is another major barrier to phasing out leaded avgas. Developing and certifying a new fuel is an expensive process, and fuel manufacturers argue that the costs would need to be passed on to consumers—namely, aircraft owners and operators. Many in the aviation community, especially private pilots and small business owners, resist the transition to unleaded fuel because they fear it will increase their operating expenses. Small airports, which often operate on tight margins, are also reluctant to invest in new infrastructure to store and dispense unleaded fuel, further slowing the transition.

While the industry claims that cost is a valid concern, this argument is difficult to swallow when weighed against the public health costs of lead exposure. The cost of treating children for lead poisoning, the lost educational potential, and the long-term economic impacts of cognitive deficits far outweigh any short-term expense associated with switching to unleaded fuel. The aviation industry, however, has largely ignored these broader societal costs, focusing instead on its narrow financial interests.

1. Industry Resistance

Perhaps the most significant obstacle to eliminating leaded fuel is the aviation industry’s resistance to change. The general aviation sector, which includes private planes, flight schools, and charter services, is notoriously slow to adapt to new regulations or technological changes. Many aircraft owners and operators have invested heavily in planes that are designed to run on leaded avgas and are reluctant to pay for engine modifications or replacements that would allow them to use unleaded fuel.

Aviation organizations argue that any transition should be gradual and voluntary, allowing the market to drive change rather than imposing strict regulations. While they claim to support the development of unleaded alternatives, their actions have effectively slowed progress, as they continue to prioritize the convenience of their followers over the well-being of the communities impacted by lead emissions.

Legislative Failures: Unsuccessful Attempts to Mandate the Switch

While the aviation industry bears much of the blame for the continued use of leaded fuel, government regulators and lawmakers have also failed to act decisively. Despite numerous studies showing the dangers of leaded avgas, legislative efforts to ban its use have been consistently stymied by industry lobbying, regulatory red tape, and a lack of political will.

EPA’s Hesitation to Act

The EPA has long recognized the dangers of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft, but it has been hesitant to impose strict regulations on the aviation industry. In 2008, environmental groups petitioned the EPA to regulate lead emissions from aviation under the Clean Air Act. After years of delay, the EPA finally acknowledged in 2016 that leaded avgas posed a public health risk but stopped short of implementing a ban.

The agency's reluctance to take stronger action has been attributed to pressure from the aviation industry and a lack of coordination with the FAA. The FAA, which regulates aircraft safety, has been slow to approve unleaded alternatives, creating a bureaucratic bottleneck that has allowed the continued use of leaded fuel. This lack of regulatory action is not just a matter of bureaucratic inefficiency—it is a public health failure, leaving communities near airports exposed to unnecessary risks.

Congressional Inaction

Congress, too, has failed to pass meaningful legislation to phase out leaded avgas. Several bills have been introduced over the years to mandate the transition to unleaded fuel, but none have gained significant traction. Industry lobbying has played a significant role in blocking these efforts. The aviation lobby wields considerable influence in Washington, often framing regulatory efforts as harmful to small businesses and private pilots.

Lawmakers, particularly those representing districts with strong aviation ties, have been reluctant to support legislation that could impose costs on the industry. As a result, proposals to ban leaded avgas or provide incentives for the adoption of unleaded alternatives have languished in committee, leaving the issue unresolved.

Local Efforts Thwarted

In the absence of federal action, some communities have attempted to address the problem of leaded fuel at the local level, only to be thwarted by federal regulations. Several municipalities have passed ordinances or resolutions calling for restrictions on the use of leaded fuel at local airports, but these efforts have often been struck down by the courts. Under the FAA’s jurisdiction, local governments have limited authority to regulate aviation, making it nearly impossible for communities to protect themselves from lead emissions without federal support.

The Way Forward: A Call for Urgency

The continued use of leaded fuel in aviation is a glaring example of regulatory failure and industry resistance to change. While there are technical challenges to developing and adopting unleaded alternatives, they are not insurmountable. What is lacking is the political will to prioritize public health over industry convenience.

The aviation industry must be held accountable for the harm it is causing. This includes accelerating the development and certification of unleaded fuels, investing in the infrastructure needed to distribute them, and mandating the use of lead-free alternatives. The FAA and EPA must work together to eliminate leaded avgas, and Congress must step up to pass meaningful legislation that protects communities from the dangers of lead exposure.

But above all, the communities affected by lead emissions must be heard. For too long, their concerns have been ignored or dismissed by an industry that prioritizes profits over people. It is time to end the use of leaded fuel in aviation once and for all—before more children are poisoned, more communities are contaminated, and more damage is done to our environment and public health.

The persistence of leaded fuel in aviation represents a failure of the aviation industry, regulators, and lawmakers to protect the public from a known and preventable hazard. The technical challenges associated with transitioning to unleaded fuel are real but not insurmountable. What is missing is the commitment to make this change a priority. Legislative attempts to mandate a switch to unleaded fuel have been undermined by industry lobbying and regulatory inertia, while communities continue to bear the brunt of lead emissions.

It is time for a concerted effort.