The Pew Environmental Health Commission

[Guest guest]

http://pewenvirohealth.jhsph.edu/html/home/home.html

Background

The Pew Environmental Health Commission's Definition of Environmental

Health.Environmental health comprises those aspects of human health,

including quality of life, that are determined by interactions with

physical, chemical, biological and social factors in the environment. It

also refers to the theory and practice of assessing, correcting, controlling

and preventing those factors in the environment that may adversely affect

the health of present and future generations.

Since Earth Day 1970, we have made great progress in protecting the earth's

natural resources. Today more U.S. streams and lakes are swimmable, many

endangered species have recovered successfully and hundreds of hazardous

waste sites have been cleaned of toxins. Ironically, over this same period,

there has been a rise in the number of human illnesses and deaths associated

with environmental factors. Asthma, childhood cancers, and certain birth

defect rates have soared in the past few decades. Acute health crises also

have been escalating, including drinking-water borne diseases caused by

chemicals or parasites such as Cryptosporidium. As more attention has been

paid to improving nature's well-being, we have neglected the human health

impact of environmental problems. This points to the important need to

improve our understanding of how environmental exposures impact human

health, as well as to identify those segments of the populations that are at

risk.

Despite these increasing threats, no national system exists to monitor

public health problems linked to environmental hazards. We track many

infectious diseases but not most chronic diseases, including asthma and

birth defects. We track pollutants discharged into air, rivers and land but

not the levels of hazardous toxins in people. In order to make the right

decisions about protecting the health of our communities, researchers,

policymakers and citizens need to know more about how the environment

impacts our health.

Having good public health data can improve significantly our country's

environmental decision making process. For instance, when the EPA decided to

phase out lead in gasoline in 1973, Congress received considerable pressure

to reverse the regulation. While lead was a well-known neurotoxin, with

children being most vulnerable to permanent neurological damage, it had been

widely used in gasoline to prevent engine " knocking. " EPA's theoretical

models suggested that a ban on lead would result in only minimal changes in

human lead levels. But health data from the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) saved the day by showing dramatic decreases in human lead

levels, persuading Congress that EPA's restrictions on leaded gas were

appropriate. Unfortunately, CDC does not routinely monitor the level of

dangerous pollutants in the American population despite important past

lessons during the great debate over leaded gasoline.

We need a national action plan for rebuilding this country's ability to

protect more effectively our nation's health from environmental hazards.

Only when basic information about the health of communities, potential

environmental exposures, and hazard sources are collected, linked, and

considered holistically will regulators, policy makers, and the public be

armed to understand environmental health risks, evaluate regulatory

strategies and prevent disease. Similar to America's prevention-oriented

military, we need a modernized health defense system with properly trained

troops, tools and tactics for protecting society from, and rapidly

responding to, environmental threats.