Improving and Expanding Estimates of the Global Burden of Disease Due to Environmental Health Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, coordinated by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), produces influential, data-driven estimates of the burden of disease and premature death due to major risk factors. Expanded quantification of disease due to environmental health (EH) risk factors, including climate change, will enhance accuracy of GBD estimates, which will contribute to developing cost-effective policies that promote prevention and achieving Sustainable Development Goals. OBJECTIVES: We review key aspects of the GBD for the EH community and introduce the Global Burden of Disease-Pollution and Health Initiative (GBD-PHI), which aims to work with IHME and the GBD study to improve estimates of disease burden attributable to EH risk factors and to develop an innovative approach to estimating climate-related disease burden-both current and projected. METHODS: We discuss strategies for improving GBD quantification of specific EH risk factors, including air pollution, lead, and climate change. We highlight key methodological challenges, including new EH risk factors, notably evidence rating and global exposure assessment. DISCUSSION: A number of issues present challenges to the scope and accuracy of current GBD estimates for EH risk factors. For air pollution, minimal data exist on the exposure-risk relationships associated with high levels of pollution; epidemiological studies in high pollution regions should be a research priority. For lead, the GBD's current methods do not fully account for lead's impact on neurodevelopment; innovative methods to account for subclinical effects are needed. Decisions on inclusion of additional EH risk-outcome pairs need to be guided by findings of systematic reviews, the size of exposed populations, feasibility of global exposure estimates, and predicted trends in exposures and diseases. Neurotoxicants, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and climate-related factors should be high priorities for incorporation into upcoming iterations of the GBD study. Enhancing the scope and methods will improve the GBD's estimates and better guide prevention policy. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5496.

Climate change and women's health: Impacts and policy directions.

In a Policy Forum, Cecilia Sorensen and colleagues discuss the implications of climate change for women's health.

Climate Change and Women's Health: Impacts and Opportunities in India.

Climate change impacts on health, including increased exposures to heat, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and altered vector-borne disease transmission, reduced water quality, and decreased food security, affect men and women differently due to biologic, socioeconomic, and cultural factors. In India, where rapid environmental changes are taking place, climate change threatens to widen existing gender-based health disparities. Integration of a gendered perspective into existing climate, development, and disaster-risk reduction policy frameworks can decrease negative health outcomes. Modifying climate risks requires multisector coordination, improvement in data acquisition, monitoring of gender specific targets, and equitable stakeholder engagement. Empowering women as agents of social change can improve mitigation and adaptation policy interventions.

Enhancing the sustainability and climate resiliency of health care facilities: a comparison of initiatives and toolkits / Mejora de la sostenibilidad y la resistencia de las instalaciones de atención sanitaria ante el cambio climático: iniciativas y recursos

Extreme weather events have revealed the vulnerability of health care facilities and the extent of devastation to the community when they fail. With climate change anticipated to increase extreme weather and its impacts worldwide—severe droughts, floods, heat waves, and related vector-borne diseases—health care officials need to understand and address the vulnerabilities of their health care systems and take action to improve resiliency in ways that also meet sustainability goals. Generally, the health sector is among a country’s largest consumers of energy and a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Now it has the opportunity lead climate mitigation, while reducing energy, water, and other costs. This Special Report summarizes several initiatives and compares three toolkits for implementing sustainability and resiliency measures for health care facilities: the Canadian Health Care Facility Climate Change Resiliency Toolkit, the U.S. Sustainable and Climate Resilient Health Care Facilities Toolkit, and the PAHO SMART Hospitals Toolkit of the World Health Organization/Pan American Health Organization. These tools and the lessons learned can provide a critical starting point for any health system in the Americas.

Los sucesos climáticos extremos han puesto de manifiesto la vulnerabilidad de las instalaciones de atención sanitaria y el grado de devastación infligido a la comunidad cuando estas fallan. Ante un cambio climático que preanuncia un aumento de los sucesos climáticos extremos y sus respectivos impactos en todo el mundo (sequías, inundaciones y olas de calor intensas, así como enfermedades relacionadas transmitidas por vectores) los profesionales sanitarios deben comprender y hacer frente a las vulnerabilidades de sus sistemas de atención de salud, y emprender acciones que apunten a mejorar su resistencia de manera sostenible. Por lo general, el sector salud es uno de los mayores consumidores de energía de un país y una fuente significativa de emisión de gases de efecto invernadero. En la actualidad tiene la oportunidad de liderar las acciones de mitigación frente al cambio climático, y a la vez de reducir los costos de energía y agua, entre otros. En este informe especial se resumen varias iniciativas y se comparan tres recursos dirigidos a implementar medidas de sostenibilidad y resistencia para instalaciones de atención sanitaria: la Herramienta de Resistencia ante el Cambio Climático para Instalaciones de Atención Sanitaria (Canadá), la Herramienta de Resistencia ante el Cambio Climático para Instalaciones de Atención Sanitaria (Estados Unidos) y la Herramienta Hospitales Inteligentes de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud/ Organización Mundial de la Salud. Estas herramientas y las lecciones aprendidas a través de ellas proporcionan un punto de partida crucial para todos los sistemas de salud de la Región de las Américas.

Indicators linking health and sustainability in the post-2015 development agenda.

The UN-led discussion about the post-2015 sustainable development agenda provides an opportunity to develop indicators and targets that show the importance of health as a precondition for and an outcome of policies to promote sustainable development. Health as a precondition for development has received considerable attention in terms of achievement of health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), addressing growing challenges of non-communicable diseases, and ensuring universal health coverage. Much less attention has been devoted to health as an outcome of sustainable development and to indicators that show both changes in exposure to health-related risks and progress towards environmental sustainability. We present a rationale and methods for the selection of health-related indicators to measure progress of post-2015 development goals in non-health sectors. The proposed indicators show the ancillary benefits to health and health equity (co-benefits) of sustainable development policies, particularly those to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase resilience to environmental change. We use illustrative examples from four thematic areas: cities, food and agriculture, energy, and water and sanitation. Embedding of a range of health-related indicators in the post-2015 goals can help to raise awareness of the probable health gains from sustainable development policies, thus making them more attractive to decision makers and more likely to be implemented than before.

Health and household air pollution from solid fuel use: the need for improved exposure assessment.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 3 billion people worldwide rely on solid fuel combustion to meet basic household energy needs. The resulting exposure to air pollution causes an estimated 4.5% of the global burden of disease. Large variability and a lack of resources for research and development have resulted in highly uncertain exposure estimates. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify research priorities for exposure assessment that will more accurately and precisely define exposure-response relationships of household air pollution necessary to inform future cleaner-burning cookstove dissemination programs. DATA SOURCES: As part of an international workshop in May 2011, an expert group characterized the state of the science and developed recommendations for exposure assessment of household air pollution. SYNTHESIS: The following priority research areas were identified to explain variability and reduce uncertainty of household air pollution exposure measurements: improved characterization of spatial and temporal variability for studies examining both short- and long-term health effects; development and validation of measurement technology and approaches to conduct complex exposure assessments in resource-limited settings with a large range of pollutant concentrations; and development and validation of biomarkers for estimating dose. Addressing these priority research areas, which will inherently require an increased allocation of resources for cookstove research, will lead to better characterization of exposure-response relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Although the type and extent of exposure assessment will necessarily depend on the goal and design of the cookstove study, without improved understanding of exposure-response relationships, the level of air pollution reduction necessary to meet the health targets of cookstove interventions will remain uncertain.

Climate change, human health, and biomedical research: analysis of the National Institutes of Health research portfolio.

BACKGROUND: According to a wide variety of analyses and projections, the potential effects of global climate change on human health are large and diverse. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), through its basic, clinical, and population research portfolio of grants, has been increasing efforts to understand how the complex interrelationships among humans, ecosystems, climate, climate variability, and climate change affect domestic and global health. OBJECTIVES: In this commentary we present a systematic review and categorization of the fiscal year (FY) 2008 NIH climate and health research portfolio. METHODS: A list of candidate climate and health projects funded from FY 2008 budget appropriations were identified and characterized based on their relevance to climate change and health and based on climate pathway, health impact, study type, and objective. RESULTS: This analysis identified seven FY 2008 projects focused on climate change, 85 climate-related projects, and 706 projects that focused on disease areas associated with climate change but did not study those associations. Of the nearly 53,000 awards that NIH made in 2008, approximately 0.17% focused on or were related to climate. CONCLUSIONS: Given the nature and scale of the potential effects of climate change on human health and the degree of uncertainty that we have about these effects, we think that it is helpful for the NIH to engage in open discussions with science and policy communities about government-wide needs and opportunities in climate and health, and about how NIH's strengths in human health research can contribute to understanding the health implications of global climate change. This internal review has been used to inform more recent initiatives by the NIH in climate and health.

The influence of global climate change on the scientific foundations and applications of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: introduction to a SETAC international workshop.

This is the first of seven papers resulting from a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) international workshop titled "The Influence of Global Climate Change on the Scientific Foundations and Applications of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry." The workshop involved 36 scientists from 11 countries and was designed to answer the following question: How will global climate change influence the environmental impacts of chemicals and other stressors and the way we assess and manage them in the environment? While more detail is found in the complete series of articles, some key consensus points are as follows: (1) human actions (including mitigation of and adaptation to impacts of global climate change [GCC]) may have as much influence on the fate and distribution of chemical contaminants as does GCC, and modeled predictions should be interpreted cautiously; (2) climate change can affect the toxicity of chemicals, but chemicals can also affect how organisms acclimate to climate change; (3) effects of GCC may be slow, variable, and difficult to detect, though some populations and communities of high vulnerability may exhibit responses sooner and more dramatically than others; (4) future approaches to human and ecological risk assessments will need to incorporate multiple stressors and cumulative risks considering the wide spectrum of potential impacts stemming from GCC; and (5) baseline/reference conditions for estimating resource injury and restoration/rehabilitation will continually shift due to GCC and represent significant challenges to practitioners.

Implications of global climate change for the assessment and management of human health risks of chemicals in the natural environment.

Global climate change (GCC) is likely to alter the degree of human exposure to pollutants and the response of human populations to these exposures, meaning that risks of pollutants could change in the future. The present study, therefore, explores how GCC might affect the different steps in the pathway from a chemical source in the environment through to impacts on human health and evaluates the implications for existing risk-assessment and management practices. In certain parts of the world, GCC is predicted to increase the level of exposure of many environmental pollutants due to direct and indirect effects on the use patterns and transport and fate of chemicals. Changes in human behavior will also affect how humans come into contact with contaminated air, water, and food. Dietary changes, psychosocial stress, and coexposure to stressors such as high temperatures are likely to increase the vulnerability of humans to chemicals. These changes are likely to have significant implications for current practices for chemical assessment. Assumptions used in current exposure-assessment models may no longer apply, and existing monitoring methods may not be robust enough to detect adverse episodic changes in exposures. Organizations responsible for the assessment and management of health risks of chemicals therefore need to be more proactive and consider the implications of GCC for their procedures and processes.

Global environmental health and sustainable development: the role at Rio+20.

The Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development represents a crucial opportunity to place environmental health at the forefront of the sustainable development agenda. Billions of people living in low- and middle-income countries continue to be afflicted by preventable diseases due to modifiable environmental exposures, causing needless suffering and perpetuating a cycle of poverty. Current processes of economic development, while alleviating many social and health problems, are increasingly linked to environmental health threats, ranging from air pollution and physical inactivity to global climate change. Sustainable development practices attempt to reduce environmental impacts and should, in theory, reduce adverse environmental health consequences compared to traditional development. Yet these efforts could also result in unintended harm and impaired economic development if the new "Green Economy" is not carefully assessed for adverse environmental and occupational health impacts. The environmental health community has an essential role to play in underscoring these relationships as international leaders gather to craft sustainable development policies.

Global environmental health and sustainable development: the role at Rio+20 / Saúde ambiental global e desenvolvimento sustentável: o papel na Rio+20

The Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development represents a crucial opportunity to place environmental health at the forefront of the sustainable development agenda. Billions of people living in low- and middle-income countries continue to be afflicted by preventable diseases due to modifiable environmental exposures, causing needless suffering and perpetuating a cycle of poverty. Current processes of economic development, while alleviating many social and health problems, are increasingly linked to environmental health threats, ranging from air pollution and physical inactivity to global climate change. Sustainable development practices attempt to reduce environmental impacts and should, in theory, reduce adverse environmental health consequences compared to traditional development. Yet these efforts could also result in unintended harm and impaired economic development if the new "Green Economy" is not carefully assessed for adverse environmental and occupational health impacts. The environmental health community has an essential role to play in underscoring these relationships as international leaders gather to craft sustainable development policies.

A Conferência da ONU Rio +20 sobre desenvolvimento sustentável representa uma oportunidade crucial para colocar a saúde ambiental à frente da agenda de desenvolvimento sustentável. Bilhões de pessoas que vivem em países de baixa e média renda continuarão a ser afligidas por doenças evitáveis devido a exposições ambientais modificáveis causando sofrimento desnecessário e perpetuando um ciclo de pobreza. Processos de desenvolvimento econômico atuais, enquanto aliviam muitos problemas de saúde e sociais, estão cada vez mais ligados a ameaças de saúde ambiental, abrangendo desde poluição do ar e inatividade física até mudanças climáticas globais. Práticas de desenvolvimento sustentável tentam reduzir o impacto ambiental e deveriam, em teoria, reduzir as consequências adversas da saúde ambiental em relação ao desenvolvimento tradicional. Ainda assim, esses esforços podem também resultar em danos não intencionais e em pior desenvolvimento econômico se a nova "Economia Verde" não for cuidadosamente avaliada para impactos na saúde ambiental e ocupacional adversos. A comunidade da saúde ambiental tem um papel essencial para desempenhar, enfatizando estas relações enquanto líderes internacionais se reúnem para criar políticas de desenvolvimento sustentável.

U.S. Funding is insufficient to address the human health impacts of and public health responses to climate variability and change.

BACKGROUND: The need to identify and try to prevent adverse health impacts of climate change has risen to the forefront of climate change policy debates and become a top priority of the public health community. Given the observed and projected changes in climate and weather patterns, their current and anticipated health impacts, and the significant degree of regulatory discussion underway in the U.S. government, it is reasonable to determine the extent of federal investment in research to understand, avoid, prepare for, and respond to the human health impacts of climate change in the United States. OBJECTIVE: In this commentary we summarize the health risks of climate change in the United States and examine the extent of federal funding devoted to understanding, avoiding, preparing for, and responding to the human health risks of climate change. DISCUSSION: Future climate change is projected to exacerbate various current health problems, including heat-related mortality, diarrheal diseases, and diseases associated with exposure to ozone and aeroallergens. Demographic trends and geophysical and socioeconomic factors could increase overall vulnerability. Despite these risks, extramural federal funding of climate change and health research is estimated to be < $3 million per year. CONCLUSIONS: Given the real risks that climate change poses for U.S. populations, the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies need to have robust intramural and extramural programs, with funding of > $200 million annually. Oversight of the size and priorities of these programs could be provided by a standing committee within the National Academy of Sciences.

Identifying vulnerable subpopulations for climate change health effects in the United States.

Climate change can be expected to have differential effects on different subpopulations. Biological sensitivity, socioeconomic factors, and geography may each contribute to heightened risk for climate-sensitive health outcomes, which include heat stress, air pollution health effects, extreme weather event health effects, water-, food-, and vector-borne illnesses. Particularly vulnerable subpopulations include children, pregnant women, older adults, impoverished populations, people with chronic conditions and mobility and cognitive constraints, outdoor workers, and those in coastal and low-lying riverine zones. For public health planning, it is critical to identify populations that may experience synergistic effects of multiple risk factors for health problems, both related to climate change and to other temporal trends, with specific geographic factors that convey climate-related risks.

Climate change and local public health in the United States: preparedness, programs and perceptions of local public health department directors.

While climate change is inherently a global problem, its public health impacts will be experienced most acutely at the local and regional level, with some jurisdictions likely to be more burdened than others. The public health infrastructure in the U.S. is organized largely as an interlocking set of public agencies at the federal, state and local level, with lead responsibility for each city or county often residing at the local level. To understand how directors of local public health departments view and are responding to climate change as a public health issue, we conducted a telephone survey with 133 randomly selected local health department directors, representing a 61% response rate. A majority of respondents perceived climate change to be a problem in their jurisdiction, a problem they viewed as likely to become more common or severe over the next 20 years. Only a small minority of respondents, however, had yet made climate change adaptation or prevention a top priority for their health department. This discrepancy between problem recognition and programmatic responses may be due, in part, to several factors: most respondents felt personnel in their health department--and other key stakeholders in their community--had a lack of knowledge about climate change; relatively few respondents felt their own health department, their state health department, or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had the necessary expertise to help them create an effective mitigation or adaptation plan for their jurisdiction; and most respondents felt that their health department needed additional funding, staff and staff training to respond effectively to climate change. These data make clear that climate change adaptation and prevention are not currently major activities at most health departments, and that most, if not all, local health departments will require assistance in making this transition. We conclude by making the case that, through their words and actions, local health departments and their staff can and should play a role in alerting members of their community about the prospect of public health impacts from climate change in their jurisdiction.