Environmental Health Education and Awareness: Avoiding the Personal Responsibility Trap

By Emily Alexander

At a recent women’s health conference, I attended a panel on the health impact of environmental contaminants and chemicals on women, and specifically on reproductive health. In addition to dangerous pollutants and pesticides that can affect health, synthetic chemicals found in common plastics and many cosmetic products can act as endocrine disruptors and interfere with our bodies’ hormones. Despite growing concerns, of the thousands of chemicals registered for use in the United States, only 10 percent have been tested for their possible effects on human health.¹

So far, there are data to suggest a link between select contaminants and an increased risk for endometriosis, fertility problems, and adverse effects on early fetal development.¹ For instance, phthalates, a plasticizer found in some personal care products, may negatively affect the fetus’ reproductive organs. Additionally, traces of mercury, a known reproductive toxin, have been found in some mascara products.² While the conference panel presented multiple ways that our bodies absorb harmful contaminants, the audience immediately responded to the specific warnings against chemicals in body products and common plastics. But instead of voicing outrage that such commonly available and widely used products contain potentially harmful toxins, advocates and health care providers focused on how their individual choices could protect them, and their patients, from chemical exposure.

My favorite part of being an advocate is finding effective ways to synthesize complicated health concepts into effective education and policy opportunities. To this end, we are increasing health research and developing more and more guidelines and advice about what women should or shouldn’t do to their bodies. While past guidelines have focused on personal behaviors during pregnancy, with the addition of last year’s preconception care guidelines from the CDC, women now have 10 recommendations that emphasize the importance of personal responsibility and behavior throughout their reproductive years. Yet, women are simultaneously losing health care access and coverage while being trapped in physical and social environments that do not foster and support healthfulness.

Advocacy surrounding the potential dangers of cosmetic products is particularly complicated. Change depends on advocates’ ability to raise awareness about the dangers of chemicals whose names are so complex that it is nearly impossible to recognize them on ingredient labels. Making matters worse, many of the chemicals of concern are not included on ingredient labels at all.³ In this context, it is hard to find a way to empower women with the most current and accurate health information without feeding the cultural discourse that already shamelessly judges women’s relationships with their bodies and reproductive health. To succeed, we must move beyond individual behavior to broader, systemic change. An integral part of meeting this challenge will be our work to demand that policymakers and industry better regulate chemicals, workplace conditions, and the environments in which people live.

During my childhood, my family ran a natural foods grocery store before this trend became part of mainstream culture. The recent increased attention to environmental contaminants’ impact on fertility and women’s health reminds me of the work my family did with food to educate our consumers to use their purchasing power to influence food markets and culture.

My experience at my family’s grocery store led me to work in health policy. While I appreciate the benefits of an approach that promotes individual empowerment, behavior change and advocacy, I also worry about its tremendous pitfalls. Instead of putting the burden on consumers to avoid harmful chemicals, I believe that the federal government should take responsibility and adopt policies to decrease the contaminants in our lives.

Environmental women’s health education and advocacy provides an opportunity to direct the focus away from personal responsibility and consumer behaviors and toward the need for better regulation. The United States barely regulates either the presence of chemicals in our products or the industries that increase pollution in our communities. Cosmetics, for example, have no real safety standards. Further enforcement of existing laws on these products is desperately needed; yet, to date, the U.S. has only banned five chemicals from cosmetics.⁴ The regulatory structure in this country only addresses acute reactions to chemicals, and unfortunately, there are no defined safety standards to which manufacturers must adhere.4 Growing concerns about these chemicals arise from the question of how consistent exposure to small amounts of toxins impacts our health. Advocacy groups have gathered together information about possible toxins present in personal care products; the Environmental Working Group has produced “Skin Deep” a comprehensive database of ingredients found in thousands of products.

Partly because of the inability of the federal government to regulate the cosmetics industry, in 2005, California passed the Safe Cosmetics Act -- the first law to specifically address the chemicals found in personal care products. The law stipulates that corporations must notify the State if their products contain chemicals that have been linked to either cancer or adverse reproductive health effects.⁵ Still, notification is not the same as regulation. The federal government should better regulate the products allowed to be on the market. With loopholes in federal law, apart from a handful of ingredients, corporations can put products on the market without an FDA review.

Further, consumer choices and personal behaviors related to health are not only shaped by information and “choice,” but also by access, the availability of resources, and other social determinants. We should use every possible opportunity to highlight lack of access and bring attention to the government’s inadequacy in providing health coverage and support services to those in need.

In addition to empowering women with the best health information we have available, let’s bring attention to the environments -- social, political, and physical -- that increase the prevalence of toxic chemicals in our lives. Let’s bring attention to the lack of access, support, education and job opportunities that influence the choices people can make about what they buy and how they treat their bodies. With this lens, we have a better chance of making lasting change at the policy level on topics that include, but go beyond, environmental health. These changes will help increase freedoms and therefore improve personal behaviors, leading to better health for everybody. For more information, see: Environmental Working Group, The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and Women’s Voices for the Earth.

REFERENCES

1. Women’s Health & the Environment, What We Know: New Science Linking Our Health and the Environment, Bolinas, CA: Women’s Health & the Environment, April, 2007. Online at: http://wwww.womenshealthandenvironment.org/toolkit.

2. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, “Unmasked: 10 Ugly Truths Behind the Myth of Cosmetic Safety,” The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. Retrieved September 29, 2007 from http://www.safecosmetics.org/docUploads/Unmasked%202007%5Ffinal%2Epdf.

3. Houlihan J, Brody C and B Schwan. Not Too Pretty: Phthalates, Beauty Products & the FDA, Washington, DC: Environmental Working Group, July 2002.

4. Women’s Health & the Environment, What We Can Do: Community Efforts to Protect Our Health, Bolinas, CA: Women’s Health & the Environment, April 2007. Online at: http://www.womenandtheenvironment.org/toolkit.

5. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “Governor Signs Safe Cosmetics Bill,” The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, October, 2005. Retrieved August 31, 2007 from http://www.safecosmetics.org/newsroom/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=13.

Emily Alexander is the Coordinator of Research and Policy at the National Institute for Reproductive Health.