Cumulative Environmental Impacts: Science and Policy to Protect Communities

Solomon, Gina; Morello‐Frosch, Rachel; Zeise, Lauren; Faust, John B.

doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021807

Cited by 96 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…17–20 Workers in the beauty industry, who are predominantly women of color and immigrant women, can also face occupational health hazards from chemicals in professional cosmetic products and ad-hoc workplace safety standards. 21–23 Cumulative assessments of environmental risk factors among socially marginalized groups have historically prioritized place-based pollution sources, such as polluting industries or high traffic density, 24, 25 however, beauty product exposures may be elevated in some of the same communities that encounter disproportionate exposures to place-based pollution. 26, 27 …”

Section: Pre-existing Vulnerabilities and Cumulative Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The environmental injustice of beauty: framing chemical exposures from beauty products as a health disparities concern

Zota

Shamasunder

2017

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

184

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ObGyn community has issued a call to action to prevent toxic environmental chemical exposures and their threats to healthy human reproduction. Recent committee opinions recognize that vulnerable and underserved women may be disproportionately impacted by environmental chemical exposures and recommend that reproductive health professionals champion policies that secure environmental justice. Beauty product use is an understudied source of environmental chemical exposures. Beauty products can include reproductive and developmental toxicants such as phthalates and heavy metals; however, disclosure requirements are limited and inconsistent. Compared to White women, women of color have higher levels of beauty product-related environmental chemicals in their bodies, independent of socioeconomic status. Even small exposures to toxic chemicals during critical periods of development, such as pregnancy, can trigger adverse health consequences such as impacts on fertility and pregnancy, neurodevelopment, and cancer. In this commentary, we seek to highlight the connections between environmental justice and beauty product-related chemical exposures. We describe racial/ethnic differences in beauty product use such as skin lighteners, hair straighteners, and feminine hygiene products as well as the potential chemical exposures and health risks associated with these products. We also discuss how targeted advertising can take advantage of mainstream beauty norms to influence use of these products. Reproductive health professionals can use this information to advance environmental justice by being prepared to counsel patients who have questions about toxic environmental exposures from beauty care products and other sources. Researchers and health care providers can also promote health-protective policies such as improved ingredient testing and disclosure for the beauty product industry. Future clinical and public health research should consider beauty product use as a factor that may shape health inequities in women’s reproductive health across the life course.

show abstract

Section: Pre-existing Vulnerabilities and Cumulative Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The environmental injustice of beauty: framing chemical exposures from beauty products as a health disparities concern

Zota

Shamasunder

2017

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

184

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The importance of the cumulative effects of chemical and stress exposures has been identified as a key research need [22, 23] and while there is general acknowledgement that there is likely to be a cumulative effect, to our knowledge there has been no systematic review of the human and animal evidence that holistically evaluates scientific findings regarding whether combined exposures to chemicals and stress are worse than either alone, and if there interactive effects. Advancing our knowledge in this area will enhance understanding about the complexity of risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes and inform interventions, such as whether targeting one or the other during the prenatal period is sufficient to reduce the likelihood of adverse health impacts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cumulative effects of prenatal-exposure to exogenous chemicals and psychosocial stress on fetal growth: Systematic-review of the human and animal evidence

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAdverse effects of prenatal stress or environmental chemical exposures on fetal growth are well described, yet their combined effect remains unclear.ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review on the combined impact and interaction of prenatal exposure to stress and chemicals on developmental outcomes.MethodsWe used the first three steps of the Navigation Guide systematic review. We wrote a protocol, performed a robust literature search to identify relevant animal and human studies and extracted data on developmental outcomes. For the most common outcome (fetal growth), we evaluated risk of bias, calculated effect sizes for main effects of individual and combined exposures, and performed a random effects meta-analysis of those studies reporting on odds of low birthweight (LBW) by smoking and socioeconomic status (SES).ResultsWe identified 17 human- and 22 animal-studies of combined chemical and stress exposures and fetal growth. Human studies tended to have a lower risk of bias across nine domains. Generally, we found stronger effects for chemicals than stress, and these exposures were associated with reduced fetal growth in the low-stress group and the association was often greater in high stress groups, with limited evidence of effect modification. We found smoking associated with significantly increased odds of LBW, with a greater effect for high stress (low SES; OR 4.75 (2.46–9.16)) compared to low stress (high SES; OR 1.95 (95% CI 1.53–2.48)). Animal studies generally had a high risk of bias with no significant combined effect or effect modification.ConclusionsWe found that despite concern for the combined effects of environmental chemicals and stress, this is still an under-studied topic, though limited available human studies indicate chemical exposures exert stronger effects than stress, and this effect is generally larger in the presence of stress.

show abstract

“…These include health risk assessments, ecologic risk assessment, health impact assessment, biomonitoring, assessments of the burden of disease, and mapping of cumulative impacts (128). Health risk assessments rely not just on epidemiologic studies in humans, but also on controlled exposure studies in humans (97), toxicologic studies in animals, and mechanistic studies (98).…”

Section: Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Determinants of Breast Cancer

Hiatt

Brody

2024

Annual Review of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the United States, breast cancer is the most common invasive malignancy and the second most common cause of death from cancer in women. Reproductive factors, estrogen, and progesterone have major causal roles, but concerns about other potential causes in the external environment continue to drive research inquiries and stimulate calls for action at the policy level. The environment is defined as anything that is not genetic and includes social, built, and chemical toxicant aspects. This review covers the scope of known and suspected environmental factors that have been associated with breast cancer and illustrates how epidemiology, toxicology, and mechanistic studies work together to create the full picture of environmental effects on this malignancy. Newer approaches to risk-related evaluations may allow this field to move forward and more clearly delineate actionable environmental causes of this most common of cancers in women.

show abstract

Cumulative Environmental Impacts: Science and Policy to Protect Communities

Cited by 96 publications

References 50 publications

The environmental injustice of beauty: framing chemical exposures from beauty products as a health disparities concern

The environmental injustice of beauty: framing chemical exposures from beauty products as a health disparities concern

Cumulative effects of prenatal-exposure to exogenous chemicals and psychosocial stress on fetal growth: Systematic-review of the human and animal evidence

Environmental Determinants of Breast Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About