Social movements organised around health-related issues have been studied for almost as long as they have existed, yet social movement theory has not yet been applied to these movements. Health social movements (HSMs) are centrally organised around health, and address: (a) access to or provision of health care services; (b) health inequality and inequity based on race, ethnicity, gender, class and/or sexuality; and/or (c) disease, illness experience, disability and contested illness. HSMs can be subdivided into three categories: health access movements seek equitable access to health care and improved provision of health care services; constituencybased health movements address health inequality and health inequity based on race, ethnicity, gender, class and/or sexuality differences; and embodied health movements (EHMs) address disease, disability or illness experience by challenging science on etiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention. These groups address disproportionate outcomes and oversight by the scientific community and/or weak science. This article focuses on embodied health movements, primarily in the US. These are unique in three ways: 1) they introduce the biological body to social movements, especially with regard to the embodied experience of people with the disease; 2) they typically include challenges to existing medical / scientific knowledge and practice; and 3) they often involve activists collaborating with scientists and health professionals in pursuing treatment, prevention, research and expanded funding. This article employs various elements of social movement theory to offer an approach to understanding embodied health movements, and provides a capsule example of one such movement, the environmental breast cancer movement.

This study examines links between racial residential segregation and estimated ambient air toxics exposures and their associated cancer risks using modeled concentration estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Air Toxics Assessment. We combined pollutant concentration estimates with potencies to calculate cancer risks by census tract for 309 metropolitan areas in the United States. This information was combined with socioeconomic status (SES) measures from the 1990 Census. Estimated cancer risks associated with ambient air toxics were highest in tracts located in metropolitan areas that were highly segregated. Disparities between racial/ethnic groups were also wider in more segregated metropolitan areas. Multivariate modeling showed that, after controlling for tract-level SES measures, increasing segregation amplified the cancer risks associated with ambient air toxics for all racial groups combined [highly segregated areas: relative cancer risk (RCR) = 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01–107; extremely segregated areas: RCR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.28–1.36]. This segregation effect was strongest for Hispanics (highly segregated areas: RCR = 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01–1.17; extremely segregated areas: RCR = 1.74; 95% CI, 1.61–1.88) and weaker among whites (highly segregated areas: RCR = 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01–1.08; extremely segregated areas: RCR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.24–1.33), African Americans (highly segregated areas: RCR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.98–1.21; extremely segregated areas: RCR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.24–1.53), and Asians (highly segregated areas: RCR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.97–1.24; extremely segregated areas: RCR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.16–1.51). Results suggest that disparities associated with ambient air toxics are affected by segregation and that these exposures may have health significance for populations across racial lines.

Racial or ethnic minority groups and low-income communities have poorer health outcomes than others. They are more frequently exposed to multiple environmental hazards and social stressors, including poverty, poor housing quality, and social inequality. Researchers are grappling with how best to characterize the cumulative effects of these hazards and stressors in order to help regulators and decision makers craft more-effective policies to address health and environmental disparities. In this article we synthesize the existing scientific evidence regarding the cumulative health implications of higher rates of exposure to environmental hazards, along with individual biological susceptibility and social vulnerability. We conclude that current environmental policy, which is focused narrowly on pollutants and their sources, should be broadened to take into account the cumulative impact of exposures and vulnerabilities encountered by people who live in neighborhoods consisting largely of racial or ethnic minorities or people of low socioeconomic status.

Background: A growing body of evidence has associated maternal exposure to air pollution with adverse effects on fetal growth; however, the existing literature is inconsistent.Objectives: We aimed to quantify the association between maternal exposure to particulate air pollution and term birth weight and low birth weight (LBW) across 14 centers from 9 countries, and to explore the influence of site characteristics and exposure assessment methods on between-center heterogeneity in this association.Methods: Using a common analytical protocol, International Collaboration on Air Pollution and Pregnancy Outcomes (ICAPPO) centers generated effect estimates for term LBW and continuous birth weight associated with PM10 and PM2.5 (particulate matter ≤ 10 and 2.5 µm). We used meta-analysis to combine the estimates of effect across centers (~ 3 million births) and used meta-regression to evaluate the influence of center characteristics and exposure assessment methods on between-center heterogeneity in reported effect estimates.Results: In random-effects meta-analyses, term LBW was positively associated with a 10-μg/m3 increase in PM10 [odds ratio (OR) = 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.05] and PM2.5 (OR = 1.10; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.18) exposure during the entire pregnancy, adjusted for maternal socioeconomic status. A 10-μg/m3 increase in PM10 exposure was also negatively associated with term birth weight as a continuous outcome in the fully adjusted random-effects meta-analyses (–8.9 g; 95% CI: –13.2, –4.6 g). Meta-regressions revealed that centers with higher median PM2.5 levels and PM2.5:PM10 ratios, and centers that used a temporal exposure assessment (compared with spatiotemporal), tended to report stronger associations.Conclusion: Maternal exposure to particulate pollution was associated with LBW at term across study populations. We detected three site characteristics and aspects of exposure assessment methodology that appeared to contribute to the variation in associations reported by centers.

BackgroundResearch indicates that the double jeopardy of exposure to environmental hazards combined with place-based stressors is associated with maternal and child health (MCH) disparities.Objective and DiscussionOur aim is to present evidence that individual-level and place-based psychosocial stressors may compromise host resistance such that environmental pollutants would have adverse health effects at relatively lower doses, thus partially explaining MCH disparities, particularly poor birth outcomes. Allostatic load may be a physiologic mechanism behind the moderation of the toxic effect of environmental pollutants by social stressors. We propose a conceptual framework for holistic approaches to future MCH research that elucidates the interplay of psychosocial stressors and environmental hazards in order to better explain drivers of MCH disparities.ConclusionGiven the complexity of the link between environmental factors and MCH disparities, a holistic approach to future MCH research that seeks to untangle the double jeopardy of chronic stressors and environmental hazard exposures could help elucidate how the interplay of these factors shapes persistent racial and economic disparities in MCH.

Studies show higher house dust and body burden levels of PBDE flame retardants in North America than Europe; but little is known about exposure variation within North America, where California’s furniture flammability standard affects PBDE use. We compared dust samples from 49 homes in two California communities with 120 Massachusetts homes and with other published studies. Dust concentrations [median (range) ng/g] in California homes of BDE-47, -99, and -100 were 2700 (112-107 000), 3800 (102-170 000), and 684 (

In the last few decades, community based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged as an important approach that links environmental health and justice advocates with research institutions to understand and address environmental health problems. CBPR has generally been evaluated for its impact on policy, regulation, and its support of community science. However, there has been less emphasis on assessing the ways in which CBPR (re)shapes and potentially improves the scientific enterprise itself. This commentary focuses on this under-emphasized aspect of CBPR—how it can strengthen science. Using two case studies of environmental health CBPR research—the Northern California Exposure Study, and the San Joaquin Valley Drinking Water Study—we posit that CBPR helps improve the “3 R’s”of science—rigor, relevance and reach—and in so doing benefits the scientific enterprise itself.

Environmental justice offers researchers new insights into the juncture of social inequality and public health and provides a framework for policy discussions on the impact of discrimination on the environmental health of diverse communities in the United States. Yet, causally linking the presence of potentially hazardous facilities or environmental pollution with adverse health effects is difficult, particularly in situations in which diverse populations are exposed to complex chemical mixtures. A community-academic research collaborative in southern California sought to address some of these methodological challenges by conducting environmental justice research that makes use of recent advances in air emissions inventories and air exposure modeling data. Results from several of our studies indicate that communities of color bear a disproportionate burden in the location of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities and Toxic Release Inventory facilities. Longitudinal analysis further suggests that facility siting in communities of color, not market-based "minority move-in," accounts for these disparities. The collaborative also investigated the health risk implications of outdoor air toxics exposures from mobile and stationary sources and found that race plays an explanatory role in predicting cancer risk distributions among populations in the region, even after controlling for other socioeconomic and demographic indicators. Although it is unclear whether study results from southern California can be meaningfully generalized to other regions in the United States, they do have implications for approaching future research in the realm of environmental justice. The authors propose a political economy and social inequality framework to guide future research that could better elucidate the origins of environmental inequality and reasons for its persistence. Key words: air toxics; cancer; environmental justice; risk; social inequality; treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.