Policy Issues in Environmental Health Disputes

Abstract

This article compares the state of policies concerning three different diseases/conditions with putative environmental factors: asthma, breast cancer, and Gulf War-related illnesses. By comparing the state of four different types of policies--research funding, regulations, compensation/treatment, and citizen participation--the authors demonstrate the dynamic relationship between policies and health social movements. They identify four factors that shape policy for these three diseases: the science base supporting the environmental causation hypothesis, prevalence and perception of risk, the sources of support for the environmental causation hypothesis, and the strength of health social movements. All four factors contribute to policy outcomes, but they find the strength of health social movements to be particularly important for the three diseases they examine. In some cases, social movement activity can be more important than the strength of the science base in terms of policy outcome success.

A vehicle for research

“…† Instead, we take the view that it is helpful to understand what (relatively) immediate steps might be † We do not have space to address open-ended questions such as the role of science in environmental decision-making processes [20]; the efficacy of various means of achieving environmental goals (e.g., "command and control" regulation vs. incentives [4,32]); what constitutes a "natural" environment [7] and, by implication, what kind of environment citizens can justly demand; the long-term aims of environmental action in terms of societal structure (e.g., the "deep green" vs. "bright green" debate in sustainability [36]); or the morality of different conceptual frameworks for balancing interests in environmental policy-making (e.g., economics vs. social justice [27,32,34]) -to give just a few examples. taken because there are many documented examples in which local (albeit usually non-technological) interventions have had success in the past [2,5,32] and because this is a realistic scope for action in the context of HCI research.…”

“…There is a vast literature on environmental policy, drawing from disciplines such as political science and public policy (e.g., [2,32]), social studies of science (e.g., [19,20]), environmental sociology (e.g., [4,9]), and urban planning and public health (e.g., [6]). However, as is frequently pointed out [4], field research in this area typically focuses on a single organizational actor (e.g., an ethnography of a specific social movement organization such as Greenpeace) or on a class of such actors (e.g., a historical analysis of regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)).…”

“…Importantly for technologists wishing to design interventions, the viewpoints and interactions of many different actors within a single context are rarely considered. Similarly, while there are many studies of interventions by environmental activist organizations (e.g., [2,6]), there are no field studies that consider the role of novel technological interventions.…”

The Social Construction of Occupational Health and Safety: Barriers to Environmental-Labor Health Coalitions

“…It serves corporate interests by necessitating lengthy research projects before action can be taken regarding suspected harms. Moreover, research results can always be called into question [74]. Quantitative risk assessment obscures value questions such as social justice [73].…”

“…Moreover, the idea that work engenders different cultures is challenged by changing patterns of work that encourage more planning and autonomy in blue-collar jobs 12. Bullard[74] found that grassroots environmental groups attracted African Americans because it grew out of churches and other civic groups committed to civil rights, as evidenced by the 1987 report by the Commission for Racial Justice of the United Church of Christ, Toxic Waste and Race in the United States.…”