Structured expert judgement approach of the health impact of various chemicals and classes of chemicals.

INTRODUCTION: Chemical contamination and pollution are an ongoing threat to human health and the environment. The concern over the consequences of chemical exposures at the global level continues to grow. Because resources are constrained, there is a need to prioritize interventions focused on the greatest health impact. Data, especially related to chemical exposures, are rarely available for most substances of concern, and alternate methods to evaluate their impact are needed. STRUCTURED EXPERT JUDGMENT (SEJ) PROCESS: A Structured Expert Judgment (Research Outreach, 2021) process was performed to provide plausible estimates of health impacts for 16 commonly found pollutants: asbestos, arsenic, benzene, chromium, cadmium, dioxins, fluoride, highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), lead, mercury, polycyclic-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAs), phthalates, endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and brominated flame retardants (BRFs). This process, undertaken by sector experts, weighed individual estimations of the probable global health scale health impacts of each pollutant using objective estimates of the expert opinions' statistical accuracy and informativeness. MAIN FINDINGS: The foremost substances, in terms of mean projected annual total deaths, were lead, asbestos, arsenic, and HHPs. Lead surpasses the others by a large margin, with an estimated median value of 1.7 million deaths annually. The three other substances averaged between 136,000 and 274,000 deaths per year. Of the 12 other chemicals evaluated, none reached an estimated annual death count exceeding 100,000. These findings underscore the importance of prioritizing available resources on reducing and remediating the impacts of these key pollutants. RANGE OF HEALTH IMPACTS: Based on the evidence available, experts concluded some of the more notorious chemical pollutants, such as PCBs and dioxin, do not result in high levels of human health impact from a global scale perspective. However, the chemical toxicity of some compounds released in recent decades, such as Endocrine Disrupters and PFAs, cannot be ignored, even if current impacts are limited. Moreover, the impact of some chemicals may be disproportionately large in some geographic areas. Continued research and monitoring are essential; and a preventative approach is needed for chemicals. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: These results, and potential similar analyses of other chemicals, are provided as inputs to ongoing discussions about priority setting for global chemicals and pollution management. Furthermore, we suggest that this SEJ process be repeated periodically as new information becomes available.

Global health burden and cost of lead exposure in children and adults: a health impact and economic modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lead exposure is a worldwide health risk despite substantial declines in blood lead levels following the leaded gasoline phase-out. For the first time, to our knowledge, we aimed to estimate the global burden and cost of intelligence quotient (IQ) loss and cardiovascular disease mortality from lead exposure. METHODS: In this modelling study, we used country blood lead level estimates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019. We estimated IQ loss (presented as estimated loss in IQ points with 95% CIs) in the global population of children younger than 5 years using the blood lead level-IQ loss function from an international pooled analysis. We estimated the cost of IQ loss, which was calculated only for the proportion of children expected to enter the labour force, as the present value of loss in lifetime income from the IQ loss (presented as cost in US dollars and percentage of gross domestic product with a range). We estimated cardiovascular deaths (with 95% CIs) due to lead exposure among people aged 25 years or older using a health impact model that captures the effect of lead exposure on cardiovascular disease mortality that is mediated through mechanisms other than hypertension. Finally, we used values of statistical life to estimate the welfare cost of premature mortality (presented as cost in US dollars and percentage of GDP). All estimates were calculated by World Bank income classification and region (for low-income and middle-income countries [LMICs] only) for 2019. FINDINGS: We estimated that children younger than 5 years lost 765 million (95% CI 443-1098) IQ points and that 5 545 000 (2 305 000-8 271 000) adults died from cardiovascular disease in 2019 due to lead exposure. 729 million of the IQ points lost (95·3% of the total global IQ loss) and 5 004 000 (90·2% of total) cardiovascular disease deaths due to lead exposure occurred in LMICs. IQ loss in LMICs was nearly 80% higher than a previous estimate. Cardiovascular disease deaths were six times higher than the GBD 2019 estimate. The global cost of lead exposure was US$6·0 trillion (range 2·6-9·0) in 2019, which was equivalent to 6·9% (3·1-10·4) of the global gross domestic product. 77% (range 70-78) of the cost was the welfare cost of cardiovascular disease mortality, and 23% (22-30) was the present value of future income losses from IQ loss. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that global lead exposure has health and economic costs at par with PM2·5 air pollution. However, much work remains to improve the quality of blood lead level measurement data, especially in LMICs. FUNDING: The Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank's Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program.

Pollution and health: a progress update.

The Lancet Commission on pollution and health reported that pollution was responsible for 9 million premature deaths in 2015, making it the world's largest environmental risk factor for disease and premature death. We have now updated this estimate using data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuriaes, and Risk Factors Study 2019. We find that pollution remains responsible for approximately 9 million deaths per year, corresponding to one in six deaths worldwide. Reductions have occurred in the number of deaths attributable to the types of pollution associated with extreme poverty. However, these reductions in deaths from household air pollution and water pollution are offset by increased deaths attributable to ambient air pollution and toxic chemical pollution (ie, lead). Deaths from these modern pollution risk factors, which are the unintended consequence of industrialisation and urbanisation, have risen by 7% since 2015 and by over 66% since 2000. Despite ongoing efforts by UN agencies, committed groups, committed individuals, and some national governments (mostly in high-income countries), little real progress against pollution can be identified overall, particularly in the low-income and middle-income countries, where pollution is most severe. Urgent attention is needed to control pollution and prevent pollution-related disease, with an emphasis on air pollution and lead poisoning, and a stronger focus on hazardous chemical pollution. Pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss are closely linked. Successful control of these conjoined threats requires a globally supported, formal science-policy interface to inform intervention, influence research, and guide funding. Pollution has typically been viewed as a local issue to be addressed through subnational and national regulation or, occasionally, using regional policy in higher-income countries. Now, however, it is increasingly clear that pollution is a planetary threat, and that its drivers, its dispersion, and its effects on health transcend local boundaries and demand a global response. Global action on all major modern pollutants is needed. Global efforts can synergise with other global environmental policy programmes, especially as a large-scale, rapid transition away from all fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy is an effective strategy for preventing pollution while also slowing down climate change, and thus achieves a double benefit for planetary health.

A Systematic Framework for Collecting Site-Specific Sampling and Survey Data to Support Analyses of Health Impacts from Land-Based Pollution in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

The rise of small-scale and localized economic activities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has led to increased exposures to contaminants associated with these processes and the potential for resulting adverse health effects in exposed communities. Risk assessment is the process of building models to predict the probability of adverse outcomes based on concentration-response functions and exposure scenarios for individual contaminants, while epidemiology uses statistical methods to explore associations between potential exposures and observed health outcomes. Neither approach by itself is practical or sufficient for evaluating the magnitude of exposures and health impacts associated with land-based pollution in LMICs. Here we propose a more pragmatic framework for designing representative studies, including uniform sampling guidelines and household surveys, that draws from both methodologies to better support community health impact analyses associated with land-based pollution sources in LMICs. Our primary goal is to explicitly link environmental contamination from land-based pollution associated with specific localized economic activities to community exposures and health outcomes at the household level. The proposed framework was applied to the following three types of industries that are now widespread in many LMICs: artisanal scale gold mining (ASGM), used lead-acid battery recycling (ULAB), and small tanning facilities. For each activity, we develop a generalized conceptual site model (CSM) that describes qualitative linkages from chemical releases or discharges, environmental fate and transport mechanisms, exposure pathways and routes, populations at risk, and health outcomes. This upfront information, which is often overlooked, is essential for delineating the contaminant zone of influence in a community and identifying relevant households for study. We also recommend cost-effective methods for use in LMICs related to environmental sampling, biological monitoring, survey questionnaires, and health outcome measurements at contaminated and unexposed reference sites. Future study designs based on this framework will facilitate consistent, comparable, and standardized community exposure, risk, and health impact assessments for land-based pollution in LMICs. The results of these studies can also support economic burden analyses and risk management decision-making around site cleanup, risk mitigation, and public health education.

Risk Analysis Approaches to Evaluating Health Impacts from Land-Based Pollution in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Risk analysis offers a useful framework for evaluating and managing environmental health risks across different settings. In this Perspective, we question whether the principles and practice of risk analysis could be beneficial in the context of land-based pollution in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to better support risk-based decision making. Specifically, potential health and economic impacts from land-based pollution in LMICs has become an increasing issue of concern due to widespread environmental contamination from active and legacy operations, particularly informal activities that are becoming increasingly dispersed throughout communities, such as used lead acid battery recycling, artisanal and small-scale gold mining, and small-scale tanneries. However, the overall magnitude and scale of the public health problem arising from these sources remains highly uncertain and poorly characterized and cannot be compared to land-based pollution in high-income countries due to unique factors. This lack of knowledge has negatively affected the political priority and level of funding for risk mitigation actions targeting land-based pollution in these countries. Our primary objective is to raise further awareness of this emerging issue among risk analysts and decisionmakers and to advocate for more robust and focused research. Here, we highlight the types of industries and activities contributing to land-based pollution in LMICs and describe key findings and knowledge and data gaps that have hindered a fuller understanding of this issue. We also discuss how several risk assessment and risk management approaches might be useful in this resource-constrained context. We conclude that a combination of risk analysis approaches may be worthwhile, but more work is needed to determine which methods or tools will be most informative, technically feasible, and cost-effective for identifying, prioritizing, and mitigating land-based pollution in LMICs. Affected researchers, funding agencies, and local or national governments will need to work together to develop improved study designs and risk mitigation strategies.