Volume 4, March 2004
www.psljournal.com/archives/newsedit/iom.cfm
The
Intersections of Trade and Environmental Health:
Discussion
of the Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences,
Research,
and Medicine
Christine
Coussens, Ph.D.*
* Study Director, Institute of Medicine’s Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences Research and
Medicine
The
Institute of Medicine’s Roundtable
on Environmental Health Sciences, Research, and Medicine was formed in 1998 to
provide a neutral setting for individuals with different backgrounds and
perspectives to discuss sensitive issues of mutual interest. By bringing
together participants from the academic community, federal government,
industry, and other sectors who are actively engaged in activities related to
environmental health, the Roundtable helps to identify problems—current or
potential—and by considers approaches to solving them. The aim is to share
knowledge and ideas, but not proffer formal advice or recommendations.
At
its 11th meeting, held on November
10, 2003, the Roundtable began a discussion of the environmental
health impacts of international trade and globalization. John Froines, Associate Director of the Southern California Environmental
Health Sciences Center at the University of California, Los Angeles,
defined globalization as a process by which nations, businesses, and
individuals across the globe—by means of economic integration, communications,
cultural diffusion, and travel—become interdependent. Globalization is not a
new idea, he acknowledged; humankind has been pushing against borders and
exploring, expanding, conquering, and assimilating from time immemorial
(Labonte, 2003). This process has been in effect for a long time, and yet, it
is obviously different in terms of its speed, content, and direction at this
point in history. In any case, Froines noted, while the economic, social, and
environmental impacts of the phenomenon are becoming inherently global, but the
health impacts are primarily local.
The
Honorable Frank Loy, former Undersecretary of State
for Global Affairs, noted that the World Trade Organization (WTO), which
regulates global trade, was built by lawyers and businesspeople for the purpose
of facilitating and increasing trade—not for safeguarding the environment or
human health. However, in its basic statute, the Global Agreement on Trade and
Tariffs (GATT), the WTO does specifically give countries the right to adopt
measures designed to protect life and health, as long as they are applied in
nondiscriminatory ways and are reasonable actions for the stated purposes—i.e.,
they are necessary, and not trade restrictions in disguise. Nevertheless, the
lack of transparency in the WTO’s procedures, together with the absence of
formal mechanisms for direct input from the scientific community, causes concern
in various community groups about WTO’s commitment to protecting environmental
health. Also, the criteria for action are ambiguous. Although the Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro in 1992
concluded that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage to
the environment, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation,” interpretation of this precautionary principle may vary. One
prominent example is the continuing trade dispute between the United
States and the European Union regarding
genetically modified organisms (GMOs), where a multilateral agreement (e.g.,
biosafety protocol) threatens to clash with the GATT (see below).
John
Audley, Director of the Trade, Equity, and
Development Project of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
noted that the Grossman-Kruger study of 1991 connected increases in income to
improvements in environmental quality. He suggested that when individuals have
more money, they can afford to pay more attention to air, water quality, and
waste disposal. They pay more taxes, enabling governments to afford to provide
these services, resulting in an increase in the quality of life and
environmental protection. Adding trade liberalization to the equation
encourages businesses to internalize environmental costs to produce a cheaper
and more environmentally friendly product. Using Mexico as an
example, he noted that the environment is dirtier there than it was a decade
ago, but the average incomes remain under the $8,000 mark argued for by the
Grosssman-Kruger study. He suggested that the industries didn’t move to Mexico to
necessarily externalize environmental costs, but Mexicans haven’t hit the
$8,000 mark to enable citizens to take the next steps.
Audley
also offered some examples of the direct use of trade instruments to accomplish
environmental-policy objectives. Developing countries, within the context of
trade negotiation, have requested international technical assistance and
capacity-building to address their own environmental priorities such as water
quality, air quality, solid waste management, and pesticides. In exchange for
such technical assistance, developing countries would open markets. As trade
advances, we need to make sure that communities are able to put forward their
own environmental protection and public health proposals. Citizens need to be
empowered with information and a role in decision making. Governments must make
a commitment to enforce their own laws and be accountable for that commitment,
concluded Audley.
Lynn
Goldman, M.D., Professor, Bloomberg School of Public Health, continued the
discussion by focusing on the complexity of biotechnology. She noted that
biotechnology has become a more ubiquitous part of everything we do in the United
States, and not all of biotechnology is a
source of dispute between the U.S. and the
European Union. The main controversy surrounds the use of genetic modified
organisms (GMO) as a food source. The EU is working on a law to regulate these
GMOs that is more restrictive than US law because
it requires labeling; it has put a moratorium on imports pending finalization
of the new law. Underlying the difference is that the EU has more of a
precautionary approach on this issue than the U.S. (There are
other areas where the U.S. takes a more
precautionary approach.) The health risks from GMO consumption aren’t easy to
demonstrate, however, for products on the market to date, we don’t have clear
environmental and health benefits. According to Goldman, where there are
questionable benefits, it is easier for people to adopt a precautionary
approach to new technology.
International
trade creates significant transportation-related environmental health impacts,
according to Andrea Hricko, MPH, of the Southern California Environmental
Health Sciences Center, based at the Keck School of Medicine, University of
Southern California (USC). For example, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach—the main U.S. distribution
center for Pacific Rim trade—have expanded to become
the third-largest port complex in the world. Economic development advocates
argue that port expansion is driving the region’s economy, but others question
the wage levels of jobs created by goods movement. The ports are the single
leading source of air pollution, such as NOx emissions and
particulate matter in the South Coast Air Basin. Emission
sources include unregulated container ships, small service ships and equipment
to offload the containers, as well as heavy-duty trucks and trains which move
cargo. As the ports continue to expand, emissions will rise in the port area
and along major highways and rail routes as more trucks and trains are needed
to move an increasing volume of containers. This raises concerns about health
impacts, according to Hricko. For example, USC studies show that children
living in the more air polluted communities of Southern
California have reduced lung function, growth, and more school
absences than children living in less polluted communities. Hricko concluded
that discussions about economics and congestion currently overwhelm
considerations of health in the transportation planning process. The challenge
ahead is for health scientists to engage with regional planners as port and
related infrastructure (e.g., freeway) expansion plans are being considered.
While
globalization has the potential to improve living standards as trade expands,
said Harley Shaiken, Director of the Center for Latin-American Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, fierce
global pressures are pushing down wages and undermining working conditions,
thereby threatening environmental health. He noted in particular that as China, Brazil, and Mexico have emerged
as manufacturing powers based on their low labor costs in combination with
high-quality production, their relative lack of labor rights has contributed to
serious worker-health problems. But he also pointed out that times are
changing. During the height of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
debate in the mid-1990s, the dominant perspective was that expanded trade
should come first, with improvements in working conditions and the environment
coming later. Today the perspective has shifted, Skaiken reported, so that
environmental health and labor issues are discussed in combination with trade
issues right from the start.
Raphael
Moure-Eraso, chair of the Department of Work Environment at the University of
Massachusetts, Lowell, added that in the era of globalization, worker health is
tied not only to the safety of the workplace but to the quality of the
environment in general, and that worker health is an indicator of community
health. There is thus a triple “bottom line”—fiscal, social, and environmental
responsibility—for industry to maintain. He also noted that while
pollution-prevention technologies have been affording increased protection for
workers and the community, progress is needed in making systems for waste
management more effective from an environmental health point of view. For example, waste management is the least
effective for protecting health and the environment. Implementation of waste
minimization provides increasing protection, while pollution prevention
provides the best protection for workers and the community. He suggested by looking
at technologies associated with the best protection for health and environment
is where industries need to focus while building capacity in other countries.
The
Roundtable’s program concluded with general discussions about the role of
science in trade agreements, the need for better use of technology by
developing countries, and the United
States’s increased responsibility to support
infrastructure and research programs in those countries.
Reference
Labonte, R. 2003. “Globalization, Trade and Health:
Unpacking the Linkages, Defining the Healthy Public Policy Options.” In Health and Social Justice: Politics,
Ideology and Inequity in the Distribution of Disease, R. Hofrichter, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
