Author: Frederica P. Perera, DrPH, PhD, is professor of Environmental Health Sciences and founder of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health where she served as director from 1998- 2019. She now leads the Center’s Program in Translational Research.
Dr. Perera is internationally recognized for pioneering the field of molecular epidemiology, utilizing biomarkers to understand links between environmental exposures and disease. She and her colleagues have applied advanced molecular and imaging techniques within longitudinal cohort studies of pregnant women and their children, with the goal of identifying preventable environmental risk factors for adverse birth outcomes, developmental and behavioral disorders, asthma, obesity and other diseases in children. The exposures studied include toxic chemicals, pesticides and air pollution, with particular focus on adverse effects of prenatal and early childhood exposures. Her current research addresses the multiple impacts on children’s health and development of climate change and air pollution due to fossil fuel emissions and the health and economic benefits of policies to reduce those emissions. (credits: https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/)
What is your opinion of the working definition of regeneration proposed by RSF, which defines regeneration as: “Creating new conditions for planetary self-sufficiency, i.e., the ability to regenerate depleted natural resources by rebalancing biocapacity and ecological footprint”?
The definition of regeneration provided by RSF is valuable and provocative, making us think creatively about our goals.
I largely agree with the central points of the definition, but I believe that equity, health, and wellbeing of present and future generations should be central to any definition of regeneration.
From my point of view the most interesting aspect of how RSF approaches regeneration is that it begins by trying to identify the essential needs of humanity, both in terms of economics and other aspects, and then attempts to reverse- engineer the way to achieve them in the most sustainable way. However, it raises the question of how to define these essential needs. Moreover, we must consider which entity would have the authority to determine what these central needs are.
Do you believe that the proposed definition is limited or inadequate for certain aspects? If so, how would you improve it?
The definition presented in the paper attempts to tackle the problem of regeneration from a conceptual and intellectual perspective, which is a noteworthy and important effort. However, it is equally important to see what it means on the smaller scale on which the Foundation and other similar entities operate. It would be useful to document and publicize key examples through detailed case studies that provide examples of how the definition is being translated into concrete reality.
It should also be acknowledged that companies by themselves are not sufficient to achieve regeneration. While companies play a central role, widespread social change also requires governmental policies to effectively address the challenges facing the planet and society.
Finally, the scale of the problem we are facing is enormous and we must acknowledge the existence of the gap between even some of the most ambitious proposals — for example the proposal to leave 30% of the land and oceans untouched by human intervention– and the ultimate goal according to RSF of reaching a new point of equilibrium that would allow the planet to regenerate itself. Our job is to provide real-life examples of progress toward this laudable goal in order to encourage more such action.
There cannot be any type of fight against climate change without addressing many other issues associated with our current system of production, starting from known pollutants and other emerging chemicals of concern. In your opinion, what practices should be implemented both by legislators and from within the industry to reduce their presence in the environment?
The term “green chemistry” refers to the combination of practices that are implemented to transition the chemical industry toward a more sustainable direction. There are many organizations, such as Clean Production Action and Toxic Free Future, that help companies produce their product in a less polluting and more sustainable way and thus are playing an instrumental role in helping this transition.
This is important as the chemical industry is not only the source of toxic chemicals affecting human and ecological health, but because fossil fuels are used both to produce chemicals and to provide the energy for production, releasing vast amounts of greenhouse gases, green chemistry and clean energy can help reduce both pollution and climate change due to industrial practices.
What are the chemicals that we need to address first?
PFAS are a clear and urgent target due to their persistence in the environment and their lack of regulation until recently. Another major issue in this area is that of substitution: due to the great complexity of these molecules it is often too easy to make minor modifications that create new compounds not yet regulated, even though they may be equally toxic and persistent. The difference in speed between the industry and review by the regulators often allows bad actors the freedom to act within the bounds of legality but in ways that are environmentally harmful.
Special attention should be given to chemicals that affect pregnant mothers and children because exposure to toxic chemicals can have repercussions over the entire life of an individual, causing incalculable damage even to the next generation.
Demonstrating the link between exposure to climate-change related pollutants (e.g., PM 2.5) and health outcomes can be instrumental in proving the existence of major co-benefits to climate change mitigation policies. How can health practitioners leverage these research efforts to promote more radical solutions?
Both adult and child health are strongly affected by exposure to PM2.5. Recently, I have been studying their effects on neurodevelopment, showing that these particles can reach the brain and influence its development, with long-term, adverse consequences.
Many studies have demonstrated the link between PM2.5 exposure and adverse birth outcomes, asthma and other respiratory illness in children, and effects on cognitive and behavioral development of children, as well as infant and adult deaths, even dementia and other neurodegenerative diseases in older adults. So the science supporting action is in place.
To incentivize governments to act, it is necessary to make the public care about these issues through effective communication of the issues, support of local initiatives, and engagement of trusted health professionals.
By documenting case studies that quantify the ecological and health and economic benefits of projects aimed at regeneration and climate change mitigation, we can motivate policymakers to act with the urgency required.