By Anmol Gulecha, PhD candidate at Tilburg University, the Netherlands

In May of this year, the World Health Assembly (WHA), the governing body of the World Health Organization (WHO), passed a groundbreaking resolution to investigate the scientific and risk-based assessment of the health implications of chemicals, waste, and pollution. This resolution exemplifies the changing attitudes within the WHO and other UN agencies, recognizing that environmental threats, health issues, climate concerns, and biodiversity preservation are interconnected and not isolated. Traditionally, the WHO’s role was understood to be focused on ‘diseases,’[1] but presently, there is a paradigm shift in how the WHO’s function is perceived in our interconnected world. This transformation is known as the “One Health” approach. Considering this shift, this blog post explores, first, whether the shift poses a challenge to the WHO’s functions, second, if the WHO possesses the necessary expertise to undertake this ‘new’ responsibility, and ultimately, who stands to benefit if the WHO conducts studies on the health impact of chemicals, waste, and pollution.

Why Study Health Implications Beyond ‘Diseases’

Unknowingly, all of us are exposed to hazardous chemicals from plastic pollution. The United Nations Environment Programme Report (UNEP) found that everyday items such as toys, furniture, building materials, and more, contain chemicals of concern in plastic. Furthermore, the report states, “Women and children are particularly susceptible to these toxic chemicals. Exposures can have severe or long-lasting adverse effects on several key period of a women’s life and may impact the next generations.” Alongside suggestions to improve capacity-building to remove these chemicals from the environment, the UNEP report, most importantly, calls for standard-setting on hazardous substances in developed and developing countries.

All Within the Functions of the WHO.

The WHO’s attention and future study on health implications of chemicals, waste, and pollution is just one of several studies under WHO’s focus, across a wide range of health topics such as adolescent health and prisons to road traffic accidents, sunburn, and suicide. While these topics are socially important, critics argue that the WHO’s lack of focus on core issues undermines its effectiveness. Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, a global health research charity based in the UK, expressed concerns about the WHO’s capacity, stating that covering all these topics at sufficient depth is impossible for any organization to be authoritative.

On the contrary, this blog argues that conducting research on the health effects of chemical waste to advance the One Health initiative is not stretching the mission of the WHO too thin, but rather an essential step for international organizations like the WHO to thrive. The blog presents two key points to support this argument: the necessity of such research and the fact that it falls squarely within the scope of the WHO constitution.

First, in today’s increasingly globalized world, health risks are becoming more interconnected, and issues at the interface of human, animal, and environmental health cannot be examined in isolation. Consequently, there is a pressing need to develop a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of specific human activities, lifestyles, and behaviors within ecosystems. Peru, one of the State Parties who sponsored the resolution, experiences pollution from illegal gold mining in the Peruvian Amazon. Therefore for States like Peru, data on the health effects of chemical and plastic pollution is crucial for accurately interpreting disease dynamics and informing effective public policies.

Second, the WHO Constitution acknowledges the existence of an interconnected working system. It offers a comprehensive definition of health, encompassing not only the absence of disease or infirmity but also complete physical, mental, and social well-being. In continuation of the definition, the WHO’s responsibilities extend beyond disease prevention. Its functions include fostering collaboration between the United Nations and other organizations, establishing health services, promoting cooperation among scientific and professional groups contributing to health advancement, and conducting research in the field of health. Finally, even the 13th program of the WHO setting out its strategic direction recognizes the complex interplay of various threats to health and well-being, ranging from poverty and inequality to conflict and climate change. While an issue such as poverty is not “disease” related, then how come it falls within the purview of the WHO? The answer is simple, “poverty is a major cause of ill health and a barrier to accessing health care when needed.” Thus, by improving healthcare, we can tackle poverty. Thus, poverty becomes a focus issue of the WHO.

Although the WHO’s Constitution does not explicitly mention conducting research on chemical and plastic waste, ‘soft law documents’ such as the 13th program document formally recognises that the WHO possesses the authority to address all interconnected matters related to ‘health.’ Furthermore, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Reparations advisory opinion, has widely accepted that:

“under international law, [the WHO] must be deemed to have those powers which, though not expressly provided in the Charter, are conferred upon it by necessary implication as being essential to the performance of its duties.”

The WHO’s Authoritative expertise.

Coming to the point of the WHO’s expertise to conduct a risk assessment and produce data related to the health risk of chemical and plastic waste. Other than the fact that the WHO is a specialized international organization focusing on public health, the WHO’s Secretariat consists of experts. While scholars have raised issues of transparency and accountability of these WHO experts and their recommendations, the WHO still remains the foremost international organization with capabilities to conduct research on subject areas for an interconnected world.

Second, the WHO’s research trajectory on chemical, waste, and pollution is related to the One-health approach. The WHO is a member of the One Health Quadripartite along with the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health and the United Nations Environment Programme. The four organizations work together to promote multisectoral responses to public health threats in the animal-human-environment interface and provide technical advice on reducing these risks.

Third, coming to the aspect of specialized expertise, a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for One Health is the principal advisory group to the WHO Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe) on One Health. Thus, by virtue of its mandate as a specialized organization supported by expert groups and the potential for collaboration with other international organizations, the WHO possesses expertise to handle interconnected issued of health.

Conclusion: We Need Standardized Data Now More Than Ever

When the WHO publishes a study on chemicals, waste, and pollution, it offers significant benefits to various stakeholders. This study plays a crucial role in reducing uncertainty regarding potential health risks associated with chemical and waste pollution. By providing comprehensive research and analysis, the WHO study offers valuable insights into the impact of these pollutants on human health. From an analytical perspective, the WHO study contributes to the reduction of uncertainty by consolidating existing scientific knowledge, conducting new research, and evaluating the potential risks posed by chemicals and waste. By systematically analyzing available data and conducting thorough assessments, the study helps to clarify the potential health effects of these pollutants, thus addressing uncertainties that may exist.

Moreover, the study serves as an essential resource for policymakers. By presenting robust scientific evidence, the WHO study empowers policymakers to make informed decisions based on the latest research findings. The data and insights provided by the study can guide the development of science-based policies aimed at mitigating the risks associated with chemicals and waste pollution.

The availability of a WHO study on chemicals, waste, and pollution enables policymakers to adopt evidence-based approaches. Policymakers can rely on the study’s findings to design effective strategies and regulations that prioritize public health and environmental protection. By aligning their decisions with the scientific evidence presented in the study, policymakers can establish a solid and practically operational basis for decision-making. Lastly, the general public benefits from the study by gaining access to reliable information that helps them make informed choices to reduce their exposure to harmful pollutants.

Photo: WHO headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland

[1] Kelley Lee and Julia Smith, ‘International Organization and Health/Disease’ (2010) Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of International Studies, 4.