This is a summary of the Green Baby Day webinar which took place on the 12th June 2024.
The webinar brought together an expert panel to explore what race and gender has to do with toxic chemicals, how we can achieve a toxic free future, how to minimise the risk and what can be done to safeguard future health. The discussion also included questions asked by the audience. On the panel were:
- Ms Karen Joash – Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Scientific Advisor to Global Black Maternal Health, and Tommy’s Charity
- Baroness Natalie Bennett, Green Party peer
- Seyi Falodun-Liburd, Co-director, Level Up
- Suzanne Astic, Policy and Advocacy Adviser on Children’s Rights and Chemicals, CRIN (Child Rights International Network)
- Naomi Delap, Director of Birth Companions
- Chair – Helen Lynn, Green Baby Campaign Co-Manager and Health Advisor, Wen
You can watch the whole webinar in our recording:
Baroness Natalie Bennett, Green Party peer
As mentioned in the introduction, the term “novel entities” is perhaps the worst-named planetary boundary by a large margin. It sounds almost playful, like a collection of toys. For clarity, I often refer to these entities as pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and plastics. My interest in this topic grew after joining the House of Lords, initially sparked by concerns over antimicrobial resistance. This issue broadened my focus to the impact of pharmaceuticals on both human health and environmental health, adopting a “One Health” perspective. This perspective emphasises that human health is intrinsically linked to the health of animals, plants, and the environment.
To address the awkward term “novel entities,” I often refer to the concept as a “poisoned planet.” No corner of our world remains untouched by harmful substances. Among these, plastics stand out. They are perhaps the easiest to understand due to their visible impact. We’ve all seen heartbreaking images of turtles with straws in their noses or fish trapped in plastic bags. However, the real concern now lies in microplastics. These tiny particles, mostly broken down from larger plastics, are found everywhere, from breast milk to placentas, and even in men’s testes. This alarming discovery was a hot topic on a popular talk radio show, highlighting the pervasive nature of microplastics.
The Stockholm Institute identifies nine planetary boundaries, and we have exceeded six of them, with dangerous chemicals becoming a major concern.
The Stockholm Institute identifies nine planetary boundaries, and we have exceeded six of them, with dangerous chemicals becoming a major concern. Public awareness and scientific concern about these chemicals are rapidly increasing. Recently, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a report on antimicrobial resistance (AMR), emphasising that infections are becoming more dangerous due to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Women are particularly vulnerable, a fact that has been underreported and overlooked for too long.
Astonishingly, we continue to deliberately add dangerous chemicals to everyday products without fully understanding their impact. Items like menstrual pads, nappies, and socks often contain harmful chemicals. This lack of understanding underscores the urgent need for education. People are slowly becoming aware of the microbiome(a collection of microbes like bacteria, fungi etc that naturally live on our bodies) the idea that we are “hollow beings” composed of thousands of species, with our gut microbiome being crucial to our health. Many chemicals damage the gut microbiome, affecting both humans and animals.
Geographer Jamie Lorimer from the University of Oxford advocates for a “probiotic planet,” emphasising the need to create environments that support life. Currently, our chemical-laden planet does the opposite. The health impacts are especially severe for disadvantaged communities. Evidence from America shows that communities near chemical factories, suffer the worst health effects. However, no one is truly immune.
Children are particularly vulnerable due to their developing bodies and smaller size. This issue is something I will continue to address in the House of Lords. Education is key, both for politicians and the public. While individual actions to protect oneself are important, the solution lies in systemic change. As the saying goes, “system change, not climate change,” we need a systemic overhaul to stop further poisoning our planet.
Ms Karen Joash – Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Scientific Advisor to Global Black Maternal Health, and Tommy’s Charity
As an obstetrician and gynaecologist with extensive experience, recent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the tragic death of George Floyd have highlighted significant shortcomings in our healthcare system, particularly for Black and Brown communities. This realisation led me to delve deeper into the determinants of health beyond the commonly cited socio-economic factors. Research indicates that while 20% of health outcomes relate to genetics and another 20% to the healthcare system, a substantial 60% are influenced by environmental and social factors.
Their findings challenge the long-held belief that the placenta acts as a perfect barrier, filtering out harmful particles and toxins from reaching the baby. Instead, we now understand that microplastics, endocrine disruptors, particulate matter, and nitrous oxide can pass through the placenta, exposing the foetus to these harmful substances.
My journey into this research brought me to the work of John Kelly’s group at Imperial College. Their findings challenge the long-held belief that the placenta acts as a perfect barrier, filtering out harmful particles and toxins from reaching the baby. Instead, we now understand that microplastics, endocrine disruptors, particulate matter, and nitrous oxide can pass through the placenta, exposing the foetus to these harmful substances. This revelation, seen under electron microscopes, has accelerated research in this area over the past few years.
We have known for over a decade that pollution correlates with poorer health outcomes. However, recent studies have shown that these pollutants can alter the way our DNA functions. Just like a tree’s growth is influenced by its environment, our genes can be programmed for health or disease based on environmental exposures. High levels of air pollution reprogram the genome, leading to smaller babies, increased risks of preeclampsia, diabetes, autism, changes in the microbiome, and a higher likelihood of preterm delivery.
Male fertility has also been affected, with the percentage of infertility cases due to male factors rising from 20% to 50% over the past decade. This decline in fertility highlights the pervasive impact of environmental pollutants.
Unfortunately, the impact doesn’t stop there. The babies themselves are reprogrammed, increasing their risk of future illness and disease. Male fertility has also been affected, with the percentage of infertility cases due to male factors rising from 20% to 50% over the past decade. This decline in fertility highlights the pervasive impact of environmental pollutants.
In our study on air pollution in pregnancy, particularly among Black communities, we underscored the link between air quality and health outcomes. Our report, “Air Pollution and Pregnancy,” revealed that 58% of respondents were unaware of the significant effects of air pollution on pregnancy. However, upon learning about these impacts, 56% of respondents changed their health behaviours, demonstrating that these communities are not “hard to reach.” Instead, when provided with the right information, they are capable of making health choices that reduce harm.
social justice is health justice, and air justice is intrinsically linked to both.
The message is clear: social justice is health justice, and air justice is intrinsically linked to both. The harmful effects of poor air quality do not discriminate and have serious health implications for everyone. As we work towards improving our planet’s health, we must remember that people are suffering and dying from air pollution now. It is imperative that we work together to change our future, ensuring healthier environments for all communities.
Seyi Falodun-Liburd, Co-director, Level Up
For Black women across the diaspora, hair and beauty practices are often cherished traditions passed down through generations. Many of us still care for our hair in the ways our grandmothers did. One such long-standing practice is the use of hair relaxer – a chemical cream used to straighten the natural curl of our hair. We relax our hair for various reasons: ease of management, to avoid discrimination rooted in white supremacy, or simply because we prefer it that way.
Like most consumers, many of us believed the products available to us were safe. However, in 2021, Oxford University released groundbreaking research linking the use of lye-based hair relaxers to an increased risk of breast cancer. This confirmed the stories and experiences of harm that have been emerging in our communities over the years.
In response, Level Up launched the “No More Lyes” campaign, with a petition signed by over 5,000 people demanding that big beauty brands remove toxic chemicals from their hair relaxers. L’Oréal became our main campaign target because they are the largest global manufacturer of lye-based hair relaxers through their ownership of Dark and Lovely, a brand many assume is Black-owned. They also manufacture children’s hair relaxers.
Since Oxford University’s research, further studies have linked lye and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals in hair relaxers to uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, fibroids, infertility, and respiratory illnesses. We also discovered that even when consumers think they’re making an informed decision by choosing hair relaxers marketed as “No Lye,” sodium hydroxide is often still listed deep in the ingredients list.
Over the past three years, Level Up has coordinated several actions to provoke L’Oréal into taking responsibility for their products. Nearly 1,000 Level Up supporters emailed Jean-Paul Agon, the chairman, and Nicolas Hieronimus, the chief executive of L’Oréal, demanding they release the chemical data sheets detailing the tests L’Oréal has undertaken on their products. These sheets would reveal the potential harm their products pose and what L’Oréal already knows.
It showed that two out of three Black women have experienced painful side effects from hair relaxers, including severe burns and permanent hair loss.
We also commissioned and published landmark research exploring Black women’s experiences with hair relaxers in the UK. It showed that two out of three Black women have experienced painful side effects from hair relaxers, including severe burns and permanent hair loss. Additionally, we wrote an open letter to L’Oréal calling on them to remove toxic chemicals from their products and invest in safer alternatives. This letter was signed by a coalition of MPs, campaigners, and professionals, including MP Dawn Butler, Baroness Lawrence, and author Reni Eddo-Lodge.
We know they are monitoring the campaign but are banking on two things: the normalisation of a predatory culture that prioritises profit over people and a deeply entrenched collective ambivalence around Black women’s health.
Despite our efforts, L’Oréal continues to maintain silence. We know they are monitoring the campaign but are banking on two things: the normalisation of a predatory culture that prioritises profit over people and a deeply entrenched collective ambivalence around Black women’s health.
It’s important to recognize that this issue extends beyond Black women. L’Oréal is currently facing numerous lawsuits claiming that their mascaras, lipsticks, and hair dyes have detrimental effects on consumers’ health. A recent article published by The Guardian outlined the increasing link between cancer and the widespread use of talc in many cosmetics. This affects all of us and highlights a significant lack of corporate transparency and accountability.
This is about reproductive and health justice, as Karen mentioned—the right to safety for all of us. It’s about a dangerous lack of action from regulators who exist to protect consumers. Big brands like L’Oréal should have a duty to provide only safe products. If they can’t do that, they should remove them from the shelves. The price of beauty should never be our health.
Suzanne Astic, Policy and Advocacy Adviser on Children’s Rights and Chemicals, CRIN (Child Rights International Network)
CRIN (Child Rights International Network) is a creative NGO dedicated to advocating for children’s rights through advocacy, art, and public awareness. Our primary goal is to bring a children’s rights perspective to environmental issues, particularly those involving harmful chemicals.
Our current focus is on the EU, aiming to uncover the links between hazardous chemicals and children’s rights violations. However, the impact of this issue extends beyond the EU and affects children worldwide. We have found that this issue has been largely neglected, with few references to children’s rights in EU chemical legislation and beyond. Our mission is to understand and explain the legally binding texts and human rights frameworks that institutions and countries must comply with, and how these texts are being violated due to exposure to harmful chemicals.
Current chemical legislation fails to adequately protect children’s rights.
Current chemical legislation fails to adequately protect children’s rights. We aim to encourage decision-makers to rethink how chemicals are assessed, regulated, and restricted. Our ultimate goal is to provide tools for stakeholders and decision-makers to help them better understand and incorporate children’s rights into chemical legislation. Earlier this year, we published a report and a political manifesto that shed light on the connections between children’s rights infringements and exposure to harmful chemicals. Our goal is to educate decision-makers, such as members of the European Parliament and the European Commission, about the heightened vulnerability of children to these chemicals.
Children are particularly susceptible to hazardous chemicals for several reasons:
- Developmental Vulnerability: Children are in crucial stages of physical and mental development.
- Higher Intake: Children have a higher intake of chemicals relative to their body weight.
- Behavioural Habits: Children are less able to evaluate risks and often cannot read labels or understand warnings. They may not use protective equipment properly.
Marginalised communities, often referred to as “sacrifice zones,” suffer the greatest harm from hazardous chemicals. Children in these areas face reduced resilience to diseases due to economic deprivation and malnutrition, making this both a socioeconomic justice issue and a human rights issue.
Marginalised communities, often referred to as “sacrifice zones,” suffer the greatest harm from hazardous chemicals. Children in these areas face reduced resilience to diseases due to economic deprivation and malnutrition, making this both a socioeconomic justice issue and a human rights issue. Our goal is to remind decision-makers that they are responsible for preventing exposure to hazardous chemicals, even at very low doses.
We emphasise the legal obligations under international agreements, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the UK signed in 1990. This cornerstone document enshrines rights that are often violated due to exposure to harmful chemicals, including:
- Right to Life and Health: Ensuring a high standard of health.
- Right to Play: Safe play without exposure to toxic chemicals.
- Right to Non-Discrimination and Gender Equality: Protecting all children equally from chemical exposure.
- Right to Physical Integrity: Preventing non-consensual physical and mental intrusions, including exposure to harmful chemicals.
Despite these legal frameworks, children continue to be contaminated by harmful chemicals, indicating a failure in current legislation. Our goal is to engage with decision-makers, emphasising the need for education and training to reconnect the dots between chemical threats and children’s rights frameworks.
Children’s rights should guide decision-making in every country. It’s time to recognize the severe impact of hazardous chemicals on children and take decisive action to protect their health and future.
Naomi Delap, Director of Birth Companions
Over the last few years, Birth Companions and Wen have been collaborating on issues at the intersection of climate and reproductive justice. We’ve been exploring the many ways in which the climate emergency impacts maternal, infant, and child health, and how it exacerbates pre-existing inequalities and disadvantages.
At Birth Companions, we aim to achieve systemic change for pregnant women and mothers who face disadvantage and inequality. We believe that addressing the impact of the climate emergency is a central part of this work. This belief led us to partner with Wen to write a paper examining the implications of the climate emergency for reproductive justice in the UK.
Reproductive justice is an intersectional feminist activist movement that combines reproductive rights with social justice.
Reproductive justice is an intersectional feminist activist movement that combines reproductive rights with social justice. The movement began in 1994, initiated by Indigenous women and women of colour in the USA. These women recognized that existing movements focused on abortion, contraception, and individual choice were insufficient to address the full range of reproductive experiences and needs faced by marginalised communities. Thus, reproductive justice activists developed a new human rights-based framework that better captures this complexity. It focuses on four core human rights:
- The right to maintain personal bodily autonomy.
- The right to have children.
- The right to not have children.
- The right to parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.
All these rights are undermined by the impacts of the climate emergency. Women who face poverty, inequality, and disadvantage, particularly those from Black and brown communities, are disproportionately affected. Our paper explores various impacts of the climate emergency on these reproductive justice areas, with toxic chemicals being a significant concern.
We highlight several key issues around toxic chemicals. For example, there has been a 60% decline in sperm counts since 1972, linked to chemicals and pesticides. Women with high levels of PFAS (forever chemicals) in their blood have reduced fertility. PFAS are also linked to other diseases that impact fertility and reproductive health.
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), also known as hormone disruptors, can negatively affect every aspect of human growth and development. These chemicals can be passed from mother to baby during pregnancy and through breast milk.
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), also known as hormone disruptors, can negatively affect every aspect of human growth and development. These chemicals can be passed from mother to baby during pregnancy and through breast milk. Harmful chemicals found in homes, such as in furniture, flooring, bedding, toys, clothes, and cleaning products, can bioaccumulate in the body and potentially affect a baby’s health or cause adverse effects later in life. While there are alternatives to the most harmful products, parents facing financial difficulties often struggle to make these healthier changes in their home environments.
Reproductive rights and access to those rights are threatened in many ways by the climate emergency. Climate justice movements and everyone working to find solutions to the climate crisis need to keep reproductive justice rights at the forefront. We must ensure that women and potential parents can have children when they want and in the safest ways possible, and that children have the best start in life by ensuring their fundamental right to a safe, healthy environment.
Women and children facing poverty and inequality should not bear the additional burden [of knowing] that the products they use might negatively impact their health.
We need to move away from frameworks that centre on personal responsibility and consumer choices. Women and children facing poverty and inequality should not bear the additional burden [of knowing] that the products they use might negatively impact their health. Structural changes and regulation are essential. We must support campaigns for the regulation of all toxic chemicals so that everyone can make safe, healthy, sustainable, and affordable choices for themselves and their children.
Q&A session
Question to Natalie Bennet – You’ve cited research (e.g. CHEM Trust) that highlights how current rules governing regulation vastly underestimate the real-life risk on the health and environment from combined exposure to multiple chemicals, because chemicals are assessed in isolation. How do you think a chemicals strategy could address this?
I’d like to build on Suzanne’s point regarding the EU’s regulatory framework, which has been under scrutiny since Brexit, when the UK separated from the EU’s regulatory regime. Since then, the EU has identified 31 chemicals as high-concern, often a precursor to their restriction or outright ban. In contrast, the UK has not added any chemicals to these lists, signalling a growing disparity where the UK is falling behind in regulatory standards.
Interestingly, even the Royal Society of Chemistry, not typically associated with radical views, recently underscored the urgent need for stricter chemical regulations in the UK. This highlights a significant issue within our country.
As Helen mentioned, there’s the issue of the cocktail effect—a term that sounds benign but refers to the harmful interactions between different chemicals. This phenomenon is increasingly relevant in discussions about public health, paralleling concerns about antimicrobial resistance and the impacts of various chemical treatments.
I was struck by a conversation I had with a farmer who illustrated this issue vividly. He explained how he routinely applies a cocktail of seven, eight, or even nine chemicals on his crops, including well-known substances like glyphosate. Despite efforts to reduce glyphosate use before harvesting, tests consistently show significant residues in our environment and even in our bodies, detectable through hair analysis.
This realisation prompted me to engage deeply in this topic, working closely with interns from the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, including PhD students who are just beginning to explore these complex cocktail effects. It’s clear that we need to reassess our approach to chemical usage, restricting their application to essential needs only.
For instance, some chemicals serve critical roles, such as in ensuring water pump seals in remote African communities. Here, the focus should be on preserving such vital uses while minimising unnecessary exposure elsewhere. This approach contrasts sharply with current practices where chemicals find their way into everyday products like waterproof jackets, often without necessary oversight or consideration of safer alternatives.
Ultimately, we must prioritise health and environmental stewardship, steering away from a mindset that permits widespread chemical use without adequate scrutiny. It’s about safeguarding our well-being in a world increasingly burdened by chemical exposure, even in unexpected places like personal hygiene products.
In summary, while human resilience is remarkable, our health outcomes are increasingly compromised by pervasive chemical exposures. We must ask ourselves tough questions about the true necessity and safety of the chemicals we use, aiming for a future where health and longevity align with quality of life.
Question to Ms Karen Joash – Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology – I understand you were on the advisory panel for the landmark Black Children Clean Air Report – the report was groundbreaking in being the first-ever pollution study speaking directly to Black mothers and Black pregnant people. How do you think the way the research was conducted, and the key findings can influence how disproportionately affected people, often missing from the conversation can be included and health outcomes improved?
Yeah, it was truly enlightening to be part of that team. The bottom line is, when we look at black communities, we’re often at the bottom of the pile across the board – whether it’s in healthcare, academia, or research. One striking fact is that high-impact publications, upon analysis, often feature diverse teams of researchers. This diversity is crucial because it brings a broader perspective and deeper understanding of various issues.
In a recent study I was involved with, all the researchers were from black backgrounds. This unique composition helped break down long standing barriers of trust between these communities and medical researchers, who historically represented systemic, patriarchal racial structures. As a result, people were more willing to engage with and contribute to the research.
Unfortunately, many existing systems within our structures still marginalised black researchers. Discriminatory practices often hinder their career advancements, preventing them from obtaining academic or professorial positions. Consequently, their perspectives are frequently absent from research panels, leading to studies that may not adequately address the needs and perspectives of all communities.
This issue extends beyond race to gender disparities as well. Women, particularly black women, face similar challenges in academia and research, resulting in studies that predominantly reflect the experiences of white males. It’s clear that achieving diversity within research teams isn’t just about representation; it’s about ensuring a comprehensive and inclusive approach that captures the full spectrum of human experiences.
When commissioning research or policymaking, it’s imperative to prioritise diversity not only in terms of race but also ethnicity and gender. This ensures that research outcomes are truly reflective of the diverse populations they aim to serve.
I recently participated in a National Institute of Health research project at Imperial College London focusing on maternity inequities. Despite well-documented risks like higher rates of blood pressure issues among black women, there’s been a historical lack of focused studies within these communities. Often, these issues are merely treated as statistical footnotes rather than deeply examined phenomena.
It’s crucial for policymakers and funding bodies to recognize that addressing disparities in research isn’t just a matter of social justice; it’s essential for public health and the advancement of knowledge. By fostering diversity of thought and experience, we not only empower marginalised communities but also enhance the quality and relevance of research outcomes for everyone.
For instance, organisations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have incorporated supplements like choline, folic acid, and Omega-3 into their guidelines, which are known for their protective benefits. These efforts underscore how inclusive research practices can lead to actionable solutions that benefit all individuals, irrespective of background.
In summary, promoting diversity in research isn’t just about fairness – it’s about improving the accuracy, impact, and applicability of research findings across diverse populations. It’s time for a paradigm shift where inclusivity isn’t an afterthought but a foundational principle in shaping our scientific endeavours and policies.
Question to Seyi Falodun-Liburd, Co-director, Level Up – What has been the response to your #NoMoreLyes campaign from i) from Brands that include these harmful ingredients in their products & II) from cancer organisations in the UK?
I want to start by acknowledging the incredible support we’ve received from various quarters – from grassroots community activists to fellow campaigners, black women, journalists, and others. It’s been heartening. L’Oreal, on the other hand, responded to our concerns and legal actions in the US by claiming there isn’t enough scientific evidence. In response, we’ve compiled a webpage that aggregates all existing research, articles, and stories on this issue. It’s not just to show L’Oreal what’s out there – though they surely know – but also to bolster our campaign and reinforce our demands.
Turning to cancer organisations, L’Oreal is a major philanthropic donor to cancer research. However, our outreach to them has largely been met with silence. In fact, we’ve encountered pushback from individuals within these organisations who argue against the need for further research. It’s frustrating because philanthropy should align with organisational goals, yet here we are, advocating for our survival against chemicals we’re involuntarily exposed to.
Collaboration with cancer organisations would be immensely valuable for our campaign. This issue isn’t confined to black women; it affects us all. As Suzanne aptly put it, this is about non-consensual exposure to dangerous chemicals. We’ve found solidarity from black women’s cancer charities who have signed our open letter. They may have fewer resources, but their support is clear and meaningful.
It’s clear that we need broader support from cancer organisations to amplify our message and drive real change. This isn’t just about raising awareness; it’s about securing commitments to research and policy changes that protect everyone from harmful chemicals.
Question to – Suzanne Astic, Policy and Advocacy Adviser on Children’s Rights and Chemicals, CRIN (Child Rights International Network)
The Belgian government has just produced some guidance on protecting parents and babies from endocrine disrupting chemicals, and they also have a National EDC Action Plan – how did this come about? How can we persuade our respective governments to protect children’s human rights, run similar campaigns and so protect all human health?
It seems children’s rights are an important but forgotten element in terms of health impacts linked to the exposure to harmful chemicals. Exposure to toxic chemicals violates children’s right to health, life, play, safe water and bodily integrity, amongst others. How can we work to prevent this?
I think what we’re seeing is a culmination of various societal movements and alliances, not just in Belgium but across Europe. Science has played a pivotal role in shaping action plans regarding endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). For example, Belgium and France adopted action plans in 2019, following pioneering reports like the World Health Organization’s 2012 “State of Science” on EDCs. These reports provided comprehensive insights for decision-makers, sparking significant interest and awareness.
It’s crucial to have scientists onboard, providing evidence-based recommendations. Equally important are non-governmental organisations (NGOs) representing diverse societal groups, including parents’ organisations and health advocates. Politicians also play a key role, especially when backed by public pressure and scientific consensus, in advocating for ambitious action plans.
Campaign strategies that resonate include offering concrete examples that people can relate to. For instance, highlighting EDCs found in children’s toys can advocate for improved toy safety standards. Engaging unconventional partners, such as youth groups or health insurance organisations, can also bring fresh perspectives and influence.
In Belgium, for instance, the coalition involved not just NGOs like the Health and Environment Alliance (Heal) but also health insurance organisations, showcasing the power of diverse partnerships. This cross-sector collaboration extends to sectors impacted by pesticide contamination, water management, and trade unions, reflecting a broad societal engagement necessary to address chemical risks comprehensively.
Overall, building coalitions across sectors and leveraging scientific insights are pivotal in driving effective policies. It’s about creating a unified front that includes voices and perspectives traditionally underrepresented in these discussions, ensuring that our actions today safeguard public health and the environment for future generations.
Question to – Naomi Delap, Director of Birth Companions – Are you finding partners and prospective partners in the women’s health and environmental sectors are receptive to this approach and the intersection of reproductive justice across the climate emergency?
One of the main motivations behind our work stems from our deep involvement in the women’s social justice and criminal justice sectors. We noticed that our partners often acknowledged the climate emergency as a critical issue but struggled to integrate it into their day-to-day work due to various pressures. So, we set out to provide a framework that particularly resonates with those in the women’s sector, offering a way to approach the climate emergency through issues directly relevant to them.
The reproductive justice framework emerged as a natural fit for us. It’s accessible, easy to remember, and has helped us dissect and understand complex processes more clearly. It’s been instrumental in highlighting the profound impact of the climate emergency on reproductive health, pregnancy, and the well-being of women, infants, and children. When we connect these dots, it becomes evident how crucial climate action is to our work.
So far, this approach has enabled us to bridge across different sectors. We’ve brought together a diverse group of stakeholders to develop our strategy paper, and we’re excited to continue expanding this collaboration with our current partners and others.
It’s truly valuable to collaborate with other organisations. We’ve been proactive in reaching out to groups that may not initially see the intersectionality of issues but are crucial to addressing them effectively.
Moving forward, we aim to strengthen these partnerships and amplify our collective impact. By uniting diverse voices and perspectives, we can create meaningful change that addresses the climate emergency while advancing social justice causes.
Question to Ms Karen Joash – Consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Scientific Advisor to Global Black Maternal Health, and Tommy’s Charity
How best to approach Health practitioners especially midwives breastfeeding practitioners to engage in discussions around prenatal exposures and reduce risks?
I’ve been collaborating with a group across London, including from Great Ormond Street Hospital, King’s College London, and Imperial College London, along with the Global Maternal Health Group. Together, we’ve been developing an education package. One of the challenges we’ve noticed is that people often feel unsure about discussing certain topics related to pregnancy and health.
One key opportunity for engagement is during routine CO monitoring in pregnancy. This involves measuring carbon monoxide levels in the blood early and late in pregnancy. It’s a crucial moment to discuss indoor and outdoor air pollution exposures and health behaviours that can mitigate risks. Many people are unaware of the implications of high CO levels, which can stem from indoor air pollution at home or work, as well as outdoor pollution.
We have excellent resources available, such as Green Baby Day and initiatives from the Global Maternal Health Group. Additionally, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has highlighted the adverse effects of outdoor air pollution, supporting our efforts.
When discussing these topics, it’s essential to offer balanced advice, especially since pregnancy can be an anxious time for many women. We know that good health choices like regular exercise, vitamin supplements (like vitamin C and D), and probiotics can help mitigate risks such as preterm labour, and impact the baby’s microbiome and DNA methylation.
Continuing to advocate for folic acid is also critical, as it not only helps prevent neural tube defects but also supports the baby’s microbiome and reduces the risk of growth restriction later in life.
Another important discussion point is indoor air quality. It’s advisable to avoid burning candles or using gas for cooking indoors during pregnancy. Opting for electric options can significantly reduce exposure to harmful substances.
In collaboration with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and potentially the Royal College of Midwives (RCM), we are working on an education package to provide comprehensive guidance and support. This initiative aims to ensure a broad reach and diverse engagement in promoting maternal and foetal health.
Question to Natalie Bennet, Green Peer – You have highlighted the downgrading and slow process of chemicals regulation post-brexit. What do you think are the consequences and how can we ensure that the UK keeps pace with the EU? What would you like to see from the next government? How can we ensure that happens?
I believe a crucial starting point is to promptly adopt EU-identified chemicals of concern regulations in the UK. In almost all cases, what applies in the EU likely applies similarly here.
Shifting focus to indoor air quality, I’m particularly concerned about the advertising and availability of air fresheners and biocidal products. These items often contain harmful chemicals that contribute to antimicrobial resistance and environmental pollution. It’s frustrating to see them heavily promoted, especially online where algorithms target new parents with promises of a clean-smelling home. We need to question what chemicals actually create these scents and why products with potentially harmful ingredients are allowed such pervasive advertising.
Looking ahead, I’m considering proposing a private members bill in the upcoming Parliament session. This bill would aim to restrict the unnecessary use of biocides and promote a cleaner environment. It’s a step beyond current EU efforts but necessary to curb unnecessary chemical exposure and misleading product marketing.
In addition to legislative action, leveraging social media can amplify these messages rapidly. It’s a powerful tool for spreading awareness and engaging the public in discussions about environmental and health issues.
Question to Seyi Falodun-Liburd, Co-director, Level UpDo you have suggestions for how individuals can most effectively help to amplify your campaign, to persuade companies and regulators to act?
It’s crucial not to simplify this issue down to individual choices alone—it’s systemic. This issue extends far beyond what any one of us decides to buy. Our level of protection hinges on how transparent companies are about their products. For example, many Black women may choose “no-Lye” hair relaxers, not realising they contain sodium hydroxide, which is Lye. It’s about becoming more informed consumers, reading labels carefully, and understanding how these products impact our health, sometimes in ways we don’t fully grasp.
To support the “no more lyes” campaign, signing the petition and sharing the relaxer info kit are impactful steps. This kit underscores the scale of the issue and challenges the lack of action from brands like L’Oreal and governments more focused on profit than public health. Regulatory bodies, including those overseeing advertising, also play a crucial role. Writing letters, emails, and lodging complaints helps build evidence for an issue already backed by substantial data. Unfortunately, issues affecting racialized communities often require over-demonstration of harm.
What advice do you have on approaching midwives and child’s health practitioners on raising awareness about prenatal prenatal exposures?
You know, it’s really important not to pin all this on individual actions because the issue runs much deeper—it’s systemic. We shouldn’t burden consumers or parents with all the responsibility either. It can lead to eco-anxiety and guilt, which we’re keen to avoid. For instance, guiding consumers or moms on safer choices can sometimes stir up fears. It’s understandable given how pervasive contamination is, but we need to push for legislative changes.
