Report on U.S. Health Strategy and its Contradiction with Environmental Policy in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary: The MAHA Strategy and Sustainable Development Goals

A new national health strategy, unveiled by the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, prioritizes research into air quality’s effects on children’s health. This initiative directly aligns with Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3), which aims to ensure good health and well-being. However, concurrent actions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appear to fundamentally contradict the strategy’s objectives and undermine progress toward multiple SDGs, including those concerning health, sustainable cities, climate action, and institutional integrity.

Contradictory Policies Impacting SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

The MAHA strategy’s call for enhanced research into air quality impacts is at odds with recent EPA policy decisions that dismantle the very infrastructure required for such work. This conflict directly jeopardizes the achievement of SDG 3.

• Closure of Key Research Facility: The EPA has closed its Human Research Facility in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a premier laboratory for studying the direct impact of air pollutants like ozone and vehicle exhaust on human health. This facility’s research was foundational to public health alerts and federal air regulations.
• Reduction in Scientific Capacity: The agency has moved to dissolve its Office of Research and Development, reducing staff and reorganizing remaining personnel. This action curtails the scientific capacity needed to fulfill the MAHA report’s directives and protect public health.
• Weakening of Air Quality Regulations: The EPA has proposed rescinding regulations that limit emissions of mercury, smog-forming ozone, and fine particulate matter, all of which have well-documented adverse effects on human health, including asthma, heart disease, and neurological damage.

Setbacks for SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities) and SDG 13 (Climate Action)

The EPA’s policy shifts not only affect public health but also represent significant setbacks for creating sustainable communities and addressing climate change.

1. Increased Urban Pollution: The rollback of emissions standards for pollutants like ozone and particulate matter directly threatens air quality in urban centers, conflicting with the aims of SDG 11 to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.
2. Reversal of Climate Progress: A carbon rule, which the EPA estimated would have prevented 1,200 premature deaths and 360,000 asthma attacks by 2035, was rescinded. This action undermines efforts to combat climate change and its impacts, as outlined in SDG 13.
3. Increased Neurotoxin Emissions: The proposed rescission of a rule limiting mercury emissions would reverse progress in reducing the release of a potent neurotoxin into the environment, impacting both ecosystems and human health.

Erosion of Institutional Integrity and Scientific Governance (SDG 16)

A significant discrepancy exists between the administration’s public commitment to “gold standard science” and the systematic dismantling of the EPA’s research capabilities. This undermines the principles of SDG 16, which promotes effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions.

• Incongruent Messaging: Officials advocate for science-based policy while simultaneously closing state-of-the-art research facilities and dissolving research offices.
• Ignoring Established Science: According to experts, the EPA is rolling back regulations, such as those for mercury, that are underpinned by decades of established scientific research, indicating a move away from evidence-based policymaking.
• Stakeholder Criticism: Environmental and public health organizations, including the American Lung Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council, have criticized the strategy as a “detour” around necessary regulation, highlighting a lack of confidence in the institution’s commitment to its core mission.

Broader Environmental and Health Concerns

The MAHA strategy also addresses other environmental health issues, but its approach has drawn criticism for favoring public awareness campaigns over regulatory action, potentially impacting other SDGs.

• Water and Sanitation (SDG 6): The report mentions EPA research on fluoride in drinking water.
• Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12): The strategy’s preference for industry-led review procedures for pesticides over new regulations has been criticized by environmental groups as insufficient to protect public health and the environment.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • The article’s central theme is the impact of air quality on human health, particularly children’s health. It discusses a new health strategy (“Make America Healthy Again”) and mentions specific health problems linked to air pollution, such as chronic diseases, asthma, heart conditions, stroke, brain damage, and premature deaths.

2. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • The article references the shuttering of a research facility that studied human reactions to air pollution at levels found in “different major cities around the world.” This directly connects the issue of air quality to urban environments, a key focus of SDG 11.

3. SDG 13: Climate Action

   • The article mentions the EPA’s move to allow more pollution from “burning fossil fuels” and its decision to rescind a “carbon rule” that limited pollution of greenhouse gases like “carbon dioxide.” These actions are directly related to climate change mitigation efforts.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article highlights a significant contradiction within a government institution (the EPA). While publicly committing to using “gold standard science” to protect health, the agency is simultaneously shuttering its primary air pollution research facility, cutting research staff, and rolling back protective regulations. This points to a weakening of institutional effectiveness and accountability.

5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • The article describes a new strategy developed by the “Make America Healthy Again Commission” involving collaboration between the EPA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, it exposes a lack of policy coherence, as the EPA’s actions directly undermine the stated research goals of the partnership.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.9: Substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.

   • The article directly addresses this target by discussing illnesses and deaths caused by air pollution. It mentions that a rescinded carbon rule would have prevented “1,200 premature deaths,” “870 hospital and emergency room visits,” and “1,900 new asthma diagnoses.” It also discusses the health effects of pollutants like mercury, ozone, and particulate matter.

2. Target 11.6: Reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality.

   • The research facility discussed in the article was crucial for understanding the health impacts of urban air quality, as it exposed volunteers to pollution levels “as different major cities around the world.” The rollback of regulations on smog-forming emissions and fine particulate matter directly contradicts the goal of improving urban air quality.

3. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.

   • The article provides a clear example of this target being undermined. The EPA’s decision to rescind a “carbon rule” that limited “greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide” is a direct reversal of a national policy aimed at addressing climate change.

4. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   • The article questions the EPA’s effectiveness and accountability. Experts quoted in the article, such as Betsy Southerland and Phil Landrigan, point out the contradiction between EPA Administrator Zeldin’s public statements about protecting health and his actions of shutting down research facilities and weakening regulations, suggesting a lack of institutional integrity.

5. Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.

   • The article is a case study in the lack of policy coherence. The “MAHA strategy” calls for the EPA and NIH to “study air quality impacts on children’s health,” yet the EPA is simultaneously dismantling the very infrastructure and regulations needed to conduct such research and protect health, as highlighted by the quote: “it’s like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator 3.9.1: Mortality rate attributed to household and ambient air pollution.

   • This indicator is directly implied by the article’s reference to an EPA estimate that a finalized carbon rule “would have prevented 1,200 premature deaths” by 2035. This quantifies the mortality impact of air pollution regulations.

2. Indicator 11.6.2: Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g. PM2.5 and PM10) in cities.

   • The article explicitly mentions the health impacts of “fine particulate matter” and notes that the EPA is proposing to “tear up regulations that control emissions of… fine particulate matter.” The work of the shuttered Human Research Facility was instrumental in connecting “particulate matter pollution to increased heart rates,” demonstrating the importance of measuring and regulating this specific pollutant.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: eenews.net