By: Clyde Hertzman
In the early 1990s prospects for living a long and healthy life in Central and Eastern Europe dimmed considerably (1). In the late 1980s, life expectancy in the region was already 4 to 6 years lower than it was in Western Europe, and that gap widened in the early 1990s. For males in Russia, life expectancy peaked at 64.9 years in 1987 then fell to 62 in 1992 and to 57.3 by 1994 (2). Similar, though generally less extreme, declines occurred in other nations in Central and Eastern Europe. Mortality rates increased sharply in this region between 1989 and 1993, followed by a gradual stabilization thereafter (3). Now, male life expectancy in Western Europe hovers around 73 or 74 (73.7 in France, 74.1 in Italy, 73.2 in Spain, 74.2 in the United Kingdom). In Central Europe, it is generally in the mid- to upper-60s: 64.8 in Hungary, 67.6 in Poland, and 69.5 in the Czech Republic. There is over a 9-year difference in male life expectancy between Hungary and the United Kingdom (4).
This significant decline in life expectancy followed a period of severe and extended pollution. From the late 1960s to the early 1990s,the region’s reliance on poor-quality brown coal inflicted a terrible toll on the atmosphere, especially in the northern Bohemia region of Czechoslovakia andthe Silesian industrial region in southwest Poland (5). These environmental”hot spots” contained much of Central Europe’s heavy industry-especially steel, cement, chemical, and petrochemical works-and a phalanx of inefficient coal-burning power plants spewing forth copious amounts of sulfur dioxide and soot.
The contrast with trends in Western Europe, North America, and Japan was striking. By 1985, for example, sulfur dioxide concentrations in urban air among Western cities had dropped to 33 micrograms per cubic meter, or about one fourth the 1970 level (6). In some areas of Poland during the same period, concentrations had reached 636 micrograms per cubic meter, or nearly 20 times the Canadian average (7). Levels of particulates, lead, and toxic wastes were exceptionally high in some parts of Central Europe. In parts of the Katowice area in Poland, lead levels in soil were as high as 19,000 parts per million, about 38 times the acceptable level.
The causes of the environmental crisis were complex. Under Communist regimes, governments set prices of energy and natural resources at relatively low levels, which led to inefficient consumption. Incentives were weak for state enterprises to control pollutants or use resources more efficiently. There was a continuing emphasis on heavy industry, but a lack of hard currency to invest in new technology. Furthermore, antipollution fees were set too low and were only weakly enforced, and local communities and citizens had little chance to force improvements in environmental quality (8). Environmental pollution began to decline rapidly following the political upheavals in 1989-not because of planned interventions, but because of declines in industrial production that accompanied the political turmoil (9).
References and notes
Latin America/Caribbean
Risks in the Cut Flower Industry
The year-round demand in North America for fresh vegetables, fruits, and flowers has fueled a booming export trade from Latin America and the Caribbean. But this economic success has come with a price: serious pesticide exposure for many workers who raise and handle these export crops. There is no better example of this than the flower industry, where remarkably high amounts of pesticides are applied, usually inside greenhouses.
A study of 80 women working on flower plantations (and other export crop farms) in Ecuador revealed heavy exposure to organophosphates and carbamates, two classes of pesticides well known for their acute toxicity. The women complained of blurred vision, intolerance to light, headaches, and nausea, all typical symptoms of organophosphate and carbamate poisoning. Often, workers were expected to continue their tasks while pesticides were being applied near them – a serious breach of safe practices.
The majority of women workers in this study received no training or information on pesticide use and the need for protective equipment. Some 40 percent of the workers interviewed received no protective equipment, and the rest only occasionally received gloves, boots, and rarely, glasses. Even when they were given protective equipment, it was either inadequate or poorly maintained. Health and hygiene facilities on these plantations were also deficient. Only 5 percent of the workers interviewed received company-paid medical examinations.
United States
Exposures Among Farm Workers
Even in developed countries, where pesticide regulations are stricter and protective gear for workers is more available than in developing countries, occupational exposures can be significant. In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) estimates that nearly 4 million people in the agricultural workforce are at risk of significant occupational exposure because they handle or apply pesticides, and that these exposures result in about 10,000 to 20,000 pesticide poisonings medically treated per year. U.S. EPA estimates that at least that number of cases probably goes untreated, because studies show that exposure is greatly underreported. For example, a study of 98 Nebraska farmers and pesticide applicators who routinely handled organophosphate pesticides found that 30 percent of the group had reduced levels of blood cholinesterase, an indication of significant exposure, and 22 percent actually exhibited symptoms including headache, nausea, or diarrhea. None of the affected workers sought medical treatment.
References and notes
1. Unless otherwise noted, this discussion is largely drawn from The World Bank, Setting Environmental Priorities in Central and Easter n Europe: Discussion Document on Analytical Approaches, Report 11099-ECA, Europe, Central Asia, Middle East and North Africa Regions, Environment Division (The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1992).
2. World Resources Institute in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, and the World Bank, World Resources 1996-97 (Oxford University Press, New York, 1996).
3. UNICEF, Crisis in Mortality, Health and Nutrition, Economies in Transition Studies, Regional Monitoring Report No. 2 (UNICEF International Child Development Centre, Florence, Italy, 1994), p. 40.
4. Council of Europe, Recent Demographic Developments in Europe (Council of Europe Press, Strasbourg, France, 1996), p. 57.
5. Op. cit. 1, pp. 19, 28.
6. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Environmental Data Compendium 1997 (OECD, Paris, 1997), pp 50-52.
7. Clyde Hertzman, “Poland: Health and Environment in the Context of Socioeconomic Decline,” Health Services and Policy Research Unit Discussion Paper 90:2D (Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia, 1990).
8. World Resources Institute in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Development Programme, World Resources 1992-93 (Oxford University Press, New York, 1992), pp. 57-74.
9. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Environmental Indicators: A Review of Selected Central and Eastern European Countries, OECD Working Papers, Vol. IV (OECD, Paris, 1996), pp. 14-31.
