{"id":13818,"date":"2026-05-06T15:09:14","date_gmt":"2026-05-06T20:09:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=13818"},"modified":"2026-05-06T15:09:16","modified_gmt":"2026-05-06T20:09:16","slug":"heres-why-centering-communities-on-the-frontlines-of-pollution-can-lead-to-more-health-protective-regulations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2026\/05\/06\/heres-why-centering-communities-on-the-frontlines-of-pollution-can-lead-to-more-health-protective-regulations\/","title":{"rendered":"Here\u2019s why centering communities on the frontlines of pollution can lead to more health-protective regulations"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What\u2019s new: <\/strong>New research from EDF offers an approach for identifying potential cumulative risks and existing health vulnerabilities in communities on the frontlines of toxic air pollution. The paper, \u201cIdentification of Potential Cumulative Chemical Exposures in Overburdened Communities for Chemical Policy Applications<\/a>,\u201d published in the journal Environmental Justice, <\/em>adds to a growing body of research underscoring the importance of considering environmental injustice and climate vulnerability when making regulatory and policy decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The research finds that some volatile organic compounds, like benzene and naphthalene, and some metals, like nickel, chromium and arsenic, are often released together from facilities \u2013 as often as 72% of the time. These chemicals all cause neurological effects, and many of them cause the same kind of cancers and developmental harms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Researchers also find that facilities that release more than one chemical pollute more overall \u2013 on average, they pollute 285,000 pounds, according to EDF analysis of emissions over a six-year period. This means that communities near these facilities are at risk not just from exposure to multiple chemicals, but from greater exposures overall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why it matters: <\/strong>Regulators, researchers and policymakers are faced with many decisions when determining how to prioritize toxic chemicals for assessment and regulation. This research makes the case for decisionmakers to go beyond typical considerations for prioritization and to look at the bigger picture of how people are at risk from exposure to multiple toxic chemicals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our new research offers a playbook for how regulators could consider two essential factors: cumulative risk \u2013 exposure to multiple chemicals that cause the same health effects \u2013 and overall community vulnerability, based on its baseline health<\/ins> vulnerabilities and other risk factors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This approach can aid state and federal agencies in their chemical risk assessments based on a chemical\u2019s potential for driving cumulative risks. It offers guidance on scoping for cumulative risk assessments and identifying opportunities for co-benefits to the most at-risk communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our take: <\/strong>People aren\u2019t exposed to one chemical at a time, and communities facing multiple exposures to chemicals that cause the same harms are at the greatest risk. Regulators and policymakers should consider this reality so that our chemical safety laws are truly health-protective \u2013 especially for the most vulnerable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read the paper here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What\u2019s new: New research from EDF offers an approach for identifying potential cumulative risks and existing health vulnerabilities in communities on the frontlines of toxic air pollution. The paper, \u201cIdentification of Potential Cumulative Chemical Exposures in Overburdened Communities for Chemical Policy Applications,\u201d published in the journal Environmental Justice, adds to a growing body of research …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":150429,"featured_media":13819,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[114080,114079,114078,114114,44,5009,39263,114076,114075,114119],"tags":[134],"coauthors":[114103],"class_list":["post-13818","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-air-pollution","category-chemical-exposure","category-chemical-regulation","category-environmental-justice","category-policy","category-health-science","category-public-health","category-risk-assessment","category-risk-evaluation","category-rules-regulations","tag-states"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13818","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/150429"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13818"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13818\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13820,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13818\/revisions\/13820"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13819"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13818"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13818"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13818"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=13818"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}