{"title":"Implementing New Regulation Promotes Health but May Increase Inequality","authors":"R. Afshari, D. Bellinger","doi":"10.22038/APJMT.2018.11999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Avoidable systematic differences in health status of different population groups are called health inequalities. They cause significant social and economic costs to both individuals and societies (1, 2). For example, life expectancy at birth among Canadian First Nation Population is lower (73 for males and 78 for females) than that of total Canadian population (79 and 83, respectively, projected for 2017) according to Statistics Canada (3). In this commentary, we used Canadian First Nation Population, coastal residents and Native American population who self-harvest as example. Toxicology regulation could be considered as a determinant of health, as policies introduced by regulatory toxicology agencies influence health services and are effective at the community level. These policies, however, could be distributed differently among the subgroups of the populations in a systematic manner, which may be a source of inequality. Consumption of home grown or self-harvested foods can result in exposure to various chemicals but such contaminant levels in these products are often not monitored by inspection agencies (4). To date, many drivers of health inequality have been defined, such as gender, race and economic growth. However, no literature is available on “inequality” and “potential food toxicity”. We argue in this editorial that while all population including Canadian First Nation Population, Coastal Residents and Native American population groups are benefitted from implementing new toxicology regulations, the magnitude of health inequalities might increase for some minority groups. Health Canada has set a maximum level of 0.5 mg/kg (50 ppm) in the edible portion of all retail fish, subject to some exceptions (5). This level is applied to commercial fish and enforced by the inspection agencies. However, fish consumption advisories that reduce the risk borne by the general population might not provide much health benefit to subsistence fishermen, which include First Nation (Native American) populations. In another example, and following an outbreak of amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP) in Canada in 1987, which is ___________________ ORIGINAL ARTICLE EDITORIAL","PeriodicalId":30463,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Journal of Medical Toxicology","volume":"7 1","pages":"90-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Journal of Medical Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/APJMT.2018.11999","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Avoidable systematic differences in health status of different population groups are called health inequalities. They cause significant social and economic costs to both individuals and societies (1, 2). For example, life expectancy at birth among Canadian First Nation Population is lower (73 for males and 78 for females) than that of total Canadian population (79 and 83, respectively, projected for 2017) according to Statistics Canada (3). In this commentary, we used Canadian First Nation Population, coastal residents and Native American population who self-harvest as example. Toxicology regulation could be considered as a determinant of health, as policies introduced by regulatory toxicology agencies influence health services and are effective at the community level. These policies, however, could be distributed differently among the subgroups of the populations in a systematic manner, which may be a source of inequality. Consumption of home grown or self-harvested foods can result in exposure to various chemicals but such contaminant levels in these products are often not monitored by inspection agencies (4). To date, many drivers of health inequality have been defined, such as gender, race and economic growth. However, no literature is available on “inequality” and “potential food toxicity”. We argue in this editorial that while all population including Canadian First Nation Population, Coastal Residents and Native American population groups are benefitted from implementing new toxicology regulations, the magnitude of health inequalities might increase for some minority groups. Health Canada has set a maximum level of 0.5 mg/kg (50 ppm) in the edible portion of all retail fish, subject to some exceptions (5). This level is applied to commercial fish and enforced by the inspection agencies. However, fish consumption advisories that reduce the risk borne by the general population might not provide much health benefit to subsistence fishermen, which include First Nation (Native American) populations. In another example, and following an outbreak of amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP) in Canada in 1987, which is ___________________ ORIGINAL ARTICLE EDITORIAL
期刊介绍:
Asia Pacific Journal of Medical Toxicology (APJMT) aims to expand the knowledge of medical toxicology and tries to provide reliable information in this field for medical and healthcare professionals. APJMT mainly focuses on research related to medical toxicology issues in the Asia Pacific region and publishes articles on clinical and epidemiological aspects of toxicology, poisonings emergency care, addiction, drug interactions and adverse effects. The journal accepts and welcomes high quality papers in the form of original articles and rarely review articles, case reports and scientific letters relevant to medical practice in toxicology.