Skip to main content
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 2002 Apr;110(Suppl 2):259–264. doi: 10.1289/ehp.02110s2259

Holistic risk-based environmental decision making: a Native perspective.

Mary Arquette 1, Maxine Cole 1, Katsi Cook 1, Brenda LaFrance 1, Margaret Peters 1, James Ransom 1, Elvera Sargent 1, Vivian Smoke 1, Arlene Stairs 1
PMCID: PMC1241171  PMID: 11929736

Abstract

Native American Nations have become increasingly concerned about the impacts of toxic substances. Although risk assessment and risk management processes have been used by government agencies to help estimate and manage risks associated with exposure to toxicants, these tools have many inadequacies and as a result have not served Native people well. In addition, resources have not always been adequate to address the concerns of Native Nations, and involvement of Native decision makers on a government-to-government basis in discussions regarding risk has only recently become common. Finally, because the definitions of health used by Native people are strikingly different from that of risk assessors, there is also a need to expand current definitions and incorporate traditional knowledge into decision making. Examples are discussed from the First Environment Restoration Initiative, a project that is working to address toxicant issues facing the Mohawk territory of Akwesasne. This project is developing a community-defined model in which health is protected at the same time that traditional cultural practices, which have long been the key to individual and community health, are maintained and restored.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (632.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Evans R. G., Stoddart G. L. Producing health, consuming health care. Soc Sci Med. 1990;31(12):1347–1363. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(90)90074-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gamble D. J. The berger inquiry: an impact assessment process. Science. 1978 Mar 3;199(4332):946–951. doi: 10.1126/science.199.4332.946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Harris S. G., Harper B. L. A Native American exposure scenario. Risk Anal. 1997 Dec;17(6):789–795. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb01284.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Harvey T., Mahaffey K. R., Velazquez S., Dourson M. Holistic risk assessment: an emerging process for environmental decisions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 1995 Oct;22(2):110–117. doi: 10.1006/rtph.1995.1076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Mott L. The disproportionate impact of environmental health threats on children of color. Environ Health Perspect. 1995 Sep;103 (Suppl 6):33–35. doi: 10.1289/ehp.95103s633. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Schell L. M., Tarbell A. M. A partnership study of PCBs and the health of Mohawk youth: lessons from our past and guidelines for our future. Environ Health Perspect. 1998 Jun;106 (Suppl 3):833–840. doi: 10.1289/ehp.98106833. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Sexton K., Olden K., Johnson B. L. "Environmental justice": the central role of research in establishing a credible scientific foundation for informed decision making. Toxicol Ind Health. 1993 Sep-Oct;9(5):685–727. doi: 10.1177/074823379300900504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Wheatley B., Paradis S. Balancing human exposure, risk and reality: questions raised by the Canadian aboriginal methylmercury program. Neurotoxicology. 1996 Spring;17(1):241–249. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES