Search for a command to run...
You are probably reading this article right now on an electronic device which will become obsolete in just a few years. And, like most of us, you are probably eagerly looking forward to its next generation replacement. This is not just an industrialized country phenomenon. It is estimated that the developing regions of the world will generate twice the number of obsolete personal computers as the developed regions by 2030.1 Ideally, by that time most countries will have adopted/enforced formal health, safety and environmental standards for e-waste processing, and taken advantage of new technologies and management systems facilitating electronics reuse and recycling, supported by novel collaborations. But realistically, informal e-waste processing will continue to thrive, increasing the urgency with which we must examine the health risks in order to prioritize strategies for protecting local populations.The article “Exploratory Health Assessment of Chemical Exposures at E-Waste Recycling and Scrapyard Facility in Ghana” by Dr. Jack Caravanos of the School of Public Health at Hunter College and colleagues in this edition of the Journal of Health & Pollution is one attempt to provide the rigorous baseline data needed for evaluating pollution mitigation. We can learn much from studying Agbogbloshie in Ghana and the world's other notorious e-waste dump sites, moving from human health effects to social aspects, such as how to better convince consumers to return more obsolete electronics and request longer-lasting but still up-to-date products. Most importantly, we can learn how to best clean up the damage already done, in the short- and long-term, and how to convert dangerous practices into safe livelihoods for e-waste workers and their families.Over the past years, unforgettable photos and videos from the world's most infamous e-waste dump sites, including Guiyu and Taizhou in China, Kolkata in India, and Agbogbloshie, have helped spur action to characterize the hazards associated with informal e-waste processing and to address environmental and health impacts. We now know, for example, that open burning of wires and printed circuit boards to get rid of plastic for easier scrap metal recovery releases high levels of dioxins—among the most hazardous chemicals known—compared to open burning of household waste.23 We also know that these dioxins are present at elevated levels in virtually all environmental media—air, soil, sediment, indoor dust, and food—at China's largest e-waste dump sites, compared to other sites in China.4 A spate of recent exposure studies from China, Vietnam, Ghana5 and elsewhere confirms much feared suspicions that the dioxins, heavy metals, brominated flame retardants, polychlorinated biphenyls, perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), and other toxic chemicals released at these sites have made it into local food chains and into the breast milk, blood, and urine of workers and nearby inhabitants. One such study, published in this journal in 2011, documents extensive lead contamination in both ambient air and topsoil around the Agbogbloshie site in Ghana. Now the first wave of epidemiological studies, mostly from China, shows the adverse effects of these exposures on the health of infants, children and other vulnerable populations living near these sites.6789101112We can be somewhat encouraged because the problem is being attacked from many angles. Increasingly, individuals, organizations, companies, governments and multi-stakeholder networks are conducting the research and development needed to address the challenges. Getting better information on the shifting problem is key and a number of efforts are underway to do so, including: a Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP) Initiative meta-project called ADDRESS (Annual Dynamic Digital Reporting on the Global E-waste Status) that identifies volumes of e-waste generated and collected by individual countries;13 a joint StEP/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effort to characterize used-electronics exports from the United States, which involves the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the National Center for Electronics Recycling; a similar study by the U.S. International Trade Commission; and one by the U.S./Canada/Mexico Commission for Environmental Cooperation looking at exports from North America.There are also policy efforts aimed at more effectively addressing the international trade in e-waste within the framework of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes,14 and incentives to better enforce existing national legislation or develop policies and new legislation. These efforts are likely helping stem the tide of e-waste exports from industrialized to industrializing countries, although precise trade flow data are scarce. Outside the Basel Convention, efforts to redirect e-waste flows from informal to more formal operations are growing. For example, in 2011 the U.S. Government released its National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship, which includes a commitment to using only certified recyclers for recycling of government electronics.15 Additional examples include the European Union's revised Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive addressing increased collection—and therefore recycling rates16—and the “Best of Two-Worlds” approach developed within the StEP Initiative leading to a fair work and benefit distribution along the reverse supply chain.17Upstream activities within the electronics industry to design more sustainable electronics (which are easier to re-use/recycle, thus having a smaller ecological footprint18) and to comply with Restriction on Hazardous Substances laws in Europe,19 China,20 the state of California in the U.S.,21 and elsewhere should ultimately help reduce release of heavy metals, brominated flame retardants, and other chemicals from both formal and informal e-waste processing. StEP's Ewaste Academies for Managers and Scientists from industrializing countries, its support for the development of holistic e-waste management systems in Ethiopia, Ghana and Nigeria, and its detailed e-waste quantification efforts around the world are intended to provide rigorous scientific support for policy decisions. Tangible efforts to raise awareness and demonstrate environmentally sound e-waste management practices are increasing as well. For example, in 2011, StEP and the U.S. EPA joined with other international partners, including the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and the Ethiopian Government, to build capacity to develop a system for managing the growing e-waste stream in Ethiopia. An existing computer training and refurbishment facility will include a space for de-manufacturing e-waste and ensuring recycling takes place properly. As a result, the Global Environment Facility contributed US$1 million to further the sustainability of this effort. Initiatives in Asia and Latin America continue as well and the growing number of requests for assistance from countries with developing e-waste laws and policies indicate a fast-paced movement toward improved management of e-waste. In the meantime, informal e-waste processing continues at a pace paralleling the explosive growth in electronic product manufacturing and use.