Beyond Toxicity: Human Health and the Natural Environment

Citation

Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(3), 234-240. doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00317-2

Link to file

For a long time, environmental health research and teaching focused mostly on the dangers in the world around us — toxic chemicals, radiation, germs, and other harmful agents. But some things in the environment might actually be good for people.

This idea builds on what biologist E.O. Wilson called the “biophilia” hypothesis — the theory that humans are naturally drawn to other living things. Later thinkers expanded that idea, suggesting people have an inborn connection to nature more broadly. If that is true, then spending time with nature could have real health benefits.

The article presents evidence for this idea from four parts of the natural world: animals, plants, landscapes, and wilderness. It then explores what this means for the future of environmental health — a field that could look beyond just preventing harm and start actively promoting well-being. That would mean researching a wider range of environmental exposures that might be healthful, bringing together experts from fields like public health, landscape architecture, and city planning, and putting research into action through real-world interventions.

Abstract

Research and teaching in environmental health have centered on the hazardous effects of various environmental exposures, such as toxic chemicals, radiation, and biological and physical agents. However, some kinds of environmental exposures may have positive health effects. According to E.O. Wilson’s “biophilia” hypothesis, humans are innately attracted to other living organisms. Later authors have expanded this concept to suggest that humans have an innate bond with nature more generally. This implies that certain kinds of contact with the natural world may benefit health. Evidence supporting this hypothesis is presented from four aspects of the natural world: animals, plants, landscapes, and wilderness. Finally, the implications of this hypothesis for a broader agenda for environmental health, encompassing not only toxic outcomes but also salutary ones, are discussed. This agenda implies research on a range of potentially healthful environmental exposures, collaboration among professionals in a range of disciplines from public health to landscape architecture to city planning, and interventions based on research outcomes.