Invited Perspective: Why Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, and Evidence-to-Decision Frameworks Are Critical for Transparent, Consistent, Equitable, and Science-Based Decision-Making in Environmental Health

Overview

Systematic reviews play a pivotal role in environmental health as they require a multitude of macro- and micro-decisions. However, the integrity of these reviews can be compromised if conducted by biased investigative teams, leading to erroneous conclusions and misguided policy decisions. This critical issue is relevant not just for chemical exposures but applies equally to electromagnetic fields (EMF).

Concerns and Challenges

• There is growing concern that systematic review methodologies are being appropriated by state and federal agencies—including the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—in regulatory processes, without adherence to empirically based standards.
• This misapplication can significantly underestimate the risks associated with toxic environmental exposures, posing a threat to public health, especially in vulnerable populations such as low-income communities and communities of color.
• This perspective highlights the urgent need for transparent, consistent, and evidence-driven systematic reviews and supporting frameworks to ensure equitable and scientifically sound environmental health policies.

Conclusion

In summary, the use of systematically structured reviews and evidence-to-decision frameworks is essential to achieve fair, transparent, and science-based decisions in environmental health. When these processes are allowed to be biased or misappropriated, they risk underestimating the harms from exposures such as EMF and chemicals, potentially worsening health outcomes among the most vulnerable groups.