Explainer: What is Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+)?

Explainer: What is Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+)?

This blog post was written by Kanisha Acharya-Patel, WHEN’s Law Reform Specialist, and the views expressed are not intended as legal advice. WHEN advocates for all women, trans, cis, and Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB) individuals. For the purposes of this blog post, the term ‘women’ is used to describe those with ovarian reproductive systems and/or those who identify as women, recognizing that both sex and gender affect one’s vulnerability to environmental harm.

What is GBA+?

GBA+ is an essential analytical tool for developing effective and equitable policies, programs and legislation for diverse populations by identifying direct or indirect impacts of federal government initiatives on different sub-populations and subsequently taking steps to mitigate the negative impacts. GBA+ provides a mandated ‘gender lens’ through which sex and gendered impacts of federal government initiatives are to be evaluated and addressed. The ‘plus’ in GBA+ acknowledges that GBA goes beyond biological (sex) and socio-environmental (gender) differences [1]. GBA+ incorporates a range of intersecting identity factors beyond sex and gender (namely ethnicity, race, religion, age, disability, geography, culture, income, sexual orientation, education, and language) which form and uphold overlapping and interdependent systems of privilege, discrimination and inequality [2].  Therefore, the ‘plus’ in GBA+ essentially expands the ‘gender lens’ of GBA+ into a ‘vulnerability lens’ as it analyzes how a government initiative can have differential impacts on subpopulations based on their identity factors. GBA+ is especially important when considering that historically, federal government initiatives have been informed by a gender-blind approach, where the impact on sex, gender, and other identity factors were not understood or acknowledged in the development of policies, programs and legislation [3]. Women and Gender Equality Canada has released a series of videos intended to increase public understanding of GBA+, including a step by step overview of the GBA+ process.

WHEN’s commitment to GBA+

WHEN is a strong advocate for the use of GBA+ when government initiatives are being developed, implemented or evaluated because GBA+ provides an intersectional feminist lens through which inequities can be identified and addressed. WHEN also believes the federal government should be held accountable for its international and domestic commitments to conduct GBA+ in the development, implementation and evaluation of all federal government initiatives, including legislation, policies and programs. 

Why does GBA+ matter in the context of toxic substance management?

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is the primary piece of federal legislation for protecting environmental and human health, including through the prevention and management of risks posed by toxic substance exposures. In June 2023, CEPA was amended for the first time since 1999 through Bill S-5. GBA+ is mandatory in the development, implementation and evaluation of federal government initiatives, including the approach to managing toxic substances under CEPA.

As explained above, GBA+ analyzes the possible impacts of a government initiative on diverse groups of women, men and gender diverse individuals, by taking into consideration sex, gender, race, income and other intersecting identity factors. Any person’s identity factors, either alone or in tandem, can cause them to be more vulnerable to adverse health impacts from toxic substance exposures. In this context, identity factors can be divided into two categories: physiological determinants of health (such as sex and age) and socio-environmental determinants of health (such as gender, race, socioeconomic status and geographical location). 

Health inequity in toxic substance risk assessments

The current risk assessment processes for determining whether a substance is toxic under CEPA fails to consider the significant variability in exposure to toxic substances and susceptibility to adverse health effects from such exposures due to an individual’s or sub-population’s identity factors such as sex, gender, income, or occupation. When assessing the risk of a toxic substance under CEPA, the assumption is that the greater the dose of chemical exposure, the greater the harm to human health. However, this is an oversimplification of the reality: harm to human health from toxic substances varies widely based on physiological determinants of health and socio-environmental determinants of health, which can intersect and negatively impact an individual’s chemical body burden (a measure of a person’s chemical load or a sum of total exposures from all routes of entry (ingestion, absorption, inhalation) and from all sources (air, water food) from all the places we work, live and play in) [4].  The current approach under CEPA narrowly examines the risks of chemicals one at a time, which fails to consider the reality of multiple, cumulative exposures and interactions between multiple chemicals. For example, a risk assessment may conclude that exposure to chemical X in isolation at a low dose will not cause harm to human health, but this assessment does not consider the effects of being exposed to chemical X multiple times during the day, or being exposed to chemical X, Y and Z at the same time. 

Physiological determinants of health are not accounted for

Sex, age, disability, and ethnicity are physiological identity factors that impact an individual’s susceptibility to adverse health effects from toxic substances. The safety of a toxic substance is determined using a margin of exposure evaluation, which calculates the difference between the estimated threshold at which a chemical is considered harmful to human health (i.e. toxicity endpoint) and its estimated exposure levels [5]. However, this approach does not consider how sex, age, and other physiological identity factors can influence the margin of exposure. For example, sex and age can intersect and compound a woman’s susceptibility to adverse health effects: in terms of sex, women have a unique susceptibility to chemicals due to sex-specific differences in biochemical pathways, hormone regulation, metabolism, body fat composition, blood chemistry and the size of body tissues [6]. Sex-specific differences can result in women having a lower threshold for toxicity, which means that exposure even at a low dose can have negative impacts. Further, many chemicals have sex-specific impacts, such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC) which negatively impact metabolic growth and reproductive processes and contribute to the incidence of various diseases such as breast cancer and fibromyalgia [7]. In terms of age, epidemiological evidence demonstrates that women are more biologically vulnerable to toxic substance exposures during critical windows of vulnerability such as puberty, pregnancy, lactation, and menopause [8]. Therefore, a woman in a critical window of vulnerability is inherently more susceptible to adverse health effects from toxic substance exposure. 

Socio-environmental determinants of health are not accounted for

Gender, income, education, language, geography, culture and religion are socio-environmental identity factors that impact an individual’s exposure to toxic substances. Exposure to toxic substances can occur through inhalation, ingestion, and skin absorption, and sources of exposure include air, water, food, soil, dust, and through the use of consumer products. To estimate exposure, scientists use standard default values for “receptor characteristics” (i.e. characteristics of a hypothetical person exposed to a substance) such as body weight, drinking water intake, and soil and dust inhalation [9]. These standard default values are supposedly representative of the “Canadian general population”, but the federal government does not provide guidance on who constitutes the “Canadian general population”, and the use of this term dramatically oversimplifies the diversity within Canadian populations and subpopulations. This approach for assessing exposure raises various concerns, including the use of aggregated, outdated data and data from other countries with significantly different demographics. The use of aggregated data (i.e. data representative of the “general population”) conceals health inequities by assuming that exposure will be the same across all subpopulations.

Risk management measures are inadequate for protecting vulnerable populations

Risk management measures place responsibility on the consumer

Currently, industries/producers are not required under CEPA to identify hazardous substances in their labelling [10]. This prevents consumers from being able to make informed purchasing decisions, and the commercial availability of products which contain but do not identify toxic substances suggest to consumers that they are safe to use. The chemicals management approach places the burden on the consumer to ensure that the products they are using are safe, which individualizes responsibility and relies on personal strategies of precautionary consumption and distracts from higher level policy and legislative change [11]. Further, consumers bear the burden of having to scour government publications for information surrounding the risks of toxic substances, which raises access to information concerns, especially for communities with reduced access to the internet, lower literacy rates, or language barriers. 

Risk management measures do not promote access to justice

Access to justice is increasingly difficult for victims of toxic exposures, particularly for victims of chronic exposure and vulnerable groups. Obstacles include information asymmetries, power imbalances, limited availability of class actions and legal aid, and financial burden of court processes. Court processes are only a viable option for those with adequate financial resources; those that can’t afford it can’t pursue legal avenues, which further embeds them in vulnerable positions [12].

Those scented candles you love are not healthy

Those scented candles you love are not healthy

By WHEN Team Members: Anuja Purohit & Zeina Seaifan  Opinion | October 24th 2023

As October brings with it Breast Cancer Awareness Month, many of us are thinking about ways to embrace the season by engaging with overall wellness. Scented candles frequently find their way into our homes this time of year, but could be leading us down a path of potential adverse health effects.

Over the past few years, consumers' interest in scented candles has exploded with an emphasized shift from candles for décor to wellness purposes. Categorized with other “wellness” trends such as supplements and chia seeds, it is worth wondering at what point the fixation with the “clean girl esthetic” and wellness practices is rooted in this notion of being “unwell.”

In the 1950s, Dr. Halbert L. Dunn coined the term wellness, from which terms of health, well-being and wellness have distinctly been drawn. However, through the now estimated over $4-trillion industry, this image-conscious version of health has transformed into something that likely surpassed its originator’s initial vision.

Scented candles can have adverse effects on health, particularly for AFAB (assigned female at birth) or those with ovarian reproductive systems. Scented candles are comprised of chemicals, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and phthalates, which are used to prolong the fragrance’s longevity. Phthalates are known endocrine disruptors that can disrupt hormone balance and lead to conditions like breast cancer, endometriosis miscarriage and reproductive harm. Gender norms and “wellness” marketing put women at higher risk of chemical exposure from wellness items, personal care products and markedly, scented candles.

Scented candles can also have a wide-reaching environmental impact. Most conventional candles are made from paraffin wax. This is a petroleum waste product that is chemically bleached and derived from crude oil, which creates highly toxic benzene and toluene when burned (both are known carcinogens on the list of toxic substances managed by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act).

Robert Crawford in the 1980s devised the term healthism at a time when illness was regarded as a personal responsibility. Cancer, diabetes and heart attacks were typically attributed to individual responsibility, rather than any potential environmental factors. As such, you did not have to worry about falling ill due to external factors beyond your personal control.

Healthism questioned this presumption of individualism, through everyday products such as scented candles, as a remedy for being “unwell.” It is worth noting, however, that many environmental factors are presently still not explored and considered in the majority of health cases. By illuminating the health risks associated with candles, we draw attention to the broader issue of environmental factors frequently overlooked in health care.

Unfortunately, the burden of purity politics is on the consumer to recognize the harmful effects of scented candles. Calls to opt for natural alternatives, such as beeswax or soy candles, can significantly reduce the negative impact on women's health and the environment, but often come with higher price tags, positioning them as items of indulgence rather than necessity and further perpetuating existing inequalities.

Here, classist ideals emerge through exclusivity. The luxury attached to esthetic candles reinforces the idea that certain sensory experiences are reserved for those who can afford them. The cultural value placed on creating a specific atmosphere or lifestyle through esthetics contributes to an environment where the ability to curate such experiences is perceived as a mark of higher social standing.

Governments and regulatory authorities have a crucial role to play in safeguarding the environment and public health. In Canada, one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. Preventing toxic exposures starts with stringent regulations on toxic substances to remove the burden of prevention from the consumer.

With the recent passing of Bill S-5, an act to amend CEPA and strengthen toxics regulations, this may be possible sooner rather than later. But there is still a long way to go before toxic fragrances and candles get swiped off the shelves.

While “wellness” practices have their place, it is important to critically reflect on how much of this is driven by profit, and, ironically, identify the potential health risks of “wellness culture” and the risks it poses on particular populations. Health, healthism, well-being and wellness are not synonyms. As the “dose makes the poison,” a glut of wellness may eventually lead to unwell practices.

Anuja Purohit is a law student at the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law / Common Law. She has completed her Honours Bachelor of Arts in Political Science with a minor in Environmental Studies (Wilfrid Laurier University) and a Masters of Environment and Sustainability (University of Toronto).

Zeina Seaifan is a recent master's graduate at the University of Toronto, where she specialized in environmental and social sustainability.

World Environment Day: It’s time to #BeatPlasticPollution

Honour Stahl, Executive Director, WHEN

Co-written by Jane McArthur, Toxics Program Director at Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and Karen Wirsig, Plastic Program Manager at Environmental Defence

This year, the focus of World Environment Day is to #BeatPlasticPollution. And there are so many reasons to do it, from protecting the environment and all living things from the pollution caused by plastic manufacturing, use and waste, to ensuring workers who make plastic products aren’t being exposed to the dangerous chemicals that are used in the process. 

Winning the fight against plastic pollution will require tackling each toxic branch of the plastic  “death-spiral”, from cradle to grave. From the extraction of oil to the exportation of waste, plastic pollutes the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink.

Worldwide, 460 million tonnes of new plastic are made in a year and production is rising exponentially. Single-use plastic waste is at record levels, with a hefty climate toll. One report warns: "Plastics are essentially fossil fuels in another form…98% of single-use plastics come from fossil fuel feedstocks. It is no coincidence that ExxonMobil, one of the biggest fossil fuel producers in the world, also ranks as the world’s top producer of single-use plastic." 

Despite widespread use of plastics in healthcare, plastic is not benign

One of the plastic industry’s favourite pro-plastic arguments is to say that their product is a health care hero. They say the need for plastics in healthcare means we can’t ban or control its production. This argument seeks to shut down the conversation. It also ignores some important facts when it comes to plastic’s impact on our health.

It is true that there are many applications for plastics in health care. From intravenous bags, specimen collection containers, catheters, syringes, vials and gloves, plastic is ubiquitous. However, some of these uses come with health costs that Industry fails to mention when it centres healthcare applications in its defensive messaging. 

Plastic devices made of polyvinyl chloride plastics (PVC) containing di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) to make them flexible, are of particular concern to physicians and healthcare workers in the care of their patients. PVC, DEHP, and other toxic substances in plastics are harmful to humans even in healthcare settings. Certain populations, including dialysis patients and hemophiliacs, have long-term exposures to troubling amounts of DEHP, and newborn babies are exposed during critical points of development. This exposure can lead to a range of adverse effects in the liver, reproductive tract, kidneys, lungs, and heart. Developing infants and children are particularly susceptible to effects on the reproductive system.

Plastic is costing us. Big time. The global costs of treating plastics-related illnesses and trying to clean up waste in the environment are pegged at a staggering $800 billion CAD. 

But the reality is that safe alternatives to plastics in healthcare are already being implemented. One US healthcare provider has already eliminated the use of PVC and DEHP in IV bags and is prohibiting PVC in  new furniture and flooring. We expect this trend to grow. 

Workers manufacturing plastic products are exposed to a cocktail of toxic substances

Workers are exposed to high levels of carcinogens, neurotoxins, heavy metals, flame retardants, phthalates, bisphenols, and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) during plastics production. Retired Pebra Plastics Plant worker and former union local president Rose Wickman reports miscarriages, hysterectomies, infertility and deaths among co-workers. Wickman and others worry that “nobody wants to listen to the workers.”  

Women, racialized, and Indigenous people disproportionately experience the adverse health outcomes of the manufacture of plastics and exposure to plastics in and around consumer goods. Sarnia, Ontario, is home to one of the largest clusters of manufacturing facilities in this sector and workers and residents in nearby communities, including Aamjiwnaang First Nation, are suffering from exposure to toxic gases, chemical waste, and air pollution. 

Plastic is taking over our grocery stores, and that means it’s in our food

But plastic pollution does not stop there. With more than 70 percent of grocery store products wrapped in plastic, exposure to toxics has become unavoidable for the average consumer. Plastic pollution is a risk to public health that is causing concern for more and more people in Canada, with some populations at more risk than others. The high levels of endocrine disrupting chemicals in plastics cause disproportionate harm to people with ovarian reproductive systems. 

With human health at risk, government must do better at getting plastics off the shelves and out of healthcare settings where possible. With the recent success of a modernized Canadian Environmental Protection Act that will – for the first time in federal law – include the right to a healthy environment, reducing plastics is not only possible but a right to be acknowledged for the sake of human and planetary health. But action cannot stop there. 

The solutions are clear and we must move on them together

Governments, who met last week in Paris to continue negotiations for a global treaty on plastic pollution,  must commit to an ambitious deal that includes major reductions to plastics production worldwide, keeping oil and gas in the ground, executing more comprehensive single-use plastic bans, building large-scale refill and reuse systems, and holding big polluters like Exxon – which is the majority shareholder of Canada-based Imperial Oil – accountable for putting profits over people. 

Canada’s federal government also needs to keep up the pressure to eliminate single-use plastics, phase out hazardous chemicals related to plastics,  and replace packaging, where it’s needed, with reuse and refill systems. 

Clean up your Act: Environmental Rights in Canada

Bill C-28 was tabled this spring, and it seeks to reform our toxics legislation under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. This Act is long overdue for reform, and there are some improvements in the Bill, but there is a massive problem with its framing of environmental rights. 

The Bill proposes that our right to a healthy environment be “balanced” with relevant factors, including…economic…factors” against economic considerations - which is how we got into our current climate, toxics and biodiversity mess in the first place. 

This latest report from WHEN offers some recommendations on where we can improve our CEPA reform efforts post-election, and we hope you read it, share it and use it to hold candidates and elected officials accountable so that we can strengthen this Act, and gain environmental rights in the process. 

Clean up your Act:

Environmental Rights in Canada

View and download

Non équilibrée:

Les droits environnementaux au Canada

voir et télécharger

World Environment Day 2021: Environmental Rights Now!

WHEN joins our colleagues at the David Suzuki Foundation, the Canadian Environmental Law Association and environmental health organizations across the country to seek progress on C-28 and the modernization of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

We urge the Hon. Pablo Rodriguez, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to place Bill C-28 on the House agenda for debate at the earliest opportunity, and to work with the House Leaders of other parties to enable a vote at second reading before World Environment Day, June 5, 2021.

See our joint letter here.