Consortium Spotlight: Meet Dr Hannah Blitzer Senior Policy Officer at Wildlife and Countryside Link
Welcome to our Consortium Spotlight, where we shine a light on our diverse community of experts dedicated to reducing the environmental impact of medicines in UK healthcare. This month we feature Dr Hannah Blitzer Senior Policy Officer at Wildlife and Countryside Link.
Q&A with Hannah Blitzer:
How did you get to where you are today?
“I have a background in studying law and my first legal work experience was with GlaxoSmithKline, ironically. In 2017 or 2018, I decided not to go forward with becoming a solicitor and decided to follow the academic, and later advocacy and policy route. I finished my PhD in environmental law in 2023, while completing an internship at the Center for International Environmental Law in Geneva and then working at several different UK and international organisations. That led to Wildlife and Countryside Link (“Link”), where I am now a Senior Policy Officer and lead the chemicals and farming and policy areas and legal strategy group. My chemicals policy engagement is how I came to be part of the Pharma Pollution Hub consortium. This has been an eye-opening experience, especially since I come from a specialised legal and environmental background rather than say healthcare or anything else like that.”
Why did you decide to transition from a focus on law to the environment?
“I have always had a strong connection to nature. I'm from America and my home state is Pennsylvania, which is full of beautiful forests and mountain landscapes. This connection has always been in the back of my mind in everything that I do. As I was completing my legal training, the thought of sitting behind a desk and only doing corporate and commercial law was a bit soul-destroying (though I have strong respect for anyone who enjoys it!). So, I wondered how I could join my personal interests of being connected with nature and creating a healthier environment with my professional life and make a career out of it. Turns out you can do both!”
In terms of your current work and organisation, how does it overlap with what the Pharma Pollution Hub is doing?
“As mentioned, I lead Link’s chemicals policy work and that's quite wide-ranging because we do policy engagement with government and other actors, like the Environment Agency. We also produce research and analysis on chemical pollution, often in partnership with The Rivers Trust. We're deeply concerned about chemical pollution, its impacts on nature and people, and pharmaceuticals are included in that. We have several campaigns that address these concerns, like our Chemical Cocktail Campaign the Nature 2030 Campaign and Nature 2030 Chemicals Mini-Manifesto. Within these efforts, we're calling on all politicians to step up their commitments about nature and chemicals in the next general election and enact better chemicals policy for the benefit of nature and people. What we’re asking for ranges from a pay rise for nature by increasing the nature-friendly farming budget, which will help farmers reduce chemical inputs, to improving resources for regulators and systems of environmental monitoring and management, which would be most relevant for pharmaceuticals. Working with the Pharma Pollution Hub on environmental monitoring and management has been of particular interest to Link, because it touches on these issues, environmental health, and access to nature. Securing a healthy environment, improving access to nature and so people becoming healthier is a self-reinforcing cycle, which is sadly broken at the moment. At Link, we are keen for policy change to pull all of this back together so that people and nature can have a healthier existence. There have been excellent developments in this area like green and blue social prescribing, but you can't prescribe access to nature as a health measure unless it's a healthy environment.”
How do you think your organisation could address the negative impacts of pharmaceutical pollution?
“We represent 83 organisations in England, and with their combined memberships are supported by over 8 million people, our greatest impact is from raising public awareness, and providing leadership in supporting our members with impactful policy engagement. The research we produce, such as assessing toxic chemical cocktails in rivers, drives public and political awareness of what can be quite scary issues and makes them more digestible, so that people can see the impact of toxic chemicals and pharmaceutical pollution on our environment, but also understand the policy that needs to change. As consumers of pharmaceuticals, we can reduce toxic burdens, but unless the wider frameworks that enable systems change are in place, we're not going to get very far. Beyond our campaigns, our impact is to bring together our members on issues of common concern and deliver joint policy and political advocacy. We will continue to develop our relationships with those working on pharmaceuticals and use this to advise politicians and parliamentary actors on the improvements needed to prevent pharmaceutical pollution. As an NGO that’s not a healthcare organisation, we need to be involved in the PPH network, so we use our resources effectively and work in collaboration with other organisations to have this impact.”
Where do you see the upstream causes for pharmaceutical pollution?
“A key cause is the way that society approaches healthcare, as well as the production of pharmaceuticals and how those are developed and produced. But at the end of the day, we first need to improve our connection with nature. That will drive change upstream practices. We also need to change prescribing practices where we can, where it's safe to do so drive appropriate regulations through policy on say production disposal practices, and establish better systems of monitoring and management of how upstream industry bodies and actors are operating within and impacting their environmental contexts. I think it comes back to systems thinking and how it can all work in harmony together. We can't just think about the regulation of the upstream actors because at the end of day, you need to also monitor what's happening in their outputs downstream and how their activities impact nature, access to healthy environments and the overall impact of human health.”
If you had a magic wand, and you could change one thing to address pharmaceutical pollution, what would you change and why?
“I would probably put forward a Nature Recovery Obligation on the upstream elements. A Nature Recovery Obligation is one of our asks in our Nature 2030 Campaign, and it includes establishing duties on large companies to reduce harm from toxic chemical pollution at the source and mandatory corporate disclosure of value-chain impacts. Implementation of such an obligation would mean that pharmaceutical polluters would need to produce nature recovery and climate plans – laying out how they would change their business practices to stop adding to harmful chemical pollution. With instances of chemical pollution that can be traced back to one actor(s), this must be dealt with appropriately, particularly for any sort of vulnerable communities and environments that might be affected. I would apply a similar obligation to the healthcare system and also include social, economic and environmental equity as a core principle for addressing pollution.”
Let's say it's 20 years in the future and the pharmaceutical pollution hub has completed its mission. What does that world look like? What does it smell like? What does it taste like? What does it feel like? What's the vision? What do you see, what's changed?
“That's a big question. I would like to see the different parts of the system working together more effectively than they are now. So, from the moment someone gets prescribed something, there are policies in place for how that medication is prescribed, is used, is disposed of, and how the packaging is recycled etc. Ideally, there will be a system in place for dealing with all these issues that we're discussing within PPH like environmentally-friendly pharmaceutical design and drivers for changing population health. Ideally, there will be a national policy framework that not only deals with England, but also brings together the devolved nations as well, and it all works in harmony. Ultimately, the one thing I would most like to see change is the healthcare industry and consumers understanding the extent of the pollution issue at hand and feel empowered to call for real change.”
Is there anything that you'd want to share with the rest of our network?
“Link’s Nature 2030 Chemicals Mini-manifesto is an excellent resource that outlines our vision for a toxic-free future. It broadly sets out our work on and asks for chemicals policy, but it's an example of the way that we could adapt existing frameworks and ask for change in the pharmaceutical context. Our 2023: Year in Review of Chemical Pollution, also has a section about our policy asks related to the pharmaceutical sector.”