0
0
As the oil and gas industry continues to expand across North America, a growing body of research has linked fossil fuel development to adverse health outcomes during and after pregnancy, including preterm birth, birth defects, and psychological stress. Now, new research suggests that these hazards may also extend to the preconception period.
A recent study led by Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) researchers, published in the American Journal of Public Health, indicates that people attempting to conceive and living near oil and gas development sites face an increased risk of mental health issues. The study analyzed data from the Pregnancy Study Online (PRESTO) and found a significant association between proximity to oil and gas production and the development of moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms.
The study revealed that individuals living within six miles of active oil and gas development reported higher levels of depressive symptoms compared to those living 12 to 31 miles away. Additionally, perceived stress was notably elevated among residents within 1.25 miles of these sites, with greater production intensity exacerbating stress levels.
These findings are particularly concerning given the increasing rates of maternal morbidity and mortality in the US, highlighting the vulnerabilities faced by individuals during the often-overlooked preconception period. This study is the first to examine the impact of fossil fuel development on people planning to conceive.
“Oil and gas development is a multifaceted exposure that rapidly alters the economy, social structures, and environment of communities,” explains Dr. Mary Willis, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of epidemiology at BUSPH. “These changes can create significant stress and depression among local residents, particularly those trying to conceive. Identifying and mitigating such hazards is essential for promoting healthy pregnancies.”
The study involved analyzing mental health survey data and information from a national database of oil and gas well locations in the US and Canada. The research team focused on 5,725 PRESTO participants from various geographical areas and restricted the analysis to households with incomes below $50,000, considering the financial constraints that might prevent relocation away from oil and gas activity.
To assess participants’ mental health, the team posed clinical questions about recent stressful experiences and depressive symptoms, as well as medication usage for mental health conditions. By using standardized metrics rather than relying on medical records, the study likely captured cases of depressive symptoms that might have been overlooked otherwise.
Study coauthor Erin Campbell, a research assistant in the Department of Epidemiology at BUSPH, notes that the economic fluctuations associated with oil and gas development contribute to community stress. “The ‘boom’ periods can overload local infrastructure and social systems, while ‘bust’ periods can result in job losses and economic hardship,” Campbell says.
The research also found that many participants experiencing elevated stress and depressive symptoms lived beyond the minimum distance mandated by several states to protect residents in homes, schools, and health facilities. For example, while the study linked poor mental health to individuals living within six miles of oil and gas activity, states like Texas and Pennsylvania have setback distances as short as 200 feet.
The researchers hope these findings will bring attention to the less visible health impacts of resource extraction and inform regulations for protective setback distances in residential areas. This new insight underscores the importance of considering mental health risks associated with oil and gas development, particularly for those planning to conceive.
