Parkinson’s disease is often described as an inevitable byproduct of getting older, but a growing body of research is challenging that assumption and arguing that much of the global burden could be avoided. Instead of treating Parkinson’s as a mysterious fate, neurologists are increasingly framing it as a largely man-made crisis driven by identifiable risks that can be reduced, regulated, or removed.
I see a clear shift in the science and in the language experts use: from resignation to responsibility. Researchers are not claiming that every case can be stopped, but they are drawing a sharp line between the small share tied to genes and the substantial share linked to toxic exposures, workplace hazards, and preventable environmental conditions.
Why scientists are calling Parkinson’s “largely preventable”
The most provocative claim in the current debate is also the simplest: Parkinson’s disease is not a natural consequence of aging. Neurologists who study the condition now argue that the steep rise in cases reflects what humans have added to the environment, not what time alone does to the brain. In one widely discussed presentation, a leading specialist stated that the central message is that Parkinson disease is preventable and that it is “not a natural consequence of aging,” a view captured in a talk linked to Apr Parkinson.
That argument is echoed in clinical conversations where experts describe Parkinson’s as a disabling and very deadly disease that is, in large part, man-made. In one such discussion, Dr. Subramanian framed the condition through a wellness lens and suggested that if people are at risk for degenerative disease, they should be thinking about how modern exposures and lifestyle patterns shape that risk, a point reflected in comments attributed to Dec Subramanian. I read these statements not as hype but as a reframing of Parkinson’s from an unavoidable diagnosis to a public health failure that can be corrected.
Genes versus environment: what actually drives risk
For years, public understanding of Parkinson’s has leaned heavily on genetics, as if family history were destiny. The emerging consensus is more nuanced. Researchers who track environmental exposures argue that genes account for only a minority of cases, while the majority can be traced to what people breathe, drink, and handle at work or at home. One overview of environmental toxins notes that while genes matter, a poll of experts and advocates found strong concern that pesticides, air pollution, and industrial chemicals are driving much of the current epidemic, a concern summarized in a resource that asks, “Can pesticides and air pollution cause Parkinson’s disease?” and invites readers to Can Parkinson Learn more about those links.
Large-scale epidemiologic work backs up that shift in emphasis. A major analysis of environmental toxicants concludes that Parkinson’s disease is predominantly an environmental disorder, not a genetic one, and that exposure to specific toxicants is a central driver of its rapid growth. The same research notes that all three environmental toxicants it highlights are still widely used in some settings, even as Parkinson’s disease is increasingly rare in populations that are not exposed, a pattern detailed in an Jan Abstract Parkinson that has helped crystallize the environmental case.
The new numbers: how many cases could be avoided
Once scientists began to quantify environmental contributions, the conversation shifted from theory to hard numbers. Neurology researchers from the University of Alabama at Birmingham have estimated that a substantial number of Parkinson’s disease cases can be attributed to preventable risk factors, including specific toxic exposures and head injuries. Their work, published in a specialist journal, suggests that these modifiable risks account for a significant share of cases in both men and women, with some estimates indicating that roughly one in three cases in men and about one in four in women could be linked to such factors, according to an analysis associated with Photography Steve Wood University of Alabama Birmingham Nature.
Those figures are conservative in one sense, because they focus on risks that can be measured clearly in existing data sets. When I look across the literature, the direction of travel is unmistakable: as more exposures are studied, the preventable fraction tends to rise, not fall. That is why some clinicians now speak in sweeping terms, arguing that Parkinson’s largely is a preventable disease and calling for a fundamental reorientation of research and policy. In a detailed interview, Dorsey, a neurologist who has helped popularize this framing, argued that the field needs more research to slow or stop progression but also far more investment in preventing new cases, a stance reflected in a conversation captured under the heading Aug How Parkinson Dorsey When Dr.
The toxic trio: pesticides, solvents, and air pollution
When experts talk about man-made Parkinson’s, they are not speaking in abstractions. They are pointing to specific chemicals and pollutants that damage dopamine-producing neurons. Pesticides are at the top of that list. Other pesticides, like paraquat, have been found to increase production of free radicals that can damage cells, and some people are more vulnerable because they lack a gene known as GSTT1, which normally helps detoxify certain compounds. Similarly, other research has indicated that exposure to paraquat, permethrin, and trifluralin is associated with higher Parkinson’s risk and faster progression of the disease, a pattern summarized in a detailed overview of Other Some.
Solvents and air pollution round out what some researchers call a toxic trio. Industrial degreasers and trichloroethylene have been linked to elevated Parkinson’s rates in workers and nearby communities, while fine particulate air pollution appears to increase risk even at levels that meet current regulatory standards. The environmental analysis that labeled Parkinson’s predominantly an environmental disease highlighted that all three of its featured toxicants remain in use in various countries, even as Parkinson’s is increasingly rare in populations that are not exposed, reinforcing the argument that the disease tracks with industrialization and chemical use rather than with aging alone, as detailed in the same Jan Abstract Parkinson.
What neurologists still say we cannot control
Even as the environmental case strengthens, neurologists are careful to draw boundaries around what is currently preventable. The exact cause of Parkinson’s is still not fully known, and clinicians emphasize that there is no known way to avoid every case. One widely circulated explainer notes that Parkinson’s cases are set to double by 2050 and quotes experts saying that there is no known way to avoid Parkinson’s disease entirely, even as they stress that taking care of cardiovascular health, staying active, and avoiding head trauma can reduce risk, a balance captured in a resource that highlights how Parkinson There is still no guaranteed shield.
That tension is important. When I speak with clinicians, they worry about two extremes: fatalism, which leads people to ignore modifiable risks, and overconfidence, which can blame patients for a disease that is still only partly understood. The most responsible voices thread the needle. They argue that while genes and chance still play a role, the evidence is strong enough to justify aggressive action on environmental drivers now, rather than waiting for perfect mechanistic explanations. In that sense, the claim that Parkinson’s is largely preventable is less a promise to individuals than a challenge to governments, regulators, and industries that control the sources of exposure.
From personal risk to public health strategy
If Parkinson’s is driven by shared environments, then the solutions must go beyond individual lifestyle tweaks. Public health history offers a roadmap. Analysts who study population-level interventions point out that public health initiatives achieved remarkable successes in the last century by reducing morbidity and mortality from childhood infectious diseases, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, and by promoting healthy lifestyles and environments. One review of gambling policy, of all things, uses that history to argue that the same public health tools can be applied to new problems, noting how Public health initiatives reshaped entire risk landscapes.
Translating that logic to Parkinson’s means treating pesticides, solvents, and polluted air the way previous generations treated leaded gasoline or secondhand smoke. Neurologists and environmental health experts are calling for bans or strict limits on the most dangerous chemicals, better protections for farmworkers and industrial employees, and urban planning that reduces exposure to traffic-related air pollution. The goal is not to ask individuals to navigate invisible hazards on their own but to redesign systems so that the default environment is less likely to injure the brain.
Policy levers: bans, regulations, and community action
Some of the most concrete proposals focus on specific chemicals and regulatory gaps. Clinicians who see Parkinson’s patients daily are increasingly vocal about the need to raise awareness of environmental risks and to support measures to limit or ban certain chemicals. One practical guide urges readers to raise awareness in their communities and to support initiatives that restrict the use of high-risk pesticides and industrial compounds, arguing that this is one of the most effective ways to reduce future cases, a call to action captured in a resource that encourages people to Raise Support for tighter controls.
Community-level advocacy can be surprisingly powerful. Local campaigns have already pushed some school districts to stop using certain herbicides on playgrounds and sports fields, and neighborhood groups have pressed city councils to monitor air quality near major highways and warehouses. When I look at the trajectory of other environmental health victories, from asbestos restrictions to smoking bans in restaurants, the pattern is consistent: scientific evidence builds quietly, then public pressure forces regulators and companies to act. Parkinson’s researchers are now trying to accelerate that cycle by making the environmental evidence more accessible to non-specialists.
How experts communicate a new narrative
Shifting public perception of Parkinson’s requires more than journal articles. It demands a new narrative that people can grasp and act on. One example is a broadcast conversation titled “The book that was written to prevent Parkinson’s Disease,” in which a neurologist explains that he increasingly thinks that Parkinson’s disease is not a natural consequence of aging but an unnatural consequence of modern exposures. That discussion, available through a public television segment on Parkinson, is part of a broader effort to translate complex epidemiology into plain language.
In parallel, clinicians like Dorsey and Dr. Subramanian are using interviews, podcasts, and patient forums to repeat a few core messages: that Parkinson’s is the world’s fastest growing brain disorder, that environmental toxicants are central to that growth, and that policy choices can change the trajectory. I see this as a deliberate move away from the idea that Parkinson’s is a private tragedy and toward the view that it is a collective responsibility, much like traffic safety or clean drinking water. The more that message spreads, the harder it becomes for policymakers to ignore the environmental roots of the disease.
What individuals can do while policy catches up
Even as the focus shifts to structural change, people understandably want to know what they can do now. Neurologists typically recommend a mix of exposure reduction and general brain health strategies. On the exposure side, that can mean avoiding the use of high-risk pesticides in home gardens, checking whether local water supplies are contaminated with industrial solvents, and using protective equipment if work involves chemicals that have been linked to Parkinson’s. On the health side, clinicians emphasize regular exercise, a Mediterranean-style diet, and protecting the head with seat belts and helmets, all of which support brain resilience even if they do not eliminate environmental risks.
At the same time, experts caution against magical thinking. There is no single supplement, smartphone app, or fitness routine that can guarantee protection. The most realistic approach is layered: reduce known exposures where possible, support policies that phase out the worst offenders, and maintain overall neurological health. As the science evolves, I expect that guidance to become more specific, with clearer lists of chemicals to avoid and stronger evidence on which combinations of lifestyle and environmental changes offer the greatest protection.
The stakes of inaction
The argument that Parkinson’s is largely preventable is not an academic exercise. It is a warning about what will happen if societies fail to act. Projections that cases will double by mid-century are based on current exposure patterns and aging trends. If pesticides like paraquat remain in widespread use, if industrial solvents continue to leak into groundwater, and if air pollution stays at current levels, then the world will see more people living longer with a disabling and very deadly disease that could have been partly avoided.
History suggests that waiting for absolute certainty is a costly mistake. Public health successes against tobacco, lead, and drunk driving all began with imperfect evidence and strong resistance from affected industries. In each case, early action saved lives and money, even as the science continued to evolve. The same logic now applies to Parkinson’s. The research record, from the environmental analyses that label it predominantly an environmental disease to the University of Alabama at Birmingham estimates of preventable cases, points in one direction. The question is whether policymakers, companies, and communities will treat that evidence as a call to redesign the world in which our brains age, or as another warning that can be safely ignored.
More from MorningOverview