The multi-decade household humidifier disinfectant poisoning tragedy (HHDT) in South Korea highlights the importance of investigating government failures. This study aims to identify and discuss key failures and shortcomings in the South Korean authorities’ approach to regulating humidifier disinfectants (HDs) and monitoring cases of chemical poisoning. We reviewed both the HD risk prevention measures that the South Korean Ministry of Environment (KME) should have implemented under the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TCCA) (1991–2013).Polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate (PHMG), a new chemical, was approved for use as a disinfectant under the TCCA. KME declared PHMG non-hazardous based solely on preproduction documentation provided by the industry. In addition, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCPA) failed to detect the HHDT that had accumulated each year for more than a decade. KME’s neglect of its responsibilities, coupled with KDCPA’s lack of chemical poisoning surveillance systems, led to the accumulation of widespread HHDT.

The multi-decade household humidifier disinfectant poisoning tragedy (HHDT) in South Korea highlights the importance of investigating government failures. This study aims to identify and discuss key failures and shortcomings in the South Korean authorities’ approach to regulating humidifier disinfectants (HDs) and monitoring cases of chemical poisoning. We reviewed both the HD risk prevention measures that the South Korean Ministry of Environment (KME) should have implemented under the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TCCA) (1991–2013).Polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate (PHMG), a new chemical, was approved for use as a disinfectant under the TCCA. KME declared PHMG non-hazardous based solely on preproduction documentation provided by the industry. In addition, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCPA) failed to detect the HHDT that had accumulated each year for more than a decade. KME’s neglect of its responsibilities, coupled with KDCPA’s lack of chemical poisoning surveillance systems, led to the accumulation of widespread HHDT.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

The multi-decade household humidifier disinfectant poisoning tragedy (HHDT) in South Korea highlights the importance of investigating government failures. This study aims to identify and discuss key failures and shortcomings in the South Korean authorities’ approach to regulating humidifier disinfectants (HDs) and monitoring cases of chemical poisoning. We reviewed both the HD risk prevention measures that the South Korean Ministry of Environment (KME) should have implemented under the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TCCA) (1991–2013).Polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate (PHMG), a new chemical, was approved for use as a disinfectant under the TCCA. KME declared PHMG non-hazardous based solely on preproduction documentation provided by the industry. In addition, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCPA) failed to detect the HHDT that had accumulated each year for more than a decade. KME’s neglect of its responsibilities, coupled with KDCPA’s lack of chemical poisoning surveillance systems, led to the accumulation of widespread HHDT.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

The multi-decade household humidifier disinfectant poisoning tragedy (HHDT) in South Korea highlights the importance of investigating government failures. This study aims to identify and discuss key failures and shortcomings in the South Korean authorities’ approach to regulating humidifier disinfectants (HDs) and monitoring cases of chemical poisoning. We reviewed both the HD risk prevention measures that the South Korean Ministry of Environment (KME) should have implemented under the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TCCA) (1991–2013).Polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate (PHMG), a new chemical, was approved for use as a disinfectant under the TCCA. KME declared PHMG non-hazardous based solely on preproduction documentation provided by the industry. In addition, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCPA) failed to detect the HHDT that had accumulated each year for more than a decade. KME’s neglect of its responsibilities, coupled with KDCPA’s lack of chemical poisoning surveillance systems, led to the accumulation of widespread HHDT.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.