EWG
Twitter
Postcard from California: Are corporate “climate offsets” just greenwashing?
By Bill Walker
Apple touts the newest model of the Apple Watch as its first “carbon neutral” product – made with “100% clean energy” and “recycled and renewable materials” and shipped by “lower-carbon modes” instead of by air. But a close look at the watch’s environmental specs shows that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in its manufacturing and supply chain only goes so far.
More than one-fifth of the claimed savings in emissions are attributed to Apple’s purchase of so-called climate offsets, including shares in a project to plant eucalyptus timber plantations in eastern Paraguay, far from its Silicon Valley headquarters or its factories in China.
The project’s backers say the climate offsets it is buying reflect a reduction in eastern Paraguay’s emissions from cattle ranching, a leading source of planet-heating methane. But human rights groups say the scheme is driving peasant farmers from their land for little actual climate gain as most of the newly planted trees will be harvested quickly for consumer products.
Apple is but one of many corporate giants that has pledged to cut its company-wide emissions to “net zero” by 2030, joined by Google, Disney, Netflix and many more brands.
Even ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron – the multinational oil companies that are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in the last decade – say they will be net zero by 2050.
According to the nonprofit Net Zero Tracker, more than 1,000 of the world’s largest companies have publicly declared goals of net zero by midcentury or before.
To get there, most plan to claim their purchases of climate offsets, also known as carbon credits, as emissions reductions. Through exchanges called verifiers or certifiers, companies buy, sell and trade shares in schemes that promise to reduce emissions, supposedly offsetting the climate pollution the companies can’t, or won’t, eliminate from their own operations.
US regulator accused of “egregious” misconduct in PFAS testing of pesticides
By Carey Gillam
Documents obtained from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate the agency may have presented false information to the public about testing for harmful contaminants in pesticides, according to allegations being made by a watchdog group and a former EPA research fellow.
The claims come almost a year to the day after the EPA issued a May 2023 press release that stated the agency found no per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in testing of samples of certain insecticide products. The press release contradicted a published study by the former EPA researcher that had reported finding PFAS in the same pesticide products.
PFAS contamination is a hot topic in environmental and public health circles because certain types of PFAS are known to be very hazardous for human health, and world governments and public health advocates are pushing to sharply limit exposure to these types of chemicals. Accurate testing for PFAS contamination is key to regulating exposure, making the accuracy and transparency of EPA testing a critical issue.
The allegations that the EPA incorrectly reported some PFAS test results were made Tuesday by the nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), led by former EPA employees.
PEER Director of Scientific Policy Kyla Bennett said that the organization obtained pesticide product testing data from the EPA through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The documents they received back from the EPA showed the agency had indeed found PFAS in the tested products, directly contradicting the press release the agency had issued.
“It’s pretty outrageous,” said Bennett. “You don’t get to just ignore the stuff that doesn’t support your hypothesis. That is not science. That is corruption. I can only think that they were getting pressure from pesticide companies.”
Joining in the allegations is environmental toxicologist Steven Lasee, who authored the 2022 study that the EPA challenged. Lasee is a consultant for state and federal government agencies on PFAS contamination projects and participated as a research fellow for the EPA’s Office of Research and Development from February 2021 to February 2023.
Norfolk Southern agrees to $310 million settlement over Ohio train derailment
By Shannon Kelleher
Norfolk Southern Corp. on Thursday announced it will pay more than $300 million to resolve investigations by three US agencies in the aftermath of a catastrophic train derailment last year that contaminated the town of East Palestine, Ohio with toxic chemicals.
The settlement resolves “all claims and investigations” by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the US Department of Interior arising from the February 2023 derailment in which 38 train cars carrying vinyl chloride and other hazardous chemicals ran off the tracks in northeastern Ohio.
The EPA said the company had agreed to the following:
Spending $235 million on past and future cleanup costs
Paying a $15 million civil penalty for violations of the Clean Water Act
Paying $25 million for a 20-year community health program that includes medical monitoring and mental health services.
Spending approximately $15 million to implement long-term monitoring of groundwater and surface water for a period of 10 years.
Paying $15 million for a private drinking water monitoring fund that will continue the existing private drinking water well monitoring program for 10 years.
Paying an estimated $6 million to implement several environmental remediation projects.
Norfolk Southern additionally said it would repay the EPA $57 million for response expenses and will spend $244 million on safety initiatives. These will include new monitoring devices along its tracks and better alarms for detecting overheated wheel bearings, according to the EPA.
“We are very, very pleased that Norfolk Southern has agreed to settlement terms that hold them accountable for disrupting the lives of the people of East Palestine, and help to bring some justice and a path towards closure to those who were affected by this disaster,” Rebecca Chattin Lutzko, interim US Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, said during a press conference on Thursday. “This settlement communicates to other, similar companies that they must take full responsibility for their actions.”
California paraquat ban moves forward
By Carey Gillam
California has moved a step closer to banning the controversial weed killing chemical paraquat after a key state legislative committee on Thursday allowed the measure to proceed.
The ban would take effect Jan. 1, 2026, outlawing the “use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale in commerce” of any pesticide product that contains paraquat. The bill provides for a process that allows state regulators to reevaluate paraquat and potentially reapprove it with or without new restrictions.
A chief concern cited by backers of the bill is research linking chronic paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s disease, an incurable and debilitating brain disease considered a top cause of death in the United States.
Several thousand farmers, agricultural workers and others are suing paraquat maker Syngenta, alleging they developed Parkinson’s because of long-term chronic effects of paraquat.
“California is the breadbasket of the nation. Farm workers put food on our table, and we should do everything we can to make their jobs safer,” California Assemblymember Laura Friedman said. “No one should run the risk of chemical exposure on the job leading to their contracting Parkinson’s disease.”
Friedman, who partnered with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) to introduce the measure, said it passed “not only because banning paraquat is the right thing to do,” but also because there are “readily available, safer, affordable alternatives.”
The movement of the bill out of the appropriations committee this week now sets it up for a vote by the full Assembly next week. A vote has to be completed by Friday, May 24, in order for the measure to be moved to the state Senate for consideration. A majority of 80 Assembly members is needed to keep the bill alive.
New hope for long-polluted communities, but skepticism of Superfund success remains
By Barbara Reina and Carey Gillam
Jackie Medcalf was a teenager when she moved with her family to a small farm near the San Jacinto River in Harris County, Texas. It felt like a good life, playing in the river and “eating off the land,” as Medcalf describes it.
But the animals quickly grew ill, as did Medcalf, suffering a range of health problems. Her father developed multiple myeloma at the age of 51. Tests of the family’s well water would later reveal contamination with several toxic metals. Testing of the eggs collected from the family’s chickens also found an array of heavy metals. The family was not alone, as others in the area reported similar problems.
There was little doubt about the source of the contamination: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the San Jacinto River Waste Pits as a Superfund site due to dumping in the 1960s of waste from a paper mill containing carcinogens and other types of toxins. The site has been on the EPA’s “National Priorities List” for cleanup since 2008. But 14 years later, those efforts have yet to be completed.
“For decades my fellow community members have unknowingly recreated around dioxin laden pits,” said Medcalf, now a 37-year-oldmother and the founder of a nonprofit that advocates for the cleanup of area’s contamination. “How many more decades must pass before this disaster is remedied?”
The suffering of the Medcalf family is but one story among far too many that are emblematic of the struggles behind America’s Superfund program, which aims to clean up sites around the country contaminated with a range of dangerous industrial toxins.
In February, the Biden administration said it was earmarking more than $1 billion to help clean up those long-standing hazardous waste sites that are jeopardizing the health of communities around the country. The money is to go to new and continuing projects, and is part of roughly $3.5 billion allocated in President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for work at Superfund sites.
Senate Farm Bill draft raises hopes for PFAS-impacted farmers
By Shannon Kelleher
As US lawmakers haggle over the renewal of the massive Farm Bill, which funds programs ranging from food access for low-income families to crop insurance for farmers, one new issue sparking debate is a proposed safety net for farmers whose land has become contaminated with dreaded “forever chemicals.”
A recent Farm Bill draft released by the US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry, includes language from the proposed Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act, which would direct the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to designate $500 million in grants to states, territories, and Tribes to monitor and clean up per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on agricultural land and in farm products. The funds would partly offset financial losses a farmer can suffer due to PFAS contamination.
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture has said it sees PFAS as an “emerging risk” that poses a “major hazard” to US farmers and ranchers.
And last year, the US Department of Defense said it had notified almost 4,000 farms across dozens of states to warn that they were at risk for PFAS contamination. Many farmers in Maine have learned that their land is contaminated, as have farmers in Texas, New Mexico and elsewhere.
The US House of Representatives will hold a “committee markup” on May 23, a process that will result in a final draft, but neither an early overview of the House committee’s draft nor a more detailed version released Friday mention funding for PFAS-impacted farmers.
“We can find all kinds of money for increasing our defense budget and a whole host of other things,” said US Rep. Chellie Pingree, a Democrat from Maine. “It seems unfair to not find the money for farmers who are in need. I think in the long run we will find that money.”
Corrupt politics, not science, power the US EPA
By Evaggelos Vallianatos
When I started my job in the Office of Pesticide Programs at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1979, many things quickly surprised and disappointed me – a pattern that persisted through my 25-year career there.
The first thing that astonished me was the scandal that came to light with the giant Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT). People would whisper in the corridors about fake lab studies. They would wonder aloud about the safety of our food. IBT was the country’s largest testing lab for drugs and pesticides, conducting toxicology studies for companies such as Monsanto until investigators discovered widespread fraudulent manipulation of test data. The US Department of Justice successfully prosecuted multiple IBT officials for fraud, and has caught others who similarly engaged in fraud to ensure approvals for risky products.
I learned the IBT story from Adrian Gross, a colleague in the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. (Gross died in 1992.) We spent hours talking about the science and political corruption that often accompany the regulation of pesticides. Gross would speak of “cut-and-paste” science, in which studies the EPA relied on included passages simply copied from materials developed by the companies seeking approval to sell their risky products.
Over the time I worked at the EPA, I became convinced that the agency was serving industry much more than the public. My attempts to discuss concerns with supervisors made no difference, save for intensifying hostility toward me.
An Iowa farm county seeks answers amid cancer rates 50% higher than national average
By Keith Schneider
EMMETSBURG, IOWA –Raised in rural Iowa, 71-year-old Maureen Reeves Horsley once considered her tiny hometown in the northwest part of the state to be a blessed space. She recalls a time when the streams here ran clean and the lake water was clear.
The family farm where Horsley grew up was one of more than 1,200 farms in Palo Alto County in 1970. In her memory, the county’s 13,000 residents enjoyed a thriving agricultural-based economy and close-knit neighbors. Cows grazed in verdant pastures. And seemingly endless acres of corn marched to the horizon.
“We had good crops, corn and soybeans,” Horsley said of her family’s farm along the West Fork of the Des Moines River. “You could make it on a small amount of farmland. You felt safe. It was a good life.”
Two generations later Emmetsburg and Palo Alto County have been radically transformed into a place where many residents worry that the farms that have sustained their livelihoods are also the source of the health problems that have plagued so many families.
Horsley, a certified nurse practitioner who still lives in the county, is among many Iowa residents who ask whether the farms that make up the lifeblood of Iowa’s economy have become a source of disease and death due to the toxic chemicals and other pollutants indelibly linked to modern agricultural practices.
“We drank the water on our farm,” Horsley said in an interview. “My sister had breast cancer. She was only 27 when she died. She grew up here. My other sister had uterine cancer. As a nurse practitioner I’m aware of five people now with pancreatic cancer. I know 20 people who have other cancers or died of cancer here. Look at the obituaries in our newspaper. Everybody is aware this is going on.”
Bayer asks EPA to again approve twice-banned weed killer
After multiple court-ordered bans, Bayer AG is once again asking the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve the controversial weed killer dicamba for use on genetically modified crops, the EPA announced this week.
Dicamba has been responsible for millions of acres of damage to crops and natural areas since it was initially approved to be used starting in 2017 on genetically modified (GM) crops altered to withstand being sprayed with the herbicide. Farmers whose crops were not genetically modified suffered the damage, largely because the new uses for dicamba induced farmers to apply it during summer months when the chemical easily volatilized and drifted far from where it was applied.
Before the new use approvals, dicamba was primarily used before the growing season because of its volatility. But after the EPA agreed to industry requests to market dicamba herbicides to farmers for use during warm months on the specialized GM crops, farmers not planting the dicamba-tolerant GM crops registered thousands of complaints across multiple key farming states about dicamba damage.
In its request for fresh approval, Bayer, the German conglomerate that inherited dicamba in its 2018 acquisition of Monsanto, is now asking the EPA for more limits on the weed killer. Bayer is proposing, for example, that dicamba use be not allowed after soybean crops have emerged from the ground or after June 12. However, Bayer’s proposal still allows for cotton to be allowed throughout the summer. The proposal also limits the overall amount of dicamba allowed to be used, compared to previous EPA approvals.
US says Mexico ‘abandoned science’ in GM corn limitations
By Johnathan Hettinger
The United States has doubled down on allegations that Mexico is violating international trade rules by working to ban imports of genetically modified (GM) corn for human consumption, arguing in a filing made public this week that Mexico has “abandoned science” in expressing concerns about how GM corn impacts human and environmental health.
Mexico is violating its obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), making “factual and legal errors” in attempting to justify its decision to ban GM corn for use in tortillas and and dough and to gradually move away from the use of GM corn in animal feed, the US said in its formal rebuttal to Mexico’s case.
The 120-page US response, filed with a tribunal charged with arbitrating the trade dispute, said that Mexico has not shown that GM corn is likely to harm humans or native Mexican varieties of corn that are not genetically modified as Mexico has feared.
The US filing comes in response to a 189-page report issued by Mexico explaining the risks it sees posed by GM corn.
For years, Mexico has allowed the import of GM corn in the country, but the administration of Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has taken aggressive moves against the import of GM corn and against the use of glyphosate weed killer in the country, citing concerns threats to the health of the Mexican population as well as to the health of the environment. Glyphosate is commonly used by US farmers in growing a wide range of crops, and is sprayed directly over the tops of growing corn and other crops that have been genetically engineered to withstand the weed killer. In addition to being genetically altered to withstand herbicides, GM corn has also been engineered to manufacture its own toxin to repel insects.
“Mexico has legitimate concerns about the safety and innocuousness of genetically modified corn… and its indissoluble relationship with its technological package that includes glyphosate,” the government’s report states. There is “clear scientific evidence of the harmful effects of direct consumption of GM corn grain in corn flour, dough, tortilla and related products,” Mexico stated. More evidence is needed, Mexico says, to determine “whether and to what extent, such risks are transmitted to food products further downstream…”