EWG
Twitter
Mexico delays planned April 1 glyphosate ban
By Carey Gillam and Johnathan Hettinger
After standing firm for more than three years on plans to enact a ban on the weed killer glyphosate starting today, Mexican officials said they were delaying the ban.
Mexico is currently embroiled in a trade dispute with the United States over its unwillingness to accept genetically modified (GM) corn, typically altered to tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate and to manufacture toxins that repel pests, and Mexican officials have repeatedly stated that they consider both GM corn and glyphosate as threats to the health of the Mexican population as well as to the health of the environment.
But in a surprising reversal, less than a week before the ban was to kick in on April 1, government officials announced that glyphosate use could continue until other options for weed control are found. The move came amid reported heavy lobbying from powerful global agrochemical companies and pressure from US trade officials. Similarly, in 2019, Thailand backed down from a planned glyphosate ban after pressure from US officials and industry actors.
Fernando Bejarano, of the Pesticide Action Network in Mexico, said that the move comes after pressure from industry and US officials.
Toxic vinyl chloride accidents happen once every five days, report finds
By Dana Drugmand
Accidental releases of toxic vinyl chloride have occurred in the United States once every five days, on average, since 2010, according to a new report that highlights the extent to which communities and chemical plant workers are exposed to the known carcinogen.
The findings add to a growing body of evidence on the frequency of hazardous chemical accidents, including a 2023 report that found such incidents occur in the US almost daily.
Environmental, public health and community advocates have been calling on the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban vinyl chloride following a February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, which resulted in a “controlled” combustion of vinyl chloride in several rail cars that exposed residents to the chemical.
The report, produced by Material Research L3C on behalf of the environmental groups Beyond Plastics and Earthjustice, is intended to help inform the EPA as it takes steps towards conducting a risk assessment of vinyl chloride, along with four other toxic chemicals, a move the agency announced in December. The review, conducted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), would be the first step towards considering a potential ban on vinyl chloride or additional restrictions to help protect public health and the environment from exposure to the chemical.
In public comments to the EPA, the groups Beyond Plastics, Earthjustice, and Toxic-Free Future urged the agency to quickly move to designate vinyl chloride as a “high priority substance” so that it can begin the risk evaluation.
When measuring a farm’s carbon footprint – Britain has the right answer
By Dean Dickel
The key to achieving climate mitigation in agriculture depends on an accurate measure of carbon sequestration and emissions of major greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.
Mitigation measures so far have revolved around public and private programs that offer payment for practices such as cover crops and no-till planting that industry experts have determined sequester carbon in the soil.
Carbon markets have also been initiated that pay farmers for their conservation practices. Called carbon credits, the payments are used to offset greenhouse gas emissions the buyers produce as a part of their business operations. Those offsets are commonly used to achieve their own climate claims such as “net zero.”
A number of farmers are already participating in these “markets,” but some in the industry remain dubious. “These aren’t markets, they’re just schemes,” says Jeff Schahczenski, an economist with the National Center for Appropriate Technology.
Farmers enrolling in carbon market programs will usually need to sign relatively long-term contracts that include very specific requirements to continue to qualify for payments. “I would advise farmers to have these contracts looked over by a lawyer before signing,” Schahczenski said.
Current “carbon markets” have also drawn fire from organic farmers and others because they mostly reward “new practices” as incentives for farmers to adopt carbon-friendly methods, all the while farmers who are already using those practices, many of them for years, are wondering out loud: “What’s in it for me?” Some have asked how long they would need to go back to bad practices before they would qualify for reinstituting good practices.
Current carbon initiatives available to farmers do not generally consider carbon equivalent emissions for synthetic nitrogen and other fertilizers and pesticides.
In Britain, however, the amount of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide being emitted and how much carbon is being sequestered in the soil can be measured by a software program that has been in use there for about ten years.
US court blocks EPA order to eliminate PFAS in plastic containers
By Shannon Kelleher
A US appeals court has vacated an action by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordering a company to stop producing plastic containers that leach toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) into pesticides, household cleaners, condiments, and many other products.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals on March 21 ruled that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority when it issued orders to Texas-based Inhance in December prohibiting the company from manufacturing or processing PFAS through its fluorination process for containers.
The EPA move came after the agency determined that types of PFAS created during the fluorination process “are highly toxic and present unreasonable risks that cannot be prevented other than through prohibition of manufacture.”
The agency issued the orders under the Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA), which authorizes the EPA to regulate and screen chemicals produced or imported into the US.
But Inhance challenged the EPA’s action, arguing that the EPA improperly sought to take action against the company under a section of TSCA dealing with new uses of chemicals, and that Inhance’s process did not constitute a new use.
The court agreed that the fluorination technique Inhance uses to prevent liquids from leaking out of its plastic containers – a process that creates PFAS chemicals – does not count as a significant new use since Inhance has been using this process since 1983.
Postcard from California: The global plastics crisis is a threat to human health
By Bill Walker
Last April, an annual assessment of the clarity of Lake Tahoe found it was the clearest it had been since the 1980s. But just months later, scientists reported that the iconic alpine lake straddling the California-Nevada border had alarming levels of a nearly invisible form of pollution: microplastics.
Microplastics are particles of plastic measuring less than 5 millimeters – roughly the size of a pencil eraser – generated largely from the breakdown of discarded plastic bottles and other plastic items. The US is the world’s largest generator of plastic waste, as people throw away more than 27 million tons of plastic annually.
In a study released last July, an international team of researchers found that Lake Tahoe had the third-highest concentration of microplastics out of 38 large lakes in 23 countries. Tahoe’s crystal blue waters held higher concentrations of microplastics than the floating garbage patches littering the world’s oceans, the study determined.
The researchers measured only relatively large microplastics – the width of a few human hairs or larger – not the “nanoplastics” that can be hundreds of times smaller. The Tahoe Basin has some of the most stringent environmental regulations in the US, suggesting that the probable source is airborne plastic particles from afar contaminating the snow that melts into the lake.
Microplastics’ threat to fish, marine mammals and other wildlife is well documented. Now there’s growing evidence that they’re also hazardous to people.
Last year, a report from the California State Policy Evidence Consortium, commissioned by state legislators, raised concerns about microplastics’ suspected human health effects, including reproductive harm, respiratory problems and biological changes that could lead to intestinal cancer.
‘We are defending your products:’ Emails reveal coordination between US government, industry in foreign trade disputes
By Johnathan Hettinger and Carey Gillam
Against the backdrop of a fierce battle between the United States and Mexico over the safety of certain farming products, newly obtained government communications provide fresh evidence of how powerful corporate interests often drive US officials to meddle in foreign affairs.
The records are the latest to emerge that show how tightly the US government works with global crop and chemical companies to try to block other governments around the world from placing restrictions on pesticides and, as in the case of Mexico, on certain genetically modified crops.
The US is currently embroiled in a bitter trade battle with Mexico, but also has waged war against Thailand and the European Union over efforts to ban pesticides that are key to the corporate profits of companies such as Bayer and Syngenta.
The newly obtained emails add to earlier revelations, also found in government records, by providing greater detail about how the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), the federal agency responsible for American trade policy, works to benefit agrochemical companies while shrugging off evidence presented by foreign governments that pesticides are posing dire risks to the safety of their environment and their citizens.
Similarly, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are shown in the emails helping push back against countries that try to ban pesticides linked to human health issues and the demise of crucial species.
The latest batch documents were obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests by the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity and provided to The New Lede (TNL).
“Trade now poses one of the biggest barriers to keeping pesticides in wide use in the US, and pesticide companies are taking notice,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The US can’t keep using pesticides at this rate if other countries won’t buy our contaminated food, so the focus has now turned to quashing any attempt by smaller countries to protect their citizens and their food supply.”
“The push is coming from the US government but it’s at the behest of pesticide companies,” he said. “It’s basically soft imperialism with our government as the puppet and large corporations pulling the strings.”
Warnings of a “wave of lawsuits” as PFAS exemption debated
By Shannon Kelleher
Representatives of US water and waste systems told US lawmakers this week that hundreds of such operations across the nation could face unintended and overwhelming liabilities unless they are exempted from a proposal that would designate two types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as hazardous substances.
The rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets up “multiple avenues to drag innocent parties into extremely costly and complex litigation,” Michael Witt, a lawyer speaking on behalf of a coalition of water groups, told members of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in a hearing Wednesday.
Witt was one of multiple witnesses to address the committee on the hotly contested issue of how the government should address widespread PFAS environmental contamination. The EPA said in 2022 that it was preparing to designate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) because they present “a substantial danger to human health or welfare and the environment.”
Such a designation allows the government to order responsible parties to clean up the environmental contamination and bear the costs of mitigation. The “polluter pays’ model is a core principle of CERCLA.
The debate now underway is about whether to provide an exemption from liability for “passive receivers” of PFAS – entities that don’t make or use PFAS but wind up with the chemicals in their water, land and waste. The EPA has said it won’t assign liability to passive receivers, but Witt and others speaking at the hearing said there is still concern that such entities could become embroiled in lawsuits over chemicals they never used or produced.
Citing “catastrophic disaster”, small Massachusetts town sues over PCB contamination
By Dana Drugmand
Monsanto and General Electric (GE) engaged in a “criminal corporate action” through a secret 1972 deal that allowed the companies to keep profiting from the sale and use of dangerous PCBs despite knowing the toxins were harmful, according to a lawsuit filed by a small Massachusetts town awash in PCB contamination.
The Town of Lee, located in western Massachusetts, accuses the companies of creating a “catastrophic disaster” for residents by polluting the area with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which have been linked to cancer and other human health problems.
US regulators banned PCBs in the late 1970s, but they have persisted in the environment, spurring claims from communities across the US seeking damages for contamination.
In and around Lee, where PCBs have contaminated the Housatonic River, several families with members suffering from cancer have alleged the PCBs are to blame.
In its lawsuit, filed March 14 in Berkshire County Superior Court, the town said Monsanto had “ample proof” that PCB exposure could cause cancer more than 50 years ago, tracking the disease in hundreds of its own employees.
“We’re taking every route we possibly can to stop this injustice, and it truly is an injustice perpetrated not only on the residents of Lee but all the people in the River Corridor in Berkshire County,” Lee Select Board Chair Bob Jones said.
New book details rise of “dystopian agricultural horror show”
By Sara June Jo-Saebo
Few books about America’s industrial agriculture system and food industry uncover the billionaires behind its biggest corporations. But a new book by Austin Frerick, a former tax economist at the US Treasury Department and current Fellow at Yale University’s Thurman Arnold Project, reveals the amassed fortunes of Big Ag’s most powerful families. Barons: Money, Power, and Corruption of America’s Food Industry exposes these ill-gotten gains and a cadre of complicit government players who made it all possible.
With the recent release of the USDA’s dismal report Census of Agriculture (February 13, 2024), Frerick’s book is well-timed. The Ag Census disclosed that 141,733 farms shuttered between 2017 and 2022. Barons reveals that these losses happened at the same time that big food producers and merchants garnered both stunning profits and government handouts.
Frerick is an expert in agriculture policy with an antitrust law focus. He served as a co-chair for the Biden campaign’s Agriculture and Antitrust Policy Committee. In Barons, Frerick steers his experience and scholarship into a pointed denunciation of Big Ag’s unbridled and monopolistic wealth. It’s an overdue censure. In fact, many times during the book, I was surprised by a recurring sense of personal validation.
Being from rural Iowa and witnessing the 1980’s Farm Crisis take hold of my family and neighbors,
Barons made me feel like somebody was standing up for the farm community of my youth. It’s a painful loss knowing that today’s industrial food system rises from the ashes of America’s family farms. And it is no accident.
For folks who haven’t kept up with our recent history in food production, Barons will be a wake-up call about the food in our grocery stores.
Farmers facing PFAS pollution struggle for solutions
By Shannon Kelleher
When Jim Buckle and his wife, Hannah Hamilton, started their 18-acre organic vegetable farm in Unity, Maine more than a decade ago, they wanted to grow the healthiest food possible. But after a wholesale buyer asked them to test their operation for toxic chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in 2022, the couple was in for a shock.
The soil tests came back clean, as the couple expected. But Buckle’s heart sank when the results arrived for the well water they used to wash and irrigate their vegetables. Through no fault of their own, the farm Buckle and Hamilton had carefully cultivated for nearly a decade was contaminated with PFAS-laced sewage sludge that had been used as fertilizer on land nearby years earlier.
Faced with evidence that their harvests were also likely contaminated with potentially hazardous PFAS toxins, he and Hamilton made the decision to close down their farming operations, at least temporarily, as they wrestled with how they might clean up their farm and protect it from future contamination.
“We said, ‘wow, this is crazy. We actually have this problem,’” Buckle said.
About a year earlier, first-generation organic farmers Katia Holmes and her husband faced a similar crisis on their 700-acre Misty Brook Farm in Albion, Maine, where they raise livestock and grow grains. In their case, the well water was fine, said Holmes. But testing of their cows’ milk – and the hay they bought from a neighbor to feed the cows – came back with elevated levels of PFAS.
Further testing revealed that a previous owner of the Holmes’ land had spread sewer sludge on certain fields 20 years ago, leaving behind PFAS in the soil.
“We called all the stores and pulled all our products,” said Holmes.
Buckle’s and Holmes’ stories are, sadly, becoming more common.