EWG
Twitter
Farm country fight – Battle rages over proposed legal protections for pesticide makers
By Carey Gillam
Pesticide company efforts to push through laws that could block litigation against them is igniting battles in several US farm states and pitting some farm groups against each other.
Laws have been introduced in at least 8 states so far and drafts are circulating in more than 20 states, backed by a deluge of advertising supporting the measures.
The fight is particularly fierce now in Iowa, where opponents call the pesticide-backed proposed law the “Cancer Gag Act”, due to high levels of cancer in Iowa that many fear are linked to the state’s large agricultural use of pesticides. Iowa has the second-highest rate of new cancer cases in the United States and the fastest-growing rate.
Organizers against the Iowa bill are planning a rally at the state capitol on Monday after the state senate voted Feb. 5 to advance the measure. The bill would bar people from suing pesticide manufacturers for failing to warn them of health risks, as long as the product labels are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Opponents say the legislation will rob farmers and others who use pesticides from holding companies accountable in court if their pesticide products cause disease or injury.
“We’re very worried. Our farmers feel that if they have an injuries or illnesses due to their use of a pesticide they should have access to the courts,” said Aaron Lehman, an Iowa corn and soybean farmer who is president of the Iowa Farmers Union. “We just don’t think the playing field should be tilted.”
But backers of the legislation say they’re trying to ensure farmers don’t lose access to beneficial weed killers, insecticide and other chemicals that are commonly used in growing food. They maintain that tort lawyers exploit and entice sick people to bring lawsuits that are not backed by scientific evidence, and such actions should be limited.
Several large farm groups, including the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, are supporting the bill.
The actions in the states come alongside a simultaneous push for changes in federal law that would effectively preempt lawsuits brought by people claiming they developed cancers or other diseases due to their use of pesticides.
Postcard from California: The long-term public health toll of the LA fires
By Bill Walker
The horrific fires that incinerated more than 40,000 acres in Southern California last month were still burning when newly-inaugurated President Trump flew in to view the devastation. At a Jan. 24 press briefing with local officials, he groused that he had heard people who lost their homes would not be allowed to rebuild for up to 18 months.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass pointed out that, first, burned lots had to be cleared of hazardous waste. “The most important thing is for people to be safe,” she said.
“What’s hazardous waste?” Trump retorted. “You’re going to have to define that. Are we going to go through a whole series of questions on determining what’s hazardous waste? I just think you have to allow people to go on their site and start the [cleanup] process tonight.”
Despite what Trump may think, federal regulators have established clear definitions of hazardous waste. When the Palisades and Eaton fires consumed more than 16,000 homes and other structures in the Los Angeles area, they left behind over 4.25 million tons of it. While the fires have been contained, exposure to dangerous toxins in that lingering waste and in the smoke that choked the region for more than three weeks will, over time, claim many more victims than the 29 lives lost in the flames.
Heat, drought and the Santa Ana winds were the fires’ direct causes, but scientists say conditions were made worse by climate change. Park Williams, a hydroclimatologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, told NPR: “These fires are very likely more intense and dangerous … because of global warming.”
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) workers in hazmat gear are racing against a Trump-ordered Feb. 25 deadline to inspect each burn site and perform an initial cleanup. “We have to move five times the speed based on the directives we are getting,” an EPA official told Reuters. “Normally, this takes months.”
High levels of microplastics found in human brains
By Douglas Main
A new study has found high concentrations of tiny plastic particles in human brain samples, with levels appearing to climb over time.
The paper, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, found nanoplastics in each of the brain samples studied, and found a potential link between the presence of the plastics and several types of dementia.
“There’s much more plastic in our brains than I ever would have imagined or been comfortable with,” said Matthew Campen, a doctor and researcher at the University of New Mexico who is the lead author of the study.
The median concentration in brain samples collected from people who died in 2024 was nearly 5 micrograms of plastic per gram of brain tissue, tallying almost 0.5% by weight.
This total was 50% higher than it was just eight year prior, from brain samples acquired in 2016 (for various reasons, most brain samples become available these two years). This suggests the concentration of microplastics found in human brains is going up as plastic waste and microplastic pollution increases.
“You can draw a line — it’s increasing over time. It’s consistent with what you’re seeing in the environment,” Campen said.
FDA must set limits on PFAS in food, lawsuit says
By Shannon Kelleher
US regulators are failing to address concerns about toxic PFAS chemicals in foods despite having the scientific tools to do so, according to a lawsuit filed by an environmental group in Tucson, Arizona.
The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 24 in the US District Court for the District of Arizona, follows the submission of a legal petition filed in November 2023 by the Tucson Environmental Justice Task Force that asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish limits for certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) the agency has found in blueberries, lettuce, milk, salmon and other foods. The group wants the FDA to take action to remove products from grocery store shelves if PFAS residues are found at the minimum level of detection possible.
“We’re asking [the FDA] to do something that they are required to do under the law, that they failed to do under the law,” said Sandra Daussin, attorney for the plaintiffs and a plaintiff herself.
Under its own regulations, the FDA is required to respond to petitions within 180 days, but the agency failed to address the petition after more than a year, an “arbitrary and capricious” delay, the complaint alleges.
PFAS are a class of thousands of chemicals used for decades across many industries. The chemicals have become ubiquitous in the environment, found in water, soil and the blood of animals and people around the globe. Many types of PFAS have been found to be health hazards, linked to disease and disability. The petition cites connections between seven types of PFAS and “serious life-threatening health effects,” including kidney and liver damage, cancer, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, and adverse reproductive effects.
The petitioners argue that in August 2023 the FDA developed a validated method detecting up to 30 PFAS chemicals in foods, and thus has an obligation to use that knowledge to set enforceable limits. The group wants the FDA to adjust those limits to be lower if methodology improves to detect smaller concentrations.
The FDA has been testing foods for PFAS contamination since 2019 but has found very little contamination.
Fluoride toothpastes, mouthwash marketed to kids in dangerous ways, lawsuits say
By Douglas Main
Companies making fluoride-containing toothpastes and mouthrinses are improperly marketing their products as harmless and pleasant-tasting to very young children despite scientific research showing ingestion of the products could be dangerous to their health, according to allegations in a group of proposed class action lawsuits filed earlier this month.
There is a scientific consensus that fluoride primarily acts topically and reduces tooth decay when used properly in toothpaste, but ingestion of concentrated fluoride products can be dangerous across the board — especially for young children.
Many fluoride products lack easy-to-read warning labels and are flavored to taste like fruit or candy, and bear bright colors, cartoon characters, and illustrations of misleadingly large quantities of toothpastes on toothbrushes, according to the lawsuits, which bear many similar claims.
“The qualities they imbue these products with very much entice children to use more and ingest more than they should,” said Michael Connett, a partner at New York-based firm Siri & Glimstad, which is bringing the suits.
“Kids are swallowing so much of this stuff. I’ve always been disturbed by how reckless and deceptive the marketing is.”
Advertising sugary cereals to children needs regulation, report says
By Carey Gillam
Food companies are continuing to push unhealthy cereals high in sugar content into the diets of young children through targeted television advertising despite pledges by leading companies to voluntarily regulate such advertising, according to a new analysis.
The report by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Health at the University of Connecticut, published Thursday in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, looked at the purchases of high-sugar children’s breakfast cereals by US households over nine years and how the amount of TV advertising directed to children versus adults impacted those choices. The authors said they found that advertising to children had a significant impact on cereal purchase decisions.
“Despite promises to only advertise healthier options directly to children and the availability of nutritious cereals in their product portfolios, cereal companies continue to market their least healthy products directly to children,” Jennifer Harris, lead author and senior research advisor at the Rudd Center, said in a statement.
“Our research provides strong evidence that discontinuing all advertising of nutritionally poor foods directly to children would likely negatively impact food companies’ bottom-line, which explains why they appear to resist doing the right thing for children’s health,” Harris said.
The paper cites statistics showing that two-thirds of US children consume more than the recommended limit for added sugar, or roughly 10% of daily calories, with cereals among the top food sources for added sugar in children’s diets.
“Epidemic of chronic disease” spotlighted in Kennedy confirmation hearing
By Carey Gillam
America’s “epidemic of chronic disease” was spotlighted Wednesday in a contentious senate confirmation hearing for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Kennedy, nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services, was grilled on multiple issues in the Senate Committee on Finance, but Kennedy and supporting senators repeatedly focused their comments on the range of diseases plaguing the US population, particularly children.
“President Trump has asked me to end the chronic disease epidemic and make America healthy again,” Kennedy said in a tense exchange with one senator who asked him if he was going to be a “rubber stamp” for Trump’s policies. “That is what I’m doing. If we don’t solve that problem senator, all the other disputes we have…. All of those are moving deck chairs around on the Titanic. Our ship is sinking.”
Kennedy said rising levels of chronic disease pose an “existential threat”.
“No other nation in the world has what we have here. We have the highest chronic disease burden of any country in the world,” he said.
Kennedy said a key culprit “poisoning the American people” is the “highly chemical intensive processed foods” regularly consumed in the US.
Scientific research is needed to more deeply understand the connections, he said.
“We don’t have good science on all these things and that is deliberate… not to study the things are truly making us sick.”
Environmental and health programs thrown into chaos by Trump funding freeze
By Douglas Main
President Donald Trump’s surprise decision to freeze a massive portion of federal grants and loans — a move temporarily blocked by a federal court — has thrown environmental research, health programs, and community groups into chaos.
Trump’s directive instructs federal agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligations or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.” The order affects around $3 trillion in funds.
The pause was to take effect Tuesday evening but a federal judge in the District of Columbia temporarily blocked the order in response to a lawsuit by the group Democracy Forward arguing the move violates the First Amendment and other federal law. The judge will render a more permanent decision on Feb. 3.
But the court order hasn’t immediately cleared up many uncertainties or apparently started funds flowing again. And some projects whose funds were already approved have been canceled.
One of many researchers impacted is Gabriel Filippelli, an environmental scientist and professor at Indiana University, who had been eagerly working on ramping up a project to study air pollution and climate change in Pakistan, funded by the State Department in late 2024, which involved training over a dozen students and researchers in the United States and abroad.
On January 27, Indiana University received a letter from the State Department stating that the project “no longer effectuates the agency’s priorities and is suspended… recipients must cancel as many outstanding obligations as possible.”
Upcoming Kennedy hearings to spotlight hotly debated public health issues
By Carey Gillam
Advocates for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda were gathered in Washington this week ahead of a senate committee hearing on Kennedy’s nomination to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – an event expected to put a spotlight on a number of hotly debated public and environmental health issues.
Kennedy is scheduled to testify before the Senate Committee on Finance on Wednesday and then will appear for questioning by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Thursday. Senators are expected to press the nominee on his views on a wide range of issues that deeply divide Americans, including vaccines, farming practices, and food policies.
President Donald Trump’s nomination of Kennedy, a lifelong Democrat from California who ran against Biden and Trump for president as an independent, has been among Trump’s most controversial nominations, drawing opposition from both parties and from an array of powerful corporate and public health interests.
Critics say Kennedy lacks the credentials to lead HHS, which has sweeping authority over many key health and science agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And they say his positions on certain issues discount scientific research and would endanger public health.
But proponents insist that Kennedy is more than qualified given his long history as an environmental lawyer who was named one of Time Magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” for his work cleaning up and protecting waterways, and as the founder of a group called Children’s Health Defense, which has the stated mission of “ending childhood health epidemics by eliminating toxic exposure” and holding “responsible parties accountable.”
Both sides were trying to make their voices heard in advance of Wednesday’s hearing, which was declared the “most important hearing of all Trump’s Cabinet picks” by Lawrence Gostin, director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, according to NBC News.
EPA proposal for pesticide tied to reproductive harm lands back with Trump
US environmental regulators are planning to change allowable levels of a weedkiller tied to reproductive health problems to a level critics say discounts years of documented health risks — and potentially marks a new battlefront within the Trump administration.
The proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was put forth in late 2024 under the Biden administration, would allow concentrations of the herbicide atrazine up to 9.7 parts per billion (ppb) in streams and lakes before any mitigation efforts were required.
That is nearly three times higher than the level of 3.4 ppb proposed by the EPA in 2016 and reiterated by the agency as proper in 2022. But it is lower than a level pushed for under the prior Trump administration. It is also lower than the longtime benchmark of 10 ppb that was in place from 2011-2019, and lower than atrazine maker Syngenta says is necessary.
The agency’s move has been met with outrage by environmental health advocates who say industry influence is overriding solid science, and years of fighting to reduce atrazine contamination of waterways is in jeopardy.
“It’s a punch in the gut for all the people who have worked to protect us from this incredibly harmful poison,” said Nathan Donley, environmental health science director with the Center for Biological Diversity.
Atrazine is a widely used weed killing chemical that is popular with farmers, particularly those growing corn, and the chemical has been found to heavily contaminate drinking water supplies around the country, raising concerns for human health. The chemical has been banned for use as an herbicide in European Union since 2003.