EWG
Twitter
EPA takes partial step to ban chlorpyrifos in a move called “unconscionable”
By Carey Gillam
The long and winding regulatory road for a pesticide known to be harmful to developing babies took another turn on Monday as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it was planning to only partially ban the insecticide chlorpyrifos in farming.
Under pressure from powerful agricultural industry interests and ordered by a federal court to consider the factors raised by the farming groups in a legal petition, the EPA said it would continue to allow chlorpyrifos to be used by farmers growing 11 crops, including apples, asparagus, citrus, peaches, strawberries, wheat, soybeans and others, despite evidence that the pesticide is associated with “neurodevelopmental effects” that can impair the normal development of children. Other uses in farming would be banned, the agency said.
In the most recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pesticide residue monitoring report, chlorpyrifos was the 11th most frequently found pesticide in human food samples out of 209 different pesticides detected by FDA testing.
“EPA continues to prioritize the health of children,” Michal Freedhoff, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a statement. “This proposed rule is a critical step forward as we work to reduce chlorpyrifos in or on food and to better protect people, including infants and children, from exposure to chemicals that are harmful to human health.”
Public and environmental health advocates saw it differently, saying chlorpyrifos should not be allowed at all, given scientific research showing it has neurotoxic and endocrine disrupting effects, particularly on the developing children of pregnant women.
Postcard from California: Two refineries to close but fenceline communities still besieged by pollution
By Bill Walker
Next year, people in Wilmington and Carson, Calif., neighboring communities in south Los Angeles County, will breathe a bit easier thanks to a decision by Phillips 66 to shut down its gasoline refineries in those communities by the end of 2025.
For more than 100 years, the twin refineries – five miles apart and connected by a pipeline – have emitted air pollutants that increase cancer risk, trigger asthma and other respiratory illnesses, form toxic smog, and lead to heart attacks and strokes. They emit millions of tons each year of climate-heating greenhouse gases, which also contribute to respiratory problems.
California is not usually thought of as an oil state, but it ranks third in the US in crude oil refining capacity. Hundreds of thousands of Californians are exposed daily to pollution from gasoline refineries. Most are people of color who live in lower-income industrial suburbs where refineries are clustered, but too often are kept in the dark about what happens inside the refinery gates.
As the state moves toward its legally mandated goal of virtually eliminating fossil fuel use in 20 years, and electric car sales continue to rise, more refineries are likely to close. Meanwhile, fenceline communities continue to pay the price for our dependence on gasoline.
Wilmington, with 53,000 residents, is part of Los Angeles. Carson, population 91,000, is its own city. About 90% of Wilmington residents are Latino, about 60% of Carson residents are Latino or Black, and both are state-designated disadvantaged communities.
Outcry over Texas plastics plant points to broader industry issues
By Shannon Kelleher
As world leaders work on a global treaty to address mounting harms from plastics pollution, a Texas plastics plant seen as a “serial” corporate polluter is in the crosshairs of environmentalists who say the operation provides a prime example of the need for a halt to petrochemical development.
The Formosa Point Comfort Plant on the Central Texas Coast has achieved notoriety for its persistence in defying efforts to rein in pollution, illegally dumping plastic pellets into area waterways for decades, environmental advocates say.
The facility racked up more than $23 million in fines as of Nov. 12 for failure to comply with a 2019 consent decree requiring it to achieve “zero discharge” of plastic waste and clean up nearby waterways, according to records provided by the San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper.
The records indicate that the plant has committed more than 700 violations of the consent decree and the restrictions of its state permit by discharging plastic waste since the consent decree went into effect, including over 140 violations this year alone.
“We can confidently say that they’re discharging plastic every single day into the bay,” said Diane Wilson, a Waterkeeper member and former fisherwoman who was arrested in August for protesting at Formosa’s US headquarters in New Jersey. “And if Formosa’s doing it, you can bet that all the other plastic plants out there, they’re discharging plastic,” she said.
Protesters plan to gather outside the Texas Formosa facility next week to highlight the plant’s ongoing environmental violations and to urge President Biden to issue a moratorium on petrochemical development in the final days of his term. Activists also are planning a similar rally outside the Formosa Plastics US headquarters in New Jersey. They also plan to march outside the branch locations of Bank of America, Chase, and Wells Fargo to highlight their “financing of major plastic polluters.”
The activists are also opposing a proposed expansion of the facility in Point Comfort, as well as a planned PVC plant expansion in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and a huge petrochemical complex the Formosa plans to build in St James Parish, Louisiana, a community infamously nicknamed “Cancer Alley” for its high cancer rates. Additionally, they are calling for an independent study to assess any lingering pollution from a Formosa chemical spill in Vietnam, and the release of Vietnamese activists who spoke out after the incident.
Citing “catastrophic climate effects,” Maine joins in litigation against oil companies
By Dana Drugmand
Maine on Tuesday became the latest government entity to bring legal claims against several major oil and gas companies, alleging the companies and their chief trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, have deliberately misled the public about the climate consequences of burning fossil fuels.
Maine is the ninth US state to take legal action against the industry over climate concerns, joining other states that include New Jersey and California in similar lawsuits. In all, more than two dozen climate deception lawsuits have been brought against fossil fuel companies by cities, counties, states, and Tribal governments over the last seven years.
“For decades, big oil companies have made record profits, taking billions out of the pockets of Maine people while deliberately deceiving them about the harmful impacts of fossil fuels – impacts that Maine people see and feel every day,” Maine Governor Janet Mills said in a statement.
The lawsuit details the costly climate change impacts the state is already experiencing, such as more frequent flooding and warming ocean waters. These impacts have become more costly and severe, according to the state, due to the “successful climate deception campaign” orchestrated by the industry as a strategy to delay the transition away from their products and protect their profits.
Can the world agree to a sensible treaty to end plastic pollution?
By Douglas Main
As the US faces the upcoming inauguration of a president known for opposing opposition regulations, delegates from the US and more than 170 countries are meeting this week try to finalize a global treaty to address plastic pollution, in a process organized by the United Nations Environment Program that launched back in spring of 2022.
Some advocates and countries say this meeting in Busan, South Korea, amounts to a last chance to set common-sense limits to prevent an upcoming wave of plastic pollution. The situation is already grim: The world makes approximately 430 million metric tons of plastic every year, more than the weight of all humans combined. Nearly three-fourths of this material ends up in landfills or the environment. If current trends continue, global plastic use and waste will nearly triple by 2060, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
On one side are the “high ambition” parties, led by Norway and Rwanda, and 66 other countries. They’re pushing for a legally binding treaty that caps production, addresses the design and makeup of products, limits toxic materials, and controls for the pollution and harm caused throughout the entire life cycle of plastic production and use.
Other countries, including those that produce a lot of oil and plastic — such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China — have been resisting limits on production and many of these other demands.
The U.S. position in unclear. The Biden Administration made waves this summer in saying they would support efforts to curb production. And last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new “National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution”, saying it aligned with the nation’s “commitment to negotiating an ambitious international agreement with the aim of protecting public health and the environment by reducing plastic pollution around the world.”
The EPA highlighted the “significant human health concerns” associated with exposures to plastic pollution, including cancers, reproductive health problems, heart attack, stroke and other problems. The EPA noted microplastics have been found in human breast milk and research has found them elsewhere in the body, including in the brain.
Still, this month, White House staffers reportedly told representatives of advocacy groups in a closed-door meeting that they would no longer support mandatory caps on production, and would take a more “flexible” approach to a deal, according to Grist.
Friend or foe? Environmental advocates eye Kennedy nomination warily
By Shannon Kelleher
In the wake of last week’s announcement that President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), some leading environmental and public health advocates say they’ve found themselves in a “difficult” position.
On the one hand, Kennedy is a lifelong environmental advocate himself and is pushing a platform called “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA), which sets an agenda strikingly similar to those of many groups on the political left – “prioritizing regenerative agriculture, preserving natural habitats, and eliminating toxins from our food, water and air.”
But on the other, Kennedy’s alignment with Trump – who touts his intention to roll back regulations and undo many hard-fought consumer protections – and Kennedy’s controversial views on certain health-related issues, have left leading environmental health groups unclear on whether he should be seen as friend or foe.
Kennedy has argued for tighter US pesticide regulations and has spoken out against glyphosate, the main ingredient in the popular weedkiller Roundup that has been classified as a probable carcinogen by a major international cancer research group. He has also been sharply critical of regulators for failing to protect kids from harmful additives in food.
He rails against cozy connections between big business and the regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee them, and vows to work to eliminate conflicts of interest in the agencies he would oversee, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH) and others.
“I can get the corruption out of the agencies,” said Kennedy in a recent interview. “It’s what I’ve been doing for 40 years. Once [the regulatory agencies] are not corrupt, once Americans are getting good science and are allowed to make their own choices, they’re going to get a lot healthier.”
Kennedy has a background as an environmental lawyer with a decades-long track record of fighting for green issues – he was once named one of Time magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” for his work restoring the Hudson River, he founded the clean water advocacy group Waterkeeper Alliance, and he previously served as senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
But critics point out that Kennedy has no medical training and has been accused of peddling baseless conspiracy theories and making claims not supported by science.
Court deals setback to efforts to regulate pesticide-coated seeds
By Carey Gillam
A federal court this week dealt a blow to calls for new regulations on pesticide-coated seeds used in farming, ruling that US regulators were not acting improperly in exempting the seeds from registration review.
The US District Court for the Northern District of California on Wednesday granted a summary judgment in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and agrochemical industry lobbyist CropLife America, turning back arguments by the Center for Food Safety and other environmental advocates who have spent years warning of a range of “devastating effects” they say result from widespread use of the specialty seeds.
The concerns addressed in the case focus on seeds that are coated in insecticides before they are planted. Three specific types of insecticides that are part of a class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids present particular threats to beneficial birds and insects such as butterflies, and can contaminate the air, soil and water with toxins, according to critics.
The court case ruled on this week focused on three types of neonics – imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and clothianidin.
“Neonicotinoid treated seeds are used on at least half of all croplands in the US but pose an extreme danger to birds, bees, and other pollinators,” the Center for Food Safety said in a statement issued Thursday following the ruling. “With the future of agriculture and entire food webs on the line, it is irresponsible and unlawful that these pesticides will continue to be exempted from registration.”
The European Union has banned the outdoor use of certain types of neonicotinoids, also called neonics, and the United Nations has said neonics are so hazardous that they should be “severely” restricted. But in the US, neonics remain widely used, typically as coatings on corn, cotton and soybean seeds, planted by farmers to protect crops from insects and disease.
Scientific research has shown they are contributing to a decline in important pollinators such as honeybees. Environmental advocates say numerous studies show neonics are not necessary.
A call for EPA action on climate risks to hazardous waste facilities
By Dana Drugmand
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be doing more to help address potential climate change-related risks to hundreds of hazardous waste facilities across the country, according to a recent government watchdog report.
The Nov. 14 report, issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), examined the risks to hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) from flooding, storm surge, sea level rise, and wildfires, events expected to intensify and/or become more frequent with climate change.
More than 700 out of 1,091 federally regulated facilities, or about 68%, are located in areas vulnerable to these weather-related events, the report found. Roughly half of these facilities could be at risk of flooding and more than one-third are in areas vulnerable to wildfire, while almost 200, or 17%, , are in coastal areas at risk of inundation from storm surge.
Chemical waste drums, petroleum storage tanks, toxic landfills and other facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are regulated by EPA under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. While EPA sets national standards, states implement the regulations and provide enforcement. But, according to the GAO, states currently lack clear direction from EPA on how to assess or manage climate-related risks to hazardous waste facilities, particularly during inspections.
“People at EPA know about the risks, but there has not been real forward-leadership on this,” said Judith Enck, who served as a regional administrator for EPA during the Obama administration. “I can’t tell you how many times I would flag something and was told, ‘well we don’t have the resources and we really can’t do that until headquarters tells us to do something.’”
The EPA has started to take steps to address climate change risks at hazardous waste facilities. In June, for example, it issued guidance on how states can require management of these risks when facilities are permitted. But the GAO said the agency should take additional actions to clarify requirements for climate risk management and to improve and help states implement the guidance.
GAO made nine recommendations to the EPA, including offering training and technical assistance to states to help them understand and manage climate-related risks at hazardous waste facilities.
But as the agency prepares to transition to new leadership under the incoming Trump administration, there are questions around whether it will ultimately act upon the GAO recommendations, or if it will even have the resources to do so. The GAO report identified resource constraints as one of several challenges for addressing climate change risks to hazardous waste facilities.
Bioplastics may be toxic to soil organisms, study calls for more testing
By Douglas Main
Bioplastics, often considered a safer alternative to synthetic plastics, may in some cases be toxic to soil organisms, a worrisome finding that indicates a need for more thorough testing, according to a new study.
The work adds to a growing body of research suggesting that bioplastics, which are derived from plant materials or other biological feedstocks, are not necessarily safer than plastics that come from petroleum.
The new study, published this month in Environmental Science and Technology, found that two types of bioplastic fibers were more toxic to earthworms than were bits of conventional polyester. While promoted as “environmentally friendly,” the alternative materials actually may be more harmful in some ways than the conventional plastic, the study determined.
“We need more comprehensive testing of these materials before they are used as alternatives to plastics,” said Bangor University researcher Winnie Courtene-Jones, who is lead author of the study.
Bio-based fibers like viscose and lyocell are used in clothing, especially in fast fashion, but also in wet wipes and a range of other products. The study said more than 320,000 metric tons were produced in the textile industry in 2022 and that is expected to continue to climb. When such clothes are washed, they can shed fibers into wastewater. Thousands of tons of sewage sludge are added to farmlands around the world, which can directly transmit such fibers into the soil.
The study authors said they exposed worms to fibers from polyester, as well as viscose and lyocell, which are made from cellulose and used in “natural” fabrics. They found that after three days, 30% of the first group died, while the death toll was 60% for viscose, and 80% for lyocell.
Despite critics, organic farming thrives in heart of US corn country
By Keith Schneider
WEST BEND, Iowa – People searching for ways to limit the toll industrialized American agriculture takes on communities, land, and water may want to make a visit to Clear Creek Acres in northern Iowa.
With just shy of 800 residents, West Bend, Iowa is barely a blip on a prairie landscape, but it has become home base for an uncommonly large expanse of organically grown crops- operations that have found success in challenging the popular convention that pesticides and other agricultural chemicals are needed to feed the world.
Towering grain bins are surrounded by close to 50,000 acres of corn, soybeans, oats and other crops grown without the use of synthetic chemicals. Farmers fertilize the land with chicken litter and hog manure and weed much of the land by hand, or with non-chemical tools, such as new laser weeders.
What’s occurred here since 1998, when farmer Barry Fehr experimented with raising chemical-free soybeans on 45 acres, is the development of the most expansive and profitable area of organic grain production in Iowa, and possibly the United States. Most of the land is farmed by multiple generations of the Fehr family. The family also manages about 3,000 organic acres in Colorado. Generating millions of dollars annually in a “sustainable income,” the success of the organic operations here in the heart of corn country defies long-held conventions about a need for chemicals in farming.
The agrochemical industry, led by Monsanto-owner Bayer, Syngenta and other global seed and chemical giants, maintains that weed killers, insecticides and other pesticides are essential to robust food production, and that a growing global population requires use of the chemicals in agriculture.
But 71-year-old Dan Fehr, who has been farming more than 50 years, says “that is debatable.”
The Fehr family farms are nearly matching the yields of crops grown conventionally, perhaps seeing only about a 10% yield decline in comparison, Fehr said. Their costs are lower because they’re not buying pesticides and the high-priced genetically modified seeds designed to be used with certain weed killing pesticides.
And the prices they reap are higher because organic crops command premiums in a marketplace where consumer demand for organic foods is climbing. About 25,000 acres of the Fehr farms in Iowa generate approximately $40 million a year in crop sales.
“The premium we got from selling organics is the key reason,” said Fehr. “The demand for organic has definitely grown a lot. That is why we do it.”
And, he added – “Nobody has died of not using pesticides. I don’t think it will hurt anything not to use pesticides.”