“Explosive growth’ in petrochemical production linked to increases in cancers and other diseases in new report
By Carey Gillam
Chemical pollution tied to fossil fuel operations is not only driving harmful climate change but is also posing dire risks to human health at levels that require aggressive private and public efforts to limit exposures, warns a new analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.
The article authored by Tracey Woodruff, a professor at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), cites data from dozens of research studies highlighting what Woodruff calls a nexus between “explosive growth” in the petrochemical industry that includes forecasts for plastic production to grow almost three-fold by 2050, and data showing increases in cancers and other diseases in young people, particularly reproductive cancers in women.
Between 1990 and 2019, rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, and certain cancers are among the non-communicable diseases that have increased, with petrochemicals used in producing plastics and other products among drivers of the growth, according to the paper.
“Numerous medical societies, government agencies, and systematic reviews have concluded that exposure to chemicals and pollution… is an important risk factor for multiple diseases and health inequities and probably contributes to these increases,” the report notes, adding that increases in disease and petrochemical production at the same time “alone cannot be interpreted as causal.”
Doctors and patients need to acknowledge and address the risks, and work to reduce exposures, while regulators need to strengthen chemical evaluations and oversight, said Woodruff, who directs the UCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment and the Environmental Research and Translation for Health (EaRTH) Center.
“This is really important… one of the major factors driving climate change is also increasing our exposures to chemicals that are adversely impacting health,” she said. “Typically people say cancer is a disease of the aging, but now we’re seeing it increasing in people under 50.”
Mexico’s precaution on GM corn safety is justified
By Lucy Sharratt
A Presidential decree has banned the use of genetically modified (GM) corn for food in Mexico. But the governments of the United States and Canada are using the US-Canada-Mexico trade agreement (USMCA) to challenge Mexico’s actions.
The purpose of Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn is to safeguard the integrity of native corn from GM contamination and to protect human health. The purpose of the US and Canadian challenge is to defend the interests of the biotechnology industry. The US and Canada want to force Mexico to open its market to all genetically modified foods and seeds. Canada is supporting the US challenge (as a third party in the dispute) even though Canada does not export any corn to Mexico.
Mexico has the right to restrict the use of GM corn. The US argues that Mexico’s actions are not based on scientific principles, but the government has sufficient science to justify its precautionary policies.
Our organization, the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, is a large network of farmer and environmental groups that has been monitoring the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) for over 15 years, and we support Mexico’s restrictions. We were one of two Canadian groups that were given permission to send expert comments on the risks of GM corn to the arbitration panel in this dispute, but in January, Canadian groups were uninvited at the request of the US government, supported by Canada, on the technicality that the dispute is just between the US and Mexico.
We published our analysis anyway, to show that Mexico’s ban is supported by the science. Research continues to find indicators of potential harm to humans from eating GM insect-resistant corn. The science also continues to warn of health impacts from exposure to the herbicide glyphosate, which is used in GM corn production.
New report sparks questions and controversy over possible causes for Iowa “cancer crisis”
By Keith Schneider
Amid increasing scrutiny of a potential link between Iowa farm chemicals and cancer, a new report is generating controversy as it blames rising cancer rates not on the toxins used widely throughout the state, but on something else entirely: binge alcohol consumption.
The Iowa Cancer Registry, a health research group housed at the University of Iowa, reported on February 20 that Iowa has the second-highest and fastest-rising incidence of cancer among all states. An estimated 21,000 new cancer cases are expected to develop this year and 6,100 Iowans will die from cancer, Iowa Cancer Registry Director Mary Charlton said in announcing the new report. Iowa, she said, has the highest rate of binge drinking in the Midwest with 22% of residents reporting binge drinking, more than the national average of 17%. Overall, Iowa has the 4th highest incidence of alcohol-related cancers in the US, according to the report.
“Alcohol is a known carcinogen and a risk factor for several cancers including oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, rectum, liver, and female breast cancers,” Charlton said in a news conference.
The assessment has drawn questions and sparked doubts, however, from state leaders and health and environment researchers who have been calling for a probe into just how much the state’s agricultural industry may be contributing to the spread of disease.
“Is alcohol responsible for the increase in cancer incidence here since 2014? I personally doubt that,” said James Merchant, a retired professor of occupational and environmental health, and former dean of the University of Iowa College of Public Health.
“What needs to be looked at are things that are probable or possible carcinogens that have increased beginning about 1990, because of the well-recognized latency of environmental cancers,” Merchants said. “Those carcinogens associated with industrial agriculture are the ones that really need to be looked at very closely.”
EPA moves to limit frequent chemical accidents
By Shannon Kelleher
Hundreds of chemical facilities around the US must implement new procedures to try to better safeguard communities from accidents that are happening with alarming frequency and jeopardizing human and environmental health.
New measures announced Friday by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) require industrial operators to “prevent accidental releases of dangerous chemicals that could otherwise cause deaths and injuries, damage property and the environment, or require surrounding communities to evacuate or shelter-in-place.”
The final rule, which amends the EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) that applies to plants dealing with hazardous chemicals, asks facilities to evaluate the risks of natural hazards and climate change, makes information about chemical hazards more accessible for people living near these facilities. The rule also allows for plant employees to stop working when they think there is a potential hazard.
This new requirements are expected to reduce the frequency and severity of accidents, building on revisions proposed in 2022. They provide the most protective safety provisions for chemical facilities in the EPA’s history, EPA deputy administrator Janet McCabe said on a press call.
Accidental releases of chemicals from industrial facilities cost the US more than $540 million each year, McCabe said on the press call, not including major catastrophes that can individually cost much more.
Report finds EPA failing to do its job amid thousands of Seresto flea and tick collar complaints
By Johnathan Hettinger
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not properly reviewed the safety of a popular flea and tick collar that has been linked to more than 3,000 pet deaths, according to the agency’s top watchdog.
The EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), an independent office in the agency tasked with holding the agency accountable, published a report on Thursday calling on the EPA to make a proper, science-based decision on the Seresto product and improve its processes for making safety determinations for pet products..
The report found that the agency has not conducted or published animal risk assessments as it promised to do, and continues to rely on an inadequate 1998 companion animal safety study.
Seresto pet collars work by releasing two active ingredients, the pesticides flumethrin and imidacloprid. The OIG found that the EPA has failed to properly review those active ingredients, including in a new analysis last year.
At a Congressional hearing in June 2022, pet owner Faye Hemsley, of Pennsylvania reported that her dog, Tigger, began to suffer from neurological issues, including his head drooping and a loss of energy, before dying five days after she first put the Seresto collar on him.
Thomas Maiorino, of New Jersey, also testified at the hearing that his family’s dog, Rooney, suffered neurological issues and eventually a seizure, after wearing Seresto. They eventually decided to put the dog down. Many other pet owners reported neurological issues in their animals, including seizures, as well as pet deaths.
The collars have been the subject of more than 105,354 incident reports, including the 3,000 pet deaths, more than any other EPA regulated product in history, according to the EPA’s incident database. From 2012 through 2022, the EPA received more than 100,000 incident reports related to the collars, including more than 2,500 pet death reports and nearly 900 reports of human pesticide incidents related to the Seresto pet collars.
New report questions USDA support for certain climate “smart” practices
A new analysis of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding for “climate-smart” conservation practices argues that several are unlikely to actually have climate benefits and one may even increase harmful emissions, though government officials say the analysis is deeply flawed and based on “incorrect assumptions.”
With nearly $20 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to be used between 2023 and 2026, the USDA is investing more money than ever in combating greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, which makes up 10% of US emissions, according to the EPA.
The analysis from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit environmental research and advocacy organization examines elements of the USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which provides funding for conservation practices. Congress designated $8.45 billion for EQIP specifically. As part of that, an increasing amount of money is going towards so-called “climate-smart” practices aimed at sequestering carbon in soil or reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
EWG said that USDA is allowing farmers to claim this climate funding for implementing many practices that are unproven to help reduce emissions.
The report alleges, for example, that money can go toward a waste storage facility, used for livestock, would likely increase greenhouse gas emissions, according to the USDA’s own data.
The USDA expanded its “climate-smart” list – the specific practices that are eligible for funding – to allow 15 provisional practices, on which the USDA currently lacks data about their effect on emissions, EWG noted in its report.
USDA Press Secretary Allan Rodriguez called EWG’s analysis “fundamentally flawed, speculative, and rest on incorrect assumptions.”
“Unfortunately, EWG did not take into account the rigorous, science-based methodology used by USDA to determine eligible practices, nor the level of specificity required during the implementation process to ensure the practices’ climate-smart benefits are being maximized,” Rodriguez said in an emailed statement.
The single largest conservation practice funded over the past six years is the use of cover crops, according to EWG, with $505 million (9% of overall funding) going toward the practice. The use of cover crops is widely considered a strongly beneficial practice for soil health and sequestering carbon.
But only one of the other top 10 uses of the money is on the climate-smart list. Six of the new “provisional” practices were also in the top 10.
Citing “dangerous health risks,” US adds $1 billion to Superfund cleanup efforts
By Carey Gillam
The US is earmarking more than $1 billion to help clean up long-standing hazardous waste sites jeopardizing the health of communities around the country, a move that will impact 110 sites around the country, officials said on Tuesday.
The money for new and continuing projects marks the “final wave” of a total of roughly $3.5 billion allocated in President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for Superfund work, and addresses an administrative initiative aimed at directing funds to projects that benefit disadvantaged communities, Janet McCabe, deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said in a press conference held to announce the funding.
Communities around the country have been “long-overburdened by pollution” that poses “dangerous health risks,” McCabe said. Minority populations have been particularly impacted with more than one in four Black and Hispanic Americans living within three miles of a Superfund site.
Of 25 sites set to receive funding for new projects, 75% are in historically underserved communities, according to McCabe.
“This funding will help improve people’s lives, especially those who’ve long been on the front lines of pollution,” she said.
In addition to the 25 sites receiving new project funding, another 85 sites are receiving money to continue ongoing cleanup projects.
Hardline US stance ignores non-GM corn opportunity for American farmers
By Ken Roseboro and Timothy A. Wise
United States commodity organizations have cheered on the US government as it tries to get Mexico’s restrictions on genetically modified (GM) corn declared in violation of our trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, arguing that it cuts farmers’ export markets and sales revenues. But what if Mexico’s modest restrictions could instead turn out to benefit US farmers who shift to premium non-GM corn markets as international corn prices fall?
It sounds counter-intuitive, but it might just be true. The math is pretty simple. Despite all the bluster about Mexico’s February 2023 restrictions on GM corn, they affect a very small share of US exports. After negotiations with the US government over a more restrictive 2020 decree, Mexico dramatically limited its revised order, exempting GM feed corn from any mandated reductions. The restrictions apply only to the use of GM corn in tortillas and other products minimally processed for direct human consumption.
The restrictions were intended mainly as precautionary measures for a population that consumes more such corn products than anyone else on the planet. The corn for tortillas, and the minimally processed flour for tamales, enchiladas, and other Mexican staples, are overwhelmingly non-GM white and native varieties from Mexican producers.
Before the decree, Mexico was importing only about 600,000 tons of white corn from the US each year, a tiny share of the 16.5 million tons of US corn it imported last year. That means that barely 3% of US corn exports are potentially affected by Mexico’s restrictions. But the share is actually closer to 1%, because only an estimated half of US white corn are GM varieties, and barely half of US white corn exports are destined for Mexico’s tortilla industry, according to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports.
So just 1% of US corn exports are potentially affected by Mexico’s policies. From the beginning, the Mexican government has asserted that its revised and less restrictive decree has little impact on American growers. They are right, and the US in the formal presentation of its complaint did not even attempt to quantify how many US farmers are affected.
And here’s the thing: Those who are affected can always switch to non-GM white food-grade corn and export to Mexico’s tortilla industry.
US farmers who do that could earn premium prices, ranging from $0.25 to $0.50 per bushel for non-GM white corn, according to industry sources. Such premiums could be particularly attractive right now to farmers who saw corn prices fall more than 30% last year.
US trade officials have preferred not to discuss non-GM opportunities for U.S. farmers, but some farmers and grain suppliers would welcome them.
Postcard from California: After plastic bag ban backfires, lawmakers seek a fix
By Bill Walker
Ten years ago, Californians threw away an estimated 157,000 tons of plastic bags, about 8 pounds for each person in the state. To stem the tide of polyethylene piling up in landfills, polluting parks and beaches, and imperiling wildlife, that year California enacted the nation’s first statewide ban on single-use plastic grocery bags.
It didn’t work.
In 2021, the latest year for which figures are available, Californians tossed out more than 231,000 tons of plastic bags – almost 12 pounds per person.
Now lawmakers in Sacramento are trying again.
A pair of bills introduced earlier this month – SB 1053 and AB 2236 – would ban the use of all plastic bags by groceries and other stores that sell food. That means not only the flimsy single-use bags covered by the 2014 law, but also the thicker bags that technically can be reused and recycled, but almost never are.
The thicker bags, of the more durable polyethene called HDPE, carry the familiar, but often misleading, “chasing arrows” recycling symbol. But they can’t go in curbside recycling bins, and good luck finding a store that will take them back or a recycling center that will accept them. They’re designed to be reused up to 20 times, but most consumers toss them as soon as they unload their groceries at home.
“A plastic bag has an average lifespan of 12 minutes and then it is discarded… clogging sewage drains, contaminating our drinking water and degenerating into toxic microplastics that fester in our oceans and landfills for up to 1,000 years,” state Sen. Catherine Blakespear, co-author of SB 1053, said in a press release. “It’s time to improve on California’s original plastic bags ban and do it right this time.”
What went wrong? What happened to turn the state’s good intentions into a disheartening lesson in the law of unintended consequences?
Enter the plastics industry.
Texas farmers, watchdog group demand EPA act on PFAS in farm fertilizer
By Shannon Kelleher
In the wake of fresh evidence that US farms are being poisoned by PFAS-laden fertilizers, a watchdog group and two Texas farm families said Thursday they plan to sue regulators to try to force protective actions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has violated the Clean Water Act by failing to regulate at least 12 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in treated sewage sludge (biosolids) applied to agricultural lands, allege Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the farmers in a notice of intent to sue sent Feb. 22 to EPA Administrator Michael Regan. Studies have linked these particular PFAS chemicals to asthma, disrupted thyroid hormones, immune suppression, kidney problems, lung issues in children, and other health effects, the letter says.
The agency has also unlawfully failed to include in its regular biosolids reports at least 18 additional PFAS chemicals that scientific studies indicate are present in biosolids, PEER and the farmers allege.
PEER and the farmers will sue the EPA within 60 days if the agency does not take immediate action, said PEER executive director Timothy Whitehouse in the notice of intent to sue.
“EPA has deemed it acceptable for biosolids containing PFAS and other known toxic chemicals to be applied directly to soil as fertilizer, where these man-made contaminants then build up in the environment, exacerbating the PFAS contamination crisis,” wrote Whitehouse. “This is not protective of human health or the environment.”
“Because there are no standards, farmers, ranchers, and gardeners have no warning that they are potentially poisoning their soil, water, livestock, and pets with these biosolid fertilizer products,” Kyla Bennett, director of science policy for PEER, said in a press release. “Prompt, responsible regulatory action by EPA would prevent untold damage and heartache.”