Carey Gillam

About Carey Gillam

Posts by Carey Gillam:

March 25, 2024

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.

Siwertell_ship_unloader_Gramosa_grain_Mexico

March 21, 2024

‘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.”

March 20, 2024

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.

March 14, 2024

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.

March 6, 2024

“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.”

corn christophe-maertens-v9r31Dxg0X0-unsplash (2)

March 6, 2024

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.

A typical pen format for swine in many Iowa animal feeding operations

March 4, 2024

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.”

February 27, 2024

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.

February 27, 2024

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.

February 23, 2024

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.