regulation

Vermont_State_House_Montpelier_October_2021_HDR

May 31, 2024

“Taking on Big Oil”; Vermont enacts Climate Superfund Act

By Dana Drugmand

Vermont has enacted a first-in-the-nation law that holds major fossil fuel companies financially responsible for the climate pollution associated with their products, a move applauded by environmental advocates.

Following passage by the legislature earlier this month, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott allowed the bill to become law on Thursday without his signature. He cited several concerns in a letter to the state senate secretary, warning that “Taking on Big Oil should not be taken lightly.”

The measure, dubbed the Climate Superfund Act, aims to recover climate-related costs incurred by the state from large oil and gas companies whose production of carbon-based fuels ultimately resulted in over a billion metric tons of atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions between 1995 and 2024 – pollution that is wreaking havoc on communities across the country in the form of deadly heat waves, catastrophic flooding and storms, and other extreme weather events.

Vermont experienced its worst flooding in nearly a century last summer when heavy rains caused rivers to overflow their banks, wiping out floodplain crops, washing out roads and bridges, and damaging homes and small businesses throughout the state.

“In order to remedy the problems caused by washed out roads and houses, downed electrical wires, damaged crops, and repeated flooding, the largest fossil fuel entities that have contributed to climate change should also have to contribute to fixing the problem they caused,” Vermont state representative Amy Sheldon of Middlebury said from the House floor on May 3.

In passing the new law, Vermont is taking the first step in shifting some of the cost burden of responding and adapting to such climate-related disasters from taxpayers and onto the corporate polluters whose products are driving climate breakdown, according to environmental advocacy groups.

“The ‘polluter pays’ principle is the bedrock of the environmental movement,” said Johanna Miller, energy and climate program director at the Vermont Natural Resources Council. “With the enactment of the Climate Superfund Act, Vermont is demonstrating that it values Vermonters and their pocketbooks over Big Oil profits.”

May 30, 2024

Paraquat ban stays alive, advances in California

By Carey Gillam

A proposal to ban the weed killing chemical paraquat cleared the California State Assembly last week and now faces a fight in the State Senate over what would be the first such ban in the country.

The ban would take effect Jan. 1, 2026, outlawing the “use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale in commerce” of any pesticide product that contains paraquat. The bill provides for a process that allows state regulators to reevaluate paraquat and potentially reapprove it with or without new restrictions.

A chief concern cited by backers of the bill is research linking chronic paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s disease, an incurable and debilitating brain disease considered a top cause of death in the United States.

The final vote in the Assembly was 46-16 in favor of the bill, but opposition is expected to be stronger in the Senate, according to staffers with the office of Assemblymember Laura Friedman, who introduced the measure. California’s Senate Policy Committee is expected to take it up sometime before July 4, they said.

Friedman partnered with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) to introduce the proposed ban. An EWG analysis found that paraquat is disproportionately sprayed in areas of California largely inhabited by Latino farmworkers and their families.

The action to ban paraquat in California comes as several thousand farmers, agricultural workers and others are suing paraquat maker Syngenta, alleging they developed Parkinson’s because of long-term chronic effects of paraquat.

Paraguay1_Monitoreo Forestal_Ypau_FAO-131-1

May 29, 2024

Postcard from California: Are corporate “climate offsets” just greenwashing?

By Bill Walker

Apple touts the newest model of the Apple Watch as its first “carbon neutral” product – made with “100% clean energy” and “recycled and renewable materials” and shipped by “lower-carbon modes” instead of by air. But a close look at the watch’s environmental specs shows that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in its manufacturing and supply chain only goes so far.

More than one-fifth of the claimed savings in emissions are attributed to Apple’s purchase of so-called climate offsets, including shares in a project to plant eucalyptus timber plantations in eastern Paraguay, far from its Silicon Valley headquarters or its factories in China.

The project’s backers say the climate offsets it is buying reflect a reduction in eastern Paraguay’s emissions from cattle ranching, a leading source of planet-heating methane. But human rights groups say the scheme is driving peasant farmers from their land for little actual climate gain as most of the newly planted trees will be harvested quickly for consumer products.

Apple is but one of many corporate giants that has pledged to cut its company-wide emissions to “net zero” by 2030, joined by Google, Disney, Netflix and many more brands.

Even ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron – the multinational oil companies that are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in the last decade – say they will be net zero by 2050.

According to the nonprofit Net Zero Tracker, more than 1,000 of the world’s largest companies have publicly declared goals of net zero by midcentury or before.

To get there, most plan to claim their purchases of climate offsets, also known as carbon credits, as emissions reductions. Through exchanges called verifiers or certifiers, companies buy, sell and trade shares in schemes that promise to reduce emissions, supposedly offsetting the climate pollution the companies can’t, or won’t, eliminate from their own operations.

May 16, 2024

New hope for long-polluted communities, but skepticism of Superfund success remains

By Barbara Reina and Carey Gillam

Jackie Medcalf was a teenager when she moved with her family to a small farm near the San Jacinto River in Harris County, Texas. It felt like a good life, playing in the river and “eating off the land,” as Medcalf describes it.

But the animals quickly grew ill, as did Medcalf, suffering a range of health problems. Her father developed multiple myeloma at the age of 51. Tests of the family’s well water would later reveal contamination with several toxic metals. Testing of the eggs collected from the family’s chickens also found an array of heavy metals. The family was not alone, as others in the area reported similar problems.

There was little doubt about the source of the contamination: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the San Jacinto River Waste Pits as a Superfund site due to dumping in the 1960s of waste from a paper mill containing carcinogens and other types of toxins. The site has been on the EPA’s “National Priorities List” for cleanup since 2008. But 14 years later, those efforts have yet to be completed.

“For decades my fellow community members have unknowingly recreated around dioxin laden pits,” said Medcalf, now a 37-year-oldmother and the founder of a nonprofit that advocates for the cleanup of area’s contamination. “How many more decades must pass before this disaster is remedied?”

The suffering of the Medcalf family is but one story among far too many that are emblematic of the struggles behind America’s Superfund program, which aims to clean up sites around the country contaminated with a range of dangerous industrial toxins.

In February, the Biden administration said it was earmarking more than $1 billion to help clean up those long-standing hazardous waste sites that are jeopardizing the health of communities around the country. The money is to go to new and continuing projects, and is part of roughly $3.5 billion allocated in President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for work at Superfund sites.

May 3, 2024

Bayer asks EPA to again approve twice-banned weed killer

After multiple court-ordered bans, Bayer AG is once again asking the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to approve the controversial weed killer dicamba for use on genetically modified crops, the EPA announced this week.

Dicamba has been responsible for millions of acres of damage to crops and natural areas since it was initially approved to be used starting in 2017 on genetically modified (GM) crops altered to withstand being sprayed with the herbicide. Farmers whose crops were not genetically modified suffered the damage, largely because the new uses for dicamba induced farmers to apply it during summer months when the chemical easily volatilized and drifted far from where it was applied.

Before the new use approvals, dicamba was primarily used before the growing season because of its volatility. But after the EPA agreed to industry requests to market dicamba herbicides to farmers for use during warm months on the specialized GM crops, farmers not planting the dicamba-tolerant GM crops registered thousands of complaints across multiple key farming states about dicamba damage.

In its request for fresh approval, Bayer, the German conglomerate that inherited dicamba in its 2018 acquisition of Monsanto, is now asking the EPA for more limits on the weed killer. Bayer is proposing, for example, that dicamba use be not allowed after soybean crops have emerged from the ground or after June 12. However, Bayer’s proposal still allows for cotton to be allowed throughout the summer. The proposal also limits the overall amount of dicamba allowed to be used, compared to previous EPA approvals.

May 1, 2024

EPA action on nerve agent used in food applauded, but concerns persist

By Carey Gillam

A proposal by US regulators to issue a ban on most uses of a pesticide that acts as a nerve agent was applauded by health advocates this week, though some warned the proposal doesn’t go far enough.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal targets acephate, a widely used bug-killing chemical whose residues have been found in foods generally considered healthy, such as celery, green beans and tomatoes. The chemical is also found in drinking water.

The agency said it plans to end all uses of acephate on food because it had determined – after more than 50 years of use – that it cannot be certain that “no harm would result” from acephate exposure, particularly from acephate levels in drinking water.

Acephate is part of a class of nerve agent chemicals known as organophosphates that are popular with US farmers who use them to fight pests in their fields. But the chemicals have been linked to a range of adverse health effects, particularly in children, such as reduced IQ, attention deficit disorders, and autism spectrum disorders. Acephate, long banned in the European Union, has also been linked to cancer among other health problems.

“We are applauding this. It is long overdue,” said Patti Goldman, a lawyer with Earthjustice, one of several health and environmental advocacy organizations that have pushed the EPA for year to take action on acephate and other organophosphates. “We are really pleased that EPA is proposing to ban all food uses.”

Earthjustice, along with several other health, civil rights, farmworker, and learning disability groups, filed a petition in 2011 calling on the EPA to prohibit all organophosphates.

The EPA action came late last month, coinciding with a report by ProPublica, which revealed how the agency had in the past justified increasing the amount of acephate allowed on food by removing safety margins that are called for in federal law to protect children from pesticide residues in their diets.

The new EPA proposal reiterates that stance, saying that when using “new approach methods” for developmental neurodevelopmental toxicity (DNT NAMs), there was little scientific support for adding those protections for children.

Nonetheless, the EPA said its assessments show current uses of acephate pose both dietary and aggregate risks that are “inconsistent” with safety standards.

san francisco Photo by Patrick Perkins on Unsplash

April 25, 2024

Postcard from California: State emits more of an obscure climate-heating gas than the entire rest of the US

By Bill Walker

Among US states, California is a leader in efforts to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases that fuel the climate crisis. But just three counties in Southern California emit far more of one little-known greenhouse gas than all other US states combined.

Blame termites – and the tragic, too-frequent mistake of replacing one environmentally harmful chemical with another that turns out to be just as bad.

Sulfuryl fluoride is a fumigant pesticide first made by Dow Chemical Co., marketed since 1959 as Vikane. To kill western drywood termites, pest control companies cover infested houses with tents and then pump in Vikane. Houses tented for fumigation are a common sight in Southern California, where warm, dry weather leaves wooden buildings highly susceptible to infestations of the hard-to-exterminate species.

The colorless, odorless, highly neurotoxic gas that kills termites is also a danger to humans. That’s why Vikane must be spiked with another toxic pesticide gas called chloropicrin, which has an intensely irritating smell that is meant to warn people against entering a house until the fumigant has dispersed in 24 to 72 hours.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) records show that between 1992 and 2017, at least 16 Californians died from sulfuryl fluoride poisoning after going inside fumigated houses too soon. In the same period DPR recorded more than 200 cases of human exposure that caused breathing problems, dizziness, nausea, and other symptoms.

But the biggest problem with Vikane is that, when fumigation tents are removed and sulfuryl fluoride disperses into the atmosphere, it is a greenhouse gas much more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2).

April 24, 2024

US health advocacy groups support Mexico in GMO trade dispute

By Johnathan Hettinger

More than a dozen North American organizations have weighed in to support Mexico in its trade dispute with the United States over Mexico’s ban of genetically modified (GM) corn, agreeing that the nation has the right to protect human health from food ingredients it considers hazardous.

“The burden of proof, so far generated for Mexico, [should] be reversed. It should be the United States that proves that there is no long-term risk to human health from the direct consumption of [genetically modified corn], in the particular case of the Mexican consumption pattern,” Mexico-based El Poder del Consumidor, a consumer rights association, wrote in comments filed earlier this month.

In the series of recent filings submitted to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement secretariat, only one group, the US-based Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) defended the United States’ position that Mexico is violating trade agreements by banning the corn for foods for human consumption. Bayer AG, which bought GMO crop developer Monsanto in 2018, is a BIO member as are other companies that make and sell GMO seeds and agrochemicals.

The Canadian government also defended the US position. Both Canada and the US accuse Mexico of failing to base its decision on GMO corn on valid scientific research. The governments say science shows GMO corn is not a threat to human health. Mexico disagrees, and says that solid research does show risks to humans from foods made with genetically altered corn. Mexico also objects to GMO corn for environmental and cultural reasons.

“There is a basis in the Mexican legal framework that makes it necessary for the Mexican government to transition away from GM corn to protect its people,” Javier Zuñiga, an attorney with Mexico-based El Poder del Consumidor, said in a webinar held on Tuesday. “It guarantees the right to live in a healthy way.”

Mexico is also working to ban glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup weedkiller and other herbicides. Glyphosate is commonly used on genetically modified crops, including corn. The ban on glyphosate in Mexico was set to go into effect April 1, but was delayed indefinitely last month.

April 1, 2024

Concerned about developing babies, EPA warns about danger of weed killer used on farms, golf courses

By Johnathan Hettinger

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday took the rare step of issuing a warning about “serious, permanent, and irreversible health risks” associated with a chemical used to kill weeds on farms and golf courses and athletic fields.

Citing “significant health risks to pregnant individuals and their developing babies,” the agency said farmworkers and others handling dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, more commonly known as DCPA, were at risk, as are people who might play on courses or fields recently sprayed with the pesticide.

The most serious risks extend to the developing babies of pregnant women, especially those handling DCPA products. The agency said pregnant women exposed to DCPA could experience changes to fetal thyroid hormone levels, which are linked to low birth weight, impaired brain development, decreased IQ, and impaired motor skills later in life. Though product labels say people should stay out of fields for 12 hours after they are sprayed with DCPA, the EPA said evidence indicates that in many cases, sprayed fields would be unsafe for 25 days or more. The agency additionally said that mothers and their developing babies could be at risk if they live near areas where DCPA is used because the pesticide can drift.

“EPA has determined that currently registered products containing the herbicide DCPA likely cannot be used under current label directions without posing serious risks of concern in humans,” Ed Messina, director of the Office of Pesticide Programs, stated in a letter to AMVAC, a California-based company that is the sole manufacturer of the pesticide.

The product is primarily used to control weeds on crops such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage and onions, though it is also used in some non-agricultural settings. Last year, AMVAC agreed to end its use on turf, citing health concerns.

The EPA is currently reviewing whether to reapprove DCPA. Though the agency rarely takes the step of canceling a pesticide, it is considering that route, including suspending DCPA during review process, the agency said.

“Due to the serious potential risks posed by DCPA use, EPA will be pursuing these regulatory options as soon as practicable,” Messina wrote in the communication to AMVAC.

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.”