EWG
Twitter
Study indicates “persistent, damaging” effects of glyphosate herbicide exposure on brain health
By Carey Gillam
Exposure to a widely used weed killing chemical could be having “persistent, damaging effects” on brain health, according to a new study.
The study, published Wednesday in the Journal of Neuroinflammation, found that laboratory mice exposed to glyphosate herbicide developed significant brain inflammation, a condition associated with neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s. The researchers, many who are associated with a neurodegenerative disease research center at Arizona State University (ASU), said the symptoms continued even long after exposure ended.
“This work is yet another step forward in understanding the impact of this widely used herbicide on the brain,” lead ASU researcher Ramon Velazquez said. “But more research is needed to determine the impact that glyphosate has on the brain since most Americans are exposed to this herbicide on a daily basis.” Velazquez noted that the work is particularly important given the increasing incidence of cognitive decline in the aging population, particularly in rural communities where glyphosate is used in farming.
Glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide globally – made popular by Monsanto Co as the active ingredient in its Roundup brand, among others. It has been used so extensively by farmers, homeowners and industrial and municipal users for so long that it is considered ubiquitous – found in food, water and in human urine samples. A 2022 report by a unit of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said more than 80% of urine samples drawn from children and adults in a US health study contained glyphosate.
Several authors of the new paper were also part of a team that published a prior, related study that examined the impact of glyphosate when it infiltrates the brain.
Court rules USDA’s GE crop rules break law, must be reworked
By Douglas Main
US regulators made “significant” errors in adopting a new rule four years ago around the release of genetically modified crops, and must now strengthen oversight, a federal court ruled this week.
The US District Court for the Northern District of California sided with the National Family Farm Coalition and other plaintiffs in finding that a rule issued in 2020 by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) related to regulation of genetically engineered (GE) crops ran afoul of other federal laws.
Close to 100 new GE plants have been exempted from USDA oversight since the 2020 rule took effect. The court vacated the rule, effective Dec. 2, and sent it back to USDA for “reconsideration consistent with this order.”
“This is a critical victory on behalf of farmers, the planet, and scientific integrity,” George Kimbrell, legal director for the plaintiff Center for Food Safety, and counsel in the case, said in a statement. “USDA tried to hand over its job to [the] pesticide industry and the Court held that capitulation contrary to both law and science.”
Up until 2020, most GE crops were evaluated by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) before they were allowed to be used commercially. But during the first Trump Administration, the agency took a deregulatory course, making it easier to bring new genetically altered plants to market.
Several environmental groups sued in 2021, arguing that these 2020 rules violated the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Plant Protection Act.
In this week’s decision, US District Judge James Donato ruled that the USDA violated the Plant Protection Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, by failing to account for harm caused by the 2020 rules. In re-writing these regulations, Donato wrote: “APHIS’s errors are significant.”
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.
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.