EPA has failed to protect consumers from PFAS-laced containers, lawsuit alleges
By Shannon Kelleher
US regulators have failed to protect the public from millions of plastic containers that contain toxic PFAS chemicals, which can leach into pesticides, condiments, household cleaners, and many other products, alleges a lawsuit filed this week by environmental groups.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by neglecting to demand that manufacturers stop making containers using a fluorination process that results in per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
When the EPA proposed drinking water regulations for six PFAS chemicals in March 2023, the agency stated it had determined there is no safe level of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and that this type of PFAS is likely to cause cancer. Under the TSCA, the agency had six months to start addressing PFOA’s presence in plastic containers but failed to do so, allege the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
“EPA’s failure to protect the public from exposures to toxic PFOA in their daily lives is inexcusable and reflects a severe leadership deficit at the agency,” said Kyla Bennett, science policy director for PEER, in a statement.
The EPA declined to comment, citing pending litigation.
PFOA is one of thousands of PFAS chemicals, which do not break down naturally in the environment and are found in the blood of most Americans. PFAS are in many everyday products, including nonstick cookware, dental floss, rain gear, and makeup.
The perils of plastics extend to our pets
By Aidan Charron
By now, you’d practically have to be living on Mars not to have heard about the health risks associated with plastics and the toxic chemical cocktail used to produce them.
Almost all plastics are derived from fossil fuels and have been found to contain over 16,000 chemicals, many of which are considered hazardous. Shockingly, despite evidence of harm, the US regulates only six percent of chemicals used to produce plastic, leaving potential health risks from most of the chemicals unchecked.
As plastics break down, they don’t disappear – they degrade into smaller pieces known as microplastics. When we eat, drink, or inhale microplastics, they leach plastic chemicals directly into our bodies.
To bring attention to these dangers, EARTHDAY.ORG released a report last November, Babies VS. Plastics, highlighting infants’ heightened plastics exposure and vulnerability to health risks. It makes for grim reading: microplastics and their additive chemicals are linked to interruptions in maternal-fetal communication, damaged DNA, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, early onset puberty, and some forms of cancers.
Writing that report, I discovered that crawling on the floor puts babies at increased risk of inhaling microplastics in household dust. And since babies chew on everything, they are also more likely to ingest microplastics. The report made me wonder about my own plastics exposure, and about my two rescue dogs, Buzz and Sally. Since dogs and cats crawl on the floor and chew on everything their whole life span, are pets, like babies, especially vulnerable to microplastics?
Pesticide exposure as risky as smoking, study finds
By Shannon Kelleher
People who don’t farm, but live in US agricultural communities where pesticides are used on farms, face an increased cancer risk as significant as if they were smokers, according to a new study.
The study, published July 25 in the journal Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society, analyzed cancer incidence data from nearly every US county and looked at how that data corresponded to federal data on agricultural pesticide use. Researchers reported that they found the higher the pesticide use, the higher the risk for every type of cancer the researchers looked at.
“Agricultural pesticide usage has a significant impact on all the cancer types evaluated in this study (all cancers, bladder cancer, colon cancer, leukemia, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer); and these associations are more evident in regions with heavy agricultural productivity,” the study states.
“Pesticide-associated cancers appear to be on par for several smoking-associated cancer types,” the study states. It has been well established that smoking increases cancer risk, with at least 70 of the thousands of chemicals in tobacco smoke considered carcinogens.
The findings add to a wealth of research on pesticides and human health risks that point to shortcomings in US pesticide regulations, said Dana Barr, and environmental health researcher at Emory University who was not involved in the study.
“Right now, I don’t think the regulations for pesticides are the most health-protective, and they seem to presume that a chemical is safe until it is proven toxic, not the other way around,” she said. “I do think we need policy reform that puts the onus on the manufacturers to do a better job of evaluating safety before allowing new registrations.”
PFAS increasingly added to pesticides, study finds
By Shannon Kelleher
Despite widespread alarm about the health and environmental impacts of toxic PFAS, the chemicals are increasingly being added to pesticides applied in homes and crops across the US, according to a new study.
The findings, published July 24 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, add to growing concerns about PFAS contamination in the US food system and waterways and highlight pesticides’ “underappreciated” role in the problem, said David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group and an author of the study
The study revealed that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) account for 14% of all active ingredients in pesticides used in the US, including almost one-third of active ingredients approved in the last decade. Even when PFAS are not intentionally added to these products, the fluorinated containers in which they are stored have been found to leach PFAS into their contents, the study concluded.
“This is truly frightening news, because pesticides are some of the most widely dispersed pollutants in the world,” Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity and an author of the study, said in a statement. “Lacing pesticides with forever chemicals is likely burdening the next generation with more chronic diseases and impossible cleanup responsibilities.”
The authors reviewed pesticide data from the US EPA, the US Geological Survey, and the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, as well as publicly available databases, finding that PFAS-laced pesticides are regularly used nationwide on staple crops including corn, wheat, kale, spinach, apples and strawberries. PFAS are also common ingredients in flea treatments for pets and sprays to kill insects, they found.
The study comes on the heels of a petition delivered to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Monday by the Center for Food Safety and other nonprofits, asking the agency to ban PFAS in pesticides.
A battle in rural Midwest as farmers fight carbon capture pipeline
By Nina Elkadi
Kathy Stockdale and her husband have spent almost 50 years working the land in central Iowa. As a family farmer raising corn and soybeans, Stockdale knows how to deal with harsh weather, poor crop prices, and an array of other challenges that come with a making a living in agriculture.
But the operation she has spent a lifetime cultivating now faces a threat unlike any Stockdale has previously faced: Developers are planning to carve through her property with a pipeline carrying hazardous CO2 gas from ethanol plants, and there is little she can do to stop them.
The pipeline would run a mere 700 feet from Stockdale’s front doorstop and would create a barrier between the home she shares with her husband and the nearby home where her son lives. The farm’s soils and wetlands would be forever altered by the pipeline intrusion, and if the pipeline were to rupture, the damage could be catastrophic, Stockdale fears.
“It consumes your thoughts. You don’t sleep. You ask any of the landowners who have been fighting this, it’s been hard, it’s been stressful,” she said.
The Stockdales are among many farm families in Iowa and four other Midwestern states fighting to kill the pipeline, which was proposed three years ago by Summit Carbon Solutions (SCS) as the “world’s largest carbon capture and storage project.” SCS had initially planned to start operating the 2,500-mile pipeline network, dubbed the Midwest Carbon Express, this year. But opposition across the rural Midwest has delayed the project.
Air pollution threatens key crop pollinators, study finds
By Shannon Kelleher
Air pollution jeopardizes bees and other pollinators essential for food production, according to a new study that sheds light on a significant but underrecognized threat to beneficial insects.
In a study published Thursday in the journal Nature Communications, researchers found that bees, as well as some moths and butterflies, became about a third less efficient at foraging for food, on average, after exposure to elevated air pollution levels. The findings were based on an analysis of data from 120 scientific papers on how 40 types of insects respond to ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter.
“Air pollution is not generally considered as a driver of pollinator declines, but these results indicate that air pollution should be considered as a further factor that is driving pollinator declines,” said James Ryalls, an ecologist at the University of Reading and an author of the study. Declines in pollinator health can translate to declines in crop yields, Ryalls said.
The researchers noted that insects generally seen as harmful to agriculture, such as sap-sucking aphids, did not experience significant declines in their ability to forage from exposure to air pollution.
Air pollution may be more disruptive for bees and other insects because it muddles the chemical signals they use to communicate and sense their surroundings, the researchers suggest, while pests tend to rely more heavily on visual cues or others.
Surprisingly, even low concentrations of air pollutants below the threshold considered safe for humans harmed the pollinators, Ryalls said.
Congress should follow science and reject Bayer push to block lawsuits
By Nathan Donley
Millions of American users of glyphosate-based Roundup have likely assumed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would never have approved the pesticide unless it was safe.
But the science-based truth has never been as cut and dried as the EPA and Bayer, which bought Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018, have made it sound. In a series of trials across the country, juries – and the public – have learned that despite the safety claims by Bayer and the EPA, hundreds of studies by independent scientists link glyphosate herbicides to serious health harms, including cancer.
Even though Bayer maintains that its glyphosate products are safe and not carcinogenic, the company has thus far agreed to pay out more than $10 billion in settlement costs to tens of thousands of glyphosate users suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and thousands of lawsuits remain.
In an effort to block further litigation, the chemical giant has turned its focus to getting federal and state legislation passed to block Roundup users from suing the company for damages. According to a recent Washington Post article, Bayer helped draft language for a legislative measure that would limit the types of lawsuits brought by the Roundup users. That measure is included in the US House of Representatives version of the 2024 Farm Bill, which is slated to be finalized later this year. The company has also been pushing lawmakers in several states to pass similar measures.
Key to Bayer’s messaging to legislators is that, because glyphosate is EPA-approved, research showing its harms should be rejected. But the process by which the EPA approved glyphosate decades ago has never been reassuring to independent scientists such as myself.
Monsanto Roundup trial win overturned by Oregon court
By Carey Gillam
An Oregon appeals court on Wednesday overturned a trial victory by Monsanto owner Bayer AG in a decision that adds to an ongoing debate over the company’s efforts to create a nationwide legal and legislative shield from lawsuits alleging Roundup weed killer causes cancer.
The court found that the trial judge in the case improperly barred key evidence about the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from being presented to the jury, which could have led the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff. And, notably, the court rejected arguments by the company that claims about the dangers of its products should be barred because those products carry the EPA’s stamp of approval.
Other courts have similarly rejected so-called “preemption” arguments by Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018. But after failing to get court backing, Bayer has been pushing state and federal lawmakers to give it and other pesticide makers the protection the courts have rejected. A proposed measure is being considered by lawmakers for inclusion in the US Farm Bill. Monsanto unsuccessfully argued to the appeals court that the case never should have even gone to a jury because the claims should have been preempted.
Bayer did not respond to a request for comment on the latest ruling.
Attorney Andrew Kirkendall, who represented the plaintiff in the case, said he welcomed the court’s decision and was eager to retry the case with the evidence about the EPA included.
The testimony that the trial judge refused to allow was to have come from Charles Benbrook, a former research professor who served at one time as executive director of the National Academy of Sciences board on agriculture. Benbrook has authored papers critical of the EPA’s handling of glyphosate herbicides, noting that the agency has given little weight to independent research regarding the actual products sold into the marketplace and used by millions of people around the world. Instead, the EPA has mostly relied on studies paid for by Monsanto and other companies selling glyphosate herbicides that found no cancer concerns.
“There is important new science to share with the jury that clarifies why and how Roundup can cause cancer,” Benbrook said this week after learning of the court ruling.
In bid to slash chemical use, robots take on farm fields
By Carey Gillam
Cheney, Kan. – On a sweltering summer day in central Kansas, farm fields shimmer in the heat as Clint Brauer watches a team of bright yellow robots churn up and down the rows, tirelessly slicing away any weeds that stand in their way while avoiding the growing crops.
The battery-powered machines, four feet long and two feet wide, pick their way through the fields with precision. Programmed with myriad data points about the field, the artificial intelligence (AI)-driven bots run without any human hand to guide them.
Brauer, a former California-based tech executive who moved back to his family farm in central Kansas after his father developed Parkinson’s disease, sees the robots as critical tools to help farmers reduce their reliance on chemicals and be more protective of their health and the environment.
His Greenfield agricultural technology company now builds and programs its robots in a shed behind an old farmhouse where his grandmother once lived. Farmers who hire the robots are charged a flat rate per acre weeded. Twenty farmers are signed up for the robotic services this season, and the company hopes to weed 10,000 acres this year.
“The answer is here,” he said. “This solves a lot of problems for farmers.”
Greenfield is one of many agricultural robotic companies springing up amid a confluence of concerns over the future of farming. Fears about the harmful impacts of farm chemicals on the environment and on public health are key drivers, as is the need to deal with the diminishing effectiveness of overused weed killing chemicals, labor shortages, and the high costs that farmers face with conventional farming practices.
Financial backing is flowing to these companies from venture capital funds, private investors and large food and agricultural companies eager to make bets on the bots as a means to promote more sustainable food production – a notion increasingly finding favor with consumers.
The investment arm of Chipotle Mexican Grill, a global restaurant chain, is among Greenfield’s investors. Christian Gammill, who leads Chipotles venture fund, said Greenfield’s work is “important and impactful.” Greenfield has raised about $12 million in capital, and is seeking more, according to Brauer.
ReGen Ventures, a venture capital fund operating in Australia and the US, has so far sunk $6 million – with more planned – into North Dakota-based Aigen Robotics, which uses AI and camera vision to sense plants and remove weeds while avoiding crops. Aigen declares on its website to be “building a future with no harmful chemicals in our food.” The compact robots are powered via solar panels fixed to the top of each machine and are designed to work autonomously, sleeping and waking up on farms fields.
“They are well on their way to displacing chemicals from ag and enabling a new, regenerative food production system,” said ReGen founder Dan Fitzgerald.
Electric vehicle batteries adding to toxic PFAS pollution, study finds
By Shannon Kelleher
A type of toxic PFAS in lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles and other electronics is polluting air, soil and water in the United States and Europe, adding to concerns that the growing clean energy sector could harm the environment even as it strives to combat climate change, according to a new study.
Researchers said they analyzed samples of soil, sediment and surface water collected in 2022 near manufacturing plants in Minnesota, Kentucky, Belgium, and France, finding they were commonly contaminated with a subtype of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) called bis-perfluoroalkyl sulfonimides (bis-FASIs) at concentrations in the parts per billion.
The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Communications, also found that bis-FASI emitted into the air at these sites may travel long distances, potentially polluting areas far from the facilities where they are made and used.
“If we are not careful about the choices of materials and chemicals used in renewable energy technologies, then it is a concern that this may become a new source of PFAS pollution,” said Ariana Spentzos, a science and policy associate at the Green Science Policy Institute. Spentzos was not involved in the study.
“However, it is a false choice to choose between renewable energy and less PFAS pollution,” she added, noting that there are viable alternatives for many uses of PFAS in renewable energy.