In “crucial step”, EPA finalizes rule to reduce cancerous chemical plant emissions
By Carey Gillam
More than 200 US chemical plants face new requirements that should slash toxic air pollution and reduce cancer risks for hundreds of thousands of people living near the facilities, officials said on Tuesday.
The action formalizes a hotly debated proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to cut out over 6,000 tons of toxic air pollution annually. The agency is taking specific aim at emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO), which is used in the production of many products and for sterilization of medical equipment, and chloroprene, used to make synthetic rubber.
Most of the impact would be seen in plants in Texas and Louisiana, as well as in the Ohio River Valley, in communities that have become notorious for high rates of cancer. People living near a chloroprene plant in St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana, face a cancer risk 50 times higher than the national average, for instance. The community has been dubbed “Cancer Alley.”
“This final rule delivers on EPA’s commitment to protecting public health for all, especially communities historically overburdened by pollution,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a press conference.
An EPA analysis shows that once the final rule is implemented, “no one will again face elevated cancer risks from EtO or chloroprene emissions from the equipment and processes covered by this rule,” Regan said. He said agency actions would cut the cancer risk for people living near the plants by 96%.
The move is part of a “government-wide commitment to ending cancer as we know it,” he said.
An herbicide so hazardous that courts have banned it twice
By Bill Freese
In early February, something rather extraordinary happened in the world of American farming. For the second time, a federal court banned the hazardous herbicide dicamba, which has been wreaking havoc on farmers, rural communities and the natural world for seven long years. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-approved dicamba after the first court action. Will it do so once again?
What about dicamba makes it so hazardous that courts have overruled EPA twice? It’s an incredibly volatile, drift-prone weed-killer, and extremely potent as well: just one teaspoon over an acre stunts tomato plants. It vaporizes while being sprayed, but also evaporates from plant surfaces and soil days after a spraying operation. Once the vapor is airborne, it forms clouds that drift long distances to kill or injure virtually any flowering plant in its path.
And that’s precisely what happened following Monsanto’s 2016 introduction of soybeans and cotton genetically engineered (GE) to withstand dicamba’s killing effects. Widespread planting of these new GE crops triggered a dramatic upsurge in use during late spring and summer, when heat enhances dicamba’s volatility.
Dicamba has drifted rampantly from these GE fields, damaging millions of acres of non-dicamba-resistant soybeans. Wave after wave of dicamba vapor drift killed fruit trees, or left them with small, unsaleable fruit. Vegetable farms and gardens were devastated. Trees in natural areas suffered. And beekeepers reported steep drops in honey production where dicamba had devasted the flowering plants their bees require for nectar and pollen.
Echoing many of his colleagues, North Dakota pesticide expert Andrew Thostenson stated: “We are in unprecedented, unchartered territory. We’ve never observed anything on this scale since we’ve been using pesticides in the modern era.”
Vermont advances bill targeting oil and gas companies for climate cleanup
By Dana Drugmand
In the aftermath of costly flooding that swept the US Northeast last year, lawmakers in Vermont on Tuesday advanced a proposed new law that aims to make fossil fuel companies liable for the costs of cleaning up communities battered by climate change-related events.
In a 26-3 vote, the state senate passed what state lawmakers are calling the “Climate Superfund Act.” If the bill becomes law, it would be the first of its kind in the country, imposing strict liability for carbon pollution on large oil and gas companies that produce carbon-based fuels. Like the federal Superfund program that holds polluters liable for hazardous waste contamination, the “climate superfund” concept proposes to replicate this polluter pays program for climate pollution.
“I’m proud to vote yes today to respond to the greatest overarching existential threat of our time,” Vermont Sen. Becca White said following the vote.
The measure now moves on to the Vermont House of Representatives, where support appears strong.
“This is a bill that had a lot of support going into the session,” said Ben Edgerly Walsh, climate and energy program director at Vermont Public Interest Research Group. “We’re pretty optimistic that the House is going to take it up and move it before the end of the session.”
Last July, exceedingly heavy rainfall led to damaging flooding in the US Northeast, submerging streets in Vermont’s capital city of Montpelier, as well as thousands of acres of farmland across the state. One hard-hit farming operation, the Intervale Community Farm in Burlington, Vermont, lost an estimated $200,000 of its vegetable crops when 99% of the farm flooded.
Vermont’s bill would assess a one-time fee on fossil fuel companies responsible for more than 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the last 30 years. The bill leaves the task of determining which companies would pay, and how much each would owe, to the state’s Agency of Natural Resources and the state treasurer, as well as the task of calculating Vermont’s costs of recovering from and adapting to climate impacts.
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.
Mexico delays planned April 1 glyphosate ban
By Carey Gillam and Johnathan Hettinger
After standing firm for more than three years on plans to enact a ban on the weed killer glyphosate starting today, Mexican officials said they were delaying the ban.
Mexico is currently embroiled in a trade dispute with the United States over its unwillingness to accept genetically modified (GM) corn, typically altered to tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate and to manufacture toxins that repel pests, and Mexican officials have repeatedly stated that they consider both GM corn and glyphosate as threats to the health of the Mexican population as well as to the health of the environment.
But in a surprising reversal, less than a week before the ban was to kick in on April 1, government officials announced that glyphosate use could continue until other options for weed control are found. The move came amid reported heavy lobbying from powerful global agrochemical companies and pressure from US trade officials. Similarly, in 2019, Thailand backed down from a planned glyphosate ban after pressure from US officials and industry actors.
Fernando Bejarano, of the Pesticide Action Network in Mexico, said that the move comes after pressure from industry and US officials.
Toxic vinyl chloride accidents happen once every five days, report finds
By Dana Drugmand
Accidental releases of toxic vinyl chloride have occurred in the United States once every five days, on average, since 2010, according to a new report that highlights the extent to which communities and chemical plant workers are exposed to the known carcinogen.
The findings add to a growing body of evidence on the frequency of hazardous chemical accidents, including a 2023 report that found such incidents occur in the US almost daily.
Environmental, public health and community advocates have been calling on the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban vinyl chloride following a February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, which resulted in a “controlled” combustion of vinyl chloride in several rail cars that exposed residents to the chemical.
The report, produced by Material Research L3C on behalf of the environmental groups Beyond Plastics and Earthjustice, is intended to help inform the EPA as it takes steps towards conducting a risk assessment of vinyl chloride, along with four other toxic chemicals, a move the agency announced in December. The review, conducted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), would be the first step towards considering a potential ban on vinyl chloride or additional restrictions to help protect public health and the environment from exposure to the chemical.
In public comments to the EPA, the groups Beyond Plastics, Earthjustice, and Toxic-Free Future urged the agency to quickly move to designate vinyl chloride as a “high priority substance” so that it can begin the risk evaluation.
When measuring a farm’s carbon footprint – Britain has the right answer
By Dean Dickel
The key to achieving climate mitigation in agriculture depends on an accurate measure of carbon sequestration and emissions of major greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.
Mitigation measures so far have revolved around public and private programs that offer payment for practices such as cover crops and no-till planting that industry experts have determined sequester carbon in the soil.
Carbon markets have also been initiated that pay farmers for their conservation practices. Called carbon credits, the payments are used to offset greenhouse gas emissions the buyers produce as a part of their business operations. Those offsets are commonly used to achieve their own climate claims such as “net zero.”
A number of farmers are already participating in these “markets,” but some in the industry remain dubious. “These aren’t markets, they’re just schemes,” says Jeff Schahczenski, an economist with the National Center for Appropriate Technology.
Farmers enrolling in carbon market programs will usually need to sign relatively long-term contracts that include very specific requirements to continue to qualify for payments. “I would advise farmers to have these contracts looked over by a lawyer before signing,” Schahczenski said.
Current “carbon markets” have also drawn fire from organic farmers and others because they mostly reward “new practices” as incentives for farmers to adopt carbon-friendly methods, all the while farmers who are already using those practices, many of them for years, are wondering out loud: “What’s in it for me?” Some have asked how long they would need to go back to bad practices before they would qualify for reinstituting good practices.
Current carbon initiatives available to farmers do not generally consider carbon equivalent emissions for synthetic nitrogen and other fertilizers and pesticides.
In Britain, however, the amount of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide being emitted and how much carbon is being sequestered in the soil can be measured by a software program that has been in use there for about ten years.
US court blocks EPA order to eliminate PFAS in plastic containers
By Shannon Kelleher
A US appeals court has vacated an action by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordering a company to stop producing plastic containers that leach toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) into pesticides, household cleaners, condiments, and many other products.
The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals on March 21 ruled that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority when it issued orders to Texas-based Inhance in December prohibiting the company from manufacturing or processing PFAS through its fluorination process for containers.
The EPA move came after the agency determined that types of PFAS created during the fluorination process “are highly toxic and present unreasonable risks that cannot be prevented other than through prohibition of manufacture.”
The agency issued the orders under the Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA), which authorizes the EPA to regulate and screen chemicals produced or imported into the US.
But Inhance challenged the EPA’s action, arguing that the EPA improperly sought to take action against the company under a section of TSCA dealing with new uses of chemicals, and that Inhance’s process did not constitute a new use.
The court agreed that the fluorination technique Inhance uses to prevent liquids from leaking out of its plastic containers – a process that creates PFAS chemicals – does not count as a significant new use since Inhance has been using this process since 1983.
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.
‘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.”