welcome to reality trivia
environment
The environment is everything that isn't me.
Albert Einstein
dec 6, 2019
Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth.
Henry David Thoreau
THANKS TO THE GREED AND IGNORANCE OF THE POLITICAL LEADERS, OIL, GAS , CHEMICAL, AND PESTICIDE INDUSTRIES THE HUMAN RACE IS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES.
*articles*
*EPA Reauthorizes Use of 'Dangerous' 'Cyanide Bombs' That Kill Thousands of Animals Every Year(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Factory Farm Conditions Are Unhealthy for Animals and Bad for People, Too
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*EPA WON’T ADDRESS THE TICKING TIME BOMB RIGHT NEXT DOOR
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Tens of thousands of deaths linked to weak US air pollution rules – study
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*AIR POLLUTION NANOPARTICLES LINKED TO BRAIN CANCER FOR FIRST TIME
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*COCA-COLA IS WORLD'S BIGGEST PLASTICS POLLUTER – AGAIN
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Sea levels set to keep rising for centuries even if emissions targets met
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*These are the cities that will drown first as the seas rise
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*OFFSHORE WINDFARMS 'CAN PROVIDE MORE ELECTRICITY THAN THE WORLD NEEDS'
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*TVS SOLD BY AMAZON AND BEST BUY 'CONTAIN CHEMICALS BANNED IN EUROPE'
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*TOP U.S. TOXICOLOGIST WAS BARRED FROM SAYING PFAS CAUSE DISEASE IN HUMANS. SHE’S SAYING IT NOW.(ARTICLE BELOW)
*New Data Show Severity of Water Contamination in Poor Neighborhoods
(excerpt BELOW)
*95 PERCENT OF BABY FOODS TESTED CONTAIN TOXIC METALS THAT COULD HARM BRAIN DEVELOPMENT, STUDY FINDS(ARTICLE BELOW)
*War on plastic waste faces setback as cost of recycled material soars
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*California bans pesticide linked to brain damage in children
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Bird Population Has Plunged in North America
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*SCIENTISTS UNCOVER ALARMING LEVELS OF DANGEROUS PLASTICS IN CHILDREN’S BODIES
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Not just the bees, first-of-its-kind study shows neonics may be killing birds too
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*US BEEKEEPERS FILE SUIT AGAINST TRUMP EPA CHARGING ‘ILLEGAL’ APPROVAL OF INSECTICIDE LINKED TO MASS DIE-OFF(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Global food producers 'failing to face up to role' in climate crisis
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*THERE’S POISON IN THE TAP WATER. THE GOVERNMENT MUST ACT.
(ARTICLE BELOW)
cartoons(at the end)
another stupid idea from stupid people!!!
EPA Reauthorizes Use of 'Dangerous' 'Cyanide Bombs' That Kill Thousands of Animals Every Year
Aristos Georgiou - newsweek
12/6/19
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced that it will reauthorize the use of sodium cyanide in wildlife-killing devices known as M-44s, or "cyanide bombs."
The devices are designed to kill certain animals for predator control purposes. They use a smelly bait to lure in wildlife before releasing deadly sodium cyanide into the mouth of any animal that takes a bite.
But critics say that the traps "inhumanely and indiscriminately" kill thousands of animals every year, posing a danger to endangered species, domestic pets and even humans.
In a statement published on Thursday, the EPA announced a "revised interim decision on sodium cyanide that includes new requirements to ensure continued safe use of the device." But campaigners have described these restrictions as "minor" and limited.
"This appalling decision leaves cyanide traps lurking in the wild to threaten people, pets and imperiled animals," Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "The EPA imposed a few minor restrictions, but these deadly devices have just wreaked too much havoc to remain in use. To truly protect humans and wildlife from these poisonous contraptions, we need a nationwide ban."
The M-44s are used by Wildlife Services—a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agency that kills millions of animals every year using a variety of methods, ostensibly to protect livestock, according to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).
The spring-loaded traps are also authorized for use by state agencies in South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico and Texas.
The USDA's own data suggests that these spring-loaded traps killed 6,579 animals in 2018—the majority of which were coyotes and foxes. At least 200 of these deaths were non-target animals—such as bears, skunks and opossums—although the real figure is likely higher, the CBD says, accusing the agency of poor data collection. According to Adkins, M-44s are dangerous to wildlife and harmful to ecosystems.
"Numerous endangered species have been killed by the devices, as anything that tugs on [them] will be shot with the poison," Adkins said in a statement provided to Newsweek. "The animals targeted by cyanide bombs—canids like wolves, coyotes and foxes—play important ecosystem roles as top carnivores, controlling prey populations. For example, coyotes control rodents that spread disease and damage crops."
Furthermore, the traps pose a risk to humans and their pets, with several recorded instances of people being harmed, Adkins said.
"In 2017, an Idaho teenager, Canyon Mansfield, hiking with his dog on the hill behind his home was temporarily blinded and watched his dog die after he grabbed an unmarked device," Adkins said.
In August, the EPA announced that it would reauthorize the use of the traps on an interim basis—albeit with certain restrictions that were put in place in response to pressure from environmental groups. But just a week later, the EPA withdrew this decision to hold further discussions with Wildlife Services on the most appropriate language for the M-44 labels. Thursday's decision now reauthorizes the use of the devices on an interim basis again.
As part of the reauthorization, the EPA has added some new restrictions. For example, the traps cannot be placed within 600 feet of a residence—unless the property owner has given written permission—or 300 feet from designated public paths and roads. The latter restriction is an increase from 100 feet.
Furthermore, the new interim decision requires that the traps must be accompanied by two elevated warning signs within 15 feet, which face in the two most likely directions of approach. Currently, only one sign is required at a distance of 25 feet from the device.
However, critics say that these kinds of restrictions will do little to mitigate the risks posed by these devices and fails to meaningfully address the problem.
"None of the restrictions will prevent non-target wildlife deaths," Adkins said. "We know from past experience that buffers and signs don't work: 1) these restrictions are often not followed—as in the Mansfield case where the device was illegally placed and without a sign; and 2) these restrictions don't eliminate the harm—people and dogs stray from the path when hiking and a couple of signs won't be visible from all directions or can blow over, et cetera."
Meanwhile, Cathy Liss, president of the Animal Welfare Institute, said in a statement: "The EPA's minor revisions do little to reduce the risks sodium cyanide bombs pose to people, fail entirely to address risks to wildlife, including endangered species, and make clear the agency is prioritizing livestock interests over human safety and the environment. The simple solution to preventing further tragedies caused by these inherently dangerous devices is a nationwide ban."
Campaigners say that such a ban would have the overwhelming support of the public. An analysis conducted by the CBD and Western Environmental Law Center found that more than 99.9 percent of the roughly 22,400 people who submitted comments regarding the previous proposal to reauthorize cyanide bombs asked the EPA to ban them.
Following the Mansfield incident, the state of Idaho imposed a moratorium on the use of M-44s on public lands. Meanwhile, the state of Oregon passed legislation this year banning them in the state. Furthermore, a federal court also recently approved a ban on the use of M-44s by Wildlife Services across more than 10 million acres of public land in Wyoming—the result of an agreement that followed a lawsuit brought by the CBD and other advocacy groups.
Supporters of the use of M-44s, such as the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA,) say that the traps play an important role in protecting livestock.
"NASDA appreciates the EPA's continued steps to prioritize public safety and support American ranchers, as M-44 is an essential tool for guarding our nation's livestock," NASDA CEO Barbara Glenn said in a statement accompanying yesterday's EPA announcement. "NASDA members hold highly the responsibility of ensuring the viability of American ranches, therefore, improved guidelines for safety measures are always welcomed."
But according to Adkins, there are safer alternatives that will also be more effective in achieving this aim.
"Killing of wildlife for conflicts with wildlife rarely works because other animals move into the vacant territories and begin breeding," she said. "Instead, prevention is key, using methods like guard dogs, fencing, flashing lights etc. to deter predators. If the predator must be killed, it is better to use a more targeted method like shooting, rather than indiscriminately killing with a poison."
"We're not giving up our fight. We'll continue to push for state and federal legislation to ban cyanide bombs," she said.
The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The devices are designed to kill certain animals for predator control purposes. They use a smelly bait to lure in wildlife before releasing deadly sodium cyanide into the mouth of any animal that takes a bite.
But critics say that the traps "inhumanely and indiscriminately" kill thousands of animals every year, posing a danger to endangered species, domestic pets and even humans.
In a statement published on Thursday, the EPA announced a "revised interim decision on sodium cyanide that includes new requirements to ensure continued safe use of the device." But campaigners have described these restrictions as "minor" and limited.
"This appalling decision leaves cyanide traps lurking in the wild to threaten people, pets and imperiled animals," Collette Adkins, carnivore conservation director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "The EPA imposed a few minor restrictions, but these deadly devices have just wreaked too much havoc to remain in use. To truly protect humans and wildlife from these poisonous contraptions, we need a nationwide ban."
The M-44s are used by Wildlife Services—a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agency that kills millions of animals every year using a variety of methods, ostensibly to protect livestock, according to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).
The spring-loaded traps are also authorized for use by state agencies in South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico and Texas.
The USDA's own data suggests that these spring-loaded traps killed 6,579 animals in 2018—the majority of which were coyotes and foxes. At least 200 of these deaths were non-target animals—such as bears, skunks and opossums—although the real figure is likely higher, the CBD says, accusing the agency of poor data collection. According to Adkins, M-44s are dangerous to wildlife and harmful to ecosystems.
"Numerous endangered species have been killed by the devices, as anything that tugs on [them] will be shot with the poison," Adkins said in a statement provided to Newsweek. "The animals targeted by cyanide bombs—canids like wolves, coyotes and foxes—play important ecosystem roles as top carnivores, controlling prey populations. For example, coyotes control rodents that spread disease and damage crops."
Furthermore, the traps pose a risk to humans and their pets, with several recorded instances of people being harmed, Adkins said.
"In 2017, an Idaho teenager, Canyon Mansfield, hiking with his dog on the hill behind his home was temporarily blinded and watched his dog die after he grabbed an unmarked device," Adkins said.
In August, the EPA announced that it would reauthorize the use of the traps on an interim basis—albeit with certain restrictions that were put in place in response to pressure from environmental groups. But just a week later, the EPA withdrew this decision to hold further discussions with Wildlife Services on the most appropriate language for the M-44 labels. Thursday's decision now reauthorizes the use of the devices on an interim basis again.
As part of the reauthorization, the EPA has added some new restrictions. For example, the traps cannot be placed within 600 feet of a residence—unless the property owner has given written permission—or 300 feet from designated public paths and roads. The latter restriction is an increase from 100 feet.
Furthermore, the new interim decision requires that the traps must be accompanied by two elevated warning signs within 15 feet, which face in the two most likely directions of approach. Currently, only one sign is required at a distance of 25 feet from the device.
However, critics say that these kinds of restrictions will do little to mitigate the risks posed by these devices and fails to meaningfully address the problem.
"None of the restrictions will prevent non-target wildlife deaths," Adkins said. "We know from past experience that buffers and signs don't work: 1) these restrictions are often not followed—as in the Mansfield case where the device was illegally placed and without a sign; and 2) these restrictions don't eliminate the harm—people and dogs stray from the path when hiking and a couple of signs won't be visible from all directions or can blow over, et cetera."
Meanwhile, Cathy Liss, president of the Animal Welfare Institute, said in a statement: "The EPA's minor revisions do little to reduce the risks sodium cyanide bombs pose to people, fail entirely to address risks to wildlife, including endangered species, and make clear the agency is prioritizing livestock interests over human safety and the environment. The simple solution to preventing further tragedies caused by these inherently dangerous devices is a nationwide ban."
Campaigners say that such a ban would have the overwhelming support of the public. An analysis conducted by the CBD and Western Environmental Law Center found that more than 99.9 percent of the roughly 22,400 people who submitted comments regarding the previous proposal to reauthorize cyanide bombs asked the EPA to ban them.
Following the Mansfield incident, the state of Idaho imposed a moratorium on the use of M-44s on public lands. Meanwhile, the state of Oregon passed legislation this year banning them in the state. Furthermore, a federal court also recently approved a ban on the use of M-44s by Wildlife Services across more than 10 million acres of public land in Wyoming—the result of an agreement that followed a lawsuit brought by the CBD and other advocacy groups.
Supporters of the use of M-44s, such as the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA,) say that the traps play an important role in protecting livestock.
"NASDA appreciates the EPA's continued steps to prioritize public safety and support American ranchers, as M-44 is an essential tool for guarding our nation's livestock," NASDA CEO Barbara Glenn said in a statement accompanying yesterday's EPA announcement. "NASDA members hold highly the responsibility of ensuring the viability of American ranches, therefore, improved guidelines for safety measures are always welcomed."
But according to Adkins, there are safer alternatives that will also be more effective in achieving this aim.
"Killing of wildlife for conflicts with wildlife rarely works because other animals move into the vacant territories and begin breeding," she said. "Instead, prevention is key, using methods like guard dogs, fencing, flashing lights etc. to deter predators. If the predator must be killed, it is better to use a more targeted method like shooting, rather than indiscriminately killing with a poison."
"We're not giving up our fight. We'll continue to push for state and federal legislation to ban cyanide bombs," she said.
The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
wonder if your food has shit in it???
Factory Farm Conditions Are Unhealthy for Animals and Bad for People, Too
BY Tia Schwab, Truthout
PUBLISHED December 1, 2019
In 2014, the Review on Antimicrobial Resistance, commissioned by the U.K. government and Wellcome Trust, estimated that 700,000 people around the world die each year due to drug-resistant infections. A follow-up report two years later showed no change in this estimate of casualties. Without action, that number could grow to 10 million per year by 2050. A leading cause of antibiotic resistance? The misuse and overuse of antibiotics on factory farms.
Flourishing antibiotic resistance is just one of the many public health crises produced by factory farming. Other problems include foodborne illness, flu epidemics, the fallout from poor air and water quality, and chronic disease. All of it can be traced to the current industrial approach to raising animals for food, which puts a premium on “high stocking density,” wherein productivity is measured by how many animals are crammed into a feeding facility.
Oversight for the way factory farms operate and manage waste is minimal at best. No federal agency collects consistent and reliable information on the number, size and location of large-scale agricultural operations, nor the pollution they’re emitting. There are also no federal laws governing the conditions in which farm animals are raised, and most state anti-cruelty laws do not apply to farm animals.
For example, Texas, Iowa and Nebraska have excluded livestock from their animal cruelty statute and instead created specific legislation aimed at farm animal abuse that makes accepted or customary husbandry practices the animal welfare standard.
After New Jersey created similar legislation, the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals sued the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, claiming that “routine husbandry practices” was too vague. The New Jersey Society won, and as a result, the state’s Department of Agriculture has created more specific regulations.
In North Carolina, any person or organization can file a lawsuit if they suspect animal cruelty, even if that person does not have “possessory or ownership rights in an animal.” In this way, the state has “a civil remedy” for farm animal cruelty.
Still, the general lack of governmental oversight of factory farms results in cramped and filthy conditions, stressed-out animals and workers, and an ideal setup for the rampant spread of disease among animals, between animals and workers, and into the surrounding environment through animal waste.
Antibiotic Resistance
The problem: In 2017, nearly 11 million kilograms of antibiotics — including 5.6 million kilograms of medically important antibiotics — were sold in the U.S. for factory-farmed animals. Factory farms use antibiotics to make livestock grow faster and control the spread of disease in cramped and unhealthy living conditions. While antibiotics do kill some bacteria in animals, resistant bacteria can, and often do, survive and multiply, contaminating meat and animal products during slaughter and processing.
What it means for you: People can be exposed to antibiotic-resistant bacteria by handling or eating contaminated animal products, coming into contact with contaminated water or touching farm animals, which of course makes a farmworker’s job especially hazardous. Even if you don’t eat much meat or dairy, you’re vulnerable: Resistant pathogens can enter water streams through animal manure and contaminate irrigated produce.
Developments: The European Union has been much more aggressive than the U.S. in regulating antibiotic use on factory farms, banning the use of all antibiotics for growth promotion in 2006. But the U.S. is making some progress, too. Under new rules issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which went into effect in January 2017, antibiotics that are important for human medicine can no longer be used for growth promotion or feed efficiency in cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys and other animals raised for food.
Additionally, 95 percent of medically important antibiotics used in animal water and feed for therapeutic purposes were reclassified so they can no longer be purchased over the counter, and a veterinarian would have to sign off for their use in animals. As a result, domestic sales and distribution of medically important antimicrobials approved for use in factory farmed animals decreased by 43 percent from 2015 (the year of peak sales) through 2017, reports the FDA.
However, the agency still allows routine antibiotic use in factory farms for disease prevention in crowded and stressed animals, so these new rules aren’t nearly enough, says Matthew Wellington, antibiotics program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund.
“The FDA should implement ambitious reduction targets for antibiotic use in the meat industry, and ensure that these medicines are used to treat sick animals or control a verified disease outbreak, not for routine disease prevention,” Wellington said in a statement, according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
National Resources Defense Council Senior Attorney Avinash Kar agrees. “Far more antibiotics important to humans still go to cows and pigs — usually when they’re not sick — than to people, putting the health of every single one of us in jeopardy.”
Water and Pollution
The problem: Livestock in this country produce between 3 and 20 times more waste than people in the U.S. produce, according to a 2005 report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That’s as much as 1.2-1.37 billion tons of manure a year. Some estimates are even higher.
Manure can contain “pathogens such as E. coli, growth hormones, antibiotics, chemicals used as additives to the manure or to clean equipment, animal blood, silage leachate from corn feed, or copper sulfate used in footbaths for cows,” according to a 2010 report by the National Association of Local Boards of Health. Though sewage treatment plants are required for human waste, no such treatment facility exists for livestock waste.
Since this amount far exceeds what can be used as fertilizer, animal waste from factory farms typically enters massive, open-air waste lagoons, which spread airborne pathogens to people who live nearby. If animal waste is applied as fertilizer and exceeds the soil’s capacity for absorption, or if there is a leak or break in the manure storage or containment unit, the animal waste runs off into oceans, lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater.
Extreme weather increases the possibility of such breaks. Hurricane Florence, for example, flooded at least 50 hog lagoons when it struck the Carolinas last year, and satellite photos captured the damage.
Whether or not the manure is contained or spread as fertilizer, it can release many different types of harmful gases, including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, as well as particulate matter comprised of fecal matter, feed materials, pollen, bacteria, fungi, skin cells and silicates, into the air.
What it means for you: Pathogens can cause diarrhea and severe illness or even death for those with weakened immune systems, and nitrates in drinking water have been connected to neural tube defects and limb deficiencies in newborns (among other things), as well as miscarriages and poor general health. For infants, it can mean blue baby syndrome and even death.
Gases like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide can cause dizziness, eye irritation, respiratory illness, nausea, sore throats, seizures, comas and death. Particulate matter in the air can lead to chronic bronchitis, chronic respiratory symptoms, declines in lung function and organic dust toxic syndrome. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that children raised in communities near factory farms are more likely to develop asthma or bronchitis, and that people who live near factory farms may experience mental health deterioration and increased sensitization to smells.
Developments: It is difficult to hold factory farms accountable for polluting surrounding air and water, largely for political reasons. The GOP-controlled Congress and the Trump administration excused big livestock farms from reporting air emissions, for instance, following a decade-long push for special treatment by the livestock industry.
The exemption indicates “further denial of the impact that these [emissions] are having, whether it’s on climate or whether it’s on public health,” says Carrie Apfel, an attorney for Earthjustice. In a 2017 report from the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General, the agency admitted it has not found a good way to track emissions from factory farms and know whether the farms are complying with the Clean Air Act.
No federal agency even has reliable information on the number and locations of factory farms, which of course makes accountability even harder to establish.
Foodborne Illness
The problem: The United States has “shockingly high levels of foodborne illness,” according to an investigation jointly conducted by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Guardian, and unsanitary conditions at factory farms are a leading contributor.
Studying 47 meat plants across the U.S., investigators found that hygiene incidents occur at rates experts described as “deeply worrying.” One dataset covered 13 large red meat and poultry plants between 2015 and 2017 and found an average of more than 150 violations a week, and 15,000 violations over the entire period. Violations included unsanitary factory conditions and meat contaminated with blood, septicemic disease and feces.
“The rates at which outbreaks of infectious food poisoning occur in the U.S. are significantly higher than in the UK, or the EU,” Erik Millstone, a food safety expert at Sussex University told the Guardian.
Poor sanitary practices allow bacteria like E. coli and Salmonella, which live in the intestinal tracts of infected livestock, to contaminate meat or animal products during slaughter or processing. Contamination occurs at higher rates on factory farms because crowded and unclean living conditions increase the likelihood of transmission between animals.
It also stresses out animals, which suppresses their immune response, making them more susceptible to disease. The grain-based diets used to fatten cattle can also quickly increase the risk of E. coli infection. In poultry, the practice of processing dead hens into “spent hen meal” to be fed to live hens has increased the spread of Salmonella.
What it means for you: According to the CDC, roughly 48 million people in the U.S. suffer from foodborne illnesses annually, with 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths each year. Salmonella accounts for approximately 11 percent of infections, and kills more people every year than any other bacterial foodborne illness.
Developments: In January 2011, President Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the first major piece of federal legislation addressing food safety since 1938. FSMA grants the FDA new authority to regulate the way food is grown, harvested and processed, and new powers such as mandatory recall authority.
The FSMA “basically codified this principle that everybody responsible for producing food should be doing what the best science says is appropriate to prevent hazards and reduce the risk of illness,” according to Mike Taylor, co-chairman of Stop Foodborne Illness and a former deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the FDA. “So we’re moving in the right direction.”
However, almost a decade later, the FSMA is still being phased in, due to a shortage of trained food-inspectors and a lack of funding. “Congress has gotten about halfway to what it said was needed to successfully implement” the Act, Taylor said.
The Flu
The problem: Both the number and density of animals on factory farms increase the risk of new virulent pathogens, according to the U.S. Council for Agriculture, Science and Technology. In addition, transporting animals over long distances to processing facilities brings different influenza strains into contact with each other so they combine and spread quickly.
Pigs — susceptible to both avian and human flu viruses — can serve as ground zero for all sorts of new strains. Because of intensive pig farming practices, “the North American swine flu virus has jumped onto an evolutionary fast track, churning out variants every year,” according to a report published in the journal Science.
What it means for you: These viruses can become pandemics. In fact, viral geneticists link the genetic lineage of H1N1, a kind of swine flu, to a strain that emerged in 1998 in U.S. factory pig farms. The CDC has estimated that between 151,700 and 575,400 people worldwide died from the 2009 H1N1 virus infection during the first year the virus circulated.
Breast, Prostate and Colon Cancer
The problem: Factory farms in the U.S. use hormones to stimulate growth in an estimated two-thirds of beef cattle. On dairy farms, around 54 percent of cows are injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a growth hormone that increases milk production.
What it means for you: The health effects of consuming animal products treated with these growth hormones is an ongoing international debate. Some studies have linked growth hormone residues in meat to reproductive issues and breast, prostate and colon cancer, and IGF-1, an insulin-like growth hormone, has been linked to colon and breast cancer. However, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization have independently found that dairy products and meat from cows treated with rBGH are safe for human consumption.
Because risk assessments vary, the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel and Argentina have banned the use of rBGH as a precautionary measure. The EU has also banned the use of six hormones in cattle and imported beef.
Developments: U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines allow beef products to be labeled with “no hormones administered” and dairy products to be labeled “from cows not treated with rBST/rBGH” if the producer provides sufficient documentation that this is true. Consumers can use this information to make their own decisions about the risks associated with hormone-treated animal products.[...]
Flourishing antibiotic resistance is just one of the many public health crises produced by factory farming. Other problems include foodborne illness, flu epidemics, the fallout from poor air and water quality, and chronic disease. All of it can be traced to the current industrial approach to raising animals for food, which puts a premium on “high stocking density,” wherein productivity is measured by how many animals are crammed into a feeding facility.
Oversight for the way factory farms operate and manage waste is minimal at best. No federal agency collects consistent and reliable information on the number, size and location of large-scale agricultural operations, nor the pollution they’re emitting. There are also no federal laws governing the conditions in which farm animals are raised, and most state anti-cruelty laws do not apply to farm animals.
For example, Texas, Iowa and Nebraska have excluded livestock from their animal cruelty statute and instead created specific legislation aimed at farm animal abuse that makes accepted or customary husbandry practices the animal welfare standard.
After New Jersey created similar legislation, the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals sued the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, claiming that “routine husbandry practices” was too vague. The New Jersey Society won, and as a result, the state’s Department of Agriculture has created more specific regulations.
In North Carolina, any person or organization can file a lawsuit if they suspect animal cruelty, even if that person does not have “possessory or ownership rights in an animal.” In this way, the state has “a civil remedy” for farm animal cruelty.
Still, the general lack of governmental oversight of factory farms results in cramped and filthy conditions, stressed-out animals and workers, and an ideal setup for the rampant spread of disease among animals, between animals and workers, and into the surrounding environment through animal waste.
Antibiotic Resistance
The problem: In 2017, nearly 11 million kilograms of antibiotics — including 5.6 million kilograms of medically important antibiotics — were sold in the U.S. for factory-farmed animals. Factory farms use antibiotics to make livestock grow faster and control the spread of disease in cramped and unhealthy living conditions. While antibiotics do kill some bacteria in animals, resistant bacteria can, and often do, survive and multiply, contaminating meat and animal products during slaughter and processing.
What it means for you: People can be exposed to antibiotic-resistant bacteria by handling or eating contaminated animal products, coming into contact with contaminated water or touching farm animals, which of course makes a farmworker’s job especially hazardous. Even if you don’t eat much meat or dairy, you’re vulnerable: Resistant pathogens can enter water streams through animal manure and contaminate irrigated produce.
Developments: The European Union has been much more aggressive than the U.S. in regulating antibiotic use on factory farms, banning the use of all antibiotics for growth promotion in 2006. But the U.S. is making some progress, too. Under new rules issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which went into effect in January 2017, antibiotics that are important for human medicine can no longer be used for growth promotion or feed efficiency in cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys and other animals raised for food.
Additionally, 95 percent of medically important antibiotics used in animal water and feed for therapeutic purposes were reclassified so they can no longer be purchased over the counter, and a veterinarian would have to sign off for their use in animals. As a result, domestic sales and distribution of medically important antimicrobials approved for use in factory farmed animals decreased by 43 percent from 2015 (the year of peak sales) through 2017, reports the FDA.
However, the agency still allows routine antibiotic use in factory farms for disease prevention in crowded and stressed animals, so these new rules aren’t nearly enough, says Matthew Wellington, antibiotics program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund.
“The FDA should implement ambitious reduction targets for antibiotic use in the meat industry, and ensure that these medicines are used to treat sick animals or control a verified disease outbreak, not for routine disease prevention,” Wellington said in a statement, according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
National Resources Defense Council Senior Attorney Avinash Kar agrees. “Far more antibiotics important to humans still go to cows and pigs — usually when they’re not sick — than to people, putting the health of every single one of us in jeopardy.”
Water and Pollution
The problem: Livestock in this country produce between 3 and 20 times more waste than people in the U.S. produce, according to a 2005 report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That’s as much as 1.2-1.37 billion tons of manure a year. Some estimates are even higher.
Manure can contain “pathogens such as E. coli, growth hormones, antibiotics, chemicals used as additives to the manure or to clean equipment, animal blood, silage leachate from corn feed, or copper sulfate used in footbaths for cows,” according to a 2010 report by the National Association of Local Boards of Health. Though sewage treatment plants are required for human waste, no such treatment facility exists for livestock waste.
Since this amount far exceeds what can be used as fertilizer, animal waste from factory farms typically enters massive, open-air waste lagoons, which spread airborne pathogens to people who live nearby. If animal waste is applied as fertilizer and exceeds the soil’s capacity for absorption, or if there is a leak or break in the manure storage or containment unit, the animal waste runs off into oceans, lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater.
Extreme weather increases the possibility of such breaks. Hurricane Florence, for example, flooded at least 50 hog lagoons when it struck the Carolinas last year, and satellite photos captured the damage.
Whether or not the manure is contained or spread as fertilizer, it can release many different types of harmful gases, including ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, as well as particulate matter comprised of fecal matter, feed materials, pollen, bacteria, fungi, skin cells and silicates, into the air.
What it means for you: Pathogens can cause diarrhea and severe illness or even death for those with weakened immune systems, and nitrates in drinking water have been connected to neural tube defects and limb deficiencies in newborns (among other things), as well as miscarriages and poor general health. For infants, it can mean blue baby syndrome and even death.
Gases like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide can cause dizziness, eye irritation, respiratory illness, nausea, sore throats, seizures, comas and death. Particulate matter in the air can lead to chronic bronchitis, chronic respiratory symptoms, declines in lung function and organic dust toxic syndrome. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that children raised in communities near factory farms are more likely to develop asthma or bronchitis, and that people who live near factory farms may experience mental health deterioration and increased sensitization to smells.
Developments: It is difficult to hold factory farms accountable for polluting surrounding air and water, largely for political reasons. The GOP-controlled Congress and the Trump administration excused big livestock farms from reporting air emissions, for instance, following a decade-long push for special treatment by the livestock industry.
The exemption indicates “further denial of the impact that these [emissions] are having, whether it’s on climate or whether it’s on public health,” says Carrie Apfel, an attorney for Earthjustice. In a 2017 report from the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General, the agency admitted it has not found a good way to track emissions from factory farms and know whether the farms are complying with the Clean Air Act.
No federal agency even has reliable information on the number and locations of factory farms, which of course makes accountability even harder to establish.
Foodborne Illness
The problem: The United States has “shockingly high levels of foodborne illness,” according to an investigation jointly conducted by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Guardian, and unsanitary conditions at factory farms are a leading contributor.
Studying 47 meat plants across the U.S., investigators found that hygiene incidents occur at rates experts described as “deeply worrying.” One dataset covered 13 large red meat and poultry plants between 2015 and 2017 and found an average of more than 150 violations a week, and 15,000 violations over the entire period. Violations included unsanitary factory conditions and meat contaminated with blood, septicemic disease and feces.
“The rates at which outbreaks of infectious food poisoning occur in the U.S. are significantly higher than in the UK, or the EU,” Erik Millstone, a food safety expert at Sussex University told the Guardian.
Poor sanitary practices allow bacteria like E. coli and Salmonella, which live in the intestinal tracts of infected livestock, to contaminate meat or animal products during slaughter or processing. Contamination occurs at higher rates on factory farms because crowded and unclean living conditions increase the likelihood of transmission between animals.
It also stresses out animals, which suppresses their immune response, making them more susceptible to disease. The grain-based diets used to fatten cattle can also quickly increase the risk of E. coli infection. In poultry, the practice of processing dead hens into “spent hen meal” to be fed to live hens has increased the spread of Salmonella.
What it means for you: According to the CDC, roughly 48 million people in the U.S. suffer from foodborne illnesses annually, with 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths each year. Salmonella accounts for approximately 11 percent of infections, and kills more people every year than any other bacterial foodborne illness.
Developments: In January 2011, President Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the first major piece of federal legislation addressing food safety since 1938. FSMA grants the FDA new authority to regulate the way food is grown, harvested and processed, and new powers such as mandatory recall authority.
The FSMA “basically codified this principle that everybody responsible for producing food should be doing what the best science says is appropriate to prevent hazards and reduce the risk of illness,” according to Mike Taylor, co-chairman of Stop Foodborne Illness and a former deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the FDA. “So we’re moving in the right direction.”
However, almost a decade later, the FSMA is still being phased in, due to a shortage of trained food-inspectors and a lack of funding. “Congress has gotten about halfway to what it said was needed to successfully implement” the Act, Taylor said.
The Flu
The problem: Both the number and density of animals on factory farms increase the risk of new virulent pathogens, according to the U.S. Council for Agriculture, Science and Technology. In addition, transporting animals over long distances to processing facilities brings different influenza strains into contact with each other so they combine and spread quickly.
Pigs — susceptible to both avian and human flu viruses — can serve as ground zero for all sorts of new strains. Because of intensive pig farming practices, “the North American swine flu virus has jumped onto an evolutionary fast track, churning out variants every year,” according to a report published in the journal Science.
What it means for you: These viruses can become pandemics. In fact, viral geneticists link the genetic lineage of H1N1, a kind of swine flu, to a strain that emerged in 1998 in U.S. factory pig farms. The CDC has estimated that between 151,700 and 575,400 people worldwide died from the 2009 H1N1 virus infection during the first year the virus circulated.
Breast, Prostate and Colon Cancer
The problem: Factory farms in the U.S. use hormones to stimulate growth in an estimated two-thirds of beef cattle. On dairy farms, around 54 percent of cows are injected with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a growth hormone that increases milk production.
What it means for you: The health effects of consuming animal products treated with these growth hormones is an ongoing international debate. Some studies have linked growth hormone residues in meat to reproductive issues and breast, prostate and colon cancer, and IGF-1, an insulin-like growth hormone, has been linked to colon and breast cancer. However, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization have independently found that dairy products and meat from cows treated with rBGH are safe for human consumption.
Because risk assessments vary, the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel and Argentina have banned the use of rBGH as a precautionary measure. The EU has also banned the use of six hormones in cattle and imported beef.
Developments: U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines allow beef products to be labeled with “no hormones administered” and dairy products to be labeled “from cows not treated with rBST/rBGH” if the producer provides sufficient documentation that this is true. Consumers can use this information to make their own decisions about the risks associated with hormone-treated animal products.[...]
EPA Won’t Address The Ticking Time Bomb Right Next Door
Forty-Seven U.S. Refineries, Many in Urban Areas, Use Deadly Hydrofluoric Acid. An Accidental Release Could Kill Thousands.
By Sarah Okeson - dc reports
11/21/19
Tens of thousands of people in our nation could die in a Bhopal-like catastrophe far worse than the 9/11 death toll of nearly 3,000 Americans. The reason is hydrofluoric acid, a chemical so dangerous that it can seep through skin and dissolve bones. Oil refineries use the acid to make gasoline.
The Trump EPA refused to use its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act to ban oil refineries from using this chemical. Forty-seven of our nation’s approximately 135 oil refineries use hydrofluoric acid, including refineries near Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans and Memphis.
“An HF release in an urban area, such as Torrance near downtown LA, could become a mass-casualty event, with the potential for tens of thousands of deaths,” said Jeff Ruch, the Pacific director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, the EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety, said the petition from PEER didn’t have enough facts to show the rule was necessary.
“EPA appears to be saying that it will not act until there is a body count,” said former EPA enforcement attorney Tim Whitehouse, now the executive director of PEER.
Hydrofluoric acid has been used in oil refining since the 1940s. The acid boils at 67 degrees, producing a toxic vapor that stays low and can kill up to five miles away from where it’s released.
In June, 5,239 pounds of hydrofluoric acid was released in a series of explosions and a fire that burned for more than 24 hours at a refinery owned by Philadelphia Energy Solutions, the largest refinery on the East Coast.
The ExxonMobile Torrance Refinery is 14 miles from Downtown Los Angeles (Google maps)
The force of the explosion sent the acid high enough in the air that there were no serious injuries or fatalities. About 1,968 pounds of the released acid was contained by a water spray, and the refinery used a safety system that drained a tank of hydrofluoric acid.
In October 1987, more than 1,000 people were treated for injuries after a Marathon refinery in Texas City, Texas, released a cloud of hydrofluoric acid.
The oil industry whose lobbyists include Jeff Miller, once the vice finance chair of Trump’s inauguration committee, would rather risk mass casualties than cut profits. Husky Energy plans to spend more than $400 million to rebuild its refinery in Superior, Wis., after an explosion and fire in April 2018 injured 36 people. It will continue to use hydrofluoric acid. Wisconsin state regulators approved those plans.
The American Chemistry Council, the corporate apologist for hydrofluoric acid, once employed David Fischer, now the deputy assistant administrator in the Trump EPA chemical safety office, and his predecessor, Nancy Beck.
PEER, which asked the EPA to ban hydrofluoric acid under the Toxic Substances Control Act, wanted the agency to use the Clean Air Act to ban the chemical.
The Chemical Safety Board, an independent federal agency, asked the EPA to update its 1993 study of hydrofluoric acid to determine whether refinery plans are adequate to prevent catastrophic releases and whether there are commercially viable, safer alternatives.
Refineries have added chemicals to hydrofluoric acid such as sulfolane to try to limit its danger, but it’s unclear how effective these are. Alternatives do exist such as sulfuric acid which burns but doesn’t form killer vapor clouds.
Chevron is converting its refinery in Salt Lake City to a method called ionic liquids alkylation technology, the first such unit in our country. It is scheduled to start in 2020. The technology has been used in China.
The Trump EPA refused to use its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act to ban oil refineries from using this chemical. Forty-seven of our nation’s approximately 135 oil refineries use hydrofluoric acid, including refineries near Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans and Memphis.
“An HF release in an urban area, such as Torrance near downtown LA, could become a mass-casualty event, with the potential for tens of thousands of deaths,” said Jeff Ruch, the Pacific director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, the EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety, said the petition from PEER didn’t have enough facts to show the rule was necessary.
“EPA appears to be saying that it will not act until there is a body count,” said former EPA enforcement attorney Tim Whitehouse, now the executive director of PEER.
Hydrofluoric acid has been used in oil refining since the 1940s. The acid boils at 67 degrees, producing a toxic vapor that stays low and can kill up to five miles away from where it’s released.
In June, 5,239 pounds of hydrofluoric acid was released in a series of explosions and a fire that burned for more than 24 hours at a refinery owned by Philadelphia Energy Solutions, the largest refinery on the East Coast.
The ExxonMobile Torrance Refinery is 14 miles from Downtown Los Angeles (Google maps)
The force of the explosion sent the acid high enough in the air that there were no serious injuries or fatalities. About 1,968 pounds of the released acid was contained by a water spray, and the refinery used a safety system that drained a tank of hydrofluoric acid.
In October 1987, more than 1,000 people were treated for injuries after a Marathon refinery in Texas City, Texas, released a cloud of hydrofluoric acid.
The oil industry whose lobbyists include Jeff Miller, once the vice finance chair of Trump’s inauguration committee, would rather risk mass casualties than cut profits. Husky Energy plans to spend more than $400 million to rebuild its refinery in Superior, Wis., after an explosion and fire in April 2018 injured 36 people. It will continue to use hydrofluoric acid. Wisconsin state regulators approved those plans.
The American Chemistry Council, the corporate apologist for hydrofluoric acid, once employed David Fischer, now the deputy assistant administrator in the Trump EPA chemical safety office, and his predecessor, Nancy Beck.
PEER, which asked the EPA to ban hydrofluoric acid under the Toxic Substances Control Act, wanted the agency to use the Clean Air Act to ban the chemical.
The Chemical Safety Board, an independent federal agency, asked the EPA to update its 1993 study of hydrofluoric acid to determine whether refinery plans are adequate to prevent catastrophic releases and whether there are commercially viable, safer alternatives.
Refineries have added chemicals to hydrofluoric acid such as sulfolane to try to limit its danger, but it’s unclear how effective these are. Alternatives do exist such as sulfuric acid which burns but doesn’t form killer vapor clouds.
Chevron is converting its refinery in Salt Lake City to a method called ionic liquids alkylation technology, the first such unit in our country. It is scheduled to start in 2020. The technology has been used in China.
Air pollution
Tens of thousands of deaths linked to weak US air pollution rules – study
Researchers linked nine causes of death with a certain type pollution when reviewing medical records of deceased veterans
Emily Holden in Washington
the guardian
Wed 20 Nov 2019 11.00 EST
US air pollution rules could be hugely insufficient in preventing deaths, experts are concluding from a new study of the likely causes of death of 4.5 million veterans.
Published in the peer-reviewed journal Jama, the research finds that 99% of deaths from illnesses linked to a certain type of air pollution occur in people who are exposed to lower levels than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently deems acceptable.
But Donald Trump’s EPA could be set to maintain the current standard – thus leading to continued air pollution-associated deaths. The agency is also reconsidering the established science linking particle pollution from fossil fuels and other sources with a host of illnesses.
About 200,000 Americans are thought to die from air pollution each year, but scientists previously couldn’t pinpoint the specific causes of death for almost half of those people.
The new research reviewed the medical records of veterans who died and compared them with the air pollution levels in their zip codes. They focused on PM 2.5, or inhalable particulate matter pollution that is 2.5 micrometers or smaller – a fraction of the width of a human hair.
They linked nine causes of death with the pollution: cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, lung cancer and pneumonia.
Three of those conditions were newly identified associations: chronic kidney disease, hypertension and dementia.
Miles Keogh, the executive director of a group that represents state and local air regulators, said: “We know people are harmed from exposure levels lower than the [current standards].
“The question is whether the trade-offs for society are worth it. If only a few people are harmed, maybe society accepts the risk,” Keogh said. “But when a study shows 99% of death occurring at exposure levels below that threshold, that should make us look much harder at whether the threshold protects people effectively enough.”
Because scientists cannot ethically expose subjects to air pollution and test the results, they must rely on existing epidemiological data. Veterans offered a massive source of detailed records held by the federal government.
“The skeptics will always tell you this is correlation and correlation is not causation, but in environmental epidemiology, that’s really the best you could do,” said co-author Dr Ziyad Al-Aly, who directs the clinical epidemiology center at Washington University in St Louis and is chief of research at Veterans Affairs St Louis Health Care System.
Al-Aly explained that researchers examining only death records could only see “the tip of the iceberg”. His team reviewed the illnesses people struggled with before death to get a clearer picture of their overall health.
The research also confirmed striking inequities in how air pollution hurts black Americans more than white Americans. Black Americans were more likely to be exposed to higher levels of PM 2.5. But they also got sicker than white people even when they were breathing the same air. That could be because of socio-economic factors, such as poverty and access to healthcare.
“I went into it thinking pollution is color blind … it turns out to be it’s not true,” Al-Aly said. “Actually, pollution itself does discriminate. For the same level of pollution, black people tend to be affected more. And on top of that, black people get exposed to more pollution than white people.
“It’s kind of like a double-whammy,” he said. “It’s really unfair.”
New research is consistently revealing broad health threats from air pollution. Another study published on Wednesday in Brain further confirmed the links between air pollution and cognitive problems. Women in their 70s and 80s who were exposed to higher levels of air pollution experienced greater declines in memory and more Alzheimer’s-like brain atrophy, according to researchers at the University of South Carolina.
“This is the first study to really show, in a statistical model, that air pollution was associated with changes in people’s brains and that those changes were then connected with declines in memory performance,” said Andrew Petkus, an assistant professor of clinical neurology.
Published in the peer-reviewed journal Jama, the research finds that 99% of deaths from illnesses linked to a certain type of air pollution occur in people who are exposed to lower levels than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently deems acceptable.
But Donald Trump’s EPA could be set to maintain the current standard – thus leading to continued air pollution-associated deaths. The agency is also reconsidering the established science linking particle pollution from fossil fuels and other sources with a host of illnesses.
About 200,000 Americans are thought to die from air pollution each year, but scientists previously couldn’t pinpoint the specific causes of death for almost half of those people.
The new research reviewed the medical records of veterans who died and compared them with the air pollution levels in their zip codes. They focused on PM 2.5, or inhalable particulate matter pollution that is 2.5 micrometers or smaller – a fraction of the width of a human hair.
They linked nine causes of death with the pollution: cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, lung cancer and pneumonia.
Three of those conditions were newly identified associations: chronic kidney disease, hypertension and dementia.
Miles Keogh, the executive director of a group that represents state and local air regulators, said: “We know people are harmed from exposure levels lower than the [current standards].
“The question is whether the trade-offs for society are worth it. If only a few people are harmed, maybe society accepts the risk,” Keogh said. “But when a study shows 99% of death occurring at exposure levels below that threshold, that should make us look much harder at whether the threshold protects people effectively enough.”
Because scientists cannot ethically expose subjects to air pollution and test the results, they must rely on existing epidemiological data. Veterans offered a massive source of detailed records held by the federal government.
“The skeptics will always tell you this is correlation and correlation is not causation, but in environmental epidemiology, that’s really the best you could do,” said co-author Dr Ziyad Al-Aly, who directs the clinical epidemiology center at Washington University in St Louis and is chief of research at Veterans Affairs St Louis Health Care System.
Al-Aly explained that researchers examining only death records could only see “the tip of the iceberg”. His team reviewed the illnesses people struggled with before death to get a clearer picture of their overall health.
The research also confirmed striking inequities in how air pollution hurts black Americans more than white Americans. Black Americans were more likely to be exposed to higher levels of PM 2.5. But they also got sicker than white people even when they were breathing the same air. That could be because of socio-economic factors, such as poverty and access to healthcare.
“I went into it thinking pollution is color blind … it turns out to be it’s not true,” Al-Aly said. “Actually, pollution itself does discriminate. For the same level of pollution, black people tend to be affected more. And on top of that, black people get exposed to more pollution than white people.
“It’s kind of like a double-whammy,” he said. “It’s really unfair.”
New research is consistently revealing broad health threats from air pollution. Another study published on Wednesday in Brain further confirmed the links between air pollution and cognitive problems. Women in their 70s and 80s who were exposed to higher levels of air pollution experienced greater declines in memory and more Alzheimer’s-like brain atrophy, according to researchers at the University of South Carolina.
“This is the first study to really show, in a statistical model, that air pollution was associated with changes in people’s brains and that those changes were then connected with declines in memory performance,” said Andrew Petkus, an assistant professor of clinical neurology.
Air pollution nanoparticles linked to brain cancer for first time
Exclusive: tiny particles produced by motor traffic can invade the brain and carry carcinogens
Damian Carrington Environment editor
the guardian
Wed 13 Nov 2019 05.57 EST
New research has linked air pollution nanoparticles to brain cancer for the first time.
The ultra-fine particles (UFPs) are produced by fuel burning, particularly in diesel vehicles, and higher exposures significantly increase people’s chances of getting the deadly cancer. Previous work has shown that nanoparticles can get into the brain and that they can carry carcinogenic chemicals.
Brain cancers are rare, and the scientists have calculated that an increase in pollution exposure roughly equivalent to moving from a quiet city street to a busy one leads to one extra case of brain cancer for every 100,000 people exposed.
“Environmental risks like air pollution are not large in magnitude – their importance comes because everyone in the population is exposed,” said Scott Weichenthal, at McGill University in Canada, who led the study. “So when you multiply these small risks by lots of people, all of sudden there can be lots of cases. In a large city, it could be a meaningful number, particularly given the fact that these tumours are often fatal.”
The research analysed the medical records and pollution exposure of 1.9 million adult Canadians from 1991 to 2016. Such large studies provide strong evidence, though not a causal link. Weichenthal said the correlation seen between brain cancer and nanoparticles was “surprisingly consistent”, but as this is the first study, it is important that other researchers replicate it.
The discovery of abundant toxic nanoparticles from air pollution in human brains was made in 2016. A comprehensive global review earlier in 2019 concluded that air pollution may be damaging every organ and virtually every cell in the human body.
Toxic air has been linked to other effects on the brain, including huge reductions in intelligence, dementia and mental health problems in both adults and children. The World Health Organization says air pollution is a “silent public health emergency”.
The new study, published in the journal Epidemiology, found that a one-year increase in pollution exposure of 10,000 nanoparticles per cubic centimetre – the approximate difference between quiet and busy city streets – increased the risk of brain cancer by more than 10%.
The pollution levels in the cities studied – Toronto and Montreal – ranged from 6,000/cm3 to 97,000/cm3. Weichenthal said people living with pollution of 50,000/cm3 have a 50% higher risk of brain cancer than those living with 15,000/cm3.
“I think [Toronto and Montreal] are typical of major cities,” he said. “I wouldn’t expect the nanoparticles to be any less harmful anywhere else.” The analysis by the researchers took account of factors including income, smoking and obesity, and whether people moved house.
“We don’t know a lot about the causes of brain tumours, so any environmental factors we can identify are helpful in increasing understanding,” Weichenthal said. The team only had air pollution data for the more recent period of the study and assumed the differences between different streets and districts were the same in the past. “We think this is reasonable because major highways don’t move around,” he said.
Prof Jordi Sunyer, at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health in Spain, who was not involved in the new research, said: “This is an important finding, given that UFPs are directly emitted by combustion cars and several studies in animals have shown UFPs could be more toxic than larger particles.”
Prof Barbara Maher, at the University of Lancaster, UK, said iron-rich nanoparticles from traffic pollution were likely to be carcinogenic and were therefore a plausible possible cause of brain cancer. She said nanoparticles were not regulated and were rarely even measured.
The ultra-fine particles (UFPs) are produced by fuel burning, particularly in diesel vehicles, and higher exposures significantly increase people’s chances of getting the deadly cancer. Previous work has shown that nanoparticles can get into the brain and that they can carry carcinogenic chemicals.
Brain cancers are rare, and the scientists have calculated that an increase in pollution exposure roughly equivalent to moving from a quiet city street to a busy one leads to one extra case of brain cancer for every 100,000 people exposed.
“Environmental risks like air pollution are not large in magnitude – their importance comes because everyone in the population is exposed,” said Scott Weichenthal, at McGill University in Canada, who led the study. “So when you multiply these small risks by lots of people, all of sudden there can be lots of cases. In a large city, it could be a meaningful number, particularly given the fact that these tumours are often fatal.”
The research analysed the medical records and pollution exposure of 1.9 million adult Canadians from 1991 to 2016. Such large studies provide strong evidence, though not a causal link. Weichenthal said the correlation seen between brain cancer and nanoparticles was “surprisingly consistent”, but as this is the first study, it is important that other researchers replicate it.
The discovery of abundant toxic nanoparticles from air pollution in human brains was made in 2016. A comprehensive global review earlier in 2019 concluded that air pollution may be damaging every organ and virtually every cell in the human body.
Toxic air has been linked to other effects on the brain, including huge reductions in intelligence, dementia and mental health problems in both adults and children. The World Health Organization says air pollution is a “silent public health emergency”.
The new study, published in the journal Epidemiology, found that a one-year increase in pollution exposure of 10,000 nanoparticles per cubic centimetre – the approximate difference between quiet and busy city streets – increased the risk of brain cancer by more than 10%.
The pollution levels in the cities studied – Toronto and Montreal – ranged from 6,000/cm3 to 97,000/cm3. Weichenthal said people living with pollution of 50,000/cm3 have a 50% higher risk of brain cancer than those living with 15,000/cm3.
“I think [Toronto and Montreal] are typical of major cities,” he said. “I wouldn’t expect the nanoparticles to be any less harmful anywhere else.” The analysis by the researchers took account of factors including income, smoking and obesity, and whether people moved house.
“We don’t know a lot about the causes of brain tumours, so any environmental factors we can identify are helpful in increasing understanding,” Weichenthal said. The team only had air pollution data for the more recent period of the study and assumed the differences between different streets and districts were the same in the past. “We think this is reasonable because major highways don’t move around,” he said.
Prof Jordi Sunyer, at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health in Spain, who was not involved in the new research, said: “This is an important finding, given that UFPs are directly emitted by combustion cars and several studies in animals have shown UFPs could be more toxic than larger particles.”
Prof Barbara Maher, at the University of Lancaster, UK, said iron-rich nanoparticles from traffic pollution were likely to be carcinogenic and were therefore a plausible possible cause of brain cancer. She said nanoparticles were not regulated and were rarely even measured.
Plastics
Coca-Cola is world's biggest plastics polluter – again
Volunteers in 51 countries collected plastic waste and the soft drink manufacturer’s products cropped up the most often
Mona Chalabi in New York
the guardian
Sat 9 Nov 2019 05.00 EST
Coca-Cola has been named the world’s largest polluter of plastics for the second year in a row, according to an audit conducted by Break Free From Plastic.
The environmental justice group asked 72,541 volunteers in 51 countries to collect plastic waste. Almost half (43%) of what they found were clearly marked consumer brands. Coca-Cola was named the world’s number one global plastic polluter, followed by Nestlé and Pepsico.
Volunteers were able to select the locations for their clean-up efforts and so the final results may not be a perfect representation of global trends. Nonetheless, almost 12,000 Coca-Cola products were found in 37 countries across the world.
There were some regional trends too. In the US, the biggest producers of plastic pollution were Nestlé, followed by Solo Cup Company and Starbucks. In Europe, Heineken was the third-largest plastic polluter.
Volunteers found more than 59,000 plastic bags, 53,000 sachets and 29,000 plastic bottles. No one really knows how long plastics will take to decompose in our oceans but estimates suggest that it takes up to 450 years for a plastic bottle to break down.
“Any time our packaging ends up in our oceans – or anywhere that it doesn’t belong – is unacceptable to us,” Coca-Cola said in a statement to the Intercept. “In partnership with others, we are working to address this critical global issue, both to help turn off the tap in terms of plastic waste entering our oceans and to help clean up the existing pollution.”
The environmental justice group asked 72,541 volunteers in 51 countries to collect plastic waste. Almost half (43%) of what they found were clearly marked consumer brands. Coca-Cola was named the world’s number one global plastic polluter, followed by Nestlé and Pepsico.
Volunteers were able to select the locations for their clean-up efforts and so the final results may not be a perfect representation of global trends. Nonetheless, almost 12,000 Coca-Cola products were found in 37 countries across the world.
There were some regional trends too. In the US, the biggest producers of plastic pollution were Nestlé, followed by Solo Cup Company and Starbucks. In Europe, Heineken was the third-largest plastic polluter.
Volunteers found more than 59,000 plastic bags, 53,000 sachets and 29,000 plastic bottles. No one really knows how long plastics will take to decompose in our oceans but estimates suggest that it takes up to 450 years for a plastic bottle to break down.
“Any time our packaging ends up in our oceans – or anywhere that it doesn’t belong – is unacceptable to us,” Coca-Cola said in a statement to the Intercept. “In partnership with others, we are working to address this critical global issue, both to help turn off the tap in terms of plastic waste entering our oceans and to help clean up the existing pollution.”
Sea levels set to keep rising for centuries even if emissions targets met
Generations yet unborn will face rising oceans and coastal inundations into the 2300s even if governments meet climate commitments, researchers find
Oliver Milman in New York
the guardian
Wed 6 Nov 2019 05.00 EST
A potential scenario of future sea level rise in South Beach, Miami, Florida, with a global temperature rise of 2C. Photograph: Nickolay Lamm/Courtesy Climate Central
Sea level rise is set to challenge human civilization for centuries to come, even if internationally agreed climate goals are met and planet-warming emissions are then immediately eliminated, researchers have found.
The lag time between rising global temperatures and the knock-on impact of coastal inundation means that the world will be dealing with ever-rising sea levels into the 2300s, regardless of prompt action to address the climate crisis, according to the new study.
Even if governments meet their commitments from the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement, the first 15-year period of the deal will still result in enough emissions that would cause sea levels to increase by around 20cm by the year 2300.
This scenario, modeled by researchers, assumes that all countries make their promised emissions reductions by 2030 and then abruptly eliminate all planet-warming gases from that point onwards. In reality, only a small number of countries are on track to meet the Paris target of limiting global heating to 2C above the pre-industrial era.
“Even with the Paris pledges there will be a large amount of sea level rise,” said Peter Clark, an Oregon State University climate scientist and co-author of the study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Sea level rise is going to be an ongoing problem for centuries to come, we will have to keep on adapting over and over again. It’s going to be a whole new expensive lifestyle, costing trillions of dollars.
“Sea level has a very long memory, so even if we start cooling temperatures the seas will continue to rise. It’s a bit like trying to turn the Titanic around, rather than a speedboat.”
Researchers used a computer model that simulates sea level rise in response to various emissions levels, looking both at historical emissions since 1750 and also what the emissions scenario would be from 2015 to 2030 if countries met their Paris agreement obligations.
About half of the 20cm sea level rise can be attributed to the world’s top five greenhouse gas polluters – the US, China, India, Russia and the European Union – according to the researchers. The US was a key architect of the Paris deal but this week Donald Trump formally triggered its exit from the agreement.
“Our results show that what we do today will have a huge effect in 2300. Twenty centimetres is very significant; it is basically as much sea-level rise as we’ve observed over the entire 20th century,” said Climate Analytics’ Alexander Nauels, lead author of the study. “To cause that with only 15 years of emissions is quite staggering.”
The results reveal the daunting prospect of a near-endless advance of the seas, forcing countries to invest huge resources in defending key infrastructure or ceding certain areas to the tides. Many coastal cities around the world are already facing this challenge, with recent research finding that land currently home to 300 million people will flood at least once a year by 2050 unless carbon emissions are drastically slashed.
As the world heats up, ocean water is expanding while land-based glaciers and the two great polar ice caps are melting away, causing the oceans to swell.
According to the UN’s climate science panel, the global sea level rise could reach as much as 1.1 metres by the end of the century if emissions aren’t curbed. Clark pointed out the real situation could be even worse if the melting of the Antarctic turns out to be on the dire end of the spectrum of uncertainty.
“People are going to become less inclined to live by the coast and there are going to be sea level rise refugees,” Clark said. “More severe cuts in emissions are certainly going to be required but the current Paris pledges aren’t enough to prevent the seas from rising for a long, long time.”
The lag time between rising global temperatures and the knock-on impact of coastal inundation means that the world will be dealing with ever-rising sea levels into the 2300s, regardless of prompt action to address the climate crisis, according to the new study.
Even if governments meet their commitments from the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement, the first 15-year period of the deal will still result in enough emissions that would cause sea levels to increase by around 20cm by the year 2300.
This scenario, modeled by researchers, assumes that all countries make their promised emissions reductions by 2030 and then abruptly eliminate all planet-warming gases from that point onwards. In reality, only a small number of countries are on track to meet the Paris target of limiting global heating to 2C above the pre-industrial era.
“Even with the Paris pledges there will be a large amount of sea level rise,” said Peter Clark, an Oregon State University climate scientist and co-author of the study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Sea level rise is going to be an ongoing problem for centuries to come, we will have to keep on adapting over and over again. It’s going to be a whole new expensive lifestyle, costing trillions of dollars.
“Sea level has a very long memory, so even if we start cooling temperatures the seas will continue to rise. It’s a bit like trying to turn the Titanic around, rather than a speedboat.”
Researchers used a computer model that simulates sea level rise in response to various emissions levels, looking both at historical emissions since 1750 and also what the emissions scenario would be from 2015 to 2030 if countries met their Paris agreement obligations.
About half of the 20cm sea level rise can be attributed to the world’s top five greenhouse gas polluters – the US, China, India, Russia and the European Union – according to the researchers. The US was a key architect of the Paris deal but this week Donald Trump formally triggered its exit from the agreement.
“Our results show that what we do today will have a huge effect in 2300. Twenty centimetres is very significant; it is basically as much sea-level rise as we’ve observed over the entire 20th century,” said Climate Analytics’ Alexander Nauels, lead author of the study. “To cause that with only 15 years of emissions is quite staggering.”
The results reveal the daunting prospect of a near-endless advance of the seas, forcing countries to invest huge resources in defending key infrastructure or ceding certain areas to the tides. Many coastal cities around the world are already facing this challenge, with recent research finding that land currently home to 300 million people will flood at least once a year by 2050 unless carbon emissions are drastically slashed.
As the world heats up, ocean water is expanding while land-based glaciers and the two great polar ice caps are melting away, causing the oceans to swell.
According to the UN’s climate science panel, the global sea level rise could reach as much as 1.1 metres by the end of the century if emissions aren’t curbed. Clark pointed out the real situation could be even worse if the melting of the Antarctic turns out to be on the dire end of the spectrum of uncertainty.
“People are going to become less inclined to live by the coast and there are going to be sea level rise refugees,” Clark said. “More severe cuts in emissions are certainly going to be required but the current Paris pledges aren’t enough to prevent the seas from rising for a long, long time.”
These are the cities that will drown first as the seas rise
2% of Earth's human population lives on land that may be submerged within 31 years
NICOLE KARLIS - salon
OCTOBER 30, 2019 11:18PM (UTC)
Earth's average temperature has increased by about 2 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution, which is causing a whole slew of problems from intensifying wildfires to melting ice sheets to ocean levels rising. Scientists have urged that humanity must limit further warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is the goal set in the Paris Agreement, or risk catastrophe. While cities drowning due to sea levels rise is sometimes discussed as a worst-case scenario, new research says such doomsday scenarios are all but certain.
A new study published in Nature Communications this week states that an estimated 150 million people are living on land that will be below the high tide line by 2050. That estimate was previously believed to be around 38 million people.
A handful of major cities around the world could be plagued by annual flooding events as soon as 2050, too.
150 million people represents 2% of Earth's current population, meaning one in fifty humans on Earth live on land that may be submerged within 31 years. Such a migration event would constitute the greatest refugee crises in the history of the planet, dwarfing the refugee crisis resultant of the second world war.
The new estimates were made by scientists at Climate Central, a science organization based in New Jersey. The study states that 70 percent of the total number of people around the world living on vulnerable land are in just eight Asian countries: China, Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Japan. Specifically, six Asian nations — China, Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand — are predicted to be the most vulnerable. The peer-reviewed study states that 237 million people in these countries occupy areas that are highly likely to experience coastal flooding once or multiple times per year by 2050.
This estimate quadruples previous ones used with older elevation data. Traditional elevation measurements use satellites and often struggle to account the difference between the true ground level and the tops of buildings, trees and other elevated structures. Researchers at Climate Central used artificial intelligence to make more accurate predictions.
Even more concerning, the predictions don’t include future population growth or land lost to coastal erosion. In Vietnam, previous estimates showed some scattered parts of southern Vietnam being submerged by a high tide. The latest predictions by Climate Central predict that the entire half of the country will be submerged. Much of Ho Chi Minh City, which is a major economic hub and home to nearly 9 million people, is part of what is expected to submerge.
In Thailand, Bangkok is especially threatened, according to the study. The Pearl River Delta, in China, Bangladesh and Jakarta, Indonesia, are too. Jakarta has been dubbed the “fastest sinking city in the world,” by the BBC, which has reported how the Indonesian capital of Jakarta is sinking by an average of one to 15 centimeters a year.
Much of Mumbai, India, is at risk of being wiped out as well. Previously, estimates suggested that 5 million people in India would face challenges by sea levels rising, but the new ones suggest it would be around 36 million people.
The study notes that some of the coastal cities will likely see larger proportions of their populations being displaced. Even with lower carbon emissions and stable Antarctic ice sheets, these cities are still expected to be impacted.
We find that the global impacts of sea-level rise and coastal flooding this century will likely be far greater than indicated by the most pessimistic past analyses relying on [shuttle radar topography],” the study states. “These results point to great need for the development and public release of improved terrain elevation datasets for coastal areas, for example via the high-resolution imagery and lidar point clouds increasingly collected by satellite today.”
As Salon has previously reported, the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic has declined by 95 percent over the past three decades.
As scientists at various agencies including NASA have warned, even if humanity stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would still happen for decades and even centuries.
“That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide — the predominant heat-trapping gas — lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years,” NASA states.
Responding to climate change, according to NASA, requires a two-tier approach: mitigation and adaptation. Now that the sea level rise is inevitable, adaptation is the only possible reaction to our soon-to-be-submerged cities.
A new study published in Nature Communications this week states that an estimated 150 million people are living on land that will be below the high tide line by 2050. That estimate was previously believed to be around 38 million people.
A handful of major cities around the world could be plagued by annual flooding events as soon as 2050, too.
150 million people represents 2% of Earth's current population, meaning one in fifty humans on Earth live on land that may be submerged within 31 years. Such a migration event would constitute the greatest refugee crises in the history of the planet, dwarfing the refugee crisis resultant of the second world war.
The new estimates were made by scientists at Climate Central, a science organization based in New Jersey. The study states that 70 percent of the total number of people around the world living on vulnerable land are in just eight Asian countries: China, Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Japan. Specifically, six Asian nations — China, Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand — are predicted to be the most vulnerable. The peer-reviewed study states that 237 million people in these countries occupy areas that are highly likely to experience coastal flooding once or multiple times per year by 2050.
This estimate quadruples previous ones used with older elevation data. Traditional elevation measurements use satellites and often struggle to account the difference between the true ground level and the tops of buildings, trees and other elevated structures. Researchers at Climate Central used artificial intelligence to make more accurate predictions.
Even more concerning, the predictions don’t include future population growth or land lost to coastal erosion. In Vietnam, previous estimates showed some scattered parts of southern Vietnam being submerged by a high tide. The latest predictions by Climate Central predict that the entire half of the country will be submerged. Much of Ho Chi Minh City, which is a major economic hub and home to nearly 9 million people, is part of what is expected to submerge.
In Thailand, Bangkok is especially threatened, according to the study. The Pearl River Delta, in China, Bangladesh and Jakarta, Indonesia, are too. Jakarta has been dubbed the “fastest sinking city in the world,” by the BBC, which has reported how the Indonesian capital of Jakarta is sinking by an average of one to 15 centimeters a year.
Much of Mumbai, India, is at risk of being wiped out as well. Previously, estimates suggested that 5 million people in India would face challenges by sea levels rising, but the new ones suggest it would be around 36 million people.
The study notes that some of the coastal cities will likely see larger proportions of their populations being displaced. Even with lower carbon emissions and stable Antarctic ice sheets, these cities are still expected to be impacted.
We find that the global impacts of sea-level rise and coastal flooding this century will likely be far greater than indicated by the most pessimistic past analyses relying on [shuttle radar topography],” the study states. “These results point to great need for the development and public release of improved terrain elevation datasets for coastal areas, for example via the high-resolution imagery and lidar point clouds increasingly collected by satellite today.”
As Salon has previously reported, the oldest and thickest ice in the Arctic has declined by 95 percent over the past three decades.
As scientists at various agencies including NASA have warned, even if humanity stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, global warming would still happen for decades and even centuries.
“That’s because it takes a while for the planet (for example, the oceans) to respond, and because carbon dioxide — the predominant heat-trapping gas — lingers in the atmosphere for hundreds of years,” NASA states.
Responding to climate change, according to NASA, requires a two-tier approach: mitigation and adaptation. Now that the sea level rise is inevitable, adaptation is the only possible reaction to our soon-to-be-submerged cities.
too bad america has fools for leaders!!!
Offshore windfarms 'can provide more electricity than the world needs'
Supplies from turbines will prove to be the next great energy revolution, IEA predicts
Jillian Ambrose Energy correspondent
the guardian
Fri 25 Oct 2019 04.23 EDT
A sailing boat passes the Kentish Flats offshore windfarm. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA
Erecting wind turbines on the world’s best offshore sites could provide more than enough clean energy to meet global electricity demand, according to a report.
A detailed study of the world’s coastlines has found that offshore windfarms alone could provide more electricity than the world needs – even if they are only built in windy regions in shallow waters near the shore.
Analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) revealed that if windfarms were built across all useable sites which are no further than 60km (37 miles) off the coast, and where coastal waters are no deeper than 60 metres, they could generate 36,000 terawatt hours of renewable electricity a year. This would easily meeting the current global demand for electricity of 23,000 terawatt hours.
“Offshore wind currently provides just 0.3% of global power generation, but its potential is vast,” the IEA’s executive director, Fatih Birol, said.
The study predicts offshore wind generation will grow 15-fold to emerge as a $1tn (£780bn) industry in the next 20 years and will prove to be the next great energy revolution.
The IEA said earlier this week that global supplies of renewable electricity were growing faster than expected and could expand by 50% in the next five years, driven by a resurgence in solar energy. Offshore wind power would drive the world’s growth in clean power due to plummeting costs and new technological breakthroughs, including turbines close to the height of the Eiffel Tower and floating installations that can harness wind speeds further from the coast.
The next generation of floating turbines capable of operating further from the shore could generate enough energy to meet the world’s total electricity demand 11 times over in 2040, according to IEA estimates.
The report predicts that the EU’s offshore wind capacity will grow from almost 20 gigawatts today to nearly 130 gigawatts by 2040, and could reach 180 gigawatts with stronger climate commitments.
In China, the growth of offshore wind generation is likely to be even more rapid, the IEA said. Its offshore wind capacity is forecast to grow from 4 gigawatts to 110 gigawatts by 2040 or 170 gigawatts if it adopts tougher climate targets.
Birol said offshore wind would not only contribute to generating clean electricity, but could also offer a major opportunity in the production of hydrogen, which can be used instead of fossil fuel gas for heating and in heavy industry.
The process of making hydrogen from water uses huge amounts of electricity but abundant, cheap offshore wind power could help produce a low-cost, zero-carbon alternative to gas.
In the North Sea, energy companies are already planning to use the electricity generated by giant offshore windfarms to turn seawater into hydrogen on a floating “green hydrogen” project, backed by the UK government. The clean-burning gas could be pumped back to shore to heat millions of homes by the 2030s. The UK has committed to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The overlap between the UK’s declining oil and gas industry and the burgeoning offshore wind sector could offer major economic benefits for the UK, Birol said.
“Offshore wind provides a huge new business portfolio for major engineering firms and established oil and gas companies which have a strong offshore production experience,” he said. “Our analysis shows that 40% of the work in offshore wind construction and maintenance has synergies with oil and gas practises.”
A detailed study of the world’s coastlines has found that offshore windfarms alone could provide more electricity than the world needs – even if they are only built in windy regions in shallow waters near the shore.
Analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) revealed that if windfarms were built across all useable sites which are no further than 60km (37 miles) off the coast, and where coastal waters are no deeper than 60 metres, they could generate 36,000 terawatt hours of renewable electricity a year. This would easily meeting the current global demand for electricity of 23,000 terawatt hours.
“Offshore wind currently provides just 0.3% of global power generation, but its potential is vast,” the IEA’s executive director, Fatih Birol, said.
The study predicts offshore wind generation will grow 15-fold to emerge as a $1tn (£780bn) industry in the next 20 years and will prove to be the next great energy revolution.
The IEA said earlier this week that global supplies of renewable electricity were growing faster than expected and could expand by 50% in the next five years, driven by a resurgence in solar energy. Offshore wind power would drive the world’s growth in clean power due to plummeting costs and new technological breakthroughs, including turbines close to the height of the Eiffel Tower and floating installations that can harness wind speeds further from the coast.
The next generation of floating turbines capable of operating further from the shore could generate enough energy to meet the world’s total electricity demand 11 times over in 2040, according to IEA estimates.
The report predicts that the EU’s offshore wind capacity will grow from almost 20 gigawatts today to nearly 130 gigawatts by 2040, and could reach 180 gigawatts with stronger climate commitments.
In China, the growth of offshore wind generation is likely to be even more rapid, the IEA said. Its offshore wind capacity is forecast to grow from 4 gigawatts to 110 gigawatts by 2040 or 170 gigawatts if it adopts tougher climate targets.
Birol said offshore wind would not only contribute to generating clean electricity, but could also offer a major opportunity in the production of hydrogen, which can be used instead of fossil fuel gas for heating and in heavy industry.
The process of making hydrogen from water uses huge amounts of electricity but abundant, cheap offshore wind power could help produce a low-cost, zero-carbon alternative to gas.
In the North Sea, energy companies are already planning to use the electricity generated by giant offshore windfarms to turn seawater into hydrogen on a floating “green hydrogen” project, backed by the UK government. The clean-burning gas could be pumped back to shore to heat millions of homes by the 2030s. The UK has committed to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
The overlap between the UK’s declining oil and gas industry and the burgeoning offshore wind sector could offer major economic benefits for the UK, Birol said.
“Offshore wind provides a huge new business portfolio for major engineering firms and established oil and gas companies which have a strong offshore production experience,” he said. “Our analysis shows that 40% of the work in offshore wind construction and maintenance has synergies with oil and gas practises.”
Toxic America
TVs sold by Amazon and Best Buy 'contain chemicals banned in Europe'
Several TV lines on sale in the US contain flame retardants linked to potential health problems, tests by public health campaigners find
Oliver Milman in New York
the guardian
Thu 24 Oct 2019 06.01 EDT
Popular brands of televisions sold by Amazon and Best Buy in the US contain potentially hazardous flame retardants linked to health problems including cancers and learning difficulties, according to a new report.
Six Toshiba and Insignia brand TVs, made in partnership with Amazon and Best Buy respectively, sampled by public health campaign groups contained organohalogens, which are flame retardant chemicals recently banned by the European commission over safety concerns.
Organohalogens are considered toxic and have been linked to certain cancers, harm to the nervous system and learning difficulties. The European ban, which encompasses other display-based appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines – will come into force in 2021.
There is no such wide ban in the US, although deca-BDE, a type of organohalogen flame retardant, is banned in five states. The TVs tested by a coalition of public health advocates found that the Insignia TVs contained deca-BDE.
Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said it was “critical that large companies step up and safeguard their customers. If government won’t act, it’s up to the business community to mind the store.
“Why are Best Buy and Amazon allowing these dangerous, old-school flame retardants to be used in televisions that are supposed to be top-of-the-line? Safer alternatives exist, so organohalogen flame retardants have no place in our homes in 2019.”
In a statement, Best Buy defended its “long track record as a steward of the environment” and said it “fully supported the responsible use of chemicals above what is legally required”. It said the units in this report included recycled materials which it said regulators recognize as “important” and “allow for trace amounts of some chemicals in electronics housings”. It added that the units tested were not from its newer lines.
Chemicals from the casings of TVs can leak into the air or into dust that accumulates around the home, causing a gradual buildup in people’s bodies. While it is difficult to blame the flame retardants on any specific case of illness, campaigners say that enough concern has been raised in studies over potential links that a ban is justified.
The sampling of the TVs – on behalf of a coalition of campaign groups including Toxic Free Future, Mind the Store and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families – involved removing small pieces of the plastic casings and sending them to a lab in the Netherlands for testing. The Insignia TVs were purchased from a Best Buy in the Seattle area, while the Amazon sets were bought online.
The testing found that all six TVs contained organohalogens as their primary flame retardants, with all three Insignia TVs containing the deca-BDE chemical.
In 2017, the US Consumer Product Safety Commissioned urged electronics manufactures to reduce use of organohalogens in plastic casings, as well as in other products such as furniture and mattresses.
A spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said the agency proposed a rule in June that would ban the manufacture and distribution of deca-BDE and products that contain it, including TVs, bar a few exceptions. Campaigners say that the agency should hurry up and implement a full ban.
“I don’t anticipate any quick move to address the problem of toxic chemicals – it’s mainly been left down to the states to act,” said Erika Schreder, science director with Toxic Free Future. “As a consumer there’s no way to choose a TV that is safer. People are being put at unnecessary risk given that there are safer alternatives available.”
Amazon did not respond to a request to comment.
Best Buy said it had “a restricted substances list that our suppliers must adhere to”. It added: “For organizations to assert otherwise is both inaccurate and irresponsible.
“Regulatory bodies recognize the importance of recycling and allow for trace amounts of some chemicals in electronics housings made from recycled material. The units in this report – which haven’t been part of our new product assortment for some time – do include recycled material.”
Six Toshiba and Insignia brand TVs, made in partnership with Amazon and Best Buy respectively, sampled by public health campaign groups contained organohalogens, which are flame retardant chemicals recently banned by the European commission over safety concerns.
Organohalogens are considered toxic and have been linked to certain cancers, harm to the nervous system and learning difficulties. The European ban, which encompasses other display-based appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines – will come into force in 2021.
There is no such wide ban in the US, although deca-BDE, a type of organohalogen flame retardant, is banned in five states. The TVs tested by a coalition of public health advocates found that the Insignia TVs contained deca-BDE.
Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said it was “critical that large companies step up and safeguard their customers. If government won’t act, it’s up to the business community to mind the store.
“Why are Best Buy and Amazon allowing these dangerous, old-school flame retardants to be used in televisions that are supposed to be top-of-the-line? Safer alternatives exist, so organohalogen flame retardants have no place in our homes in 2019.”
In a statement, Best Buy defended its “long track record as a steward of the environment” and said it “fully supported the responsible use of chemicals above what is legally required”. It said the units in this report included recycled materials which it said regulators recognize as “important” and “allow for trace amounts of some chemicals in electronics housings”. It added that the units tested were not from its newer lines.
Chemicals from the casings of TVs can leak into the air or into dust that accumulates around the home, causing a gradual buildup in people’s bodies. While it is difficult to blame the flame retardants on any specific case of illness, campaigners say that enough concern has been raised in studies over potential links that a ban is justified.
The sampling of the TVs – on behalf of a coalition of campaign groups including Toxic Free Future, Mind the Store and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families – involved removing small pieces of the plastic casings and sending them to a lab in the Netherlands for testing. The Insignia TVs were purchased from a Best Buy in the Seattle area, while the Amazon sets were bought online.
The testing found that all six TVs contained organohalogens as their primary flame retardants, with all three Insignia TVs containing the deca-BDE chemical.
In 2017, the US Consumer Product Safety Commissioned urged electronics manufactures to reduce use of organohalogens in plastic casings, as well as in other products such as furniture and mattresses.
A spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said the agency proposed a rule in June that would ban the manufacture and distribution of deca-BDE and products that contain it, including TVs, bar a few exceptions. Campaigners say that the agency should hurry up and implement a full ban.
“I don’t anticipate any quick move to address the problem of toxic chemicals – it’s mainly been left down to the states to act,” said Erika Schreder, science director with Toxic Free Future. “As a consumer there’s no way to choose a TV that is safer. People are being put at unnecessary risk given that there are safer alternatives available.”
Amazon did not respond to a request to comment.
Best Buy said it had “a restricted substances list that our suppliers must adhere to”. It added: “For organizations to assert otherwise is both inaccurate and irresponsible.
“Regulatory bodies recognize the importance of recycling and allow for trace amounts of some chemicals in electronics housings made from recycled material. The units in this report – which haven’t been part of our new product assortment for some time – do include recycled material.”
TOP U.S. TOXICOLOGIST WAS BARRED FROM SAYING PFAS CAUSE DISEASE IN HUMANS. SHE’S SAYING IT NOW.
Sharon Lerner - the intercept
October 24 2019, 9:01 a.m.
THE WIDESPREAD ENVIRONMENTAL contaminants known as PFAS cause multiple health problems in people, according to Linda Birnbaum, who retired as director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program earlier this month.
The statement may come as little surprise to those following the medical literature on the industrial chemicals that have been used to make nonstick coatings, firefighting foam, and host of other products. Thousands of scholarly articles have linked the chemicals to at least 800 health effects. Some of the health problems found in humans — including elevated cholesterol levels, liver dysfunction, weight gain, reproductive problems and kidney cancer — have been shown to increase along with the levels of the chemicals in blood. Extensive research also shows that children with higher levels of PFAS have weakened immune responses.
Yet while she was leading the NIEHS, a division of the National Institutes of Health, whose mission is “to discover how the environment affects people, in order to promote healthier lives,” Birnbaum was not allowed to use the word “cause” when referring to the health effects from PFAS or other chemicals.
“I was banned from doing it,” said Birnbaum. “I had to use ‘association’ all the time. If I was talking about human data or impacts on people, I had to always say there was an association with a laundry list of effects.” Birnbaum said this restriction “was coming from the office of the deputy director. His job hinged on controlling me.” Birnbaum also said that the Trump administration has recently begun coordinating its messaging on PFAS.
Association, the coincidence of a chemical exposure and disease, and causation, in which a health problem happens as the result of the exposure, are different. Because many factors, including chance and genetics and exposures to other substances, can influence the development of disease, the term “cause” is used rarely and cautiously in the field of environmental health.
But Birnbaum, who has studied PFAS compounds for decades, believes the global contaminants have cleared that high bar. “In my mind, PFAS cause health effects because you have the same kind of effects reported in multiple studies in multiple populations,” she said in a phone interview. Birnbaum pointed in particular to longitudinal studies, which follow populations’ exposures and health over time. “You have longitudinal studies showing the same effects in multiple populations done by multiple investigators and you have animal models showing the same impact,” said Birnbaum. In addition, she pointed to studies that show the mechanism through which PFAS chemicals cause harm in people.
“That is pretty good evidence that PFAS or certain PFAS can cause health effects in people. It is not as strong for every effect, but there are quite a number of effects where they’re strong enough to say ‘caused,’” Birnbaum said. She pointed in particular to the relationship between the chemicals and immune response, kidney cancer, and cholesterol in humans, saying, “That data is very clear.”
Birnbaum has been targeted by the chemical industry and politicians beholden to it on several occasions during her nearly 40-year career as a federal scientist, which included 19 years at the Environmental Protection Agency. In 2012, Republicans on the House Science Committee went after Birnbaum for writing that endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment were responsible for “a staggering increase in several diseases.”
She also faced backlash after the National Toxicology Program conducted screenings of formulations containing glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Monsanto’s popular weedkiller Roundup. “There were huge attacks on the institute and on me personally related to glyphosate,” said Birnbaum, whose office was flooded with FOIA requests that she said came from law firms. “I had to hire four to six people to work on the FOIA issue. We were up to having about 140 to 150 backlogged FOIA requests. You couldn’t deal with them quickly enough.”
Her run-in with Republicans on the House Science Committee last year may have had the most severe consequences. Reps. Andy Biggs and Lamar Smith accused Birnbaum of lobbying based on an editorial in the journal PLOS Biology. In it, Birnbaum wrote that “U.S. policy has not accounted for evidence that chemicals in widespread use can cause cancer and other chronic diseases, damage reproductive systems, and harm developing brains at low levels of exposure once believed to be harmless.” She called for more research on the risks posed by chemicals and noted that “closing the gap between evidence and policy will require that engaged citizens — both scientists and non-scientists — work to ensure that our government officials pass health-protective policies based on the best available scientific evidence.”
After that, “everything was scrutinized that I did. Everything I did required clearance. Even in my lab,” said Birnbaum. “All of a sudden, everything had to go up at least to building 1,” she said, referring to the Bethesda building that serves as the administrative center for the National Institutes of Health. Birnbaum was also denied a salary increase after the incident and became aware that her job was at stake. “I was told that they were trying to fire to me.”
At the same time, PFAS compounds were becoming the focus of intense scrutiny from both state regulatory agencies and Congress. As contamination from the chemicals was being discovered around the country, it became clear that both the companies that made and used the PFAS compounds and the military, which used firefighting foam that contained them, could face billions of dollars of liability.
Proving a causal connection between the chemicals and disease will be central to holding them accountable. In litigation over PFOA contamination in West Virginia, DuPont’s lawyers were forbidden from questioning the causal relationship between exposure to the chemical and six different diseases, including testicular cancer and kidney cancer. The company has paid out over $1 billion in that case and subsequently spun off its division that makes PFAS compounds to a new company, Chemours.
Despite the voluminous research on the health effects of the chemicals, 3M, the company that first developed both PFOA and PFOS and sold PFOA to DuPont for many years, still argues that the compounds do not cause health problems. In her testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform in September, Denise Rutherford, 3M’s senior vice president of corporate affairs, said that “the weight of scientific evidence has not established that PFOS, PFOA, or other PFAS cause adverse human health effects.” The company also requested that The Intercept remove the word “cause” in a recent article about PFAS. That request was denied.
Even though she knew she was being closely watched, Birnbaum felt it was important to continue to make her institute’s science public. At a meeting this summer, she reported on the results of rat studies done by the National Toxicology Program that linked exposure of very low doses of PFOA to pancreatic cancer. Birnbaum said that, based on that data, a safe dose of the chemical would be about .1 parts-per-trillion, 700 times lower than the EPA’s safety threshold, as The Intercept reported at the time.
The gulf between the threshold suggested by the new cancer data and the actual number published by the EPA pointed to a schism between the federal agencies — and reveals the inadequacy of the government response to the threats posed by the chemicals. Along with the delay of a report on PFAS by the Agencies for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which also proposed lower safety thresholds than those set by the EPA, Birnbaum’s public discussion of the alarming rat study may be part of the reason that the White House’s Office of Management and Budget began holding regular meetings of federal agencies working on PFAS in recent months. According to Birnbaum, two groups of federal scientists have been gathering to coordinate the government’s science, policy, and messaging around PFAS. The White House office did not respond to inquiries about the group.
For her part, Birnbaum is now enjoying being able to speak about science free of the constraints that came with her job, which had worsened in recent years. By the end, “I couldn’t even give a welcome at a meeting without approval,” she said. Asked what she would have done differently had she not been under such intense pressure, Birnbaum responded that “I would have used the word ‘cause.’”
The statement may come as little surprise to those following the medical literature on the industrial chemicals that have been used to make nonstick coatings, firefighting foam, and host of other products. Thousands of scholarly articles have linked the chemicals to at least 800 health effects. Some of the health problems found in humans — including elevated cholesterol levels, liver dysfunction, weight gain, reproductive problems and kidney cancer — have been shown to increase along with the levels of the chemicals in blood. Extensive research also shows that children with higher levels of PFAS have weakened immune responses.
Yet while she was leading the NIEHS, a division of the National Institutes of Health, whose mission is “to discover how the environment affects people, in order to promote healthier lives,” Birnbaum was not allowed to use the word “cause” when referring to the health effects from PFAS or other chemicals.
“I was banned from doing it,” said Birnbaum. “I had to use ‘association’ all the time. If I was talking about human data or impacts on people, I had to always say there was an association with a laundry list of effects.” Birnbaum said this restriction “was coming from the office of the deputy director. His job hinged on controlling me.” Birnbaum also said that the Trump administration has recently begun coordinating its messaging on PFAS.
Association, the coincidence of a chemical exposure and disease, and causation, in which a health problem happens as the result of the exposure, are different. Because many factors, including chance and genetics and exposures to other substances, can influence the development of disease, the term “cause” is used rarely and cautiously in the field of environmental health.
But Birnbaum, who has studied PFAS compounds for decades, believes the global contaminants have cleared that high bar. “In my mind, PFAS cause health effects because you have the same kind of effects reported in multiple studies in multiple populations,” she said in a phone interview. Birnbaum pointed in particular to longitudinal studies, which follow populations’ exposures and health over time. “You have longitudinal studies showing the same effects in multiple populations done by multiple investigators and you have animal models showing the same impact,” said Birnbaum. In addition, she pointed to studies that show the mechanism through which PFAS chemicals cause harm in people.
“That is pretty good evidence that PFAS or certain PFAS can cause health effects in people. It is not as strong for every effect, but there are quite a number of effects where they’re strong enough to say ‘caused,’” Birnbaum said. She pointed in particular to the relationship between the chemicals and immune response, kidney cancer, and cholesterol in humans, saying, “That data is very clear.”
Birnbaum has been targeted by the chemical industry and politicians beholden to it on several occasions during her nearly 40-year career as a federal scientist, which included 19 years at the Environmental Protection Agency. In 2012, Republicans on the House Science Committee went after Birnbaum for writing that endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment were responsible for “a staggering increase in several diseases.”
She also faced backlash after the National Toxicology Program conducted screenings of formulations containing glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Monsanto’s popular weedkiller Roundup. “There were huge attacks on the institute and on me personally related to glyphosate,” said Birnbaum, whose office was flooded with FOIA requests that she said came from law firms. “I had to hire four to six people to work on the FOIA issue. We were up to having about 140 to 150 backlogged FOIA requests. You couldn’t deal with them quickly enough.”
Her run-in with Republicans on the House Science Committee last year may have had the most severe consequences. Reps. Andy Biggs and Lamar Smith accused Birnbaum of lobbying based on an editorial in the journal PLOS Biology. In it, Birnbaum wrote that “U.S. policy has not accounted for evidence that chemicals in widespread use can cause cancer and other chronic diseases, damage reproductive systems, and harm developing brains at low levels of exposure once believed to be harmless.” She called for more research on the risks posed by chemicals and noted that “closing the gap between evidence and policy will require that engaged citizens — both scientists and non-scientists — work to ensure that our government officials pass health-protective policies based on the best available scientific evidence.”
After that, “everything was scrutinized that I did. Everything I did required clearance. Even in my lab,” said Birnbaum. “All of a sudden, everything had to go up at least to building 1,” she said, referring to the Bethesda building that serves as the administrative center for the National Institutes of Health. Birnbaum was also denied a salary increase after the incident and became aware that her job was at stake. “I was told that they were trying to fire to me.”
At the same time, PFAS compounds were becoming the focus of intense scrutiny from both state regulatory agencies and Congress. As contamination from the chemicals was being discovered around the country, it became clear that both the companies that made and used the PFAS compounds and the military, which used firefighting foam that contained them, could face billions of dollars of liability.
Proving a causal connection between the chemicals and disease will be central to holding them accountable. In litigation over PFOA contamination in West Virginia, DuPont’s lawyers were forbidden from questioning the causal relationship between exposure to the chemical and six different diseases, including testicular cancer and kidney cancer. The company has paid out over $1 billion in that case and subsequently spun off its division that makes PFAS compounds to a new company, Chemours.
Despite the voluminous research on the health effects of the chemicals, 3M, the company that first developed both PFOA and PFOS and sold PFOA to DuPont for many years, still argues that the compounds do not cause health problems. In her testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform in September, Denise Rutherford, 3M’s senior vice president of corporate affairs, said that “the weight of scientific evidence has not established that PFOS, PFOA, or other PFAS cause adverse human health effects.” The company also requested that The Intercept remove the word “cause” in a recent article about PFAS. That request was denied.
Even though she knew she was being closely watched, Birnbaum felt it was important to continue to make her institute’s science public. At a meeting this summer, she reported on the results of rat studies done by the National Toxicology Program that linked exposure of very low doses of PFOA to pancreatic cancer. Birnbaum said that, based on that data, a safe dose of the chemical would be about .1 parts-per-trillion, 700 times lower than the EPA’s safety threshold, as The Intercept reported at the time.
The gulf between the threshold suggested by the new cancer data and the actual number published by the EPA pointed to a schism between the federal agencies — and reveals the inadequacy of the government response to the threats posed by the chemicals. Along with the delay of a report on PFAS by the Agencies for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which also proposed lower safety thresholds than those set by the EPA, Birnbaum’s public discussion of the alarming rat study may be part of the reason that the White House’s Office of Management and Budget began holding regular meetings of federal agencies working on PFAS in recent months. According to Birnbaum, two groups of federal scientists have been gathering to coordinate the government’s science, policy, and messaging around PFAS. The White House office did not respond to inquiries about the group.
For her part, Birnbaum is now enjoying being able to speak about science free of the constraints that came with her job, which had worsened in recent years. By the end, “I couldn’t even give a welcome at a meeting without approval,” she said. Asked what she would have done differently had she not been under such intense pressure, Birnbaum responded that “I would have used the word ‘cause.’”
New Data Show Severity of Water Contamination in Poor Neighborhoods
BY Daniel Ross, Truthout
PUBLISHED October 23, 2019
Curious to know exactly what’s in the water that flows from your taps? Then simply plug your zip code into the latest iteration of the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) Tap Water Database.
The database provides an analysis of the water springing from the nation’s faucets, with updated information pertaining to issues like the water quality impacts from agricultural runoff, lead contamination stemming from aging infrastructure, as well as the growing human health and environmental threats posed by Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances, otherwise known as PFASs. As of October 2019, 1,026 sites in 49 states are known to be impacted by this potentially toxic family of chemical, according to the EWG.
The database also serves to highlight a glaring injustice inherent in U.S. drinking water systems: low-income communities are more likely than their wealthier neighbors to be served drinking water that is of poorer quality, with higher levels of potentially toxic contaminants.
“The relationship between social and economic indicators and water quality is well established,” Olga Naidenko, vice president of science investigations for EWG — an environmental health nonprofit — told Truthout. “Poor people always have the short end of the stick.”
The EWG database update published this week comprises drinking water results taken between 2012 and 2017 from nearly 50,000 local utilities in 50 states. The information included is more detailed than that found in Consumer Confidence Reports — an annual federally mandated report in which only the levels of regulated contaminants are required to be reported. By comparison, listed in the EWG database are 278 contaminants detected by local utilities, more than 160 of which have no federal standard. Even if a contaminant falls under state or federal regulations, the permitted thresholds may be at levels authoritative scientific studies have found to be potentially unsafe for humans.
At Truthout’s request, EWG researchers ran the numbers on the latest database to look at some of the ways in which the socioeconomic disparities in drinking water quality play out.
Looking specifically at arsenic, a known carcinogen, smaller drinking water systems tend to have higher arsenic levels in drinking water than larger water systems, the EWG told Truthout. Smaller water utilities, which commonly struggle with underfunding and aging systems, are more likely than their larger cousins to serve low-income, disadvantaged communities.
Looking at the bigger picture, while the list of contaminants tends to be similar in both smaller and larger systems, the levels of these contaminants differ, with higher levels found in smaller systems, according to EWG science analyst Sydney Evans. She added that, like arsenic, carcinogenic nitrates are typically discovered at higher concentrations in smaller systems as compared to larger ones.
Of the more than 150,000 operational public water systems in the U.S., 97 percent of them are considered small, meaning they serve 10,000 or fewer people. These small systems serve 21 percent of the population receiving drinking water from public water utilities.
Growing Awareness of Causes
The correlation between disadvantaged communities and poor drinking water quality is indeed well established, as Naidenko points out. Last year, for example, the National Academy of Sciences released a comprehensive report into national drinking water standards going back decades.
The National Academy of Sciences found that every year between 1982 and 2015, between 9 and 45 million people were served water that had violated federal health-based water quality standards. In 2015 alone, nearly 10 percent of community water systems serving nearly 21 million Americans had violated these standards. Tellingly, the report found that some of the most vulnerable populations were those from low-income rural areas, with parts of Oklahoma and West Texas among the worst community water system serial violators.
Those links between poor tap water and poor communities again came to the fore in the findings of another recent and comprehensive study, titled “Watered Down Justice,” put together by three environmental advocacy organizations: the Natural Resources Defense Council, Coming Clean and the Environmental Justice Health Alliance.
The report used Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data from between 2016 and 2019. It found that socioeconomic indicators like race, ethnicity, language spoken and access to transportation had the strongest relationship to ineffective enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the nation’s signature drinking water law, and higher instances of serious violations.
Community water systems notorious for being serial violators were 40 percent more likely to be found in communities with higher percentages of people of color, the report found, while small systems were responsible for more than 80 percent of all violations. All told, nearly 130 million Americans were served drinking water that violated federal standards during the period reviewed in the report.
A well-established correlation? Sure. But it hasn’t always been an issue that has enjoyed much of a public airing. That said, recent high-profile events have helped to reshape the narrative, like the disaster in Flint, Michigan, where in early 2016, a federal emergency was declared after it came to light that a cost-cutting change in water source led to widespread high blood lead concentrations among those served. Currently, about 54 percent of Flint’s residents are African American -- of those, 41 percent live below the poverty line.
Moreover, there is growing understanding of the underlying political, economic and cultural causes propping up this status quo, and more of the long-term human health implications are coming to light, as well.
The American Society of Civil Engineers already scores the nation’s infrastructure a miserable D+, while in its own 2016 report, the EPA admitted that aging and underfunded water infrastructure heavily contributes to issues of poor drinking water quality. Which water systems are least likely to receive the funding needed to produce safe drinking water? Those serving disadvantaged communities and people of color.
As to the potential long-term human health effects from living with poor drinking water, the “Watered Down Justice” report points to cancer, developmental, fertility and nervous system issues, along with gastrointestinal disease — problems that can pose the greatest threat to vulnerable members of the community, such as the elderly and people with chronic health problems.
In that respect, many experts are looking to California to lead the charge toward reform, thanks to the “Human Right to Water” bill signed into law back in 2012 by then-California Gov. Jerry Brown.[...]
The database provides an analysis of the water springing from the nation’s faucets, with updated information pertaining to issues like the water quality impacts from agricultural runoff, lead contamination stemming from aging infrastructure, as well as the growing human health and environmental threats posed by Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances, otherwise known as PFASs. As of October 2019, 1,026 sites in 49 states are known to be impacted by this potentially toxic family of chemical, according to the EWG.
The database also serves to highlight a glaring injustice inherent in U.S. drinking water systems: low-income communities are more likely than their wealthier neighbors to be served drinking water that is of poorer quality, with higher levels of potentially toxic contaminants.
“The relationship between social and economic indicators and water quality is well established,” Olga Naidenko, vice president of science investigations for EWG — an environmental health nonprofit — told Truthout. “Poor people always have the short end of the stick.”
The EWG database update published this week comprises drinking water results taken between 2012 and 2017 from nearly 50,000 local utilities in 50 states. The information included is more detailed than that found in Consumer Confidence Reports — an annual federally mandated report in which only the levels of regulated contaminants are required to be reported. By comparison, listed in the EWG database are 278 contaminants detected by local utilities, more than 160 of which have no federal standard. Even if a contaminant falls under state or federal regulations, the permitted thresholds may be at levels authoritative scientific studies have found to be potentially unsafe for humans.
At Truthout’s request, EWG researchers ran the numbers on the latest database to look at some of the ways in which the socioeconomic disparities in drinking water quality play out.
Looking specifically at arsenic, a known carcinogen, smaller drinking water systems tend to have higher arsenic levels in drinking water than larger water systems, the EWG told Truthout. Smaller water utilities, which commonly struggle with underfunding and aging systems, are more likely than their larger cousins to serve low-income, disadvantaged communities.
Looking at the bigger picture, while the list of contaminants tends to be similar in both smaller and larger systems, the levels of these contaminants differ, with higher levels found in smaller systems, according to EWG science analyst Sydney Evans. She added that, like arsenic, carcinogenic nitrates are typically discovered at higher concentrations in smaller systems as compared to larger ones.
Of the more than 150,000 operational public water systems in the U.S., 97 percent of them are considered small, meaning they serve 10,000 or fewer people. These small systems serve 21 percent of the population receiving drinking water from public water utilities.
Growing Awareness of Causes
The correlation between disadvantaged communities and poor drinking water quality is indeed well established, as Naidenko points out. Last year, for example, the National Academy of Sciences released a comprehensive report into national drinking water standards going back decades.
The National Academy of Sciences found that every year between 1982 and 2015, between 9 and 45 million people were served water that had violated federal health-based water quality standards. In 2015 alone, nearly 10 percent of community water systems serving nearly 21 million Americans had violated these standards. Tellingly, the report found that some of the most vulnerable populations were those from low-income rural areas, with parts of Oklahoma and West Texas among the worst community water system serial violators.
Those links between poor tap water and poor communities again came to the fore in the findings of another recent and comprehensive study, titled “Watered Down Justice,” put together by three environmental advocacy organizations: the Natural Resources Defense Council, Coming Clean and the Environmental Justice Health Alliance.
The report used Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data from between 2016 and 2019. It found that socioeconomic indicators like race, ethnicity, language spoken and access to transportation had the strongest relationship to ineffective enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the nation’s signature drinking water law, and higher instances of serious violations.
Community water systems notorious for being serial violators were 40 percent more likely to be found in communities with higher percentages of people of color, the report found, while small systems were responsible for more than 80 percent of all violations. All told, nearly 130 million Americans were served drinking water that violated federal standards during the period reviewed in the report.
A well-established correlation? Sure. But it hasn’t always been an issue that has enjoyed much of a public airing. That said, recent high-profile events have helped to reshape the narrative, like the disaster in Flint, Michigan, where in early 2016, a federal emergency was declared after it came to light that a cost-cutting change in water source led to widespread high blood lead concentrations among those served. Currently, about 54 percent of Flint’s residents are African American -- of those, 41 percent live below the poverty line.
Moreover, there is growing understanding of the underlying political, economic and cultural causes propping up this status quo, and more of the long-term human health implications are coming to light, as well.
The American Society of Civil Engineers already scores the nation’s infrastructure a miserable D+, while in its own 2016 report, the EPA admitted that aging and underfunded water infrastructure heavily contributes to issues of poor drinking water quality. Which water systems are least likely to receive the funding needed to produce safe drinking water? Those serving disadvantaged communities and people of color.
As to the potential long-term human health effects from living with poor drinking water, the “Watered Down Justice” report points to cancer, developmental, fertility and nervous system issues, along with gastrointestinal disease — problems that can pose the greatest threat to vulnerable members of the community, such as the elderly and people with chronic health problems.
In that respect, many experts are looking to California to lead the charge toward reform, thanks to the “Human Right to Water” bill signed into law back in 2012 by then-California Gov. Jerry Brown.[...]
95 percent of baby foods tested contain toxic metals that could harm brain development, study finds
Experts tell Salon parents how to navigate these possibly harmful toxins with healthier diet choices and screenings
SHIRA TARLO - salon
OCTOBER 19, 2019 9:30PM (UTC)
Sleep deprivation, diaper changes and late-night feedings are a few of the many common challenges faced by parents with a new baby at home. To ease the transition, parents often rely on the convenience of store-brand baby foods to provide the nutrients their children need in order to develop into healthy toddlers, young adults, teenagers and eventually adults. But there is a strong likelihood that nearly every can, jar and pouch of store-bought baby food contains traces of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic and lead, according to a new study.
The research, commissioned by Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF) and detailed in a report published Thursday, tested 168 baby foods from major manufacturers in the U.S. for the presence of four heavy metals: arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium.
The study found that 95 percent of the baby foods tested were contaminated by at least one of the four heavy metals, and 25 percent contained all four metals. Only nine of the 168 baby foods tested were not found to contain detectable traces of any of the four metals.
"Any amount of heavy metal can be potentially dangerous to a growing and developing baby," Dr. Jen Trachtenberg, MD, a nationally-recognized parenting expert, explained to Salon. "There is metal contaminants everywhere in the environment, water air and soil.”
Among the popular baby foods estimated to pose the highest risk are fruit juices, as well as rice-based products, including puff snacks and rice cereals. Rice is especially effective at absorbing arsenic, a common pesticide, as it grows. Four of seven infant rice cereals tested contained inorganic arsenic, which is the most toxic form of the metal, in levels exceeding the Food and Drug Administration’s proposed limit of 100 parts per billion.
Because rice is grown in water, the plant and grain tend to absorb higher levels of inorganic arsenic than other foods, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
Leafy greens and root crops like sweet potatoes and carrots also retain higher levels of heavy metals than other vegetables. Organic products are not reliable either, according to the study.
"One of the best thing to do is to give baby a wide variety of different foods right from the start instead of relying on old recommendations of rice cereal, for example," Trachtenberg said. "As this study indicates, rice and fruit juices are high in heavy metals, so it’s just another reason why parents should avoid them as daily first baby foods. Rather, use oatmeal or other mixed grains and after six months of age introduce water in addition to breast milk or formula."
The study included 61 brands and 13 types of foods, including infant formula, teething biscuits, cereals and fruit juices. Baby food from various stores across the country — supermarkets, dollar stores, baby stores, super stores — and two online-only retailers was purchased and assessed.
In spite of these results, there are preventative measures parents can take in order to help their children avoid contamination from heavy metals.
“Parents can help their children absorb less lead and other heavy metals by giving their children a well-balanced diet that includes a variety of foods that are high in calcium and iron and by reducing the amount of fruit juice they drink," Dr. Scott Jelinek, MD, MPH, a pediatric resident physician at Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital, told Salon.
Moreover, there is no need for parents to serve their children juice, a beverage which offers no nutritional benefits to children under age one, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Juice lacks dietary fiber and also carries the risk of tooth decay and excessive weight gain.
"There is no need for young children to drink juice,” Trachtenbergs said. “Offer different types of fruits and vegetable which can help improve picky eating by frequent exposures leading to better nutrition in the long term.”
Among the metals, lead was found most frequently, appearing in 94 percent of the baby foods tested. Cadmium and arsenic followed, showing up in approximately three-quarters of the baby foods tested. Mercury was the least common, found in roughly one-third of the baby foods tested. All of the metals except mercury are known as potent human carcinogens.
The four metals are also neurotoxic, and thus may pose serious threats to a child's brain development. And while many factors can contribute to a child's IQ — from nutrition and genetics to environmental toxins like heavy metals — the levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead found in baby food "constitute both a significant and a solvable problem," the report noted.
"Even in the trace amounts found in baby food, these contaminants can alter the developing brain and erode a child's IQ," the report continued. “The impacts add up with each meal or snack a baby eats.”
A data analysis also commissioned by HBBF estimated that children ages 0 to 24 months have already lost more than 11 million IQ points from exposure to arsenic and lead in food. Just 15 foods contribute to more than half of this IQ loss, with rice-based foods alone making up 20 percent of it.
Additional impacts of heavy metal exposure include attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as learning and behavioral impacts.
The results underscored that while reports of heavy metals in baby food span nearly a decade, the problem remains unsolved.
To reduce the level of heavy metals in baby foods, the FDA should establish regulations, the report recommended. For nearly 90 percent of the baby foods tested, the FDA did not set standards for the maximum safe limit of heavy medals.
The researchers also recommended that the FDA implement a testing program for heavy metals in foods consumed by babies and toddlers. Notably, the AAP recommends all children receive a lead risk assessment at six months, nine months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, and at three, four, five and six years of age. If the risk assessment comes back positive, AAP recommends a blood lead level test is conducted.
Dr. Jelinek praised the study for drawing attention to the issue of screening for such toxins.
“Lead exposure is a preventable environmental threat to children’s neurocognitive development and this study draws attention to the importance of screening all children during pediatric visits for their risk of lead exposure," he said.
The research, commissioned by Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF) and detailed in a report published Thursday, tested 168 baby foods from major manufacturers in the U.S. for the presence of four heavy metals: arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium.
The study found that 95 percent of the baby foods tested were contaminated by at least one of the four heavy metals, and 25 percent contained all four metals. Only nine of the 168 baby foods tested were not found to contain detectable traces of any of the four metals.
"Any amount of heavy metal can be potentially dangerous to a growing and developing baby," Dr. Jen Trachtenberg, MD, a nationally-recognized parenting expert, explained to Salon. "There is metal contaminants everywhere in the environment, water air and soil.”
Among the popular baby foods estimated to pose the highest risk are fruit juices, as well as rice-based products, including puff snacks and rice cereals. Rice is especially effective at absorbing arsenic, a common pesticide, as it grows. Four of seven infant rice cereals tested contained inorganic arsenic, which is the most toxic form of the metal, in levels exceeding the Food and Drug Administration’s proposed limit of 100 parts per billion.
Because rice is grown in water, the plant and grain tend to absorb higher levels of inorganic arsenic than other foods, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
Leafy greens and root crops like sweet potatoes and carrots also retain higher levels of heavy metals than other vegetables. Organic products are not reliable either, according to the study.
"One of the best thing to do is to give baby a wide variety of different foods right from the start instead of relying on old recommendations of rice cereal, for example," Trachtenberg said. "As this study indicates, rice and fruit juices are high in heavy metals, so it’s just another reason why parents should avoid them as daily first baby foods. Rather, use oatmeal or other mixed grains and after six months of age introduce water in addition to breast milk or formula."
The study included 61 brands and 13 types of foods, including infant formula, teething biscuits, cereals and fruit juices. Baby food from various stores across the country — supermarkets, dollar stores, baby stores, super stores — and two online-only retailers was purchased and assessed.
In spite of these results, there are preventative measures parents can take in order to help their children avoid contamination from heavy metals.
“Parents can help their children absorb less lead and other heavy metals by giving their children a well-balanced diet that includes a variety of foods that are high in calcium and iron and by reducing the amount of fruit juice they drink," Dr. Scott Jelinek, MD, MPH, a pediatric resident physician at Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital, told Salon.
Moreover, there is no need for parents to serve their children juice, a beverage which offers no nutritional benefits to children under age one, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Juice lacks dietary fiber and also carries the risk of tooth decay and excessive weight gain.
"There is no need for young children to drink juice,” Trachtenbergs said. “Offer different types of fruits and vegetable which can help improve picky eating by frequent exposures leading to better nutrition in the long term.”
Among the metals, lead was found most frequently, appearing in 94 percent of the baby foods tested. Cadmium and arsenic followed, showing up in approximately three-quarters of the baby foods tested. Mercury was the least common, found in roughly one-third of the baby foods tested. All of the metals except mercury are known as potent human carcinogens.
The four metals are also neurotoxic, and thus may pose serious threats to a child's brain development. And while many factors can contribute to a child's IQ — from nutrition and genetics to environmental toxins like heavy metals — the levels of arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead found in baby food "constitute both a significant and a solvable problem," the report noted.
"Even in the trace amounts found in baby food, these contaminants can alter the developing brain and erode a child's IQ," the report continued. “The impacts add up with each meal or snack a baby eats.”
A data analysis also commissioned by HBBF estimated that children ages 0 to 24 months have already lost more than 11 million IQ points from exposure to arsenic and lead in food. Just 15 foods contribute to more than half of this IQ loss, with rice-based foods alone making up 20 percent of it.
Additional impacts of heavy metal exposure include attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as learning and behavioral impacts.
The results underscored that while reports of heavy metals in baby food span nearly a decade, the problem remains unsolved.
To reduce the level of heavy metals in baby foods, the FDA should establish regulations, the report recommended. For nearly 90 percent of the baby foods tested, the FDA did not set standards for the maximum safe limit of heavy medals.
The researchers also recommended that the FDA implement a testing program for heavy metals in foods consumed by babies and toddlers. Notably, the AAP recommends all children receive a lead risk assessment at six months, nine months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, and at three, four, five and six years of age. If the risk assessment comes back positive, AAP recommends a blood lead level test is conducted.
Dr. Jelinek praised the study for drawing attention to the issue of screening for such toxins.
“Lead exposure is a preventable environmental threat to children’s neurocognitive development and this study draws attention to the importance of screening all children during pediatric visits for their risk of lead exposure," he said.
War on plastic waste faces setback as cost of recycled material soars
Europe’s manufacturers face $250m-a-year hit as rising demand drives up price
Jillian Ambrose
the guardian
Sun 13 Oct 2019 09.16 EDT
The battle to reduce Europe’s plastic waste could become a quarter of a billion dollars more expensive every year as the cost of recycled plastic soars.
In recent months, the price of recycled plastic flakes, used to make goods from soft drink bottles to glitter, has become more expensive than virgin plastic for the first time.
For years the cost of making plastic products from recycled flakes was cheaper than relying on virgin plastics made using fossil fuels, meaning the sustainable option was an economic option too.
But according to experts it is now cheaper for major manufacturers to use new plastic.
A report from S&P Global Platts, a commodity market specialist, revealed that recycled plastic now costs an extra $72 (£57) a tonne compared with newly made plastic.
According to the analysts this trend is driven in part by the growing demand to include recycled plastics in new products. Meanwhile, new plastic is becoming cheaper to make due to a flood of petrochemicals production from the US driven by the shale gas boom.
They have warned that this could cost sustainable manufacturers across Europe an extra $250m a year.
Although many larger manufacturers would struggle to switch their machinery back to virgin plastics, smaller manufacturers may be forced to turn their backs on recycled plastic to keep costs down.
In a blow to the war on plastic this could mean the makers of clear plastic bottles and fruit punnets stoke demand for new fossil-fuel based plastic rather than reusing old recycled bottles.
Makers of plastic packaging are under pressure to use more recycled plastic to reduce the scourge of plastic pollution in the oceans.
Coca-Cola’s European business plans to cut the amount of virgin plastic used in its soft drink bottles to 50% within the next two years, and will change the colour of its Sprite bottles from green to clear to make sure 100% of its bottles can be reused.
The UK is planning to tax companies which don’t use at least 30% recycled plastic in their products, but until then it may be cheaper for companies to demand more new plastic to make their packaging.
Alongside a tax on virgin plastic use, experts are calling for the UK government to support plans to increase the amount of recycled plastic in the market.
This could mean incentives for new recycling plants, improving recycling facilities at a local council level, or importing recycled plastic flakes from Latin America.
In recent months, the price of recycled plastic flakes, used to make goods from soft drink bottles to glitter, has become more expensive than virgin plastic for the first time.
For years the cost of making plastic products from recycled flakes was cheaper than relying on virgin plastics made using fossil fuels, meaning the sustainable option was an economic option too.
But according to experts it is now cheaper for major manufacturers to use new plastic.
A report from S&P Global Platts, a commodity market specialist, revealed that recycled plastic now costs an extra $72 (£57) a tonne compared with newly made plastic.
According to the analysts this trend is driven in part by the growing demand to include recycled plastics in new products. Meanwhile, new plastic is becoming cheaper to make due to a flood of petrochemicals production from the US driven by the shale gas boom.
They have warned that this could cost sustainable manufacturers across Europe an extra $250m a year.
Although many larger manufacturers would struggle to switch their machinery back to virgin plastics, smaller manufacturers may be forced to turn their backs on recycled plastic to keep costs down.
In a blow to the war on plastic this could mean the makers of clear plastic bottles and fruit punnets stoke demand for new fossil-fuel based plastic rather than reusing old recycled bottles.
Makers of plastic packaging are under pressure to use more recycled plastic to reduce the scourge of plastic pollution in the oceans.
Coca-Cola’s European business plans to cut the amount of virgin plastic used in its soft drink bottles to 50% within the next two years, and will change the colour of its Sprite bottles from green to clear to make sure 100% of its bottles can be reused.
The UK is planning to tax companies which don’t use at least 30% recycled plastic in their products, but until then it may be cheaper for companies to demand more new plastic to make their packaging.
Alongside a tax on virgin plastic use, experts are calling for the UK government to support plans to increase the amount of recycled plastic in the market.
This could mean incentives for new recycling plants, improving recycling facilities at a local council level, or importing recycled plastic flakes from Latin America.
California bans pesticide linked to brain damage in children
By JOHN ROGERS - ap
October 9, 2019
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A widely used agricultural pesticide that California environmental officials have said has been linked to brain damage in children will be banned after next year under an agreement reached with the manufacturer, state officials announced Wednesday.
Under the deal, all California sales of chlorpyrifos will end on Feb. 6, 2020, and farmers will have until the end of 2020 to exhaust their supplies.
The pesticide is used on numerous crops in the nation’s largest agriculture-producing state — including alfalfa, almonds, citrus, cotton, grapes and walnuts.
State regulators have said chlorpyrifos has been linked to health defects in children, including brain impairment, and to illnesses in others with compromised immune systems.
“For years, environmental justice advocates have fought to get the harmful pesticide chlorpyrifos out of our communities,” Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement after the deal was announced.
He added: “Thanks to their tenacity and the work of countless others, this will now occur faster than originally envisioned. This is a big win for children, workers and public health in California.”
The president of the California Citrus Association, which represents about 5,000 growers, said in an interview that he believes the risks were not as great as the state made them out to be.
“We really thought the exposure assessments and risks were just inflated and it wasn’t a true characterization of the protections that were already in place,” said Casey Creamer.
Creamer added he appreciated that officials have agreed to budget $5.6 million to help pesticide manufacturers develop a safer alternative to chlorpyrifos.
“But just so you’re aware, that’s what agriculture does every day, we’re always looking for new products, safer products that are effective,” he said.
When California announced earlier this year it was moving toward banning the pesticide, the state’s environmental secretary, Jared Blumenfeld, said it was doing so because the federal government was allowing it to remain on the market.
“The swift end to the sale of chlorpyrifos protects vulnerable communities by taking a harmful pesticide off the market,” Blumenfeld said after Wednesday’s announcement.
The Obama administration announced in 2015 that it would ban chlorpyrifos after scientific studies funded in part by the federal Environmental Protection Agency showed the potential for brain damage in children. After President Donald Trump was elected, the EPA reversed that ban, questioning the studies’ validity.
Hawaii and New York are already phasing in chlorpyrifos bans.
Blumenfeld said the agreement reached with chlorpyrifos’ manufacturer, Corteva Agriscience, “avoids a protracted legal process while providing a clear timeline for California farmers as we look toward developing alternative pest management practices.”
Corteva said in a statement that it reached the agreement “in the best interests of the affected growers.”
“Through recent actions, the state of California has improvised and implemented several uniquely challenging regulatory requirements for chlorpyrifos. These new, novel requirements have made it virtually impossible for growers to use this important tool in their state,” Corteva said.
Under the deal, all California sales of chlorpyrifos will end on Feb. 6, 2020, and farmers will have until the end of 2020 to exhaust their supplies.
The pesticide is used on numerous crops in the nation’s largest agriculture-producing state — including alfalfa, almonds, citrus, cotton, grapes and walnuts.
State regulators have said chlorpyrifos has been linked to health defects in children, including brain impairment, and to illnesses in others with compromised immune systems.
“For years, environmental justice advocates have fought to get the harmful pesticide chlorpyrifos out of our communities,” Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement after the deal was announced.
He added: “Thanks to their tenacity and the work of countless others, this will now occur faster than originally envisioned. This is a big win for children, workers and public health in California.”
The president of the California Citrus Association, which represents about 5,000 growers, said in an interview that he believes the risks were not as great as the state made them out to be.
“We really thought the exposure assessments and risks were just inflated and it wasn’t a true characterization of the protections that were already in place,” said Casey Creamer.
Creamer added he appreciated that officials have agreed to budget $5.6 million to help pesticide manufacturers develop a safer alternative to chlorpyrifos.
“But just so you’re aware, that’s what agriculture does every day, we’re always looking for new products, safer products that are effective,” he said.
When California announced earlier this year it was moving toward banning the pesticide, the state’s environmental secretary, Jared Blumenfeld, said it was doing so because the federal government was allowing it to remain on the market.
“The swift end to the sale of chlorpyrifos protects vulnerable communities by taking a harmful pesticide off the market,” Blumenfeld said after Wednesday’s announcement.
The Obama administration announced in 2015 that it would ban chlorpyrifos after scientific studies funded in part by the federal Environmental Protection Agency showed the potential for brain damage in children. After President Donald Trump was elected, the EPA reversed that ban, questioning the studies’ validity.
Hawaii and New York are already phasing in chlorpyrifos bans.
Blumenfeld said the agreement reached with chlorpyrifos’ manufacturer, Corteva Agriscience, “avoids a protracted legal process while providing a clear timeline for California farmers as we look toward developing alternative pest management practices.”
Corteva said in a statement that it reached the agreement “in the best interests of the affected growers.”
“Through recent actions, the state of California has improvised and implemented several uniquely challenging regulatory requirements for chlorpyrifos. These new, novel requirements have made it virtually impossible for growers to use this important tool in their state,” Corteva said.
Revealed: the 20 firms behind a third of all carbon emissions
New data shows how fossil fuel companies have driven climate crisis despite industry knowing dangers
by Matthew Taylor and Jonathan Watts - the guardian
Wed 9 Oct 2019 07.00 EDT
The Guardian today reveals the 20 fossil fuel companies whose relentless exploitation of the world’s oil, gas and coal reserves can be directly linked to more than one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the modern era.
New data from world-renowned researchers reveals how this cohort of state-owned and multinational firms are driving the climate emergency that threatens the future of humanity, and details how they have continued to expand their operations despite being aware of the industry’s devastating impact on the planet.
The analysis, by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in the US, the world’s leading authority on big oil’s role in the escalating climate emergency, evaluates what the global corporations have extracted from the ground, and the subsequent emissions these fossil fuels are responsible for since 1965 – the point at which experts say the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by both industry leaders and politicians.
The top 20 companies on the list have contributed to 35% of all energy-related carbon dioxide and methane worldwide, totalling 480bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) since 1965.
Twelve of the top 20 companies are state-owned and together their extractions are responsible for 20% of total emissions in the same period. The leading state-owned polluter is Saudi Aramco, which has produced 4.38% of the global total on its own.
Michael Mann, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, said the findings shone a light on the role of fossil fuel companies and called on politicians at the forthcoming climate talks in Chile in December to take urgent measures to rein in their activities.
“The great tragedy of the climate crisis is that seven and a half billion people must pay the price – in the form of a degraded planet – so that a couple of dozen polluting interests can continue to make record profits. It is a great moral failing of our political system that we have allowed this to happen.”
The global polluters list uses company-reported annual production of oil, natural gas, and coal and then calculates how much of the carbon and methane in the produced fuels is emitted to the atmosphere throughout the supply chain, from extraction to end use.
It found that 90% of the emissions attributed to the top 20 climate culprits was from use of their products, such as petrol, jet fuel, natural gas, and thermal coal. One-tenth came from extracting, refining, and delivering the finished fuels.
The Guardian approached the 20 companies named in the polluters list. Seven of them replied. Some argued that they were not directly responsible for how the oil, gas or coal they extracted were used by consumers. Several disputed claims that the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known as far back as the late 1950s or that the industry collectively had worked to delay action.
Most explicitly said they accepted the climate science and some claimed to support the targets set out in the Paris agreement to reduce emissions and keep global temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
All pointed out efforts they were making to invest in renewable or low carbon energy sources and said fossil fuel companies had an important role to play in addressing the climate crisis. PetroChina said it was a separate company from its predecessor, China National Petroleum, so had no influence over, or responsibility for, its historical emissions. The companies’ replies can be read in full here.
The latest study builds on previous work by Heede and his team that has looked at the historical role of fossil fuel companies in the escalating climate crisis.
The impact of emissions from coal, oil and gas produced by fossil fuel companies has been huge. According to research published in 2017 by Peter Frumhoff at the Union of Concerned Scientists in the US and colleagues, CO2 and methane emissions from the 90 biggest industrial carbon producers were responsible for almost half the rise in global temperature and close to a third of the sea level rise between 1880 and 2010. The scientists said such work furthered the “consideration of [companies’] historical responsibilities for climate change”.
Heede said: “These companies and their products are substantially responsible for the climate emergency, have collectively delayed national and global action for decades, and can no longer hide behind the smokescreen that consumers are the responsible parties.
“Oil, gas, and coal executives derail progress and offer platitudes when their vast capital, technical expertise, and moral obligation should enable rather than thwart the shift to a low-carbon future.”
Heede said 1965 was chosen as the start point for this new data because recent research had revealed that by that stage the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by industry leaders and politicians, particularly in the US.
In November 1965, the president, Lyndon Johnson, released a report authored by the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, which set out the likely impact of continued fossil fuel production on global heating.
In the same year, the president of the American Petroleum Institute told its annual gathering: “One of the most important predictions of the [president’s report] is that carbon dioxide is being added to the Earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas at such a rate by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts.”
Heede added: “Leading companies and industry associations were aware of, or wilfully ignored, the threat of climate change from continued use of their products since the late 1950s.”
The research aims to hold to account those companies most responsible for carbon emissions, and shift public and political debate away from a focus just on individual responsibility. It follows a warning from the UN in 2018 that the world has just 12 years to avoid the worst consequences of runaway global heating and restrict temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
The study shows that many of the worst offenders are investor-owned companies that are household names around the world and spend billions of pounds on lobbying governments and portraying themselves as environmentally responsible.
A study earlier this year found that the largest five stock-market-listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m each year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change.
Heede said the companies had a “significant moral, financial, and legal responsibility for the climate crisis, and a commensurate burden to help address the problem”.
He added: “Even though global consumers from individuals to corporations are the ultimate emitters of carbon dioxide, the Climate Accountability Institute focuses its work on the fossil fuel companies that, in our view, have their collective hand on the throttle and the tiller determining the rate of carbon emissions and the shift to non-carbon fuels.”
CLICK HERE FOR LIST OF COMPANIES.
RELATED: Richmond v Chevron The California city taking on its most powerful polluter
RELATED: Global polluters: What do we know about the worst 20? its most
New data from world-renowned researchers reveals how this cohort of state-owned and multinational firms are driving the climate emergency that threatens the future of humanity, and details how they have continued to expand their operations despite being aware of the industry’s devastating impact on the planet.
The analysis, by Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in the US, the world’s leading authority on big oil’s role in the escalating climate emergency, evaluates what the global corporations have extracted from the ground, and the subsequent emissions these fossil fuels are responsible for since 1965 – the point at which experts say the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by both industry leaders and politicians.
The top 20 companies on the list have contributed to 35% of all energy-related carbon dioxide and methane worldwide, totalling 480bn tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) since 1965.
Twelve of the top 20 companies are state-owned and together their extractions are responsible for 20% of total emissions in the same period. The leading state-owned polluter is Saudi Aramco, which has produced 4.38% of the global total on its own.
Michael Mann, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, said the findings shone a light on the role of fossil fuel companies and called on politicians at the forthcoming climate talks in Chile in December to take urgent measures to rein in their activities.
“The great tragedy of the climate crisis is that seven and a half billion people must pay the price – in the form of a degraded planet – so that a couple of dozen polluting interests can continue to make record profits. It is a great moral failing of our political system that we have allowed this to happen.”
The global polluters list uses company-reported annual production of oil, natural gas, and coal and then calculates how much of the carbon and methane in the produced fuels is emitted to the atmosphere throughout the supply chain, from extraction to end use.
It found that 90% of the emissions attributed to the top 20 climate culprits was from use of their products, such as petrol, jet fuel, natural gas, and thermal coal. One-tenth came from extracting, refining, and delivering the finished fuels.
The Guardian approached the 20 companies named in the polluters list. Seven of them replied. Some argued that they were not directly responsible for how the oil, gas or coal they extracted were used by consumers. Several disputed claims that the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known as far back as the late 1950s or that the industry collectively had worked to delay action.
Most explicitly said they accepted the climate science and some claimed to support the targets set out in the Paris agreement to reduce emissions and keep global temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
All pointed out efforts they were making to invest in renewable or low carbon energy sources and said fossil fuel companies had an important role to play in addressing the climate crisis. PetroChina said it was a separate company from its predecessor, China National Petroleum, so had no influence over, or responsibility for, its historical emissions. The companies’ replies can be read in full here.
The latest study builds on previous work by Heede and his team that has looked at the historical role of fossil fuel companies in the escalating climate crisis.
The impact of emissions from coal, oil and gas produced by fossil fuel companies has been huge. According to research published in 2017 by Peter Frumhoff at the Union of Concerned Scientists in the US and colleagues, CO2 and methane emissions from the 90 biggest industrial carbon producers were responsible for almost half the rise in global temperature and close to a third of the sea level rise between 1880 and 2010. The scientists said such work furthered the “consideration of [companies’] historical responsibilities for climate change”.
Heede said: “These companies and their products are substantially responsible for the climate emergency, have collectively delayed national and global action for decades, and can no longer hide behind the smokescreen that consumers are the responsible parties.
“Oil, gas, and coal executives derail progress and offer platitudes when their vast capital, technical expertise, and moral obligation should enable rather than thwart the shift to a low-carbon future.”
Heede said 1965 was chosen as the start point for this new data because recent research had revealed that by that stage the environmental impact of fossil fuels was known by industry leaders and politicians, particularly in the US.
In November 1965, the president, Lyndon Johnson, released a report authored by the Environmental Pollution Panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, which set out the likely impact of continued fossil fuel production on global heating.
In the same year, the president of the American Petroleum Institute told its annual gathering: “One of the most important predictions of the [president’s report] is that carbon dioxide is being added to the Earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil and natural gas at such a rate by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts.”
Heede added: “Leading companies and industry associations were aware of, or wilfully ignored, the threat of climate change from continued use of their products since the late 1950s.”
The research aims to hold to account those companies most responsible for carbon emissions, and shift public and political debate away from a focus just on individual responsibility. It follows a warning from the UN in 2018 that the world has just 12 years to avoid the worst consequences of runaway global heating and restrict temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
The study shows that many of the worst offenders are investor-owned companies that are household names around the world and spend billions of pounds on lobbying governments and portraying themselves as environmentally responsible.
A study earlier this year found that the largest five stock-market-listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m each year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change.
Heede said the companies had a “significant moral, financial, and legal responsibility for the climate crisis, and a commensurate burden to help address the problem”.
He added: “Even though global consumers from individuals to corporations are the ultimate emitters of carbon dioxide, the Climate Accountability Institute focuses its work on the fossil fuel companies that, in our view, have their collective hand on the throttle and the tiller determining the rate of carbon emissions and the shift to non-carbon fuels.”
CLICK HERE FOR LIST OF COMPANIES.
RELATED: Richmond v Chevron The California city taking on its most powerful polluter
RELATED: Global polluters: What do we know about the worst 20? its most
Bird Population Has Plunged in North America
Researchers find 29% decline since 1970
By Bob Cronin, Newser Staff
Posted Sep 19, 2019 4:16 PM CDT
(NEWSER) – Scientists knew that the numbers of some species of birds were declining. But they also knew some were increasing in number, and thus they weren't sure there had been a net loss. So they collected numbers from surveys of 529 bird species over the years, along with radar information, to arrive at a total count, NPR reports. Now they know: The data showed that since 1970, North America has lost 3 billion birds—29% of the total a half-century ago. The reduction is widespread. "We saw this tremendous net loss across the entire bird community," said an applied conservation scientist. Most of the decline involves sparrows, warblers, blackbirds and finches, and other common families. More than one-third of shorebirds are gone, and grassland birds have declined by more than half since 1970.
A biologist not involved in the research called the findings, published Thursday in Science, "depressing but not surprising." The grassland birds' number wasn't shocking because of pesticides and changes to their habitats caused by humans, per the Washington Post. But data about other, more familiar birds was "staggering," one scientist said. “The generalist, adaptable, so-called common species were not compensating for the losses, and in fact they were experiencing losses themselves," he said. We know more about the situation with birds because they're easier to count than, say, insects. So this decline could be a sign of a wider problem, scientists say. "These birds are an indicator of ecosystem health," said a London professor, adding, "Studies like this do suggest the potential of a systems collapse." (A recent study found plant species disappearing.)
A biologist not involved in the research called the findings, published Thursday in Science, "depressing but not surprising." The grassland birds' number wasn't shocking because of pesticides and changes to their habitats caused by humans, per the Washington Post. But data about other, more familiar birds was "staggering," one scientist said. “The generalist, adaptable, so-called common species were not compensating for the losses, and in fact they were experiencing losses themselves," he said. We know more about the situation with birds because they're easier to count than, say, insects. So this decline could be a sign of a wider problem, scientists say. "These birds are an indicator of ecosystem health," said a London professor, adding, "Studies like this do suggest the potential of a systems collapse." (A recent study found plant species disappearing.)
Scientists uncover alarming levels of dangerous plastics in children’s bodies
September 16, 2019
By Common Dreams - raw story
Plastic by-products were found in an alarming 97-100% of blood and urine samples from 2,500 children tested between 2014 and 2017, according to a new study by the German Environment Ministry and the Robert Koch Institute.
Der Spiegel, the German weekly magazine, published the findings Saturday, which were part of a federal study focused on “human biomonitoring” of 3 to 17-year-olds. Traces from 11 out of 15 plastic ingredients were found in the test samples.
“Our study clearly shows that plastic ingredients, which are rising in production, are also showing up more and more in the body. It is really worrying that the youngest children are most affected as the most sensitive group,” Marike Kolossa-Gehring, one of the study’s authors, told the magazine.
Researchers said that they were especially concerned about high levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that were found in the study. PFOA is an extremely persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemical frequently used in non-stick cookware and in waterproof clothing.
In 20 percent of those examined, they were above the limit, in the younger children, the proportion was even higher. The study also showed children from poorer families had more plastic residue in their bodies than children from higher-income families, according to German public broadcaster ARD
“It can not be that every fourth child between the ages of three and five is so heavily burdened with chemicals that long-term damage cannot be reliably ruled out,” says Hoffmann. “The Federal Government must make every effort to protect people from harmful chemicals,” says Hoffmann, “Provision is an obligation.”
The chemical is dangerous for the reproductive system and is toxic to the liver. While a global ban of perfluorooctanoic acid is to take effect in 2020, a group of international NGOs has criticized the EU for requiring an exemption for medical textiles from a global ban on the use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) agreed at the UN Conference of the Parties (COPs) last May.
In a statement, NGOs, including the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) and Arnika, expressed “deep regret and disapproval” for the request, which could “undermine an otherwise effective worldwide ban.
“Delegates from more than 180 countries agreed the prohibition of the use of the chemical, adding it to Annex III of the Stockholm Convention at the conference in Geneva. However, several exemptions for the substance, including one for medical textiles, were requested by the EU delegation – along with China and Iran – and approved
The new German research was made available by the government upon request by a Green Party inquiry into the effects of chemicals on public health.
Hoffmann said that there has not been enough research on how plastic chemicals affect the body, and how they are ingested.
The results of the study also show an increase in exposure to substitutes for previously banned chemicals. Hoffmann sees this as a critical signal: Substances that are classified as dangerous should not be replaced by similar chemicals with likewise questionable properties, she says. In addition, it must be better researched, which entry routes chemicals enter the human body, the Green politician told Der Spiegel. The results of the study include, for example, the exposure to substances contained in cosmetics, children’s toys or medical devices.
Der Spiegel, the German weekly magazine, published the findings Saturday, which were part of a federal study focused on “human biomonitoring” of 3 to 17-year-olds. Traces from 11 out of 15 plastic ingredients were found in the test samples.
“Our study clearly shows that plastic ingredients, which are rising in production, are also showing up more and more in the body. It is really worrying that the youngest children are most affected as the most sensitive group,” Marike Kolossa-Gehring, one of the study’s authors, told the magazine.
Researchers said that they were especially concerned about high levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that were found in the study. PFOA is an extremely persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemical frequently used in non-stick cookware and in waterproof clothing.
In 20 percent of those examined, they were above the limit, in the younger children, the proportion was even higher. The study also showed children from poorer families had more plastic residue in their bodies than children from higher-income families, according to German public broadcaster ARD
“It can not be that every fourth child between the ages of three and five is so heavily burdened with chemicals that long-term damage cannot be reliably ruled out,” says Hoffmann. “The Federal Government must make every effort to protect people from harmful chemicals,” says Hoffmann, “Provision is an obligation.”
The chemical is dangerous for the reproductive system and is toxic to the liver. While a global ban of perfluorooctanoic acid is to take effect in 2020, a group of international NGOs has criticized the EU for requiring an exemption for medical textiles from a global ban on the use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) agreed at the UN Conference of the Parties (COPs) last May.
In a statement, NGOs, including the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) and Arnika, expressed “deep regret and disapproval” for the request, which could “undermine an otherwise effective worldwide ban.
“Delegates from more than 180 countries agreed the prohibition of the use of the chemical, adding it to Annex III of the Stockholm Convention at the conference in Geneva. However, several exemptions for the substance, including one for medical textiles, were requested by the EU delegation – along with China and Iran – and approved
The new German research was made available by the government upon request by a Green Party inquiry into the effects of chemicals on public health.
Hoffmann said that there has not been enough research on how plastic chemicals affect the body, and how they are ingested.
The results of the study also show an increase in exposure to substitutes for previously banned chemicals. Hoffmann sees this as a critical signal: Substances that are classified as dangerous should not be replaced by similar chemicals with likewise questionable properties, she says. In addition, it must be better researched, which entry routes chemicals enter the human body, the Green politician told Der Spiegel. The results of the study include, for example, the exposure to substances contained in cosmetics, children’s toys or medical devices.
Not just the bees, first-of-its-kind study shows neonics may be killing birds too
September 14, 2019
By Common Dreams - raw story
“It’s clear evidence these chemicals can affect populations.”
In addition to devastating effects on bee populations and the pollination needed to feed humans and other species, widely-used pesticides chemically related to nicotine may be deadly to birds and linked to some species’ declines, according to a new study.
Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan studied the pesticide imidacloprid, in the nicotine-linked class of chemicals called neonicotinoids, or neonics, and found that the pesticide had effects on migrating birds’ health and ability to reproduce.
The scientists gave small amounts of the pesticide to white-crowned sparrows and found that the limited consumption caused the birds to lose weight and delay their migration.
Within hours of being given the neonics, the birds stopped eating and lost an average of six percent of their body weight and about 17 percent of their fat stores, making it impossible for them to complete their long flights south. The birds took at least an extra 3.5 days to recover and migrate.
“It’s just a few days, but we know that just a few days can have significant consequences for survival and reproduction,” Margaret Eng, an ecotoxicologist who led the study told Science magazine, where the research was published Friday.
The disruption of the species’ normal migration led to decreased ability to reproduce and survive, the researchers found.
The study “causatively links a pesticide to something that is really, tangibly negative to birds that is causing their population declines,” study author Christy Morrissey told the Associated Press. “It’s clear evidence these chemicals can affect populations.”
More than 70 percent of North American farmland bird species are currently experiencing population declines.
The research shows for the first time “behavioral effects in free-living birds as result of neonicotinoid intoxication,” Caspar Hallmann, an ecologist at Radboud University in the Netherlands, told National Geographic after reviewing Eng’s study.
Scientists in Europe revealed in 2017 that neonicotinoids can decimate honey bee populations, threatening food sources for humans and other species.
The European Union banned the use of neonics in 2018 due to their effects on pollinators.
The EPA announced in May it would cancel the registrations of 12 neonicotinoid pesticides, but in July, the Trump administration removed restrictions on sulfoxaflor, a neonic that’s been found to kill bees in low doses.
In addition to devastating effects on bee populations and the pollination needed to feed humans and other species, widely-used pesticides chemically related to nicotine may be deadly to birds and linked to some species’ declines, according to a new study.
Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan studied the pesticide imidacloprid, in the nicotine-linked class of chemicals called neonicotinoids, or neonics, and found that the pesticide had effects on migrating birds’ health and ability to reproduce.
The scientists gave small amounts of the pesticide to white-crowned sparrows and found that the limited consumption caused the birds to lose weight and delay their migration.
Within hours of being given the neonics, the birds stopped eating and lost an average of six percent of their body weight and about 17 percent of their fat stores, making it impossible for them to complete their long flights south. The birds took at least an extra 3.5 days to recover and migrate.
“It’s just a few days, but we know that just a few days can have significant consequences for survival and reproduction,” Margaret Eng, an ecotoxicologist who led the study told Science magazine, where the research was published Friday.
The disruption of the species’ normal migration led to decreased ability to reproduce and survive, the researchers found.
The study “causatively links a pesticide to something that is really, tangibly negative to birds that is causing their population declines,” study author Christy Morrissey told the Associated Press. “It’s clear evidence these chemicals can affect populations.”
More than 70 percent of North American farmland bird species are currently experiencing population declines.
The research shows for the first time “behavioral effects in free-living birds as result of neonicotinoid intoxication,” Caspar Hallmann, an ecologist at Radboud University in the Netherlands, told National Geographic after reviewing Eng’s study.
Scientists in Europe revealed in 2017 that neonicotinoids can decimate honey bee populations, threatening food sources for humans and other species.
The European Union banned the use of neonics in 2018 due to their effects on pollinators.
The EPA announced in May it would cancel the registrations of 12 neonicotinoid pesticides, but in July, the Trump administration removed restrictions on sulfoxaflor, a neonic that’s been found to kill bees in low doses.
political donations and higher profits vs environment!!!
US beekeepers file suit against Trump EPA charging ‘illegal’ approval of insecticide linked to mass die-off
September 7, 2019
By Common Dreams - raw story
“Honeybees and other pollinators are dying in droves because of insecticides like sulfoxaflor, yet the Trump administration removes restriction just to please the chemical industry.”
A group of beekeepers joined forces on Friday against Trump’s EPA by filing a lawsuit over the agency’s move to put a powerful insecticide—one that scientists warn is part of the massive pollinator die-off across the U.S.—back on the market.
The lawsuit (pdf) charges that the EPA’s approval of sulfoxaflor—touted by its manufacturer, agro-chemical giant Corteva, as a “next generation neonicotinoid”—was illegally rendered as it put industry interests ahead of the health of pollinators and ignored the available science.
“EPA is harming not just the beekeepers, their livelihood, and bees, but the nation’s food system.”
“Honeybees and other pollinators are dying in droves because of insecticides like sulfoxaflor, yet the Trump administration removes restriction just to please the chemical industry,” said Greg Loarie, an attorney with Earthjustice, the legal aid group representing the beekeepers. “This is illegal and an affront to our food system, economy, and environment.”
According to a statement by Earthjustice:
EPA first approved sulfoxaflor in 2013, but thanks to a lawsuit brought by Pollinator Stewardship Council, the American Beekeeper Federation, and Earthjustice, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. The Court ruled EPA failed to obtain reliable studies regarding the impact of sulfoxaflor on honeybee colonies.
In 2016, EPA re-approved sulfoxaflor subject to significant restrictions to reduce the risk to honeybees and other pollinators. On July 12, 2019, without any public notice, the Trump administration removed these restrictions on sulfoxaflor and approved a host of new uses for the bee-killing insecticide.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include beekeeper Jeff Anderson, the Pollinator Stewardship Council, and the American Beekeeper Federation.
“It is inappropriate for EPA to solely rely on industry studies to justify bringing sulfoxaflor back into our farm fields,” said Michele Colopy of the Pollinator Stewardship Council. “Die-offs of tens of thousands of bee colonies continue to occur and sulfoxaflor plays a huge role in this problem. EPA is harming not just the beekeepers, their livelihood, and bees, but the nation’s food system.”
A group of beekeepers joined forces on Friday against Trump’s EPA by filing a lawsuit over the agency’s move to put a powerful insecticide—one that scientists warn is part of the massive pollinator die-off across the U.S.—back on the market.
The lawsuit (pdf) charges that the EPA’s approval of sulfoxaflor—touted by its manufacturer, agro-chemical giant Corteva, as a “next generation neonicotinoid”—was illegally rendered as it put industry interests ahead of the health of pollinators and ignored the available science.
“EPA is harming not just the beekeepers, their livelihood, and bees, but the nation’s food system.”
“Honeybees and other pollinators are dying in droves because of insecticides like sulfoxaflor, yet the Trump administration removes restriction just to please the chemical industry,” said Greg Loarie, an attorney with Earthjustice, the legal aid group representing the beekeepers. “This is illegal and an affront to our food system, economy, and environment.”
According to a statement by Earthjustice:
EPA first approved sulfoxaflor in 2013, but thanks to a lawsuit brought by Pollinator Stewardship Council, the American Beekeeper Federation, and Earthjustice, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. The Court ruled EPA failed to obtain reliable studies regarding the impact of sulfoxaflor on honeybee colonies.
In 2016, EPA re-approved sulfoxaflor subject to significant restrictions to reduce the risk to honeybees and other pollinators. On July 12, 2019, without any public notice, the Trump administration removed these restrictions on sulfoxaflor and approved a host of new uses for the bee-killing insecticide.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include beekeeper Jeff Anderson, the Pollinator Stewardship Council, and the American Beekeeper Federation.
“It is inappropriate for EPA to solely rely on industry studies to justify bringing sulfoxaflor back into our farm fields,” said Michele Colopy of the Pollinator Stewardship Council. “Die-offs of tens of thousands of bee colonies continue to occur and sulfoxaflor plays a huge role in this problem. EPA is harming not just the beekeepers, their livelihood, and bees, but the nation’s food system.”
Global food producers 'failing to face up to role' in climate crisis
Report urges meat, dairy and seafood companies to address impact of industry’s deforestation, use of antibiotics and emissions
Harriet Grant
the guardian
Wed 4 Sep 2019 07.50 ED
The world’s biggest producers of meat, dairy and seafood are failing to tackle the enormous impact they are having on the planet through deforestation, the routine use of antibiotics and greenhouse gas emissions, a report warns.
The Coller Fairr index ranks 50 of the largest global meat, dairy and fish producers by looking at risk factors from use of antibiotics to deforestation and labour abuses. The producers are the “hidden” supply chain, providing meat and dairy to global brands including McDonald’s, Tesco, Nestlé and Walmart.
The index is written by investment experts who want to encourage awareness of the risks posed to the planet – and to their own profitability – by companies that fail to mitigate the damage done to the environment by food production.
Jeremy Coller is founder of Fairr and chief investment officer at Coller Capital. He says it is the huge companies behind the brands that will themselves suffer if the planet isn’t protected. “It is the companies hidden upstream in the meat and dairy supply chain who face the most significant climate and public health risks.
“As last month’s landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) demonstrated, the world’s meat, fish and dairy industries are under serious threat from climate change impacts. In stark contrast to the transport sector, only one in four meat, fish and dairy producers even measure their greenhouse gas emissions, let alone act to reduce them.”
Among other failings, the index says that none of the companies analysed have a comprehensive policy to stop deforestation. And just four companies in the index “have committed to phasing out routine use of antibiotics, widespread in the industry”.
According to the report, two-thirds of producers do not even measure all their greenhouse gas emissions let alone set targets to reduce them. These include Hormel Foods in the US, a supplier to McDonald’s. Also included is Cal-Maine Foods. Cal-Maine is the largest producer of fresh eggs in the US and a supplier to Walmart and Nestle. Nestlé, McDonald’s and Walmart have all publicly committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
And while Walmart has previously said it wants to achieve zero net deforestation in its supply chain by 2020, the research shows that Walmart suppliers such as Cranswick in the UK have no comprehensive policy on deforestation. McDonald’s have pledged to reduce antibiotics use in their beef supply chains. But the vast majority of beef suppliers do not have a policy to avoid routine use of antibiotics. Only one – Marfrig – does.
The companies are ranked according to their risk for investors, based on analysis of nine key environmental, social and governance risk factors, combined with the sustainable development goals. The Hong Kong-based WH Group were noted as “high risk” while Hormel Foods and Cranswick were designated as “medium risk”.
The research argues that some of the companies, who between them have a value of $300bn (£248bn), are already suffering the costs of the deepening climate crisis.
Cal-Maine Foods reported a 30% decline in revenues in the last quarter of the year alone due to extreme weather.
Peter Van der Werf is an engagement specialist at investment firm Robeco, advising on how to invest sustainably. He told the Guardian that research into the environmental risks of food production is vital.
“This is very important research. As investment managers we take a lot of care assessing risk – for example an analyst looking at food production needs to have a good understanding of climate change risks … like deforestation, loss of feed supply that comes through cattle grazing on depleted land, use of water.”
Van der Werf says that he can see progress being made as producers are made aware of the benefit of considering environmental risks.
“Companies were previously reluctant to show an interest in alternative proteins like fake meat, but we have seen a huge growth in demand. We started engagement over labour safety and use of antibiotics and over three years we have clearly seen an engagement and awareness. Now Tyson Foods, for example, has climate targets. They didn’t have that before.”
He says the end aim is for producers and investors to move away from meat and fish as protein sources as much as possible.
“The fires we have seen in the Amazon have come up in conversations with investors. They are concerned about climate change, about forest fires. There is a global need to further reduce reliance on meat and dairy and look at different protein choices.”
A spokesman for the National Farmers’ Union told the Guardian that there is a commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions in the UK farming industry by 2040. He said this will be achieved through improving efficiency and animal welfare, managing carbon storage on farms and boosting renewable energy.
The Guardian contacted the companies named but at the time of publication had not received responses from all of them.
Nestle said: “The Nestlé Responsible Sourcing Standard sets out sustainability practices that we ask our suppliers, their employees, agents and subcontractors to respect and adhere to at all times. In addition, we run a responsible sourcing program for 15 high-priority raw materials, including meat, poultry and eggs and dairy. For these materials, our work starts by mapping our supply chain all the way down to the farm or slaughterhouse. When suppliers refuse to improve, we will remove them from our supply chain.”
Walmart said: “We believe that both collaborative action and traceability across our global supply chain are needed to reduce deforestation associated with the production of beef and soy in Brazil. We’re working with the Consumer Goods Forum, the Tropical Forest Alliance and the Statement of Support Group for the Cerrado Manifesto as we work toward our goal to reduce deforestation.”
Tyson Foods said: “We recently announced a science-based target to decrease greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2030 as well as a partnership with Environmental Defense Fund focused on increasing sustainable farming practices on more than 2m acres of row crop corn by 2020. This is the largest commitment ever made by a US protein company, and we will be reporting on our progress over time.”
Hormel said: “As a global branded food company, we take our sustainability practices very seriously. We are working toward achieving our 2020 goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and non-renewable energy use by 10% by 2020.
“We are pleased to see the report highlighted our company as one of the leaders in the industry and showcased Hormel Foods for our best practices for water usage. Additionally, the report singled out Hormel Foods as being the only company that has established a sustainable agricultural policy that extends to feed-grain growers.”
The Coller Fairr index ranks 50 of the largest global meat, dairy and fish producers by looking at risk factors from use of antibiotics to deforestation and labour abuses. The producers are the “hidden” supply chain, providing meat and dairy to global brands including McDonald’s, Tesco, Nestlé and Walmart.
The index is written by investment experts who want to encourage awareness of the risks posed to the planet – and to their own profitability – by companies that fail to mitigate the damage done to the environment by food production.
Jeremy Coller is founder of Fairr and chief investment officer at Coller Capital. He says it is the huge companies behind the brands that will themselves suffer if the planet isn’t protected. “It is the companies hidden upstream in the meat and dairy supply chain who face the most significant climate and public health risks.
“As last month’s landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) demonstrated, the world’s meat, fish and dairy industries are under serious threat from climate change impacts. In stark contrast to the transport sector, only one in four meat, fish and dairy producers even measure their greenhouse gas emissions, let alone act to reduce them.”
Among other failings, the index says that none of the companies analysed have a comprehensive policy to stop deforestation. And just four companies in the index “have committed to phasing out routine use of antibiotics, widespread in the industry”.
According to the report, two-thirds of producers do not even measure all their greenhouse gas emissions let alone set targets to reduce them. These include Hormel Foods in the US, a supplier to McDonald’s. Also included is Cal-Maine Foods. Cal-Maine is the largest producer of fresh eggs in the US and a supplier to Walmart and Nestle. Nestlé, McDonald’s and Walmart have all publicly committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
And while Walmart has previously said it wants to achieve zero net deforestation in its supply chain by 2020, the research shows that Walmart suppliers such as Cranswick in the UK have no comprehensive policy on deforestation. McDonald’s have pledged to reduce antibiotics use in their beef supply chains. But the vast majority of beef suppliers do not have a policy to avoid routine use of antibiotics. Only one – Marfrig – does.
The companies are ranked according to their risk for investors, based on analysis of nine key environmental, social and governance risk factors, combined with the sustainable development goals. The Hong Kong-based WH Group were noted as “high risk” while Hormel Foods and Cranswick were designated as “medium risk”.
The research argues that some of the companies, who between them have a value of $300bn (£248bn), are already suffering the costs of the deepening climate crisis.
Cal-Maine Foods reported a 30% decline in revenues in the last quarter of the year alone due to extreme weather.
Peter Van der Werf is an engagement specialist at investment firm Robeco, advising on how to invest sustainably. He told the Guardian that research into the environmental risks of food production is vital.
“This is very important research. As investment managers we take a lot of care assessing risk – for example an analyst looking at food production needs to have a good understanding of climate change risks … like deforestation, loss of feed supply that comes through cattle grazing on depleted land, use of water.”
Van der Werf says that he can see progress being made as producers are made aware of the benefit of considering environmental risks.
“Companies were previously reluctant to show an interest in alternative proteins like fake meat, but we have seen a huge growth in demand. We started engagement over labour safety and use of antibiotics and over three years we have clearly seen an engagement and awareness. Now Tyson Foods, for example, has climate targets. They didn’t have that before.”
He says the end aim is for producers and investors to move away from meat and fish as protein sources as much as possible.
“The fires we have seen in the Amazon have come up in conversations with investors. They are concerned about climate change, about forest fires. There is a global need to further reduce reliance on meat and dairy and look at different protein choices.”
A spokesman for the National Farmers’ Union told the Guardian that there is a commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions in the UK farming industry by 2040. He said this will be achieved through improving efficiency and animal welfare, managing carbon storage on farms and boosting renewable energy.
The Guardian contacted the companies named but at the time of publication had not received responses from all of them.
Nestle said: “The Nestlé Responsible Sourcing Standard sets out sustainability practices that we ask our suppliers, their employees, agents and subcontractors to respect and adhere to at all times. In addition, we run a responsible sourcing program for 15 high-priority raw materials, including meat, poultry and eggs and dairy. For these materials, our work starts by mapping our supply chain all the way down to the farm or slaughterhouse. When suppliers refuse to improve, we will remove them from our supply chain.”
Walmart said: “We believe that both collaborative action and traceability across our global supply chain are needed to reduce deforestation associated with the production of beef and soy in Brazil. We’re working with the Consumer Goods Forum, the Tropical Forest Alliance and the Statement of Support Group for the Cerrado Manifesto as we work toward our goal to reduce deforestation.”
Tyson Foods said: “We recently announced a science-based target to decrease greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2030 as well as a partnership with Environmental Defense Fund focused on increasing sustainable farming practices on more than 2m acres of row crop corn by 2020. This is the largest commitment ever made by a US protein company, and we will be reporting on our progress over time.”
Hormel said: “As a global branded food company, we take our sustainability practices very seriously. We are working toward achieving our 2020 goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and non-renewable energy use by 10% by 2020.
“We are pleased to see the report highlighted our company as one of the leaders in the industry and showcased Hormel Foods for our best practices for water usage. Additionally, the report singled out Hormel Foods as being the only company that has established a sustainable agricultural policy that extends to feed-grain growers.”
OP-ED ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
There’s Poison in the Tap Water. The Government Must Act.
BY
William Rivers Pitt, Truthout
Residents of Worden and Ballantine, Montana — two tiny towns northeast of Billings — were recently informed they may be unable to use tap water for a year or more. Tests began detecting pollutants in the water back in May, but officials have been unable to pinpoint exactly where or how the groundwater supply is being contaminated. The people have been told to use bottled water only for the foreseeable future, a future of indeterminate length.
The residents of Flint, Michigan, can relate. So can residents of Newark, New Jersey, and East Chicago, Indiana, along with thousands of other communities of color that are being poisoned by the water in their homes, schools, parks and businesses. Unlike Worden and Ballantine, whose water supply was likely contaminated by nitrates used in farming, Flint and the other municipalities have been dealing with the dangers of lead.
“What does lead do to the human body?” I wrote in 2016 when the Flint crisis was revealed. “Infants and small children can suffer brain and nervous system damage, weakened immune systems and general physical collapse that can lead to death. Pregnant [people] have a higher risk of stillbirth or miscarriage. A raft of studies has pretty much concluded that lead can cause cancer. It causes cardiovascular diseases and kidney damage which, like cancer, can also kill.”
Tamara Rubin, filmmaker and lead poisoning activist, has firsthand experience with the damage lead can cause. “My son was acutely poisoned 14 years ago as an infant,” she told Truthout, “and there is simply not a day that goes by that we don’t struggle with the impact of his exposure. We need a shift in political will; I truly cannot understand why this has not yet happened in 2019.”
“When my 4-year-old always asks me if it’s safe to drink from a water fountain, I realize the lead poisoning he has endured reaches far beyond the medical,” Danielle Feinberg, mother of another child poisoned by lead, told Truthout. “He not only has to deal with the permanent brain damage it caused — altering his behavior, mood, and even his physical health. He also has to face this idea that nothing is truly safe, especially not the water.”
There are few things in life more frightening and bewildering than when that which you never think twice about suddenly goes sideways and does you harm. When something as prosaic as tap water becomes a menace, everything is suspect. When that menace is caused by greed and institutional racism, it speaks to the rot at the core of the country itself.
Flint’s story in brief: Rick Snyder, Michigan’s Republican governor at the time, appointed an emergency manager to run the city amid the region’s broader economic woes. The emergency manager, in an insidious move with no measurable financial benefit, opted to switch Flint’s primary water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River, a wildly polluted waterway used as a dumping ground by General Motors for decades.
That filthy, highly acidic water flowed into the miles of lead pipes in Flint, striping the lead off as it went. Nobody warned the predominantly Black, predominantly poor residents for two years. Thousands of people drank, ate and bathed in lead poisoning, which has lifelong effects, particularly on children. The problems with the water still have not been adequately resolved.
In Newark, also a predominantly Black community, lead in the water is an ongoing crisis. “The levels of lead in Newark, New Jersey’s, drinking water are some of the highest recently recorded by a large water system in the United States,” reports the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “And we know the cause: City and state officials are violating the Safe Drinking Water Act in several ways, such as failing to treat its water to prevent lead from flaking off from pipes into residents’ drinking water and neglecting to notify people about the elevated levels and the health risks.”
As in Flint, the governmental response to Newark’s active crisis was horrifyingly low-key.
“Critics have compared Newark’s crisis to that of Flint, especially since they believe city officials have been slow to act and have understated the severity of the contamination,” reports The Guardian. “Also similar to Flint, affected communities in Newark are predominantly low-income and African American.”
In the face of insufficient municipal action, some politicians are pointing out that the federal government also has a responsibility to act.
“Newark’s water emergency demands our federal government’s immediate attention,” New Jersey senator and presidential candidate Cory Booker, previously the mayor of Newark, tweeted recently.
“Everyone deserves clean, safe water — it’s shameful that our national crisis of lead-contaminated water disproportionately hits poor black and brown communities like my own.”
In 2017, high levels of lead were also discovered in the water supply of East Chicago, Indiana, another predominantly Black community, but the Trump administration’s EPA was slow to reply. “This boils down to: How much does the administration value the lives in low-income communities of color?” NRDC attorney Anjali Waikar told Truthout’s Mike Ludwig at the time.
Indeed, if the administration valued the lives of people in these communities, clear actions would be immediately available. Contaminated drinking water is a huge and growing national problem, but one that does not lack for solutions. “A health-protective regulatory standard for lead in water should fall below 5 parts per billion, accounting for the limited capacity of utilities to reliably reduce water-lead levels,” argues Mekela Panditharatne, attorney for the NRDC. “Federal regulations must also require the full replacement of lead service lines adjoining water mains to people’s homes — which deliver water to millions of Americans — regardless of lead levels in water.”
Such an undertaking would be expensive — around $30 billion according to Panditharatne. But expense is relative; $30 billion is about 20 percent of the estimated price tag for the dubious F-35 Joint Strike fighter program. It is about 20 percent of the tax cut Trump and congressional Republicans gave to the wealthy and corporations in December of 2017, right around the time East Chicago was learning that it was being poisoned by lead.
U.S.-style capitalism was born in the cauldron of slavery and genocide. Maximizing profit for the few at the expense of the many, especially people of color, remains the guiding principle of the U.S. economic model, and the ongoing water crisis is further proof of this.
If poison in the water does not galvanize this government to act, regardless of expense, they may as well drop all pretense and hang a sign on the White House door: “We Don’t Care. You Can Die.”
The residents of Flint, Michigan, can relate. So can residents of Newark, New Jersey, and East Chicago, Indiana, along with thousands of other communities of color that are being poisoned by the water in their homes, schools, parks and businesses. Unlike Worden and Ballantine, whose water supply was likely contaminated by nitrates used in farming, Flint and the other municipalities have been dealing with the dangers of lead.
“What does lead do to the human body?” I wrote in 2016 when the Flint crisis was revealed. “Infants and small children can suffer brain and nervous system damage, weakened immune systems and general physical collapse that can lead to death. Pregnant [people] have a higher risk of stillbirth or miscarriage. A raft of studies has pretty much concluded that lead can cause cancer. It causes cardiovascular diseases and kidney damage which, like cancer, can also kill.”
Tamara Rubin, filmmaker and lead poisoning activist, has firsthand experience with the damage lead can cause. “My son was acutely poisoned 14 years ago as an infant,” she told Truthout, “and there is simply not a day that goes by that we don’t struggle with the impact of his exposure. We need a shift in political will; I truly cannot understand why this has not yet happened in 2019.”
“When my 4-year-old always asks me if it’s safe to drink from a water fountain, I realize the lead poisoning he has endured reaches far beyond the medical,” Danielle Feinberg, mother of another child poisoned by lead, told Truthout. “He not only has to deal with the permanent brain damage it caused — altering his behavior, mood, and even his physical health. He also has to face this idea that nothing is truly safe, especially not the water.”
There are few things in life more frightening and bewildering than when that which you never think twice about suddenly goes sideways and does you harm. When something as prosaic as tap water becomes a menace, everything is suspect. When that menace is caused by greed and institutional racism, it speaks to the rot at the core of the country itself.
Flint’s story in brief: Rick Snyder, Michigan’s Republican governor at the time, appointed an emergency manager to run the city amid the region’s broader economic woes. The emergency manager, in an insidious move with no measurable financial benefit, opted to switch Flint’s primary water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River, a wildly polluted waterway used as a dumping ground by General Motors for decades.
That filthy, highly acidic water flowed into the miles of lead pipes in Flint, striping the lead off as it went. Nobody warned the predominantly Black, predominantly poor residents for two years. Thousands of people drank, ate and bathed in lead poisoning, which has lifelong effects, particularly on children. The problems with the water still have not been adequately resolved.
In Newark, also a predominantly Black community, lead in the water is an ongoing crisis. “The levels of lead in Newark, New Jersey’s, drinking water are some of the highest recently recorded by a large water system in the United States,” reports the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “And we know the cause: City and state officials are violating the Safe Drinking Water Act in several ways, such as failing to treat its water to prevent lead from flaking off from pipes into residents’ drinking water and neglecting to notify people about the elevated levels and the health risks.”
As in Flint, the governmental response to Newark’s active crisis was horrifyingly low-key.
“Critics have compared Newark’s crisis to that of Flint, especially since they believe city officials have been slow to act and have understated the severity of the contamination,” reports The Guardian. “Also similar to Flint, affected communities in Newark are predominantly low-income and African American.”
In the face of insufficient municipal action, some politicians are pointing out that the federal government also has a responsibility to act.
“Newark’s water emergency demands our federal government’s immediate attention,” New Jersey senator and presidential candidate Cory Booker, previously the mayor of Newark, tweeted recently.
“Everyone deserves clean, safe water — it’s shameful that our national crisis of lead-contaminated water disproportionately hits poor black and brown communities like my own.”
In 2017, high levels of lead were also discovered in the water supply of East Chicago, Indiana, another predominantly Black community, but the Trump administration’s EPA was slow to reply. “This boils down to: How much does the administration value the lives in low-income communities of color?” NRDC attorney Anjali Waikar told Truthout’s Mike Ludwig at the time.
Indeed, if the administration valued the lives of people in these communities, clear actions would be immediately available. Contaminated drinking water is a huge and growing national problem, but one that does not lack for solutions. “A health-protective regulatory standard for lead in water should fall below 5 parts per billion, accounting for the limited capacity of utilities to reliably reduce water-lead levels,” argues Mekela Panditharatne, attorney for the NRDC. “Federal regulations must also require the full replacement of lead service lines adjoining water mains to people’s homes — which deliver water to millions of Americans — regardless of lead levels in water.”
Such an undertaking would be expensive — around $30 billion according to Panditharatne. But expense is relative; $30 billion is about 20 percent of the estimated price tag for the dubious F-35 Joint Strike fighter program. It is about 20 percent of the tax cut Trump and congressional Republicans gave to the wealthy and corporations in December of 2017, right around the time East Chicago was learning that it was being poisoned by lead.
U.S.-style capitalism was born in the cauldron of slavery and genocide. Maximizing profit for the few at the expense of the many, especially people of color, remains the guiding principle of the U.S. economic model, and the ongoing water crisis is further proof of this.
If poison in the water does not galvanize this government to act, regardless of expense, they may as well drop all pretense and hang a sign on the White House door: “We Don’t Care. You Can Die.”
When your "leader" is a fool!!!
environment funnies
