Max Pixel
By Julia Conley
Berkeley, California on Tuesday became the first U.S. city to approve a ban on natural gas hook-ups in all new residential buildings, a move that proponents argued is a needed step for all cities in the state if California is to meet its goal of shifting to net-zero carbon emissions from energy sources by 2045.
The ban was passed into law less than a week after the city council unanimously voted in favor of it and following vocal support for the measure from the public.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the 2020 Democratic primary, and former California state controller Steve Westly were among the climate action advocates who praised the city's decision as part of a growing movement of local governments "[leading] the way in the fight to defeat climate change."
Natural gas is dirty and dangerous. Local governments continue to lead the way in the fight to defeat climate change. https://t.co/lGPyBdICjq
— Jay Inslee (@JayInslee) July 19, 2019
Last weekend, Berkeley made an incredible leap toward an electric world by placing a city-wide ban on natural gas in new homes. This is a move many other cities should seriously consider! Natural gas is a substantial contributor to climate change.
— Steve Westly (@SteveWestly) July 22, 2019
Berkeley city council member Rigel Robinson noted that the lawmakers voted on the ban just a year after the city declared a climate emergency.
"Many cities would be satisfied or content to just declare a climate emergency." Robinson tweeted. "This is what acting on it looks like."
Just a year after declaring a “climate emergency,” Berkeley becomes the first U.S. city to prohibit natural gas infrastructure in new construction.
— Rigel Robinson (@RigelRobinson) July 22, 2019
Many cities would be satisfied or content to just *declare* a climate emergency. This is what acting on it looks like. pic.twitter.com/ZlYr4K8sLP
The new ordinance is set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, and will apply to all new multi-unit construction. Some exceptions could be made for first-floor retail spaces, but advocates expect the plan to take a major step away from a large portion of the carbon emissions caused by energy sources in the city.
As Emilie Raguso wrote at Berkeleyside:
The new law would apply only to building types that have been reviewed and analyzed by the California Energy Commission. Each time the state expands its models and analyses, according to the way the ordinance was designed, the city will be able to update its law without returning to council for a new vote.
The city council found that, with the ban in place, electricity used to power heating and cooking systems in homes will be 78 percent carbon free. Currently, natural gas makes up 73 percent of Berkeley's emissions from buildings.
"We have a climate emergency and we know that, at least in Berkeley, natural gas in buildings is responsible for 27 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions," said Councilwoman Kate Harrison, who introduced the plan.
The ordinance "will allow a significant reduction in greenhouse gas-emitting devices and systems," she told the council and community members at last week's meeting.
One of Harrison's aides also demonstrated the use of an electric induction stove to melt chocolate at the meeting.
Here at this week’s Berkeley City Council meeting, staff are melting chocolate with an electric stove. Why?
— Rigel Robinson (@RigelRobinson) July 17, 2019
Because tonight, Berkeley will vote whether to become the first city to prohibit natural gas infrastructure in new construction #berkmtg pic.twitter.com/p8IktBwgOI
The installation of high-efficiency induction stoves as well as efficient heating and cooling pumps will require new investments, but a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) showed last year that "upfront costs of clean electric heating are generally lower than conventional gas alternatives in new construction, by $1,500 or more."
The NRDC argues that a gradual nationwide shift away from natural gas and toward electricity is possible if the country ends its dependence on coal-powered electricity.
"There's been a lingering perception that burning gas was cleaner than electricity, which might have been true 20 years ago when electricity came from burning coal," said Pierre Delforge, a senior scientist with the organization, told The Guardian. "When we look at electrification policies, we need to think about what the grid will look like in 10 or 20 years, not what it looked like yesterday."
Despite the insistence to the contrary of President Donald Trump and other Republicans, the clean energy sector is fast replacing the coal industry. According to a report by Time magazine in 2017, demand for renewable energy is projected to rise steadily in the coming decades, as it has over the past several years, while demand for coal-powered electricity is on the decline.
Cities that are aiming to reduce their fossil fuel emissions have "just got to think about it in new and creative ways," Bruce Nilles, managing director of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a sustainable energy research firm, told The Guardian. "We're dealing with an existential crisis. We've got to dust off all the different ways that different actors can do good, progressive, climate-minded things."
Energy use in buildings accounts for 25 percent of California's carbon emissions, according to The Guardian. More than 50 cities across the state are considering natural gas bans similar to Berkeley's. San Jose, the state's third largest city, proposed earlier this month a plan that would make 47 percent of its homes powered entirely by electricity.
"You see those changes go to other cities, then go up to the state level and then go to the national level," David Hochschild, California Energy Commission chairman and a Berkeley resident who spoke in favor of the ban at the city council meeting, said. "That's how change happens."
Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.
Sheep like these will no longer be exported from England and Wales for slaughter under a proposed ban. Chris Jackson / Getty Images
The UK has taken steps toward becoming the first European country to ban the export of live animals for slaughter.
<p>Environment Secretary George Eustice announced the new plans Thursday, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/03/uk-to-become-first-country-in-europe-to-ban-live-animal-exports" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>. The ban would fulfill a campaign promise from the ruling Conservative Party, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55167473" target="_blank">BBC News explained</a>.</p><p>"We are committed to improving the welfare of animals at all stages of life," Eustice told <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/live-animal-export-ban-uk-defra-b1765196.html" target="_blank">The Independent</a>. "Today marks a major step forward in delivering on our manifesto commitment to end live exports for slaughter."</p><p>The ban would apply to live animals exported for slaughter from England and Wales, BBC News reported. The plan will first undergo an eight-week consultation period that will cover how to improve animal welfare during transport within the UK. The results will be presented to Parliament in the summer of 2021 and should go into effect by the end of 2021.</p>
<p>The plan already includes a few exceptions. Animals will still be exported from Northern Ireland, and the export of poultry or animals intended for breeding will not be covered by the ban, according to The Guardian. The results of the eight-week consultation will be used to discuss a joint ban with Scotland.</p><p>The announcement won wide praise from UK <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/animal-welfare" target="_self">animal welfare</a> groups. Both the <a href="https://www.rspca.org.uk/" target="_blank">RSPCA</a> and <a href="https://www.ciwf.org.uk/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Compassion in World Farming</a> told The Independent that they had campaigned against the practice for more than 50 years.</p><p>"There is absolutely no reasonable justification to subject an animal to an unnecessarily stressful journey abroad simply for them to be fattened for slaughter," RSPCA chief executive Chris Sherwood told The Independent. "Ending live exports for slaughter and further fattening would be a landmark achievement for animal welfare."</p>
<p>The government stressed that the proposed ban was made possible by Brexit.</p><p>"Now that we have left the EU, we have an opportunity to end this unnecessary practice. We want to ensure that animals are spared stress prior to slaughter," Eustice told The Independent.</p><p>In 2012, for example, a local government in Kent tried to ban the practice after a truck full of lame sheep was discovered at a port and had to be put to sleep, BBC News reported. However, the High Court ruled that the ban violated EU free trade laws.</p><p>"The government has long maintained that exporting live animals was a practice which could be ended as a result of Brexit — a good example of where leaving the EU would bring benefits," BBC political correspondent Helen Catt wrote. "No surprise then that it is keen to deliver on it fully."</p>
<p>The government has also promised a number of other post-Brexit animal protection measures.</p><p>"This announcement marks the start of renewed efforts from government to raise standards on animal welfare even further now we are outside the EU, including taking steps to ban primates as pets and crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies, with further proposals to improve standards and eradicate cruel practices expected to be set out in the coming months," the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in a statement, The Independent reported.</p><p>However, a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/brexit-environment-risk-2559682645.html?share_id=3522712" target="_self">2018 analysis</a> from <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.uk/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth</a> found that Brexit was likely to weaken environmental regulations overall in both the UK and the EU.</p>
<p>Yet there are also moves within the EU to restrict the practice of animal export, according to The Guardian. In September the Dutch suggested that animal transport should be limited, and a European parliamentary committee on the protection of animals during transport has been holding hearings since October.</p><p>Animal welfare groups in the EU also responded favorably to the news of the proposed UK ban.</p><p>"This is great news, it is far too stressful to export live animals for slaughter," Iris Baumgaertner from Germany's Animal Welfare Foundation told The Guardian.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Illegal Wildlife Trade Thrives on Facebook, Internet Forums ... ›
- Canada Passes 'Free Willy' Bill Banning Whale and Dolphin Captivity ›
- Jane Goodall: COVID-19 Is Result of Our Unhealthy Relationship ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A group of climate activists that have been cycling from the North of the country in stages to draw attention to the climate case are arriving to the Court of Justice on the day that the climate lawsuit against Shell starts in The Hague, on December 1st, 2020. Romy Arroyo Fernandez / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Julia Conley
Representing more than 17,000 claimants who support climate action, the international organization Friends of the Earth on Tuesday opened its case against fossil fuel giant Shell at The Hague by demanding that a judge order the corporation to significantly reduce its carbon emissions in the next decade.
<p>Milieudefensie, the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth, <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2020/12/01/climate-change-activists-take-energy-giant-shell-to-court-in-the-hague-over-emissions" target="_blank">says</a> Shell has broken the law in The Netherlands by knowingly standing in the way of the country's phase-out of fossil fuels. Shell says it has set a goal of cutting its emissions to net zero by 2050, but the group is demanding a more rapid reduction. </p><p>"We are relying on the Dutch courts to protect communities around the globe," tweeted Nils Mollema, a policy advisor at ActionAid, which is supporting Milieudefensie in the case. </p>
<div id="47348" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5afbc9986f5a700bcaa4f88e3046024b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1333715559301713922" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Today in The Hague: Shell on trial for its role in climate catastrophe. @Shell must take responsibility and correct… https://t.co/siy20sVKxF</div> — Nils Mollema (@Nils Mollema)<a href="https://twitter.com/MollemaNils/statuses/1333715559301713922">1606817543.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The case comes five years after the Dutch government was ordered to reduce its emissions by at least 25% from 1990 levels by the end of 2020. Under the Paris climate agreement, the European Union has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030.</p><p>"The claimants therefore conclude that Royal Dutch Shell's corporate policy is on collision course with global climate targets," Roger Cox, a lawyer representing Milieudefensie in the civil case, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/dutch-climate-activists-take-shell-to-court-over-emissions/2020/12/01/ed68d494-33ac-11eb-9699-00d311f13d2d_story.html" target="_blank">told</a> a panel of three judges at The Hague District Court on Tuesday. </p><p>The organization has vehemently rejected Shell's defense in the case, in which the multinational corporation is suggesting that it is no more responsible for solving the climate emergency than other businesses or individuals.</p><p>"What will accelerate the energy transition is effective policy, investment in technology, and changing customer behavior," Shell <a href="https://www.euronews.com/2020/12/01/climate-change-activists-take-energy-giant-shell-to-court-in-the-hague-over-emissions" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said</a> Tuesday as the first of four days of hearings began. "None of which will be achieved with this court action."</p><p>Cox noted in his opening remarks that Shell is responsible for about 1.2% of the planet's industrial fossil fuel emissions.</p><p>"The main argument of Shell is that everybody is responsible: the consumer, the state, the international community, everybody is responsible except Shell, except the biggest polluter of the Netherlands, one of the 10 biggest polluters in the world," said Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie, on Monday. "And we are going to change that."</p><p>The case opened a month after Shell drew outrage from climate action campaigners by <a href="https://twitter.com/Shell/status/1323184318735360001" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">posting a poll </a>on its official Twitter account, asking ordinary citizens what they plan to do to help mitigate the climate crisis. </p><p>"I'm willing to hold you accountable for lying about climate change for 30 years when you secretly knew the entire time that fossil fuels emissions would destroy our planet," U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/02/shell-oil-asked-what-people-are-willing-do-reduce-emissions-im-willing-hold-you" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">replied</a> at the time, denouncing the company's "audacity."</p><p>On Monday, Pols called the opening of the case at The Hague "a historic moment."</p><p>"This is actually 'the People versus Shell,' a company that has got away with greenwashing for too long," he said in statement. "This case will make it clear to everyone that more than 95% of what Shell does is causing dangerous climate change. This has to change as soon as possible."</p><p><span></span><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/01/friends-earth-vs-shell-historic-moment-climate-movement-takes-big-oil-hague" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>. </em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Eat Just, Inc. announced that its cultured chicken has been approved for sale in Singapore as an ingredient in chicken bites. The company has developed other cultured chicken formats as well. Eat Just
As concern mounts over the environmental impacts of animal agriculture, Singapore has issued the world's first regulatory approval for lab-grown meat.
<p>The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) has declared that the U.S.-based company <a href="https://www.ju.st/en-us" target="_blank">Eat Just</a> can sell its cultured "chicken bites" in the country, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/02/no-kill-lab-grown-meat-to-go-on-sale-for-first-time" target="_blank">The Guardian reported Wednesday</a>.</p><p>"I think the approval is one of the most significant milestones in the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/food/" target="_self">food</a> industry in the last handful of decades," Eat Just co-founder and CEO Josh Tetrick said in a statement reported by The Guardian. "It's an open door and it's up to us and other companies to take that opportunity. My hope is this leads to a world in the next handful of years where the majority of meat doesn't require killing a single animal or tearing down a single tree."</p>
<p>Giving up on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat-consumption" target="_self">meat consumption</a> is one of the most important things an individual can do to fight the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a> and environmental destruction, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vegan-climate-change-2558286917.html" target="_self">studies</a> have <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vegan-earth-footprint-2574241439.html" target="_self">found</a>. Companies have tried to tap into this growing ecological awareness by offering meat alternatives. Plant-based meat replacements like <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/beyond-meat" target="_self">Beyond Meat</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/impossible-foods" target="_self">Impossible Foods</a> are gaining traction, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55155741" target="_blank">BBC News pointed out</a>, and the market for meat alternatives could be worth about 10 percent of the global meat industry within the next decade.</p><p>However, some companies think that plant-based meat replacements will not be enough to wean meat-lovers off of steak and chicken, The Guardian pointed out. Instead, companies like Eat Just, Future Meat Technologies and the Bill Gates-backed Memphis Meats have worked to grow meat in labs, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/01/singapore-issues-first-regulatory-approval-for-lab-grown-meat-to-eat-just.html" target="_blank">CNBC reported</a>. They argue that their meat is also less cruel, healthier for consumers and better for the environment.</p><p>"We think that [the way] to really solve the meat problem — which is a health problem, a deforestation problem, a morality problem — is to make animal protein," Tetrick told CNBC.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDg1NzE4Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTUzMjA4N30.-5EwlKgZejlzA25BqWo0VkOuhK2_4BZ6nxbfLcrtC4M/img.jpg?width=980" id="9c1fe" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="01f8f414e028394386321c455c4436f8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Eat Just's cultured chicken has been approved for sale in Singapore as an ingredient in chicken bites. Eat Just
<p>Eat Just worked to gain the approval of Singapore health regulators for about two years. To do so, they had to develop a consistent manufacturing process for their product and satisfy food safety standards for new foods.</p><p>"It was found to be safe for consumption at the intended levels of use, and was allowed to be sold in Singapore as an ingredient in Eat Just's nuggets product," the SFA ruled, as BBC News reported.</p><p>Eat Just's meat is made by putting animal stem cells into a culture that feeds the cells, and then putting the growing cells in a bioreactor, CNBC explained. Tetrick said the process was similar to making beer.</p><p>The product already has health benefits compared to conventional meat. It has a high protein content and many amino acids, but it has no antibiotics and very low amounts of microbes like salmonella.</p><p>It is also largely cruelty free. The meat cells can be taken from live animals, and they are fed with plant-derived nutrients, The Guardian explained. The Singapore lab chicken did use a growth serum from foetal bovine blood, but a plant-based serum will be used for the next round of production.</p>
<p> Lab-grown meat also uses less land and water than conventional meat. However, the process does have some environmental disadvantages. It is high-energy, and, because it is currently being done at a small scale, requires a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Once the process is scaled up, the energy costs will go down.</p><p>There are many challenges that must be overcome before cultured meat is widely available. Eat Just's product will first be offered in just one restaurant in Singapore, Tetrick told CNBC.</p><p>"We're going to start out with a single restaurant and then scale out to five, 10, 15 and then eventually into retail," Tetrick told CNBC. "The infrastructure required to do it is primarily the bioreactors, so we'll eventually be moving to 5,000, 10,000 and 20,000 liters."</p><p>It is currently costly to produce cultured meat, and the product will be the price of premium chicken. However, costs have already decreased from $50 per chicken nugget, according to BBC News. They are expected to continue to do so as production is scaled up, and Eat Just says its products will eventually be cheaper to produce than conventional meat, according to The Guardian.</p><p>Another hurdle is making meat lovers comfortable with the idea of lab-grown meat.</p><p>Still, Bruce Friedrich of the Good Food Institute called the new approval a "very big deal for the future of meat production globally."</p><p>"A new space race for the future of food is under way," he told The Guardian.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Most Meat Will Be Plant-Based or Lab-Grown in 20 Years, Analysts ... ›
- Slaughter-Free Lab Grown Steak Cast As Ethically Friendly Alternative ›
- FDA Takes First Steps to Regulating Lab-Grown Meat - EcoWatch ›
- Tyson Foods Invests in 'Clean Meat' - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Wildfires are seen burning out of control on November 30, 2020 on Fraser Island, Australia. Queensland Fire and Emergency Services / Getty Images
The world's largest sand island has been on fire for the past six weeks due to a campfire, and Australia's firefighters have yet to prevent flames from destroying the fragile ecosystem.
<p>The <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires" target="_blank">wildfires</a> on <a href="https://fido.org.au/moonbi/backgrounders/49%20Fraser%20Fauna%20Backgrounder.pdf" target="_blank">Fraser Island</a>, also called by its Indigenous name K'gari, have burned almost <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/01/australia/australia-bushfire-fraser-island-intl-hnk/index.html" target="_blank">200,000 acres </a>of its unique habitat, including large sand dunes, swamps and rainforests. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-environment-july-2639073995.html?rebelltitem=1" target="_blank">Fraser Island</a> is near Brisbane on the northeastern coast, where dingos, swamp wallabies, sugar gliders and more than 60 reptile species call the island home. It was declared a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1992.</p><p>Several tourists visiting the island had to be <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-bushfires/bushfires-threaten-tourist-areas-on-australias-fraser-island-idUSKBN28C05U" target="_blank">evacuated</a> as conditions worsened, Reuters reported.<br></p><p>"I think it's frustrating for everybody, the fact that a campfire has started this fire. Having the impact that it has had, it started in a very, very remote part of the island… really difficult to access," Queensland Fire and Emergency Services deputy commissioner Mike Wassing told CNN affiliate Nine News, according to Reuters.</p><p>Since Saturday fire crews have dropped more than 200,000 gallons of water and flame retardant on the island, Reuters added. </p><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/dec/01/catastrophic-bushfire-on-queenslands-fraser-island-threatens-ecological-disaster" target="_blank">The Guardian </a>reported that crews are mainly addressing the problem from above, focusing on key ecological areas and sites that are important to the Butchulla Aboriginal people, who have called the island home for thousands of years.</p>
<p>However, fighting sand fires is difficult, Queensland Fire and Emergency Services assistant commissioner Gary McCormack told The Guardian. He explained how water quickly drained from the sand floor, even when dropped from above. Ground conditions weren't any better due to a lack of firebreaks. </p><p>"Unfortunately the current conditions are not conducive to extinguishment," McCormack said.</p><p>The fires are approaching the Valley of Giants, a tourist attraction known for its 1,000-year-old trees. </p><p><span></span>Researcher Dr. Gabriel Conroy, a conservation biologist at the University of the Sunshine Coast whose work focuses on Fraser Island, took a student group there last week.</p><p>"A northerly wind had kicked in and it was other-worldly with ash falling down on the students," he told The Guardian. "There's a sense of panic on the island."</p>
<p>Conroy explained that traditional fire practices by the Butchulla people were suppressed more than a century ago, and European loggers altered the island's ecology. Prior to this, the Butchulla had burned smaller fires on the island for thousands of years in order to prevent more widespread ones.<br></p><p>"This is a very large and very hot fire for this island. It's a big fire and it's the wrong kind of fire," Conroy said. He added, "It's a catastrophe. Even ecosystems that are meant to burn don't bounce back from widespread hot fires. It can be beyond their capacity to bounce back."<span></span></p><p>According to <a href="Queensland's Bureau of Meteorology said the fire danger is likely to be exacerbated by strong winds and extreme heat wave conditions, which are forecast to continue in the state for the next few days." target="_blank">CNN,</a> Queensland's Bureau of Meteorology warned that an extreme heat wave and strong winds, forecast for the next couple of days, would likely worsen the fires.</p><p>The current fires may be the start of a harsh and long fire season, and are already drawing comparison to the devastating <a href="https://news.trust.org/item/20201112231540-id4yp/#:~:text=Fires%20razed%20more%20than%2011,called%20Australia's%20%22black%20summer%22." target="_blank">wildfires</a> Australia experienced in early 2020, where more than 37 million acres were destroyed, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/australia-wildfires-animals-2646814591.html" target="_blank">three billion animals killed</a>, and 33 people died.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Were Dropped Over Millions of Acres via Aerial Pesticide, Tests Reveal
23h
Health + Wellness
A plane sprays pesticide over the Wynwood neighborhood in the hope of controlling and reducing the number of mosquitos, some of which may be capable of spreading the Zika virus on Aug. 6, 2016 in Miami, Florida. Joe Raedle / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
A national nonprofit revealed Tuesday that testing commissioned by the group as well as separate analysis conducted by Massachusetts officials show samples of an aerially sprayed pesticide used by the commonwealth and at least 25 other states to control mosquito-borne illnesses contain toxic substances that critics call "forever chemicals."
<p>Officially known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas" target="_blank">PFAS</a>), this group of man-made chemicals — including PFOA, PFOS, and GenX — earned the nickname because they do not break down in the environment and build up in the body. <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas">PFAS</a> has been linked to suppressed immune function, cancers, and other health issues.</p><p>Lawmakers and regulators at various levels of government have worked to clean up <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> contaminated by PFAS. The newly released results of pesticide testing by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) generated alarm about the effectiveness of such efforts.</p><p>"In Massachusetts, communities are struggling to remove PFAS from their drinking water supplies, while at the same time, we may be showering them with PFAS from the skies and roads," PEER science policy director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>), <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/12/01/aerially-sprayed-pesticide-contains-pfas-forever-chemicals-potentially-spread" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement Tuesday.</p><p>"The frightening thing is that we do not know how many insecticides, herbicides, or even disinfectants contain PFAS," added Bennett, who arranged for the testing. "PEER found patents showing chemical companies using PFAS in these products, and recent articles discuss the variety of pesticides that contain PFAS as either an active or an inert ingredient."</p>
<div id="d4091" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="64ed42ca263b7280932e8f8d4e445802"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1333816394283065344" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">NEW: @PEERorg found that toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” were sprayed on millions of acres in MA & 25 other states.… https://t.co/TcR3vCuXna</div> — Food & Water Watch (@Food & Water Watch)<a href="https://twitter.com/foodandwater/statuses/1333816394283065344">1606841584.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The product tested initially by PEER and subsequently MADEP, once the nonprofit alerted the department of its findings, is Anvil 10+10, produced by the Illinois company Clarke.</p><p>Karen Larson, Clarke's vice president of government affairs, <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/12/01/metro/toxic-forever-chemicals-found-pesticide-used-millions-mass-acres-when-spraying-mosquitos/" target="_blank">told</a> the Boston Globe that "when this was first brought to our attention, we conducted an internal inquiry of our manufacturing and supply chain to ensure that PFAS was not an ingredient in the production, manufacturing, or distribution of either the active or inactive ingredients of Anvil."</p><p>"No PFAS ingredients are used in the formulation of Anvil, nor in the production of any source material in Anvil. PFAS components are not added at any point in the production of Anvil," she said. Larson added that while it is unclear why the Clarke pesticide contained PFAS, the company "will continue to work closely with the EPA to conduct our own testing."</p>
<p>PEER executive director Tim Whitehouse detailed the recent testing results in a <a href="https://www.peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/MA-DEP-Ltr-Anvil-11-25-20-1.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1c783f1a-fbb9-4fe2-b9b5-a694dc19b99e" target="_blank">letter</a> sent last week to MADEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg that called for halting the use of Anvil 10+10, ensuring any replacement does not contain forever chemicals, and requiring pesticide companies to comprehensively test their products for PFAS:</p><blockquote>This fall, PEER conducted several tests for PFAS of a 2.5 gallon jug of Anvil 10+10, the pesticide used in the aerial spraying programs of Massachusetts and many other states. Our tests revealed that Anvil 10+10 contains roughly 250 parts per trillion (ppt) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and 260–500 ppt of hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), a GenX replacement for PFOA. Both these results are hovering around the detection limits of the laboratory's equipment, but there is no doubt that these PFAS are in the insecticide. While PFAS may be useful when added to pesticides as surfactants, dispersants, and anti-foaming agents, it is unclear whether the PFAS found in Anvil 10+10 is an ingredient added by the manufacturer, contained in one of the ingredients supplied to Anvil's manufacturer by other companies, or whether it is a contaminant from the manufacturing/storage process. Moreover, since we were only able to test for 36 PFAS out of the 9,252 on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) inventory, it is impossible to know how many other PFAS might be in Anvil 10+10.<br>[...]<br>When PEER obtained its first positive PFAS results on Anvil 10+10, we immediately contacted DEP because of the far-reaching implications. MADEP independently tested nine samples of Anvil 10+10 from five different containers, and found eight different PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS. Some PFAS levels were over 700 ppt. As such, there appears to be no doubt that there are PFAS in the pesticide Massachusetts has chosen for mosquito control.</blockquote>
<p>Whitehouse noted that Massachusetts aerially sprayed 2.2 million acres with Anvil 10+10 last year and more than 200,000 acres this year. The Boston Globe explained that "most of the <a href="https://www.mass.gov/service-details/mosquito-control-and-spraying?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1c783f1a-fbb9-4fe2-b9b5-a694dc19b99e" target="_blank">spraying</a> has been done in the southeastern part of the state, where EEE, a rare but deadly mosquito-borne disease, has been most prevalent."</p><p>The EPA, which has been lambasted by lawmakers as well as environmental and public health advocates for its handling of PFAS contamination on a national scale, is working on "an analytical method" to detect the forever chemicals in pesticides and plans to conduct its own tests of Anvil 10+10, according to the newspaper.</p><p>"There are significant unanswered questions about the data currently available," Dave Deegan, a spokesperson for the federal agency's offices in New England, told the Boston Globe. "EPA will continue to work closely with and support the state on this issue. Aggressively addressing PFAS continues to be an important, active, and ongoing priority for EPA."</p>
<p>Bennett and other critics of the EPA's response to PFAS reiterated concerns about the agency in the wake of the revelations in Massachusetts.</p><p>"This PFAS fiasco shows that public trust in EPA having a full accounting of these materials and their safety is utterly misplaced," said Bennett. "Until EPA acts, states need to adopt their own safeguards and chemical disclosure requirements because they certainly cannot depend upon the diligence of EPA."</p><p>In a statement about the testing on Tuesday, Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/12/01/pfas-discovered-common-pesticide-sprayed-millions-acres" target="_blank">declared</a> that "these findings shock the conscience — states likely have unknowingly contaminated communities' water with PFAS hidden in pesticides. Once again, the EPA has failed to protect the American people from harmful pollution."</p><p>Emphasizing that "we need to stop the introduction of toxic forever chemicals into the environment and our water sources to protect public health," Hauter said that "the EPA must ban all pesticides with PFAS components, designate PFAS as hazardous substances to hold polluters accountable for cleanup of contamination, and set strong enforceable standards for PFAS in our drinking water."</p><p>"The GOP-controlled Senate must step up and pass the PFAS Action Act, which passed the House in January, to regulated these toxic compounds and hold polluters accountable, and Congress must pass he WATER Act to provide the financial relief to community water providers and households with wells to remove PFAS from drinking water or find alternative sources where treatment fails," she added. "Now is the time for decisive action to protect people's health and safety."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/01/tests-reveal-toxic-forever-chemicals-aerial-pesticide-showered-over-millions-acres" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- How Will the Biden Administration Tackle 'Forever Chemicals ... ›
- Are Forever Chemicals Harming Ocean Life? - EcoWatch ›
- How Chemicals Like PFAS Can Increase Your Risk of Severe ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less