The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) today filed a lawsuit in federal court against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking a responce to NRDC’s petitions to ban two hazardous pesticides used in popular pet flea treatment products.
Due to concerns that the products can harm children’s brains and nervous systems, the agency has severely restricted household use of other known neurotoxic pesticides. But it continues to allow neurotoxic propoxur and tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) to be used in flea treatments for dogs and cats. NRDC’s lawsuit seeks to force the EPA to respond to NRDC’s petitions to cancel all pet uses and manufacturer registrations of these two chemicals.
“These flea collars leave a toxic residue on pets’ fur, exposing children to chemicals which can have harmful effects on their brains, similar to those from lead” said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, senior scientist with NRDC’s health program. “Luckily, there are less-toxic alternatives readily available to control fleas."
"Nearly a decade has passed since NRDC urged EPA to get these toxic chemical collars off store shelves, but the agency continues to drag its feet," Rotkin-Ellman continued. “After all, EPA decided long ago that nervous system-damaging chemicals shouldn’t be used indoors, so why is it OK to put them on our pets?”
Flea collars are designed to leave pesticide residues on pet fur, exposing people to the chemicals they contain when they play with their pet or touch pet bedding. Once on a child’s skin, the pesticide is absorbed through the skin or it can be ingested when a child puts their hand in their mouth. Propoxur and TCVP are types of pesticides that are known to be toxic to brain development, nervous system communication and can cause cancer. Children are particularly vulnerable because their smaller bodies are still developing and their activities, such as putting their hands in their mouths after petting animals or playing, increase the likelihood and amount of these pesticides that can enter their bodies. In large doses, these chemicals can also harm or kill dogs, cats and in extreme poisoning cases, even humans.
To protect against exposure to these chemicals, NRDC recommends avoiding flea collars brands that use them, including:
- Sergeant’s Pet Care Products, Inc.
- Wellmark International
- Hartz Mountain Corporation
NRDC has updated its Green Paws product guide, which encourages consumers and pet owners to use safer methods of pet flea control. NRDC’s Green Paws guide also ranks more than 125 flea and tick products based on ingredients, categorizing them by the level of their potential health threat to people and animals.
Background:
Prior to today’s lawsuit filing, the EPA failed to respond to NRDC petitions seeking a ban on these two chemicals. NRDC first petitioned the EPA to cancel propoxur uses in pet collars in 2007. In 2009, NRDC released its Poison on Pets II report, which found that high levels of pesticide residue can remain on a dog’s or cat's fur for weeks after a flea collar is put on an animal. Residue levels detected in this study were found to be high enough to pose a risk to the neurological system of children at levels that greatly exceed EPA's acceptable levels. In conjunction with the report, NRDC filed a supplement to its petition.
In 2010, the EPA published an initial exposure assessment based on a new estimated residue level. In that assessment, the EPA determined that the risks to children from exposure to pets wearing propoxur flea collars were “of concern” to the agency. NRDC filed yet another supplement to its petition in 2011 in response to that new assessment. To date, no final decision has been made on the petition, although the EPA has indicated that they expect to issue a revised exposure assessment soon.
For TCVP, NRDC filed a petition in April 2009 to cancel all uses of the chemical in pet collars. To date, the EPA has not responded to that petition either.
Visit EcoWatch’s HEALTH page for more related news on this topic.
"Now that we are spending more time at home, we are noticing the large number of delivery vans and lorries driving through cities," said Netherlands environment minister Stientje van Veldhoven, announcing plans to ban all but zero-emission deliveries in 14 cities.
"The agreements we are setting down will ensure that it will be a matter of course that within a few years, supermarket shelves will be stocked, waste will be collected, and packages will arrive on time, yet without any exhaust fumes and CO2 emissions," she added.
She expects 30 cities to announce zero emission urban logistics by this summer. City councils must give four years' notice before imposing bans as part of government plans for emission-free road traffic by 2050. The city bans aim to save 1 megaton of CO2 each year by 2030.
Help to Change
To encourage transport organizations to go carbon-free, the government is offering grants of more than US$5,900 to help businesses buy or lease electric vehicles. There will be additional measures to help small businesses make the change.
The Netherlands claims it is the first country in the world to give its cities the freedom to implement zero-emission zones. Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht already have "milieuzones" where some types of vehicles are banned.
Tilburg, one of the first wave of cities imposing the Dutch ban, will not allow fossil-fuelled vehicles on streets within its outer ring road and plans to roll out a network of city-wide electric vehicle charging stations before the ban comes into effect in 2025.
"Such initiatives are imperative to improve air quality. The transport of the future must be emission-free, sustainable, and clean," said Tilburg city alderman Oscar Dusschooten.
Europe Takes Action
Research by Renault shows that many other European cities are heading in the same direction as the Netherlands, starting with Low Emission Zones of which Germany's "Umweltzone" were pioneers. More than 100 communes in Italy have introduced "Zonas a traffico limitato."
Madrid's "zona de baja emisión" bans diesel vehicles built before 2006 and petrol vehicles from before 2000 from central areas of the city. Barcelona has similar restrictions and the law will require all towns of more than 50,000 inhabitants to follow suit.
Perhaps the most stringent restrictions apply in London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), which charges trucks and large vehicles up to US$137 a day to enter the central area if they do not comply with Euro 6 emissions standards. From October, the ULEZ is being expanded.
Cities are responsible for around 75% of CO2 emissions from global final energy use, according to the green thinktank REN21 - and much of these come from transport. Globally, transport accounts for 24% of world CO2 emissions.
The Rise of Online Shopping
Part of the reason for traffic in urban areas is the increase in delivery vehicles, as online shopping continues to grow. Retailer ecommerce sales are expected to pass $5billion in 2022, according to eMarketer.
The World Economic Forum's report The Future of the Last-Mile Ecosystem, published in January 2020, estimates that e-commerce will increase the number of delivery vehicles on the roads of the world's 100 largest cities by 36% by 2030.
If all those vehicles burn fossil fuels, the report says emissions will increase by 32%. But switching to all-electric delivery vehicles would cut emissions by 30% from current levels as well as reducing costs by 25%, the report says.
Other solutions explored in the report include introducing goods trams to handle deliveries alongside their passenger-carrying counterparts and increased use of parcel lockers to reduce the number of doorstep deliveries.
Reposted with permission from the World Economic Forum.