A K-State weed specialist researches the impact of dicamba drift on non-resistant soybeans in 2018. K-State Research and Extension / YouTube
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the use of products containing the weedkiller dicamba for use on cotton and soybeans Tuesday. The EPA announcement means that two products that contain the herbicide found to cause cancer can be registered for five years. It also extended the use of a third product that also has dicamba in it, according to The Hill.
<p>The EPA said that two canceled dicamba herbicides — XtendiMax and Engenia — will now have a five-year registration. The same five-year extension was granted to the herbicide Tavium. The EPA argued that it provides relief to farmers who were unsure how they would treat their dicamba-resistant cotton and soybean crops.</p><p>"With today's decision, farmers now have the certainty they need to make plans for their 2021 growing season," said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-2020-dicamba-registration-decision" target="_blank">statement</a>. "After reviewing substantial amounts of new information, conducting scientific assessments based on the best available science, and carefully considering input from stakeholders we have reached a resolution that is good for our farmers and our environment."</p>
<p>The new rules around the three products are meant to address the concerns of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down a 2018 registration of dicamba products, stating that the EPA "substantially understated" some of the risks associated with the chemical's use, as The Hill reported.</p><p>Also, a study earlier this year published in the <em><a href="https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyaa066/5827818?redirectedFrom=fulltext" target="_blank">International Journal of Epidemiology</a></em> found that the chemical was linked to increased rates of liver and bile duct <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>.</p><p>The EPA's new rules seek to mitigate the risk by increasing the required downwind buffer from 110 feet to 240 feet, and up to 310 feet in areas where endangered species are located. States can still impose their own restrictions on the herbicide, but they will have to work with the EPA and file the appropriate requests, according to the EPA's statement.</p>
<p>Lobbying groups for<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-ag" target="_self"> big agriculture</a> and industry insiders welcomed the decision.</p><p>"The economic damage that would result from not being able to use dicamba herbicides would be tremendous," said Ken Fountain, National Cotton Council chairman, as <a href="https://www.agweb.com/article/dicamba-approved-over-top-use-2021-and-beyond" target="_blank">Ag Web</a> reported. "We greatly appreciate EPA's timely issuance of a new five-year label for the critical crop protection product for cotton farmers."</p><p>Environmentalists and consumer advocacy organizations were predictably appalled by the decision that seems to be an end-run around the court's decision.</p>
<p>"Rather than evaluating the significant costs of dicamba drift as the 9th Circuit told them the law required, EPA rushed re-approval as a political prop just before the election, sentencing farmers and the environment to another five years of unacceptable damage," said George Kimbrell, legal director at the Center for Food Safety, according to Ag Web. "Center for Food Safety will most certainly challenge these unlawful approvals."</p><p>Other critics noted the damage already caused by dicamba use.</p><p>"Given EPA-approved versions of dicamba have already damaged millions of U.S. acres of crops and natural areas there's no reason to trust that the agency got it right this time," said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement, as The Hill reported.</p><p>"At this point, the EPA has shown such callous indifference to the damage dicamba has caused to farmers and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> alike, and has been so desperate to appease the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticide</a> industry, it has zero credibility when it comes to pesticide safety," Donley added.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- West Texas Vineyards Hit by Herbicide Drift - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Sides With Monsanto, Extends Dicamba 2 More Years ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The Nobel Assembly announces the three winners of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine on Oct. 5, 2020. JONATHAN NACKSTRAND / AFP via Getty Images
As the world continues to battle one deadly virus, the Nobel Assembly is honoring three scientists who discovered another.
<p>The assembly announced Monday it was awarding the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to Harvey J. Alter, Michael Houghton and Charles M. Rice for the discovery of the Hepatitis C virus.</p><p>"Prior to their work, the discovery of the Hepatitis A and B viruses had been critical steps forward, but the majority of blood-borne hepatitis cases remained unexplained," the Nobel Assembly said in a <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2020/press-release/" target="_blank">statement</a>. "The discovery of Hepatitis C virus revealed the cause of the remaining cases of chronic hepatitis and made possible blood tests and new medicines that have saved millions of lives."</p>
<div id="6b5e6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1bdff32b713fdf28946e2bcce6db49a3"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1313049505802194945" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING NEWS:
The 2020 #NobelPrize in Physiology or Medicine has been awarded jointly to Harvey J. Alter, Michael… https://t.co/fzchOMYudC</div> — The Nobel Prize (@The Nobel Prize)<a href="https://twitter.com/NobelPrize/statuses/1313049505802194945">1601890372.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The three researchers each contributed to solving a deadly medical mystery.</p><p>Hepatitis, or liver inflammation, is typically caused by viral infections. By the 1940s, researchers had discovered two: Hepatitis A, which is food-and-water-borne and does not typically cause lasting harm, and a blood-borne hepatitis that can cause cirrhosis and liver <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>. In the 1960s, scientists identified one blood-borne virus that they called Hepatitis B. But, after diagnostic tests and a vaccine were developed, people continued to catch a form of hepatitis after blood transfusions.</p><p>What follows is a timeline of how the winning researchers uncovered the culprit, according to <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54418463" target="_blank">BBC News</a>.</p><p>1972: Professor Harvey Alter discovered while working at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that people were still getting liver disease after blood transfusions. He injected chimpanzees with the blood of infected patients and showed that the chimps also developed the disease.</p><p>1989: While working at the pharmaceutical firm Chiron, professor Michael Houghton isolated the genetic sequence of the mystery virus, which was then called Hepatitis C.</p><p>1997: Professor Charles Rice conducted an experiment at Washington University in St. Louis in which he genetically engineered a Hepatitis C virus and injected it into a chimpanzee, proving that the virus did in fact cause hepatitis.</p>
<p>The discoveries enabled the creation of diagnostic tests for Hepatitis C, which have stopped it from being passed through transfusions in much of the world, the Nobel Assembly explained. Further, the findings have made possible the development of antiviral treatments. While blood-borne hepatitis still claims more than a million lives a year, the winners' work may contribute to a world in which that is no longer the case.</p><p>"For the first time in history, the disease can now be cured, raising hopes of eradicating Hepatitis C virus from the world population," the assembly wrote.</p><p>The scientists all kept on researching after their discoveries. Alter continues to study Hepatitis C and other blood transfusion risks at the <a href="https://irp.nih.gov/pi/harvey-alter" target="_blank">NIH</a>. Houghton is a virology professor at the University of Alberta, Canada, where he directs the Li Ka Shing Applied Virology Institute, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/05/health/nobel-prize-medicine-hepatitis-c.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. Rice teaches at Rockefeller University in New York and directed its Center for the Study of Hepatitis C from 2001 to 2018.</p><p>Nobel Assembly secretary-general Thomas Perlmann told BBC News he was only able to reach Rice and Alter with the news of their win.</p><p>"They were definitely not sitting by the phone because I called them a couple of times before without any answer," Perlmann said. "But once I reached them, they were extremely surprised and they were really happy and speechless almost, so it was really fun to talk to them."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Pioneering Black Scientist to Win Nobel Prize of Climate Change ... ›
- What's the Difference Between Pandemic, Epidemic and Outbreak ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
man in black shirt sitting on bench looking at the sunset
Photo by Jozsef Hocza on Unsplash
If you're like many busy Americans, you may feel the need for an extra boost of energy to stay focused and perform at your best throughout the day. Whether you experience the age-old 3 p.m. slump at your desk, or you need an extra jolt to power through a morning workout, you may be looking for a natural way to increase your energy levels.
<p>Caffeine happens to be the most-consumed energy booster in the world. From coffee to tea to chocolate, about 90% of Americans consume caffeine in some form every day. And increasingly, people are turning to energy drinks to satisfy their energy needs. </p><p>Energy drink consumption is especially high among young adults. In a 2016 <a href="https://supplements101.net/energy-drink-statistics/#:~:text=In%202016%2C%20the%20sales%20of,drinks%20on%20a%20regular%20basis." rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">survey</a>, over one-third of 18- to 29-year-old respondents said they consumed energy drinks on a regular basis. </p><p>There are dozens of energy and sports drink companies out there to meet this growing demand for a regular energy boost. From flashy cans packed with bold flavors to all-natural alternatives, it can be difficult to cut through the noise and choose the right caffeine source for you. </p><p>That's why we're reviewing the top five healthy energy drinks that will give you a moderate level of caffeine without added sugars and artificial ingredients. </p><h2>The Downside of Mainstream Energy Drinks</h2><p>Step into most gas stations, and you'll find a fantastically colorful, shiny, and attention-grabbing display of canned energy drinks. These cans and bottles are slapped with powerful names like "Rockstar" and "Red Bull!". But often, hidden behind the neon graffiti-scribbled cans are ingredients best avoided for the sake of your health. </p><p>Most mainstream energy drinks are packed with high amounts of caffeine, sugar, and other undesirable ingredients. According to the <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/caffeine/art-20045678#:~:text=Up%20to%20400%20milligrams%20(mg,widely%2C%20especially%20among%20energy%20drinks." rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Mayo Clinic</a>, adults should aim to consume no more than 400mg of caffeine a day. </p><p>To put that into perspective, a 1-ounce shot of espresso contains about 64 milligrams of caffeine. A regular cup of coffee has about 70 to 100 milligrams. Some energy shots contain more than 400 milligrams of caffeine in a single serving.</p><p>Overdoing your caffeine intake can have negative impacts on your health. The extent to which you experience side effects will depend on your tolerance for the drug, age, and genes. Signs of too much caffeine include headaches, anxiety, an elevated heart rate, muscle jitters, irritability, and frequent urination. </p><p>Added sugar is another common unhealthy ingredient in mainstream energy drinks. The American Heart Association recommends that adult men consume no more than 37 grams of sugar per day and women consume no more than 25 grams. However, a single serving of many mainstream energy drinks can easily contain 27 or more grams of added sugars per serving. </p><p><a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/the-sweet-danger-of-sugar" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Studies</a> show that consuming excess added sugars (those that aren't naturally occurring in fruits and vegetables) can have serious health implications. For most Americans, these added sugars come from flavored drinks, cereals, baked goods, and other processed foods, including energy drinks. </p><p>All of this sugar adds up to an increased risk for obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. In one 15-year Harvard study, participants who consumed 17-21% of their daily calories from added sugars increased their risk of death from cardiovascular disease by 38% compared to individuals who consumed 8% of their calories from added sugar. </p><p>Obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease are all leading causes of death in the US. By choosing no- to low-sugar healthy energy drinks without large amounts of caffeine, you can reduce your intake of added sugars and avoid overdoing your caffeine intake. </p><h2>What to Look for in a "Healthy" Energy Drink</h2><p>So how can you be sure your daily pick-me-up is a healthier option that will still sustain your energy levels? Start by reviewing the caffeine and sugar content. Many natural energy drinks on the market are sugar-free and made with natural caffeine sources. For example, matcha green tea is an herbal source of caffeine that has other nutritional benefits for overall wellness like antioxidants. </p><p>In addition to the caffeine and sugar content, many healthy energy drinks are fortified with essential nutrients that have positive health effects. You may get the added benefit of antioxidants from black tea, for example. </p><p>As always, be sure to read the label of any energy drink carefully and with an eye to added sugars, preservatives, and other artificial ingredients. And remember that caffeine is a natural diuretic, so it's important to watch your hydration and drink plenty of water. </p><h2>Best Healthy Energy Drinks</h2><p class="media-headline"><strong>Zevia Soda Zero Calorie </strong><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="8eda0b2a1fca95e74536fe933917a0c8" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01NBDS05U?tag=ecowatch-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51K6VHfVdbL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
</a>
</div>
<p><br></p><p>We like that this Zevia's zero-calorie option is made with clean ingredients. You won't find artificial colors, preservatives, soy, or sodium in these cans. With six simple ingredients, including carbonated water, you can rest assured that every sip is wholesome and good for you. Zevia offers a higher caffeine content than other healthy energy drinks, so it's a good option for someone with a higher caffeine tolerance or who reaches for just one serving of caffeine a day. </p><p><strong>Strength: </strong>120mg of caffeine per can</p><p><strong>Why buy:</strong> Sugar-free; Zero calorie; Non-GMO Project Verified; Kosher; Vegan</p><p><br></p><p class="media-headline">
<strong>Sambazon Organic Amazon Energy Drink</strong></p><p><strong><br></strong></p><div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="85c4853615e47cd7cbb10a107aacb6a2" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XMQD3GG?tag=ecowatch-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51xnTTJ62CL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
</a>
</div>
<p>We love that this drink is both low in calories and sugar (with only 6 grams per serving) while providing other important vitamins. The green tea and yerba mate that give each can its 120 mg of caffeine come with potent antioxidants and vitamin C. This is another slightly more caffeinated option if you're looking for a stronger jolt from your healthy energy drink without the excess sugars and artificial ingredients you'll find in mainstream high-caffeine options. With fruity Amazon-inspired flavors like acai berry and pomegranate, Sambazon ensures every sip is delicious and refreshing. </p><p><strong>Strength: </strong>120mg per can </p><p><strong>Why buy:</strong> Made with guarana, yerba mate & green tea; USDA-Certified Organic; Non-GMO; Vegan; Gluten-free; Kosher</p><p><br></p><p class="media-headline">
<strong>Sunshine Good Energy Drink</strong></p><p><br></p><div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="6eb3213e344554c1cf64811f99368be2" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ETBR7MU?tag=ecowatch-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41WwiS5or4L.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
</a>
</div>
<p>This brightly colored can is not only enticing, but it's also good for you. It has a moderate amount of caffeine (about the same amount as a cup of coffee) for a light buzz that won't cause a crash. This low-calorie option (60 calories per can) is especially great for plant-based diets, which can often lack essential b vitamins, especially vitamin B12. Sunshine Energy Drinks are fortified with B12, and the clementine flavor also offers 100% of your daily Vitamin C requirements.</p><p><strong>Strength:</strong> 70mg caffeine per can</p><p><strong>Why buy:</strong> Made with organic green coffee beans; Added B12; Contains electrolytes; 100% of your daily Vitamin C</p><p><br></p><p class="media-headline">
<strong>GURU Lite Organic Low Calorie Energy Drink with Green Tea</strong></p><p><br></p><div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="4ab4b338d9d1410089b9f5d9f9be8a35" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ESPB2UY?tag=ecowatch-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51vJnEDA4XL.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
</a>
</div>
<p>GURU's Lite Energy drink is brewed with antioxidant-packed green tea and hydrating carbonated water. This vegan energy drink includes the added bonus of natural sweeteners and vitamin sources. Every can is made with ginseng, echinacea, guarana, and sweetened with stevia and monk fruit for a lightly sweet, nutrient-packed sip. Plus, GURU has an environmentally-friendly commitment to using natural, organic ingredients in this low-sugar, lightly caffeinated energy drink.</p><p><strong>Strength:</strong> 100mg caffeine per can</p><p><strong>Why buy: </strong>Non-GMO; Vegan; No artificial sweeteners; Organic</p><p><br></p><p class="media-headline">
<strong>Raspberry Sparkling Yerba Mate </strong></p><p><br></p><div class="rm-shortcode amazon-assets-widget" data-rm-shortcode-id="425712ca3a2ade8e1f15a1ad7241b81c" contenteditable="false">
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07LGC3C6M?tag=ecowatch-20&linkCode=ogi&th=1&psc=1" target="_blank">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51+ABrjenML.jpg" class="amazon-assets-widget__image widget__image">
</a>
</div>
<p>Clean Cause donates 50% of its profits from sales of this USDA Certified Organic energy drink to support addiction recovery. The company's mission is to support recovery from alcohol and drug addiction through sustainable funding. Clean Cause brews its energy drinks from the dried leaves of yerba mate, a vitamin-rich South American plant that is naturally high in caffeine and antioxidants. Every serving offers plant-based polyphenols, a group of antioxidants shown to reduce inflammation and reduce the risk of many chronic diseases.</p><p><strong>Strength: </strong>160mg per can (two servings)</p><p><strong>Why buy:</strong> USDA Certified Organic; Natural caffeine from yerba mate; Four fruity, sparkling flavors</p>
From Your Site Articles
- What Nutritionists Think About Starbucks' Three New Plant-Based ... ›
- 8 Healthy Drinks Rich in Electrolytes - EcoWatch ›
- 8 Healthy Swaps for Everyday Food and Drinks - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A new Trump administration rollback of EPA regulations could allow plants to emit two to ten times more hazardous air pollutants than before. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / AFP via Getty Images
Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has weakened yet another safeguard against air pollution in the midst of a respiratory pandemic.
<p>The agency finalized a rollback Thursday of the Clinton-era "once in, always in" policy that required major polluters like industrial plants and refineries to maintain the highest possible levels of pollution controls as long as they continued to operate, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-airtoxics-idUSKBN26M7EU?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A%20Trending%20Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3DnYWkKalEHiFeBQRhFzRZPVWl2Z1Eb_F0rUc9czINsYwTV53qjgwLwDU" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>.</p><p>"This is a lawless action that will undoubtedly increase carcinogens and other deadly pollution in our air," Clinton EPA administrator Carol Browner said in a statement reported by <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/519181-epa-finalizes-rule-allowing-some-major-polluters-to-follow-weaker" target="_blank">The Hill</a>. "Taking this action during a global pandemic that preys upon people with existing respiratory ailments further confirms that for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/andrew-wheeler" target="_self">Andrew Wheeler</a> and the political leadership of the EPA the cruelty is the point."</p>
<p>The agency <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-clean-air-act-2528831006.html" target="_self">first proposed</a> reversing the rule in 2018, according to Reuters. The 1995 policy required that major polluters use maximum achievable control technology standards (MACT) throughout the lifetime of their operations. The new policy will allow these facilities to use less stringent standards after they reduce emissions. The so-called "major sources" that reduce their emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) will be reclassified as "area sources," emitters like gas stations or dry cleaners that emit less than 10 tons of a single pollutant or 25 tons of multiple pollutants each year.</p><p>"This action reduces regulatory burden and provides a level of fairness and flexibility for sources that reduce HAP emissions below major source thresholds and reclassify as area sources," the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/documentation-reclassification-major-sources-area-sources-under" target="_blank">agency explained</a>.</p>
<p>EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler argued that the change would incentivize companies to invest in better technology to reduce emissions.</p><p>"Today's action is an important step to further <a href="https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump" target="_blank">President Trump</a>'s regulatory reform agenda by providing meaningful incentives for investment that prevents hazardous air pollution," he said in a statement reported by The Hill.</p><p>However, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> (NRDC) senior attorney John Walke said the reversal was entirely unnecessary. He said plants had already installed emission-reduction technology and had been maintaining the requirement that they reduce pollution 95 to 98 percent for decades.</p><p>"It's the triumph of extreme ideology over <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" target="_self">public health</a>, common sense and the law," he told The Hill.</p><p>Walke further said <a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/status/1311759616393572356" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">on Twitter</a> that the rollback would allow plants to emit two to ten times more hazardous air pollutants than before. This includes toxins like <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/mercury" target="_self">mercury</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/lead" target="_self">lead</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/arsenic" target="_self">arsenic</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/asbestos" target="_self">asbestos</a> and benzene that can cause <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>, brain damage, fetal damage and premature death.</p>
<p>The EPA itself acknowledged the new policy could cause as many as 1,258 tons of additional pollutants to enter the air every year.</p><p><a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2020/10/sierra-club-vows-fight-repeal-once-always-framework" target="_blank">The Sierra Club</a> pointed out that the change would disproportionately impact low income communities and communities of color that tend to live closer to polluting plants. It comes as scientists <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coronavirus-air-pollution-fatality-2645656760.html" target="_self">warn</a> that exposure to air pollution might increase the risk of dying of the new <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a>, and Black and Hispanic Americans are <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/black--hispanic-americans-coronavirus-2645677258.html" target="_self">contracting and dying</a> of the new virus at higher rates.</p><p>"Despite … the renewed national focus on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/environmental-justice" target="_self">environmental justice</a>, Wheeler is showing there is no level that he will not stoop to in order to placate polluters and carrying out the wishes of his disgraced predecessor, <a href="https://debbiedingell.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1315" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt</a>," <a href="https://twitter.com/maryannehitt" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">national director of campaigns for the Sierra Club</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/maryannehitt" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Mary Anne Hitt</a> said in a statement. "Sierra Club, however, will continue to fight for the communities Wheeler has chosen to ignore. We will fight this reckless and unlawful rollback, in order to ensure that the American public is safe from dangerous air pollution."</p>The NRDC also <a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/status/1311759521929453570" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">promised</a> to fight the change, and the <a href="https://www.edf.org/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> told Reuters it would sue to reverse the rollback.
From Your Site Articles
- EPA Chief Previews a Second Trump Term: More Deregulation ... ›
- Trump's Hand-Picked Scientists Rebuke EPA Rollbacks - EcoWatch ›
- Trump's EPA Seeks Deadly Air Pollution Loophole for Dirty Trucks ... ›
- Trump's EPA Is Changing Its Math to Make Clean Power Plan ... ›
- Trump's EPA Weakens Justification for Life-Saving Mercury Pollution ... ›
- Appeals Court Hears Arguments on Trump's Clean Air Rollback - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Actress Jessica Smith gets her make-up done at the Point De Vue Salon on March 1, 2006 in Los Angeles, California. Marsaili McGrath / Getty Images
California became the first state in the nation to ban two dozen toxic chemicals from cosmetics Wednesday when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to that effect into law.
<p>The Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, or <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB2762" target="_blank">Assembly Bill 2762</a>, targets 24 toxic chemicals including <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/mercury" target="_self">mercury</a> and formaldehyde that have been linked to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a>, birth defects, hormone disruption and other negative health impacts, <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/california-first-state-ban-24-toxic-chemicals-personal-care-products-and-cosmetics?utm_campaign=EWG%20Content&utm_content=1601499406&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0RfuFMZMMoF3cHBcF-JY934c7B_X9MMDJUt-rKeSLJGkkn3S9o3un8uj4" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group (EWG) reported</a>. While these ingredients have been barred from cosmetics and personal care products in the EU, they are not regulated in the U.S. on the national level.</p><p>"Every day, Californians are exposed to hazardous chemicals hiding in their cosmetics and personal care products. Children, communities of color and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to these ingredients, which are not actively regulated by the federal government," Newsom said in a <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/09/30/governor-newsom-signs-legislation-making-california-first-in-the-nation-to-ban-toxic-chemicals-in-cosmetics/" target="_blank">press release</a>. "California is leading the nation by banning toxic ingredients from our cosmetics. This legislation will save lives and keep Californians and our environment safe."</p>
<p>The bill was introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi and will go into effect in 2025, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/california-legislation-cosmetics-gavin-newsom-e8895b4a711194f6f41b16622859cdef" target="_blank">The Associated Press reported</a>.</p><p>"The science is clear on the harmful nature of these chemicals and AB 2762 will provide Californians with the same consumer protections already provided in the European Union," Muratsuchi said in the press release.</p><p>Cosmetics regulations have not been significantly updated in the U.S. since <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/michelle-pfeiffer-safer-cosmetics-2638043856.html" target="_self">1938</a>. Currently, the makers of beauty products do not have to register their products with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), supply the government with an ingredients list, follow safe manufacturing standards or report safety records and any adverse health impacts.</p><p>This lack of regulation is an issue of health and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/environmental-justice" target="_self">environmental justice</a>, supporters of the California bill pointed out.</p>
<p>"Some of the most toxic ingredients are being aggressively marketed to Black women," <a href="https://www.bwwla.org/" target="_blank">Black Women for Wellness</a> policy director Nourbese Flint told EWG. "Levels of formaldehyde that could be used to embalm a body are being used in hair straighteners, and Black women who dye their hair are 60 percent more likely to develop breast cancer. That's why we demand safe cosmetics now. This law means we can finally protect women from the toxic exposures they currently face on every trip to the salon."</p><p>The law will also protect salon workers, who are 47 times more likely to develop fragrance skin allergies than people in other professions, the California government pointed out.</p>
<p>Also on Wednesday, Newsom signed <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB312" target="_blank">Senate Bill 312</a>, which mandates that cosmetics makers report any harmful fragrances or flavors to the California Department of Public Health Safe Cosmetics Program.</p><p>"I thank Governor Newsom for signing SB 312 which will ensure that consumers in California know what ingredients are in the beauty and personal care products they bring home to their families and use on their bodies," Democratic State Senator Connie Leyva, who introduced the bill, said in the press release. "This first-in-the-nation legislation empowers consumers and underscores the belief that no toxic ingredients should be kept secret."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Chemicals in Cosmetics Linked to Lung Damage in Children, New ... ›
- 33 Toxic Hair Straighteners Under International Recall Still Sold in US ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Honeybee venom has shown promise against an aggressive type of breast cancer. Susan Walker / Moment / Getty Images
Could honeybees hold the key to treating an aggressive form of breast cancer?
A new study out of Australia found that honeybee venom rapidly killed the cells for triple-negative breast cancer, a type of breast cancer that currently has few treatment options.
<p>"It provides another wonderful example of where compounds in nature can be used to treat human diseases," said Western Australia Chief Scientist Professor Peter Klinken in a <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200901093412.htm" target="_blank">Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research press release</a>.</p><p>The research, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-020-00129-0" target="_blank">published in Nature Precision Oncology</a> Tuesday, was led by Dr. Ciara Duffy of the Harry Perkins Institute of Medical Research and the University of Western Australia.</p>
<div id="82bdc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ed2c281143c65c36dc400dc7f947a8a8"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1300955670452158464" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Perkins and @uwanews researcher Dr Ciara Duffy has found that honeybee venom can induce cancer cell death in hard t… https://t.co/N29IwLsu0s</div> — The Perkins (@The Perkins)<a href="https://twitter.com/PerkinsComms/statuses/1300955670452158464">1599006977.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>As far back as 1950, bee venom was shown to kill tumors in plants. It has also been shown to work against other cancers like melanoma, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-53994058" target="_blank">BBC News explained</a>. However, Duffy said in the press release that this was the first time honeybee venom had been tested against every type of breast cancer cell, as well as normal breast cells.</p><p>Duffy and her team tested both the venom itself and a synthetic version of a compound in the venom called melittin. They found that both were effective against triple-negative breast cancer and HER2-enriched breast cancer cells. In fact, a certain concentration of honeybee venom could kill 100 percent of cancer cells without seriously impacting healthy ones.</p><p>"The venom was extremely potent," Duffy said.</p><p>Duffy explained to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-01/new-aus-research-finds-honey-bee-venom-kills-breast-cancer-cells/12618064" target="_blank">Australia's ABC News</a> how the melittin worked.</p><p>"What melittin does is it actually enters the surface, or the plasma membrane, and forms holes or pores and it just causes the cell to die," Duffy said.</p>
<p>The researchers also found that the melittin interfered with the cancer cells' messaging system, which is essential for the cancer to reproduce and grow.</p><p>The fact that melittin makes holes in the cancer cells actually means it could potentially be paired with existing chemotherapies that would enter the cancer cells through the openings it carved and kill them. Duffy found this treatment strategy worked to shrink tumors in mice.</p><p>However, outside <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scientists" target="_self">scientists</a> cautioned that there is a big difference between killing cancer in a lab and successfully treating it in humans.</p><p>"It's very early days," Garvan Institute of Medical Research in Sydney associate professor Alex Swarbrick told BBC News. "Many compounds can kill a breast cancer cell in a dish or in a mouse. But there's a long way to go from those discoveries to something that can change clinical practice."</p>
<p>Duffy agreed that more research had to be done before the melittin could be used on human patients.</p><p>"There's a long way to go in terms of how we would deliver it in the body and, you know, looking at toxicities and maximum tolerated doses before it ever went further," she told ABC News.</p><p>For the study, Duffy gathered venom from 312 honeybees and bumblebees in Perth, Western Australia; England; and Ireland.</p><p>"Perth bees are some of the healthiest in the world," she said.</p><p>She found that the national origin of the honeybees did not alter their venom's impact on the cancer. The bumblebee venom, however, had no cancer-killing powers.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Deadly Pathogen Alters Honey Bee Behavior to Gain Access to ... ›
- Coronavirus Lockdowns Keep Bees at Home and Put Crops at Risk ... ›
- To Help Save Bumble Bees, Plant These Flowers in Your Spring ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The Anderson Community Group. Left to right, Caroline Laur, Anita Foust, the Rev. Bryon Shoffner, and Bill Compton, came together to fight for environmental justice in their community. Anderson Community Group
By Isabella Garcia
On Thanksgiving Day 2019, right after Caroline Laur had finished giving thanks for her home, a neighbor at church told her that a company had submitted permit requests to build an asphalt plant in their community. The plans indicated the plant would be 250 feet from Laur's backdoor.
<p>Laur has a premalignant blood disease, and for the past two years, she has been trying to build up her immune system to prevent the disease from evolving into a terminal form of cancer. "When I heard about this plant," Laur says, "I went to the Duke Cancer Research Center, and a Duke scholar in my illness told me this would be a life-threatening situation for me, and I would have to leave." Having to move from her home, where she has lived for 15 years, would be devastating for Laur, not to mention a monetary loss. Who would buy a home 250 feet from an asphalt plant?</p>
<p>Laur lives in Anderson, North Carolina, a rural <a href="https://northcarolina.hometownlocator.com/counties/subdivisions/data,n,township%2520of%2520anderson,id,3703390056,cfips,033.cfm" target="_blank">township with just over 2,000 people</a> (and zero cell towers). It is one of the many predominantly Black communities in the United States experiencing a perfect storm of injustices threatening the health of residents and their environment.</p><p>An informal community survey shows that more than 70% of Anderson residents are Black, while the <a href="https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/caswellcountynorthcarolina,NC/PST045219" target="_blank">county and state's populations</a> are 32% and 22% Black, respectively. Predominantly <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5844406/" target="_blank">Black neighborhoods in the U.S. have historically been exposed to higher rates of air pollution</a>. Specifically, Black people in America are exposed to about 1.5 times more particulate matter—a form of air pollution known to cause cancer—than White people. This <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm" target="_blank">exposure leads to higher incidences of health problems</a> such as heart attacks, asthma, and decreased lung function.</p><p>A growing number of studies show <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412016301386" target="_blank">polluting facilities are disproportionately located in Black and minority communities</a>, so it's hardly surprising that the asphalt plant was slated for construction in Anderson. A 2018 study from the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5844406/" target="_blank">the discrepancy goes beyond geography or poverty</a>, too: Not only are more factories in minority neighborhoods, but these factories are more likely to produce greater emissions than those in non-minority neighborhoods.</p><p>These days, the risks are even higher. Because <a href="https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/" target="_blank">exposure to air pollutants decreases lung function</a>, communities in polluted areas are more susceptible to COVID-19; a recent <a href="https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/covid-pm" target="_blank">Harvard study found that people in areas with high particulate matter are 8% more likely to die</a> of the coronavirus than those in areas where the pollution is just one unit lower. That's been borne out in North Carolina, where <a href="https://covid19.ncdhhs.gov/dashboard/cases" target="_blank">Black residents make up 33% of the state's 1,568 COVID deaths as of July 15</a>, despite only making up only 22% of the population.</p><p>"This is not just an Anderson community health crisis," Laur says. "This is a North Carolina health crisis. It's an American health crisis."</p>
Grassroots Resistance
<p>The plant that would threaten Laur's health and home was awaiting the approval of an air permit by the North Carolina Department of Air Quality which, if approved, would basically greenlight the project. "This made me get out and go door to door," Laur says. One by one, she alerted her neighbors to the prospect of the asphalt plant. "I got to meet some of my neighbors I never knew before," she says. "There's no secret that there has always been a pretty strong line between the White community and the Black community here." In the end, three neighbors joined her efforts—the Rev. Bryon Shoffner, Anita Foust, and Bill Compton. Together, they formed the Anderson Community Group to advocate for environmental justice in their community.</p><p>"We are all the four corners of the community," Laur says with a laugh. "You've got a sick old White lady, Rev. Shoffner is a disabled vet, you've got Anita, who is a Black woman, and you've got a White, old country farmer. We all come from different faiths, but we've all come together as one."</p><p>Suddenly thrust into activism, the group contacted the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network, a coalition that provides resources and connections with other groups. "We advocate, we organize, and we assist communities with whatever actions they are thinking of trying to protect themselves," says Naeema Muhammad, the network's co-director. Muhammad met with the activists from Anderson and recognized their need for legal advice, so she connected them with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The legal resources were key when the group determined that the data from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality's environmental justice report wasn't adding up.</p><p>The report—a requirement for all DEQ permit requests—stated that the Anderson community was 33% minority. That seemed far too low to the residents, so the Anderson Community Group did a census of each house within a 1-mile radius of the proposed plant—the same radius considered in the DEQ's environmental justice report.</p><p>"Rev. Shoffner went out into the community and did his own survey and found out that it was more than 70% minority," Laur says. "That was huge, because that changed the situation to a Title VI matter." Title VI is a federal civil rights law that prevents people from being discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. Title VI cases require a more rigorous and comprehensive environmental justice report, so recognizing the Anderson community as a Title VI matter increases the strength of their request for a more in-depth report.</p><p>The massive difference in race demographics comes down to census data, Laur says. The DEQ was using race data from the 2010 census, which was only <a href="https://www.censushardtocountmaps2020.us/?latlng=35.77385,-78.73807&z=7&query=coordinates::36.44038,-79.36343&promotedfeaturetype=states&arp=arpRaceEthnicity&baselayerstate=4&rtrYear=sR2010&infotab=info-rtrselfresponse&filterQuery=false" target="_blank">completed by about 64% of the population of Caswell County</a>—the county where Anderson is located. Laur says the Anderson population response rate could be even lower because the community is considered <a href="https://www.nccensus.org/about-the-census#hard-to-count-communities" target="_blank">"hard-to-count" by the U.S. Census Bureau</a>.</p><p>"The people who don't fill it out are rural people who want to keep their land and don't want zoning and minorities," Laur says, which creates skewed race demographics. The Anderson Community Group said that when they brought up this issue with the director of North Carolina DEQ, he said he was aware of the problem.</p><p>"So that tells me that all the EJ reports in North Carolina that have been done may not even be valid, just like ours," Laur says. "We were told that we are the first [community members] who have ever doubted it and checked it out."</p>Elevating Voices
<p>Determined to have new data collected, the Anderson Community Group rallied in early 2020. After learning from the state Department of Air Quality, the department responsible for approving or rejecting the asphalt air permit, that 100 statements of concern from community members would be sufficient to trigger a public hearing, the Anderson group gathered letters of concern from their community. They submitted more than 108.</p><p>"Then we were told there wasn't enough concern to have a public hearing," Laur says. "So, we started inundating the [Department of Air Quality director with emails and phone calls from the community."</p><p>Finally, in February 2020, the DEQ declared a public comment period for the issue, effectively placing the air permit for the asphalt plant on hold until a public hearing August 3. The public hearing will be held online because of COVID-19, but Laur says most people in Anderson don't own computers, and won't be able to attend. When the community group filed a complaint regarding accessibility, the DEQ then allowed public comments to be submitted via voicemail.</p><p>"Well, we don't have a cell tower out here," Laur says. She has personally never been able to use her cellphone in her home, and even her landline phone drops calls frequently. Even being able to afford a landline is a luxury in Anderson, Laur says.</p><p>To make sure community voices are heard, Laur says, the Anderson Community Group is "begging, fighting, scratching, and screaming" for the public comment period to be extended until the hearing can be held in person. The group fears that the community won't be able to properly participate, and as a result, the DEQ will approve the asphalt permit without listening to residents' concerns or considering accurate data.</p><p>The health impacts on the community could be huge. During Shoffner's unofficial survey, he also found that more than 90% of those within a 1-mile radius of the proposed plant have health conditions such as asthma, lung disease, and previous strokes and heart attacks that would be exacerbated by polluting industries.</p><p>"That's the thing that we feel they are truly missing: They're not allowing data to catch up," Shoffner says. Not only is the existing data outdated and inaccurate, he argues, but even data from 2018 would only provide a partial picture, because it does not account for the effects of COVID-19 on the community. "Of course, our ultimate goal is for them to say they're not going to build a polluting industry in a Black neighborhood, but our next move is to get them to postpone it until they get the data that shows how the asphalt plant and COVID-19 is affecting Black and brown people."</p><p>Shoffner says that the pandemic has thankfully slowed down the whirlwind of decisions on the asphalt plant and given the team time to consider what else they can do to halt its construction. For example, in July, the group <a href="https://acejustice.org/ej-petition" target="_blank">created a mail-in petition</a> for the North Carolina governor to stop the permit process.</p><p>"This team has been able to research and dig and get in a lot of doors," he says, noting that they have had productive conversations with leaders from the North Carolina DEQ. "We're winning as long as we're on the phone and getting conference calls. When they stop taking our calls, that's when we'll start asking what to do now."</p><p><em>CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified Anita Foust. Text has been updated.</em></p><p><em>Isabella Garcia </em><em>is a former solutions journalism intern for YES!.</em></p><p><em><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2020/07/23/north-carolina-community-pollution/" target="_blank">YES! Magazine</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2646927403#/" target="_self"></a></em><em></em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Modern Medical Techniques Reveal Malignant Cancer in 77-Million Year-Old Dinosaur Bone
07 August
Science
Centrosaurus apertus was a plant-eating, single-horned dinosaur that lived 76 to 77 million years ago. Sergey Krasovskiy / Stocktrek Images / Getty Images
Scientists have discovered and diagnosed the first instance of malignant cancer in a dinosaur, and they did so by using modern medical techniques. They published their results earlier this week in The Lancet Oncology.
<p>In 1989, a badly-deformed lower leg bone of a <em>Centrosaurus apertus</em> was found in Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada. One end of the fossilized fibula was enlarged and warped, leading scientists to originally presume a healed fracture.</p><p><em>Centrosaurus apertus</em> was a plant-eating, single-horned dinosaur about 20 feet long. The particular animal that the fossil comes from lived 76 to 77 million years ago and likely died in a flood that killed its entire herd.</p>
<p>After the bone was excavated, it sat in a museum until 2017, when a team led by David Evans, a paleontologist at the Royal Ontario Museum, and Mark Crowther, a professor of pathology at McMaster University, looked at it with fresh eyes.</p><p>"We basically went on a hunt for dinosaur cancer," Evans told <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/08/04/899060875/scientists-discover-malignant-cancer-in-a-dinosaur" target="_blank">NPR</a>.</p><p>On a mission to find signs of cancer, the scientists searched through hundreds of injured or partially healed fossils before they found the malformed leg bone. The team invited multidisciplinary specialists and medical professionals from many fields, including pathology, radiology, orthopedic surgery and paleopathology, to help diagnose the suspected tumor, the news report said.</p>
<p>"The approach we took in this case was very similar to how we approach a patient that comes in with a new tumor, and we don't know what kind of tumor it is," said Seper Ekhtiari, an orthopedic surgery resident on the team, reported NPR.</p><p>The team performed high-resolution CT scans and examined thin sections of bone cells under a microscope, according to a <a href="https://www.rom.on.ca/en/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/rare-malignant-cancer-diagnosed-in-a-dinosaur" target="_blank">Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) press release</a>. This allowed them to visualize the progression of cancer through the bone, discounting the initial hypothesis of a fracture and leading to the diagnosis of osteosarcoma, Evans told <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-dinosaur-cancer/gnarly-tumor-shows-dinosaurs-got-cancer-too-idUSKCN24Z2QU" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>Osteosarcoma generally occurs in rapidly growing bones, and is found in children and young adults, said Mark Crowther, the study's co-author and a professor of medicine, pathology and molecular medicine, Reuters reported. The tumor destroys the bone and can spread to other tissues. Dinosaurs presumably would also be at risk because they grew at enormous rates, he added.</p>
<p>"One of the ways they got to such massive sizes is that they grew extremely rapidly from the time when they were born," Ekhtiari told <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/08/04/899060875/scientists-discover-malignant-cancer-in-a-dinosaur" target="_blank">NPR</a>. "So finding this in a dinosaur is not surprising." He also noted that bone cancer "is probably more common than we think, or more common than we have found so far."</p><p>The findings suggest that dinosaurs likely suffered from other diseases that affect bones, like tuberculosis and osteomyelitis, Crowther said, NPR reported.</p><p>To confirm the diagnosis, the scientists compared the fossil to a healthy <em>centrosaurus </em>fibula as well as to a human fibula confirmed with osteosarcoma, the <a href="https://www.rom.on.ca/en/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/rare-malignant-cancer-diagnosed-in-a-dinosaur" target="_blank">ROM release</a> explained.</p>
<p>"It is both fascinating and inspiring to see a similar multidisciplinary effort that we use in diagnosing and treating osteosarcoma in our patients leading to the first diagnosis of osteosarcoma in a dinosaur," Ekhtiari said in the ROM release. "This discovery reminds us of the common biological links throughout the animal kingdom and reinforces the theory that osteosarcoma tends to affect bones when and where they are growing most rapidly."</p><p>Evans, an expert on <em>centrosaurus</em>, told <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/08/04/899060875/scientists-discover-malignant-cancer-in-a-dinosaur" target="_blank">NPR</a>, "We often think of dinosaurs as sort of mythical, powerful creatures, and I think this discovery really underscores that they can be afflicted by diseases that we see around us today, even horrible fatal cancers. I think in an odd way it brings them even more back to life."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- New Blood Test Can Detect Cancer 4 Years Before Symptoms ... ›
- Skull of Smallest Known Dinosaur Found in 99-Million-Year Old Amber ›
- Antarctica Was a Rainforest During the Times of Dinosaurs, New ... ›
- Earth Is Hurtling Towards a Catastrophe Worse Than the Dinosaur ... ›
- Help Save the World's Last Dinosaur - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A doctor administers a blood test. Yvonne Hemsey / Getty Images
Cancer survival rates dramatically increase when the disease is caught early, but there has not been an effective, non-invasive test that will detect most types of cancer early.
<p>Now, an international team of researchers has developed a blood test that can diagnose certain cancers years before symptoms occur.</p><p>"What we showed is: up to four years before these people walk into the hospital, there are already signatures in their blood that show they have cancer," study coauthor and University of California bioengineer <a href="http://igm.ucsd.edu/faculty/profiles/kun-zhang.shtml" target="_blank">Kun Zhang</a> told <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experimental-blood-test-detects-cancer-up-to-four-years-before-symptoms-appear/" target="_blank">Scientific American</a>. "That's never been done before."</p>
<p>The test is part of a larger effort to create a "liquid biopsy" for early cancer detection, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jul/21/researchers-unveil-test-that-can-detect-cancer-years-before-symptoms" target="_blank">The Guardian explained</a>. While other studies have reported positive results for blood tests that detect cancer relatively early, few can detect it before any symptoms develop.</p><p>But the new test, called PanSeer, detected cancer in 95 percent of asymptomatic patients who went on to receive a diagnosis.</p><p>The study, published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17316-z" target="_blank"><em>Nature Communications</em></a> Tuesday, is also unique because of how the test was developed, Scientific American explained.</p><p>Most tests are developed by taking blood samples of people already diagnosed with cancer and then seeing if they can find a way to detect the cancer they already know is there.</p>
<p>"The best you can prove is whether your method is as good at detecting cancer as existing methods," Zhang explained. "You can never prove it's better."</p><p>So Zhang's team worked with blood samples collected from more than 123,000 healthy people in Taizhou, China, around 1,000 of whom went on to develop cancer over 10 years.</p><p>The researchers decided to focus on detecting five of the most common types of cancer: stomach, esophageal, colorectal, lung and liver.</p><p>In 2018, those cancers were responsible for 783,000, 508,000, 862,000, 1.76 million and 782,000 deaths respectively, <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/blood-test-finds-cancers-before-standard-diagnosis-study/" target="_blank">AFP reported</a>.</p>
<p>The researchers developed their test based on 414 blood samples of people who remained cancer-free five years later, 191 people who later developed one of the five cancers and 223 patients who had already been diagnosed, according to The Guardian.</p><p>The test uses something called DNA methylation analysis to look for genetic signatures common to tumors, AFP explained.</p><p>The researchers developed their method using around half of the samples and tested it on the other, The Guardian reported. The tests were accurate for 88 percent of people already diagnosed, 95 percent diagnosed later and 96 percent of those who were cancer-free.</p><p>Outside researchers said that the results showed promise, but both they and the research team agreed that the method needed to be tested further.</p><p>"The PanSeer test has achieved encouraging initial resulte," Samantha Harrison, a senior early diagnosis manager at Cancer Research UK, told The Guardian. "Promisingly, the test may be able to detect cancer in blood samples taken years before diagnosis. But these are early results that now need to be validated in larger studies."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Blood Test Detects More Than 50 Types of Cancer - EcoWatch ›
- Modern Medical Techniques Reveal Malignant Cancer in 77-Million Year-Old Dinosaur Bone - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
About 30,000 claims contending that Roundup caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are currently unsettled. Mike Mozart / CC BY 2.0
Bayer's $10 billion settlement to put an end to roughly 125,000 lawsuits against its popular weed killer Roundup, which contains glyphosate, hit a snag this week when a federal judge in San Francisco expressed skepticism over what rights future plaintiffs would have, as the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
<p>The $10 billion settlement does not actually need judicial review and is set to move forward. The issue is that $1.25 billion from the settlement does need a court order to be approved. That part deals with future lawsuits by <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a> patients who have not yet gone to court and by others who have not yet been diagnosed. The U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said in an order Monday that he had questions about the legality and fairness of the agreement and was "tentatively inclined" to reject it, as the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/SF-judge-questions-Bayer-s-1-25-billion-plan-15391982.php" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a> reported.</p><p>In a court filing on Monday, the judge described a plan to create a class action for future litigants as problematic, and he set a July 24 hearing date to address the matter, as <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-07/bayer-s-roundup-cancer-settlement-plan-hits-snag-as-judge-balks" target="_blank">Bloomberg</a> reported.</p>
<p>"We appreciate the judge's order raising his preliminary concerns with the proposed class settlement, which we take seriously and will address" at the hearing, Chris Loder, a U.S.-based spokesman for the Germany-based chemical and pharmaceutical giant Bayer, said in an interview.</p><p>Chhabria said he "is skeptical of the propriety and fairness of the proposed settlement." He raised concerns about the creation of a scientific panel to decide whether the key ingredient, glyphosate, causes cancer and whether the agreement unfairly limits potential plaintiffs from suing, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/07/business/roundup-lawsuit-settlement.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>.</p><p>Right now about 30,000 claims contending Roundup caused non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are left unsettled. Some lawyers in the U.S. have vowed to file another wave of new suits that could add tens of thousands to the logjam of existing cases, according to Bloomberg.</p>
<p>"Thankfully, Judge Chhabria has seen the ruthless plan as an outrageous attempt to deprive every future victim of Monsanto's killer Roundup of their right to fair and full compensation and to a jury trial," Tom Kline and Jason Itkin, plaintiffs' attorneys for users of the weedkiller who haven't settled their suits, said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg on Tuesday.</p><p>Bayer has lost a series of high-profile multi-million dollar cases for Roundup's role in causing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in people who used the Monsanto brand herbicide. That series of losses has seen investors flee from Bayer since it acquired Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018.</p><p>To stem the tide of suits, Bayer insisted that the protection against future suits is a linchpin of the current settlement. Without it, the bulk of the $10 billion deal has the potential to fall apart, according to The New York Times.</p>
<p>In addition to the $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to cover about 95,000 cases, $1.25 billion was set aside to finance the scientific panel and assist impoverished Roundup users with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. As The New York Times described, that panel would then decide whether glyphosate caused cancer and, if so, what exposure level was dangerous. Both Bayer and claimants would be bound to accept the findings in future litigation.</p><p>New York-based lawyer Hunter Shkolnik opposed the novel class-action idea from the onset. He described it as "nothing more than a legally infirm, backroom deal to protect Monsanto rather than compensating Roundup cancer victims," in an emailed statement to Bloomberg.</p>
<p>Judge Chhabria asked on Monday whether it was lawful to remove judges and juries from the equation and to shift the question of whether Roundup caused cancer to a panel of scientists.</p><p>According to The New York Times, he also noted the three previous multimillion-dollar verdicts and asked, "Why would a potential class member want to replace a jury trial and the right to seek punitive damages with the process contemplated by the settlement agreement?"</p><p>Furthermore, Chhabria also worried that the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/science/">science</a> on glyphosate's cancer-causing properties is still evolving. That led him to question whether it would pass legal muster to have claimants bound by one study that didn't find toxicity when a future, more rigorous study may find the opposite, as Bloomberg reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Judge Blocks California From Putting Cancer Warning on Roundup ... ›
- Bayer Settles Roundup Cancer Suits for Over $10 Billion - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
One of the largest civil settlements in U.S. history will still allow Bayer to sell Roundup without adding any cancer warnings. Mike Mozart / CC BY 2.0
In one of the largest civil settlements in U.S. history, Bayer agreed Wednesday to pay more than $10 billion to resolve around 95,000 cases claiming its glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.
<p>The deal will still allow Bayer to sell Roundup without adding any warnings, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/business/roundup-settlement-lawsuits.html" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. It comes after three juries in early, high-profile trials awarded more than $2.4 billion to plaintiffs who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after long term Roundup use.</p><p>"Even Bayer's billions can't magically make glyphosate's well-documented links to cancer disappear," <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a> (CBD) senior scientist Nathan Donley said in a statement reported by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/24/bayer-109bn-settlement-monsanto-weedkiller-roundup" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "Bayer only settled after three multi-million-dollar verdicts over the past year from jurors who, unlike the EPA, wisely put more trust in the safety assessments of independent scientists than in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" target="_self">Monsanto</a>/Bayer's confidential reviews of its own product."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Even as they settle, <a href="https://twitter.com/Bayer?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Bayer</a> officials continue to deny Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicides cause cancer. “The extensive body of science indicates that Roundup does not cause cancer, and therefore, is not responsible for the illnesses alleged...”<a href="https://t.co/45xQPai62f">https://t.co/45xQPai62f</a></p>— carey gillam (@careygillam) <a href="https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1275864794734768129?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>The debate over Roundup's safety is ongoing, The New York Times explained. In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer said that glyphosate could "probably" cause cancer, but other regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), have ruled it safe. However, critics point out that many of these safe rulings were based on studies provided by Monsanto, the company that developed and sold Roundup before it was <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/bayer-monsanto-merger-2575082668.html" target="_self">acquired</a> by Bayer in 2018.</p><p>Per the terms of the settlement, the question of Roundup's safety will now pass to an independent "Class Science Panel," <a href="https://usrtk.org/uncategorized/bayer-settles-u-s-roundup-dicamba-and-pcb-litigation-for-more-than-10-billion/" target="_blank">U.S. Right to Know (USTK) reported</a>. The panel will decide if Roundup use can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma and at what levels of exposure. Both Bayer and any future plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit will be bound by its findings. Until those findings are released, a process likely to take years, plaintiffs cannot bring any claims or seek punitive damages.</p>
<p>In the deal, Bayer earmarked $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to settle 75 percent of current cases and $1.25 billion for any future claims. The three cases already decided by juries, currently in appeal, are not included.</p><p>Both plaintiff lawyers and Bayer celebrated the agreement.</p><p>"After years of hard fought litigation and a year of intense mediation I am glad to see our clients will now be compensated," Mike Miller of the Miller law firm told USRTK.</p>
<p>Bayer, meanwhile, seemed eager to escape the shadow cast on the company after it acquired both Monsanto and its legal challenges. Bayer's stock price plummeted after the three juries ruled against it, The New York Times pointed out.</p><p>"First and foremost, the Roundup™ settlement is the right action at the right time for Bayer to bring a long period of uncertainty to an end," Bayer CEO Werner Baumann said in a <a href="https://media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-announces-agreements-to-resolve-major-legacy-Monsanto-litigation" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Bayer has reached a series of agreements to resolve major legacy Monsanto litigation in the U.S. <br>Learn more: <a href="https://t.co/crqNTLIkVd">https://t.co/crqNTLIkVd</a></p>— Bayer AG (@Bayer) <a href="https://twitter.com/Bayer/status/1275833690984198145?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 24, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>However, not all the plaintiffs bringing claims against Bayer agreed to the settlement. The company still faces at least 30,000 claims, according to The New York Times.</p><p>"This is nothing like the closure they're trying to imply," Fletch Trammell, a Houston-based lawyer who represents 5,000 of the people bringing those claims, told The New York Times. "It's like putting out part of a house fire."</p><p>Also on Wednesday, Bayer settled two other lawsuits inherited from Monsanto, The Guardian reported. First, it will pay $400 million to settle claims related to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dicamba">dicamba</a>, another herbicide that can drift to other crops and kill them.</p><p>"The settlement announced today is an important step to making things right for the farmers who just want to be able to put food on the table of America and the world," lawyer Joseph Peiffer of Peiffer Wolf law firm, which represents farmers with dicamba claims, told USRTK of the second herbicide settlement.</p><p>Bayer will pay a further $820 million to settle "most" claims related to PCB, a toxic chemical that Monsanto produced until 1977 that contaminated U.S. water supplies, The Guardian reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Man Who Developed Cancer After Roundup Use Awarded More ... ›
- Trump's EPA Backs Bayer's Appeal in Roundup Verdict Appeal ... ›
- More Monsanto Roundup Cancer Trials Expected to Be Postponed ... ›
- Former Monsanto CEO Ordered to Testify at Roundup Cancer Trial ... ›
- Roundup Cancer Settlement Hits Snag With Judge Over Future Plaintiffs' Rights - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A ruling that permanently bars California from affixing a cancer label to Roundup is separate from ongoing civil suits that claim glyphosate caused blood cancers. Mike Mozart / CC BY 2.0
A federal judge in California ruled on Monday that the state cannot put a cancer warning on the label of the popular herbicide Roundup, as The Associated Press reported.
<p>The world's most widely used weed killer has faced nearly 125,000 lawsuits by plaintiffs who claim their non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other forms of blood cancer were caused by repeated exposure to Monsanto's signature product, which is now owned by the German chemical and pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG.</p>
<p>Since Bayer bought Monsanto, the spate of lawsuits and their legal fees have weighed on Bayer and made the company lose 40 percent of its value. To try to contain the damage, Bayer made a verbal agreement to settle 50,000 to 85,000 cases in May, awarding plaintiffs anywhere from a few thousand dollars to a few million, according to <a href="https://fortune.com/2020/05/25/bayer-roundup-cancer-lawsuit-settle/" target="_blank">Fortune</a>.</p><p>Those lawsuits have been aided by a <a href="https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/" target="_blank">2015 finding by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer</a> (IARC), which said that <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a>, the chemical in Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen.</p><p>Despite that categorization, U.S. District Judge William Shubb called California's cancer warning misleading and said the state's label is not backed up by regulatory findings, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/u-s-court-blocks-california-cancer-label-on-bayers-roundup-weed-killer-idUSKBN23T38Y" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p>
<p>Regulators around the world have determined Roundup, or glyphosate, to be safe, even though the IARC labeled it a probable carcinogen. That includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>). Late last year, when a judge reduced an $80 million jury award, the EPA filed papers in court that fully and unequivocally supported Bayer's claim that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/glyphosate" target="_self">glyphosate</a> does not cause cancer, as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-epa-backs-bayer-2641674057.html" target="_self">EcoWatch</a> reported.</p><p>Since the EPA and its European counterparts have not found a connection between glyphosate and cancer, the judge said the state could not require the company to put a cancer warning on its label, according to the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Judge-prohibits-California-from-putting-cancer-15358663.php" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a>.</p><p>Shubb said the state, under Supreme Court rulings, cannot require a private company to change its label or say anything about its products unless the statement is "purely factual and non-controversial," as the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Judge-prohibits-California-from-putting-cancer-15358663.php" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a> reported.</p>
<p>The ruling, which permanently bars California from affixing a cancer label to Roundup, is completely separate from the ongoing civil suits that claim glyphosate caused blood cancers, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/u-s-court-blocks-california-cancer-label-on-bayers-roundup-weed-killer-idUSKBN23T38Y" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>So far, juries in three trials have ordered the company to pay billions after concluding that the product did cause cancer. Plaintiffs alleged that Bayer manipulated studies and deceived the scientific community to make glyphosate seem safer than it actually is, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/u-s-court-blocks-california-cancer-label-on-bayers-roundup-weed-killer-idUSKBN23T38Y" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>Bayer has consistently denied those claims and has insisted that glyphosate does not cause cancer, and it got help on Monday when Shubb said, "the great weight of evidence indicates that glyphosate is not known to cause cancer," as <a href="https://apnews.com/cf17840fc93b59f68751de92b5d4de9a" target="_blank">The Associated Press</a> reported.</p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Judge-prohibits-California-from-putting-cancer-15358663.php" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a> reported, the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the jury trials that have awarded cancer patients over $200 million argued that the EPA's insistence that Roundup does not cause cancer is spurious since there was evidence the company had unduly influenced the federal agency and had "ghost-written" purported research studies on the product's safety.</p><p>In the case, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra proposed to reword the label warnings to include both the IARC and EPA findings and a reference to a website for further discussion, but the judge unequivocally rejected that compromise, according to the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Judge-prohibits-California-from-putting-cancer-15358663.php" target="_blank">San Francisco Chronicle</a>. Becerra's office said it would review the ruling and plan its next step.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- More Monsanto Roundup Cancer Trials Expected to Be Postponed ... ›
- Trump's EPA Backs Bayer's Appeal in Roundup Verdict Appeal ... ›
- California Scientists: Safe Level of Roundup Is 100x Lower Than ... ›
- Judge Says Public Doesn't Need Cancer Warning Label - EcoWatch ›
- Roundup Cancer Settlement Hits Snag With Judge Over Future Plaintiffs' Rights - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A container of Johnson's baby powder made by Johnson & Johnson. Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
Johnson & Johnson will stop selling its iconic but increasingly controversial talc baby powder in the U.S. and Canada, the company announced Tuesday.
<p>The announcement comes as the company faces more than 19,000 lawsuits from consumers who say the product was contaminated with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/asbestos" target="_self">asbestos</a> and caused them or their loved ones to develop cancer, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-johnson-johnson-babypowder-idUSKBN22V32U?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1HfUTODSZrfmj0qHPRt2WqNj5q58hMe7ApEaQ2YfF3cYJBGicpAIRfsiI" target="_blank">Reuters reported</a>. Johnson & Johnson continues to insist the product is safe, but a 2018 Reuters investigation <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/johnsons-baby-powder-asbestos-2623643052.html" target="_self">found</a> that the company had known its talc products sometimes tested positive for asbestos since at least 1971 and had failed to inform the public.</p><p>"It means no more little girls are going to go through what we went through," Krystal Kim, who was part of a victorious lawsuit against the company in 2018 after developing ovarian cancer following a lifetime use of the baby powder, told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/19/business/johnson-baby-powder-sales-stopped.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR0uzUgZqUqB-xFaeKz1d9eUGW74R3RfmbKLdraU4w5YVXr0z__fLK2-tTI" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. "This stops now. That monster is off the shelves."</p>
<p>Because talc and asbestos sometimes occur side by side, it is possible for talc to be contaminated with asbestos during the mining process. Thousands of women who used the product sued after developing ovarian cancer, which was linked to asbestos in 1958. A smaller number developed mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer often connected to asbestos. In October 2019, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/johnson--johnson-baby-powder-recall-asbestos-2641053013.html" target="_self">company recalled</a> 33,000 bottles after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found trace amounts of asbestos in one of them. Also in 2019, the House Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/oversight-subcommittee-s-year-long-investigation-leads-to-johnson-johnson" target="_blank">began</a> a 14-month investigation that showed Johnson & Johnson knew about the asbestos risks for decades.</p><p>"Today, in a major victory for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" target="_self">public health</a>, Johnson & Johnson's asbestos-containing baby powder finally will be taken off store shelves," Subcommittee chair Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) said in a statement.</p>
<div id="8e492" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="fbc74efe5795912af5cb6b3e9cd7c8de"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1262890458503688194" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Today, in a major victory for public health, Johnson & Johnson’s asbestos-containing baby powder will be taken off… https://t.co/QtXjbmyzge</div> — Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (@Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi)<a href="https://twitter.com/CongressmanRaja/statuses/1262890458503688194">1589931523.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Johnson & Johnson continues to maintain that its product is safe, but blamed negative publicity for a drop in sales.</p><p>"Demand for talc-based Johnson's Baby Powder in North America has been declining due in large part to changes in consumer habits and fueled by misinformation around the safety of the product and a constant barrage of litigation advertising," the company wrote.</p><p>The company said it made the decision after it had paused shipping certain items in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. It said its current inventory of the powder would be sold, but no more would be produced for U.S. and Canadian markets. In the U.S., the product contributed only around 0.5 percent of the company's Consumer Health business.</p><p>Johnson & Johnson will continue to sell the product in other countries and to defend its safety in court.</p>
<p>Cornstarch baby powder, which the company developed in 1980 as an alternative once concerns of asbestos contamination were raised by health advocates, will continue to be sold in the U.S. and Canada, according to The New York Times.</p><p>Consumer advocates welcomed the news, but pointed out that Johnson & Johnson isn't the only company whose talc products pose a health risk.</p><p>"It's good news that Johnson & Johnson will soon end the sale of talc-based baby powders in the U.S. and Canada," <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a> (EWG) senior vice president for government affairs Scott Faber <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/major-win-consumers-johnson-johnson-ends-sale-talc-based-baby-powders?utm_campaign=EWG+Content&utm_content=1589935453&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR25bsStfQ_-Ciwc8pZnAlsUNIkqY3EB_G3fhFXPlvpJFXp1eWonwb8FHyw" target="_blank">said</a> in response to the news. "Now other companies need to follow their lead."</p>
<div id="26067" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5547f6a2aa178525f254f75987e64466"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1262884496854208513" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">MAJOR WIN -- Johnson & Johnson will end the sale of talc-based baby powders in the US and Canada.
We call on other… https://t.co/UeYJiDXgPB</div> — EWG (@EWG)<a href="https://twitter.com/ewg/statuses/1262884496854208513">1589930101.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Just last week, the EWG found asbestos in two talc Jmkcoz eyeshadow palettes. Asbestos was also found in Claire's cosmetics in <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/claires-cosmetics-test-positive-for-asbestos-fda-warns-2630826087.html" target="_self">March</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/asbestos-claires-cosmetics-2638757734.html" target="_self">June</a> of 2019.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Asbestos, Ubiquitous and Unavoidable, Is a Deadly Threat to Our Kids ›
- Johnson & Johnson Knew About Asbestos in Baby Powder for ... ›
- Johnson & Johnson Recalls 33,000 Baby Powder Bottles After FDA ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less