A worker in California sprays pesticides on strawberries, one of the crops on which chlorpyrifos is used. Paul Grebliunas / The Image Bank / Getty Images Plus
President Donald Trump's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not ban the agricultural use of chlorpyrifos, a toxic pesticide that the EPA's own scientists have linked to brain damage in children, The New York Times reported Thursday.
<p>The <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/PrePubCopy_9997-06_FR%20Document_Signed_2019-07-18.pdf" target="_blank">decision</a>, announced Thursday, was a response to a petition from public health and environmental groups who had pushed for a ban. The agency ruled that "critical questions remained regarding the significance of the data" on the pesticide's health effects, according to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/18/epa-chlorpyrifos-ban-children-brain-damage-trump" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Trump's <a href="https://twitter.com/EPA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EPA</a> announced the brain-damaging pesticide chlorpyrifos is safe and can still be used on food, although mainstream science says this pesticide is unsafe for children and farmworkers. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BanChlorpyrifos?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BanChlorpyrifos</a> <a href="https://t.co/rzfwPovUL9">https://t.co/rzfwPovUL9</a></p>— Earthjustice (@Earthjustice) <a href="https://twitter.com/Earthjustice/status/1151934775634071552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>The ruling is the latest in a series of Trump EPA decisions that weaken <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" target="_self">chemical</a> safety rules, The New York Times pointed out. In April, it <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-asbestos-rule-2634944150.html" target="_self">opted against a full ban</a> on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/asbestos" target="_self">asbestos</a> in favor of restrictions that critics say could usher in new uses. Also this year, it issued restrictions on a paint-stripping chemical that were weaker than a ban proposed during the Obama years. Finally, just last week, it widely expanded the use of the pesticide sulfoxaflor, which its own scientists have shown can harm <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bees" target="_self">bees</a>, as <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sulfoxaflor-epa-honeybee-colonies-usda-data-200-million-acres_n_5d2bf580e4b0060b11eeb5f1" target="_blank">HuffPost reported</a>.</p><p>"Siding with pesticide corporations over the health and well-being of kids is the new normal at the EPA," <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a> President Ken Cook said in a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/epa-s-wheeler-keeps-brain-damaging-pesticide-legal-use-foods-kids-eat" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Today's decision underscores the sad truth that as long as the Trump administration is in charge, this EPA will favor the interests of the chemical lobby over children's safety."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/EPA?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EPA</a>’s Wheeler Keeps Brain-Damaging Pesticide Legal for Use on Foods Kids Eat | <a href="https://twitter.com/ewg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ewg</a> | <a href="https://t.co/01HR1n5bOg">https://t.co/01HR1n5bOg</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/chlorpyrifos?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#chlorpyrifos</a></p>— Alex Formuzis (@AlexFormuzis) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlexFormuzis/status/1151948995847233538?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 18, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>The EPA's decision came after a federal court ordered the agency to make a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-chlorpyrifos-court-2635261283.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">final call</a> on the ban by mid-July. Chlorpyrifos has been banned for home use since 2000, but farmers have continued to spray it on crops like apples, strawberries, broccoli and corn. The Obama administration had initiated a ban on agricultural uses of the pesticide, but Trump's EPA reversed it, setting off a legal battle with environmental advocates. In the absence of federal action, states have moved against the pesticide on their own. Hawaii <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/hawaii-ban-pesticides-chlorpyrifos-2565244742.html" target="_self">became the first state</a> to ban chlorpyrifos in 2018, and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/california-chlorpyrifos-ban-2636704080.html" target="_self">California announced</a> it would ban the chemical in May. New York is also moving towards a ban, The New York Times reported.</p><p>Research has linked chlorpyrifos exposure to lower IQ, memory loss, breathing problems and increased risk of autism in babies born to mothers who lived near farms where it was sprayed, according to The Guardian.</p><p>"What we have with chlorpyrifos is multiple academic research projects that have shown that actual children who actually live in California are being harmed by this chemical," <a href="https://www.ceh.org/" target="_blank">Center for Environmental Health</a> senior scientist Caroline Cox told The Guardian. "It's pretty rare that you have that kind of evidence for any toxic chemical."</p><p>So how was the EPA able to decide that the science wasn't conclusive? The New York Times explained that the ruling was a direct consequence of former EPA administrator <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/scott-pruitt" target="_self">Scott Pruitt</a>'s decision to limit the kinds of studies that regulators could use to make decisions:</p><blockquote>Under Mr. Pruitt, the agency proposed a rule saying it <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/climate/epa-scientific-transparency-honest-act.html?module=inline" target="_blank">could not consider scientific research</a> unless the raw data behind it was made public, saying the issue was a matter of transparency. Scientists argued that studies measuring human exposure to pesticides and other chemicals often rely on confidential health information and argued the E.P.A.'s real motivation was to restrict the ability to develop regulations.<br><br>In opting not to ban chlorpyrifos, the E.P.A. rejected a major study conducted by Columbia University on its effects on children in New York City. The E.P.A. said because it was unable to obtain the raw data and replicate that study, which <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OI-A1C1ZeP0IgKSSc1lHZU00F71DefIk/view" target="_blank">linked the insecticide to developmental delays</a>, it could not independently verify the conclusions.</blockquote><p>The 12 groups who brought the petition against the EPA vowed to keep fighting.</p><p>"We will continue to fight until chlorpyrifos is banned and children and farmworkers are safe from this dangerous chemical," they said in a joint <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/trump-s-epa-keeps-brain-damaging-pesticide-in-fruits-and-vegetables?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social" target="_blank">statement</a> reported by <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>, the legal organization that represented the groups.</p><p>Former senior EPA attorney Kevin Minoli thought that federal courts would ultimately rule in favor of a ban.</p><p>"To me, this starts the clock on the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops in the US," he told the <a href="https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/07/18/epa-chlorpyrifos-pesticide-brain-damage/1773300001/" target="_blank">Associated Press</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Trump?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Trump</a>'s Pick to Head <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Interior?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Interior</a> Blocked Report Warning of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Pesticide?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Pesticide</a> Risk to 1,000+ Endangered Species <a href="https://t.co/qL6qLKJvoC">https://t.co/qL6qLKJvoC</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/bpncamp?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@bpncamp</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/EricLiptonNYT?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EricLiptonNYT</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1111055370338922496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 28, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From Your Site Articles
- Entire Pesticide Class Must Be Banned to Save Children's Health ... ›
- California, Nation's Top User of Chlorpyrifos, Announces Ban on ... ›
- Trump White House Pushes to Let Minors Spray Brain-Damaging ... ›
- Trump EPA Won’t Regulate Toxic Drinking Water Chemical That Harms Children’s Development - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Kerkez / iStock / Getty Images
By Nicole Ferox
It's that time of year: Mosquitoes and ticks are out in full force, and so are all the latest bug repellent products claiming to keep them at bay. So what bug repellent ingredients do Environmental Working Group (EWG) scientists recommend for kids? Our top picks are DEET, Picaridin and IR3535. These ingredients have low safety concerns and offer a high level of protection from a variety of biting insects and ticks.
<p>But check the bottle's active ingredients for concentration percentages. The product should contain a maximum of 10 percent DEET, 20 percent Picaridin or 20 percent IR3535 for children.</p><p>One exception: If you're using DEET to protect kids in an area known for ticks' carrying Lyme disease bacteria or for Zika outbreaks, a concentration of 20 percent to 30 percent may be appropriate. (See our <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/ewgs-guide-bug-repellents/kids" target="_blank">Guide to Bug Repellents</a> for details and links to the Centers for Disease Control's list of insect-borne outbreaks, below.)</p><p>Contrary to popular belief, bug repellents with higher concentrations — such as old-school 100 percent DEET — are not necessarily more effective and may even be harmful. To avoid that risk, we recommend steering clear of DEET products with concentrations more than 30 percent. The concentration determines the protection time. If there's no risk of bug-borne disease in your area, choose a spray with a lower concentration and reapply if necessary.</p>
Can I really use DEET? I thought it was dangerous.
<p>Yes, DEET is a reasonable choice when used as directed, even for children. Still, after reviewing the evidence, EWG researchers concluded that it is best to use the lowest effective concentration of DEET, even though it's effective and generally safer than is commonly assumed.</p><p>Picaridin is a great alternative to DEET. It effectively repels both mosquitoes and ticks and, compared to other repellents, is less likely to irritate eyes and skin.</p><p>EWG research indicates that, in general, "natural" bug repellent ingredients like castor, cedar, citronella, clove, geraniol, lemongrass, peppermint, rosemary and/or soybean oils are often not the best choice.</p>How do I know if there’s a risk of insect-borne disease in my area?
<p>Ask your pediatrician or check the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maps listed below. If you're traveling internationally, check the CDC website for information about the <a href="https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/page/world-map-areas-with-zika" target="_blank">Zika virus</a>.</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/westnile/statsmaps/index.html" target="_blank">U.S. Map of Reported Cases of West Nile Virus</a></li><li><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/stats/maps.html" target="_blank">U.S. Map of Reported Cases of Lyme Disease</a></li><li><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/geographic_distribution.html" target="_blank">U.S. Maps of Ticks Carrying Lyme Disease</a></li></ul>More Information
<p><a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/ewgs-guide-bug-repellents" target="_blank">EWG's Guide to Bug Repellents</a></p><p><a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22197/ask-ewg-what-s-best-bug-spray-buy-my-kids" target="_blank">Ask EWG: What's the Best Bug Spray to Buy for my Kids?</a></p><p><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/zika/prevention/prevent-mosquito-bites.html" target="_blank">CDC: Protect yourself and your family from mosquito bites</a></p>From Your Site Articles
- How to Choose the Best Sunscreen for Your Kids - EcoWatch ›
- Nitrates in Tap Water: What Parents Need to Know - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A vegetarian bowl with quinoa fritters. Westend61 / Getty Images
By Ketura Persellin
You've likely heard that eating meat and poultry isn't good for your health or the planet. Recent news from Washington may make meat even less palatable: Pork inspections may be taken over by the industry itself, if a Trump administration proposal goes into effect, putting tests for deadly pathogens into the hands of the industry.
<p>In spite of that, global consumption of beef, lamb and goat is expected to <a href="https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/12/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts" target="_blank">rise by almost 90 percent</a> between 2010 and 2050. This may not surprise you, given how many kids love burgers and fries. With that in mind, here are seven reasons you and your family might want to become a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/vegetarian">vegetarian</a> — or at least cut down on how much meat you eat.</p>
<p>1. Environmental damage. Industrial-scale <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/new-investigation-recent-explosion-poultry-factory-farms-nc-piles-manure-515m-chickens-waste" target="_blank">meat and poultry production</a> harms the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/" target="_blank">environment</a> — from the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pesticides">pesticides</a> used to grow feed and the manure that runs off into waterways to the fertilizer that releases greenhouse gases and then pollutes rivers, lakes and oceans. You know the slime covering the lake where you spend time every summer? Tell your kids that large-scale meat and dairy production connects directly to the sign at the lake saying it's not safe for them to swim. And it's not just a matter of your vacation plans: That slime can cause permanent harm to people and animals and destroy marine ecosystems.</p>
<p>2. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">Climate change</a>. Kids love fart jokes, but cow flatulence isn't just a laugh line, but a significant contributor to climate crisis. Cow burps play an even bigger role, producing <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-18/could-less-gassy-livestock-be-a-cash-cow" target="_blank">22 percent</a> of U.S. emissions of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-livestock-emissions/fighting-global-warming-one-cow-belch-at-a-time-idUSKBN1K91CU" target="_blank">methane</a>, a gas with a worse effect on the climate crisis than carbon dioxide. Eliminating or reducing meat from your diet is the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climate-change-food-eating-habits.html" target="_blank">biggest contribution an individual can make</a> to helping mitigate climate disaster. And because of their developing bodies, children are more vulnerable to the harmful chemicals emitted by pesticides and fertilizer, as well as disproportionately affected by the impact of climate change.</p>
<p>3. General health. The <a href="https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/other-meat-concerns-antibiotics-hormones-and-toxins/" target="_blank">hormones</a> fed to animals on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/factory-farming">factory farms</a> can increase the chance of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer">cancer</a> in people who eat it. Red and processed meat have been linked to <a href="https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/meat-and-your-health/" target="_blank">chronic disease</a>, including cancer. Meat is a primary source of <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/dirty-dozen-list-endocrine-disruptors" target="_blank">dioxins</a>, a group of pollutants connected to reproductive and hormonal issues, and negative impacts on the developing fetus. By contrast, a plant-based diet can help reduce the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/cancer/keys-to-a-healthy-diet" target="_blank">risk of cancer</a> and lower the incidence of heart disease. One large study shows vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index than meat eaters and are one-fourth less likely to <a href="https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-vegetarian" target="_blank">die</a> of heart disease.</p>
<p>4. Expense. The cost of meat is coming down as demand for it grows, but a diet that doesn't include meat is <a href="http://money.com/money/4066188/vegetarians-save-money/" target="_blank">easier</a> on the wallet. For instance, as a source of protein, legumes are far less expensive than meat and poultry.</p>
<p><br>5. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sustainability">Sustainability</a>. Production of meat and dairy hogs resources. It uses grassland inefficiently, and a tremendous amount of water, and that's just for starters. Cutting it out entirely, or just reducing your consumption, will benefit the environment.</p>
<p><br>6. Drug resistance. Most kids are untroubled by the abstract idea of drug resistance, but Mom and Dad should worry. Animal overcrowding in factory farms increases livestock's risk of illness. Farmers try to "solve" the problem by routinely dosing even healthy animals with <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/antibiotics">antibiotics</a>, which can lead to antibiotic-resistant "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22153/how-prevent-dangerous-salmonella-infections-children/" target="_blank">superbugs</a>." Over time, with the overuse of antibiotics, these bacteria, such as salmonella, become resistant to the many forms of antibiotics commonly used to treat sick children. According to a recent EWG report, 20 percent of <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22153/how-prevent-dangerous-salmonella-infections-children/" target="_blank">salmonella</a> strains found on grocery store chicken were resistant to the drug. This makes it far more difficult to treat children, who are more likely than adults to get salmonella in the first place.</p>
<p>7. Environmental justice. Your family's meat consumption makes an immediate impact on the people, including kids, living near the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/22647/what-parents-need-know-about-factory-animal-farms" target="_blank">factory animal farms</a> where most meat is produced. The stench of manure that reaches for miles is something the people who live nearby — often <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/under-radar" target="_blank">people of color</a> of lower economic means — can't escape. When it rains, it's likely the ensuing runoff will flood the neighborhood with manure, fertilizer and other debris. In addition to nausea, headaches and other health problems, factory farm neighbors see increases in the cases and severity of respiratory illnesses, including asthma, to which children are especially vulnerable. Unable to spend time outside, residents feel trapped indoors. Their drinking water wells can be contaminated, and so can the rivers and streams where they fish.</p>
<p>Not ready to eliminate meat entirely? Resolve simply to eat less of it. Consider meat a meal's side show, for instance, instead of the star. Or make some meals completely meatless. If you eat one less burger a week, it's as if you'd taken your car off the road for 320 miles or line-dried your clothes half the time. That's the thinking behind the New York school district's <a href="https://www.meatlessmonday.com/" target="_blank">decision</a> to institute <a href="https://www.meatlessmonday.com/" target="_blank">Meatless Mondays</a>, and it's a good rule of thumb: Small changes do add up.</p><p>And there's no need to worry your kids won't get enough protein if you cut the meat and dairy. Americans eat too much meat, and <a href="https://www.healthychildren.org/English/healthy-living/nutrition/Pages/Portions-and-Serving-Sizes.aspx" target="_blank">too much protein</a> in general. The average child age four to six years old needs just two small servings a day — one ounce of meat or fish, or an egg, is one serving — and age seven to 10, a slightly larger portion of two to three ounces.</p><p>Most adults eat too much protein too, so while you're at it, you may want to take a look at your own portion control. Here are the USDA's <a href="https://www.choosemyplate.gov/protein-foods" target="_blank">protein guidelines</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Vegan Meat Substitutes: The Ultimate Guide <a href="https://t.co/FBOSU1BMV9">https://t.co/FBOSU1BMV9</a></p>— Vegan Future (@veganfuture) <a href="https://twitter.com/veganfuture/status/1092521150243057665?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 4, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Ketura Persellin is the editor at <a href="https://www.ewg.org" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Michael Himbeault / Flickr / CC BY 2.0
Many best sellers in the cereal aisle continue to have trace amounts of the weed killer glyphosate, according to a new report published Wednesday by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
<p>The herbicide was detected in all 21 oat-based products. All but four of them contained levels of glyphosate higher than what EWG scientists deem safe for children. </p><p>This is the third round of glyphosate tests by EWG, which receives funding from organic food companies, according to its <a href="https://www.ewg.org/about-us/funding" target="_blank">own disclosures</a>. </p>
<p>The new round confirms the findings from the first two tests in <a href="https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/" target="_blank">August</a> and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/roundup-breakfast-part-2-new-tests-weed-killer-found-all-kids-cereals-sampled" target="_blank">October</a> last year. Tests of 94 samples of oat-based foods found glyphosate in all but two samples, with 74 samples at levels of glyphosate above EWG's health benchmark.</p><p>In this latest analysis, the highest levels of the weedkiller were detected in General Mills' Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch at 833 parts per billion, or ppb, and Cheerios, with 729 ppb. EWG's health benchmark for children is 160 ppb. EWG says a child would only need to eat a single 60-gram serving of food with a glyphosate level of 160 ppb to reach the maximum dose it considers safe, according to a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/new-round-ewg-tests-finds-more-children-s-cereals-tainted-monsanto-s-cancer-causing" target="_blank">press release</a>. </p><p>"As these latest tests show, a box of Cheerios or other oat-based foods on store shelves today almost certainly comes with a dose of a cancer-causing weedkiller," said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., vice president for science investigations at EWG, said in an EWG <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/new-round-ewg-tests-finds-more-children-s-cereals-tainted-monsanto-s-cancer-causing" target="_blank">press release</a>.</p><p>The manufacturers insist their products are safe and that EWG's findings are unprecedented, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/health/glyphosate-cereals-ewg-study/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. And, before cutting your kid's carbs, it's worth noting that no case of cancer has ever been linked to eating breakfast cereal. EWG's study was never submitted to peer review nor were they published in a scientific journal. And, EWG created its own standard of toxicity, as it <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/08/how-does-ewg-set-health-benchmark-glyphosate-exposure" target="_blank">explains</a> on its website. Its standard of toxicity for glyphosate exposure is about 1/100<sup>th</sup> of the California threshold, which is about 1/100<sup>th</sup> of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) standard. In other words, EWG's limit for consuming glyphosate hovers around 1/10,000<sup>th</sup> of what the EPA deems as safe, according to <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/glyphosate-from-monsantos-weed-killer-roundup-in-breakfast-cereal-isnt-something-to-worry-about.html" target="_blank">Slate</a>.</p><p>"It is not surprising that very low levels of pesticides, including glyphosate, are found in foodstuff," said Dr. Paolo Boffetta, associate director for population sciences at Mount Sinai's Tisch Cancer Institute, as reported by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/health/glyphosate-cereals-ewg-study/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. "In general, these levels are unlikely to cause health effects in consumers."</p><p>The latest findings come on the heels of three civil cases in California that have ordered Bayer AG, Monsanto's parent company, to pay more than $2.2 billion in damages for cancer caused by exposure to Roundup. Thousands more lawsuits have been filed, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/health/glyphosate-cereals-ewg-study/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>, which has caused investors to flee Bayer. Its share price is half of its 52-week high.</p><p>Glyphosate's toxicity has been at the center of controversy since 2015 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a part of the World Health Organization, classified it as "<a href="https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-glyphosate/" target="_blank">probably carcinogenic to humans.</a>" Then, in 2017, glyphosate was classified as a known carcinogen by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. </p><p>"Does General Mills really want to keep using a chemical that independent scientists say causes cancer, made by a company that three juries have found guilty of covering up its health hazards?" Naidenko said in EWG's <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/new-round-ewg-tests-finds-more-children-s-cereals-tainted-monsanto-s-cancer-causing" target="_blank">press release</a>. "Or will they listen to the growing chorus of concerned consumers calling on General Mills and other companies to remove glyphosate from the cereals kids love to eat?" </p><p>Sentiments similar to Naidenko's that tarnish Roundup in the court of public opinion combined with the recent spate of legal action and legislation targeted at glyphosate prompted the EPA to reaffirm its stance that the herbicide poses no risk to public health, according to the <a href="https://www.apnews.com/58916f99f5564ad0b9ae1fc36cb83818" target="_blank">Associated Press</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Third Jury Rules Roundup Caused Cancer, Orders Bayer to Pay $2 ... ›
- Glyphosate to Be Banned on Fort Myers Beach - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
‘Companies Should Not Be Allowed to Use Hazardous Ingredients in Products People Use’: Michelle Pfeiffer Speaks Up for Safer Cosmetics
24 May 2019
Politics
Tim P. Whitby / 21st Century Fox / Getty Images
The beauty products we put on our skin can have important consequences for our health. Just this March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that some Claire's cosmetics had tested positive for asbestos. But the FDA could only issue a warning, not a recall, because current law does not empower the agency to do so.
Michelle Pfeiffer wants to change that.
The actress and Environmental Working Group (EWG) board member was spotted on Capitol Hill Thursday lobbying lawmakers on behalf of a bill that would increase oversight of the cosmetics industry, The Washington Post reported.
<div id="917ff" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ODN24G1576662486"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1131608182080638979" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Today in celebrity spotting on the Hill: Michelle Pfeiffer https://t.co/zg0xVN2zAJ</div> — Tal Kopan (@Tal Kopan)<a href="https://twitter.com/TalKopan/statuses/1131608182080638979">1558631389.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Pfeiffer was there to promote the <a href="https://cdn3.ewg.org/sites/default/files/u352/Personal%20Care%20Products%20Safety%20Act%20of%202019.pdf?_ga=2.93952157.1275460450.1558705834-862620896.1558705834" target="_blank">Personal Care Product Safety Act</a>, a bi-partisan effort co-sponsored by Democratic California Senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican Maine Senator Susan Collins to update cosmetic regulations that have remained largely unchanged since 1938.</p><p>"Thanks to Sens. Feinstein and Collins and other congressional leaders for taking on such an important and overdue cause to clean up the cosmetics industry," Pfeiffer said in an <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/ewg-board-member-michelle-pfeiffer-urges-congress-reform-outdated-cosmetics-law" target="_blank">EWG press release</a>. "Companies should not be allowed to use hazardous ingredients in products people use and apply to their skin every day. As a parent, I am particularly concerned about the ingredients in products marketed toward infants and children. Parents and expectant parents deserve to know that the soaps, lotions and other products they put on their kids' skin is free of toxic <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" target="_self">chemicals</a>."</p><p>Currently, as <a href="https://www.ewg.org/personalcareproductsafetyact" target="_blank">EWG explained</a>, cosmetic manufacturers do not have to:</p><ol><li>Register their products with the FDA</li><li>Submit ingredients lists</li><li>Follow safe manufacturing standards</li><li>Share safety records</li><li>Report hospitalizations or other health impacts</li></ol>
<p>Food and medical products, on the other hand, are subject to all or most of these controls. The act supported by Pfeiffer would close these loopholes and empower the FDA to recall products if a company refuses to do so voluntarily, according to <a href="https://cdn.ewg.org/sites/default/files/report/Summary%20of%20the%20Personal%20Care%20Products%20Safety%20Act%20116th.pdf?_ga=2.265002127.1275460450.1558705834-862620896.1558705834" target="_blank">EWG's bill summary</a>.</p><p>Pfeiffer has long been concerned with the safety of cosmetics, particularly perfume, <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90354943/michelle-pfeiffer-fights-for-regulations-on-beauty-products" target="_blank">Fast Company noted</a>. In addition to lobbying for change, she has also launched her own brand of perfume called <a href="https://henryrose.com/" target="_blank">Henry Rose</a> that limits its ingredient pool to 250 out of the 3,000 used by most perfumers. Hers is the first perfume to earn the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/ewgverified/" target="_blank">EWG VERIFIED™</a> mark, the group said.</p><p>"Michelle first found EWG after doing her own research about what products were the safest for her family, and no one is more committed to seeing these much-needed reforms by Sens. Feinstein and Collins become law," EWG President Ken Cook, who joined Pfeiffer on Capitol Hill Thursday, said in the press release. "EWG has advocated for new federal cosmetics industry standards for nearly 20 years, and it feels like the moment is upon us."</p>
<div id="d948c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0ZMHRI1576662486"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1131630879191658496" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">"@EWG has advocated for new federal #cosmetics industry standards for nearly 20 years, and it feels like the moment… https://t.co/UxQdFWXPzA</div> — Monica (@Monica)<a href="https://twitter.com/MonicaAmarelo/statuses/1131630879191658496">1558636800.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Pfeiffer isn't the first celebrity to team up with EWG for safer cosmetics. Last year, Kourtney Kardashian attended a Senate briefing on the bill at EWG's invitation, The Washington Post reported.</p>
<p><br/></p>From Your Site Articles
- Asbestos ›
- Asbestos-Laced Makeup: Children's Products Continue to Be ... ›
- Claire's Cosmetics Test Positive for Asbestos, FDA Warns - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Hundreds of Sunscreens Don’t Work or Have Unsafe Ingredients, Annual Review Finds
24 May 2019
Health + Wellness
Pixabay
Summer is fast approaching, which means it's time to stock up on sunscreen to ward off the harmful effects of sun exposure. Not all sunscreens are created equally, however.
<p>The nonprofit Environmental Working Group released its 13th annual <a href="https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/executive-summary/" target="_blank">Guide to Sunscreens</a> this month, which rated the safety and effectiveness of more than 1,300 sun protection products on the market. It found that two-thirds of those products either contained chemicals the Food and Drug Administration says could be potentially harmful or provide inferior protection from the sun.</p><p>EWG experts found that only 40 percent of the products it examined — including sunscreens, moisturizers and lip balms — have active ingredients that meet <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-advances-new-proposed-regulation-make-sure-sunscreens-are-safe-and-effective" target="_blank">draft safety regulations</a> developed by the FDA in February.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/understanding-over-counter-medicines/sunscreen-how-help-protect-your-skin-sun" target="_blank">FDA</a>, just two of the 16 common active ingredients in most sunscreens, zinc and titanium oxides, have been tested enough to show they are safe and effective. Another two ingredients, PABA and trolamine salicylate, were found to be unsafe according to the proposed standards, while the remaining 12 did not have enough data for the FDA to indicate whether or not they worked and could be considered safe.</p><p>"The good news is that the FDA has reaffirmed what EWG has advocated for 13 years: Based on the best current science, the safest and most effective sunscreen active ingredients are zinc oxide and titanium dioxide," said Nneka Leiba, director of EWG's Healthy Living Science program, in a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/two-thirds-sunscreen-products-offer-inferior-protection-or-contain-worrisome-ingredients" target="_blank">press release</a>. "It's long past time that the chemicals used in sunscreens were tested to show that they will not harm our health."</p><p>Many of the chemical ingredients were not tested enough because they had been grandfathered in when the FDA set more rigorous testing regulations in the 1970s, <a href="http://time.com/5592610/safest-effective-sunscreens/" target="_blank">Time</a> reported, as the belief then was that creams, lotions and sprays did not penetrate deep enough beyond the surface of the skin. A recent <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/sunscreen-chemicals-bloodstream-2636509218.html" target="_self">FDA study</a>, however, confirmed that common sunscreen ingredients avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene and ecamsule all end up in the bloodstream at levels beyond the threshold for further testing.</p><p>Oxybenzone is an allergen and potential endocrine disruptor that can have <a href="https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-sunscreen-chemicals/" target="_blank">adverse effects</a> on human growth, development and reproduction, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/05/22/sunscreens-safest-environmental-working-group-2019-review/3740857002/" target="_blank">USA Today</a> reported, and could be damaging <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coral-reefs" target="_self">coral reefs</a>. Oxybenzone was found in more than 60 percent of the sunscreens reviewed by the EWG.</p><p><a href="http://time.com/5592610/safest-effective-sunscreens/" target="_blank">Time</a> also reported that sunscreen manufacturers have put stronger <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" target="_self">chemicals</a> in their products in response to skin <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a> concerns or increased listed sun protection factor (SPF) values, while health experts have suggested more frequent use of these sunscreens, potentially increasing the likelihood the chemicals are absorbed.</p><p>Legislation has <a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/sunscreen-innovation-act-sia" target="_blank">since been enacted</a> to improve the FDA review process, and the EWG <a href="https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/executive-summary/#_ftn2" target="_blank">supports an FDA proposal</a> to limit SPF ratings, as research has not shown that higher SPF ratings provide additional protection from all ultraviolet rays. If anything, the EWG says, SPF values greater than 50+ provide a false sense of security leading to <a href="https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-spf/" target="_blank">increased exposure</a>.</p><p>The EWG's 2019 sunscreen guide did provide some good news: more than 260 sunscreens meet its safety guidelines and would also meet the FDA's proposed standards. The full list of those products is on the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/best-sunscreens/best-beach-sport-sunscreens/" target="_blank">EWG website</a>.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FDA?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FDA</a> Study: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Sunscreen?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Sunscreen</a> Chemicals Seep Into the Bloodstream <a href="https://t.co/LTXhKZimEt">https://t.co/LTXhKZimEt</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ewg?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ewg</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimeshealth?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@nytimeshealth</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1127317606598361088?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 11, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
From Your Site Articles
- Your Guide to Reef Friendly Sunscreens - EcoWatch ›
- 7 Effective Ways to Increase Your Vitamin D Levels - EcoWatch ›
- Florida Gov. DeSantis Prohibits Cities From Banning Sunscreens, Even Ones That Harm Coral - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Strawberries top the Environmental Working Group's "Dirty Dozen" list of U.S. produce most contaminated with pesticides. DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS / AFP / Getty Images
Which conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables in the U.S. are most contaminated with pesticides? That's the question that the Environmental Working Group answers every year with its "Dirty Dozen" list of produce with the highest concentration of pesticides after being washed or peeled.
<p>This year's surprise? Kale ranked number three, behind strawberries and spinach. More than 92 percent of conventionally kale samples had residue from two or more pesticides, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) tests. The last year that the USDA tested kale was in 2009, when it ranked eighth.</p><p>"We were surprised kale had so many pesticides on it, but the test results were unequivocal," EWG toxicologist Alexis Temkin, Ph.D. said in a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/just-released-ewg-s-2019-shopper-s-guide-pesticides-produce" target="_blank">statement</a> announcing the new list Wednesday. "Fruits and vegetables are an important part of everyone's diet, and when it comes to some conventionally grown produce items, such as kale, choosing organic may be a better option."</p>
<div id="5bbe3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="XKWBUJ1576662978"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1108352665342353410" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">EWG’s 2019 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™ is finally here, and you may be shocked at which healthy favor… https://t.co/oRyoXF1Tqw</div> — EWG (@EWG)<a href="https://twitter.com/ewg/statuses/1108352665342353410">1553086842.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The other items on the list were:</p><ol><li>Strawberries</li><li>Spinach</li><li>Kale</li><li>Nectarines</li><li>Apples</li><li>Grapes</li><li>Peaches</li><li>Cherries</li><li>Pears</li><li>Tomatoes</li><li>Celery</li><li>Potatoes</li></ol><p>The "Dirty Dozen" is part of the EWG's annual "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/" target="_blank">Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce</a>," which also includes a "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php" target="_blank">Clean Fifteen</a>" list of the produce with the least amount of pesticide residue. Topping that list were avocados, sweet corn and pineapples.</p><p>The lists are based on more than 40,900 fruit and vegetable samples tested by the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Overall, pesticides were found on nearly 70 percent of non-organic produce sold in the U.S., according to EWG. One of the pesticides found was Dacthal, which was found on nearly 60 percent of kale samples. It has been found by the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a> to possibly cause <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer" target="_self">cancer</a> in humans and has been banned from being used on crops in the EU since 2009. Another chemical found on apples, diphenylamine, has also been banned in the EU over cancer concerns.</p>
<div id="29dff" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="I7Z1G61576662978"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1108488414335250434" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Apples are back near the top of the #DirtyDozen™ list. What keeps them in that position? A chemical called dipheny… https://t.co/uQL9AgtnpB</div> — EWG (@EWG)<a href="https://twitter.com/ewg/statuses/1108488414335250434">1553119207.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Exposure to pesticides is especially dangerous for young children, EWG noted, since they are still developing. The American Academy of Pediatrics has noted there are reasons to be worried about pesticide exposure in young children, especially before birth, since exposure may lead to developmental and behavioral issues, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/20/health/dirty-dozen-pesticide-list/index.html" target="_blank">CNN reported</a>.<br></p><p>"Even low levels of pesticide exposure can be harmful to children," pediatrician Dr. Philip Landrigan said in the EWG statement. "When possible, parents and caregivers should take steps to lower children's exposures to pesticides while still feeding them diets rich in healthy fruits and vegetables."</p><p>However, Alliance for Food and Farming Executive Director Teresa Thorne told CNN that consumers shouldn't be afraid to buy food on the list, pointing to one study that criticized EWG's list and had found that eating organic did not reduce risk.</p><p>"That's largely because residues are so low, if present at all," she said.</p><p>However, New York University Medical School environmental medicine specialist Leonardo Trasande told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/20/pesticide-residues-produce-even-after-washing-us" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> that the list was "widely respected' and was a useful guide for those wanting to know which fruits and vegetables to buy organic.</p><p>If buying organic is not affordable or possible, though, EWG still advises consumers to eat their veggies.</p><p>"The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure," EWG research analyst Carla Burns said.</p>
<div id="9858b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="MBK7H01576662978"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="998379114259255296" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">What All Parents Need to Know About Pesticides in Produce https://t.co/JtqHYjlSLe @pesticideaction @bpncamp</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/998379114259255296">1526867104.0</a></blockquote></div>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The headquarters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ken Lund / CC BY-SA 2.0
President Donald Trump released his budget for fiscal year 2020 on Monday, to a general outcry from environmental groups who say it underfunds key programs and agencies.
EcoWatch has already reported on its biggest ask — $8.6 billion in funding for a border wall that would threaten borderland wildlife and communities — but the budget has been equally criticized for what it would cut, including a 31 percent decrease in funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a nine to 14 percent decrease for the Department of the Interior (DOI).
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="d7b5f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KG4B7X1576663067"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1105183541111988225" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#TrumpBudget proposes large cuts across a broad swath of public services.
While detailed budget figures are just… https://t.co/NqT1j6WyTE</div> — Center on Budget (@Center on Budget)<a href="https://twitter.com/CenterOnBudget/statuses/1105183541111988225">1552331264.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>"In the face of a nationwide drinking water contamination crisis, a broken chemical safety net, and devastating hurricanes and wildfires, a rational and concerned president would seek more funding to protect Americans' health, keep our environment clean, and combat the threat of catastrophic <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" target="_self">climate change</a>," <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a> President Ken Cook said in a <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/ewg-trump-budget-would-be-disaster-water-air-and-public-health" target="_blank">statement </a>about the budget.<br></p><p>Here are some of the programs the president would like to ax. </p><p><strong>1. Endangered Species Funding</strong>: The budget for adding new species to the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species" target="_self">endangered species</a> list would be cut by about 50 percent, the <a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2019/trump-budget-03-11-2019.php" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said</a>, while funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service overall would fall by 16 percent compared to 2019 levels. </p><p><strong>2. The Land and Water Conservation Fund</strong>: The popular Land and Water Conservation Fund uses money from offshore oil and gas drilling to create national parks, wildlife refuges and protected areas. It was re-authorized in a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/public-lands-bill-2630182126.html" target="_self">bipartisan public lands bill</a> that Trump is expected to sign, yet his budget would reduce its funds by 95 percent, the <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/land-and-water-conservation-fund-trump-budget-interior_n_5c86d406e4b08d5b78648689" target="_blank">Huffington Post reported</a>.</p><p><strong>3. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative</strong>: Among the many potential EPA cuts, the Trump administration wants to massively reduce funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which works to restore wetlands and improve water quality. The budget wants to cut $270 million of $300 million in funding, but the <a href="https://eu.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/03/11/president-donald-trump-great-lakes-funds-new-budget/3129234002/" target="_blank">Detroit Free Press</a> notes this plan is unlikely to pass Congress because it is popular with both Republicans and Democrats representing Midwestern states. Cuts proposed to the program over the last two years were also voted down.</p><p><strong>4. Climate Change Prevention and Research</strong>: Many plans to study or deal with climate change would see cuts, <a href="https://psmag.com/news/trumps-2020-budget-would-slash-funding-for-epa-programs" target="_blank">Pacific Standard reported</a>. Those include a 90 percent funding decrease for the EPA's Atmospheric Protection Program, which reports on greenhouse gasses, and a 70 percent funding decrease for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.</p>This isn't the first time that Trump has proposed massive cuts to the EPA. His 2018 budget sought to cut its funding 31 percent and his 2019 budget aimed to slash it 23 percent. <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/433496-white-house-proposes-dramatic-cuts-to-energy-and-environment" target="_blank">The Hill</a> noted that Congress had declined to pass steep cuts to the EPA in previous years, and was even less likely to do so now that Democrats control the House. However, critics agreed that the budget reflected the administration's priorities.<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="7c5e2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="PFG9MT1576663067"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1105186635090747392" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: We respond to the Trump administration’s 2019 budget proposal which contains an unprecedented $2 billion… https://t.co/hkGzsU98Mu</div> — Center for Bio Div (@Center for Bio Div)<a href="https://twitter.com/CenterForBioDiv/statuses/1105186635090747392">1552332001.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>"This environmentally devastating proposal shows Trump's government is composed only of special interests, run by special interests, for the benefit of special interests," CBD Government Affairs Director Brett Hartl said.<br></p>
From Your Site Articles
- 'Absolutely Unconscionable': Trump EPA Refuses to Limit Toxic ... ›
- U.S. Ranks 24th in New Environmental Performance Index, Near Bottom of Developed Countries - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
A supermarket's organic section with fresh and packaged foods. Keith Brofsky / UpperCut Images / Getty Images
Unlike organic packaged foods, conventional packaged food contains thousands of poorly regulated food chemicals, according to a new analysis by the Environmental Working Group.
"Although many consumers choose organic to avoid toxic pesticides, few know that federal rules dramatically limit the use of synthetic substances in organic food," said EWG nutritionist Dawn Undurraga, one of the authors of the report.
<p>It is widely known that certified organic fruits and vegetables have far lower pesticide levels than conventionally grown produce, thanks to federal regulations. But many consumers do not realize that fewer than 40 synthetic ingredients are allowed in organic packaged foods like salad dressing, cereals and snacks.</p><p>By contrast, at least 2,000 chemical preservatives, colors and other chemicals are used in conventional packaged foods, EWG found.</p><p>What's more, many consumers are unaware that food manufacturers don't need approval from the Food and Drug Administration for many of the chemicals added to conventional packaged foods.</p><p>"The same companies that manufacture food chemicals are allowed to declare them safe," said Melanie Benesh, EWG legislative attorney, a report co-author. "It's like the fox guarding the hen house. For those consumers seeking 'clean foods' free from toxic chemical additives, organic is really your only option."</p><p>Substances added to organic food must be approved by government and independent experts every five years. Those substances approved for use in organic foods must be proven safe for consumption, with no adverse impact on the environment.</p><p>Since 2008, 72 substances have been rejected for use in organic food.</p><p>Many of the chemicals used in conventional food have been linked to serious health problems like <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer">cancer</a>, including <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/ewg-s-dirty-dozen-guide-food-additives/food-additives-linked-health-risks" target="_blank">sodium nitrate</a> and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/ewg-s-dirty-dozen-guide-food-additives/generally-recognized-as-safe-but-is-it#butylated-hydroxyanisole" target="_blank">butylated hydroxyanisole</a>. Many of these chemicals are not reviewed by independent experts but are instead deemed "safe" by chemical companies, food companies or industry trade associations.</p><p>Moreover, companies are not required to periodically rereview these additives so that new scientific research or changes in the diet may be considered.</p><p>"Consumers rightly assume their food is safe," Benesh said. "But many food chemicals with connections to cancer and other serious health concerns have been deemed safe by chemical and food companies, not by the FDA."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="9443b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="454IJR1576662979"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1055016842773839872" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Massive Study Finds Eating Organic Slashes Cancer Risks #CancerSucks #CancerFree #EatOrganic #WisdomWednesday… https://t.co/iWZQpikOZU</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1055016842773839872">1540370591.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
- It's Time to Stop Paying for Pesticides With Our Health: Organic for ... ›
- What Produce Should You Be Buying Organic? - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
New Investigation: Surge of Poultry Factory Farms in North Carolina Added Waste From 515.3M Chickens to That of 9.7M Hogs
13 February 2019
Insights + Opinion
A "chicken confinement system" in North Carolina. Friends of Family Farmers / CC BY-ND 2.0
North Carolina, a state known for the devastating environmental and public health impacts of industrial-scale hog production, now has more than twice as many poultry factory farms as swine operations, according to a new investigation from the Environmental Working Group and Waterkeeper Alliance.
The groups' research found that in 2018, manure from 515.3 million chickens and turkeys joined the waste from 9.7 million hogs already fouling waters and threatening North Carolinians' health. By scouring satellite data, examining U.S. Department of Agriculture imagery and conducting site visits, EWG and Waterkeeper experts identified more than 4,700 poultry and about 2,100 swine concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOS.
<p>The analysis comes as state regulators are debating the terms of the state permit regulating waste management from swine CAFOs. </p><p>"If you're setting standards for pig waste, you can't ignore the recent explosive growth of the poultry industry, which has largely flown under the radar," said Soren Rundquist, EWG director of spatial analysis.</p><p>The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, or DEQ, is required to update its CAFO waste permits every five years and is currently gathering public and industry input on the swine permit. The agency must consider the cumulative impact of similar operations—hogs, poultry and cattle—on the environment.</p><p>DEQ's top CAFO regulator<a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/court-documents-reveal-woefully-lax-inspections-nc-factory-farms" target="_blank"> recently admitted to lax enforcement in the agency's oversight of swine operations</a>. And in 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency opened <a href="http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2018/05/03/environmental-justice-groups-reach-settlement-with-deq-over-federal-complaint-hog-farms/" target="_blank">an investigation</a> into whether the state's management of swine facilities and their waste discriminates against African-Americans, Latinos and Native Americans, as described <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-05/documents/letter_of_concern_to_william_g_ross_nc_deq_re_admin_complaint_11r-14-r4_.pdf" target="_blank">in this letter from EPA to the DEQ</a>. A settlement was reached last May.</p><p>Although the state implemented a moratorium on new swine operations in 1997, the poultry industry has tripled since then—from <a href="http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/AgCensusImages/2002/01/33/1703/Table-27.pdf" target="_blank">147 million birds</a> to 515.3 million today. </p><p>"Most of the poultry industry operates largely with impunity," said Will Hendrick, staff attorney for Waterkeeper Alliance. "Unfortunately, there is a lot of geographic overlap of poultry and swine operations, particularly in the coastal plain. That means North Carolina's rivers, already choking on millions of gallons of pig manure, are now forced to cope with tons of chicken waste, as well."</p><p>In Duplin and Sampson counties—historically the epicenter of hog pollution—nearly 82 million chickens and turkeys are now packed in among four million pigs.</p><p>People who live near or work on swine CAFOs are more likely to suffer from potentially deadly diseases like asthma, bacterial infections and high blood pressure, according to <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/09/duke-university-study-nc-residents-living-near-large-hog-farms-have" target="_blank">a 2018 Duke University study</a>. In four recent federal lawsuits, juries have found in favor of North Carolina neighbors of CAFOs, although the state legislature <a href="http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2018/06/14/industry-bill-to-limit-nuisance-suits-against-hog-operations-nearing-final-passage/" target="_blank">has made such lawsuits much more difficult to file</a>.</p><p>Nutrient pollution from the nitrogen and phosphorus found in farm animal waste can cause issues like toxic <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/algae">algae</a> blooms that kill fish and other <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/marine-life">marine life</a>, choke out native plants and contaminate <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a>. Due to the rapid growth of the industry, poultry operations are now a <a href="https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Environmental%20Management%20Commission/Water_Quality_Committee_Meetings/2017/March/Attachments/Basinwide%20Manure%20Production%20Report%20%20Appendices.pdf" target="_blank">much larger source of nutrient pollution </a>in North Carolina than swine farms.</p><p>Many North Carolina CAFOs are located in areas prone to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/flooding">flooding</a>, especially as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate-change</a>-related weather leads to more frequent, more severe storms. Although the 1997 hog operation moratorium was precipitated by <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/hurricanes">hurricanes</a> hammering farms in North Carolina floodplains, at least 74 poultry farms have been built in floodplains, many along three rivers—the Lumber, Neuse and Cape Fear—that flooded <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2018/09/17/florence-aftermath-rivers-are-rising-carolinas-cresting-record-levels/?utm_term=.0be72ed5946b" target="_blank">during both Hurricane Matthew in 2016 and Hurricane Florence in 2018</a>.</p><p>Poultry waste, which is mixed with carcasses and bedding to form a substance called dry litter, is stored in large piles before being applied to farm fields. It can easily be blown by wind or washed by rain into nearby <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rivers">rivers</a>.</p><p>"There is ample evidence factory farm pollution simply doesn't stay on farms," Rundquist said. "As DEQ finalizes the swine waste standards, it must account for the enormous recent growth of the poultry industry. The health of North Carolinians and their environment depend on it."</p><p>On Jan. 31, the North Carolina DEQ <a href="https://deq.nc.gov/news/press-releases/2019/01/30/state-announces-public-comment-period-public-meetings-draft-animal" target="_blank">announced a 30-day public comment period</a> on CAFO waste permits, as well as two public meetings. The first meeting will be held at 6 p.m. on Feb. 19 at James Sprunt Community College in Kenansville. The second will be held at 6 p.m. on Feb. 26 at Statesville Civic Center in Statesville.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="6cb0a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0ZRLVG1576662117"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1083710892259373056" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The Storm Moved on, But North Carolina’s Hog Waste Didn’t: “It's not going to get better until we make changes. The… https://t.co/ROIsiQLPEn</div> — Moore Charitable (@Moore Charitable)<a href="https://twitter.com/MooreCharitable/statuses/1083710892259373056">1547211785.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less
'As Trumpian As it Gets': Coal Lobbyist Andrew Wheeler Moves Closer to Full-Time EPA Spot
05 February 2019
Insights + Opinion
Win McNamee / Getty Images
Acting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Andrew Wheeler is one step closer to deregulating the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The former coal lobbyist, who critics say is even worse for the environment than his scandal-plagued predecessor Scott Pruitt, secured a key approval by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday, sending President Trump's nominee to the full Senate for approval.
<p>
The committee voted
<a href="https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-republican?ID=2A9ECE67-F5C9-4EE9-801C-04E0A852E2AF" target="_blank">11-10</a> along party lines to advance the nomination.
</p><p>
"Mr. Wheeler has done an outstanding job leading the Environmental Protection Agency these past six months," Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
<a href="https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-republican?ID=2A9ECE67-F5C9-4EE9-801C-04E0A852E2AF" target="_blank">remarked today</a>. "I urge my colleagues to vote in support of his nomination to be the administrator."
</p><p>
Wheeler has been at the post since Pruitt resigned amid a
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/scott-pruitt-resigning-scandals-2584354558.html">flurry of alleged ethical breaches</a> in July. But unlike Pruitt, whose tenure was sullied by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-epa-communications-2490136462.html">sketchy use of taxpayer money</a> on 'round-the-clock security, a soundproof phone booth and premium flights, the consummate Washington insider has advanced the interests of the fossil fuel industry and other corporate polluters by quietly weakening or rolling back federal regulations.</p><p>Civil fines charged to polluters under the Trump EPA fell 85 percent during the last fiscal year when compared to the average annual amount charged over the past two decades, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/civil-penalties-for-polluters-dropped-dramatically-in-trumps-first-two-years-analysis-shows/2019/01/24/7384d168-1a82-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.fba827ddbf9a" target="_blank">The Washington Post recently reported</a>. That makes last year the lowest average year for penalties since 1994.</p><p><span></span>At his Senate Environment and Public Works Committee confirmation hearing last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) asked if Wheeler agreed with the scientific community's belief that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate change</a> is "one of the great crises facing our planet." </p><p><span></span>"I would not call it the greatest crisis, no sir," Wheeler responded. "I consider it a huge issue that has to be addressed globally." </p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="132fd" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="W4C0OM1576662185"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1092826151809093637" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Wheeler has relentlessly pushed to advance the pro-polluter agenda launched by Scott Pruitt, the worst administrato… https://t.co/t49nvNXStX</div> — NRDC 🌎 (@NRDC 🌎)<a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/statuses/1092826151809093637">1549385032.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>Wheeler previously worked as a lobbyist for the coal mining conglomerate Murray Energy Corporation. His other previous clients include natural gas firms Xcel Energy and Bear Head LNG, uranium mining company Energy Fuels Resources and the Nuclear Energy Institute, according to <a href="https://www.bna.com/new-epa-chief-n73014477151/" target="_blank">Bloomberg BNA</a>.</p><p><span></span>As acting EPA administrator, Wheeler has not grasped "that saving coal is not part of that mission and not his job," said Sen. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, as quoted by the
<a href="https://www.apnews.com/9ae7c505e3c240ffbfa7225133a6a84b" target="_blank">Associated Press</a>.<br></p><p>Environmental groups are in vehement opposition the nomination.<br></p><p>
"Putting a coal lobbyist in charge of the EPA is about as Trumpian as it gets," Paulo Lopes, public lands policy specialist at the
<a href="https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a>, told EcoWatch in a statement after the vote. "This isn't just the fox guarding the henhouse. This is unlocking the door, opening the cages and letting the fox waltz right in to have his way. It's going to be a disaster."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="07275" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="IO9A6F1576662185"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1092809160599584768" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Key Senate Panel Approves Andrew Wheeler, Former Coal Lobbyist, To Be EPA Chief. "The man who recently said he’d ha… https://t.co/bz5VdVKYS7</div> — Ken Cook (@Ken Cook)<a href="https://twitter.com/EWGPrez/statuses/1092809160599584768">1549380981.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
A report from
<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-wheeler-meetings/like-predecessor-trumps-new-epa-pick-packs-schedule-with-industry-meetings-idUSKCN1PQ5SR" target="_blank">Reuters</a> revealed that Wheeler has held nearly 20 times more meetings with companies or industry groups than with conservationists during his first two months on the job.
</p><p>
The
<a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/home" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> is urging the full Senate to reject Wheeler's nomination.
</p><p>
<span></span><i>"</i>The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee should have voted unanimously to reject the nomination of a fossil fuel lobbyist who has spent his career undermining the vital safeguards that keep our air and water clean," Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said in a <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2019/02/sierra-club-senate-must-reject-dangerous-wheeler-nomination" target="_blank">press release</a>. "As his nomination moves to the Senate floor, we urge Senators to consider the clean air and water protections their constituents rely on, among them safeguards from toxic mercury, PFAS pollution, and emissions from cars and trucks, and vote no on this dangerous nomination."<span></span>
</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less