As the Trump Administration’s Tiny Windows Close, Giant Doors Open for Science Advice
18 November
Insights + Opinion
U.S. President Donald Trump (L) is seen during an NBC News town hall event in Miami on October 15, 2020, and President-elect Joe Biden (R) participates in an ABC News town hall event in Philadelphia on October 15, 2020. Brendan Smialowski and Jim Watson / AFP / Getty Images
By Genna Reed
In his first week as president-elect, Joe Biden instituted an advisory board of experts to provide science-based recommendations to respond to COVID-19. This could be a signal that independent science advice under a Biden administration is valued. After four years of watching the norms of science advisory structures eroded and undermined, especially at the EPA, it is hard to visualize the possibilities of a government informed by experts. Once Biden takes office in January, here are the actions I hope his administration will take to shore up the government's fifth arm of external expert advice:
1. Rescind EO 13875 and Reinstate Disbanded Committees
<p>In Executive Order 13875, titled "Evaluating and Improving the Utility of Federal Advisory Committees," issued in June 2019<strong>, </strong>President Trump mandated the elimination of one-third of federal advisory committees with an aim of <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/trump-executive-order-advisory-committee" target="_blank">reaching the arbitrary total of 350</a>. Some agencies followed the order, cutting committees like <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/the-first-cut-of-epa-advisory-committees-is-the-deepest" target="_blank">EPA's Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board (ELAB) and the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)</a>, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/465001-trump-officials-eliminate-board-that-advised-on-smart-grid" target="_blank">The Department of Commerce's Smart Grid Advisory Committee</a> and <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/science-advice-shouldnt-be-at-the-whim-of-a-president-and-his-appointees" target="_blank">Marine Protected Areas Advisory Committee, and DOI's Invasive Species Advisory Committee</a> and CDC's <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/science/" target="_blank">Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's Board of Scientific Counselors</a> and its <a href="https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/apex/FACAPublicCommittee?id=a10t0000001gzkCAAQ" target="_blank">Advisory Committee to the Director</a>. Yes, you read that right. As the CDC director responded to a national public health crisis, he did not have a sounding board of leading public health experts to help guide a federal response, as <a href="https://www.facadatabase.gov/FACA/apex/FACAPublicCommittee?id=a10t0000001gzkCAAQ" target="_blank">had been readily available since 1962</a>.</p><p>Neither the White House nor federal agencies released criteria or a full justification for disbanding these committees to the public. This is likely not an exhaustive list. Thus, the Biden administration should allow agencies to bring back disbanded committees quickly so that they can get back to work on projects left unfinished and take on new ones, especially those with direct relevance to providing expertise to the government on responding to COVID-19.</p>2. Issue a Proactive Executive Order to Affirm the Value of Advisory Committees
<p>The president-elect should issue an executive order affirming the value of advisory committees and direct agencies to improve the integrity and transparency of processes to ensure committees meet their chartered objectives. <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/si-of-federal-advisory-committees.pdf" target="_blank">Our fact sheet</a> includes a long list of measures that should be included in that order, but the goal of the executive order should be threefold:</p><ul><li>address committee membership by requiring agencies to be more transparent and make decisions based solely on experience and technical qualifications in the topic the committees address, and not based on inappropriate criteria (e.g., party affiliation, political opinions, <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/the-epa-science-advisory-board-is-being-compromised-heres-why-that-matters" target="_blank">having received a government grant</a>);</li><li>protect the independence and integrity of advisory committees by protecting against <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/conflicts-of-interest-at-federal-agencies.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">conflicts of interest</a>;</li><li>ensure that the processes used to establish and terminate advisory committees are clear and transparent and that the government seeks out the advice it needs.</li></ul><p>An order that sets a high ethical bar for external advice can help protect against some of the more egregious violations we saw under the Trump administration, like the appointment of a majority of members with <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/biased-science-board-threatens-fetal-tissue-research" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">clear issues of impartiality to the HHS's Human Fetal Tissue Ethics Advisory Board,</a> which then issued sweeping rejections of grant proposals for critical research using fetal tissue.</p>3. Go Back to the Drawing Board at the EPA
<p>The Biden administration should begin to reverse the damage done by former Administrator Pruitt and Administrator Wheeler to <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/512063-americans-need-the-best-science-more-than-ever-from-government" target="_blank">gerrymander science at EPA</a> and signal a commitment to balanced, independent advice by instituting a new nominations process for all EPA committees, while promoting transparency and public input and listening to its own staff recommendations. The administration should begin by scrapping the <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/521044-shuffle-of-epas-science-advisors-elevates-those-with-industry-tries" target="_blank">Science Advisory Board</a> and <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/gretchen-goldman/the-epa-cut-science-out-of-air-pollution-standard-setting-were-putting-it-back" target="_blank">the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee</a> and start over. Here's why.</p><p>There are still qualified experts on EPA's advisory committees, but since the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/epas-chance-to-get-science-advice-right" target="_blank">process barred EPA-funded scientists from applying from fall 2017 to 2020</a>, the expertise is not balanced and not the most relevant for the issues currently facing EPA. Further, it is unclear whether membership was adequately vetted for conflicts of interest. These are all fair questions, since <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-280" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">we know Wheeler's administration failed to provide documentation on its selection process</a>.</p><p>The only way to fix a broken process is to start from scratch, instituting some of the norms and processes that were in place before the Trump administration came in, but also updating them to ensure even more transparency. For example, <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/si-of-federal-advisory-committees.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">we recommend</a> that all agencies, including EPA, publish relevant basic information about each committee member on a public online portal (e.g., integrity.gov), including qualifications, background, employers, and funding sources for the previous five years, along with any conflict-of-interest waivers granted. Additionally, the decisionmaking processes used for committee formation, including how agencies screen members, how they assess committees for balance, and which political officials are involved, should be made public.</p><p>All members of committees re-formed could reapply if they wished to remain. But importantly, a new vetting process would ensure that expertise was prioritized and that conflicts of interest or appearance of impartiality was avoided.</p>4. Work With Congress on Bipartisan Legislation That Would Increase Transparency and Public Input
<p>The <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/andrew-rosenberg/improving-transparency-and-disclosure-of-conflicts-of-interest-for-science-advisory-committees" target="_blank">Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 2019</a> would require agencies to open nominations for committee positions, select and publicize from those nominations, and clearly distinguish independent scientists from those representing a particular interest group. The bill would also require disclosure of conflicts of interest to the agency and the public and greater transparency of the meetings themselves. Also, political party affiliation cannot be used as a criterion for selection for a committee, which is important as such political litmus tests have been used in the past to <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/center-for-science-and-democracy/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/a-to-z/fogarty-international-center.html" target="_blank">distort and stack</a> advisory committees under previous administrations.</p><p>Congress could also consider legislation that would institute a formal petition process for the public to request an agency assemble a federal advisory committee for an issue based on a set of criteria. This could ensure a more inclusive and equitable approach to deciding what issues get paid adequate attention by agencies.</p>Making a Sound Investment in Science Advice
<p>We have studied the ways in which science advisory committees have been sidelined or hijacked and over the past four years saw very clearly how changes to norms and the erosion of processes built to uphold integrity can wreak havoc on environmental and public health policy decisions.</p><p>As a new administration takes office, I hope that it takes advantage of this hindsight and sees the opportunities I see: not just bringing back old policies and signaling the importance of government science advice, but finding new ways to make it more responsive to the public than to special interests, and more inclusive of a diverse set of scientists and experts whose voices need to be heard right now. There's no time like the present to modernize our government advisory infrastructure, and <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/si-of-federal-advisory-committees.pdf" target="_blank">our recommendations feature actions that can help get us there.</a></p>From Your Site Articles
- How Joe Biden's Climate Plan Compares to the Green New Deal ... ›
- Biden Announces $2 Trillion Climate and Green Recovery Plan ... ›
- Biden Reaffirms Commitment to Rejoining Paris Agreement ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
An employee sprays toxic pesticides on a corn field. D-Keine / Getty Images
An herbicide commonly used in corn and sorghum fields to kill grasses and weeds is being reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency as being harmful to endangered species, according to a biological evaluation draft currently open for public comment.
<p>The exact number of species the herbicide <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/atrazine" target="_blank">atrazine</a> affects is unknown. However, many environmental groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, say more than <a href="https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/epa-widely-used-pesticide-atrazine-likely-harms-more-1000-endangered-species-2020-11-05/" target="_blank">1,000 species</a> could be at risk. For example, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4612.full" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">frog</a> and fish species that are exposed to atrazine show damaged reproductive systems, even at very low concentrations. </p><p>"Finally the EPA has been forced to acknowledge atrazine's far-reaching harms," Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity said in a <a href="https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/epa-widely-used-pesticide-atrazine-likely-harms-more-1000-endangered-species-2020-11-05/" target="_blank">statement</a>. "This alarming assessment leaves no doubt that this hideously dangerous pesticide should be banned in the U.S., just as it is across much of the world."</p><p>The new report, released Nov. 5, details how the herbicide's reach is measured. The EPA "considers overlap of the species range (or critical habitat) with areas directly treated with atrazine and those receiving spray drift," the executive summary explained. </p>
<p>"To address uncertainties associated with how treated acres may be distributed within a state (relative to a species range or critical habitat), and the magnitude of usage on any given year, approaches are employed to represent a central estimate of overlap."</p><p>In addition to its use on crop fields, atrazine is also frequently used on household lawns. In September, the agency <a href="https://cen.acs.org/environment/pesticides/US-EPA-reapproves-atrazine/98/i37?ref=search_results" target="_blank">reapproved</a> continued use of the weed killer for two years, with prohibitions in Hawaii, five U.S. territories and Christmas tree farms.</p><p>Atrazine is <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/why-is-this-hormone-disrupting-pesticide-banned-in-europe-but-widely-u-1891121997.html" target="_blank">banned </a>throughout the European Union. After glyphosate, an herbicide that has been used for more than 45 years, atrazine is the most common weed killer in the U.S. Swiss-based Syngenta is the largest worldwide manufacturer of atrazine. </p>
<p>It was noted earlier <a href="https://vtdigger.org/2020/02/03/overall-pesticide-usage-down-weedkiller-atrazine-on-the-rise/" target="_blank">this year in Vermont</a> that while overall herbicide use is decreasing, farmers increased using atrazine due to its lower price.</p><p>In 2018 the EPA<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1160" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> concluded</a> that atrazine and two other herbicides "share a common neuroendocrine mechanism of toxicity which results in both reproductive and developmental alterations," in humans. It is often designated a pollutant in ground and drinking water. </p><p>The Rural Coalition Pesticide Action Network North America, the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity's Beyond Pesticide action group recently filed <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/rural-coalition-et-al-petition-for-review-final_76454.pdf" target="_blank">a lawsuit</a> to ban atrazine's use in the U.S.</p><p>The EPA is accepting public comments until Jan. 5. If the final evaluation proves harm through exposure, the agency, working with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, will determine the endangered species most at-risk and propose ways to curtail exposure. </p>
From Your Site Articles
- Atrazine and Glyphosate More Harmful Than Scientists Once Thought ›
- Hormone-Disrupting Weed Killer Taints Tap Water for Millions in ... ›
- Why Is This Hormone-Disrupting Pesticide Banned in Europe But ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Like many other plant-based foods and products, CBD oil is one dietary supplement where "organic" labels are very important to consumers. However, there are little to no regulations within the hemp industry when it comes to deeming a product as organic, which makes it increasingly difficult for shoppers to find the best CBD oil products available on the market.
<p>Here you can learn about the importance of organic hemp oil, why it's better for the environment, and which CBD companies actually make trustworthy products with sustainable farming processes. origins which weigh heavily on many consumers who want to buy a product that's produced in the best way possible for not only themselves to ingest, but for the environment as well through sustainable farming methods. </p><h2>What Is CBD Oil?</h2><p>First things first, CBD stands for cannabidiol, and it's a cannabinoid found within cannabis sativa plants. This plant compound is believed to have many potential benefits, and it is primarily derived from hemp plants via a CO2 extraction process. </p><p>Since CBD is extracted from industrial hemp, which contains only trace amounts of THC (the psychoactive component in cannabis plants), this means that CBD won't make you feel high like marijuana, which has much higher levels of THC that causes psychoactive effects. Instead, the effects of CBD are much more subtle and promote a general sense of calm and relaxation in most users.</p><h2>What Makes a CBD Oil Organic?</h2><p>In terms of organic labels, perhaps the most important (and prominent) certification comes from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This government organization has been labeling foods as "organic" for many years, but what exactly does this certification entail? Essentially, a label indicating that a product is "USDA Organic" or "Certified Organic" means that at least 95% of the ingredients are obtained from organic sources.</p><p>For a crop to be considered organic by the USDA, it must be grown without the use of industrial solvents, irradiation, genetic engineering (GMOs), synthetic pesticides, or chemical fertilizer. Instead, farmers rely on natural substances and <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-usda-organic-label-means" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">mechanical, physical, or biologically based farming</a> techniques to cultivate healthy and organic crops.</p><p>Before the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, no hemp-derived products could be dubbed as "certified organic" since the hemp plant and its extracts were still categorized as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. However, it's still difficult for CBD companies to obtain a USDA certified organic label for their products due to the legal grey area that still surrounds CBD extracts. </p><p>Because of these challenges, and due to the fact that industrial hemp has only recently become an agricultural crop, very few CBD oils are USDA certified organic. Rather, many CBD products contain hemp extracts from plants that were grown in organic conditions but may not be federally certified.</p><h2>What are the Best Organic CBD Oil Brands?</h2><p><em>Each product featured here has been independently selected. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p>
<h2>Why Organic Hemp Oil Matters</h2><p>Hemp is a unique plant, not only for its rich cannabinoid content, but also for its ability to absorb a wide variety of components in soil. But this trait poses great risks when it comes to the creation of CBD products derived from hemp.</p><p>Because hemp has a high capacity for compound uptake, this means that the plants can retain <a href="https://www.remedyreview.com/industry/lab-test-results/" target="_blank">harmful chemicals like pesticides</a>, heavy metals, and other residual solvents. This is especially true when it comes to synthetic chemicals that are more toxic to humans, and difficult to remove once they have been absorbed by the hemp plant.</p><p>Organic farming practices help reduce the risk of hemp crops absorbing harsh chemicals that may later end up in CBD oil after extraction. When you're taking CBD as a wellness supplement to help alleviate your symptoms or improve your overall well-being, the last thing you want is to ingest compounds that might negatively outweigh the benefits of CBD. This is an important reason to look for third party lab test results when shopping for CBD products since these certificates of analysis can show the full cannabinoid and terpene profile of a hemp extract, as well as test results that search for the presence of any residual solvents.</p><p>In addition to creating a better end product, organic farming practices are also better for the environment. Sustainable and organic farming methods may <a href="https://www.helpguide.org/articles/healthy-eating/organic-foods.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reduce pollution, conserve water, reduce soil erosion, increase soil fertility, and use less energy</a>. The use of natural pest deterrents as opposed to chemical pesticides is also better for nearby animal populations and ecosystems.</p><h3>Organic vs. Natural</h3><p>While there are only a select few companies offering certified organic ingredients in their products, almost every brand in the CBD market creates "natural" products. The term "all-natural" or "plant-based" does not mean that a product is organic, and since hemp oil is a natural derivative of hemp plants, these products are often referred to as all-natural. However, there are some synthetic CBD oils that should be avoided because they are chemically constructed and may produce unwanted side effects that are not caused by naturally derived CBD extracts.</p><h2>What are the Benefits of Organic CBD Oil?</h2><p>There's a long list of potential CBD oil health benefits, and some of the most common wellness advantages include:</p><ul class="ee-ul"><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/" target="_blank">Chronic pain relief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/" target="_blank">Anti-anxiety effects</a></li><li>Better sleep</li><li><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/inner-source/201901/cbd-oil-mental-health-should-you-take-it-too" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Improvements in mood</a></li><li>Internal balance and regulation</li></ul><p>When dealing with pain, inflammation, sleep issues, and mental health struggles, it can be hard to find sufficient treatment options. The use of certain prescriptions can cause unwanted side effects, yet they are often the only solution for patients with these medical conditions. In search of other therapies, people have started to flock towards CBD oil as an alternative remedy for a variety of conditions. However, it should be noted that CBD products are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and you should seek your doctor's advice before using CBD if you have a serious medical condition.</p><h2>Look at the Labels Before You Buy CBD Oil</h2><p>When you go online to buy CBD oil, you'll quickly realize there is an overwhelming number of brands that are saturating the market. It can be difficult to determine which products are truly as good as they make themselves out to be. Always look for up-to-date third-party lab tests so you know you are getting a great product, and don't hesitate to contact the brand if you have any additional questions. And if you're intent on purchasing 100% organic CBD oil, it's best to look for certified products or brands that are held to strict regulatory standards.</p><p><strong>Melena Gurganus </strong>is the Reviews Editor at EcoWatch. She is passionate health and wellness and her writing aims to help others find products they can trust. Her work has been featured in publications such as Health, Shape, Huffington Post, Cannabis Business Times, and Bustle.<br></p>
Spruce
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjI3OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTM2NzgzOX0.axY0HjeqRctJsR_KmDLctzDpUBLBN-oNIdqaXDb4caQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="774be" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8379f35b1ca8a86d0e61b7d4bfc8b46e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="spruce organic cbd oil" /><p>As one of the best brands in the business, Spruce CBD is well-known for its potent CBD oils that feature many additional beneficial phytocannabinoids. This brand works with two family-owned, sustainably focused farms in the USA (one located in Kentucky and one in North Carolina) to create its organic, small product batches. The max potency Spruce CBD oil contains 2400mg of full-spectrum CBD extract, but the brand also offers a lower strength tincture with 750mg of CBD in total.</p>
$89
CBDistillery
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjkzNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU4OTM4Nn0.ypRdeDSBcE87slYrFfVrRwtJ2qGIK6FD5jBB4pndTMo/img.jpg?width=980" id="b473b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9930b53c9d58cb49774640a61c3e3e75" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="cbdistillery cbd oil" /><p>All of the products from CBDistillery are <a href="https://ushempauthority.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Hemp Authority Certified</a>, and for good reason. The company only uses non-GMO and pesticide-free industrial hemp that's grown organically on Colorado farms. Its hemp oils are some of the most affordable CBD products on the market, yet they still maintain a high standard of quality. CBDistillery has a wide variety of CBD potencies across its product line (ranging from 500mg to 5000mg per bottle) and offers both full-spectrum and broad-spectrum CBD oils to give customers a completely thc-free option.</p>
$35
FAB CBD
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIyNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2NDIwOTEyMn0.MlTjz096FJ0ev_-soK7_Z-FeQeJczWoeh9Qi9SSkHsY/img.jpg?width=980" id="04b26" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="76aa4862f44603242e318982acea6646" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fab cbd oil" /><p>For an organic CBD oil that has it all, FAB CBD offers plenty of variety for any type of consumer. All of its products are made with zero pesticides and extracted from organically grown Colorado industrial hemp. FAB CBD oil comes in five all-natural flavors (mint, vanilla, berry, citrus, and natural) and is also available in four strengths (300, 600, 1200, and 2400mg per bottle).</p>
$39
NuLeaf Naturals
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDY4NjIxOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzExNTgyMX0.D6qMGYllKTsVhEkQ-L_GzpDHVu60a-tJKcio7M1Ssmc/img.jpg?width=980" id="94e4a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3609a52479675730893a45a82a03c71d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="nuleaf naturals organic cbd oil" /><p>As an industry-leading brand, it comes as no surprise that NuLeaf Naturals sources its CBD extract from organic hemp plants grown on licensed farms in Colorado. The comany's CBD oils only contain two ingredients: USDA certified organic hemp seed oil and full spectrum hemp extract.</p><p>NuLeaf Naturals uses one proprietary CBD oil formula for all of its products, so you will get the same CBD potency in each tincture (60mg per mL), but can purchase different bottle sizes depending on how much you intend to use.</p>
$38.50
Charlotte's Web
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDcwMjk3NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MzQ0NjM4N30.SaQ85SK10-MWjN3PwHo2RqpiUBdjhD0IRnHKTqKaU7Q/img.jpg?width=980" id="84700" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a2174067dcc0c4094be25b3472ce08c8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="charlottes web cbd oil" /><p>Perhaps one of the most well-known brands in the CBD landscape, Charlotte's Web has been growing sustainable hemp plants for several years. The company is currently in the process of achieving official USDA Organic Certification, but it already practices organic and sustainable cultivation techniques to enhance the overall health of the soil and the hemp plants themselves, which creates some of the highest quality CBD extracts. Charlotte's Web offers CBD oils in a range of different concentration options, and some even come in a few flavor options such as chocolate mint, orange blossom, and lemon twist.</p>
$60
From Your Site Articles
- Best CBD Oils of 2020: Reviews & Buying Guide - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oil for Pain Management - Top 10 CBD Oil Review 2020 ... ›
- Best CBD for Dogs 2020 - Organic CBD Oil for Pets - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
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
Trending
The Trump administration has weakened fuel-efficiency requirements for the nation's cars and trucks. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
As the days tick down to next month's presidential election, debate rages over the U.S. government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic with critics of President Donald Trump calling for his ouster due to his failure to protect the American public.
<p>And yet as mass media runs daily tallies of COVID-related cases and deaths, a more sinister threat to public health looms as the Trump administration rolls back regulations that govern the quality of our air, land and water. And though these actions are garnering little public outcry now, they pose grave danger to our children and their children for decades to come. It's a simple truth — a poisoned environment means poisoned people.</p><p>In recent months the Trump administration <a href="https://news.osu.edu/a-watershed-moment-for-us-water-quality/" target="_blank">has stripped protections</a> from wetlands in ways that allow for the dumping of pesticides and other pollutants directly into millions of miles of streams and other waterways; <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/climate/epa-mercury-coal.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">relaxed rules on power plants</a> designed to curb air emissions containing brain-damaging heavy metals <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health" target="_blank">such as mercury</a>; altered automobile fuel efficiency standards to be <a href="https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-greenhouse-gas-emissions-passenger-cars-and" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">"less stringent,"</a> allowed more emissions of climate-damaging carbon dioxide; and rolled back requirements governing how coal-fired power plants <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-finalizes-power-plant-effluent-limitation-guidelines-save-money-and-reduce" target="_blank">dispose of toxic wastewater</a>, a move <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/climate/trump-coal-plants.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">praised by coal industry executives</a> but expected to add increased levels of lead, arsenic and other harmful contaminants to the environment. </p><p>If there was any doubt about how little Trump cares for the health of our children, that was made clear last month when the Environmental Protection Agency <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-takes-next-step-review-process-insecticide-chlorpyrifos-making-draft-risk-assessments" target="_blank">(EPA) announced</a> it would continue to allow <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/08/california-pesticide-ban-chlorpyrifos-agriculture" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the neurotoxic chemical chlorpyrifos</a> to be used to grow food despite years of <a href="https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/prenatal-exposure-insecticide-chlorpyrifos-linked-alterations-brain-structure" target="_blank">scientific research</a> showing the pesticide damages babies' brain development. Residues of chlorpyrifos are commonly found in food consumed by young children. A <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/2018PDPAnnualSummary.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">USDA report</a> released last year documented chlorpyrifos residues in raisins, peaches, mangoes and asparagus, among other foods. </p>
<p>Amid the rush to ease regulations before the end of Trump's term, the EPA is also working to appoint new <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/521044-shuffle-of-epas-science-advisors-elevates-those-with-industry-tries" target="_blank">industry-friendly individuals</a> to its scientific advisory board. In an October 14 announcement, the agency said the new vice chair of the board would be Dr. Barbara Beck, who works for an industry <a href="https://gradientcorp.com/" target="_blank">consulting company</a> with a history of defending controversial chemicals and other substances. Beck has <a href="https://gradientcorp.com/alerts/pdf/Testimony_040711.pdf" target="_blank">advocated</a> for loosened restrictions on lead despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/health-effects.htm" target="_blank">says lead exposure</a> damages a child's brain and nervous system and can cause learning and behavior problems.</p><p>"Trump is burning down the house," Tim Whitehouse, a former senior attorney with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), told me. Whitehouse now heads an organization representing thousands of government employees called Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), and says government scientists are being ignored as the administration pushes through favors for influential industries.</p><p>"I think it's beyond a difference in policy. It is a feeling that the people who are put in charge are robbing the house," Whitehouse said. "We're in a period of massive biodiversity loss and increasing chemical and toxic burdens on individuals, and the EPA is not responding to the crises at hand." </p>
<p>PEER has joined with other groups in suing the EPA over its elimination of clean water protections, charging in a <a href="https://www.peer.org/epa-political-appointees-violate-science-integrity-rules/" target="_blank">formal complaint</a> that Trump's political appointees are ignoring scientific evidence of the harms certain to be wrought by the rule changes.</p><p>To be sure, the EPA's fealty to industry is not unique to the Trump Administration. Indeed, the agency's loyalty to companies over consumers seems to be a longstanding bipartisan tradition. Trump's predecessor President Barack Obama also <a href="https://www.peer.org/epa-posts-pathetically-weak-scientific-integrity-proposal/" target="_blank">faced criticism</a> for actions – and inaction – by his EPA. </p><p>And numerous administrations are to blame for allowing the broad spread of toxic chemicals known <a href="https://theintercept.com/collections/bad-chemistry/" target="_blank">as PFAS</a> (short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) that are linked to an array of serious health problems. </p>
<p><span style="background-color: initial;">But we simply cannot afford this political bargaining with our health anymore. In taking more than 200,000 lives in less than a year, t</span>he COVID-19 virus has underscored the already fragile condition of our health. People suffering from cancer, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and other problems are at increased risk of becoming seriously ill or dying if stricken with COVID-19, <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html" target="_blank">according to the CDC.</a> Scientists <span style="background-color: initial;">have <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004896972032221X" target="_blank">rightly pointed out</a></span> that <span style="background-color: initial;">environmental pollution is a contributing factor to the vulnerability of many people to the COVID-19 virus.</span></p><p>Adding more toxins into the air we breathe and water we drink only ensures more vulnerability and more deaths. </p><p>We already are facing frightening levels of neurodevelopmental disorders, cancer and disease in our population: Autism spectrum disorder is now effecting roughly <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/ss/ss6904a1.htm?s_cid=ss6904a1_w" target="_blank">1 in every 54 children</a>, far more prevalent than 20 years ago. The rate at which children are diagnosed with cancer has <a href="https://www.cancerfreeeconomy.org/childhood_cancer_prevention/?fbclid=IwAR2GKNud8wrvPjqvkeyDy03bJsDQK2z0wDVYHwyuQDmz_WgqfLyPosIVgs8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">increased 34 percent</a> since 1975; in 2020 more than 16,800 kids are expected to be newly diagnosed. Overall, <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics#:~:text=Approximately%252039.5%2525%2520of%2520men%2520and,will%2520die%2520of%2520the%2520disease." target="_blank">close to 40 percent</a> of men and women in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes. More than 600,000 people are <a href="https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/common.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dying every year</a> from cancer and more than 1.7 million are diagnosed with new cancers each year. </p>
<p>As an environmental journalist, I am astonished at the brazenness with which this administration has made clear that corporate well-being is more valuable than the health and well-being of citizens.</p><p>And as a mother, I agonize over the suffering, sickness and struggles I know lie ahead for our future generations. </p><p>Years from now, when our children tell their children about this time, when they try to explain how much was lost, how cavalierly we allowed their health to be traded for the health of corporate profits, they will be right to blame us. They will also be right to not forgive us. </p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Latest EPA Rollback Lets Polluters Spew More Lead ... ›
- Trump EPA Won't Regulate Toxic Drinking Water Chemical That ... ›
- States Sue Trump EPA for Suspending Environmental Regulations ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The 1.4-gigawatt coal-fired Kingston Steam Plant, just outside Kingston, Tennessee on the shore of Watts Bar Lake on March 31, 2019. In 2008, a coal ash pond at the plant collapsed, leading to the largest industrial spill in modern U.S. history and subsequent industry regulations in 2015. Paul Harris / Getty Images
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a rule change on Friday that will allow some coal power plants to ignore a court order to clean up coal ash ponds, which leech toxic materials into soil and groundwater. The rule change will allow some coal ash ponds to stay open for years while others that have no barrier to protect surrounding areas are allowed to stay open indefinitely, according to the AP.
<p>The arsenic-laced sludge that fills coal ash ponds is likely to leak when just a plastic barrier protects it. It is far more likely to pollute nearby soil and water when the pits have a clay barrier, according to researchers, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/521409-epa-may-violate-courts-with-new-rule-extending-life-of-unlined-coal" target="_blank">The Hill</a> reported.</p><p>A 2018 order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had forced the EPA to close coal ash ponds that did not have plastic lining and were likely to leak toxic chemicals, making Friday's rule change seem like a blatant move to undermine the court's authority, according to environmental groups who promised to sue to stop the rule change, as The Hill reported.</p>
<p>Environmentalists argue that the rule change is a favor to the coal industry, for which EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler served as a lobbyist prior to joining the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration. The move allows the industry to dump its byproducts inexpensively and irresponsibly.</p><p>"The reason the utilities are arguing to keep the ponds is because they have put in these unlined pits out the back door of the power plant that act as a catchall for their toxic waste," said Lisa Evans, an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice, as the AP reported. "They don't want to get rid of them because they are cheap."</p>
<p>Earthjustice and the Environmental Integrity Project commissioned a study on coal ash ponds and found that 91 percent of them were leaking toxic chemicals beyond what was permitted by EPA regulations, as The Hill reported. Their study found that heavy metals from the waste was polluting nearby drinking wells and groundwater.</p><p>Coal ash is produced when coal is burned to produce power. It is full of arsenic, mercury, lead and several other hazardous heavy metals. In the U.S., coal plants create nearly 100 million tons annually of ash and other waste, according to the AP.</p><p>"When ponds without lining leak, it's often more aggressive, faster and harder to control," said Evans, as The Hill reported. "Utilities are asking for favors and exemptions and EPA is willing to give them and is willing to rush to provide these exemptions."</p>
<p>The 2018 court decision found that clay lined coal ash ponds, or unlined ponds, are simply dangerous, as the AP reported.</p><p>Evans noted that the Obama-era Resource Conservation and Recovery Act required power plants to close unlined coal-ash ponds by April 2019, but the EPA keeps extending the deadline, as the AP reported.</p><p>By rewriting the rule, coal plants are able to get around the mandates of the 2015 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act by simply showing that their coal ash ponds pose no threat to human health.</p><p>"The Trump EPA is flouting the court's decision," said Evans, as the AP reported. "I've never seen anything like this before."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 10 Ways Andrew Wheeler Has Decimated EPA Protections in Just ... ›
- What a Real Coal Ash Cleanup Looks Like - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
3 Major UK Retailers Are Banning Glitter This Christmas Over Environmental Concerns
16 October
Business
The UK retailer John Lewis store in Sloane Square, London during Christmas of 2009. William Hook / CC BY-SA 2.0
Glitter may add sparkle to the holiday season, but its afterlife is decidedly less shiny.
<p>The festive coating and arts-and-crafts staple is actually another type of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/microplastics" target="_self">microplastic</a> — those pesky <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics" target="_self">plastics</a> five millimeters or less in diameter that end up everywhere from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/plastic-pollution-arctic-snow-ice-2639834233.html" target="_self">Arctic ice</a> to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/shark-plastic-stomach-2646956951.html" target="_self">bellies of sharks</a>.</p><p>"Glitter might look lovely but, because it's plastic, it sticks around long after the sparkle has gone – often in the stomachs of fish and birds," campaigner David Innes told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/24/glitter-sales-ban-supermarkets-microplastics?CMP=fb_gu" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> in 2019.</p><p>That's why three major UK retailers have decided to eliminate glitter from their Christmas merchandise this year. Morrisons, Waitrose and John Lewis have all announced that their store brand holiday products will be glitter free for 2020, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54545428" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">BBC News reported</a>.</p>
<p>Morrisons <a href="https://www.morrisons-corporate.com/media-centre/corporate-news/morrisons-goes-completely-glitter-free/" target="_blank">said in a statement</a> it had gotten rid of glitter on all of its greeting cards, wrapping paper, florist items and all other seasonal products. The policy will remain in place through the new year for store brand cards and gift bags. In addition, the store also pledged to remove single-use plastic toys from its Christmas crackers and reduce plastic wrap on cards and other decorations.</p><p>"Every time a cracker is pulled, or a card is opened, plastics have been used ... but just the once. So, we've taken glitter and plastic out of our festive range this year – so that our customers can enjoy their festivities without worrying about the environmental impact," Morrisons home director Christine Bryce said in a statement. "This means that we're now 100 percent glitter free across all our own brand ranges which is an important step in the fight against <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-pollution" target="_self">plastic pollution</a>."</p>
<p>John Lewis and Waitrose are also excising glitter from their seasonal products.</p><p>"All own-brand cards, crackers, wrapping paper, gift bags are now 100% glitter-free," the stores said in a statement reported by BBC News.</p><p>The movement against glitter has been growing alongside awareness of the dangers of microplastics. Waitrose is <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/glitter-ban-2623422922.html" target="_self">following up on a pledge</a> it first made two years ago to phase out holiday glitter by 2020. At the time, it was the first major UK retailer to set this goal.</p><p>Other UK stores are working to reduce glitter and other plastics this holiday season, BBC News reported. The pharmacy chain Boots will stop wrapping Christmas presents in single-use plastic packaging; supermarket Tesco will only use edible glitter; and supermarket Sainsbury's is eliminating glitter from cards, wrapping paper and gift bags and reducing it for decorations, crackers and festive bouquets.</p>
<p>The retailers' moves follow public demand. Boots said searches for ecologically-friendly products on its website had increased by nearly a third in a year. And Innes was part of a group behind a March 2019 petition asking the UK government to ban glitter altogether, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/glitter-waitrose-morrissons-john-lewis-christmas-b1041490.html" target="_blank">The Independent reported</a>.</p><p>The anti-glitter campaign has not caught on across the pond, however, according to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/business/glitter-ban-christmas.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. Major U.S. companies like Walmart, Target, Walgreens, CVS and Costco did not return requests for comment on whether they were working to reduce the glitter on their holiday merchandise this year. The <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">U.S. Environmental Protection Agency</a> also did not respond to a request for comment on whether there was any momentum for a U.S. glitter ban or what impact such a ban would have.</p><p>Independent scientists said the answer was unclear. On the one hand, it is possible that glitter's sparkle comes from metal or other harmful additives above and beyond what is contained in the average microplastic, Robert C. Hale, a professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at the College of William & Mary, told The New York Times. On the other hand, glitter accounts for much less than one percent of the microplastics in the environment, which usually slough off larger plastics or synthetic fabrics.</p>
<p>National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Marine Debris Division chief scientist Amy V. Uhrin said that glitter was only one of many microplastic pollutants, but did say that certain studies had found large concentrations of glitter in soils or in wastewater sludge.</p><p>"It is difficult to say what impact a glitter ban would have," she told The New York Times.</p><p>Back in the UK, environmentalists said the Christmas glitter bans were a step in the right direction, but that the UK government ultimately needed to eliminate single-use plastic altogether.</p>"[W]e must go much further to end the scourge of plastic pollution," <a href="https://friendsoftheearth.uk/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth</a> campaigner Tony Bosworth told BBC News.
Read More
Show Less
Criminal prosecutions for polluting the environment in violation of the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act have dropped to their lowest levels in decades under the Trump administration. Charles Cook / Lonely Planet Images / Getty Images Plus
A new report finds that criminal prosecutions for polluting the environment in violation of the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act have dropped to their lowest levels in decades under the Trump administration, as The New York Times reported.
<p>The <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3710109" target="_blank">report</a> was written by David Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan who worked for the Department of Justice for 17 years and served as its top environmental prosecutor from 2000 to 2007.</p><p>In the paper, the career prosecutor-turned-professor analyzed 14 years of cases and found that in the first two years of the Trump administration, criminal prosecutions for violations of the Clean Water Act dropped 70 percent. Similarly, prosecutions for violations of the Clean Air Act dropped 50 percent in the first two years since Trump took office.</p><p>"No matter what the future holds, the data from the first two years under President Trump reveals a dramatic departure from the non-partisan support for pollution prosecutions that had existed across administrations, which leaves Americans less safe and the environment less protected," Uhlmann wrote.</p>
<p>Uhlmann presented the paper at the American Bar Association's fall environmental conference. While the paper is available online now, it will be published in the Michigan Journal of Environmental and Administrative Law, according to The New York Times.</p><p>The paper noted that there were only nine criminal prosecutions under the Clean Water Act in 2018. "Under President Donald J. Trump the bottom fell out," Uhlmann wrote, as The New York Times reported.</p><p>Uhlmann told The New York Times that the numbers show a dramatic decline in both the quantity and the quality of the prosecutions that the administration is pursuing.</p>
<p>While the study looked at the first two years of the Trump administration and found a pattern that shattered the author's perception that law enforcement operated independently of political influence, recent data has shown the trend continued through 2019.</p><p>According to Justice Department <a href="https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/581/" target="_blank">data</a> analyzed by Syracuse University's <a href="https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/581/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse </a>(TRAC), the total number of environmental prosecutions in fiscal year 2019 was lower than any year during the administrations of the previous three presidents, which dates back to 1993, as <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/environmental-prosecutions-drop-to-lowest-level-in-decades/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a> reported.</p><p>For that year, the percent of prosecutions for environmental violations was 64.5 percent lower than it was two decades earlier.</p><p>"There's a risk that unenforced violations could lead to fires, leaks, spills, and contamination," said Ethan Elkind, climate program director at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, as Courthouse News reported.</p>
<p>While criminal prosecutions have plummeted under Trump, so have civil prosecutions, according to The New York Times. Civil settlements are a powerful tool to ensure that polluters pay to clean up past mistakes and implement safeguards against future pollution issues.</p><p>A <a href="https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SEPs-Complaint-10.8.20.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit filed last week in Massachusetts</a> by the Conservation Law Foundation named Attorney General William Barr and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a> Administrator Andrew Wheeler as defendants for ending the practice that forces polluters to clean up for their actions and implement protections. The lawsuit notes that those violations tend to affect low-income and minority communities disproportionally, and the decision to abandon civil prosecutions and settlements, "runs directly counter to Congress' design when passing laws such as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act."</p><p>Judith Enck, a former regional administrator at the EPA, told The New York Times that Uhlmann's paper is an accurate portrayal of an administration that "acts like our bedrock environmental laws are simply suggestions. This approach will result in more pollution and more damage to health."</p><p>She added that what the administration has done is "unconscionable."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
PFAS are found in clothing, plastic, food packaging, electronics, personal care products, firefighting foams, medical devices and numerous other products. Pxfuel
By Carol Kwiatkowski
Like many inventions, the discovery of Teflon happened by accident. In 1938, chemists from Dupont (now Chemours) were studying refrigerant gases when, much to their surprise, one concoction solidified. Upon investigation, they found it was not only the slipperiest substance they'd ever seen – it was also noncorrosive and extremely stable and had a high melting point.
<p>In 1954 the revolutionary "nonstick" Teflon pan was introduced. Since then, an entire class of human-made chemicals has evolved: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as PFAS. There are <a href="https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical_lists/pfasmaster" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">upward of 6,000 of these chemicals</a>. Many are used for stain-, grease- and waterproofing. PFAS are found in clothing, plastic, food packaging, electronics, personal care products, firefighting foams, medical devices and <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/pfas-chemicals-should-you-be-concerned/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">numerous other products</a>.</p><p>But over time, evidence has slowly built that some commonly used PFAS <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/pfas/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">are toxic</a> and <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">may cause cancer</a>. It took 50 years to understand that the happy accident of Teflon's discovery was, in fact, a train wreck.</p><p>As a public health analyst, I have studied the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Carol-F-Kwiatkowski-2002679758" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">harm caused by these chemicals</a>. I am one of hundreds of scientists who are calling for a <a href="https://greensciencepolicy.org/madrid-statement/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">comprehensive, effective plan</a> to manage the entire class of PFAS to protect public health while safer alternatives are developed.</p><p>Typically, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assesses chemicals for potential harm, it examines one substance at a time. That approach isn't working for PFAS, given the sheer number of them and the fact that manufacturers commonly replace toxic substances with "<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/01/new-forever-chemicals-contaminating-environment-regulators-say" target="_blank">regrettable substitutes</a>" – similar, lesser-known chemicals that also threaten human health and the environment.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDUxMDk2Ny9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMTgxNjkxOX0.5fy11YaxSlX5QrKsZU7JflRDJ86gF0KxfqTfR10-bOY/img.png?width=980" id="b0784" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b744bd72f43147a39643ad1250cad000" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
As PFAS are produced and used, they can migrate into soil and water. MI DEQ
Toxic Chemicals
<p>A <a href="https://cen.acs.org/articles/83/i30/DuPont-Faces-Class-Action-Lawsuits.html" target="_blank">class-action lawsuit</a> brought this issue to national attention in 2005. Workers at a Parkersburg, West Virginia, DuPont plant joined with local residents to sue the company for releasing millions of pounds of one of these chemicals, known as PFOA, into the air and the Ohio River. Lawyers discovered that the company <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html" target="_blank">had known as far back as 1961</a> that PFOA could harm the liver.</p><p>The suit was ultimately <a href="https://www.levinlaw.com/dupont-c8-litigation" target="_blank">settled in 2017</a> for $670 million, after <a href="http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an eight-year study</a> of tens of thousands of people who had been exposed. Based on <a href="http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/publications.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">multiple scientific studies</a>, this review concluded that there was a probable link between exposure to PFOA and six categories of diseases: diagnosed high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer and pregnancy-induced hypertension.</p><p>Over the past two decades, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-018-0405-y" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers</a> have shown that many PFAS are not only toxic – they also <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">don't fully break down in the environment</a> and have accumulated in the bodies of people and animals around the world. Some studies have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2019.10.008" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">detected PFAS in 99% of people tested</a>. Others have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emcon.2019.06.002" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">found PFAS in wildlife</a>, including polar bears, dolphins and seals.</p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e62ff1326c2d51afc5f0856eb1ec3795"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JbHeE3YzeRA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Widespread and Persistent
<p>PFAS are often called "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/these-toxic-chemicals-are-everywhere-and-they-wont-ever-go-away/2018/01/02/82e7e48a-e4ee-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html" target="_blank">forever chemicals</a>" because they don't fully degrade. They move easily through air and water, can quickly travel long distances and accumulate in sediment, soil and plants. They have also been found in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.009" target="_blank">dust</a> <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/chemicals/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas" target="_blank">and food</a>, including eggs, meat, milk, fish, fruits and vegetables.</p><p>In the bodies of humans and animals, PFAS <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2013.06.004" target="_blank">concentrate in various organs, tissues and cells</a>. The <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/pfoa/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. National Toxicology Program</a> and <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1117&tid=237" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a> have confirmed a long list of health risks, including immunotoxicity, testicular and kidney cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility and thyroid disease.</p><p>Children are even more vulnerable than adults because they can ingest more PFAS relative to their body weight from food and water and through the air. Children also put their hands in their mouths more often, and their metabolic and immune systems are less developed. Studies show that these chemicals <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14070691" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">harm children</a> by causing kidney dysfunction, delayed puberty, asthma and <a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/pfoa/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">altered immune function</a>.</p><p>Researchers have also documented that PFAS exposure <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.2034" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reduces the effectiveness of vaccines</a>, which is particularly concerning amid the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><div id="2f489" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="dc8947d6f28cecd61b99688c8e1f751a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1291831257790402560" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">PFAS, a class of chemicals that have been associated with health hazards including liver damage, birth defects, can… https://t.co/NtnVkmMQs0</div> — WIRED (@WIRED)<a href="https://twitter.com/WIRED/statuses/1291831257790402560">1596831547.0</a></blockquote></div>
Regulation Is Lagging
<p>PFAS have become so ubiquitous in the environment that health experts say it is <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/exposure.html" target="_blank">probably impossible to completely prevent exposure</a>. These substances are released throughout their life cycles, from chemical production to product use and disposal. Up to 80% of environmental pollution from common PFAS, such as PFOA, comes from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es0512475" target="_blank">production of fluoropolymers</a> that use toxic PFAS as processing aids to make products like Teflon.</p><p>In 2009 the EPA established a health advisory level for PFOA in drinking water of 400 parts per trillion. Health advisories are not binding regulations – they are <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-contaminant-human-health-effects-information#dw-standards" target="_blank">technical guidelines</a> for state, local and tribal governments, which are primarily responsible for regulating public water systems.</p><p>In 2016 the agency <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/drinkingwaterhealthadvisories_pfoa_pfos_updated_5.31.16.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dramatically lowered</a> this recommendation to 70 parts per trillion. Some states have set <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.4863" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">far more protective levels</a> – as low as 8 parts per trillion.</p><p>According to a recent estimate by the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/about-us" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Environmental Working Group</a>, a public health advocacy organization, up to 110 million Americans could be <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">drinking PFAS-contaminated water</a>. Even with the most advanced treatment processes, it is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.10.045" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">extremely difficult and costly</a> to remove these chemicals from drinking water. And it's impossible to clean up lakes, river systems or oceans. Nonetheless, PFAS are <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/toxic-forever-chemicals-a-call-for-immediate-federal-action-on-pfas" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">largely unregulated by the federal government</a>, although they are <a href="https://www.inquirer.com/news/pfas-action-act-congress-bill-house-pass-trump-epa-20200110.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gaining increased attention from Congress</a>.</p>Reducing PFAS Risks at the Source
<p>Given that PFAS pollution is so ubiquitous and hard to remove, many health experts assert that the only way to address it is by <a href="https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2016/12/21/reducing-human-exposure-to-highly-fluorinated-chemicals" target="_blank">reducing PFAS production and use as much as possible</a>.</p><p><a href="https://pfascentral.org/" target="_blank">Educational campaigns</a> and <a href="https://toxicfreefuture.org/toxic-free-future-action-center/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">consumer pressure</a> are making a difference. Many forward-thinking companies, including grocers, clothing manufacturers and furniture stores, have <a href="https://pfascentral.org/pfas-basics/pfas-free-products/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">removed PFAS</a> from products they use and sell.</p><p>State governments have also stepped in. California recently <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/ban-on-firefighting-foam-with-pfas-signed-by-california-governor" target="_blank">banned PFAS in firefighting foams</a>. Maine and Washington have <a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/attack-pfass-extends-to-food-packaging" target="_blank">banned PFAS in food packaging</a>. Other states are <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resources/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-state-laws.aspx" target="_blank">considering similar measures</a>.<br></p><p>I am part of a group of scientists from universities, nonprofit organizations and government agencies in the U.S. and Europe that has argued for managing the entire class of PFAS chemicals as a group, instead of one by one. We also support an "<a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EM00163H" target="_blank">essential uses" approach</a> that would restrict their production and use only to products that are critical for health and proper functioning of society, such as medical devices and safety equipment. And we have recommended developing safer non-PFAS alternatives.</p><p>As the EPA acknowledges, there is an <a href="https://www.epa.gov/innovation/innovative-ways-destroy-pfas-challenge" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">urgent need for innovative solutions</a> to PFAS pollution. Guided by good science, I believe we can effectively manage PFAS to reduce further harm, while researchers find ways to clean up what has already been released.</p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump to Veto Bill Intended to Keep Forever Chemicals out of ... ›
- How Chemicals Like PFAS Can Increase Your Risk of Severe ... ›
- PFAS Chemicals Contaminate U.S. Food Supply, FDA Confirms ... ›
- Dust From Your Old Furniture Likely Contains Harmful Chemicals - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A resident of Springdale, Pennsylvania looks out her front window at the smoke stack of the Cheswick coal-fired power plant on Oct. 27, 2017. Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images
A three judge panel in the Court of Appeals in Washington, DC listened to arguments Thursday on a Trump administration rollback of regulations that limit the emissions that power plants are allowed to spew into the atmosphere, as The New York Times reported.
<p>Health and environmental activists sued the government, arguing that the new regulations inadequately address the threat of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" target="_self">climate crisis</a>. The American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association first filed the suit. Then dozens of other groups signed on and more than 170 amicus briefs were filed in the case revolving around the Trump administration's move to scrap the Clean Power Plan, as <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/health-environment-groups-clash-with-feds-over-clean-power/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a> reported.</p><p>The new Trump rule, touted as the Affordable Clean Energy rule, "will result in some <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> plants running more often and delaying their retirement, which would mean increased emissions of dangerous pollution as compared to the Clean Power Plan," according to the American Lung Association, as Courthouse News reported.</p>
<p>In arguments held virtually that went all day, the panel of judges — two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee — fired questions at the lawyers on a range of topics from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) jurisdiction to how coal turns into electricity, as <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/d-c-circuit-goes-into-overtime-exploring-epas-climate-rules" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Bloomberg Law</a> reported.</p><p>The plaintiffs contend that the administration's Affordable Clean Energy rule will not only allow power plants to make no effort to reduce carbon emissions, but will also allow them to increase other toxic pollutants emitted into the atmosphere. That consequence betrays the EPA's mandate and legal obligations, they argue, as The New York Times reported.</p>
<p>New York Deputy Solicitor General Steven C. Wu said the Affordable Clean Energy plan is unjustified and inadequate to make any significant impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.</p><p>The case may have far-reaching implications as the Trump administration is arguing that the EPA has an extremely limited amount of authority in the Clean Air Act. That limited scope, the administration argues, means the federal government has neither the authority to set national limits on greenhouse gas emissions, nor the jurisdiction to mandate that states move away from <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> power, according to The New York Times.</p>
<p>The plaintiffs in the case argued that the Trump administration's rollbacks were irresponsible.</p><p>"It's like choosing a squirt gun to put out a five alarm fire. EPA provides no reasoned explanation of how such a paltry remedy is appropriate given a record showing such an urgent problem," said Sean Donahue, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, in his argument for the health and environmental petitioners, as Courthouse News reported.</p><p>If the Trump administration is successful in the case, it will limit the scope that any future administration has to curtail the emissions from power plants, which are the nation's second largest source of greenhouse gases after transportation. If the administration loses the case, it's expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, making the potential appointment of Amy Coney Barrett high-stakes for environmental policy, according to The New York Times.</p><p>"The Trump administration has really taken a go-for-broke approach," said Joseph Goffman, executive director of Harvard University Law School's Environmental & Energy Law Program and a former EPA official under Obama, to The New York Times. He added that if the Trump administration wins, "Then they've really advanced a broader project that the Trump administration has been pursuing to not only repeal individual rules, but to narrow the foundation of the federal government in doing any kind of regulation."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump's Latest EPA Rollback Lets Polluters Spew More Lead ... ›
- Blowing the Cover off the 'Cleanest Air' Illusion of the Trump ... ›
- Trump's EPA Signs 'Deadly' Clean Power Plan Replacement ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
The Redwood City Salt Ponds on May 11, 2013. Kenneth Lu / Flickr
A federal judge in a U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California vacated a decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to dredge and fill salt ponds in Redwood City, a town on the San Francisco Bay, as the AP reported.
<p>The judge in the case, William Alsup, determined on Monday that the EPA made a miscalculation in how the Clean Water Act is applied when it decided that large developments on the salt ponds were exempt from the act's regulations, according to <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/san-francisco-bay-salt-ponds-are-protected-us-waters-judge-rules/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Courthouse News</a>.</p>
<p>In arguments, the EPA made the bold claim that the Redwood City Salt Ponds were a unique case upon which the judge lacked the expertise to decide, and therefore should defer to the EPA's wisdom. The EPA also argued that it relied on previous federal court decisions to determine that the salt ponds were not protected. Those two arguments struck the judge as contradictory.</p><p>"Either there is precedent or there is not," Alsup wrote in a <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SFBaySaltPonds-SJRuling.pdf" target="_blank">21-page ruling</a>, as Courthouse News reported. "This order holds that there is precedent and that EPA headquarters misapplied that precedent."</p>
<p>The Redwood City Salt Ponds are south of San Francisco, between Palo Alto and San Mateo. They are 1,365 acres owned by the food giant Cargill. Cargill said it wanted to build a 12,000 unit housing development in 2009, but reversed course after a groundswell of opposition arose, as the AP reported.</p><p>The ponds are tidal pools and marshlands used for salt mining operations. If the Salt Ponds did not have protection under the Clean Water Act, they could be dredged, filled and developed.</p>
<p>Environmental activists, including Save the Bay, San Francisco Baykeeper, Committee for Green Foothills and Citizens' Committee to Complete the Refuge, joined California's attorney general in filing suit against the EPA, as Courthouse News and <a href="https://www.ktvu.com/news/court-vacates-epa-determination-regarding-redwood-citys-salt-ponds" target="_blank">KTVU</a> in Oakland reported.</p><p>"This is an important victory for protecting clean water in our communities. And it's a good reminder to the Trump Administration that it can't use the San Francisco Bay as its political playground," Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement, as the AP reported. "The EPA can't ignore its own scientists and come up with an arbitrary rule that opens the door for development of a vital ecosystem."</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration had determined that the salt ponds were not "waters of the United States" since it was separated from the San Francisco Bay by a network of levees and dikes. That reversed a 2016 Obama-era EPA decision that the ponds should be covered by the Clean Water Act, according to the AP.</p><p>If the Trump-era EPA's decision had been upheld, then California would not have the right to review development plans to make sure that any new development was in compliance with the state's water quality regulations. It would have also restricted the state from requiring a developer to include public parks and protective wetlands, as Courthouse News reported.</p><p>In his decision, Alsup noted that much of the salt ponds would be inundated with water if there were not artificial barriers blocking the water. Since the water would be there, the ponds are part of the water owned by the U.S.</p><p>"Today's ruling makes clear that Cargill's future development of the salt ponds will be severely limited by Clean Water Act protections, resulting in a big legal win for San Francisco Bay," said Sejal Choksi-Chugh, executive director of San Francisco Baykeeper, in a statement on Monday, as Courthouse News reported.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Indigenous Leaders Furious After EPA Grants Oklahoma Control Over Sovereign Tribal Lands
06 October
Climate
An oil pump is seen in Glenpool, Oklahoma. roy.luck / Wikimedia Commons / CC by 2.0
By Brett Wilkins
In a little-noticed development last week that drew ire after being reported Monday, the Trump administration's EPA granted the state of Oklahoma wide-ranging environmental regulatory control on nearly all tribal lands in the state, stripping dozens of tribes of their sovereignty over critical environmental issues.
<p><em>The Young Turks</em> which first reported the news, obtained a copy of an October 1 <a href="https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:9c26a810-0dec-46bf-a0a7-55ca523d6ffc#pageNum=1" target="_blank">letter</a> from EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler granting a request by Republican Gov. J. Kevin Stitt for control of environmental regulations on tribal land on a wide range of issues, including:</p><ul><li>Dumping hazardous waste—including formaldehyde; mercury; lead; asbestos; toxic air pollutants; per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); pesticides; the herbicide glyphosate, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)—on tribal lands. </li><li><a href="https://www.epa.gov/uic" target="_blank">Underground Injection Control</a>, the EPA's fracking permitting system. </li><li>Protecting major agricultural polluters, including large-scale factory farming operations. </li></ul>
<div id="33841" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5a14c6042aa0d0712fe13d5eb759cef5"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1313101832315641858" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The Environmental Protection Agency @EPA has stripped indigenious tribes of regulatory control over environmental i… https://t.co/w1tlxBaWtl</div> — Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) (@Climate Justice Alliance (CJA))<a href="https://twitter.com/CJAOurPower/statuses/1313101832315641858">1601902847.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Wheeler's letter acknowledges <em>McGirt v. Oklahoma,</em> in which the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/07/09/holding-us-government-its-treaty-promises-once-supreme-court-rules-nearly-half" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ruled</a> in July that much of eastern Oklahoma is Native American land. The new EPA move essentially means the state of Oklahoma now has the same rights as it did before <em>McGirt</em>. Attorney General William Barr has joined Republican leaders in <a href="https://www.kosu.org/post/us-attorney-general-visits-oklahoma-discuss-effects-scotus-ruling" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">seeking ways to undermine</a> the landmark ruling.</p>
<div id="19548" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0db07e3f6b7e98220fdf3d2d226ca16d"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1310611113575419906" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Cherokee Nation is now visible on Google Maps. It is the latest reservation added after a Supreme Court ruling in… https://t.co/G4yxXdRpJP</div> — AJ+ (@AJ+)<a href="https://twitter.com/ajplus/statuses/1310611113575419906">1601309014.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The fossil fuel and industrial agriculture industries wield tremendous power in Oklahoma. The state Capitol—which was built on stolen Indigenous land—sits atop a large oil field and has<a href="https://oklahoman.com/article/1974476/our-petunia-capitol-is-only-one-with-an-oil-well" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> a working oil rig</a> on its grounds. The names of oil companies are also inscribed inside the building's dome. </p><p>The EPA policy change—which affects some 38 Native American tribes—sparked anger among Indigenous leaders.</p><p>"After over 500 years of oppression, lies, genocide, ecocide, and broken treaties, we should have expected the EPA ruling in favor of racist Gov. Stitt of Oklahoma, yet it still stings," Casey Camp-Horinek, environmental ambassador and elder and hereditary drum keeper for the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, told <em>TYT</em>.</p>
<p>Camp-Horinek continued:</p><blockquote>Under the Trump administration, destroying all environmental protection has been ramped up to give the fossil fuel industry life support as it takes its last dying breath. Who suffers the results? Everyone and everything! Who benefits? Trump and his cronies, climate change deniers like Gov. Stitt, Sens. [James] Inhofe and [James] Lankford, who are financially supported by big oil and gas.<br><br>I am convinced that we must fight back against this underhanded ruling. In the courts, on the frontlines and in the international courts, life itself is at stake.<br></blockquote><p>The EPA attempted to assuage tribal leaders in a September 29 <a href="https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:c37ccfcb-547a-475b-8105-3ab26ee9b896#pageNum=1" target="_blank">summary report</a> in which the agency vowed to adhere to federal law. However, under President Donald Trump, the agency has reversed, or is in the process of reversing, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">over 100 environmental rules</a> governing clean air and water, toxic chemicals, and more. </p><p>The summary report notes that the EPA consulted with 13 Indigenous tribes. It also acknowledges that all of the tribes questioned the limited time and geographical scope of the consultations. </p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/05/indigenous-leaders-furious-after-epa-grants-oklahoma-control-over-sovereign-tribal?fbclid=IwAR0eZeGbhOeuLUIhyw6Jk3nOSDLkVHaCZ47LR2RnnDTGDg4HgjYhGo2ECvQ" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Why Defending Indigenous Rights Is Integral to Fighting Climate ... ›
- In Major Win for Indigenous Rights, Supreme Court Rules Much of ... ›
- Oklahoma Has Always Been Native Land - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
In the U.S., a variety of federal, state and local entities are involved in regulating safe drinking water. PxHere / CC0
By Brett Walton
Who's responsible for making sure the water you drink is safe? Ultimately, you are. But if you live in the U.S., a variety of federal, state and local entities are involved as well.
<p>The <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sdwa" title="" target="_blank">Safe Drinking Water Act</a> (SDWA) forms the foundation of federal oversight of public water systems — those that provide water to multiple homes or customers. Congress passed the landmark law in 1974 during a decade marked by accumulating evidence of cancer and other health damage caused by industrial chemicals that found their way into drinking water. The act authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the first time to set national standards for contaminants in drinking water. The EPA has since developed standards for <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/npwdr_complete_table.pdf" title="" target="_blank">91 contaminants</a>, a medley of undesirable intruders that range from arsenic and nitrate to lead, copper and volatile organic chemicals like benzene.</p><p>In 1996, amendments to the SDWA revised the process for developing drinking water standards, which limit the levels of specific contaminants. Nearly a quarter century after those amendments, an increasing number of policymakers and public health advocates today argue that the act is failing its mission to protect public health and is once again in need of major revision.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQ1MDI5MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDI4MTI5OH0.yBsq96HoT9OVGV0cNMCvEBVdnUhdtX4pMImfojQKLmk/img.jpg?width=980" id="8c4e1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f59b4a2a9f220da32b1720e32804ab2a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Setting Limits
<p>The process for setting federal drinking water contaminant limits, which is overseen by the EPA, was not designed to be speedy.</p><p>First, the EPA identifies a list of <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ccl/contaminant-candidate-list-4-ccl-4-0" target="_blank">several dozen</a> unregulated chemical and microbial contaminants that might be harmful. Then water utilities, which are in charge of water quality monitoring, test their treated water to see what shows up. The identification and testing is done on a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ccl/basic-information-ccl-and-regulatory-determination#what-is-CCL" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">five-year cycle</a>. The EPA examines those results and, for at least five contaminants, as required by the SDWA, it determines whether a regulation is needed.</p><p>Three factors go into the decision: Is the contaminant harmful? Is it widespread at high levels? Will a regulation meaningfully reduce health risks? If the answer is "Yes" to all three, then a national standard <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ccl/basic-information-ccl-and-regulatory-determination#what-crieria-reg-det" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">will be forthcoming</a>. Altogether, the process can take a decade or more from start to finish.</p><p>Usually, however, one of the three answers is "No." Since the 1996 amendments were passed, the EPA has not regulated any new contaminants through this process, though it has strengthened existing rules for arsenic, microbes and the chemical byproducts of drinking water disinfection. The agency did decide in 2011 that it should regulate perchlorate — which is used in explosives and rocket fuel and damages the thyroid — but reversed that decision in June 2020, claiming that the chemical is not widespread enough to warrant a national regulation.</p><p>Two other chemicals have recently advanced to the standard-writing stage. In February, EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler announced that the agency would regulate PFOA and PFOS, both members of the class of non-stick, flame-retarding chemicals known as PFAS. For those two chemicals, the EPA currently has issued a health advisory, which is a non-enforceable guideline.</p><p>The act of writing a national standard introduces more calculations: health risks, cost of treatment to remove the contaminant from water and availability of treatment technology. Considering these, the EPA establishes what is known as a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG), which is the level at which no one is expected to become ill from the contaminant over a lifetime. The agency then sets a standard as close to the goal as possible, taking treatment cost into account.</p><p>Standards, in the end, are not purely based on health protection and sometimes are higher than the MCLG. These standards, except for lead, apply to water as it leaves the treatment plant or moves throughout the distribution system. They do not apply to water from a home faucet, which could be compromised by old plumbing.</p><p>The EPA also has 15 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicals" target="_blank">"secondary" standards</a> that relate to how water tastes and smells. Unless mandated by a state, utilities are not required to meet these standards.</p><p>Once the EPA sets a drinking water standard, the nation's roughly 50,000 community water systems — plus tens of thousands of schools, office buildings, gas stations and campgrounds that operate their own water systems — are <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/how-epa-regulates-drinking-water-contaminants#water" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">obligated to test</a> for the contaminant. If a regulated substance is found, system operators must treat the water so that contaminant concentrations fall below the standard.</p>
Omissions and Nuances
<p>That is the regulatory process at the federal level. But there are omissions and nuances.</p><p>One big omission is private wells. Water in wells that supply individual homes is not regulated by federal statute. Rather, private well owners are responsible for testing and treating their own well water. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that about 15% of U.S. residents use a private well. Some states, such as New Jersey, require that private wells be tested for contaminants before a home is sold. County health departments might also have similar point-of-sale requirements.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDQ1MDI5NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMzEwMzkxN30.-xcoj4qjzQsoxymJvOfSs6VIbMNUKOU5DFkkNVxRdNU/img.jpg?width=980" id="41718" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="21d2871904fff8637721191296cbc054" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><p>The nuance comes at the state level. States generally carry out the day-to-day grunt work of gathering water quality data from utilities and enforcing action against violations. To gain this authority, they must set drinking water standards that are at least as protective as the federal ones. If they want, they can set stricter limits or regulate contaminants that the EPA has not touched.</p><p>State authority had long been uncontroversial because only a few states — California and some northeastern states — were setting their own standards. That has changed in the last few years as states, responding to public pressure in the absence of an EPA standard, began regulating PFAS compounds.</p><p>"There was always a little bit of state standards-setting," says Alan Roberson, executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, an umbrella group for state regulators. "But it's gone from a little bit to a lot."</p><p>Six states — Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont — adopted drinking water standards for certain PFAS compounds, while four others, including North Carolina and Minnesota, have issued health advisories or guidelines for groundwater cleanup.</p><p>States are also putting limits on other chemicals that the EPA has ignored. In July, New York adopted the nation's first drinking water standard for <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/ffrro_factsheet_contaminant_14-dioxane_january2014_final.pdf" target="_blank">1,4-dioxane</a>, a synthetic chemical that was used before the 1990s as an additive to industrial solvents. The EPA deems it likely to cause cancer, but the agency has not regulated it in drinking water. In 2017, California approved a limit for <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/ffrrofactsheet_contaminant_tcp_january2014_final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">1,2,3-TCP</a>, another manufactured industrial solvent that the EPA considers likely to be carcinogenic.</p><p>The burst of state standards, especially for PFAS chemicals, has raised eyebrows. Some lawmakers worry that mismatched standards are confusing to residents. New York and New Jersey, for instance, set different limits on PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.</p><p>"This can create poor risk communication and a crisis of confidence by the public who have diminished trust in their state's standard when it fails to align with a neighboring state," Rep. Paul Tonko of New York said during a <a href="https://energycommerce.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/hearing-on-theres-something-in-the-water-reforming-our-nations-drinking" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing</a> in July.</p><p>Other representatives countered with the view that the EPA should concentrate on a select number of the most concerning contaminants so as not to overwhelm utilities and states with too many rules that are too hastily put together. Rep. John Shimkus from Illinois, echoing statements made by other committee members, said he does not want a system in which "quantity makes quality."</p><p>Tonko, however, argued that the federal process "<a href="https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/072820%20ECC%20SDWA%20Reform%20Hearing%20PT%20Opening_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">has not worked</a>," pointing to the two-plus decades since a new contaminant was regulated.</p><p>This debate, and other considerations like regional drinking water standards, is likely to carry over into the next Congress.</p>
<p><em>Editor's note: This story is part of a nine-month investigation of drinking water contamination across the U.S. The series is supported by funding from the Park Foundation and Water Foundation. Read the launch story, "Thirsting for Solutions," <a href="https://ensia.com/features/thirsting-for-solutions/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="">here</a>.</em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://ensia.com/articles/drinking-water-contamination-regulation-pollution-health/?ct=t" target="_blank">Ensia</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump Admin's Clean Water Rollback Will Hit Some States Hard ... ›
- Weak Water Regulations Hurt the Economy - EcoWatch ›
- Trump EPA Won't Regulate Toxic Drinking Water Chemical That ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less