From Alaska to Florida, Harmful PFAS Compounds Pollute Water at Multiple Sites in Every State
21 December 2020
Health + Wellness
More than 200 million Americans may be drinking PFAS-contaminated water, research suggests. vitapix / Getty Images
By Lynne Peeples
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," here.
<p>Tom Kennedy learned about the long-term contamination of his family's drinking water about two months after he was told that his breast cancer had metastasized to his brain and was terminal.</p><p>The troubles tainting his tap: per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a broad category of chemicals invented in the mid-1900s to add desirable properties such as stain-proofing and anti-sticking to shoes, cookware and other everyday objects. Manufacturers in Fayetteville, North Carolina had been discharging them into the Cape Fear River — a regional drinking water source — <a href="https://governor.nc.gov/news/memo-water-quality-state-action-items" target="_blank">for decades</a>.</p><p>"I was furious," says Kennedy, who lives in nearby Wilmington. "I made the connection pretty quickly that PFAS likely contributed to my condition. Although it's nothing that I can prove."</p><p>The double whammy of bad news came more than three years ago. Kennedy, who has outlived his prognosis, is now an active advocate for stiffer regulation of PFAS.</p><p>"PFAS is everywhere," he says. "It's really hard to get any change."</p><p>Indeed, various forms of PFAS are still used in a spectrum of industrial and consumer products — from nonstick frying pans and stain-resistant carpets to food wrappers and firefighting foam — and have become ubiquitous. The compounds enter the environment anywhere they are made, spilled, discharged or used. Rain can flush them into surface sources of drinking water such as lakes, or PFAS may gradually migrate through the soil to reach the groundwater — another key source of public water systems and private wells.</p><p>For the same reasons the chemicals are prized by manufacturers — they resist heat, oil and water — PFAS also persist in the soil, the water and our bodies.</p><p>More than 200 million Americans may be drinking PFAS-contaminated water, <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00713" target="_blank">research</a> suggests. As studies continue to link exposures to a lengthening list of potential health consequences — including links to Covid-19 susceptibility — scientists and advocates are calling for urgent action from both regulators and industry to curtail PFAS use and to take steps to ensure the compounds already in the environment stay out of drinking water.</p>
Thousands of Chemicals
<p>PFAS dates back to the 1930s and 1940s, when Dupont and Manhattan Project scientists each accidentally discovered the compounds. The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, now 3M, soon began manufacturing PFAS as a key ingredient in Scotchgard and other non-stick, waterproof and stain-resistant products.<br></p><p>Thousands of different PFAS chemicals emerged over the following decades, including the two most-studied versions: PFOS and PFOA. Oral-B began using PFAS in dental floss. Gore-Tex used it to make waterproof fabrics. Hush Puppies used it waterproof leather for shoes. And DuPont, along with its spin-off company Chemours, used the compounds to make its popular Teflon coatings.</p><p>Science suggests links between PFAS exposure and a range of health consequences, including possible <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.html" target="_blank">increased risks</a> of <a href="https://dceg.cancer.gov/research/what-we-study/pfas" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cancer</a>, <a href="http://www.ijthyroid.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.11106/ijt.2020.13.1.19" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">thyroid disease</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019305094#:~:text=PFAS%20may%20disrupt%20lipid%20regulation.&text=We%20examined%20PFAS-lipid%20relationship%20in%20prediabetic%20adults%20over%2015%20years.&text=Plasma%20PFAS%20concentrations%20had%20positive,associations%20with%20total%20cholesterol%20level.&text=Risk%20of%20dyslipidemia%20was%20elevated%20in%20relation%20to%20baseline%20PFAS%20levels." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">high cholesterol</a>, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30823334/#:~:text=Exposures%20to%20perfluoroalkyl%20substances%20(PFAS,fatty%20liver%20disease%20(NAFLD)." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">liver damage</a>, <a href="https://cjasn.asnjournals.org/content/13/10/1479" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">kidney disease</a>, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-019-0720-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">low birth-weight babies</a>, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/pr2015213.pdf?origin=ppub" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">immune suppression</a>, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ecco-jcc/article/14/Supplement_1/S138/5705603" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ulcerative colitis</a> and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30626391/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pregnancy-induced hypertension</a>.</p><p>"PFAS really seem to interact with the full range of biological functions in our body," says David Andrews, a senior scientist with <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00713" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the nonprofit Environmental Working Group</a> (EWG, a collaborator on this reporting project). "Even at the levels that the average person has in this country, these chemicals are likely having an impact."</p><p>The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has even issued a warning that exposure to high levels of PFAS might raise the risk of infection with Covid-19 and noted evidence from human and animal studies that PFAS could lower vaccine efficacy. A PFAS known as PFBA is raising particular concern with respect to the global pandemic. Philippe Grandjean, a professor of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and colleagues recently found a positive correlation between severity of Covid-19 symptoms and the presence of PFBA in individuals' blood, <a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.22.20217562v1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">according to their non-peer-reviewed preprint paper</a> published in October.</p><p>"There is a whole range of potential adverse effects. To me, the interference with the immune system is the most important," Grandjean says. "According to our data, the immune system is affected at the lowest exposure levels."</p>Water Woes
<p>Once PFAS gets into the environment, the compounds are likely to stick around a long time because they are not easily broken down by sunlight or other natural processes.</p><p>Legacy and ongoing PFAS contamination is present across the U.S., especially at or near sites associated with <a href="https://www.nccoast.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ITRC-PFAS-Transport-Fact-Sheet.pdf" target="_blank">fire training, industry, landfills and wastewater treatment</a>. Near Parkersburg, West Virginia, PFAS seeped into drinking water supplies from a Dupont plant. In <a href="https://pfasproject.com/decatur-alabama/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Decatur, Alabama</a>, a 3M manufacturing facility is suspected of discharging PFAS, polluting residents' drinking water. In <a href="https://pfasproject.com/hyannis-massachusetts/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hyannis, Massachusetts</a>, firefighting foam from a firefighter training academy is the likely source of well-water contamination, <a href="http://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/EEA/fileviewer/Rtn.aspx?rtn=4-0026179" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">according to the state</a>. Use of PFAS-containing materials such as firefighting foam at hundreds of military sites around the country, including one on <a href="https://pfasproject.com/whidbey-island-washington/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Whidbey Island</a> in Washington State, has also contaminated many drinking water supplies.</p><p>"It works great for fires. It's just that it's toxic," says Donald (Matt) Reeves, an associate professor of hydrogeology at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo who studies how PFAS moves around, and sticks around, in the environment.</p><p>It can be a near-endless loop, Reeves explains. Industry might discharge the compounds into a waste stream that ends up at a wastewater treatment plant. If that facility is not outfitted with filters that can trap PFAS, the chemicals may go directly into a drinking water source. Or a wastewater treatment facility might produce PFAS-laced sludge that is applied to land or put into a landfill. Either way, PFAS could leach out and find its way back in a wastewater treatment plant, repeating the cycle. The compounds can be released into the air as well, resulting in some cases in PFAS getting deposited on land where it can seep back into drinking water supplies.</p><p>His research in Michigan, he says, echoes a broader trend across the U.S.: "The more you test, the more you find."</p><p>In fact, a <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00713" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">study by scientists from EWG</a>, published in October 2020, used state testing data to estimate that more than 200 million Americans could have PFAS in their drinking water at concentrations of 1 part per trillion (ppt) or higher. That is the recommended safe limit, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1048291115590506" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">according to some scientists and health advocates</a>, and is equivalent to <a href="https://www.secnav.navy.mil/eie/Pages/DrinkingWaterConcentrations.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">one drop in 500,000 barrels of water</a>.</p><p>"This really highlights the extent that these contaminants are in the drinking water across the country," says EWG's Andrews, who co-authored the paper. "And, in some ways, it's not a huge surprise. It's nearly impossible to escape contamination of drinking water." He references research from the CDC that found the chemicals in the blood of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072821/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">98% of Americans surveyed</a>.</p>Inconsistent Regulation
<p>U.S. chemical makers have voluntarily phased out their use and emission of PFOS and PFOA, and industry efforts are underway to reduce ongoing contamination and clean up past contamination — even if the companies do not always agree with scientists on the associated health risks.<br></p><p>"The weight of scientific evidence from decades of research does not show that PFOS or PFOA causes harm in people at current or historical levels," states Sean Lynch, a spokesperson for 3M. Still, he notes that his company has invested more than US$200 million globally to clean up the compounds: "As our scientific and technological capabilities advance, we will continue to invest in cutting-edge cleanup and control technology and work with communities to identify where this technology can make a difference."</p><p>Thom Sueta, a company spokesperson for Chemours, notes similar efforts to address historic and current emissions and discharges. The company's Fayetteville plant has dumped large quantities of the PFAS compound GenX, contaminating the drinking water used by Kennedy and some 250,000 of his neighbors.</p><p>"We continue to decrease PFAS loading to the Cape Fear River and began operation this fall of a capture and treatment system of a significant groundwater source at the site," Sueta stated in an email.</p><p>A big part of the challenge is that PFAS is considered an emerging contaminant and is, therefore, not regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But most of the ongoing PFOS and PFOA contamination appear to come from previous uses cycling back into the environment and into people, notes Andrews.</p><p>A big part of the challenge is that PFAS is considered an emerging contaminant and is, therefore, not regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2016, the EPA set a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-and-pfos" target="_blank">non-binding health advisory</a> limit of 70 ppt for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. The agency proposed developing federal regulations for the contaminants in February 2020 and is currently reviewing comments with plans to issue a final decision this winter.</p><p>Several U.S. states have set drinking water limits for PFAS, including California, Minnesota and New York. Michigan's regulations, which cover seven different PFAS compounds, are <a href="https://www.natlawreview.com/article/michigan-adopts-drinking-water-criteria-7-pfas-compounds" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">some of the most stringent</a>. Western Michigan University's Reeves says that the 2014 lead contamination crisis in Flint elevated the state's focus on safe drinking water.</p><p>Still, the inconsistency across the country has created confusion. "The regulation of PFAS remains varied. States are all having different ideas, and that's not necessarily a good thing," says David Sedlak, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. "People are uncertain what to do."</p><p>The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, or ITRC, a coalition of states that promotes the use of novel technologies and processes for environmental remediation, is working to pull together evidence-based recommendations for PFAS regulation in the absence of federal action.</p><p>University of Southern Denmark and Harvard professor Grandjean suggests a safe level of PFAS in drinking water is probably about 1 ppt or below. The European Union's latest risk assessment, which Grandjean says corresponds to a recommended limit of about 2 ppt for four common PFAS compounds, is "probably close," he says. "It's not a precautionary limit, but it's certainly a lot closer than EPA's."</p><p>GenX, introduced in 2009 by DuPont to replace PFOA, is among a newer generation of short-chain PFAS designed to have fewer carbon molecules than the original long-chain PFAS. These were initially believed to be less toxic and more quickly excreted from the body. But some evidence is proving otherwise: <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP6233" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Studies suggest</a> that these relatives may pose many of the same risks as their predecessors.</p><p>"The family of PFAS chemicals being used in commerce is a lot broader than the small set of compounds that the EPA is considering regulating," says Sedlak. "Up until now, the focus of discussion related to regulation has centered around PFOS and PFOA with some discussion of GenX. But the deeper we dig, the more we see lots and lots of PFAS out there."</p><p>Andrews notes that the ongoing pattern of replacing one toxic chemical with another is a problem that the federal government urgently needs to fix. "This entire family of chemicals shares many of the same characteristics," he says.</p><p>"When these chemicals stop being produced, especially in significant volumes across the country, the levels go down," Andrews says, referring to a corresponding drop in PFOS and PFOA concentrations in Americans' blood after the phaseout of the compounds. "But it raises that concern of what's coming next? Or what are we really being exposed to that we're not testing for?"</p><p>Andrews and his co-author Olga Naidenko, also a scientist with EWG, further urge governments to consider one relatively low-hanging fruit: non-essential uses of PFAS. "Even if somebody would make an argument that, for serious fires, we need to use the best foam, I think we can all agree that there's no reason to spray PFAS just to train," says Naidenko. "You can spray water."</p><p>Environmental health advocates express hope that 2021 will bring greater progress on PFAS regulation. President-elect Joe Biden <a href="https://joebiden.com/environmental-justice-plan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">has pledged to set</a> enforceable limits for PFAS in drinking water and to designate PFAS as a hazardous substance — which would accelerate the cleanup of contaminated sites under the EPA's <a href="https://ensia.com/features/superfund/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Superfund program</a>.</p>Breaking the Chain
<p>Meanwhile, the million-dollar (or realistically much, much more) question is: How do we get PFAS out of drinking water? The bond between carbon and fluorine atoms is one of the strongest in nature. As a result, PFAS degrades extremely slowly in nature. "People have called them 'forever chemicals' for good reason," says Sedlak. "These carbon-fluorine bonds want to stay put."</p><p>Because PFAS resists degradation, filtration is the primary strategy for removing it from drinking water. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/reducing-pfas-drinking-water-treatment-technologies" target="_blank">Granulated activated carbon</a> filters can absorb PFAS and other contaminants, although they must be replaced when all of the available surface area becomes occupied by chemicals. The filters also tend to work less well for short-chain compared to long-chain PFAS. Another removal method is the use of ion exchange resins, which can attract and hold negatively charged contaminants such as PFAS. Perhaps the most effective technology to date is reverse osmosis. This approach can filter out a wide range PFAS. At the same time, it carries a high price tag, notes Heather Stapleton, a professor of environmental science and policy at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.</p><p>Stapleton has researched the various filters and finds that all of them can work well. She installed an at-home filter after discovering PFAS in her own drinking water. But that cost can be a significant barrier for many people, she notes, making it an "environmental justice issue."</p><p>The diversity of PFAS compounds also poses a challenge. Community water systems may spend significant resources to install systems for water treatment only to find that while the method might work well at removing one set of PFAS, it can fail to filter another set, says Naidenko.</p><p>Scientists are investigating further chemical and biological treatment methods. Sedlak is among researchers looking into ways to treat PFAS while it is still in the ground, such as via in situ oxidation coupled with microbes to break down chemicals.</p><p>"What we know for sure is we were exposed. What we don't know is what sort of lasting health impact that has on us as a community" – Emily DonovanJoel Ducoste, a professor of civil, construction and environmental engineering at NC State University in Raleigh, North Carolina, laments that currently employed treatment processes still fall short of removing PFAS and providing safe drinking water to Americans. "This has been problematic in our state and is becoming a national problem," he says.</p><p>More definitive science surrounding PFAS — optimal treatment methods, truly safe alternatives and potential health effects — can't come soon enough for those dealing daily with legacy PFAS contamination in Wilmington.</p><p>"What we know for sure is we were exposed. What we don't know is what sort of lasting health impact that has on us as a community," says Emily Donovan, co-founder of Clean Cape Fear, a grassroots group advocating for clean water in the region. Part of their effort, she says, is seeking better medical monitoring of people exposed to PFAS.</p><p>Due to the long latency between exposure and disease — often decades — it is difficult to link any PFAS with specific cancers. Kennedy notes no history of breast cancer in his family and no genetic predisposition to the disease. "Those factors made me believe even more that it was PFAS responsible for this," he says.</p><p>"It seems like that's not the right way to test chemical safety — the big underlying concern here — to expose the population widely. And yet, that seems to be what we're doing now," says Andrews.</p>From Your Site Articles
- How Will the Biden Administration Tackle 'Forever Chemicals ... ›
- 110 Million Americans May Be Drinking PFAS-Contaminated Water ... ›
- Forever Chemicals Contaminate More Drinking Water Than ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
President-elect Joe Biden has reportedly tapped Michael Regan, secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, to be EPA administrator. N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
By Andrea Germanos
President-elect Joe Biden will nominate Michael Regan, the top environmental official in North Carolina, to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to multiple news reports Thursday.
<p>The news drew a range of responses from environmental campaigners, including praise that the apparent choice means the rejection of California Air Resources Board chair Mary Nichols, who faced <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/12/03/70-organizations-oppose-carb-chair-mary-nichols-epa" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pushback</a> from progressives over alleged failings to communities on the front lines of dirty industry. Other green campaigners reacted to the possible nomination with a critical eye, pointing to what they see as Regan's "mixed record on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/environmental-justice">environmental justice</a>."</p><p><a href="https://www.wfae.org/politics/2020-12-17/biden-picks-regulator-michael-regan-for-epa-administrator" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According to</a> The Associated Press, Biden's choice of Regan "was confirmed Thursday by a person familiar with the selection process who was not authorized [to] the discuss the matter publicly before the official announcement and spoke on condition of anonymity."</p><p>CNN, citing information from people familiar with the matter, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/17/politics/biden-michael-regan-epa/index.html" target="_blank">reported</a> that Regan would be formally announced as the pick on Saturday.</p>
<div id="7065d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b6c3a995456388cfaf620d33bd21e9c4"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1339668763789176832" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">"Michael Regan will take the EPA's helm at perhaps the most critical moment in the agency's history, and he has to… https://t.co/LUVF4TrtAr</div> — Center for Bio Div (@Center for Bio Div)<a href="https://twitter.com/CenterForBioDiv/statuses/1339668763789176832">1608236897.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Regan, 44, has served as secretary of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality since 2017. He previously worked for the federal EPA's air quality and energy programs during the Clinton and Bush administrations. If confirmed by the Senate, Regan would be the nation's second Black EPA administrator; Lisa Jackson, who served in the Obama administration, was the first.</p><p>As the Raleigh, North Carolina, News & Observer <a href="https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article247855130.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reported</a> Tuesday:</p><blockquote>Under Regan, DEQ created part of the state's Clean Energy Plan. It called for drastically reducing private sector greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and attaining carbon neutrality by 2050, as well as accelerating clean energy innovation to create economic opportunities in rural and urban parts of the state.<br>Earlier this year, Duke Energy agreed to the largest coal ash clean-up in U.S. history as part of a legal settlement with DEQ, one of highlights of Regan's tenure. Duke agreed to excavate nearly 80 million tons of coal ash at six sites.</blockquote>
<p>His tenure at the state agency also included the 2018 establishment of the Environmental Justice and Equity Advisory Board.</p><p>"If Regan is ultimately Biden's pick and is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, he will find himself in familiar political territory," Lisa Sorg <a href="https://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2020/12/16/deq-secretary-michael-regan-is-leading-contender-for-top-epa-job-under-biden-administration/" target="_blank">wrote</a> Wednesday at NC Policy Watch. She continued:</p><blockquote>He would inherit an EPA that is struggling with challenges similar to those that faced the Department of Environmental Quality when he became secretary nearly four years ago: a decimated budget, demoralized staff, a previous leadership that favored industry over sound science, myriad regulatory rollbacks, and a politically divided legislative body that uses the purse strings as punishment.</blockquote><p>While Regan drew accolades from some environmental groups quoted by Sorg, others suggested Regan hasn't taken on polluting industries forcefully enough. Sorg added:</p><blockquote>"He's a great person but I don't think he's done enough for us on PFAS" — perfluorinated compounds — said Emily Donovan, co-founder of Clean Cape Fear. "I understand the agency is understaffed and underfunded. But the agency has made decisions unrelated to those things. We've fought so hard, but received so little."<br>She cited the consent order between DEQ, Cape Fear River Watch, and Chemours, which opponents of the agreement have noted, is weak. It specifically covers only contamination upstream, including private well owners near the Chemours plant in Cumberland and Bladen counties; downstream communities that are on public water systems in New Hanover and Brunswick counties feel excluded. <br>"There are a quarter-million people still exposed," Donovan said. "To see the state treat municipal ratepayers different than private well owners is not a good answer. They left municipalities on their own to fight our own battles."</blockquote>
<p>Criticism for Regan's background extended beyond his action on PFAS.</p><p><a href="https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/an-epa-administrator-michael-regan-should-not-pacify-environmental-justice-community/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">According to</a> the Revolving Door Project:</p><blockquote>Regan <a href="https://scipol.org/content/nc-approves-atlantic-coast-pipeline-permit-through-8-counties" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">supported</a> the controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline despite <a href="https://foe.org/news/68-organizations-call-on-secretary-michael-s-regan-to-stop-the-atlantic-coast-pipeline/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">major opposition</a> from environment, faith, justice, community, and Indigenous groups. His department also failed to respond to recommendations from the Environmental Justice and Equity Advisory Board to halt the construction extension. He also allowed a major liquid natural gas facility to be built in the middle of Lumbee territory, the largest Indigenous tribe East of the Mississippi, and was accused of failing to initiate public discourse or government-to-government consultation before the facility was built. <br>Regan led a department that <a href="https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/air-quality/air-quality-permitting/wood-pellet-industry-permitting-actions-and#active-energy-renewable-power" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">approved every permit application</a> from the wood pellet industry in North Carolina despite the industry's <a href="https://www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/2019/ptn4-741-exb.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">massive deforestation problems</a> and <a href="https://thefern.org/2019/08/for-years-complaints-about-north-carolinas-hog-pollution-vanished-in-state-bureaucracy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">failed to resolve</a> critical environmental issues related to hog waste disposal.</blockquote><p>Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen, however, welcomed Regan as possible EPA chief, saying in a <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/12/17/earthjustice-statement-michael-regans-nomination-epa-administrator" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">statement</a> Thursday that he "has dedicated his career to environmental work, advancing clean energy, fighting climate change, and addressing coal ash pollution."</p><p>"As EPA administrator, Regan will play a key role in solving the climate crisis and protecting the health of all communities," she added. "We will do everything in our power to support and push Regan to repair the damage done by the Trump administration, take bold action on climate solutions, and genuinely address environmental injustice that has been allowed to go on too long."</p>
<div id="175c8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b7e804fc36ff41c50b87aee48c032b7b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1339647900658221056" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">BREAKING: Biden just tapped Michael Regan to head EPA — who has not had the best track record on environmental just… https://t.co/ATViRduodf</div> — Friends of the Earth (Action) (@Friends of the Earth (Action))<a href="https://twitter.com/foe_us/statuses/1339647900658221056">1608231923.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The choice was similarly applauded by Lori Lodes, executive director of Climate Power 2020, who called Regan "an outstanding choice by the Biden team" and said he possesses "an understanding of the bold climate action this moment requires."</p><p>Lisa Ramsden, Greenpeace senior climate campaigner, welcomed the choice as well, praising Biden for not going with the previous rumored pick of Nichols.</p><p>"Biden gave himself the chance to choose an EPA administrator who will prioritize justice for the communities most impacted by fossil-fueled pollution," said Ramsden, who urged Regan to "go well beyond simply reversing the Trump administration rollbacks" and to boldly "call out oil and gas corporations for the unjust impacts of their pollution."</p><p>"While leading the Department of Environmental Quality in North Carolina, Regan rightly pushed massive utility Duke Energy to clean up its toxic coal ash and fought Trump's offshore oil drilling plans. But he has a mixed record on environmental justice issues in the state, failing to protect communities from the health impacts of living near hog farms and approving multiple permits for the carbon-intensive wood pellet industry," she said.</p><p>"Going forward," said Ramsden, "Regan and the rest of the Biden-Harris administration need to pair their lofty rhetoric on environmental justice with consistent action."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/17/michael-regan-nc-official-reportedly-tapped-be-bidens-epa-head-urged-genuinely" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- 550 Groups Urge Biden to Become #PlasticFreePresident With 8 ... ›
- Biden Considers Obama-Era EPA Chief, Others for Key Climate ... ›
- The Rebuilding Years Begin Now - EcoWatch ›
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 by the writer. If you make a purchase using the links included, we may earn commission.</em></p><em><br></em>
<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" data-width="710" data-height="959" /><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" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><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" data-width="800" data-height="800" /><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" data-width="600" data-height="600" /><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" data-width="1244" data-height="1244" /><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 ›
- Full Spectrum CBD Oil: What To Know - EcoWatch ›
- Charlotte's Web: A Review of the Certified B Corp CBD Brand ›
- Best CBD Waters: Plus All You Need to Know - EcoWatch ›
- The Best Water Soluble CBD Available Online - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD for Sleep (Lab-Tested, Person-Tested Oils) - EcoWatch ›
- CBD Oil for Dogs: 7 Benefits & Treatment Guide - EcoWatch ›
- NuLeaf Naturals CBD Review | Are They Worth The Cost? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Capsules & Pills - Buyer's Guide (Update for 2021) - EcoWatch ›
- Because Price Matters: Most Affordable CBD Oils of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- Strongest CBD Oils to Buy in 2021? - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Oils For Pain: Top 3 Brands of 2021 - EcoWatch ›
- Best CBD Vape Pen: Top Brands of 2020 - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Were Dropped Over Millions of Acres via Aerial Pesticide, Tests Reveal
02 December 2020
Health + Wellness
A plane sprays pesticide over the Wynwood neighborhood in the hope of controlling and reducing the number of mosquitos, some of which may be capable of spreading the Zika virus on Aug. 6, 2016 in Miami, Florida. Joe Raedle / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
A national nonprofit revealed Tuesday that testing commissioned by the group as well as separate analysis conducted by Massachusetts officials show samples of an aerially sprayed pesticide used by the commonwealth and at least 25 other states to control mosquito-borne illnesses contain toxic substances that critics call "forever chemicals."
<p>Officially known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (<a href="https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas" target="_blank">PFAS</a>), this group of man-made chemicals — including PFOA, PFOS, and GenX — earned the nickname because they do not break down in the environment and build up in the body. <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas">PFAS</a> has been linked to suppressed immune function, cancers, and other health issues.</p><p>Lawmakers and regulators at various levels of government have worked to clean up <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> contaminated by PFAS. The newly released results of pesticide testing by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) generated alarm about the effectiveness of such efforts.</p><p>"In Massachusetts, communities are struggling to remove PFAS from their drinking water supplies, while at the same time, we may be showering them with PFAS from the skies and roads," PEER science policy director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa">EPA</a>), <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/12/01/aerially-sprayed-pesticide-contains-pfas-forever-chemicals-potentially-spread" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement Tuesday.</p><p>"The frightening thing is that we do not know how many insecticides, herbicides, or even disinfectants contain PFAS," added Bennett, who arranged for the testing. "PEER found patents showing chemical companies using PFAS in these products, and recent articles discuss the variety of pesticides that contain PFAS as either an active or an inert ingredient."</p>
<div id="d4091" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="64ed42ca263b7280932e8f8d4e445802"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1333816394283065344" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">NEW: @PEERorg found that toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” were sprayed on millions of acres in MA & 25 other states.… https://t.co/TcR3vCuXna</div> — Food & Water Watch (@Food & Water Watch)<a href="https://twitter.com/foodandwater/statuses/1333816394283065344">1606841584.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The product tested initially by PEER and subsequently MADEP, once the nonprofit alerted the department of its findings, is Anvil 10+10, produced by the Illinois company Clarke.</p><p>Karen Larson, Clarke's vice president of government affairs, <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/12/01/metro/toxic-forever-chemicals-found-pesticide-used-millions-mass-acres-when-spraying-mosquitos/" target="_blank">told</a> the Boston Globe that "when this was first brought to our attention, we conducted an internal inquiry of our manufacturing and supply chain to ensure that PFAS was not an ingredient in the production, manufacturing, or distribution of either the active or inactive ingredients of Anvil."</p><p>"No PFAS ingredients are used in the formulation of Anvil, nor in the production of any source material in Anvil. PFAS components are not added at any point in the production of Anvil," she said. Larson added that while it is unclear why the Clarke pesticide contained PFAS, the company "will continue to work closely with the EPA to conduct our own testing."</p>
<p>PEER executive director Tim Whitehouse detailed the recent testing results in a <a href="https://www.peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/MA-DEP-Ltr-Anvil-11-25-20-1.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1c783f1a-fbb9-4fe2-b9b5-a694dc19b99e" target="_blank">letter</a> sent last week to MADEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg that called for halting the use of Anvil 10+10, ensuring any replacement does not contain forever chemicals, and requiring pesticide companies to comprehensively test their products for PFAS:</p><blockquote>This fall, PEER conducted several tests for PFAS of a 2.5 gallon jug of Anvil 10+10, the pesticide used in the aerial spraying programs of Massachusetts and many other states. Our tests revealed that Anvil 10+10 contains roughly 250 parts per trillion (ppt) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and 260–500 ppt of hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), a GenX replacement for PFOA. Both these results are hovering around the detection limits of the laboratory's equipment, but there is no doubt that these PFAS are in the insecticide. While PFAS may be useful when added to pesticides as surfactants, dispersants, and anti-foaming agents, it is unclear whether the PFAS found in Anvil 10+10 is an ingredient added by the manufacturer, contained in one of the ingredients supplied to Anvil's manufacturer by other companies, or whether it is a contaminant from the manufacturing/storage process. Moreover, since we were only able to test for 36 PFAS out of the 9,252 on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) inventory, it is impossible to know how many other PFAS might be in Anvil 10+10.<br>[...]<br>When PEER obtained its first positive PFAS results on Anvil 10+10, we immediately contacted DEP because of the far-reaching implications. MADEP independently tested nine samples of Anvil 10+10 from five different containers, and found eight different PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS. Some PFAS levels were over 700 ppt. As such, there appears to be no doubt that there are PFAS in the pesticide Massachusetts has chosen for mosquito control.</blockquote>
<p>Whitehouse noted that Massachusetts aerially sprayed 2.2 million acres with Anvil 10+10 last year and more than 200,000 acres this year. The Boston Globe explained that "most of the <a href="https://www.mass.gov/service-details/mosquito-control-and-spraying?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1c783f1a-fbb9-4fe2-b9b5-a694dc19b99e" target="_blank">spraying</a> has been done in the southeastern part of the state, where EEE, a rare but deadly mosquito-borne disease, has been most prevalent."</p><p>The EPA, which has been lambasted by lawmakers as well as environmental and public health advocates for its handling of PFAS contamination on a national scale, is working on "an analytical method" to detect the forever chemicals in pesticides and plans to conduct its own tests of Anvil 10+10, according to the newspaper.</p><p>"There are significant unanswered questions about the data currently available," Dave Deegan, a spokesperson for the federal agency's offices in New England, told the Boston Globe. "EPA will continue to work closely with and support the state on this issue. Aggressively addressing PFAS continues to be an important, active, and ongoing priority for EPA."</p>
<p>Bennett and other critics of the EPA's response to PFAS reiterated concerns about the agency in the wake of the revelations in Massachusetts.</p><p>"This PFAS fiasco shows that public trust in EPA having a full accounting of these materials and their safety is utterly misplaced," said Bennett. "Until EPA acts, states need to adopt their own safeguards and chemical disclosure requirements because they certainly cannot depend upon the diligence of EPA."</p><p>In a statement about the testing on Tuesday, Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/12/01/pfas-discovered-common-pesticide-sprayed-millions-acres" target="_blank">declared</a> that "these findings shock the conscience — states likely have unknowingly contaminated communities' water with PFAS hidden in pesticides. Once again, the EPA has failed to protect the American people from harmful pollution."</p><p>Emphasizing that "we need to stop the introduction of toxic forever chemicals into the environment and our water sources to protect public health," Hauter said that "the EPA must ban all pesticides with PFAS components, designate PFAS as hazardous substances to hold polluters accountable for cleanup of contamination, and set strong enforceable standards for PFAS in our drinking water."</p><p>"The GOP-controlled Senate must step up and pass the PFAS Action Act, which passed the House in January, to regulated these toxic compounds and hold polluters accountable, and Congress must pass he WATER Act to provide the financial relief to community water providers and households with wells to remove PFAS from drinking water or find alternative sources where treatment fails," she added. "Now is the time for decisive action to protect people's health and safety."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/01/tests-reveal-toxic-forever-chemicals-aerial-pesticide-showered-over-millions-acres" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- How Will the Biden Administration Tackle 'Forever Chemicals ... ›
- Are Forever Chemicals Harming Ocean Life? - EcoWatch ›
- How Chemicals Like PFAS Can Increase Your Risk of Severe ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Thanasis Zovoilis / Stone / Getty Images
By Scott Faber
No candidate for president has ever pledged to make the toxic "forever chemicals" known as PFAS a priority – until now.
<p>In his environmental justice plan, President-elect Joe Biden <a href="https://joebiden.com/environmental-justice-plan/" target="_blank">pledged</a> to set enforceable limits for PFAS in drinking water and to designate PFAS as a hazardous substance under the Superfund cleanup law. </p><p>Here's why that matters.</p>
<p>PFAS chemicals are building up in the blood of every American, posing the risk of serious health problems. <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/06/pfas-chemicals-harm-immune-system-decrease-response-vaccines-new-ewg" target="_blank">PFAS makes vaccines less effective</a> and are linked to cancer, harm to the reproductive system and other health hazards.</p><p>More than <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/study-more-200-million-americans-could-have-toxic-pfas-their-drinking-water" target="_blank">200 million Americans</a> are likely drinking water and eating food contaminated with PFAS. Nevertheless, the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/epa-pfas-timeline/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Environmental Protection Agency,</a> Food and Drug Administration and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/dodpfastimeline/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Defense Department</a> have for decades failed to address the chemicals' health risks. There are no federal limits on PFAS releases and uses and no requirements to clean up PFAS pollution.</p><p>Setting a national drinking water standard for PFAS under the federal Safe Drinking Water would have a huge impact on public health. Right now, only a <a href="https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/ETS/Resources/SummaryStateRegulationPFASDrinkingWaterFeb2020.pdf?ver=2020-02-03-091914-153" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">few states</a> require drinking water utilities to meet tough standards for PFAS in tap water. A national standard that would apply to all utilities would dramatically reduce our overall exposure to PFAS.</p><p>Designating PFAS as "<a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/07/it-s-time-designate-pfas-hazardous-substance" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hazardous substances</a>" under Superfund would also be historic. By doing so, the Biden-Harris administration would not only kick-start the cleanup process but also require polluters to pay their fair share of cleanup costs.</p><p>But that's not all the Biden team has pledged. The president-elect also pledged to prioritize PFAS substitutes in the marketplace. That means Biden could direct the EPA and the FDA to quickly phase out non-essential uses of PFAS in food packaging, cosmetics, sunscreens and other everyday products.</p><p>The Biden team will have other tools at its disposal. The president-elect could quickly restrict industrial discharges of PFAS into the air and water by using the tools provided by the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, and expand reporting of these releases through the Toxic Release Inventory. Right now, more than <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2020/04/updated-thousands-industrial-facilities-likely-discharging-toxic-forever" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">2,500 manufacturers</a> are thought to be releasing PFAS with no limits.</p><p>The Biden-Harris administration can also direct the Defense Department to accelerate efforts to end the use of PFAS-based firefighting foam, impose a moratorium on the incineration of remaining stocks of PFAS foam, and accelerate PFAS cleanup at military installations. More than <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2020-military-pfas-sites/map/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">300 military installations</a> are known to be contaminated with PFAS.</p><p>No candidates have ever pledged to do as much to address America's environmental challenges as Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. And that is especially the case for PFAS pollution.</p><p><em><a href="https://www.ewg.org/experts/scott-faber.php" target="_blank">Scott Faber</a> is the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at the Environmental Working Group. </em></p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump to Veto Bill Intended to Keep Forever Chemicals out of ... ›
- Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Detected in California Drinking Water ... ›
- How U.S. Government Conceals Truth About 'Forever Chemicals ... ›
- Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Were Dropped Over Millions of Acres via Aerial Pesticide, Tests Reveal - EcoWatch ›
- Harmful PFAS Compounds Pollute Water in Every State - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Dust From Your Old Furniture Likely Contains Harmful Chemicals — But There’s a Solution
21 October 2020
Health + Wellness
New research finds that dust in buildings with older furniture is more likely to contain a suite of compounds that impact our health. Aleksandr Zubkov / Getty Images
By Hannah Seo
If you've been considering throwing out that old couch, now might be a good time. Dust in buildings with older furniture is more likely to contain a suite of compounds that impact our health, according to new research.
<p>In a new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106151" target="_blank">Environment International</a></em> researchers examined rooms in three categories: no intervention—rooms in older buildings with conventional furniture; partial intervention—rooms with at least some furniture made with healthier materials; and full intervention—rooms in more recently renovated buildings with furniture free from harmful chemicals. These rooms came from 21 buildings at an unnamed university and included office suites, classrooms, and common rooms. The scientists then examined the dust in those rooms for traces of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), as well as common chemical flame retardants polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and organophosphate esters (OPEs).</p><p>They found that the dust from rooms furnished with items free of PFAS and chemical flame retardants in more recently renovated buildings had 78 percent lower levels of PFAS, 65 percent lower levels of OPEs, and 45 percent lower levels of PBDEs than rooms in older buildings with older furniture.</p>
<p>"This suggests that replacing harmful materials with these healthier materials is an inexpensive way to reduce exposures to toxic chemicals indoors, which is where we spend most of our time," <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/annaswiftyoung/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Anna Young</a>, a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and lead author of the paper, told EHN.</p><p>PFAS, PBDEs, and OPEs are all categories of chemicals that have been linked to a slew of health impacts, including certain cancers, decreased birth weights, thyroid disease, decreased sperm quality, high cholesterol, pregnancy-induced hypertension, asthma and ulcerative colitis.</p><p>Several studies have previously linked concentrations of contaminants in dust and air to higher body burdens. Despite their documented harms, all three classes of chemicals are commonly found in furniture and building materials to make products flame, stain, and water resistant.</p>
<p>The team analyzed the dust in 47 rooms—12 with no intervention, 28 with partial intervention, and seven with full intervention. They found at least one kind of PFAS, PBDE and OPE in dust from every room they sampled. And the average concentration of PFAS in rooms with no intervention was more than four times higher than the average concentration of PFAS in rooms that underwent a full intervention.<br></p><p>The paper said the contaminants in the healthier rooms could be due to those rooms existing in the same buildings as rooms that are less healthy, or could be due to newer chemicals like the PFAS perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) slipping through into products that have omitted other substances. Another potential explanation is that these chemicals could persist as older plastics and materials are recycled and used in new products.</p><p>The upside, however, is that these chemicals are "not usually intrinsically bound to products," said Young. "They're used as additives. For example, PFAS is usually applied as a coating. So that means [harmful materials] can be removed without sacrificing the functional integrity of the product."</p>
<p>Making indoor spaces safer and cleaner, therefore, will not necessarily require huge, intrusive interventions.</p><p>Young also said that while the results themselves were somewhat expected—it is unsurprising that furniture made without harmful chemicals would yield dust with lower contaminant levels—what was novel was their intervention-based approach to reducing whole classes of chemical pollutants like PFAS in buildings.</p><p>When discussing solutions to removing harmful chemicals from indoor spaces, talking about entire classes of pollutants is a big help, <a href="https://oneill.indiana.edu/faculty-research/directory/profiles/faculty/full-time/salamova-amina.html" target="_blank">Amina Salamova</a>, an environmental chemist at Indiana University who was not affiliated with the paper, told EHN. There are so many individual chemicals in each of these classes—PFAS alone has around 5,000 different types, with new kinds consistently invented—that they become basically impossible to inventory.</p>
<p>"It's absolutely impossible to develop analytical methods to measure each and every single PFAS out there. It's just too expensive, and we don't even know what half of those chemicals are," Salamova said. By collectively taking stock of a whole class, she said, you remove the need to nitpick at individual exposure levels and their thresholds—details that are important to know but ultimately distract from solutions. Looking at classes of chemicals gives scientists the ability to say that we need to intervene and remove these contaminants across the board.</p><p>Despite the small sample size, Salamova said these results are quite stark and important. The potential for 78 percent less PFAS exposure with these simple interventions is huge, she said, especially since "we still know so little about its toxicity, especially in the indoor environment."</p><p>Most of us are not living in "healthy" buildings, said Young—the majority of buildings in the U.S. are decades old, built in a time when safety concerns associated with certain materials were unknown. That's why this research is important, she said: "The decisions we make today will have decades long impacts on the materials that our buildings, the chemicals we're exposed to, and ultimately, our health."</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.ehn.org/pfas-and-flame-retardants-in-house-dust-2648396264.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_blank"><span class="redactor-selection-marker" id="selection-marker-1"></span>Environmental Health News</a>.<span class="redactor-selection-marker" id="selection-marker-2"></span></em></p>From Your Site Articles
- How Chemicals Like PFAS Can Increase Your Risk of Severe ... ›
- PFAS Chemicals Contaminate U.S. Food Supply, FDA Confirms ... ›
- This Strategy Protects Public Health From PFAS 'Forever Chemicals ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
This Strategy Protects Public Health From PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals’
13 October 2020
Health + Wellness
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" data-runner-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" data-width="600" data-height="464" />
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
How Chemicals Like PFAS Can Increase Your Risk of Severe COVID-19
05 September 2020
Health + Wellness
PFAS foam in Van Ettan Lake in Oscoda, Michigan near the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base on Sept. 19, 2017. Michigan Department of Environment , Great Lakes, and Energy
By Kathryn Crawford
Nearly a year before the novel coronavirus emerged, Dr. Leonardo Trasande published "Sicker, Fatter, Poorer," a book about connections between environmental pollutants and many of the most common chronic illnesses. The book describes decades of scientific research showing how endocrine-disrupting chemicals, present in our daily lives and now found in nearly all people, interfere with natural hormones in our bodies. The title sums up the consequences: Chemicals in the environment are making people sicker, fatter and poorer.
<p>As we learn more about the novel coronavirus and COVID-19, research is revealing ugly realities about social and environmental effects on health – including how the same chronic illnesses associated with exposure to endocrine-disrupting compounds also increase your risk of developing severe COVID-19.</p><p>In the U.S. and abroad, the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/infographic/chronic-diseases.htm" target="_blank">chronic disease</a> epidemic that was already underway at the start of 2020 meant the population entered into the coronavirus pandemic in a state of reduced health. Evidence is now emerging for the role that environmental quality plays in people's susceptibility to COVID-19 and their risk of dying from it.</p>
<h3>Why Endocrine Disruptors Are a Problem</h3><p>Endocrine-disrupting compounds, or EDCs, are a broad <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-019-0273-8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">group of chemicals</a> that can interfere with natural hormones in people's bodies in ways that harm human health. They include perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas">PFAS</a>, flame retardants, plasticizers, pesticides, antimicrobial products and fragrances, among others.</p><p>These chemicals are pervasive in modern life. They are found in a wide range of consumer goods, food packaging, personal care products, cosmetics, industrial processes and agricultural settings. EDCs then make their way into our air, water, soil and food.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzYwMzk2OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MTgwMDY2M30.NuO4OQ1w-Mdh2hVXy0zE0gwUzKqzOj6EPAn5eleS4wg/img.jpg?width=980" id="f9756" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="504f29eed14fc84b0f1ea29621cbe115" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1200" data-height="928" />
<p>Research has shown that people who are exposed to EDCs are more likely than others to develop <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2016.10.001" target="_blank">metabolic disorders</a>, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and high cholesterol, and they tend to have poorer cardiovascular health.</p><p>EDCs can also interfere with normal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.01.078" target="_blank">immune system function</a>, which plays a critical role in fighting off infection. Poor immune function also contributes to pulmonary problems <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2018.08.021" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">such as</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113539" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">asthma</a> and <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2016.05.011" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">chronic obstructive pulmonary disease</a>; autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease; and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2017-00882" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">metabolic disorders</a>. Many EDCs are also associated with different cancers.</p>
<h3>EDCs Can Mimic Human Hormones</h3><p>EDCs affect human health by mimicking our natural hormones.</p><p>Hormones are chemical signals that our cells use to communicate with one another. You might be familiar with reproductive hormones – testosterone and estrogen – which help distinguish male and female physiology and reproduction. Yet, hormones are responsible for maintaining virtually all essential bodily functions, including metabolism and healthy blood pressure, blood sugar and inflammation.</p><p>The chemical shape or structure of EDCs resembles hormones in ways that cause the body to misinterpret an EDC for a natural signal from a hormone.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzYwMzk3MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MTA0OTAyN30.WZM6kvsKW3CZsI1nHJ7x-P9c_H6Jsnv6kr3yPHo3kFU/img.jpg?width=980" id="44189" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="1559139d2b99e85a96221cb2106baa58" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" data-width="1200" data-height="536" />
A comparison of the structures of estradiol (left), a female sex hormone, and BPA (right), an endocrine disruptor found in plastics often used in containers for storing food and beverages. Wikimedia
<p>Because the human body is very sensitive to hormones, only small amounts of hormones are required to convey their intended signal. Therefore, very small exposures to EDCs can have dramatic, adverse affects on people's health.</p>
<h3>Environmental Quality and COVID-19</h3><p>Researchers are only just beginning to paint a picture about how environmental quality contributes to COVID-19 susceptibility, and there is much we still don't know. However, <a href="https://www.ehn.org/chemical-exposure-coronavirus-2645785581.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">scientists suspect that EDCs</a> <a href="https://www.healthandenvironment.org/webinars/96526" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">can play a role</a> based on clear scientific evidence that EDCs increase people's risk of developing chronic diseases that put people at greater risk from COVID-19.</p><p>Public health organizations such as the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a> and the <a href="https://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19/information/high-risk-groups" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">World Heath Organization</a> officially recognize underlying health conditions – including obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, immunosuppression, chronic respiratory disease and cancer – as risk factors for critical illness and mortality from COVID-19.</p><p>Scientific evidence shows that EDC exposure increases people's risk of developing all of these conditions. Scientists are thinking about these <a href="https://www.ehn.org/chemical-exposure-coronavirus-2645785581.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">connections</a>, and research efforts are underway to answer more questions about how EDCs may be influencing the pandemic.</p>
<h3>Air Pollution and Other Environmental Risks</h3><p>In addition to EDCs, other environmental conditions are also likely playing a role in the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2020.04.035" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">multiple studies have reported</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053595" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">increased risk of COVID-19</a> <a href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114732" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">illness and deaths</a>. The findings are consistent with those reported in China following the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-2-15" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">SARS outbreak</a> in 2002-2003.</p><p>Recent evidence also shows that COVID-19 infection can lead to lingering health conditions, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/opinion/covid-19-heart-disease.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">including heart damage</a>. Environmental conditions such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz116" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">heat waves</a> are particularly dangerous for individuals with heart disease or heart damage. In places like California that are currently experiencing wildfires and heat waves, we can clearly see how multiple environmental conditions can combine to further increase risk of deaths associated with COVID-19.</p><p>In the U.S., regulations such as the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act have improved environmental quality and human health since the 1970s. However, the Trump administration has been trying to weaken them.</p><p>In the past three and a half years, about 35 environmental rules and regulations pertaining to air quality or toxic substances like EDCs were either <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html" target="_blank">rolled back</a> or are in the process of being removed, despite unambiguous evidence showing how poor environmental quality harms human health. Allowing more pollution threatens to exacerbate the trend toward a sicker, fatter and poorer America at a time when people's overall health is necessary for our collective resilience to COVID-19 and future global health challenges.</p>
<p>
<em>Kathryn Crawford is an assistant professor of environmental health at Middlebury College.</em>
</p><p>
<em>Disclosure statement: Kathryn Crawford has received funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences.</em>
</p><p>
<em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-chemicals-like-pfas-can-increase-your-risk-of-severe-covid-19-143167" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.</em>
</p><script async="async" data-counter="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143167/count?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" id="theconversation_tracker_hook" src="https://theconversation.com/javascripts/lib/content_tracker_hook.js" type="text/javascript"></script>From Your Site Articles
- Forever Chemicals Contaminate More Drinking Water Than ... ›
- Trump to Veto Bill Intended to Keep Forever Chemicals out of ... ›
- How to Avoid 'Forever Chemicals' in Your Dinner (and Popcorn ... ›
- Drinking Water Crisis Update: Supplies in 43 States Found ... ›
- PFAS Chemicals Contaminate U.S. Food Supply, FDA Confirms ... ›
- This Strategy Protects Public Health From PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals’ ›
- Dust From Your Old Furniture Likely Contains Harmful Chemicals - EcoWatch ›
- Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Were Dropped Over Millions of Acres via Aerial Pesticide, Tests Reveal - EcoWatch ›
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Since 2017, car manufacturers in Europe and the U.S. switched to a different coolant for air conditioning called HFO-1234yf, which breaks down into forever chemicals. hiphotos35 / iStock / Getty Images Plus
The Montreal Protocol of 1987 committed nations around the world to stop using the chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) that created a hole in the ozone layer. While it stands as one of the most effective environmental commitments the globe has seen, new research shows the side effects have been costly as chemicals dangerous to human health build up in the environment, as the BBC reported.
<p>New research published in the journal <em><a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL087535" target="_blank">Geographical Research Letters</a></em> analyzed Arctic ice and found an unintended consequence of the Montreal Protocol. The compounds that replaced CFCs have been transported and transformed in the atmosphere, depositing far from their sources. The new generation of chemicals that replaced Freon, but are used in refrigerators, air conditioners and new cars have been accumulating since 1990.</p><p>"Our results suggest that global regulation and replacement of other environmentally harmful chemicals contributed to the increase of these compounds in the Arctic, illustrating that regulations can have important unanticipated consequences," said Cora Young, a professor at York University in Canada, and an author of the paper, in a York University <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/yu-oca051120.php" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p>
<p>Scientists first discovered ozone depletion in the 1970s when they detailed the deterioration of the stratospheric ozone layer around the earth's poles. As the hole over Antarctica opened and expanded, scientists found that the depletion of ozone was responsible for <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection" target="_blank">a greater intensity of ultraviolet</a> radiation from the sun, causing an increase in the prevalence of skin cancer, eye cataract disease and other harmful effects on humans, as <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/ozone-friendly-chemical-alternatives-polluting-arctic/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a> reported.</p><p>Scientists were soon able to pinpoint manufactured chemicals used in air conditioners and refrigerators, as well as solvents, propellants and chemical agents found in foam as the cause of the depleted ozone layer.</p><p>Now pollution from the chemicals that were created to replace the CFCs, known as short chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids (scPFCAs), has proliferated around the world. The replacement chemicals are a class of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas">PFAS</a>, or forever chemicals, that have polluted waterways and made groundwater in certain areas toxic to drink.</p>
<p>"Our measurements provide the first long-term record of these chemicals, which have all increased dramatically over the past few decades," said Young in a <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-05/yu-oca051120.php" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Our work also showed how these industrial sources contribute to the levels in the ice caps."</p><p>The York University statement added that the chemicals are able to "travel long distances in the atmosphere and often end up in lakes, rivers and wetlands causing irreversible contamination and affecting the health of freshwater invertebrates, including insects, crustaceans and worms."</p>
<p>"We're seeing much, much larger levels, on the order of 10 times higher now than we saw before the Montreal Protocol," said Young, as the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52663694" target="_blank">BBC</a> reported. "We don't know a lot about them and their potential toxicity, but we do know that we are committing the environment to a great deal of contamination."</p><p>As the globe heats up, our desire for air conditioning increases. That has spelled trouble for new cars. When car manufacturers stopped using CFCs in a car's air-conditioner, they switched to a chemical called HFC-134a. While it did not destroy the ozone layer, it turned out to be a powerful greenhouse gas, around 1,400 times more warming than CO2, according to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52663694" target="_blank">BBC</a>.</p>
<p>Since 2017, car manufacturers in Europe and the U.S. switched to a different coolant for air conditioning called HFO-1234yf, which breaks down into forever chemicals.</p><p>"It has a very low global warming potential, but has a much higher propensity to form these persistent products," said Young to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52663694" target="_blank">BBC</a>. "It will be again another shift, where we see an even more dramatic increase."</p><p>"They've been found in the bodies of people in China, so it is likely to be found in the bodies of people around the world," added Young. "We have done a good job in trying to save the ozone layer but the unintended consequences are the release of these other chemicals, which have some concerns. They're toxic, and then they don't get filtered out in various ways."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Healing Ozone Layer Shows Why Environmental Treaties Matter ›
- Saving the Ozone Layer 30 Years Ago Slowed Global Warming ... ›
- Record Ozone Hole Over the Arctic Has Closed - EcoWatch ›
- Household Products Cause as Much Air Pollution as Cars ... ›
- Ozone Hole Over Antarctica Is One of the Biggest in 15 Years - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EPA Is Hiding Information About New Chemicals: Green Groups Sue to Stop the Secrecy
19 March 2020
Health + Wellness
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler looks on during a news conference at the EPA headquarters in Washington, DC, on Sept. 19, 2019. ALASTAIR PIKE / AFP via Getty Images
When Congress updated the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016 for the first time in 40 years, public health and environmental advocates hoped it would be a game-changer for protecting Americans from dangerous chemicals, enabling the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finally ban harmful substances like asbestos.
<p>But under President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a>, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a> has consistently failed to take advantage of the new law. It has declined to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-asbestos-ban-2636681458.html" target="_self">ban asbestos</a>, and has even violated requirements that it keep the public informed about the approval of new chemicals, an <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/20200317_comms_pc_tsca_english_final.pdf" target="_blank">investigation</a> by <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> and the <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> (EDF) revealed. That's why Earthjustice is representing five environmental groups in a <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/final_filed_complaint.pdf" target="_blank">lawsuit</a> filed Wednesday <a href="https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/final_filed_complaint.pdf" target="_blank">against the EPA</a>.</p>
<p>"Congress reformed TSCA just a few years ago to protect people's health from new chemicals. It said, unequivocally, that the public has a right to know about these chemicals before they are put out on the market," Earthjustice attorney Tosh Sagar said in a <a href="https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2020/report-trumps-epa-sued-for-concealing-health-studies-violating-its-chemical-laws" target="_blank">press release</a>. "Trump's EPA instead hides health and safety studies and other key information, just so that industry can have it easier. Ignoring TSCA's transparency requirements makes it more likely that dangerous chemicals are reaching our homes and workplaces."</p>
<p>The Earthjustice and EDF investigation, also published Wednesday, reviewed 204 out of around 1,100 chemical applications the EPA had received between August 2016 and April 2019. It also examined all the public notices that the agency issued for around 1,700 new applications through early 2020. It found that the EPA had routinely violated a stipulation of the new TSCA amendment that the public be informed of the approval process for new chemicals so that it could weigh in before the chemical was put on the market.</p>
<p>The agency concealed information in three key ways, the investigation found.</p><p>1. It did not inform the public of new applications in a timely manner: The EPA is supposed to notify the public within five days of receiving a new chemical application. However, the investigation found that the average notice was published 87 days after the application was received, even though the EPA has 90 days to approve a chemical. One in six notices were published after the chemical was already approved.</p><p>2. The EPA has withheld key safety information: The agency is supposed to publish all applications online, but instead forces the public to request them via a labyrinthine process. Further, it allows companies to redact or withhold health and safety studies as confidential business information (CBI) despite a legal requirement to publicize all health and safety information.</p><p>3. The EPA doesn't evaluate CBI claims: The agency is required by law to audit 25 percent of CBI claims to make sure companies are not abusing the designation to withhold important information. It is then supposed to publish its decision. But the EPA has not published any reviews of CBI claims, and has only completed reviews of claims in 27 applications, far below 25 percent of the 1,250 it has completed safety reviews for.</p>
<p>In one case, this secrecy involved a new type of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pfas" target="_self">PFAS</a>, a class of chemical already contaminating U.S. drinking water. The EPA's career scientists found that the new substance could cause respiratory illnesses like asthma and alter DNA, leading to cancer. Nevertheless, it was approved in April 2019 and almost all of the documents provided by the company were never shared with the public.</p><p>"When it comes to toxic chemicals and Trump's EPA, this secrecy is the norm. It's not just illegal, it puts workers and families across the country at risk," the investigators wrote.</p><p>Earthjustice, acting on behalf of EDF, <a href="https://www.ourhealthyfuture.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Health Strategy Center</a>, <a href="https://www.ceh.org/" target="_blank">Center for Environmental Health</a>, <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> and <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club,</a> threatened to sue the EPA over the violations in September 2019. The agency promised to improve the application vetting process, but the coalition considered its changes inadequate.</p><p>"Unleashing chemicals into the market without proper vetting is like opening Pandora's box," the coalition said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "EPA must stop hiding key information about the chemicals it is reviewing and put public health above the desires of the chemical industry."</p>The EPA did not comment on a story in <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/488331-epa-sued-for-allegedly-violating-laws-for-approving-new-chemicals" target="_blank">The Hill</a> about the lawsuit, saying it did not weigh in on ongoing litigation.
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
- Trump's EPA scales back Obama era safety rules adopted after ... ›
- How the Trump Administration Pulled Back on Regulating Toxic ... ›
- A new low even for the Trump EPA on chemical safety ... ›
- Years of Lawsuits Ahead as EPA Rolls Out Chemical Decisions ›
- States Say EPA Chemicals Approach 'Unlawful' as Lawsuits Loom ›
Read More
Show Less
Trending
We need our government to do everything it can to stop PFAS contamination and exposure from wreaking havoc in communities across the country. LuAnn Hun / Unsplash
By Genna Reed
The EPA announced last week that it is issuing a preliminary regulatory determination for public comment to set an enforceable drinking water standard to two of the most common and well-studied PFAS, PFOA and PFOS.
This decision is based on three criteria:
- PFOA and PFOS have an adverse effect on public health
- PFOA and PFOS occur in drinking water often enough and at levels of public health concern;
- regulation of PFOA and PFOS is a meaningful opportunity for reducing the health risk to those served by public water systems.
<p>This is a good thing and should have happened sooner, but likely as a result of public pressure and the overwhelming evidence of harms caused by exposure to these chemicals, the EPA is officially embarking upon this long and arduous regulatory process with an uncertain outcome.<em></em></p>
<p class=""><em>Genna Reed is a lead science and policy analyst in the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.</em></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/epa-might-finally-regulate-pfas">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>.</em></p>
<p>The process of setting such a standard, known as a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is a long one and we know that there are multiple decision points at which political interference, lack of transparency, or a failure to recognize the best available science can undermine such a process. If the EPA successfully sets a standard, it will mean that utilities will be required to monitor drinking water for PFOS and PFOA and use treatment techniques to keep levels below the standard, which will be especially helpful for communities in states that haven't set their own MCLs.</p><p>Here are some things to keep in mind and look out for as EPA begins its process to regulate PFAS in drinking water:</p>
The SDWA Process Is Flawed
<p>The Safe Drinking Water Act was signed into law by President Ford in 1974 and sets a regulatory process for setting drinking water standards. Then in 1996, Congress <a href="https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ182/PLAW-104publ182.pdf" target="_blank">issued amendments</a> which created a <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/erik-d-olson/broken-safe-drinking-water-act-wont-fix-pfas-crisis" target="_blank">long list of hurdles</a> that weakened EPA's ability to set health-protective standards for water contaminants. Some requirements include technology assessments and risk assessments that require the agency to state each significant uncertainty related to public health effects. </p><p>The amendments also require EPA to conduct a cost benefit analysis, which can weigh into the standard that is selected. In fact, EPA can choose to set a standard that "maximizes health risk reduction benefits at a cost that is justified by the benefits." As in all environmental and public health policy, it is <a href="https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/27944-49-1sinden-1pdf" target="_blank">much harder to quantify benefits</a> to public health than it is to quantify costs to industry which makes this a natural place for industry to fight hard to document potential costs and advocate for a less stringent standard. A cost benefit analysis also opens up these regulations to more intense scrutiny from the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs which has been known to <a href="https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/oira-delays-regulatory-reform-report.pdf" target="_blank">delay rules</a> or even make substantive changes to the <a href="https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Science%20in%20Regulation_Final%20Report_2_18_13_0.pdf" target="_blank">scientific basis of regulations</a> all without adequate transparency.</p>The Trump Administration’s Track Record on Science-Based Protections Speaks Volumes
<p>Generally, it's hard to have faith in the Trump Administration's EPA which leads all other government agencies in the count of <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science" target="_blank">attacks on science </a>and has made decisions that benefit industry over public health time and time again. We've also witnessed the EPA recently drop the ball on a drinking water decision. </p><p>A long-awaited proposed MCL for perchlorate was issued in summer 2019 after beginning the regulatory process in 2011. The <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/05/24/epa-distorts-evidence-fails-kids-perchlorate/" target="_blank">level was over three times less protective</a> than its health advisory set in 2008 and out of sync with its own analysis published in 2016 and the conclusion of a peer review panel convened in 2018 to review that report. So what went wrong? </p><p>After <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/05/07/epas-safety-standard-perchlorate-water-kids-health/" target="_blank">layers of scientific input</a>, including the development of a model to quantify the relationship between perchlorate and fetal brain development that was reviewed by SAB and went through public comments, the agency dismissed key studies using inadequate rationales and set a less health-protective standard. As the SDWA requires the agency to use the "best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices; and data collected by accepted methods or best available methods," Administrator Wheeler's EPA, closely advised by former industry representatives will be deciding what acceptable science and methods are.</p>Integrity of Science Advice and Peer Review Processes Must Be Upheld
<p>Advisory committees and independent peer review bodies should be employed by the EPA to provide objective checks on the work of the agency that are open and accessible to the public. But changes recently made to the EPA's Science Advisory Board including <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/independent-science-takes-another-hit-at-the-epa-new-science-advisory-board-members-announced" target="_blank">skewing membership toward industry</a> and consultants, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/epas-scientific-advisers-warn-its-regulatory-rollbacks-clash-with-established-science/2019/12/31/a1994f5a-227b-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html" target="_blank">holding fewer meetings</a> or delaying important meetings and key decisions, <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/epa-might-be-using-its-advisors-to-do-away-with-protective-science-guidelines" target="_blank">moving away from consensus-based reviews</a>, and <a href="https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1061775673/" target="_blank">exerting more control</a> from the administrator and chair suggest that future advisory committee proceedings related to examining the best available science on PFAS may not be the kind of independent science advice process we'd like to see.</p>Upcoming Changes to Restrict Science and to Alter Cost Benefit Analysis Could Make Things Worse
<p>The EPA's so-called 'transparency' rule, the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/epa-proposal-handcuff-scientists" target="_blank">supplemental piece of which</a> could be released any day now, would require underlying data to be made public would severely limit the agency's ability to use much of the human health data that has been accumulating since PFOA and PFOS have been studied, thus hindering EPA's ability to designate a strong maximum contaminant level. Over two dozen human health studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals since a settlement agreement was reached in a lawsuit against the maker of PFOA, DuPont, and people living near DuPont's West Virginia Washington Works Plant. </p><p><span></span><a href="http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/panel.html" target="_blank">The studies</a> rely on interviews, questionnaires, and blood samples from 69,000 individuals and examine links between C8 exposure and a variety of diseases and health outcomes. Because the information collected by researchers for these studies includes <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/117/12/ehp.0800379.pdf" target="_blank">sensitive and private information</a> of participants, it would not be possible to make the underlying data public in order to comply with EPA's proposed rule. This means that some of the best available science identifying probable links between PFAS and diseases such as thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia, and diagnosed high cholesterol could be left out of any future EPA decisions made on these chemicals. As a result, health decisions made on this class of chemicals would be wholly inadequate to protect exposed populations.</p><p>The agency is also <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-06-13/pdf/2018-12707.pdf" target="_blank">considering changing</a> how it conducts cost benefit analysis for regulations such as the SDWA, which threatens to tilt the scales toward reducing industry costs over maximizing societal and public health benefits.</p>PFOA and PFOS Are the Tip of the (Seemingly Endless) Fluorocarbon Chain
<p>While the EPA is asking for more information on other PFAS substances, the agency's decision to add PFOA and PFOS to the Contaminant Candidate List leaves the hundreds of variations of PFAS that have been manufactured as replacements to PFOA and PFOS, including short-chain PFAS chemicals, in regulatory limbo. We know that PFOA and PFOS are only two of the many highly fluorinated chemicals contaminating our drinking water. A recent <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing/?utm_campaign=EWG+Content&utm_content=1579634672&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=facebook" target="_blank">EWG analysis</a> tested drinking water across the country for 30 different PFAS chemicals and found that on average, each sample had six or seven different compounds present. </p><p>This "fingerprint" of PFAS mixtures is commonly found near <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es070792y" target="_blank">industrial</a> and <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b05843" target="_blank">military</a> contamination sites. Industry's path of regrettable substitutions has set our government up for a scenario of perpetual regulatory catch-up. The agency needs to follow the science showing that the class of highly-fluorinated chemicals are persistent and bioaccumulative because of the chemical structure inherent in each variety. Failure to do so will give us a wholly inadequate picture of PFAS contamination and leave many communities to deal with PFAS contamination without federal support.</p>States Should Continue to Lead
<p>As EPA sets out on this potentially decades-long process that may or may not yield a protective standard, communities across the country are dealing with PFAS contamination now. <a href="https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/nearly-half-the-country-working-on-pfas-rules-as-epa-drags-feet" target="_blank">States are acting</a> to help regulate these chemicals and are making amazing progress. Congress has also stepped up and gotten some key PFAS-related provisions included in the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/congress-misses-the-mark-on-pfas-in-the-ndaa" target="_blank">National Defense Authorization Act</a> and introduced as a part of the <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathleen-rest/profiles-in-cowardice-chemicals-climate-and-a-toxic-disregard-by-the-trump-administration" target="_blank">PFAS Action Act,</a> like labeling PFAS as hazardous substances so that <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/why-the-pfas-industry-should-ditch-the-disinformation-playbook-and-do-the-right-thing" target="_blank">manufacturers are responsible for paying to clean up contamination</a>.</p><p>We need our government to do everything it can to stop PFAS contamination and exposure from wreaking havoc in communities across the country. And we need to make sure that scientific integrity is upheld as it makes key regulatory decisions so that <a href="https://ucsusa.org/resources/endangering-generations" target="_blank">our kids and future generations</a> will be safe from the health risks associated with these toxic chemicals.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Sanders Introduces Bills to Ban Fracking, Require National Cleanup Effort of Drinking Water
31 January 2020
Politics
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks to guests during a campaign stop at Berg Middle School on Jan. 11 Newton, Iowa. Scott Olson / Getty Images
While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been in Washington this week for the impeachment trial, he has put forth two bills to help the environment.
<p>On Tuesday, he pushed forward a bill to ban hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480777-sanders-introduces-bill-to-ban-hydraulic-fracking" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>. The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3247/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Sanders%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2" target="_blank">bill</a>, titled "A bill to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing, and for other purposes," will go to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for review. </p>
<p>While the text of the bill is not yet available, Sen. Jeff Merkley from Oregon is a co-sponsor of the bill. On Thursday, Sanders <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1222960113910210561" target="_blank">tweeted</a> that he also worked on the bill with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Darren Soto (D-Fla.), as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480777-sanders-introduces-bill-to-ban-hydraulic-fracking" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>.</p><p>"I don't mind if <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo" target="_blank">@MarkRuffalo</a> spoils his own movies. But please, don't ruin the surprise of our new legislation with Rep. <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC" target="_blank">@AOC</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley" target="_blank">@SenJeffMerkley</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/RepDarrenSoto" target="_blank">@RepDarrenSoto</a>. I don't want the dirty fracking industry CEOs to know what hit them," wrote Sanders in his <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1222960113910210561" target="_blank">tweet</a>, which embedded a video of the actor and activist, Mark Ruffalo, touting a potential federal ban on fracking.</p>
<div id="083c1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="RYWLQK1580502995"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1222960113910210561" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">I don't mind if @MarkRuffalo spoils his own movies. But please, don't ruin the surprise of our new legislation with… https://t.co/NY5iOCdOzL</div> — Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders)<a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/statuses/1222960113910210561">1580411387.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The bill drew support from several environmental activist organizations.<br></p><p>"Senator Sanders' bill names the problem and provides the only solution," Natalie Mebane, Associate Director of Policy at <a href="http://link.cvip.io/f/a/lI7Ag8jf6aY5chtEI04rzg~~/AAJ4uAA~/RgRgFVhxP0RPaHR0cHM6Ly9jcm0uMzUwLm9yZy9zaXRlcy9hbGwvbW9kdWxlcy9jaXZpY3JtL2V4dGVybi91cmwucGhwP3U9MTE4NTgmcWlkPTgxMjU0NlcDc3BjQgoAAPEkNF5Ln7SPUhRqb25AY29tbW9uZHJlYW1zLm9yZ1gEAAAAAw~~" target="_blank">350.org</a>, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/01/31/350-action-applauds-sanders-fracking-ban-bill?cd-origin=rss">said in a statement</a><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/01/31/350-action-applauds-sanders-fracking-ban-bill?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank"></a>. "In order to avoid the worst of the climate crisis, we must rapidly transition off of fossil fuels, and end fracking and the dangerous pipelines that come with it."</p>
<p>The ban on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking" rel="noopener noreferrer">fracking</a> that Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren advocate has democrats concerned that such a policy could push Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, to President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" rel="noopener noreferrer">Donald Trump</a> in November. </p>
<p>"In Pennsylvania, you're talking hundreds of thousands of related jobs that would be — they would be unemployed overnight," said John Fetterman, Pennsylvania's lieutenant governor, to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/pennsylvania-democrats-fracking.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The New York Times</a>. "Pennsylvania is a margin play. And an outright ban on fracking isn't a margin play." </p>
<p>Sanders not only introduced a ban on fracking. On Wednesday, he, along with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Ma), <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/pfas-summary?id=B3C238FF-B9D4-4557-9DE9-D15CFEEFBA8D&download=1&inline=file" target="_blank">introduced The Preventing Future American Sickness (PFAS) Act</a>, which takes aim at 'forever chemicals' polluting waterways, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480571-sanders-introduces-bill-to-clean-up-of-toxic-forever-chemicals" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/forever-chemicals-drinking-water-2644897405.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" target="_self">EcoWatch reported</a>, a recent study from the Environmental Working Group found that toxic forever chemicals, or PFAS, are far more prevalent in drinking water than previously thought.</p>
<div id="efd2e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="UM2I2X1580502995"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1221522447901560833" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">"Our children are unwittingly poisoned" Environmental Working Group study: US #water samples have 'forever chemical… https://t.co/oePPZBRGyV</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1221522447901560833">1580068621.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"As hundreds of communities across the country are dealing with toxic PFAS contamination in their drinking water," Sanders says in a statement put out by <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/sanders-unveils-bill-combat-corporate-polluters-and-protect-drinking-water" target="_blank">Food and Water Watch</a>, "it is unconscionable that huge corporations like DuPont have, for decades, concealed evidence of how dangerous these compounds are in order to keep profiting at the expense of human health. Congress must pass this legislation to put an end to corporate stonewalling and criminal behavior and tackle this public health crisis. It is not a radical idea to demand that when people in the world's richest country turn on their taps, the water they drink is free of toxic chemicals."</p><p>The legislation would ban the chemicals from food packaging and ban the incineration of PFAS firefighting foam. It would also direct the Environmental Protection Agency to designate PFAS as hazardous under both the Clean Air and and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act — commonly called CERCLA or Superfund, as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/29/sanders-takes-aim-corporate-polluters-bill-clean-toxic-forever-chemicals-drinking" target="_blank">Common Dreams reported</a>.</p>
<p>Labeling the chemicals as hazardous substances would force manufacturers to foot the bill for cleaning them up, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480571-sanders-introduces-bill-to-clean-up-of-toxic-forever-chemicals" target="_blank">according to The Hill</a>.</p><p>"Every American—regardless of the color of their skin, their zip code, or their income—has the right to be free from exposure to a slew of carcinogens and hazardous chemicals," said Merkley, as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/29/sanders-takes-aim-corporate-polluters-bill-clean-toxic-forever-chemicals-drinking" target="_blank">Common Dreams reported</a>. "But millions of people are ingesting dangerous PFAS chemicals against their will through the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat. Congress needs to come together to put the health of our communities above the wish lists of American's biggest polluters, and that means establishing and enforcing chemical standards that protect Americans from PFAS substances."</p><p>Both bills face an uncertain future in a Republican-controlled senate. Even if they did get through the Senate, Trump has said he would veto them, as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/29/sanders-takes-aim-corporate-polluters-bill-clean-toxic-forever-chemicals-drinking" target="_blank">Common Dreams reported</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- New Film 'Dark Waters' Shines Light on Chemical Pollution History ... ›
- Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Detected in California Drinking Water ... ›
- Sen. Merkley Introduces Bills to Stop Banks From Funding Fossil Fuels ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Forever Chemicals Contaminate More Drinking Water Than Previously Reported
23 January 2020
Health + Wellness
Water coolers in front of shut-off water fountains at Center School in Stow, MA on Sept. 4, 2019 after elevated levels of PFAS were found in the water. David L. Ryan / The Boston Globe via Getty Images
In a new nationwide assessment of drinking water systems, the Environmental Working Group found that toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS are far more prevalent than previously thought.
<p>That includes dozens of cities, including major metropolitan areas like Miami, New York, New Orleans, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia, according to the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing/" target="_blank">new report</a>.</p><p>The Environmental Working Group, or EWG, tested water samples from 44 different locations in 31 states. Only one of those cites had no detectable level of PFAS, or forever chemicals as they are known since they do not degrade in the environment or body, but rather build up in our blood and organs. Some of the major metropolises that were tested had the highest concentrations of detectable PFAS in their water. The only sample without detectable PFAS was from Meridian, Mississippi, which draws its drinking water from wells more than 700 feet deep.</p>
<p>Exposure to PFAS increases the risk of cancer, harms fetus development and reduces the effectiveness of vaccines. Biomonitoring studies by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the blood of nearly all Americans is contaminated with PFAS, according to the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing/" target="_blank">EWG</a> report.</p><p>The EWG test looked for 30 different PFAS in the water, with most samples showing six or seven detectable PFAS, while one sample had 13, according to Dave Andrews, Ph.D. a senior scientist at the EWG, who spoke to reporters on Wednesday.</p><p>Andrews added that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_self">EPA</a>) set an advisory threshold for only two known PFAS in the mid-90s at 70 parts per trillion. The EWG believes that number is 70 times above the threshold for toxicity and falls short of what is needed since there are hundreds or thousands of PFAS that are known contaminants.</p>
<p>The EWG numbers also take into account a combination of PFAS, which the EPA does not, meaning the comparisons are skewed.</p><p>For example, a water sample in Philadelphia had 46.3 parts per trillion (ppt) of PFAS, but that comes from adding up 11 different chemicals that were found. The EPA only has limits for PFOS and PFOA, which tested at 5.3ppt and 7.7ppt — or around one-tenth of the EPA's threshold for concern, according to their <a href="https://static.ewg.org/reports/2020/pfas-testing-report/EWG_PFAS-TW_Appendix_C06.pdf?_ga=2.82581206.1315356608.1579711790-1286391861.1575645396" target="_blank">detailed analysis</a>.</p><p>However, the greatest concentration of PFAS contamination was taken from Bellville Elementary School in New Brunswick County, North Carolina by the nonprofit group <a href="https://www.cleancapefear.org/" target="_blank">Clean Cape Fear</a>. It had a staggering 185.9 ppt.</p><p>"This is particularly painful as a school teacher, a parent of four children, and a mayor," said Rob Allen, the mayor of Hoosick Falls, NY, which has PFAS contaminated water, in a conference call with journalists. "Our children are unwittingly poisoned from drinking water at school."</p><p>"I'm devastated to see my children's school at the top of this nationwide study," said Emily Donovan, co-founder of Clean Cape Fear, in an <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/pfas-contamination-tap-water-far-more-prevalent-previously-reported" target="_blank">EWG press release</a>. "This is wrong. I'm so sad."</p>
<div id="0f2d4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="GK8O0P1579799109"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1220077734140968960" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">UPDATE: Bottle water was delivered to Belville Elementary School earlier today. Have any other schools in Brunswick… https://t.co/iCdZy3SprX</div> — Clean Cape Fear (@Clean Cape Fear)<a href="https://twitter.com/CleanCapeFear/statuses/1220077734140968960">1579724174.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The recent findings raised the ire of actor and environmental activist, Mark Ruffalo, who starred in the movie Dark Waters, about the PFAS contamination from a DuPont plant into the water of Parkersburg, West Virginia.</p><p>"Decades of chemical industry deception and government inaction and collusion have brought us to this crisis," said Mark Ruffalo, the star and a producer of the film, and a longtime environmental activist, in an <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/pfas-contamination-tap-water-far-more-prevalent-previously-reported" target="_blank">EWG</a> <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/pfas-contamination-tap-water-far-more-prevalent-previously-reported" target="_blank">statement</a>. "Nearly every American is carrying these dangerous chemicals in their blood, and as EWG's new findings show, everywhere we look, we find more PFAS contamination of our tap water. The government has done little or nothing in 20 years, so it's time for all of us to demand that our elected leaders do their jobs and pass laws to clean up this mess."</p><p>His call to action was echoed by EWG scientists, "This research reveals that escaping PFAS pollution is nearly impossible," said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., EWG vice president for science investigations, who led the new study. "Communities and families all across the nation are bearing the burden of chemical companies' callous disregard for human health and the government's inaction. This crisis calls for immediate action to ensure that all Americans have safe and clean drinking water."</p><p>While the two most notorious PFAS that were produced by DuPont and 3M have been phased out of use, Andrews told reporters that he worries that replacement <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals">chemicals</a> are no better and are continuing to contaminate water supplies.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump to Veto Bill Intended to Keep Forever Chemicals out of ... ›
- Toxic Chemicals Found in Rainwater and Drinking Water ... ›
- How U.S. Government Conceals Truth About 'Forever Chemicals ... ›
- Are Forever Chemicals Harming Ocean Life? - EcoWatch ›
- Harmful PFAS Compounds Pollute Water in Every State - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less