Matteo Farinella
Art by Matteo Farinella, written by Jeremy Deaton
Algal blooms are killing wildlife and making people sick. Here's how we aided their reign of terror.
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUxMzI4OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MzAxOTg4OH0.v2rUWRbtPdOVKvzdRle8OtTgeN_TlTzqb7HSIZD6F44/img.jpg?width=980" id="36023" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="82f9973707870be093555b6e0a251bac" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUxMzI5MC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0ODIzMjY3Nn0.U9vYdozyRYc3ObJj67Dq4GgbsFVuaNcKYttSRFop4zE/img.jpg?width=980" id="c8d7a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bce34da63759882e79a94976d96ba992" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUxMzI5MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1Mjc0MjI4M30.I9UC2cNZUaiynurmOc1iBugWvz3dvN393Q8f2w2Ka4A/img.jpg?width=980" id="f48b0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b1051b0fa0627a29a34936592243d2c5" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUxMzI5Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxOTk2ODM3OX0.dYSDiiQisvb-9xQIEuhvF7R_-dB-wBxkz02oct1smjY/img.jpg?width=980" id="be8f2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f2fa260d81d63050905e66ffb8ca0e46" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><p><em>Matteo Farinella is a neuroscientist-turned-cartoonist who uses comics to explain science.</em> <em>You can follow him </em><a href="https://twitter.com/matteofarinella" target="_blank"><em>@matteofarinella</em></a><em>. Jeremy Deaton writes for </em><a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/" target="_blank"><em>Nexus Media</em></a><em>, a nonprofit climate change news service. You can follow him </em><a href="https://twitter.com/deaton_jeremy" target="_blank"><em>@deaton_jeremy</em></a><em>.</em></p><p><em><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/toxic-algae-are-a-menace-humans-are-giving-them-ammunition-cc8905d2846f" target="_blank">Nexus Media</a>. </em><em></em></em></p>
<p><br/></p><br/><a href="https://nexusmedianews.com/@nexus_media?source=post_page-----cc8905d2846f----------------------" target="_blank"></a>
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
By Gigen Mammoser
- Most holiday decorations, toys, ornaments, and plants aren't going to hurt you, but some can pose health risks if they aren't handled appropriately.
- Practicing good hygiene habits, like hand washing (not only for germs) but also to prevent the potential transfer of unwanted chemicals after handling items.
- This can help further limit risks — especially for young children who may put their hands in their mouth.
- Experts say the hype around potentially toxic holiday items, such as ornaments, is generally overblown and the actual risk is very low.
If you're like many other people this time of year, you're probably approaching the busy holiday season with a mixture of excitement and trepidation.
<p>Celebrating with family and friends is a great way to pass the cold winter months, but it's coupled with the pressure of travel, shopping, and plenty of other inconveniences.</p><p>And for some families, especially those with young children, the holidays can also raise worries about potential health risks as well.</p><p>It's not uncommon to see reports this time of year about dangerous toys, toxic chemicals in Christmas decorations, and even poisonous holiday plants being a cause for concern.</p><p>The good news is that a lot of the hype around these potentially dangerous items is generally overblown. That said, you should be informed about some holiday hazards, especially if you've got kids (<a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/holiday-pet-dangers" target="_blank">or pets</a>) in the house.</p><p>That's why we've separated fact from fiction about four categories of holiday products and the real health risks they may pose.</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/" target="_blank"><em>Healthline</em></a><em>. For detailed source information, please view the original article on </em><em><a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/are-your-christmas-decorations-toxic" target="_blank">Healthline</a></em><em>.</em></p>
1. Christmas Decorations and Lights
<p>Yes, all those beautiful tree ornaments, the decorations, and even that snarl of lights you drag out of storage once a year have the potential to contain toxic substances.</p><p>The most common reason: They can contain lead.</p><p>Major news outlets, including <a href="https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/12/safe_xmas.html" target="_blank">Consumer Affairs</a>, have speculated on the potential for lead exposure from holiday decorations, but it's not clear what, if any, real threat these items actually pose to individuals.</p><p>"My sense would be that there is, overall, hardly an epidemic of lead poisoning as a result of folks decorating their trees and putting up their decorations," <a href="https://www.northwell.edu/find-care/find-a-doctor/internal-medicine/dr-kenneth-richard-spaeth-md-11352799" target="_blank">Dr. Ken Spaeth</a>, chief of environmental medicine at Northwell Health in New York, told Healthline.</p><p>It can also be difficult to know for sure whether or not your ornaments and decorations contain lead.</p><p>A <a href="https://www.ecocenter.org/healthy-stuff/reports/ghosts-christmas-past" target="_blank">study</a> from 2014 found that 13 percent of seasonal holiday products sold at major retailers like Walmart and CVS contained lead levels that exceeded a threshold deemed safe for children's toys. Although the products are not regulated as children's toys, they may be handled by children during the holidays.</p><p>While newer decorations manufactured in the U.S. may not contain lead, if you've been hanging onto a box of old Christmas stuff since as far back as you can remember, or if you're buying cheap holiday ornaments online, there is the potential that they could contain lead.</p><p>"Lead is still used in a number of manufacturing processes for consumer items. More so in items manufactured outside the U.S. where standards are usually more lax … It's very difficult to really feel confident about some products and that would certainly hold true for some of the seasonal and holiday specific items that make their way out to the market starting this time of year," said Spaeth.</p><p>Spaeth does warn, however, that parents should be cautious with children around holiday ornaments and decorations. He notes that while lead exposure is unlikely through skin contact, it very easily can enter the body through the mouth.</p><p>"Especially with young children who are more prone to put the item in their mouth. Now you've got a very direct pathway for exposure," said Spaeth.</p>2. Toys
<p>The holidays and toys go together like marshmallows and hot cocoa. But, like holiday decorations and ornaments, depending on the quality and the manufacturing of the toy, there is also a potential for <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/sources/consumer-products.htm?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnceh%2Flead%2Ftips%2Ftoys.htm" target="_blank">lead or other heavy metal contamination,</a> most frequently through paint.</p><p>Every year the U.S. PIRG, a group of consumer advocacy driven organizations, releases their "<a href="https://uspirgedfund.org/sites/pirg/files/cpn/USN-112117-A1-REPORT/trouble-in-toyland-32.html" target="_blank">Trouble In Toyland</a>" report on toy safety, where readers can find the most dangerous toys on the market.</p><p>Additionally, with the rise in popularity of more electronic gifts, batteries are an increasingly common hazard, particularly for young children.</p><p><a href="https://www.fresno.ucsf.edu/ucsf-fresno-faculty/rais-vohra-md/" target="_blank">Dr. Rais Vohra</a>, the medical director of the Fresno/Madera division of the California Poison Control System, told Healthline that "button" batteries, which are small and easy to swallow can be very dangerous.</p><p>"Those can actually lead to really bad burns and damage to the esophagus as well as to the stomach," he said.</p>3. Holiday Plants
<p>Poinsettia, holly, mistletoe: Nothing says Christmas quite like them.</p><p>However, they also have a reputation for being poisonous, though they aren't as dangerous as some would have you believe.</p><p>A 2012 <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3555592/" target="_blank">review of the toxicity</a> of most common decorative holiday plants found that most ingestions, even in children, are asymptomatic That is, you probably don't need to worry about your child poisoning themself from a poinsettia.</p><p>Nonetheless, exposures do happen quite commonly, according to Vohra.</p><p>"These things are very beautiful. They are around during the Christmastime holidays. They may be on a kitchen table or on a countertop, and a child can just grab a number of leaves or berries or even a poinsettia leaf and then ingest something that causes a reaction," he said.</p><p>"For the most part though, most kids even if they [ingest these plants] they will probably tolerate it pretty well," said Vohra.</p><p>Ingesting holiday plants can still result in symptoms like upset stomach, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting, but rarely in more serious poisoning outcomes.</p>4. Wrapping Paper
<p>Wrapping paper is beautiful. That's why we use it to wrap gifts. But the components that make it beautiful — inks, dyes, and other chemicals — also mean it has the potential to contain toxic substances.</p><p>"There [are] an increasingly large number of chemicals being used to treat the paper, to color the paper, to make the paper more elaborate and sometimes that can include the use of heavy metals," said Spaeth.</p><p>But, like the aforementioned toys and decorations in this list, how and where the paper is manufactured will have a strong bearing on whether it actually contains toxic components.</p><p>Handling the paper and wrapping gifts with it isn't going to make you sick, but as a rule of thumb, don't let children put it in their mouths.</p><p>And <a href="https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98476323" target="_blank">don't burn it.</a></p><p>"There are so many synthetic products, if you burn it, you're likely to be breathing in those chemicals," said Spaeth.</p>The Bottom Line
<p>Most holiday decorations, toys, ornaments, and plants aren't going to hurt you, but it's a no-brainer to make sure they're all handled appropriately, especially if there are kids around.</p><p>Insist on good hygiene habits like hand washing (not only for germs) but also to prevent the potential transfer of unwanted chemicals when you bring down that dusty box of decorations out of the attic.</p><p>"Kids are kids… Make sure your kids are safe and make sure you know what they are eating and what they are putting in their mouths, and make sure that's not poisonous," said Vohra.</p>
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Alarming Level of Plastic in Children's Bodies, German Study Shows
15 September 2019
Health + Wellness
picture-alliance / Newscom / R. Ben Ari
By Wesley Rahn
Plastic byproducts were found in 97 percent of blood and urine samples from 2,500 children tested between 2014 and 2017, according to a study by the German Environment Ministry and the Robert Koch Institute.
<p>The German weekly magazine Der Spiegel published the findings, which were part of a federal study focused on "human biomonitoring" of 3 to 17-year-olds. Traces from 11 out of 15 plastic ingredients were found in the test samples.</p><p>"Our study clearly shows that plastic ingredients, which are rising in production, are also showing up more and more in the body," Marike Kolossa-Gehring, one of the study's authors, told the magazine.</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/alarming-level-of-plastic-in-childrens-bodies-german-study-shows/a-50432823" target="_blank">Deutsche Welle</a>.<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/core/dashboard/editor/2640361898?#/" target="_self"></a></em><em></em></p>
Toxic Clothes and Cookware?
<p>Plastic from cleaning products, waterproof clothing, food packaging and cooking utensils frequently comes into direct contact with the body.</p><p>Although some of the chemicals studied pose no known health risk, researchers said that they were especially concerned about high levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that were found in the study. PFOA is frequently used in non-stick cookware and in waterproof clothing.</p><p>According to the German Environment Ministry, the chemical is dangerous for the reproductive system and is toxic to the liver. The EU will ban the substance in 2020.</p><p>Plastic byproducts are also blamed for disrupting hormone function, which could lead to obesity, reproductive disorders, cancer and development delays in children.</p>Youngest Children Most Vulnerable
<p>According to the research, younger children were reported to be the most affected by plastic ingestion. The study also showed children from poorer families had more plastic residue in their bodies than children from higher-income families, according to German public broadcaster ARD.</p><p>"It is very concerning that the youngest children, as the most sensitive group, are also the most affected," Kolossa-Gehring said.</p><p>"It can't be that every fourth child between three and five years old is so heavily burdened with chemicals that long-term damage cannot safely be ruled out," Green Party environmental health expert Bettina Hoffmann told <em>Der Spiegel.</em></p><p>According to the magazine, the study has not yet been published, and the results were made available by the government upon request by a Green Party inquiry into the effects of chemicals on public health.</p><p>Hoffmann said that there has not been enough research on how plastic chemicals affect the body, and how they are ingested. </p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Packs of 'Brexit Selection Freshly Chlorinated Chicken' sit on display at 'Costupper' Brexit Minimart pop-up store, set up by the People's Vote campaign group, to demonstrate predicted price rises and supply problems in south London, United Kingdom on Nov. 23, 2018. Tayfun Salci / Anadolu Agency / Getty Images
By Dan Nosowitz
A hot-button issue in the UK focuses on something most Americans don't even know about: a particular method of disinfecting raw poultry.
<p>In the UK, "chlorine-washed chicken" has become a shorthand for the excesses of American agribusiness; Prime Minister Boris Johnson has <a href="https://london.eater.com/2019/9/6/20852490/jeremy-corbyn-kfc-chicken-boris-johnson-general-election" target="_blank">even used it as an insult</a> for his political foes. Much of the U.S.' chicken is disinfected with a strong solution of chlorine, a quick and effective way of killing a lot of bacteria. Chlorine treatments have been banned in the UK since 1997, due to an European Union-wide ban on the practice, but chlorine-treated chicken is back in the news in the UK.</p>
<p>Due to the UK's pending exit from the European Union (EU), many of the union's laws will be reconsidered there, and either maintained or cast aside. The UK, essentially, will have the option to start importing American chicken for the first time in decades, at least at a large volume. Allowing chicken processed in this way into the UK is a <a href="https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/food-safety/chlorinated-chicken-explained-why-do-the-americans-treat-their-poultry-with-chlorine/555618.article" target="_blank">very controversial topic there</a>. The British media <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40703368" target="_blank">has been accused</a> of being "obsessed" with the issue; British publications have run dozens of stories about what American chlorine-treated chicken is.</p><p>The U.S. has not let this go unnoticed. <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/chlorinated-chicken-press-trip-british-journalists" target="_blank">BuzzFeed News got ahold of a document</a> laying out the American government's plans to get its chicken into the UK. The document proposes a $100,000 press junket for "influential" British journalists to tour American farms — presumably a carefully selected array of those farms — in order to change the dialogue about this chlorinated chicken. The document is largely focused on fighting "misconceptions" about American agribusiness, including such topics as <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/gmos">GMOs</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/animal-rights" rel="noopener noreferrer">animal welfare</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/factory-farming" rel="noopener noreferrer">factory farming</a>.</p><p>Using a chlorine solution to disinfect chickens is not, according to many studies, particularly unsafe. Even European agencies have found that chlorine is an effective way to kill bacteria. The EU didn't ban it because it doesn't work; they banned it because it works <em>too</em> well. Essentially, the EU's objection to the method is that it is a sledgehammer method used to cover up the atrocities in much of the American poultry industry: tiny spaces, wildly overbred birds that have difficulty standing up, and mass production that results in heavily soiled, contaminated birds. Chlorine, by the EU's way of thinking, encourages such bad behavior. After all, why bother to treat your birds well, when it's expensive and can all be cleaned off by a 50-parts-per-million chlorine solution?</p><p>Obviously, securing access to the UK as an export market would be a huge victory for the American poultry industry. The U.S. produced more than nine billion broiler chickens — those raised for meat consumption — <a href="https://www.uspoultry.org/economic_data/" target="_blank">in 2018</a>, a value of more than $31 billion. <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/white-meat-red-more-popular-uk-britain-beef-chicken-turkey-lamb-pork-a7816041.html" target="_blank">Chicken is now</a> the most popular meat in the UK, and American chicken producers would surely love to ignore their <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/25/business/chicken-investigation/index.html" target="_blank">antitrust issues</a> and sell some chicken to a huge new market.</p><p>The British concern about the provenance of American chicken, though, is unlikely to be healed with a luxury press tour for a select group of journalists.</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://modernfarmer.com/2019/09/why-the-uk-is-wary-of-american-chlorinated-chicken/" target="_blank">Modern Farmer</a>. </em><em></em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Workers sew jeans in a makeshift shed that serves as a workshop in Xintang, Zengcheng. Lu Guang / Greenpeace
By Courtney Lindwall
Question: I've heard that producing denim is particularly bad for the environment. Do I need to give up my blue jeans?
<p>Answer: Throwaway plastics and gas-guzzling cars are the typical consumer no-nos, but clothing also has oversize impacts on the planet and our health. And it's true — denim is one of the worst offenders.</p>
<p>Let's start with the fabric. Denim is made primarily with cotton, though it's now often blended with synthetic fibers like polyester. And though all fibers <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/CBD-Fiber-Selection-FS.pdf" target="_blank">have their trade-offs</a>, "cotton in general is a very thirsty crop," said <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/by/tatiana-schlossberg" target="_blank">Tatiana Schlossberg</a>, a former environmental reporter at the New York Times and the author of <a href="https://www.grandcentralpublishing.com/titles/tatiana-schlossberg/inconspicuous-consumption/9781538747094/" target="_blank"><em>Inconspicuous Consumption</em></a>, a new book on the hidden environmental impact of our spending habits. Very thirsty, indeed: Producing just 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cotton can require up to 7,660 gallons of water, depending on where it's grown. (In comparison, producing 2.2 <a href="https://www.imeche.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/global-food---waste-not-want-not.pdf?sfvrsn=0" target="_blank">pounds of tomatoes</a> requires one one-hundredth of that amount, 76 gallons.) A cotton crop consumes a lot of chemicals too: <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/CBD_FiberFacts_Cotton.pdf" target="_blank">16 percent of all insecticides</a> are used on the plant, and many of them pose significant health risks for farm workers and nearby residents.</p><p>Nowhere have the impacts from this process been more evident than in <a href="https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6283-The-denim-capital-of-the-world-so-polluted-you-can-t-give-the-houses-away" target="_blank">Xintang, a town in </a><a href="https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6283-The-denim-capital-of-the-world-so-polluted-you-can-t-give-the-houses-away" target="_blank">southern </a><a href="https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6283-The-denim-capital-of-the-world-so-polluted-you-can-t-give-the-houses-away" target="_blank">China</a>. The denim capital of the world, it produces one in every three pairs of jeans sold. Because of limited regulatory oversight, by 2013 Xintang's rivers ran a deep blue and smelled foul, a result of manufacturers dumping chemical-laden wastewater directly into local waterways. Unsafe amounts of toxic metals like mercury, lead and copper have been found in the water, which residents rely on for drinking and bathing. Workers and residents have <a href="https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6283-The-denim-capital-of-the-world-so-polluted-you-can-t-give-the-houses-away" target="_blank">reported rashes</a>, lesions, and, some locals believe, infertility. Denim also goes through a particularly energy — and water-intensive — and destructive — dyeing and finishing process, beginning with what gives the fabric its signature indigo color (originally a plant-based dye, but today largely replaced with a synthetic version). After dyeing, fabrics are repeatedly treated and washed with a variety of chemicals, like bleach, to soften, fade or texturize the fabric. Most of our favorite shades and styles — acid-washed, distressed, light-washed — require additional treatments and chemicals. All in all, producing a single pair of jeans requires an immense amount of water and energy and creates significant pollution.</p><p>"These clothes are cheap in the store because nobody's paying for this waste," Schlossberg said, adding that communities on the other side of the world will be footing that bill for generations.</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMTA3MTEyMi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5OTE1NDU1M30.kxwF935LZuB-xMVzPTYnDQln1zQm_UhnQzzzu1IU34I/img.jpg?width=980" id="3c33e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bcf6a87fb3e6d0fae2affed3995037a1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Top, from left: Every morning, workers at a Xintang denim-washing factory must search through wastewater to scoop out stones that are washed with the fabric in industrial washing machines to make stonewash denim; wastewater discharged from a denim-washing factory in Xintang. Bottom: A Greenpeace campaigner takes a water sample from a polluted river near Dadun Village, Xintang, where the economy is centered around textile production. Greenpeace has found high levels of industrial pollution and has documented the effects on the community.
Lu Guang / Greenpeace
<p>But the industry is transforming, however slowly. When the dangerous situation in Xintang came to light several years ago, China's central government ordered the local government to tackle <a href="http://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk/hjyw/201812/t20181220_685358.shtml" target="_blank">the pollution issue</a>. In response, between 2016 and 2018, 76 facilities, including 68 dyeing, printing and laundry mills, were shut down. According to Sina Finance, these shutdowns have caused more than <a href="http://www.mee.gov.cn/xxgk/hjyw/201812/t20181220_685358.shtml" target="_blank">1 billion U.S. dollars' worth of local economic loss</a>. But there are now encouraging signs: Some companies are rolling out <a href="http://store.levi.com/waterless/index.html" target="_blank">new production techniques</a> that significantly reduce water usage, and other brands are <a href="https://www.everlane.com/denim-factory" target="_blank">pursuing sustainability</a> by powering their factories with renewable energy and recycling water.</p><p>Although some denim manufacturers are making smarter choices, most international corporations get away with disclosing little information about their production processes. "People need to demand that companies make their practices available. Because the information isn't there in the first place, people don't know what to ask," Schlossberg said.</p><p>Yiliqi, a scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), is working to do just that. She said <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fixing-fashion-industry" target="_blank">improving the clothing industry</a> will require oversight, transparency and accountability. NRDC has worked with the <a href="http://wwwen.ipe.org.cn/" target="_blank">Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs</a> in China, for example, to <a href="http://wwwen.ipe.org.cn/MapBrand/Brand.html?q=6" target="_blank">map</a> and <a href="http://wwwen.ipe.org.cn/GreenSupplyChain/CITI.html" target="_blank">rank</a> multinational corporations on their supply chain performance. Meanwhile, the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/resources/clean-design-2018-mill-overview" target="_blank">Clean by Design</a> program that NRDC created more than a decade ago provides a tool for brands to cut water, energy and chemical consumption as well as wastewater discharge from their supply chains. (Last year the program was transferred to the <a href="https://www.apparelimpactinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Apparel Impact Institute</a>, a collaboration of industry stakeholders working to scale up the initiative.) The Sustainable Apparel Coalition has <a href="https://apparelcoalition.org/the-higg-index/" target="_blank">developed indices for measuring</a> a products' environmental impact. And various sustainability certifications, including <a href="https://bettercotton.org/" target="_blank">BCI (Better Cotton Initiative)</a>, <a href="https://www.bluesign.com/en" target="_blank">Bluesign</a>, <a href="https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/" target="_blank">OEKO-TEX</a> and <a href="https://www.global-standard.org/" target="_blank">GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard)</a>, among others, can be used as branding and put on clothing labels, creating further incentives for companies to improve.</p><p>For individuals, Yiliqi said, "the fastest way to make an impact is to ask their brands to do better." It's also important to investigate the work a company is doing to reduce its impact before you buy its products. And if you're looking to change some of your shopping habits, here are some tips:</p><ul> <li>Avoid overconsumption. Wear the denim you have as long as possible and forgo "fast fashion," which is a term for cheaply made, trendy clothing manufactured to last only a season or two.</li></ul><ul> <li>Take existing jeans in for mending when needed, rather than tossing them out altogether.</li></ul><ul> <li>Shop at thrift stores, which extends the life and reduces the carbon footprint of each pair of jeans, or swap with friends.</li></ul><ul><li>When you do buy new, opt for durable items that will last years instead of months.</li></ul><p>We don't have to forgo this American classic — it just needs a makeover.</p>From Your Site Articles
- The Environmental and Human Cost of Making a Pair of Jeans ... ›
- What You Can Do to Make Your Clothing Ocean Safe - EcoWatch ›
- 5 Tips for a More Earth-Conscious Wardrobe - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Algae blooms in Lake Erie. NASA
By Anne Schechinger
Over the Fourth of July holiday, many of us love to beat the heat in a favorite lake, pond or river. But this year, vacationers from coast to coast will have to look out for a potentially record-breaking number of algae blooms.
<p><span></span></p><p>So far this year there have been news stories about 107 algae outbreaks, compared to just 63 this time last year. That's a 70 percent increase. EWG's <a href="https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2019_algal_blooms/map/" target="_blank">interactive map</a> tracks news reports of blue-green algae blooms across the country since 2010, and this year is on track to have the most so far.</p>
<p>Recreating in or near water stricken by an algae bloom can lead to <a href="https://static.ewg.org/reports/2018/algalblooms/img/EWG_AlgalBloomGraphics_Table_C05.pdf?_ga=2.134167053.285444611.1562007818-1730736141.1562007818" target="_blank">serious</a> health consequences. Short-term exposure — whether through skin contact or ingestion — to the toxins sometimes produced by algae outbreaks has been linked to sore throat, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and liver damage.</p><p>These outbreaks don't just affect peoples' health, they also hurt their wallets. Algae keeps people away from businesses near affected lakes, such as marinas and restaurants.</p><p><a href="https://www.nj.com/news/2019/06/10-questions-and-answers-about-the-toxic-algae-bloom-in-lake-hopatcong.html" target="_blank">Lake Hopatcong,</a> in New Jersey, is currently suffering the biggest bloom ever recorded in the state. Hopatcong Mayor Mike Francis <a href="https://nj1015.com/harmful-slime-invades-njs-largest-lake-devastating-economy/" target="_blank">says</a> it could have devastating impacts on the health of residents and his town's economy. </p><p>In many cases, algae outbreaks are preventable. Reducing the amount of chemicals that run off farm fields can greatly reduce the number and severity of blooms in agricultural areas.</p><p>Lake Macbride, in Iowa, is an <a href="https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/2019/06/26/too-toxic-swim-lake-macbride-cautions-visitors-against-swimming/1570541001/" target="_blank">example</a> of a lake surrounded by farmland that has algae bloom and E. coli problems. Mandated agricultural conservation practices could go a long way toward cleaning up water bodies like Lake Macbride. </p><p>If you plan a lake outing this holiday, it's vital to know what to look for to figure out whether a toxic blue-green algae bloom is present in the water. Before your next trip to a lake, check out <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsgg2rqPKEE&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">our new video</a> to find out.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Toxic Waste Will Continue to Grow for Decades Even if All U.S. Drilling and Fracking Halts Today, New Report Says
19 June 2019
Popular
A fuel truck carries fuel into a fracking site past the warning signs Jan. 27, 2016 near Stillwater, Oklahoma. J Pat Carter / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
For more than three decades, the U.S. government has mismanaged toxic oil and gas waste containing carcinogens, heavy metals and radioactive materials, according to a new Earthworks report — and with the country on track to continue drilling and fracking for fossil fuels, the advocacy group warns of growing threats to the planet and public health.
<p>"Even if we stop all new drilling and fracking immediately, the flood of toxic waste streams will continue to grow for decades," Melissa Troutman, the report's lead author, said in a statement Tuesday. "In spite of industry claims of innovation, the risks from oil and gas waste are getting worse, not better."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTYwODgyOS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMzA2MDQ3M30.iS-DpB-lRTDHd_eCMZq-TmuRXyxrpa9kwN5F8CrKu7o/img.png?width=980" id="66f04" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c76785af42eb77bd0c8c13ab15b7b753" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Truck spreading brine in New York.
No Fracking Way.
<p>Building on a 2015 Earthworks <a href="https://earthworks.org/publications/wasting_away_full_report/" target="_blank">analysis</a>, <em><a href="https://earthworks.org/cms/assets/uploads/2019/06/StillWastingAway.pdf" target="_blank">Still Wasting Away</a> </em>details congressional and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions as well as industry lobbying related to the federal rules for liquid and solid waste from fossil fuel development.</p><p>"Despite over 30 years of research about the toxic impacts of the industry's waste, it is far from being handled properly," the report says. "There is little consistency in tracking, testing, and monitoring requirements for oil and gas waste in the United States."</p><p>"At all stages of the oil and gas waste management process," the report explains, "toxins can enter the environment accidentally (spills, leaks, waste truck rollovers, and illegal dumping) or legally under current state and federal law (road spreading, discharge to rivers, landfill leaching)."</p><p>Demonstrating the scope of the threat that such waste poses to human health, the report notes that "an estimated 17.6 million Americans live within a mile of oil and gas development, including half of the population in West Virginia and almost a quarter of the population in Ohio."</p><p>The report calls for immediate action from state and federal governments, and offers several policy recommendations to stem mounting risks to water, soil, air and people nationwide.</p><div id="4ea48" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="AZA16M1576663932"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1141001119209889794" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Even if drilling stopped tomorrow, today’s #OilAndGas wells will continue to produce massive amounts of waste long… https://t.co/e9BtmpTyA4</div> — Pennsylvania Moms (@Pennsylvania Moms)<a href="https://twitter.com/CleanAirMoms_PA/statuses/1141001119209889794">1560870840.0</a></blockquote></div><p><em>Still Wasting Away</em> features a timeline that tracks federal action on fossil fuel waste management and industry lobbying all the way back to 1976, when Congress enacted the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) that required the EPA to craft rules to identify and manage hazardous waste.</p><p>The EPA spent the next few years writing regulations — and fossil fuel lobbyists reportedly got to work trying to influence the agency, which issued a key final decision on industry waste in 1988.</p><p>As Earthworks senior policy counsel Aaron Mintzes put it, "Industry lobbyists secured a 'special' designation for oil and gas wastes that exempt it from our national hazardous waste safeguards." Mintzes added that "oil and gas waste is indeed 'special,' it is especially toxic, but that means it should require more oversight, not less."</p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTYwODgzMS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNTIyOTU3MH0.0xXj50-PmIZIwDfuYuBzh7dDxF9e94uL01gDGVeasGw/img.png?width=980" id="0d633" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="07180f00518972510255d298a4b6820e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Storage pit at the Ginsburg injection well, Ohio.
Athens County Fracking Action Network
<p>In 2016, Earthworks and other environmental organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the EPA in a bid to force the agency to more strictly manage fossil fuel waste under the RCRA, and the EPA agreed to a consent decree that required the agency to review and consider revising its rules. In April, the EPA <a href="https://www.gravel2gavel.com/epa-rcra-regulation/" target="_blank">announced</a> that it wasn't making any changes and that it would allow states to continue spearheading regulation.</p><p>"EPA will continue to work with states and other organizations to identify areas for continued improvement and to address emerging issues to ensure that exploration, development, and production wastes continue to be managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment," the EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/hw/management-oil-and-gas-exploration-and-production-waste" target="_blank">vowed</a> on its website.</p><p>With the release of <em>Still Wasting Away</em>, Earthworks <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/18/This%20report,%20and%20others,%20reveal%20that%20EPA%20and%20state%20governments%20are%20leaving%20communities%20at%20increased%20risk%20for%20exposure%20to%20toxic%20and%20carcinogenic%20oil%20and%20gas%20waste." target="_blank">charged</a> Tuesday that "this report, and others, reveal that EPA and state governments are leaving communities at increased risk for exposure to toxic and carcinogenic oil and gas waste."</p><p>While the Earthworks report details waste management failures under both Democratic and Republican presidents, environmental advocates face an uphill battle in their fight for stricter federal rules under the Trump administration. According to a New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html" target="_blank">tally</a> updated earlier this month, the administration — with help from congressional Republicans — has worked to roll back at least 83 environmental regulations since President Donald Trump took office.</p><p><em>Still Wasting Away</em> will be followed by supplemental reports for nine states that are home to much of the country's drilling and fracking for fossil fuels: California, Colorado, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia.</p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="447b07f8469e0fd5d70b314488de0e4e"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3foXL771P4o?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/18/even-if-all-us-drilling-and-fracking-halts-today-warns-new-report-flood-toxic-waste" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><em></em></p>Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
fotofrog / E+ / Getty Images
By Gigen Mammoser
A recent analysis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found chemical contamination of PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) at multiple levels of the U.S. food supply chain.
<p>However, the agency maintains that their findings don't represent a likely health concern for consumers.</p>
<p> <em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/forever-chemicals-in-your-food-what-they-are-and-how-to-avoid-them" target="_blank">Healthline</a>.</em><em></em></p>
What Are PFAS and Why Are They Used?
<p>PFAS are a widely used class of nearly 5,000 synthetic chemicals that have been used in manufacturing since the 1940s. They're oil-, water-, and heat-resistant, making them profoundly useful and popular in all manner of products.</p><p>These are the chemicals that make carpets stain resistant and fast food packaging able to repel grease and water.</p><p>They're also used in fire-fighting foams and what gives nonstick cookware, well, it's non-stickiness.</p><p>And <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/oral-b-dental-floss-toxic" target="_blank">dental floss</a> contains them, too.</p><p>They're also known as "forever chemicals," because the molecular bonds that form them can take thousands of years to degrade, meaning that they accumulate both in the environment and in our bodies.</p><p>So, when <a href="https://static.ewg.org/pdf/alex-530.pdf" target="_blank">images of an FDA presentation</a> came to light last week, they appeared to confirm what many doctors and scientists have thought for some time.</p>PFAS Are Everywhere, Even in Food
<p>FDA scientists sampled a wide variety of food sources across the country, including some taken directly from geographic areas known to have PFAS contamination.</p><p>The milk at a dairy farm in New Mexico was deemed to be a potential human health hazard after being contaminated by PFAS in groundwater.</p><p>Leafy green vegetables like lettuce, kale, and cabbage grown downstream from a PFAS production plant in North Carolina and sold at a local farmers were found to contain the chemicals as well, but at low levels.</p><p>The FDA did not deem them a human health concern.</p><p>Additionally, PFAS were found in 14 out of 91 samples of meat, dairy, and grain samples, including off-the-shelf chocolate cake.</p>Reason for Concern?
<p>Despite what the findings seem to imply — that PFAS are widespread throughout the U.S. food-supply chain at various levels from production to packaging — the FDA's consensus is optimistic.</p><p>"Our findings did not detect PFAS in the vast majority of the foods tested. In addition, based on the best available current science, the FDA does not have any indication that these substances are a human health concern, in other words a food safety risk in human food, at the levels found in this limited sampling," the FDA said in <a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fdas-scientific-work-understand-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-food-and-findings" target="_blank">a statement released today.Trusted Source</a></p><p>However, those sentiments don't appear to be shared by other experts in the field of public health.</p><p>"It's certainly not a surprise in the sense that it's long been known that the general population is exposed to these chemicals. Essentially everyone in the U.S. has these chemicals in their bodies. We've known that for a long time," said Dr. Ken Spaeth, chief of occupational and environmental medicine at Northwell Health in New York.</p><p>"My concern is that these particular FDA researchers concluded that these were safe levels, that there were no hazards posed by these levels, and I would take issue with that," Dr. Spaeth said.</p><p>He argues that looking at individual PFAS levels in chocolate cake and cabbages loses sight of the "big picture" of PFAS, which is about cumulative, lifetime exposure.</p><p>In other words, it's about the PFAS levels that are in everything from the water we drink to the furniture in our house rather than just what's found in that box of chocolate cake on store shelves.</p>How PFAS Can Affect Health
<p>PFAS are recognized as having the potential to cause a <a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfc/docs/pfas_clinician_fact_sheet_508.pdf" target="_blank">host of serious health problems,</a> including cancers, liver and kidney problems, reproductive harm, high blood pressure, and thyroid issues.</p><p>The strongest evidence of such adverse health effects comes from an epidemiological study known as the C8 Health Project, which took place from the 1950s until 2002 in areas of known water contamination in West Virginia and Ohio.</p><p>What still remains unclear is at what level of lifetime exposure do these health effects manifest.</p><p>There are currently no federally-regulated safety levels for PFAS by the FDA or other federal agencies.</p><p>In 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-health-advisories-pfoa-and-pfos" target="_blank">a health advisory for certain PFAS</a>, which set a lifetime exposure limit for drinking water at 70 parts per trillion.</p><p>However, health advisories are non-binding, non-enforceable limits that are instead meant to inform the public and health officials.</p><p>"EPA does not anticipate a person to experience negative health effects if they drink water with levels of PFOA or PFAS (or both combined) at or below 70 ppt (parts per trillion) every day over their entire lifetime. The health advisories are based on estimated exposure from drinking water and household use of drinking water during food preparation (e.g., cooking or to prepare coffee, tea, or soup)," an EPA spokesperson told Healthline in an email.</p><p>The spokesperson said that the limit set by the health advisory isn't appropriate to identify the potential exposure risk of other products, including food sources like fish, meat, and dairy.</p><p><a href="https://www.bu.edu/sph/profile/wendy-heiger-bernays/" target="_blank">Wendy Heiger-Bernays</a>, PhD, a molecular toxicologist in the Department of Environmental Health at the Boston University School of Public Health, told Healthline that the FDA's findings provide further proof that federal regulations need to be established across one or more agencies.</p><p>"I think they need to be established very quickly. The evidence is sufficient to set limits," she said.</p><p>Dr. Heiger-Bernays is keenly aware of the potential danger of PFAS in the environment and our bodies because of her understanding of the special bonds that make them "forever chemicals."</p><p>"When you have these two atoms, carbons and fluorines, and they bind together molecularly, it creates a molecule that cannot be broken down by enzymes in the body, by sunlight, by microorganisms. They just can't be broken down," she said. "They are here forever."</p>Some Good News
<p>Blood levels of certain PFAS have<a href="https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/pfas-blood-testing.html" target="_blank"> actually declined</a> over the past two decades.</p><p>In 2006, the EPA launched the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program" target="_blank">PFOA Stewardship Program</a> alongside the eight major companies of the PFAS industry including 3M and DuPont, to help phase out certain PFAS from manufacturing.</p><p>But without any real regulation at the federal level, there's little that individuals can do to mitigate their own exposure to PFAS because of how widespread they are throughout commercial and consumer goods.</p><p>"It would require multiple agencies since no one arena is probably sufficient to ensure that exposures are adequately reduced. It would take a coordinated effort, which means there has to be political and regulatory focus for this to happen," Spaeth said. "There doesn't seem to be a critical mass of political will to get this done."</p>From Your Site Articles
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Sirintra_Pumsopa / iStock / Getty Images
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has found per- and polyfluoroalykyl substances, or PFAS, in foods including grocery store meat, fish and chocolate cake, The Associated Press reported Monday.
<p>The findings were first obtained by the <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> (EDF) and <a href="https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/06/fda-tests-confirm-suspicions-about-pfas-chemicals-food?utm_campaign=EWG+Content&utm_content=1559576058&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter" target="_blank">published</a> by the <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a>, then confirmed by the FDA Monday, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/03/health/pfas-food-supply-fda/index.html" target="_blank">CNN reported</a>. </p><p>The FDA tests found PFAS in chocolate cake at levels more than 250 times the only federal safety guidelines that exist, for some types of PFAS in <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water" target="_self">drinking water</a>, according to The Associated Press.</p>
<div id="d646c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="22M7C31576663113"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1135570848440565761" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Wait! Before you bite into that chocolate cake, there's something that the @US_FDA hasn't told you, and you definit… https://t.co/S270W4Xl52</div> — EWG (@EWG)<a href="https://twitter.com/ewg/statuses/1135570848440565761">1559576162.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"What this calls for is additional research to determine how widespread this contamination is and how high the levels are," Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Linda Birnbaum told The Associated Press. "We have to look at total human exposure — not just what's in the water or what's in the food ... or not just dust. We need to look at the sum totals of what the exposures are."</p><p>CNN explained why PFAS contamination is so concerning:</p><blockquote>PFAS is a family of nearly 5,000 synthetic chemicals that are extremely persistent in the environment and in our bodies. PFAS is short for perfluoroalky and polyfluoroalkyl substances and includes chemicals known as PFOS, PFOA and GenX, sometimes called forever chemicals. These chemicals all share signature elemental bonds of fluorine and carbon, which are extremely strong and difficult to break down in the environment or in our bodies.<br><br>These chemicals can easily migrate into the air, dust, food, soil and water and can accumulate in the body. They've been linked to adverse health impacts including liver damage, thyroid disease, decreased fertility, high cholesterol, obesity, hormone suppression and cancer.</blockquote><p>They were invented by DuPont in 1938, initially for non-stick cookware. But they are now used by a variety of industries to repel grease and water in items from packaging to carpets to outdoor gear, and they are also an important ingredient in firefighting foam, which is often used by the Defense Department to fight jet fires, The Associated Press reported.</p><p>The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gives the safe level for certain PFAS in drinking water at 70 parts per trillion (ppt).</p><p>The FDA's most recent PFAS findings were presented at the 29th annual European meeting of the <a href="https://helsinki.setac.org/programme/scientific-programme/trackssessions/" target="_blank">Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry </a>in Helsinki, Finland last month, and <a href="https://static.ewg.org/pdf/alex-530.pdf?_ga=2.215613904.650917131.1559643667-940267475.1559643667" target="_blank">photos</a> of the presentation were obtained by EDF, according to CNN. The findings contained three related investigations into PFAS in food, as <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/06/03/fda-high-levels-pfas-chocolate-cake/" target="_blank">EDF summarized</a>:<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><strong>1. </strong>The FDA found most of 16 PFAS tested for in food sold at a farmer's market downstream of a PFAS facility. One produce sample contained 1,200 ppt.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><span></span><strong>2. </strong>In an investigation of a dairy farm near an air force base in New Mexico, the agency found the PFAS perfluoroctanesulfonate (PFOS) at levels of more than 5,000 ppt in milk samples. It also found lower levels of various types of PFAS in cheese.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;"><span></span><strong>3.</strong> A sampling of food from grocery stores in three mid-Atlantic cities in October 2017 turned up 17,640 ppt of PFAS in chocolate cake, and detectable levels of PFOS in 10 of 21 meat samples, from 134 ppt in a frankfurter to 865 ppt in tilapia.</p><p>FDA spokeswoman Tara Rabin told The Associated Press that the levels found by the agency were "not likely to be a human health concern."</p><p>However, East Carolina University toxicologist Jamie DeWitt said the important question was the impact of contamination over time.</p><p>"Drinking one glass of contaminated water is unlikely to be associated with health risks, as is eating one slice of contaminated chocolate cake," DeWitt told The Associated Press. "Individually, each item is unlikely to be a huge problem, but collectively and over a lifetime, that may be a different story."</p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Starbucks Stores Exposed NYC Customers to Dangerous Pesticides for 3 Years, Lawsuit Claims
22 May 2019
Health + Wellness
smcgee / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0
Several New York City Starbucks exposed customers to a potentially deadly pesticide, two lawsuits filed Tuesday allege.
<p>The first claims that the coffee chain exposed customers over the last three years to Dichlorvos, or DDVP, a toxic ingredient in Hot Shot No-Pest Strips used against recommendations in Manhattan stores. In the second, a former employee and two pest control contractors say they were retaliated against for raising concerns about the use of the strips, <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/starbucks-accused-exposing-new-york-city-customers-toxic-pesticide-n1008401" target="_blank">NBC News reported</a>. </p>
<p>"New Yorkers deserve to know what they are putting in their bodies and we call upon Starbucks to explain, as we allege in the complaint, its failure to take appropriate care for its customers' well-being," Douglas H. Wigdor, who filed the first complaint in New York State Supreme Court, said in a statement reported by <a href="http://gothamist.com/2019/05/21/nyc_starbucks_pesticide.php" target="_blank">Gothamist</a>.</p><p>DDVP exposure can cause loss of bladder control, weakness, nausea, trouble breathing, paralysis, coma and death, the lawsuit states, according to NBC News. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says DDVP should only be used to control pests in enclosed spaces where people are either not present or are provided with a respirator.</p><p>Hot Shot advises that its strips should not be used in restaurants or anywhere food is served. But photos included in the suit show the strips near air vents, bagels and food preparation equipment.</p><p>"Starbucks stores throughout Manhattan have for many years been permeated with a toxic pesticide called Dichlorvos, which is highly poisonous and completely unfit for use in proximity to food, beverages and people," the suit said, as NBC News reported.</p><p>Gothamist published photos included in the suit taken by former Pest Control Technician Paul D'Auria that show the strips were being used to fight "disgusting conditions," such as a buildup of flies, cockroaches, maggots and silverfish.</p>
<div id="79aaf" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="KQK0EP1576664161"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1130925957056028672" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">NYC Starbucks Used Toxic Pesticide In Losing Battle Against Maggots & Other Pests, Lawsuit Alleges… https://t.co/haLtIEeKKA</div> — Gothamist (@Gothamist)<a href="https://twitter.com/Gothamist/statuses/1130925957056028672">1558468734.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The second complaint was brought by the Filosa Graff firm in the Financial District, <a href="https://www.ny1.com/nyc/manhattan/news/2019/05/21/starbucks-sued-over-potentially-fatal-pesticides-in-nyc-stores" target="_blank">NY1 reported</a>. It alleges that one employee was fired in February 2018 after raising alarm about the use of the strips. A pest control technician and their supervisor also had their contract terminated in June 2018 after the technician made "repeated reports and complaints about the foregoing risks to health and safety," the suit said, according to NBC News.</p><p>Starbucks spokesperson Katie Rodihan told Gothamist that, upon learning the strips were being "misused," the company had "directed local leadership to remove these devices from all stores." She also said an independent health expert had "confirmed the pest strips did not put anyone at a health risk," though she did not name the expert or say whether they had visited the New York stores.</p><p>In a statement reported by NY1, the company also said it does not "take action or retaliate" against employees or contractors for voicing concerns. It is not known which Manhattan locations are included in the suit.</p>
Read More
Show Less
California, Nation’s Top User of Chlorpyrifos, Announces Ban on Brain-Damaging Pesticide
09 May 2019
Food
California will ban a brain-damaging pesticide that the Trump administration's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delayed banning at the national level, the state announced Wednesday.
<p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chlorpyrifos" target="_self">Chlorpyrifos</a>, which is used on almonds, citrus, grapes, cotton, walnuts and other crops, has been shown to harm children's health and neurological development. </p>
<p>"Countless people have suffered as a result of this <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chemicals" target="_self">chemical</a>," California EPA (Cal-EPA) Secretary Jared Blumenfeld told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/08/california-pesticide-ban-chlorpyrifos-agriculture" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>. "A lot of people live and work and go to school right next to fields that are being sprayed with chlorpyrifos … It's an issue of environmental health and justice."</p>
<div id="49681" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BEWK4B1576662888"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1126195097245110272" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">“This action represents a historic opportunity for California to develop a new framework for alternative pest manag… https://t.co/vpvqfH5Wlt</div> — California EPA (@California EPA)<a href="https://twitter.com/CaliforniaEPA/statuses/1126195097245110272">1557340809.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The ban will take effect between six months and two years, and is accompanied by $5.7 million in funds from Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom to help transition to safer alternatives, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/05/08/california-ban-controversial-pesticide-citing-effect-child-brain-development/?utm_term=.cc66878e1fc1" target="_blank">The Washington Post reported</a>. California follows <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/hawaii-ban-pesticides-chlorpyrifos-2565244742.html" target="_self">Hawaii</a> and New York in approving a ban on the pesticide, and bills to ban chlorpyrifos are being considered by New Jersey, Connecticut and Oregon.</p><p>The EPA had recommended banning the pesticide during the Obama administration, but Trump's first pick for EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, walked back those efforts in 2017. Environmental groups then sued the agency. In the most recent development in the ensuing legal battle, a federal judge in April <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-chlorpyrifos-court-2635261283.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">ordered the EPA</a> to make a final decision on a ban by mid-July.</p><p>"Governor Newsom has done what the Trump administration has refused to do: protect children, farmworkers and millions of others from being exposed to this neurotoxic pesticide," <a href="https://www.ewg.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Working Group</a> President Ken Cook said in a statement reported by The Washington Post. "With the governor's action, California is once again showing leadership in protecting public health."</p>
<div id="82ef3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9UWM1U1576662888"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1126201387702992897" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">“Gov. @GavinNewsom has done what the @realDonaldTrump administration has refused to do: protect children, farm work… https://t.co/nKGZf0pUsF</div> — EWG (@EWG)<a href="https://twitter.com/ewg/statuses/1126201387702992897">1557342309.0</a></blockquote></div><p>University of California, San Francisco medical professor and former Cal-EPA Deputy Secretary Dr. Gina Solomon told <a href="http://time.com/5585881/california-outlaw-pesticide-harmful-kids/" target="_blank">Time</a> that chlorpyrifos was unique among pesticides in that scientists know a significant amount about how it harms humans.</p><p>"We know a lot about what it does to developing children and that science is the bedrock of the action that Cal-EPA is announcing," she said. "Many pesticides have been studied well in lab rats but in this case we actually know what it does to people."</p><p>Chlorpyrifos has been shown to harm brain development in fetuses and lead to reduced IQ and reading ability and increased hyperactivity, in children. Children exposed in utero even have smaller heads, Solomon said.</p><p>"The science is definitive," Blumenfeld told The Guardian. "This job really should have been done by the US EPA."</p><p>However, Solomon noted that since California grows the majority of fruits and vegetables in the U.S., its ban will have a positive impact on other states, too.</p>
<div id="fe9fe" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="NDEISJ1576662888"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1126246655009984512" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">"California’s action to cancel the registration of chlorpyrifos is needed to prevent the significant harm this pest… https://t.co/xSb3jnOGFN</div> — CA_Pesticides (@CA_Pesticides)<a href="https://twitter.com/CA_Pesticides/statuses/1126246655009984512">1557353101.0</a></blockquote></div><p>One reason activists say the Trump administration has stalled on banning chlorpyrifos is that the predecessor of the pesticide's current manufacturer, DowDuPont, donated to Trump, The Guardian reported. The company has promised to challenge California's ban.</p><p>"This proposal disregards a robust database of more than 4,000 studies and reports examining the product in terms of health, safety and the environment," DowDuPont spokesman Gregg Schmidt said in an email reported by The Washington Post. "We are evaluating all options to challenge this proposal."</p><p>Chlorpyrifos use has fallen in California from two million pounds in 2005 to 900,000 pounds in 2016, but the state is still the largest user of the pesticide in the U.S.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less