Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

We think we control our health – but corporations selling forever chemicals, fossil fuels and ultra-processed foods have a much greater role

News Feed
Wednesday, May 1, 2024

shutterstock Ahmet Misirligul/ShutterstockYou go to the gym, eat healthy and walk as much as possible. You wash your hands and get vaccinated. You control your health. This is a common story we tell ourselves. Unfortunately, it’s not quite true. Factors outside our control have huge influence – especially products which can sicken or kill us, made by companies and sold routinely. For instance, you and your family have been exposed for decades to dangerous forever chemicals, some of which are linked to kidney and testicular cancers. You’re almost certainly carrying these chemicals, known as PFAS or forever chemicals, in your body right now. And that’s just the start. We now know exposure to just four classes of product – tobacco, alcohol, ultra-processed foods and fossil fuels – are linked to one out of every three deaths worldwide. That is, they’re implicated in 19 of the world’s 56 million deaths each year (as of 2019). Pollution – largely from fossil fuels – is now the single largest environmental cause of premature death. Communities of colour and low-income communities experience disproportionate impacts; For example, over 90% of pollution related deaths occur in low middle income countries. This means the leading risk factor for disease and death worldwide is corporations who make, market and sell these unhealthy products. Worse, even when these corporations become aware of the harms their products cause, they have often systematically hidden these harms to boost profits at the expense of our health. Major tobacco, oil, food, pharmaceutical and chemical corporations have all applied similar techniques, privatising the profits and spreading the harms. Tobacco companies long questioned the link between smoking and cancer. Nopphon_1987/Shutterstock Profit and loss statements When companies act to conceal the harm their products do, they prevent us from protecting ourselves and our children. We now have many well-documented cases of corporate wrongdoing, such as asbestos, fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides) sugar, silica, and of course tobacco. In these instances, corporations intentionally manufactured doubt or hid the harms of their products to delay or prevent regulation and maintain profits. Decades of empirical evidence shows these effective tactics have actually been shared and strategically passed from one industry or company to the next. For instance, when large tobacco companies Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds bought food companies Kraft, General Foods and Nabisco in the 1980s, tobacco executives brought across marketing strategies, flavouring and colourings to expand product lines and engineered fatty, sweet and salty hyperpalatable foods such as cookies, cereals and frozen foods linked to obesity and diet-related diseases. These foods activate our reward circuits and encourage us to consume more. Or consider how ‘forever chemicals’ became so widespread. A team of scientists (including this article’s co-author) investigated previously secret internal industry documents from 3M and DuPont, the largest makers of forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS. The documents showed both 3M and DuPont used tactics from the tobacco industry’s playbook, such as suppressing unfavourable research and distorting public debate. Like Big Tobacco, 3M and DuPont had a financial interest in suppressing scientific evidence of the harms of their products, while publicly declaring in-demand products such as Teflon were safe. For decades, forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS have been used to make Teflon pans, Scotchgard, firefighting foam and other non-stick materials. By the early 2000s, one of these, PFOS, ended up in our blood at 20 times the level its manufacturer, 3M, considered safe. As early as 1961, the chief toxicologist at DuPont’s Teflon subsidiary reported the company’s wonder-material had “the ability to increase the size of the liver of rats at low doses”, and recommended the chemicals be handled “with extreme care”. According to a 1970 internal memo, the DuPont-funded Haskell Laboratory found the chemical class C8 (now known as PFOA/PFOS) was “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested”. Teflon was hailed as a wonder material, making non-stick pans possible. But the original chemicals used to make Teflon were dangerous. Minko Dima/Shutterstock Both 3M and DuPont did extensive internal research on the risks their products posed to humans, but they shared little of it. The risks of PFOA including pregnancy-induced hypertension, kidney and testicular cancers, and ulcerative colitis was not publicly established until 2011. Now, 60 years after DuPont first learned of the harms these products could cause, many countries are facing the human and environmental consequences and a very expensive cleanup. Even though the production of PFOA and PFOS is being phased out, forever chemicals are easily stored in the body and take decades to break down. Worse, PFOA and PFOS are just two of over 15,000 different PFAS chemicals, most of which are still in use. How can we prevent corporate injury to our health? My co-author and I work in the field known as commercial determinants of health, which is to say, the damage corporations can do to us. Corporate wrongdoing can directly injure or even kill us. One of the key ways companies have been able to avoid regulation and lawsuits is by hiding the evidence. Internal studies showing harm can be easily hidden. External studies can be influenced, either by corporate funding, business-friendly scientists, legal action or lobbying policymakers to avoid regulation. Here are three ways to prevent this happening again: 1) Require corporations to adhere to the same standards of data sharing and open science as independent scientists do. If a corporation wants to bring a new product to market, they should have to register and publicly release every study they plan to conduct on its harms so the public can see the results of the study. 2) Sever the financial links between industry and researchers or policymakers. Many large corporations will spend money on public studies to try to get favourable outcomes for their own interests. To cut these financial ties means boosting public health research, either through government funding or alternatives such as a tax on corporate marketing. It would also mean capping corporate political donations and bringing lobbying under control by restricting corporate access and spending to policymakers and increasing transparency. And it would mean stopping the revolving door where government employees or policymakers work for the industry they used to regulate once they leave office. 3) Mandate public transparency of corporate funding to researchers and policymakers. In 2010, the United States introduced laws to enforce transparency on how much medical and pharmaceutical companies were spending to influence the products doctors chose to use. Research using the data unearthed by these laws has shown the problem is pervasive. We need this model for other industries so we can clearly see where corporate money is going. Registries should be detailed, permanent and easy to search. These steps would not be easy. But the status quo means corporations can keep selling dangerous or lethal products for much longer than they should. In doing so, they have become one of the largest influences on our health and will continue to harm generations to come – in ways hard to counter with yoga and willpower. And your health is more important than corporate profits. Read more: Chemicals, forever: how do you fix a problem like PFAS? Nicholas Chartres receives funding from The JPB Foundation, The World Health Organization and Health CanadaLisa Bero received or receives funding from Cochrane, NHMRC, Health Canada, the State of Colorado.

Corporations have an incentive to make profits – even if their products hurt or even kill people. Here’s how to stop history repeating.

shutterstock Ahmet Misirligul/Shutterstock

You go to the gym, eat healthy and walk as much as possible. You wash your hands and get vaccinated. You control your health. This is a common story we tell ourselves. Unfortunately, it’s not quite true.

Factors outside our control have huge influence – especially products which can sicken or kill us, made by companies and sold routinely.

For instance, you and your family have been exposed for decades to dangerous forever chemicals, some of which are linked to kidney and testicular cancers. You’re almost certainly carrying these chemicals, known as PFAS or forever chemicals, in your body right now.

And that’s just the start. We now know exposure to just four classes of product – tobacco, alcohol, ultra-processed foods and fossil fuels – are linked to one out of every three deaths worldwide. That is, they’re implicated in 19 of the world’s 56 million deaths each year (as of 2019). Pollution – largely from fossil fuels – is now the single largest environmental cause of premature death. Communities of colour and low-income communities experience disproportionate impacts; For example, over 90% of pollution related deaths occur in low middle income countries.

This means the leading risk factor for disease and death worldwide is corporations who make, market and sell these unhealthy products. Worse, even when these corporations become aware of the harms their products cause, they have often systematically hidden these harms to boost profits at the expense of our health. Major tobacco, oil, food, pharmaceutical and chemical corporations have all applied similar techniques, privatising the profits and spreading the harms.

man smoking
Tobacco companies long questioned the link between smoking and cancer. Nopphon_1987/Shutterstock

Profit and loss statements

When companies act to conceal the harm their products do, they prevent us from protecting ourselves and our children. We now have many well-documented cases of corporate wrongdoing, such as asbestos, fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides) sugar, silica, and of course tobacco. In these instances, corporations intentionally manufactured doubt or hid the harms of their products to delay or prevent regulation and maintain profits.

Decades of empirical evidence shows these effective tactics have actually been shared and strategically passed from one industry or company to the next.

For instance, when large tobacco companies Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds bought food companies Kraft, General Foods and Nabisco in the 1980s, tobacco executives brought across marketing strategies, flavouring and colourings to expand product lines and engineered fatty, sweet and salty hyperpalatable foods such as cookies, cereals and frozen foods linked to obesity and diet-related diseases. These foods activate our reward circuits and encourage us to consume more.

Or consider how ‘forever chemicals’ became so widespread. A team of scientists (including this article’s co-author) investigated previously secret internal industry documents from 3M and DuPont, the largest makers of forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS.

The documents showed both 3M and DuPont used tactics from the tobacco industry’s playbook, such as suppressing unfavourable research and distorting public debate. Like Big Tobacco, 3M and DuPont had a financial interest in suppressing scientific evidence of the harms of their products, while publicly declaring in-demand products such as Teflon were safe.

For decades, forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS have been used to make Teflon pans, Scotchgard, firefighting foam and other non-stick materials. By the early 2000s, one of these, PFOS, ended up in our blood at 20 times the level its manufacturer, 3M, considered safe.

As early as 1961, the chief toxicologist at DuPont’s Teflon subsidiary reported the company’s wonder-material had “the ability to increase the size of the liver of rats at low doses”, and recommended the chemicals be handled “with extreme care”. According to a 1970 internal memo, the DuPont-funded Haskell Laboratory found the chemical class C8 (now known as PFOA/PFOS) was “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested”.

teflon pan water drops
Teflon was hailed as a wonder material, making non-stick pans possible. But the original chemicals used to make Teflon were dangerous. Minko Dima/Shutterstock

Both 3M and DuPont did extensive internal research on the risks their products posed to humans, but they shared little of it. The risks of PFOA including pregnancy-induced hypertension, kidney and testicular cancers, and ulcerative colitis was not publicly established until 2011.

Now, 60 years after DuPont first learned of the harms these products could cause, many countries are facing the human and environmental consequences and a very expensive cleanup.

Even though the production of PFOA and PFOS is being phased out, forever chemicals are easily stored in the body and take decades to break down. Worse, PFOA and PFOS are just two of over 15,000 different PFAS chemicals, most of which are still in use.

How can we prevent corporate injury to our health?

My co-author and I work in the field known as commercial determinants of health, which is to say, the damage corporations can do to us.

Corporate wrongdoing can directly injure or even kill us.

One of the key ways companies have been able to avoid regulation and lawsuits is by hiding the evidence. Internal studies showing harm can be easily hidden. External studies can be influenced, either by corporate funding, business-friendly scientists, legal action or lobbying policymakers to avoid regulation.

Here are three ways to prevent this happening again:

1) Require corporations to adhere to the same standards of data sharing and open science as independent scientists do.

If a corporation wants to bring a new product to market, they should have to register and publicly release every study they plan to conduct on its harms so the public can see the results of the study.

2) Sever the financial links between industry and researchers or policymakers.

Many large corporations will spend money on public studies to try to get favourable outcomes for their own interests. To cut these financial ties means boosting public health research, either through government funding or alternatives such as a tax on corporate marketing. It would also mean capping corporate political donations and bringing lobbying under control by restricting corporate access and spending to policymakers and increasing transparency. And it would mean stopping the revolving door where government employees or policymakers work for the industry they used to regulate once they leave office.

3) Mandate public transparency of corporate funding to researchers and policymakers.

In 2010, the United States introduced laws to enforce transparency on how much medical and pharmaceutical companies were spending to influence the products doctors chose to use. Research using the data unearthed by these laws has shown the problem is pervasive. We need this model for other industries so we can clearly see where corporate money is going. Registries should be detailed, permanent and easy to search.

These steps would not be easy. But the status quo means corporations can keep selling dangerous or lethal products for much longer than they should.

In doing so, they have become one of the largest influences on our health and will continue to harm generations to come – in ways hard to counter with yoga and willpower. And your health is more important than corporate profits.


Read more: Chemicals, forever: how do you fix a problem like PFAS?


The Conversation

Nicholas Chartres receives funding from The JPB Foundation, The World Health Organization and Health Canada

Lisa Bero received or receives funding from Cochrane, NHMRC, Health Canada, the State of Colorado.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Lead water pipes are a primary contributor to lead exposure in children, study says

A recent study published in Environmental Science and Technology found a strong association between the presence of lead service lines (LSLs) and children’s elevated blood lead levels in Cincinnati, OH and Grand Rapids, MI. In short:While many factors can contribute to lead exposure, the prevalence of lead pipes was a stronger predictor of elevated lead levels than standard risk predictors used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD).For both cities, the prevalence of lead pipes was linked to the percentage of housing built before the 1950s, highlighting that lead pipes are more commonly found in older homes.Key quote:“These findings suggest that replacing LSLs is an effective public health strategy to eliminate this important source of [lead] exposure.”Why this matters:Lead is an incredibly toxic chemical that’s been linked to cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, damage to the reproductive and nervous systems, and more. While significant progress has been made in reducing the average blood lead levels in the U.S. over time, hotspots of elevated exposure still remain. Communities that suffer from higher lead levels are often faced with multiple potential sources of exposure, which is commonly paired with significant economic and social inequality in comparison to areas with lower exposures. Because the results of this study point to lead service lines as key contributors to lead exposures, the authors emphasize that federal programs that fund the replacement of these pipes are an effective and meaningful strategy for protecting public health.Related EHN coverage:Federal housing programs linked to lower levels of lead exposureUS lead pipe replacements stoke concerns about plastic and environmental injusticeMore resources:LISTEN: Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcastSabah Usmani on making cities healthy and justNsilo Berry on making buildings healthierDiana Hernández on housing and healthTornero-Velez, Rogelio et al. for Environmental Science and Technology vol. 59, 43. Oct. 21, 2025

A recent study published in Environmental Science and Technology found a strong association between the presence of lead service lines (LSLs) and children’s elevated blood lead levels in Cincinnati, OH and Grand Rapids, MI. In short:While many factors can contribute to lead exposure, the prevalence of lead pipes was a stronger predictor of elevated lead levels than standard risk predictors used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD).For both cities, the prevalence of lead pipes was linked to the percentage of housing built before the 1950s, highlighting that lead pipes are more commonly found in older homes.Key quote:“These findings suggest that replacing LSLs is an effective public health strategy to eliminate this important source of [lead] exposure.”Why this matters:Lead is an incredibly toxic chemical that’s been linked to cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, damage to the reproductive and nervous systems, and more. While significant progress has been made in reducing the average blood lead levels in the U.S. over time, hotspots of elevated exposure still remain. Communities that suffer from higher lead levels are often faced with multiple potential sources of exposure, which is commonly paired with significant economic and social inequality in comparison to areas with lower exposures. Because the results of this study point to lead service lines as key contributors to lead exposures, the authors emphasize that federal programs that fund the replacement of these pipes are an effective and meaningful strategy for protecting public health.Related EHN coverage:Federal housing programs linked to lower levels of lead exposureUS lead pipe replacements stoke concerns about plastic and environmental injusticeMore resources:LISTEN: Agents of Change in Environmental Justice podcastSabah Usmani on making cities healthy and justNsilo Berry on making buildings healthierDiana Hernández on housing and healthTornero-Velez, Rogelio et al. for Environmental Science and Technology vol. 59, 43. Oct. 21, 2025

How a Texas shrimper stalled Exxon’s $10bn plastics plant | Shilpi Chhotray

Diane Wilson recognized Exxon’s playbook – and showed how local people can take on even the most entrenched industriesWhen ExxonMobil announced it would “slow the pace of development” on a $10bn plastics plant along the Texas Gulf coast, the company blamed market conditions. But it wasn’t just the market applying pressure; it was a 77-year-old shrimper named Diane Wilson who refused to stay silent. Her fight exposes big oil’s latest survival plan: ramping up oil and gas production to create plastic.I first met Wilson back in 2019 while tracking her historic lawsuit against Formosa Plastics, the Taiwanese petrochemical giant accused of dumping toxic plastic waste throughout coastal Texas. Billions of tiny plastic pellets were contaminating waterways, shorelines, and even the soil itself.Shilpi Chhotray is the co-founder and president of Counterstream Media and Host of A People’s Climate for the Nation Continue reading...

When ExxonMobil announced it would “slow the pace of development” on a $10bn plastics plant along the Texas Gulf coast, the company blamed market conditions. But it wasn’t just the market applying pressure; it was a 77-year-old shrimper named Diane Wilson who refused to stay silent. Her fight exposes big oil’s latest survival plan: ramping up oil and gas production to create plastic.I first met Wilson back in 2019 while tracking her historic lawsuit against Formosa Plastics, the Taiwanese petrochemical giant accused of dumping toxic plastic waste throughout coastal Texas. Billions of tiny plastic pellets were contaminating waterways, shorelines, and even the soil itself.When I spoke with her again a few months ago for A People’s Climate, a podcast from the Nation and Counterstream Media, she was still doing what she’s always done: holding power to account in the place she loves most. I’ve spent years covering the plastic industry’s impact on frontline communities, and Exxon’s delay isn’t a business decision to dismiss. It’s a strategic signal that the fossil-to-plastic pivot is facing growing, community-led resistance.When Exxon arrived in Calhoun county late last year, Wilson recognized the playbook: a rubber-stamp process rushed through a school-board meeting – a requirement under Texas law for the tax abatement Exxon sought. She sued that same board in May, arguing it had violated Texas open-meeting laws in what she has called “a deliberate attempt to avoid public opposition”. A district judge agreed, striking down the board’s approval of the tax abatement in late September. Less than two weeks later, Exxon announced it would pause plans for the new facility, indicating “market conditions”. The timing was hard to ignore. In a region dominated by fossil-fuel interests, that kind of outcome is unheard of.While Exxon hasn’t reached a final investment decision, this delayed matters. It shows how even the most entrenched industries can be made to pause when local people demand transparency.As gasoline demand declines, Exxon, Shell, and Dow are betting billions on petrochemicals, the feedstocks that become plastics. Industry projections show these products could drive nearly half of future oil-demand growth by 2050. Plastics are marketed as modern and indispensable, yet they come from one of the planet’s most carbon-intensive and polluting supply chains. According to Exxon’s December 2024 tax abatement application, the company’s proposed plastics plant in Calhoun county would produce 3 million tons of polyethylene pellets per year. These are the raw materials for plastic products that are used in everything from grocery bags to vinyl flooring.Exxon already runs one of the world’s largest chemical hubs, in Baytown, Texas. According to Inside Climate News, the facility would be its next link in a fossil-fuel chain stretching from gas wells in west Texas to manufacturing zones in Asia. While industry executives tout diversification, on the ground, it looks and smells like doubling down on pollution.Calhoun county’s history reads like a case study in corporate impunity. For decades, the oil and gas industry has promised jobs but delivered health risks, poisoned groundwater, and dead fisheries. Wilson grew up in Seadrift, the last authentic fishing village on the Texas Gulf coast. “The heart and soul of the community was the bay, the fish house, the boats,” she told me on A People’s Climate. “I’ve been on a boat since I was eight years old … It’s my life and my identity.”Her battle with Formosa began decades ago, after she discovered her tiny county ranked first in the nation for toxic dumping. An introvert by nature, she was thrust into activism overnight when local officials tried to silence her for asking questions. She’s since been arrested more than 50 times, led hunger strikes, and even scaled the White House fence – what she calls “soul power in action”. Wilson’s work helped prove what regulators had long denied: plastic pellets were flooding coastal ecosystems by the billions.Her historic $50m Clean Water Act settlement against Formosa Plastics was only possible after documenting years of illegal discharges into Lavaca Bay. It was the largest citizen-led environmental settlement in US history, and she didn’t take a cent. The money has gone towards local restoration: a fisheries co-op, oyster farms, and the community-science network known as Nurdle Patrol. (Formosa did not admit liability.)That case made her a target of local politics, but it also gave her something invaluable: the ability to turn frustration into organizing power. Her latest lawsuit against the school board wasn’t simply about procedure, but questions who gets to decide the future. Is it the people who live there or the corporations that profit from polluting it?Across the Gulf south, communities are demanding accountability. In St James Parish, Sharon Lavigne has also spent years fighting Formosa’s $9.4bn complex in what’s known as Louisiana’s Cancer Alley. In Port Arthur and Corpus Christi, organizers are fighting new gas export terminals. These aren’t isolated nimby fights; they’re part of a regional reckoning with a century of extraction. As record heat and hurricanes grow deadlier, Exxon still defends oil and petrochemical projects as “accelerating a just transition”, a phrase that borders on self-parody.Wilson’s small-town lawsuit shouldn’t matter in Exxon’s $500bn universe – but it does. It reminds us that grassroots power still works, even in refinery country. “Eventually I lost my husband, the house, the boat,” she told me due to her activism. “But you can lose it all and gain your soul.” When a community like Seadrift demands transparency, it widens the space for others to question why their towns should subsidize pollution in the name of development.With Cop30 in Belém under way, world leaders are once again pledging to phase out fossil fuels, while the same corporations responsible for the crisis expand drilling, petrochemical production, and greenwashing efforts behind the scenes. Recent reporting by Nina Lakhani revealed that more than 5,000 fossil-fuel lobbyists have gained access to UN climate talks over the past four years – underscoring how those driving oil and gas expansion are also shaping global climate policy.For Exxon, Calhoun county may be a temporary delay. But it must be permanent, and not simply relocated elsewhere. The world cannot afford another generation of plastic built on the same extractive logic that created the climate crisis in the first place. Exxon’s pause is a chance for regulators, investors, and communities to recognize that the oil-to-plastic pivot has catastrophic consequences. As Wilson told me: “We have drawn a line in the sand against plastic polluters, and that line now runs through Calhoun county.” Her story is a reminder that even the largest corporations can be stopped when ordinary people refuse to back down.

Factbox-Highlights of US Framework Trade Deals With Argentina, Ecuador, El Salvador and Guatemala

By Andrea Shalal and Natalia SiniawskiWASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States on Thursday announced framework agreements with Argentina, Ecuador,...

By Andrea Shalal and Natalia SiniawskiWASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States on Thursday announced framework agreements with Argentina, Ecuador, El Salvador and Guatemala that will see Washington drop tariffs on imports of some foods and other goods, while those countries will open their markets to more U.S. agricultural and industrial goods.Details will be released in coming weeks after the framework deals are finalized.Following are highlights of the four deals, according to fact sheets and joint statements released by the White House and the countries involved on Thursday:Argentina will provide preferential market access for U.S. goods, including certain medicines, chemicals, machinery, information technology products, medical devices, motor vehicles, and a wide range of agricultural products.Under the deal, Argentina will allow access for U.S. poultry and poultry products, within one year, and simplify red tape for U.S. exporters of beef, beef products, pork, and pork products. Argentina also has agreed not to restrict market access for certain U.S. meats and cheeses.Argentina agreed to step up enforcement against counterfeit and pirated goods; use U.S. or international standards for imports of goods made in the United States, including automobiles; and refrain from imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions or digital services taxes.Argentina agreed to treat U.S. firms fairly in its critical minerals sector, and to adopt a ban on importation of goods produced by forced or compulsory labor.In exchange, the U.S. will remove tariffs on "certain unavailable natural resources and non-patented articles for use in pharmaceutical applications."The countries also committed to improved, reciprocal, bilateral market access conditions for trade in beef.Total two-way trade in goods and services between the United States and Ecuador amounted to approximately $90.4 billion in 2024.Ecuador agreed to remove or lower a range of tariffs on products including tree nuts, fresh fruit, pulses, wheat, wine, and distilled spirits, as well as machinery, health products, chemicals, motor vehicles, and to establish tariff-rate quotas on a number of other agricultural goods.It also agreed to reduce non-tariff barriers for U.S. agricultural goods, including through changes to its licensing systems for food and agricultural products.Ecuador will also accept vehicles and automotive parts built to U.S. motor vehicle safety and emissions standards, as well as U.S. medical devices marketed in the United States, and U.S. pharmaceutical products marketed in the United States.It also agreed to prevent barriers to services and digital trade with the U.S.; refrain from imposing digital service taxes; strengthen enforcement of its labor laws and ban importation of goods produced by forced or compulsory labor.The two countries agreed to strengthen their economic and national security cooperation by taking complementary actions to address non-market policies and cooperating on investment security and export controls, a reference that could refer to China and its non-market policies.In exchange, the U.S. will remove its tariffs on certain qualifying exports from Ecuador that cannot be grown, mined or naturally produced in the United States in sufficient quantities, including coffee and bananas.El Salvador will provide preferential market access for U.S. goods, including pharmaceutical products, medical devices, remanufactured goods and motor vehicles.The country will streamline regulatory approvals, accept U.S. auto standards, simplify certificate of free sale requirements, allow electronic certificates, remove apostille requirements and expedite product registration.El Salvador has committed to prevent barriers to U.S. agricultural products, recognize U.S. regulatory oversight, continue accepting agreed U.S. certificates and not restrict access of meats and cheeses including parmesan, gruyere, mozzarella, feta, asiago, salami, and prosciutto.The country will advance international intellectual property treaties and ensure transparency and fairness on geographical indications.El Salvador will prevent barriers to services and digital trade and support a permanent moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions.It has reinforced its commitment to labor rights, environmental protection, and sustainable resource management, including tackling illegal logging, mining, wildlife trafficking and industrial distortions.In return, the United States will remove reciprocal tariffs on certain Salvadoran exports and extend preferences to qualifying CAFTA‑DR textiles. The countries will also strengthen economic and national security cooperation, enhancing supply chain resilience, innovation, and collaboration on duty evasion, procurement, investment security and export controls.Two-way trade in goods and services between the United States and Guatemala totaled almost $18.7 billion in 2024.Under the deal, Guatemala will streamline regulatory approvals, accept U.S. auto standards, simplify certificate of free sale requirements, allow electronic certificates, remove apostille requirements and expedite product registration.The country has committed to prevent barriers to U.S. agricultural products, recognize U.S. regulatory oversight, maintain science- and risk-based frameworks and continue accepting agreed U.S. certificates. Access will not be restricted on common meats and cheeses.Guatemala will strengthen intellectual property protection, implement international treaties, resolve longstanding U.S. Special 301 issues, and ensure transparency on geographical indications.It will facilitate digital trade, refrain from discriminatory digital services taxes, support free cross-border data flows and back a permanent WTO moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions.The country has reinforced commitments to labor rights, environmental protection, and sustainable resource management, including prohibiting goods from forced labor, combating illegal logging, mining, and wildlife trafficking, enforcing forest and fisheries measures and addressing industrial and state-owned enterprise distortions.In response, the United States will remove reciprocal tariffs on certain Guatemalan exports, including products that cannot be grown or produced in sufficient quantities in the United States and qualifying textiles and apparel.(Reporting by Andrea Shalal and Natalia Siniawski; Editing by Lincoln Feast.)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Jesse Marquez, tireless defender of L.A. port communities, dies at 74

One of the Los Angeles region's most important environmental justice advocates has died.

When Jesse Marquez walked into the Los Angeles harbor commission hearing room in 2013, he didn’t bring a consultant or a slideshow. He brought death certificates.Each sheet of paper, he told the commissioners, bore the name of a Wilmington resident killed by respiratory illness. Wedged between two of the country’s busiest ports, the neighborhood is dotted with oil refineries, chemical plants, railyards and freeways. It’s one of several portside communities known by some as a “diesel death zone,” where residents are more likely to die from cancer than just about anywhere else in the L.A. Basin. For decades, Marquez refused to let anyone forget it.He knocked on doors, installed air monitors, counted oil wells, built coalitions, staged demonstrations, fought legal battles and affected policy. He dove deep into impenetrable environmental impact documents.“Before Jesse, there was no playbook.” Earthjustice attorney Adrian Martinez said in an interview. “What was remarkable from the beginning is that Jesse wasn’t afraid to write stuff down, to demand things, to spend lots of time scouring for evidence.”Marquez, founder of the Coalition for a Safe Environment, or CFASE, died surrounded by family in his Orange County home Nov. 3. His death was due to complications after he was struck by a vehicle while in a crosswalk in January. He was 74.“He was one of a kind,” Martinez said. “He had a fierce independence and really believed in speaking up for himself and his community. He played an instrumental role in centering Wilmington in the fight for environmental justice.”In 2001, when the port planned to ramp up operations and expand a major terminal operated by Trapac Inc. further north into Wilmington, Marquez and neighborhood organizers pushed back, winning a $200-million green-space buffer between residences and port operations.When oil refineries evaded pollution caps through what organizers called a “gaping loophole” in Environmental Protection Agency policy, Marquez and others sued, overturning the policy and successfully curtailing pollution spikes at California plants.And when cargo ships idled at California ports burning diesel fuel, Marquez and his allies pressed the state to adopt the nation’s first rule requiring vessels to turn off their engines and plug into the electric grid while docked.Born Oct. 22, 1951, Marquez was raised in Wilmington, and lived most of his life there. As a child, he had a view of Fletcher Oil Co.’s towering smokestacks from his frontyard.Years later, black pearls of petroleum rained down on Wilmington the day the oil refinery exploded.Then 17, Marquez hit the floor when he heard the blast. Frantic, he helped his parents hoist his six younger siblings over a backyard fence as fireballs of ignited crude descended around their home, just across the street. His grandmother was the last over, suffering third-degree burns along the entire left side of her body.“From that moment on, he’s always had Wilmington in his mind,” his 44-year-old son, Alex Marquez, said in an interview.The memory shaped the battles he fought decades later. In college at UCLA, he crossed paths with young members of the Brown Berets, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlán, and the Black Panther Party, later volunteering in demonstrations led by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta.“He started off within that movement,” Alex Marquez said. “It was his reason to bring a lot of different communities into his work.”After a career in aerospace, he began organizing in earnest in the 1990s, aligning with groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and Coalition for Clean Air to oppose port expansion projects.When his sons were old enough, he brought them along to photograph and count oil wells, later folding them into his other projects.He described his father as a man of contrasts.“When it was time to work, he was the most serious, stern, no patience,” Alex Marquez said. “But the minute the job was done, he completely transformed. He was your best friend who brought a roast turkey and a six-pack of beers. He partied and relaxed better than anyone I’ve ever met.”Marquez’s home was always filled with dogs — he jokingly called his lawyers his “legal beagles,” Martinez recalled. He loved reggae music, dancing and was an amateur archaeologist. He kept a collection of colonial maps tracing the migration of the Aztec people, part of what his son called “his love for Native American and Aztec culture.”He founded CFASE with a group of Wilmington residents. After learning about the port’s expansion plans, he hosted an ad hoc meeting at his home. There, residents shared their experiences with industrial pollution in Wilmington.They talked about the refinery explosions in 1969, 1984, 1986, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996 and 2001.“Then someone says, ‘Well, I have two kids and they have asthma,’” Jesse Marquez recalled in a media interview in January. “And then someone else says, ‘All three of my kids have asthma — My mom has asthma — I have asthma.’”The group would play a central role in developing the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach’s landmark Clean Air Action Plan and Clean Truck Program, which replaced more than 16,000 diesel rigs with cleaner models.It pushed for zero-emission truck demonstrations, solar power installations, and won millions of dollars for communities for public health and air-quality projects.The coalition helped negotiate a $60-million settlement in the seminal China Shipping terminal case — securing local health grants, truck retrofit funds and the first Port Community Advisory Committee in the U.S. — and later helped establish the Harbor Community Benefit Foundation, which funds air filtration, land use, and job-training initiatives across Wilmington and San Pedro.Marquez’s group also fought off proposals for liquefied natural gas terminals, oil tank farms and hydrogen power plants.Since 2005, diesel emissions at the Port of Los Angeles have plummeted by 90%.Now Alex Marquez finds himself suddenly in charge of the nonprofit his father built.He’s been learning to manage the group’s finances, fix its monitoring equipment and reconnect with its network of allies.“It’s literally been a crash course in how to run a nonprofit,” he said. “But we’re keeping it alive.”In Wilmington, residents point to visible symbols of Marquez’s work: the waterfront park, the electrified port terminals and the health surveys that documented decades of illness.“He left us too early, but a movement that was just budding when he started decades ago has now blossomed into national and even international networks,” Martinez wrote in a tribute to Marquez.Marquez is survived by his sons Alex Marquez, Danilo Marquez, Radu Iliescu and, the many who knew him say, the environmental justice movement writ large.

James Watson, Co-Discoverer of DNA's Double Helix, Dead at 97

(Reuters) -James D. Watson, the brilliant but controversial American biologist whose 1953 discovery of the structure of DNA, the molecule of...

(Reuters) -James D. Watson, the brilliant but controversial American biologist whose 1953 discovery of the structure of DNA, the molecule of heredity, ushered in the age of genetics and provided the foundation for the biotechnology revolution of the late 20th century, has died at the age of 97.His death was confirmed by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, where he worked for many years. The New York Times reported that Watson died this week at a hospice on Long Island.In his later years, Watson's reputation was tarnished by comments on genetics and race that led him to be ostracized by the scientific establishment.Even as a younger man, he was known as much for his writing and for his enfant-terrible persona - including his willingness to use another scientist's data to advance his own career - as for his science.His 1968 memoir, "The Double Helix," was a racy, take-no-prisoners account of how he and British physicist Francis Crick were first to determine the three-dimensional shape of DNA. The achievement won the duo a share of the 1962 Nobel Prize in medicine and eventually would lead to genetic engineering, gene therapy and other DNA-based medicine and technology.Crick complained that the book "grossly invaded my privacy" and another colleague, Maurice Wilkins, objected to what he called a "distorted and unfavorable image of scientists" as ambitious schemers willing to deceive colleagues and competitors in order to make a discovery.In addition, Watson and Crick, who did their research at Cambridge University in England, were widely criticized for using raw data collected by X-ray crystallographer Rosalind Franklin to construct their model of DNA - as two intertwined staircases - without fully acknowledging her contribution. As Watson put it in "Double Helix," scientific research feels "the contradictory pulls of ambition and the sense of fair play."In 2007, Watson again caused widespread anger when he told the Times of London that he believed testing indicated the intelligence of Africans was "not really ... the same as ours."Accused of promoting long-discredited racist theories, he was shortly afterwards forced to retire from his post as chancellor of New York's Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL). Although he later apologized, he made similar comments in a 2019 documentary, calling different racial attainment on IQ tests - attributed by most scientists to environmental factors - "genetic."James Dewey Watson was born in Chicago on April 6, 1928, and graduated from the University of Chicago in 1947 with a zoology degree. He received his doctorate from Indiana University, where he focused on genetics. In 1951, he joined Cambridge's Cavendish Lab, where he met Crick and began the quest for the structural chemistry of DNA.Just waiting to be found, the double helix opened the doors to the genetics revolution. In the structure Crick and Watson proposed, the steps of the winding staircase were made of pairs of chemicals called nucleotides or bases. As they noted at the end of their 1953 paper, "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material."That sentence, often called the greatest understatement in the history of biology, meant that the base-and-helix structure provided the mechanism by which genetic information can be precisely copied from one generation to the next. That understanding led to the discovery of genetic engineering and numerous other DNA techniques.Watson and Crick went their separate ways after their DNA research. Watson was only 25 years old then and while he never made another scientific discovery approaching the significance of the double helix, he remained a scientific force."He had to figure out what to do with his life after achieving what he did at such a young age," biologist Mark Ptashne, who met Watson in the 1960s and remained a friend, told Reuters in a 2012 interview. "He figured out how to do things that played to his strength."That strength was playing "the tough Irishman," as Ptashne put it, to become one of the leaders of the U.S. leap to the forefront of molecular biology. Watson joined the biology department at Harvard University in 1956."The existing biology department felt that molecular biology was just a flash in the pan," Harvard biochemist Guido Guidotti related. But when Watson arrived, Guidotti said he immediately told everyone in the biology department – scientists whose research focused on whole organisms and populations, not cells and molecules – "that they were wasting their time and should retire."That earned Watson the decades-long enmity of some of those traditional biologists, but he also attracted young scientists and graduate students who went on to forge the genetics revolution.In 1968 Watson took his institution-building drive to CSHL on Long Island, splitting his time between CSHL and Harvard for eight years. The lab at the time was "just a mosquito-infested backwater," said Ptashne. As director, "Jim turned it into a vibrant, world-class institution."In 1990, Watson was named to lead the Human Genome Project, whose goal was to determine the order of the 3 billion chemical units that constitute humans' full complement of DNA. When the National Institutes of Health, which funded the project, decided to seek patents on some DNA sequences, Watson attacked the NIH director and resigned, arguing that genome knowledge should remain in the public domain.In 2007 he became the second person in the world to have his full genome sequenced. He made the sequence publicly available, arguing that concerns about "genetic privacy" were overwrought but made an exception by saying he did not want to know if he had a gene associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease. Watson did have a gene associated with novelty-seeking.His proudest accomplishment, Watson told an interviewer for Discover magazine in 2003, was not discovering the double helix - which "was going to be found in the next year or two" anyway - but his books."My heroes were never scientists," he said. "They were Graham Greene and Christopher Isherwood - you know, good writers."Watson cherished the bad-boy image he presented to the world in "Double Helix," friends said, and he emphasized it in his 2007 book, "Avoid Boring People."Married with two sons, he often disparaged women in public statements and boasted of chasing what he called "popsies." But he personally encouraged many female scientists, including biologist Nancy Hopkins of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."I certainly couldn't have had a career in science without his support, I believe," said Hopkins, long outspoken about anti-woman bias in science. "Jim was hugely supportive of me and other women. It's an odd thing to understand."(Editing by Bill Trott and Rosalba O'Brien)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.