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

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

How dry cleaning might raise the risk of cancer, and what to do about it

A new study found links between a toxic dry cleaning chemical and liver cancer. Trump officials are reconsidering an EPA plan to phase it out.

Environmental and health advocates have long sought to curb dangerous chemicals used in dry cleaning. Now a new study adds to the evidence of harms, linking a common dry cleaning chemical to liver disease and cancer.Here’s what you need to know about the risks.How dry cleaning worksDespite the name, clothes don’t stay “dry” when dry-cleaned. Instead, garments are loaded into drums and soaked in chemicals that dissolve stains.Before modern cleaning systems were developed, workers would manually move solvent-soaked garments from washer to dryer, creating a direct exposure route and increasing the chances of environmental contamination. Today, cleaners wash and dry everything in the same drum. Clothes are then pressed or steamed.What are the health risks?One of the most widely used dry cleaning chemicals is an industrial solvent called PCE, also known as tetrachloroethylene, perchloroethylene and perc. The Environmental Protection Agency considers PCE a probable human carcinogen, and it has been linked to bladder cancer, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.Follow Climate & environmentLast year, the EPA announced a new rule banning PCE for most uses and giving dry cleaners a 10-year phaseout period. The Trump administration is reconsidering this decision, according to an EPA spokesperson.But a recent study found that exposure to PCE tripled the risk of liver fibrosis, excessive scarring that can lead to liver disease and liver cancer. Researchers found that repeated exposure to PCE, which is detectable in an estimated 7 percent of the U.S. population, increased the likelihood of liver damage.“If you’ve been exposed to PCE, talk to your doctor about it,” said Brian P. Lee, associate professor of medicine at the University of Southern California and the study’s lead author.The study found that higher-income households faced the most risk from PCE exposure because they are more likely to use dry cleaning. People who work in cleaning facilities or live nearby also face an elevated risk due to prolonged exposure. Once the chemical gets into a building or the ground, it’s very difficult to remove. The EPA estimates that roughly 6,000 dry cleaners, mostly small businesses, still use PCE in the United States.Lee said the study adds to the growing list of harms associated with the chemical.Studies have also shown that PCE can linger on clothing after dry cleaning and that it builds up over time after repeated cleanings and can contaminate indoor air as it vaporizes.“We now have decades of studies confirming that these widespread dry cleaning chemicals are exposing people to unacceptable risks of cancer and other serious diseases,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a senior attorney at the advocacy group Earthjustice. “Those harms are entirely avoidable.”Jon Meijer, director of membership at the Drycleaning & Laundry Institute International, a trade association, said the group supports the original rule passed under the Biden administration and explained that those who still use the chemical do so because of financial challenges.“It’s time for a phaseout of perchloroethylene,” Meijer said. “There are so many alternatives out there.”Safer alternativesExperts say there are plenty of alternatives to using harmful dry cleaning chemicals, but some are safer than others.Go dry-clean free: Try purchasing clothes that don’t need to be dry-cleaned. Selecting cotton blazers and other professional attire, for example, can reduce dry cleaning visits, said Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group. “The easiest thing is to look for professional staples that don’t need to be dry-cleaned,” Stoiber said.Hand-washing: Some “dry-clean only” garments can be delicately hand-washed in cold water with a gentle detergent specific to the particular fabric you’re using. Hanging delicate clothes to dry after a wash can avoid damage from heated air dryers.Steaming: Steam cleaning can freshen up clothes by removing odors, bacteria and small stains without needing a full wash.Commercial wet cleaning: Commercial wet cleaning relies on biodegradable detergents and water instead of toxic solvents.Liquid carbon dioxide: Experts suggest selecting dry cleaners that use liquid carbon dioxide as a solvent to remove dirt and avoid toxic chemicals.Watch out for greenwashingSome businesses advertise eco-friendly or “green” alternatives to dry cleaning. But experts warn that new chemicals can have their own downsides.Diana Ceballos, an assistant professor in the University of Washington’s Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, said that dry cleaning technology has improved dramatically and that new solvents and machinery can be more effective than PCE.Still, Cebellos said that there can be a lot of “regrettable substitution” when it comes to alternatives to PCE and that some that are billed as “safe” or “organic” could also be toxic.“Most options are far better,” Cebellos said. “But there’s a lot of greenwashing” out there, so people should ask questions and do “a little bit of research.”

Emergency Crews Respond to Ammonia Leak at Mississippi Fertilizer Plant

(Reuters) -Emergency teams responded on Wednesday to a chemical leak, possibly caused by an explosion, at a fertilizer plant in Central Mississippi...

(Reuters) -Emergency teams responded on Wednesday to a chemical leak, possibly caused by an explosion, at a fertilizer plant in Central Mississippi, according to Governor Tate Reeves and media reports. No injuries were immediately reported.A tall cloud of orange vapor could be seen rising over the facility in a photo from the scene of the plant posted online by television station WJTV, a CBS News affiliate in Jackson, Mississippi, the state capital.The governor identified the leaking chemical as anhydrous ammonia, a toxic substance that can cause irritation to the eyes and lungs.Fertilizer manufacturer CF Industries said in statement that "all employees and contractors on site at the time of the incident have been safely accounted for, with no injuries reported."It said it had notified government officials of an "incident" that occurred at its Yazoo City Complex at about 4:25 p.m. CT (2225 GMT).Reeves said in a statement posted on social media that state authorities were "actively responding to the anhydrous ammonia leak" at the plant, located about 50 miles (80.5 km) north of Jackson."Initial reports indicate the leak is due to an explosion. At this time, no deaths or injuries have been reported," the governor said.Personnel from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality were among various teams dispatched to the scene, WJTV reported.The governor said residents living along two nearby streets should be evacuated, while other residents in the vicinity were encouraged to shelter in place.(Reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Additional reporting by Costas Pita in Los Angeles and Angela Christy in Bengaluru; Editing by Himani Sarkar and Stephen Coates)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

EPA Proposes Approving Fifth ‘Forever Chemical’ Pesticide

November 5, 2025 – In line with its plan to continue pesticide approvals despite the government shutdown, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced this week that it will register a new weedkiller for use in corn, soybean, wheat, and canola fields. The herbicide, epyrifenacil, is the fifth pesticide set to be approved by the agency […] The post EPA Proposes Approving Fifth ‘Forever Chemical’ Pesticide appeared first on Civil Eats.

November 5, 2025 – In line with its plan to continue pesticide approvals despite the government shutdown, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced this week that it will register a new weedkiller for use in corn, soybean, wheat, and canola fields. The herbicide, epyrifenacil, is the fifth pesticide set to be approved by the agency within the last few months that fits into the group of chemicals called PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), based on a commonly used definition. And the agency is moving fast. The first pesticide was proposed for registration in April; that pesticide, called cyclobutrifluram, was finalized today. PFAS are linked to a wide range of health harms and are commonly called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down easily and they accumulate in soil and water. In 2023, however, the EPA officially adopted a narrower definition. With the proposed approval of epyrifenacil, the agency for the first time has waded into the debate over which pesticides are PFAS and whether concerns voiced over other recent registrations of similar pesticides are warranted. In its announcement, the agency noted that epyrifenacil “contains a fluorinated carbon” and directed the public to a new website where it lays out its position on pesticides that contain fluorinated carbons. Whether those chemicals fit the definition of PFAS doesn’t matter, the agency argues, because under the law, the EPA evaluates the risks of each chemical individually. “Regardless of whether a chemical meets a specific structural definition or is part of a category or class of chemicals, the Agency utilizes a comprehensive assessment process under [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act] to evaluate the potential risks of pesticide use,” it said. “This robust, chemical-specific process considers both hazard and exposure in determining whether the pesticide under review may pose risk to human health or the environment.” Epyrifenacil was developed by Japan-based Sumitomo Chemical, which owns Valent U.S.A. in the U.S. It’s one of a new class of herbicides designed to help farmers kill weeds that have developed resistance to popular chemicals like glyphosate. It’s also specifically designed for farmers to spray on cover crops and in no-till systems to prep fields for planting. The pesticide industry has lobbied in recent years to get the EPA to approve new chemicals to address what it calls an “innovation backlog.” Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that an “office run by chemical lobbyists” is whitewashing what is already known about the risks of PFAS. “Not only did the pesticide industry get a proposed approval of its dangerous new product,” he said, “but it also got a shiny new government website parroting its misleading talking points.” (Link to this post.) The post EPA Proposes Approving Fifth ‘Forever Chemical’ Pesticide appeared first on Civil Eats.

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.