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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Can you really be addicted to food? Researchers uncover convincing similarities to drug addiction

Hundreds of studies have confirmed that certain foods affect the brain similarly to other addictive substances

People often joke that their favorite snack is “like crack” or call themselves “chocoholics” in jest. But can someone really be addicted to food in the same way they could be hooked on substances such as alcohol or nicotine? As an addiction psychiatrist and researcher with experience in treating eating disorders and obesity, I have been following the research in this field for the past few decades. I have written a textbook on food addiction, obesity and overeating disorders, and, more recently, a self-help book for people who have intense cravings and obsessions for some foods. While there is still some debate among psychologists and scientists, a consensus is emerging that food addiction is a real phenomenon. Hundreds of studies have confirmed that certain foods – often those that are high in sugar and ultraprocessed – affect the brains and behavior of certain people similarly to other addictive substances such as nicotine. Still, many questions remain about which foods are addictive, which people are most susceptible to this addiction and why. There are also questions as to how this condition compares to other substance addictions and whether the same treatments could work for patients struggling with any kind of addiction. How does addiction work? The neurobiological mechanisms of addiction have been mapped out through decades of laboratory-based research using neuroimaging and cognitive neuroscience approaches. Studies show that preexisting genetic and environmental factors set the stage for developing an addiction. Regularly consuming an addictive substance then causes a rewiring of several important brain systems, leading the person to crave more and more of it. This rewiring takes place in three key brain networks that correspond to key functional domains, often referred to as the reward system, the stress response system and the system in charge of executive control. First, using an addictive substance causes the release of a chemical messenger called dopamine in the reward network, which makes the user feel good. Dopamine release also facilitates a neurobiological process called conditioning, which is basically a neural learning process that gives rise to habit formation. As a result of the conditioning process, sensory cues associated with the substance start to have increasing influence over decision-making and behavior, often leading to a craving. For instance, because of conditioning, the sight of a needle can drive a person to set aside their commitment to quit using an injectable drug and return to it. Second, continued use of an addictive substance over time affects the brain’s emotional or stress response network. The user’s body and mind build up a tolerance, meaning they need increasing amounts of the substance to feel its effect. The neurochemicals involved in this process are different than those mediating habit formation and include a chemical messenger called noradrenaline and internally produced opioids such as endorphins. If they quit using the substance, they experience symptoms of withdrawal, which can range from irritability and nausea to paranoia and seizures. At that point, negative reinforcement kicks in. This is the process by which a person keeps going back to a substance because they’ve learned that using the substance doesn’t just feel good, but it also relieves negative emotions. During withdrawal from a substance, people feel profound emotional discomfort, including sadness and irritability. Negative reinforcement is why someone who is trying to quit smoking, for instance, will be at highest risk of relapse in the week just after stopping and during times of stress, because in the past they’d normally turn to cigarettes for relief. Third, overuse of most addictive substances progressively damages the brain’s executive control network, the prefrontal cortex, and other key parts of the brain involved in impulse control and self-regulation. Over time, the damage to these areas makes it more and more difficult for the user to control their behavior around these substances. This is why it is so hard for long-term users of many addictive substances to quit. Scientists have learned more about what’s happening in a person’s brain when they become addicted to a substance. What evidence is there that food is addictive? Many studies over the past 25 years have shown that high-sugar and other highly pleasurable foods – often foods that are ultraprocessed – act on these brain networks in ways that are similar to other addictive substances. The resulting changes in the brain fuel further craving for and overuse of the substance – in this case, highly rewarding food. Clinical studies have demonstrated that people with an addictive relationship to food demonstrate the hallmark signs of a substance use disorder. Studies also indicate that for some people, cravings for highly palatable foods go well beyond just a normal hankering for a snack and are, in fact, signs of addictive behavior. One study found that cues associated with highly pleasurable foods activate the reward centers in the brain, and the degree of activation predicts weight gain. In other words, the more power the food cue has to capture a person’s attention, the more likely they are to succumb to cravings for it. Multiple studies have also found that suddenly ending a diet that’s high in sugar can cause withdrawal, similar to when people quit opioids or nicotine. Excessive exposure to high-sugar foods has also been found to reduce cognitive function and cause damage to the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, the parts of the brain that mediate executive control and memory. In another study, when obese people were exposed to food and told to resist their craving for it by ignoring it or thinking about something else, their prefrontal cortexes were more active compared with nonobese individuals. This indicates that it was more difficult for the obese group to fight their cravings. Researchers are still working out the best methods to help patients with food addictions develop a healthy relationship with food. Viktar Sarkisian/iStock via Getty Images Plus Finding safe treatments for patients struggling with food Addiction recovery is often centered on the idea that the fastest way to get well is to abstain from the problem substance. But unlike nicotine or narcotics, food is something that all people need to survive, so quitting cold turkey isn’t an option. In addition, eating disorders such as bulimia nervosa and binge-eating disorder often occur alongside addictive eating. Most psychologists and psychiatrists believe these illnesses have their root cause in excessive dietary restriction. For this reason, many eating disorder treatment professionals balk at the idea of labeling some foods as addictive. They are concerned that encouraging abstinence from particular foods could trigger binge eating and extreme dieting to compensate. A way forward But others argue that, with care, integrating food addiction approaches into eating disorders treatment is feasible and could be lifesaving for some. The emerging consensus around this link is moving researchers and those who treat eating disorders to consider food addiction in their treatment models. One such approach might look like the one described to me by addiction psychiatrist and eating disorders specialist Dr. Kim Dennis. In line with traditional eating disorder treatment, nutritionists at her residential clinic strongly discourage their patients from restricting calories. At the same time, in line with traditional addiction treatment, they help their patients to consider significantly reducing or completely abstaining from particular foods to which they have developed an addictive relationship. Additional clinical studies are already being carried out. But going forward, more studies are needed to help clinicians find the most effective treatments for people with an addictive relationship with food. Efforts are underway by groups of psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists and mental health providers to get “ultraprocessed food use disorder,” also known as food addiction, into future editions of diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases. Beyond acknowledging what those treating food addiction are already seeing in the field, this would help researchers get funding for additional studies of treating food addiction. With more information about what treatments will work best for whom, those who have these problems will no longer have to suffer in silence, and providers will be better equipped to help them.   Claire Wilcox, Adjunct Faculty in Psychiatry, University of New Mexico This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The post Can you really be addicted to food? Researchers uncover convincing similarities to drug addiction appeared first on Salon.com.

Food
Chemicals
Science

Emissions linked to Woodside’s Scarborough gas project could lead to at least 480 deaths, research suggests

Scientists have examined the $16.5bn project’s climate impact and found it could expose more than half a million people to unprecedented heatSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGreenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades. Continue reading...

Greenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades.Emissions from the project would contribute 0.00039C to global heating, they estimate. Using recently developed techniques known as climate attribution, they suggest that fraction of warming would expose an additional 516,000 people globally to unprecedented heat, and result in the loss of an extra 16m coral colonies in the Great Barrier Reef in every future bleaching event.It would also push 356,000 people outside the “human climate niche” – the reasonable zone for human survival, with an upper limit for average annual temperature of 29C.The study, published in the journal Climate Action, forms part of a new focus in climate science that aims to quantify the impacts of individual fossil fuel projects and emitters.A Woodside spokesperson said the company would reduce the Scarborough project’s “direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations”.“Climate change is caused by the net global concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” they added. “It cannot be attributed to any one event, country, industry or activity.” Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterBut study co-author Andrew King, an associate professor in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said the research illustrated that individual projects had tangible climate impacts.“Often the argument made for individual projects that would involve greenhouse gas emissions is that they are quite small [in the global context],” he said. “But really, especially with larger fossil fuel projects, we can very clearly say that the impacts are not negligible.”Study co-author Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a professor of climate science at the Australian National University, said that given Australia’s emission reductions requirements, in the coming decades Scarborough would also constitute a greater proportion of the country’s CO2 emissions budget.“By 2049, assuming that the Scarborough project emits the same amount year on year, it’s going to be chewing up half of our emissions budget,” Perkins-Kirkpatrick said. “That’s the stuff that we burn here, let alone what we export overseas.”Beyond 2050, emissions from Scarborough would require CO2 removal from the atmosphere – “technologies that either don’t exist yet, or that we can’t scale up”, she said.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionUnder a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, warming contributed by Scarborough would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe alone by the end of the century, the researchers calculated. Taking into account a reduction in cold-related deaths in Europe, they estimate a net contribution of 118 additional deaths.The researchers calculated the project’s climate impacts with a tool used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called the Transient Climate Response to CO2 Emissions (TCRE). The TCRE estimates that every 1,000 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions causes 0.45C of additional global heating.Scarborough’s contribution to global heating had a likely range between 0.00024C and 0.00055C, the study’s authors estimated, but they noted “direct measurement of global mean temperature changes is not possible with this level of precision”.The approach could be used by governments and companies to assess whether future “projects fall within acceptable levels of environmental and societal risk”, the researchers suggest. The tool “could be part of the process for determining whether a project should be approved”, King said.Yuming Guo, a professor of global environmental health and biostatistics at Monash University, who was not involved in the study, said the study provided “a valuable tool for conducting environmental risk assessments”.“Considering the vast number of fossil fuel projects operating globally, the cumulative contribution of these emissions to climate change is substantial and should not be overlooked,” he said.Dr Kat O’Mara, a senior lecturer in environmental management and sustainability at Edith Cowan University, who was not part of the study, said: “With the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion a few months ago that countries need to take action to protect the climate, this new research reinforces the need to consider climate impacts beyond just how much carbon is being produced.”

Climate
CO2
Energy

Climate Tipping Points Are Being Crossed, Scientists Warn Ahead of COP30

By Alison WithersCOPENHAGEN (Reuters) -Global warming is crossing dangerous thresholds sooner than expected with the world’s coral reefs now in an...

COPENHAGEN (Reuters) -Global warming is crossing dangerous thresholds sooner than expected with the world’s coral reefs now in an almost irreversible die-off, marking what scientists on Monday described as the first “tipping point” in climate-driven ecosystem collapse. The warning in the Global Tipping Points report by 160 researchers worldwide, which synthesizes groundbreaking science to estimate points of no return, comes just weeks ahead of this year's COP30 climate summit being held at the edge of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil.That same rainforest system is now at risk of collapsing once the average global temperature warms beyond just 1.5 degrees Celsius based on deforestation rates, the report said, revising down the estimated threshold for the Amazon.Also of concern if temperatures keep rising is the threat of disruption to the major ocean current called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, which helps to ensure mild winters in northern Europe.“Change is happening fast now, tragically, in parts of the climate, the biosphere,” said environmental scientist Tim Lenton at the University of Exeter, who is the lead author of the report.Lenton noted positive signs when it came to phasing out the fossil fuels most responsible for climate change. Renewables, for example, accounted for more electricity generation than coal this year for the first time, according to data from the nonprofit think tank Ember.“Nobody wants to be just traumatized and disempowered,” Lenton said. “We still have some agency.”The scientists implored countries at November's COP30 to work toward bringing down climate-warming carbon emissions.Scientists have been surprised by how quickly changes are unfolding in nature, with average global temperatures already having warmed by 1.3-1.4 degrees Celsius (2.3 to 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average, according to data from U.N. and EU science agencies.The last two years were Earth’s warmest on record, with marine heatwaves that stressed 84% of the world’s reefs to the point of bleaching and, in some cases, death. Coral reefs sustain about a quarter of marine life.For corals to recover, the world would need to drastically ramp up climate action to reverse temperatures back down to just 1 degree C above the preindustrial average, the scientists suggested.“The new report makes clear that each year there is an increase in the scope and magnitude of the negative impacts of climate change,” said Pep Canadell, a senior scientist at Australia’s CSIRO Climate Science Centre.The world is currently on track for about 3.1 degrees C of warming in this century, based on national policies.(Reporting by Ali Withers; Editing by Kirsten Donovan)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Climate
Forests
Science

The Guardian view on Labour targeting nature: the problem isn’t snails, but a broken housing model | Editorial

Rachel Reeves’s drive to speed up development is beginning to treat wildlife and the environment as expendable. Voters want homes built, but not at any costIt began with gastropods. Last Tuesday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a conference of tech executives that she’d intervened to help a developer build about 20,000 homes in north Sussex that had been held up, she said, by “some snails … a protected species or something”. She added that they “are microscopic … you cannot even see” them.No one could miss the direction the chancellor was headed in. The snail in question, the lesser whirlpool ramshorn, is one of Britain’s rarest freshwater creatures, found in only a handful of locations and highly sensitive to sewage pollution. But Ms Reeves portrayed it as a bureaucratic nuisance. She then bragged that she’d fixed it – after a friendly developer gave her a call. It’s a bad look for a Labour politician, let alone the chancellor, to boast that green rules can be bent for chums. Continue reading...

It began with gastropods. Last Tuesday, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, told a conference of tech executives that she’d intervened to help a developer build about 20,000 homes in north Sussex that had been held up, she said, by “some snails … a protected species or something”. She added that they “are microscopic … you cannot even see” them.No one could miss the direction the chancellor was headed in. The snail in question, the lesser whirlpool ramshorn, is one of Britain’s rarest freshwater creatures, found in only a handful of locations and highly sensitive to sewage pollution. But Ms Reeves portrayed it as a bureaucratic nuisance. She then bragged that she’d fixed it – after a friendly developer gave her a call. It’s a bad look for a Labour politician, let alone the chancellor, to boast that green rules can be bent for chums.The scheme was given the go-ahead a day before drought was declared in Sussex, potentially giving water companies cover to breach their licence obligations – including measures meant to protect the snails. Ms Reeves won’t like being compared to Liz Truss, but the analogy works. Three years ago, Ms Truss railed against an “anti-growth coalition” of environmentalists, lawyers and regulators who, she claimed, were blocking Britain’s path to prosperity. Ms Reeves is framing the issue the same way: growth is the priority, nature the obstacle.But the public don’t agree. Luke Tryl of More in Common told a Conservative conference fringe meeting that most Britons can’t be categorised as “nimby” or “yimby”. They want both: to build and also to protect the countryside. However, when asked whether wildlife should be protected even if it delays or raises the cost of infrastructure, every single voter group – including Labour, Conservative and Reform UK – chose wildlife. Among the general public, 62% prioritised nature protection while 18% sided with building at any cost.The Treasury reportedly plans to gut green rules with amendments to its planning and infrastructure bill – ditching the precautionary principle, slashing species protections and curbing legal challenges. The bill, currently in the Lords, already allows developers to bypass environmental obligations by paying into a fund to offset damage elsewhere. Under its “environmental delivery plans”, ministers could disapply environmental protections in exchange for vague promises of ecological improvement within 10 years.Labour, significantly, is turning its back on the work of the Dasgupta review. This argues that nature is not a constraint on growth but its foundation, a form of capital on which the economy depends. Labour is not only rejecting that view but deluding itself by claiming housebuilding will be accelerated by dismissing concerns around conservation. The Wildlife Trusts points out that more than a million homes already have planning permission since 2015, but remain unbuilt. The real barriers to housebuilding are skills shortages, hoarded land and slow delivery. They need sorting out. Blaming snails, it would seem, is easier.Many of Labour’s younger voters are already tempted by the Green party, which combines environmentalism and leftwing economics. Now, by mocking green protections and cosying up to developers, the chancellor is giving these voters more reasons to jump ship. The problem isn’t the planning system. It’s a broken, profit-driven housing model that banks land and starves supply. Scrapping nature protections won’t build 1.5m homes, it will just bulldoze public trust and the countryside.

Nature
Pollution
Water

UK ministers take control of £10bn Lower Thames Crossing

Exclusive: National Highways Agency stripped of oversight with project handed to DfT amid Labour government drive for growthMinisters have stripped the government’s road-building agency of responsibility for a £10bn tunnel under the River Thames amid a drive by Keir Starmer’s cabinet to take tight control over important infrastructure projects for fear of cost overruns and delays.Oversight of the Lower Thames Crossing – the UK’s largest planned infrastructure project – has been taken away from National Highways, and handed to the Department for Transport (DfT). Continue reading...

Ministers have stripped the government’s road-building agency of responsibility for a £10bn tunnel under the River Thames amid a drive by Keir Starmer’s cabinet to take tight control over important infrastructure projects for fear of cost overruns and delays.Oversight of the Lower Thames Crossing – the UK’s largest planned infrastructure project – has been taken away from National Highways, and handed to the Department for Transport (DfT).Internal consultation documents, seen by the Guardian, said that the costs of the Lower Thames Crossing will be overseen by the DfT, leaving National Highways to “focus on managing, maintaining, and renewing the network”.However, campaigners warned that the move could in fact lead to HS2-levels of overspending and ministers quietly approving developments which would harm the environment behind closed doors.Treasury officials are thought to be behind the shift to centralise the management of large infrastructure projects after the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, made clear her frustration at “bats and newts” delaying major schemes and adding to the final costs.The consultation documents showed that the “Tier 1” project – which is considered by the DfT to be “one of the largest, highest risk, novel and/or contentious” schemes now being undertaken – will be overseen by the transport secretary, Heidi Alexander.Reeves and Starmer have put planning reform at the heart of their growth plans after drafting legislation earlier this year to make it easier to build without paying as much for expensive wildlife protection.The chancellor is keen to include a number of initiatives designed to allow developers to build houses and infrastructure projects, in the hope that higher economic growth will fill about £3bn of an estimated £30bn shortfall in the Treasury’s finances.Earlier this week, Reeves was taped claiming that she had unblocked a development of 20,000 homes that were being held up by a rare snail.The new Thames crossing has received final planning consent and secured £590m for early-stage excavation, surveys and consultations. In addition, the construction firm Balfour Beatty has landed a £1.2bn contract to build roads connecting to the tunnel.However, funding for the full project has been delayed while the chancellor searches for a partner that could contribute as much as £2bn to the scheme in return for charging a toll. Work is expected to get under way before the end of the decade.The site lies east of the Dartford crossing, which takes traffic from the M25 and lorries travelling to and from the ports of Dover and Folkestone.Environmental campaigners argue that vital habitats on Kent’s north shoreline and the south Essex coast will be lost if the tunnel goes ahead. It will also increase carbon emissions without solving congestion on existing roads, they added.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionChris Todd, director of Transport Action Network, said: “The government is continuing to throw good money after bad at the Lower Thames Crossing.“Taking it outside of National Highways’ roads programme and treating it as a stand-alone project, with a DfT-signed blank cheque, risks going the same way as HS2 with ballooning budgets and no accountability.”Supporters of the project say the new tunnel will reduce traffic jams in Dartford and allow commercial vehicles en route from Europe to the Midlands and the north to circumvent the most congested parts of the M25.Alexander said earlier this year that the government was “finally getting on” with the crossing, adding that the “crucial project” had “been stuck in planning limbo for far too long”.National Highways has said that an extra connection between north Kent and Essex is also needed to allow for maintenance on the existing Dartford tunnels.It is understood that National Highways will remain responsible for the development of the crossing and will publish a breakdown of costs in its annual report, but decisions over the scope and funding of the project will be taken by ministers.A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “Backed by £590m, the Lower Thames Crossing is the most significant road-building project in a generation – and will cut local congestion, better link up motorists and businesses in the Midlands and north with key ports in the south-east, and spreading growth throughout the regions, as set in our plan for change.”

Government
Business

New England’s final coal plant shuts down years ahead of schedule

Poor economics drove the aging New Hampshire plant offline three years early, even as the Trump administration pushes to revitalize coal.

Even as the federal government attempts to prop up the waning coal industry, New England’s last coal-fired power plant has ceased operations three years ahead of its planned retirement date. The closure of the New Hampshire facility paves the way for its owner to press ahead with an initiative to transform the site into a clean energy complex including solar panels and battery storage systems. “The end of coal is real, and it is here,” said Catherine Corkery, chapter director for Sierra Club New Hampshire. ​“We’re really excited about the next chapter.” News of the closure came on the same day the Trump administration announced plans to resuscitate the coal sector by opening millions of acres of federal land to mining operations and investing $625 million in life-extending upgrades for coal plants. The administration had already released a blueprint for rolling back coal-related environmental regulations. The announcement was the latest offensive in the administration’s pro-coal agenda. The federal government has twice extended the scheduled closure date of the coal-burning J.H. Campbell plant in Michigan, and U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has declared it a mission of the administration to keep coal plants open, saying the facilities are needed to ensure grid reliability and lower prices. However, the closure in New Hampshire — so far undisputed by the federal government — demonstrates that prolonging operations at some facilities just doesn’t make economic sense for their owners. “Coal has been incredibly challenged in the New England market for over a decade,” said Dan Dolan, president of the New England Power Generators Association. Read Next Nobody wants this gas plant. Trump is forcing it to stay open. Rebecca Egan McCarthy Merrimack Station, a 438-megawatt power plant, came online in the 1960s and provided baseload power to the New England region for decades. Gradually, though, natural gas — which is cheaper and more efficient — took over the regional market. In 2000, gas-fired plants generated less than 15 percent of the region’s electricity; last year, they produced more than half. Additionally, solar power production accelerated from 2010 on, lowering demand on the grid during the day and creating more evening peaks. Coal plants take longer to ramp up production than other sources, and are therefore less economical for these shorter bursts of demand, Dolan said. In recent years, Merrimack operated only a few weeks annually. In 2024, the plant generated just 0.22 percent of the region’s electricity. It wasn’t making enough money to justify continued operations, observers said. The closure ​“is emblematic of the transition that has been occurring in the generation fleet in New England for many years,” Dolan said. ​“The combination of all those factors has meant that coal facilities are no longer economic in this market.” Granite Shore Power, the plant’s owner, first announced its intention to shutter Merrimack in March 2024, following years of protests and legal wrangling by environmental advocates. The company pledged to cease coal-fired operations by 2028 to settle a lawsuit claiming that the facility was in violation of the federal Clean Water Act. The agreement included another commitment to shut down the company’s Schiller plant in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, by the end of 2025; this smaller plant can burn coal but hasn’t done so since 2020. At the time, the company outlined a proposal to repurpose the 400-acre Merrimack site, just outside Concord, for clean energy projects, taking advantage of existing electric infrastructure to connect a 120-megawatt combined solar and battery storage system to the grid. It is not yet clear whether changes in federal renewable energy policies will affect this vision. In a statement announcing the Merrimack closure, Granite Shore Power was less specific about its plans than it had been, saying, ​“We continue to consider all opportunities for redevelopment” of the site, but declining to follow up with more detail. Still, advocates are looking ahead with optimism. “This is progress — there’s no doubt the math is there,” Corkery said. ​“It is never over until it is over, but I am very hopeful.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline New England’s final coal plant shuts down years ahead of schedule on Oct 12, 2025.

Energy
Government
Water

Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds

Costa Rica is one of the countries that uses the most agrochemicals, which has a series of negative repercussions in various areas. A recent study revealed that the intensive use of agrochemicals in the horticultural region of Zarcero causes physiological stress in earthworms, leading them to flee from contaminated soils. This demonstrates the vulnerability of […] The post Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Costa Rica is one of the countries that uses the most agrochemicals, which has a series of negative repercussions in various areas. A recent study revealed that the intensive use of agrochemicals in the horticultural region of Zarcero causes physiological stress in earthworms, leading them to flee from contaminated soils. This demonstrates the vulnerability of these organisms to environmental alterations caused by such substances. The research was carried out by student Gabriel Brenes from the Regional Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances at the National University (Iret-UNA) as part of the requirements for a Master’s Degree in Tropical Ecotoxicology. Through both field and laboratory studies on earthworm species abundant in the area, the research determined a reduction in enzyme activity and defense mechanisms when the worms were exposed to soils containing agrochemicals or samples taken from them. After conducting behavioral tests, it was found that 90% of the worms avoided remaining in contaminated environments, moving instead to soils managed with organic practices or with lower agrochemical use. According to the study, this could have consequences for agricultural activity, as earthworms improve soil fertility, facilitate nutrient cycling and water movement, and contribute to the decomposition of organic matter. “The intensive use of agrochemicals induces physiological stress in earthworms and causes them to flee contaminated soils. This can have repercussions on the microfauna community and the ecosystem services that sustain agriculture,” explained Brenes. Evidence of reduced intestinal microbial diversity in soil worms exposed to agrochemicals indicates alterations that negatively affect soil health. “We found that the intestinal microbiome of earthworms functions as a sensitive bioindicator of soil health. A reduction in its diversity can affect not only the organisms themselves but also the ecological services they provide, such as fertility and nutrient recycling,” said the researcher. It also detected seasonal changes in microbial composition between the dry and rainy seasons on organic farms with good practices, demonstrating plasticity and adaptation to environmental conditions. For example, during the rainy season, there was an increase in the abundance of genera such as Lactobacillus and Acinetobacter, which were not dominant in the dry season. In contrast, worms from conventional soils showed no seasonal change in their intestinal communities, indicating a loss of ecological flexibility. The research showed that contamination is not limited to plots where agrochemicals are applied. Residues reach organic farms and nearby forest areas, confirming processes of drift and environmental transport. In Zarcero, a small area with intensive horticultural production, the presence of agrochemicals in untreated soils demonstrates that environmental exposure is widespread. The excessive use of agrochemicals in our country is aggravated by the fact that 93% of them are classified as highly hazardous. The post Costa Rica Pesticide Use Harms Soil Life, UNA Study Finds appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Chemicals
Agriculture
Health

Doctors Sound The Alarm As RFK Jr.’s Baseless Circumcision-Autism Claim Fuels Misinformation

In yet another shocking statement, Kennedy doubled down on the not-true claim that Tylenol use, in this case after circumcision, is linked to autism.

This week’s Trump administration Cabinet meeting featured everything out of a medical professional’s nightmare. Confusion about what a placenta is by the man in charge of health in this country, more false claims about Tylenol’s link to autism and new untrue claims about circumcision, Tylenol and autism risk.Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made unfounded claims about the “link” between “early circumcision” and Tylenol use in babies and autism.In the Cabinet meeting, Kennedy said, “There’s two studies that show children who are circumcised early have double the rate of autism,” referring to the surgical procedure in baby boys in which the foreskin of the penis is removed. “It’s highly likely because they’re given Tylenol,” Kennedy continued, repeating the debunked claim that Tylenol use is linked to autism.When asked for comment, the Department of Health and Human Services pointed to Kennedy’s recent post on X, which said, “as usual, the mainstream media attacks me for something I didn’t say in order to distract from the truth of what I did say ... An August 2025 Preprints.org review by Patel et al. directly validates my point that the observed autism correlation in circumcised boys is best explained by acetaminophen exposure, not circumcision itself.”This is not the first time Kennedy has suggested Tylenol causes autism; just a few weeks ago, he said Tylenol use in pregnancy is linked to higher rates of autism (this is not true) and told pregnant people not to take it.“His continued obsession with autism is peculiar,” Dr. Mona Amin, a board-certified pediatrician in Florida and face behind the medical social media account @pedsdoctalk, told HuffPost via email.“Instead of chasing procedures and headlines, he should focus on advancing real research like genome and exome testing to better understand genetic and neurodevelopmental factors that play a much bigger role,” Amin said.Research shows that most autism cases are genetic, not caused by things like Tylenol or circumcision. Kennedy’s comments about circumcision and autism risk only create more confusion for new parents while also peddling ableist ideas. It’s flat-out dangerous and flat-out wrong. HuffPost spoke to pediatricians about Kennedy’s dangerous circumcision and Tylenol claims. Here’s what they said.“There is no solid data” behind his claims.“I’m highly concerned, like with most of his statements,” said Amin.“We can’t make bombastic claims when they’re not supported by credible evidence. There’s no solid data behind what he’s saying,” Amin added.Dr. Lauren Hughes, a board-certified pediatrician, owner of Bloom Pediatrics in Kansas and a medical communicator on social media, told HuffPost via email that she was first surprised that Kennedy had made this statement after so recently blaming Tylenol during pregnancy as a cause of autism. “My second thought was ‘He’s lying again,’ because there is no credible study saying there is double the risk of autism,” said Hughes.Kennedy’s post on X cites 2025 research that is “pre-print, not peer-reviewed,” said Amin. “The authors are real researchers, but the findings haven’t gone through independent scientific review yet,” Amin added.“Most evidence cited is observational or animal-based, which can’t establish cause and effect,” Amin said.This is important because studies need to account for things like environment and family genetics, added Amin. This research does not do that.In regard to a Danish study from 2015 that Kennedy refers to later on in his social media post, “this study never mentioned the use of Tylenol ... at all. Instead, they looked at pain related to circumcision in infancy causing autism,” Hughes said.“That study showed a weak association in certain subgroups, but it was based on tiny numbers and didn’t even track Tylenol use,” Amin explained. “Experts have since said the findings were more about statistical noise than cause and effect.” The 2015 study also did not control for “critical confounders” like genetics, family history or prenatal history, Hughes said. “These are all known risk factors for developing autism and should be adjusted for,” Hughes added.“Before accepting this as truth,” Amin said of Kennedy’s claims, “we need well-designed, peer-reviewed studies that control for confounding factors, use accurate exposure data and replicate findings across diverse populations. Until then, [the 2025] paper should be seen as hypothesis-generating, not practice-changing.”“These kinds of claims grab attention but not truth. And when public figures keep reaching for random connections, it spreads fear, not facts,” Amin added.Babies aren’t even always given Tylenol during or after circumcision.According to Amin, Kennedy’s claim that babies are given Tylenol for pain relief during circumcision “just doesn’t line up with reality.”“In most hospitals, newborns are soothed with oral sucrose [sugar water] or other comfort measures during the procedure, not Tylenol,” Amin added.For instance, according to their websites, both Texas Children’s Hospital and the University of Kansas Health System give babies a local anesthetic and a pacifier dipped in sugar water.While some hospitals may give or prescribe babies Tylenol post-procedure, it is not an across-the-board rule.“This is very site-dependent — some [babies] get acetaminophen, some get sugar water or breast milk or directly breastfeed,” Dr. Elizabeth Meade, a pediatrician in Seattle and spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told HuffPost via email.“And, if parents give Tylenol afterward, it’s usually a single dose. We can’t blame a one-time or two-time medication for a lifelong neurodevelopmental difference like autism,” Amin said.Bloomberg via Getty ImagesKennedy claimed children who go through "early circumcision" and are given Tylenol to soothe pain are at higher risk of developing autism, but Dr. Mona Amin said "there’s no proof that circumcision or Tylenol causes autism."Circumcision is a generally safe procedure that is not linked to autism.While Kennedy has since stressed that he is linking circumcision and Tylenol use to autism, and not circumcision alone, these kinds of statements only confuse caregivers who want to make the best decision for their babies.“Circumcision is a safe, commonly performed procedure, but as with any medical procedure, there are risks associated,” said Hughes.Risks include bleeding, infection, and too much or too little skin removal, according to Amin.Kennedy specifically referred to “early circumcision,” which is not a phrase Hughes uses — “I do not use the term ‘early circumcision’ and instead only call it circumcision.” Multiple sources, including the Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, say circumcision is most commonly done within the first days or weeks of a baby’s life. “Early circumcision” is a bizarre way to categorize something that is commonly recommended early in a baby’s life. “It’s an elective procedure, not a medical requirement. With proper hygiene, being uncircumcised is completely healthy, too,” Amin added.Some cultures and groups of people find circumcision to be controversial, “and that’s understandable,” said Amin.“Parents should be able to make this decision based on their values and medical guidance without judgment. It’s a personal choice, not a moral or medical obligation,” she noted.It’s a parent’s choice whether or not to have their baby circumcised, but a fear of autism should not be a reason not to, said Hughes.Because, again, there is no proof that circumcision and Tylenol use are linked to a higher chance of developing autism.There is no proof that Tylenol causes autism.This is not the first time Kennedy has linked Tylenol use to autism, but there is no solid proof of a connection, experts told HuffPost again and again.“An extremely well done study was published in April of 2024 reviewing acetaminophen use in pregnancy,” said Hughes. (Acetaminophen is the active ingredient in Tylenol.)Researchers evaluated roughly 2.5 million children and “after adjusting for sibling diagnosis, they found there was no associated link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders,” Hughes added.“The use of acetaminophen in childhood has not been robustly studied, but no data exists showing a causal link,” she said.“As a parent, I understand how confusing all this can feel. And as a clinician who walks families through these decisions every day, it’s frustrating to see misinformation replace genuine curiosity.”- Dr. Mona Amin, board-certified pediatrician in FloridaThe American Academy of Pediatrics says acetaminophen is safe for children when used as directed and discussed with a child’s pediatrician. “Acetaminophen remains the safest option for pain and fever during pregnancy and infancy when used as directed,” Amin added.Tylenol is commonly used to help control fevers in children and pregnant women, and having an untreated fever is dangerous. “Here’s what parents need to understand: The developing brain is affected far more by untreated high fevers or infections than by a single, properly dosed pain reliever,” Amin said. “The benefit of using Tylenol when truly needed outweighs any unproven theoretical risk,” noted Amin.Autism is complex, but research is ongoing.“Autism is complex. It’s not caused by one medication, one vaccine, or one parenting decision,” said Amin.For decades, scientists have been researching the cause of autism, Hughes added.“It is very, very important to state that no one wants to find the causes for autism more than pediatric health care providers,” Meade noted. “I say ‘causes’ very intentionally, because we know this is not a one-cause diagnosis, it is very multifactorial and complex.”“We will keep looking, and keep investigating, including looking into acetaminophen use — but the reality is that many large and well-done studies have shown absolutely no causal link at this point,” Meade said.“Research shows genetics play the biggest role — sometimes inherited from parents, sometimes through spontaneous gene changes that affect how the brain forms and communicates,” Amin said.“So, please, if you have a child with autism, do not think you did anything wrong. And know that the scientific community has not, nor will ever, forget about you,” Hughes said.Studies looking into environmental risk factors are ongoing, “but ‘environmental’ doesn’t mean things like Tylenol or vaccines. It refers to broad prenatal or early life influences like severe maternal infection during pregnancy, significant prematurity, or exposure to high levels of air pollution, lead, or pesticides,” Amin said.But, these environmental factors do not flat-out cause autism, and instead increase autism risk in combination with genetic predisposition, Amin said.YourSupportMakes The StoryYour SupportFuelsOur MissionYour SupportFuelsOur MissionJoin Those Who Make It PossibleHuffPost stands apart because we report for the people, not the powerful. Our journalism is fearless, inclusive, and unfiltered. Join the membership program and help strengthen news that puts people first.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.“As a parent, I understand how confusing all this can feel. And as a clinician who walks families through these decisions every day, it’s frustrating to see misinformation replace genuine curiosity,” Amin said.“We should be investing our energy into research, education and support for autistic individuals, not fighting baseless claims,” she added.

Animals
Culture
Education

More And More People Suffer From 'Chemophobia' — And MAHA Is Partly To Blame

The fear tactic strikes a nerve with both conservatives and liberals alike. Here’s what you need to know.

If you’ve ever muttered to yourself, “I should really get the organic peaches,” or “I need to replace my old makeup with ‘clean’ beauty products” or “I really want to buy the “non-toxic’ laundry detergent,” you may have fallen into the chemophobia trap, an almost inescapable phobia that’s infiltrating lots of homes. Chemophobia is complicated, but, in short, it’s a distrust or fear of chemicals and appears in many of aspects of life from “chemical-free” soaps and “natural” deodorants to vaccine distrust and fear-mongering about seed oils.But, unlike most things, it plays on the emotions of both conservative MAGA voters and liberal MAGA opposers, even though actual chemophobia-based thoughts vary significantly in each group.“Much of this started on the left-leaning side of the political aisle as a result of misunderstanding the difference between legitimate chemical industrial incidents and just chemicals more broadly,” said Andrea Love, an immunologist, microbiologist and founder of Immunologic, a health and science communication organization.Appealing to the left, it was seen as counter-culture and opposed the “evil market forces,” said Timothy Caulfield, the co-founder of ScienceUpFirst, an organization that combats misinformation, and author of “The Certainty Illusion.”“But now we’re seeing it shift to the right, and I think it’s almost now entirely on the right, or at least the loudest voices ... are on the right,” Caulfield noted. These are voices like Casey Means, a wellness influencer and surgeon general nominee, and even Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Health and Human Services secretary.On the right-leaning side, chemophobia appears as a distrust and demonization of things like studied vaccines and medications and the pushing of “natural” interventions, “when those have no regulatory oversight compared to regulated medicines,” Love noted.“On the left-leaning [side], this gets a lot of attention because it plays into this fear of toxic exposures, and this ‘organic purity’ narrative ... ‘you have to eat organic food, and you can’t have GMOs,’” Love said.No matter your political party, chemophobia has infiltrated people’s homes, diets and minds, while also infiltrating brand slogans, marketing campaigns and political messaging (ahem, Make America Healthy Again). Here’s what to know:Chemophobia says you should avoid chemicals, but that’s impossible — water is a chemical and you are made up of chemicals.“First of all, everything is chemicals,” said Love. “Your body is a sack of chemicals. You would not exist if it were not for all these different chemical compounds.”Chemophobia leads people to believe that synthetic, lab-made substances are inherently bad while “natural substances” — things found in nature — are inherently good, and that is just not true, Love said.The current obsession with “all-natural” beef tallow as a replacement for “manufactured” seed oils is a prime example of this.“Your body ... has no idea if it’s a synthetic chemical, meaning it was synthesized in a lab using chemical reactions, or if it exists somewhere out on the planet,” Love added.Your body doesn’t know the difference between getting vitamin C from a lime and getting vitamin C that’s made in a lab, she explained. Your body only cares about the chemical structure (which is the same in synthetic chemicals and natural chemicals) and the dosage you’re being exposed to, Love noted. “This irrational fear of chemicals, just by and large, is antithetical to life because chemistry and chemicals are why everything exists,” Love said.Everything that is made up of matter is a network of chemicals, she explained. That goes for your body, your pets, your car, your TV, your home and the food you eat.“Everything is just these structures of chemicals linked together into physical objects ... so, there’s zero reason to be afraid of chemicals broadly,” said Love.Chemophobia was born from the ‘appeal to nature fallacy’ and a desire to ‘get back to ancestral living.’Chemophobia was born from the “appeal to nature fallacy,” said Love, which is “the false belief that natural substances ... are inherently safe, beneficial or superior, whereas synthetic substances are inherently bad, dangerous, harmful or worse than a natural counterpart.” There is nothing legitimate about this belief, she added. But both chemophobia and the appeal to nature fallacy are central to pseudoscience, the anti-vaccine movement and the MAHA wellness industry, Love noted.At the core of chemophobia and appeal to nature fallacy is also a “romanticization of ancestral living, when, in reality, we lived very poorly, we died very young and often suffering and in pain,” Love said.“Going back to simpler times” are talking points for both MAHA and MAGA, which, of course, stands for “Make America Great Again,” a slogan that alludes to the past. And, RFK Jr. has repeatedly claimed America was healthier when his uncle, John F. Kennedy, was president.This is complicated, but not true; two out of three adults died of chronic disease and life expectancy was almost 10 years less than it is now, according to NPR.Chemophobia is designed to elicit negative emotions such as anxiety and fear.Chemophobia is incredibly effective because it evokes people’s negative emotions, said Love. And it’s hard for most people to separate emotions from facts.If someone on social media says that a certain ingredient is harming your kids, you’ll be scared and want to make lifestyle changes. If someone claims your makeup is bad for you, you’ll also be scared and want to make changes.“Take, for example, fructose, since it’s having a moment,” said Andrea Hardy, a dietitian and owner of Ignite Nutrition, who is referring to a viral social media video about the “harms” of fructose.“An influencer online might say ‘fructose is bad, the liver can’t handle it, we shouldn’t be eating any fructose. I’ve cut all fructose from my diet and I’m the healthiest I’ve ever been.’ Then a mom, wanting to do the best for her children says, ‘I need to cut out all fructose’ and not only removes the ultra-processed foods like sweetened beverages, but also says no to fruit in her household because of this misinformation,” Hardy said.This has lots of consequences, including a lack of nutrition in the home (from missing out on the fiber and vitamins from fruit) and the encouragement of disordered eating in kids, who, from this elimination of fructose, will learn the false idea that “fruit is bad” or “fructose is bad,” explained Hardy.Illustration: HuffPost; Photos: GettyChemophobia makes products that claim to be "natural" or "clean" feel superior, even when that isn't the case.Our brains want clear, black-and-white information. Vilifying one product while celebrating another achieves that.Between social media and the internet, we live in a “chaotic information environment,” according to Caulfield. There’s seemingly factual information coming at you from everywhere, and it can be hard to know what to trust.“The reality is, our brains want simple. They want black and white,” said Hardy. We make choices all day long, which makes categorizing things, like food, as “good or bad” appealing to our minds, Hardy said.And, everyone wants to make the “good” choice, Caulfield added. “We want to do what’s best for ourselves and for the environment and for our community and our family,” he said.As a result, we look for “clear signals of goodness,” or “short cuts to making the right decision,” added Caulfield. We turn not only to words like “good” or “bad,” but also “toxin-free,” “natural” and “clean,” he said.Seeing these words slapped on a jar of nut butter, on a shampoo bottle, or on sunscreen makes making the “right choice” easier, he added — “even though the evidence does not support what’s implied by those words, those ‘health halos,’” noted Caulfield.These words are an “oversimplification,” Hardy said. “People now leverage their social media presence to share those oversimplified nutrition messages, most of which are at best, wrong, at worst, harmful.”Chemophobia is really hard to escape. It’s even built into marketing campaigns and product names.If you’ve ever fallen into the chemophobia trap without knowing, you aren’t alone. It’s complicated and nuanced, and the science is, at times, messy.Moreover, chemophobia is the inspiration behind brand names and entire product categorizations; “clean beauty” is one huge example.Fears of chemicals are now marketing ploys. “You’re going to find products that claim that they’re ‘chemical-free,’ and that doesn’t exist,” Love said, referring to the fact that, once again, everything is made up of chemicals.Market forces take over and cling to the chemophobia buzz words of the moment, whether that’s “clean” “gluten-free” or “non-GMO,” Caulfield said.Now, we have Triscuits labeled with non-GMO marketing, he said. We also have entire product lines at stores like Sephora that are categorized as “clean.”“It creates this perception [of] ‘if that one’s chemical-free, then the alternative that isn’t labeled as such must be dangerous, must be bad,’” Love said.Once again, making the “good” choice easy.This isn’t to say there isn’t room for improvement in the health and food space.“I work in the public health space. I don’t know a single public health researcher, a single agricultural researcher, a single biomedical researcher who doesn’t want to make our food environment safer for everyone,” said Caulfield.Just because Caulfield speaks out against chemophobia doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to make our food and health environment healthier, he stressed.“I do think we should always be challenging both industry and government to do exactly that, but at the same time, we have to be realistic and understand the nature of the risks and the magnitude of risks at play,” he said.Both our food environment and agricultural practices could be safer, “but those moves should be based on what the science says, and not on slogans,” Caulfield said.Corporate greed and capitalism hinder these safety changes.“The huge irony here ... the answer to all of these chemophobia concerns ... it’s more government regulation. It’s more robust, science-informed regulation. And in this political environment, that ain’t going to happen, That just simply isn’t going to happen, as we’ve already seen,” Caulfield said.The Trump administration wants to repeal environmental protections that help fight climate change (and the air we breathe has huge health implications) and has cut funding to departments that are in charge of food safety, which could jeopardize the items you buy at the grocery store.“So, it all just becomes slogans and wellness nonsense,” along with the peddling of unregulated, unproven supplements (that are basically just untested chemicals), Caulfield added.And, many of the people who claim to be so concerned about chemicals then profit from the sale of unregulated supplements, Caulfield said.Jeff Greenberg via Getty ImagesThe hyper-focus on things like food dyes and seed oils actually distracts from the true health — and healthy equity — issues in this country.Focusing on one ‘bad’ ingredient or so-called ‘natural’ alternatives won’t actually make you healthier.This fear of chemicals will have an enormous impact and is “something we won’t even realize and see the effects of for years to come,” Hardy said.“If we want to improve public health, focusing on a single ingredient in food or swapping seed oils for beef tallow isn’t the answer to our public health problems, it’s a distraction,” Hardy said.Food dyes, seed oils, “non-clean” beauty, whatever the item may be, become a common enemy, allowing folks to ignore the fact that this isn’t actually a problem that’s central to the country’s health outcomes, Love added.RFK Jr. has claimed that “Americans are getting sicker” and research does show that America has worse health outcomes while spending more on health care than other Western countries, but it’s too simple (and flat-out wrong) to blame any one makeup chemical or item in your pantry.“Instead of critically assessing and saying, ’Hey, we do have some health challenges, but what are the underlying factors to that? Maybe it’s housing inequity and lack of national health care and all of these societal, structural issues, and it’s not these singular food ingredients,” Love said.“These conversations distract us from the real things that we can do to make ourselves and our communities healthier, and I think that’s one of the biggest problems with MAHA,” said Caulfield.“No one’s a huge food dye fan. I’m not going to go to the mat for food dye [but] ... all these are distractions from the things that really matter to make us, to make our communities healthier — equity, justice, access to health care, education, gun laws — these are the things that, on a population level, are really going to make a difference,” Caulfield said.Whether someone has conservative or liberal views that fuel their chemophobia, the fear of chemicals is dangerous. And, it’s, sadly, more prevalent than ever, Caulfield said.It’s causing people to say no to necessary vaccines, not wear sunblock out of fears of “toxins,” avoid fruit because of fructose and more.YourSupportMakes The StoryYour SupportFuelsOur MissionYour SupportFuelsOur MissionJoin Those Who Make It PossibleHuffPost stands apart because we report for the people, not the powerful. Our journalism is fearless, inclusive, and unfiltered. Join the membership program and help strengthen news that puts people first.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.“This is going to kill people ... this is really serious stuff, and it’s an incredible time in human history in the worst possible way,” Caulfield said.

Chemicals
Climate
Education

Tunisian Protesters Storm Chemicals Complex Over Health Fears

By Tarek AmaraTUNIS (Reuters) -Residents entered the state-run Tunisian Chemical Group's (CGT) phosphate complex in the southern city of Gabes on...

TUNIS (Reuters) -Residents entered the state-run Tunisian Chemical Group's (CGT) phosphate complex in the southern city of Gabes on Saturday, demanding its closure to prevent environmental pollution and respiratory illnesses, witnesses said.  The protest highlights the pressure on President Kais Saied's government, already strained by a deep economic and financial crisis, to balance public health demands with the production of phosphate, Tunisia's most valuable natural resource.Demonstrators were walking inside the facility and chanting slogans calling for its closure and dismantling, witnesses said and videos on social media showed. Army soldiers and military vehicles were seen stationed inside the complex, though no clashes were reported."Gabes has turned into a city of death, people are struggling to breathe, many residents suffer from cancer or bone fragility due to the severe pollution," Khaireddine Dbaya, one of the protesters, told Reuters. GABES SUFFERING ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS CGT did not respond to Reuters' attempts to seek comment on the situation in Gabes.President Saied said last week that Gabes was suffering an "environmental assassination" due to what he called criminal old policy choices, blaming them for widespread illness and the destruction of local ecosystems. He urged swift action and the adoption of youth-proposed solutions to address an ongoing environmental crisis. In 2017, authorities pledged to dismantle the Gabes complex and replace it with a facility that meets international standards, acknowledging that its emissions posed a danger to local residents. However, the plan has yet to be implemented.Tons of industrial waste are discharged into Gabes's Chatt Essalam sea daily.Environmental groups warn that marine life has been severely affected with local fishermen reporting a dramatic decline in fish stocks over the past decade, hitting a vital source of income for many in the region.The latest wave of protests was triggered this week after dozens of schoolchildren suffered breathing difficulties caused by toxic fumes from the nearby plant.Videos showed panicked parents and emergency crews assisting students struggling to breathe, further fuelling public outrage and calls for the plant’s closure.The government aims to revive the phosphate industry by increasing production fivefold to 14 million tonnes by 2030 to capitalize on rising global demand.(Reporting by Tarek Amara; Editing by Toby Chopra)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Chemicals
Health
Government

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

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.