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

Ohio grid disparities leave some areas with older, outage-prone equipment

Ohio consumer and environmental advocates are calling on state regulators to address disparities within FirstEnergy’s grid after a recent report found disadvantaged communities are more likely to rely on older, more outage-prone equipment. Areas defined as disadvantaged under the Biden administration’s Climate and…

Ohio consumer and environmental advocates are calling on state regulators to address disparities within FirstEnergy’s grid after a recent report found disadvantaged communities are more likely to rely on older, more outage-prone equipment. Areas defined as disadvantaged under the Biden administration’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool were twice as likely to have low-voltage circuits compared to other parts of FirstEnergy’s Ohio territory, according to the study by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. Equipment was also generally older and had less capacity for normal and overload situations. The results reflect historical patterns of underinvestment in disadvantaged communities, the report says, but the full scope of the problem — including across Ohio’s other utilities — is unclear due to the lack of information from utilities and regulators. “The public availability of any utility data is very, very limited in Ohio,” said report author Shay Banton, a regulatory program engineer and energy justice policy advocate for the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. The Ohio Environmental Council submitted the report as part of FirstEnergy’s pending rate case before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and is asking regulators to address the topic in an evidentiary hearing set for May 5. The state of the local grid matters when it comes to the reliability of customers’ electric service, their ability to add distributed renewable energy resources like rooftop solar, and a community’s potential to attract business investments that could improve its economic conditions. Regulated electric utilities file reliability reports each spring that focus on two commonly used metrics. The system average interruption frequency index, or SAIFI, shows how many outages occurred per customer. The customer average interruption duration index, or CAIDI, measures the average length of time for restoring service to customers who lose power. The annual reports also list factors involved in outages, with breakouts for transmission-related service problems and major events. Major events such as severe weather are considered statistical outliers that don’t count for calculating whether utilities meet their company-specific standards for CAIDI and SAIFI. While weather accounted for the majority of time Ohioans went without power last year, equipment failures also triggered thousands of outages. For the ninth year in a row, at least one Ohio utility company failed to meet reliability standards, reports filed this month show. Both AEP Ohio and FirstEnergy’s Toledo Edison missed their marks for the average time before power is restored for customers who experience outages. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio also collects data on the worst-performing circuits. Individual circuits serve anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand customers. However, the state doesn’t post these reports online or disclose the circuit’s exact locations, which could be used to show whether they are concentrated in disadvantaged communities. The SAIFI and CAIDI metrics used by state regulators did not show significant disparities between disadvantaged neighborhoods and other areas in FirstEnergy’s territory. But Banton said those reliability metrics rely on averages for large groups, which can obscure disparities. They said that utilities should also be required to publicly report the number of customers experiencing frequent service interruptions and the number of customers who faced long outages. Utilities in Ohio tend to be reactive in dealing with circuit problems, Banton said. Communities can face longer outages if utilities wait for equipment to fail before replacing it. Instead, Banton wants utilities’ capital investments to address current disparities and then prevent them from recurring in the future.

Climate
Energy

Why healthy eating may be the best way to reduce food waste

A survey shows people with healthy eating habits tend to waste less food than those who focus on choosing ethical and environmentally friendly products.

Stokkete, ShutterstockAustralians waste around 7.68 million tonnes of food a year. This costs the economy an estimated A$36.6 billion and households up to $2,500 annually. Much of this food is wasted at home. So while consumers are increasingly aware of sustainability issues, awareness does not always translate into better food management in practice. Our previous research revealed people differ in the ways they generate and dispose of food waste. Our latest study takes a closer look at two groups who care deeply about food, for different reasons. It exposes a paradox: people who prioritise healthy eating waste less food, while those focused on sustainability do not necessarily follow through with waste reduction. This suggests encouraging healthier eating habits might be a better way to cut household food waste than sustainability messaging alone. Sustainability awareness doesn’t always mean less waste To understand how food values influence waste, we surveyed 1,030 Australian consumers living in Adelaide between April and May 2021. We set quotas for age, sex and household income to match national demographics. We wanted to find out who wasted more food: nutrition-conscious or sustainability-conscious consumers? We asked each person how they plan meals and shop, what they value when buying food, and how much food they throw away each week. Our results show nutrition-conscious consumers tend to plan meals in advance, use shopping lists and avoid over-purchasing. These behaviours contribute to both a healthier diet and less food waste. We found consumers who make more nutrition-conscious food choices tended to waste less edible food. A one-point increase on our nutrition scale corresponded to a 17.6% reduction in food waste, compared to people with lower scores on the nutrition scale. On the other hand, those who prioritise sustainability over nutrition did not show any significant reduction in edible food waste. These consumers tend to choose environmentally friendly products. They typically prefer to shop locally, buy organic produce and avoid excessive food packaging. But that does not necessarily translate into waste-reducing behaviours. Those concerned with sustainability tend to buy more food than they need. They have good intentions, but lack strategies to manage and consume the food efficiently. Unfortunately this means sustainably sourced food often ends up in landfill. Teaching children to prepare healthy food for themselves can help reduce waste. Oksana Kuzmina, Shutterstock Integrating nutrition and food waste messaging Our research reveals a disconnect between purchasing choices and what actually happens to the food at home. This highlights an opportunity for policymakers and campaigns aimed at reducing food waste. Rather than focusing solely on sustainability, including messages about improving nutrition can boost health and reduce food waste at the same time. Some successful interventions already demonstrate the potential of this approach. For example, an Australian school-based program found children involved in preparing their own meals wasted less food than they did before the program began. These students learned about food waste and healthy eating, participated in workshops on meal preparation and composting, and helped pack their own lunches – with less food waste as a result. 5 ways to reduce food waste So, what can households do to reduce food waste while maintaining a healthy diet? Our research suggests the following key strategies: plan ahead – creating a weekly meal plan and shopping list helps prevent impulse purchases and ensures food is consumed before it spoils buy only what you need – over-purchasing, even of sustainable products, can lead to unnecessary waste store food properly – understanding how to store fresh produce, dairy, and leftovers can significantly extend their shelf life prioritise nutrition – choosing foods that fit into a balanced diet naturally leads to better portion control and mindful consumption, reducing waste use what you have – before shopping, check your fridge and pantry to incorporate existing ingredients into meals. The Great Unwaste is a nationwide movement to end food waste. Reducing waste is a bonus People are often more motivated by personal health benefits than abstract environmental concerns. Our research suggests this is the key to reducing household food waste. Encouraging meal planning for a balanced diet, careful shopping to avoid over-purchasing, and proper food storage, can make a big difference to the amount of food being wasted. This will not only help households save thousands of dollars each year, but also promote healthy eating habits. Ultimately, developing a more sustainable food system is not just about buying the right products. It’s about how we manage, prepare and consume them. Trang Nguyen receives funding from the End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre and the Australian Government.Jack Hetherington receives funding from the End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre and the Australian Government and is a member of the Landcare Association of South Australia volunteer Management Committee. Patrick O'Connor receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Agrifutures and the Commonwealth and State Governments

Food
Health
Waste

Trump administration seeks to narrow Endangered Species Act by redefining 'harm'

On Wednesday, the Trump administration proposed changing the definition of "harm" in the bedrock environmental law, which conservationists say will undermine protections for vulnerable animals.

The Trump administration on Wednesday proposed a rule to redefine what it means to “harm” a protected species under the Endangered Species Act, a move conservationists say will strip vulnerable plants and animals of habitat they need to survive.The proposal advanced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service would limit the meaning to taking direct action to kill or injure endangered or threatened wildlife — removing the prohibition against habitat destruction that leads to those ends. It fits with White House officials’ intent to spur economic growth by slashing regulations.If adopted, the change could significantly curtail the reach of the Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973 under former President Nixon. It would also flout a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the definition of harm to encompass “significant habitat modification or degradation.” “What they’re proposing will just fundamentally upend how we’ve been protecting endangered species in this country,” said Noah Greenwald, co-director of endangered species at the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation group. According to Greenwald, the previous definition prevented acts like cutting down swaths of old-growth forests in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest where federally threatened northern spotted owls nest and roost. Or filling in a wetland inhabited by red-legged frogs, California’s state amphibian also listed as federally threatened.Under the proposed meaning, it would take something like the actual shooting of an owl to qualify, he said.“I think there would just be a lot more room for timber companies to log their habitat without concern,” he said. Given the owls’ precipitous decline in recent decades, “this potentially could be the nail in the coffin,” he added. The concept of harm in the Endangered Species Act is wrapped up in its prohibition of “take,” which means “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect” a species protected by the law.“This makes sense in light of the well-established, centuries-old understanding of ‘take’ as meaning to kill or capture a wild animal,” the FWS and NMFS wrote in proposing the revision, adding that current regulations “do not match the single, best meaning of the statute.”Publishing the proposed rule in the Federal Register — set for Thursday — triggers a 30-day public comment period. Once the public comments are analyzed, a final rule could be issued in a matter of months.If the change is made, Greenwald said his group would challenge it in court.The proposed change comes amid a flurry of actions by the Trump administration to push for more development and resource extraction on public lands, which conservationists believe will harm wildlife, among other deleterious effects.Earlier this month, the Trump administration ordered the immediate expansion of timber production in the U.S. It was followed by an emergency declaration by U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins mandating the U.S. Forest Service to open up roughly 112.5 million acres of national forestland to logging.A February order by Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum directed his staff to review and possibly alter national monuments as part of a push to expand U.S. energy production.

Animals
Conservation
Energy

Proposed Rule Change on Endangered Species Triggers Alarm for Environmentalists

The Trump administration plans to rewrite part of the Endangered Species Act that prohibits harming the habitats of endangered and threatened species

The Trump administration plans to eliminate habitat protections for endangered and threatened species in a move environmentalists say would lead to the extinction of critically endangered species due to logging, mining, development and other activities.At issue is a longstanding definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act, which has included altering or destroying the places those species live. Habitat destruction is the biggest cause of extinction, said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service said in a proposed rule issued Wednesday that habitat modification should not be considered harm because it's not the same as intentionally targeting a species, called “take.” Environmentalists argue that the definition of “take,” though, has always included actions that harm species, and the definition of “harm” has been upheld by the Supreme Court.The proposed rule “cuts the heart out of the Endangered Species Act,” said Greenwald. “If (you) say harm doesn’t mean significant habitat degradation or modification, then it really leaves endangered species out in the cold.”For example, he said spotted owls and Florida panthers both are protected because the current rule forbids habitat destruction. But if the new rule is adopted, someone who logs in a forest or builds a development would be unimpeded as long as they could say they didn't intend to harm an endangered species, he said.The proposed rule was expected to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, kicking off a 30-day public comment period.A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman referred The Associated Press to the Department of Interior, which declined to comment.Environmental groups will challenge the rule in court if it is adopted, said Drew Caputo, an attorney at Earthjustice.He said the proposal “threatens a half-century of progress in protecting and restoring endangered species,” including bald eagles, gray wolves, Florida manatees and humpback whales. He said that's because the current rule “recognizes the common-sense concept that destroying a forest, beach, river, or wetland that a species relies on for survival constitutes harm to that species.”The question is whether the Trump administration is entitled to repeal a rule that was upheld specifically by the Supreme Court and therefore subject to precedent, said Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School who has handled endangered species cases.Because of the current definition of harm, “many, many millions of acres of land has been conserved” to help keep species alive, he said.The issue is of particular concern in Hawaii, which has more endangered species than any other state — 40% of the nation’s federally listed threatened and endangered species — even though it has less than 1% of the land area, according to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Birds are among the most vulnerable. Since humans arrived, 71 birds have gone extinct, according to the state Department of Land and Natural Resources. Thirty-one of the 42 remaining endemic birds are listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the department said and ten of these haven’t been seen in decades.Associated Press reporter Audrey McAvoy in Hawaii contributed to this report.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Climate
Extinction
Forests

Dominion Among Utilities Allowed Exemption for Coal Emissions  From Trump’s EPA

Dominion Energy is one of several utilities that received an exemption from stricter  federal coal pollution reduction technologies under an order from the Trump administration that environmental groups call “farcical.” On April 8, President Trump announced several executive orders aimed at propping up the coal industry. The Trump orders gave 47 companies and a larger […]

Utility asked for compliance exemption from Biden-era rule aimed at reducing coal pollution and is given two-year delay.By Charles PaullinDominion Energy is one of several utilities that received an exemption from stricter  federal coal pollution reduction technologies under an order from the Trump administration that environmental groups call “farcical.”

Energy
Pollution

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Says US Autism Cases Are Climbing at an 'Alarming Rate'

Health secretary Robert F

WASHINGTON (AP) — Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned that children in the U.S. are being diagnosed with autism at an “alarming rate,” promising on Wednesday to conduct exhaustive studies to identify any environmental factors that may cause the developmental disorder. His call comes the day after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report that found an estimated 1 in 31 U.S. children have autism, a marked increase from 2020. “Autism destroys families," Kennedy said. "More importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, which is our children. These are children who should not be suffering like this.” Kennedy described autism as a “preventable disease,” although researchers and scientists have identified genetic factors that are associated with it. Autism is not considered a disease, but a complex disorder that affects the brain. Cases range widely in severity, with symptoms that can include delays in language, learning, and social or emotional skills. Some autistic traits can go unnoticed well into adulthood. Those who have spent decades researching autism have found no single cause. Besides genetics, scientists have identified various possible factors, including the age of a child’s father, the mother’s weight, and whether she had diabetes or was exposed to certain chemicals. Kennedy said his wide-ranging plan to determine the cause of autism will look at all of those environmental factors, and others. He had previously set a September deadline for determining what causes autism, but said Wednesday that by then, his department will determine at least “some” of the answers. The effort will involve issuing grants to universities and researchers, Kennedy said. He said the researchers will be encouraged to “follow the science, no matter what it says.” The Trump administration has recently canceled billions of dollars in grants for health and science research sent to universities.The CDC’s latest autism data was from 14 states and Puerto Rico in 2022. The previous estimate — from 2020 — was 1 in 36.Boys continue to be diagnosed more than girls, and the highest rates are among children who are Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native and Black.To estimate how common autism is, the CDC checked health and school records for 8-year-olds, because most cases are diagnosed by that age. Other researchers have their own estimates, but experts say the CDC’s estimate is the most rigorous and the gold standard.On Wednesday, Kennedy criticized theories that the rise in autism cases can be attributed to more awareness about the disorder. Autism researchers have cited heightened awareness, as well as medical advancements and increased diagnoses of mild cases. “The reasons for increases in autism diagnosis come down to scientific and health care progress,” said Annette Estes, director of the autism center at the University of Washington. "It's hard for many people to understand this because the causes of autism are complex.”Associated Press writers JoNel Aleccia in Temecula, California, and Mike Stobbe in Atlanta contributed to this report.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Health
Chemicals
Science

Researchers point finger at politics for thwarting endangered species protections process

Political battles and partisan ideologies are threatening the survival of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the animals that it is supposed to serve, researchers are warning. Wildlife management under the ESA has changed dramatically since its bipartisan and unanimous passage 50 years ago, during the Nixon administration, according to a new case study, published...

Political battles and partisan ideologies are threatening the survival of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the animals that it is supposed to serve, researchers are warning. Wildlife management under the ESA has changed dramatically since its bipartisan and unanimous passage 50 years ago, during the Nixon administration, according to a new case study, published on Tuesday in Frontiers in Conservation Science. Best available science has given way to bureaucratic delays, power struggles and competing political interests, argued lead author Kelly Dunning, who heads the University of Wyoming’s Wildlife & Wilderness Recreation Lab. “The survival of the ESA, a wildlife policy mimicked all over the world, may depend on our ability to navigate these waters,” she said in a statement. Dunning’s case study, which focuses on the fate of the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, was published just before the Trump administration proposed a rollback in federal protections for endangered species. The proposal would involve repealing the current definition of “harm” that is forbidden under the ESA, according to a draft rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The proposal specifically targets the inclusion of “habitat modification” in that definition — meaning that looser terms could enable industrial activities that might damage an endangered animal’s habitat. Environmental groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that protections for the habitats of endangered wildlife “are crucial to ensuring they don’t go extinct.” Noah Greenwald, co-director of endangered species at the conservation group, slammed the proposal, noting that “nobody voted to drive spotted owls, Florida panthers or grizzly bears to extinction.” As for the grizzlies — the animals at the core of the University of Wyoming case study — Dunning described the nears as “a cultural symbol of the American West” and an embodiment of the country’s shift in wildlife management. The grizzly bear was listed as threatened in 1975 when its population dwindled to fewer than 1,000 and its ranged narrowed by 98 percent, according to the study. In the Yellowstone region, the bear’s numbers have now risen to more than 700, surpassing recovery goals set by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Characterizing this growth is “a success story” that makes the grizzly bear eligible for “delisting” by its own metrics, Dunning pointed out that attempts to remove federal protections in 2007 and 2017 were overturned by courts. This occurred, she contended, not due to the absence of science, but because the ESA delisting procedure “has become a lightning rod for political interests.” To draw these conclusions, Dunning and her colleagues sifted through 750 documents and 2,832 stakeholder quotes to track the politicization of grizzly bears. They identified five key threads of discourse surrounding the delisting question: scientific uncertainty, the role of regulated hunting, human-wildlife conflict, rising state-level management and recovery goal status. What the researchers found was that “the most dominant voices belong to legislators, legal advocates, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who are increasingly crowding out the agency scientists,” according to Dunning. On the one hand, she explained, elected politicians like Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso (R) have declared that “the grizzly is fully recovered in Wyoming. End of story.” Acknowledging the legitimacy in his statements, Dunning recognized that population targets set by the ESA have been met and that the bears might harm livestock or tourists. On the other hand, the researchers found that many well-known environmental advocacy groups and their attorneys argue that delisting would be premature. In addition, they observed that the courts “have flexed their muscle” as well. “There are no easy answers,” Dunning said. “This conflict reveals a stark reality: wildlife management is no longer just about science, it's about who dominates the political discourse, and the power that accompanies it.” An unrelated grizzly bear study, also published on Tuesday, focused on the specific need to return the animals to California — regardless of whether they are delisted as a threatened species under the ESA. While about 10,000 grizzlies inhabited California prior to the Gold Rush, the last reliable sighting occurred in the spring of 1924, according to the authors. Today, although grizzlies appear on California’s flag and seal, none inhabit the state’s woodlands. Yet at the same time, the bears that did once live there were genetically indistinguishable from those that now inhabit the Northern Rockies, the researchers noted. “Whether or not we bring grizzly bears back to California is a choice, as there is no biological reason we couldn’t do it,” lead author Peter Alagona, of the University of California, Santa Barbara, said in a statement. Although the bears are unlikely to return to California on their own, the researchers determined that a well-managed reintroduction and recovery program could ensure a sustainable population. This would involve reconnecting fragmented habitats via land management and infrastructural investments, the study found.  If grizzlies do end up removed from the ESA’s threatened species list, Alagona and his coauthors stressed that “California would have to take the lead on its own recovery efforts.” “Nothing in state law would prevent grizzlies from being reintroduced or listed as endangered in California before or after a reintroduction,” they concluded. As far as a path forward for both the grizzly bears and the ESA is concerned, Dunning, from the University of Wyoming, stressed that agencies must adapt to a political reality in which species recovery has become “a bargaining chip.” “Scientists can’t afford to ‘stay out of politics’ when protected species like grizzlies are lightning rods for political debate,” Denning said, noting that the animal’s future “isn’t just about one species.” The ESA, she contended, must mature “beyond a scientific ideal into a framework that navigates the messy, human politics of conservation.”

Animals
Conservation
Government

Trump administration proposes loosening protections for endangered species

The Trump administration on Wednesday proposed to loosen federal protections for endangered species. A draft rule from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would repeal the current definition of “harm” that’s prohibited under the Endangered Species Act. The law prohibits activity that would “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,...

The Trump administration on Wednesday proposed to loosen federal protections for endangered species. A draft rule from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would repeal the current definition of “harm” that’s prohibited under the Endangered Species Act. The law prohibits activity that would “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” an endangered species.  Currently, the agencies interpret “harm” under that law to include damage to a species’s habitat — which is what the Trump administration is trying to change.  It said that it is specifically targeting the part of the definition that “includes habitat modification,” saying it “runs contrary” to the best interpretation of the Endangered Species Act.  In practice, the Trump administration’s move could loosen restrictions for industrial activities that could damage the habitat of an endangered animal — if the action may not directly hurt the animal itself. Environmental advocates said the rule would ultimately allow for more harm to come to endangered species.  “There’s just no way to protect animals and plants from extinction without protecting the places they live, yet the Trump administration is opening the flood gates to immeasurable habitat destruction,” said Noah Greenwald, codirector of endangered species at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a written statement.  “Without a prohibition on habitat destruction, spotted owls, sea turtles, salmon and so many more imperiled animals won’t stand a chance,” he added.  Greenwald also told The Hill that his group would “for sure” challenge the Trump administration’s effort in court. 

Animals
Extinction

RFK Jr. Blames ‘Environmental Toxins’ For Autism Rates, Dismisses Better Awareness, Screening

“Genetic markers alone are not going to dictate your destiny. You need an environmental toxin,” the health secretary said, vowing to identify autism’s cause.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dismissed increased screening and understanding of autism for the rising rate of autism diagnoses in the U.S., instead directly blaming “environmental toxins” for the increase.“This is a preventable disease. We know that it’s an environmental exposure. It has to be. Genes do not cause epidemics,” he told reporters Wednesday while promoting a federal study he’s ordered into the condition, which he has said will determine autism’s cause by September.“We have to recognize, we are doing this to our children and we need to put an end to it,” he said.Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a news conference on the CDC’s autism report in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, April 16, 2025.Kennedy’s message follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention releasing a report on Tuesday that found that about one in every 31 children was diagnosed with autism by age 8 in 2022, up from one in 36 in 2020.Researchers have been studying autism spectrum disorder (ASD) for decades and have not determined a cause. The CDC’s study cited a range of different potential reasons for the rise in diagnosis, however, including disparities in access to early autism therapies, families’ differing socioeconomic statuses, and higher rates of intellectual disability among preterm births. The study also noted that autism evaluations and identifications among children dropped at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. These evaluations and identifications resumed to their prior levels by early 2022.There’s no evidence that “living in certain communities puts children at greater risk for developing ASD,” the study concluded. “Differences in the prevalence of children identified with ASD across communities might be due to differences in availability of services for early detection and evaluation and diagnostic practices.”Kennedy, however, called it a “canard” to blame the increase on “better diagnosis, better recognition or changing diagnostic criteria,” as other medical experts have done.Doctors in the past, when autism diagnoses were significantly lower than they are today, “weren’t stupid. They weren’t missing all these cases,” he said.He also dismissed researchers pointing to genetics as possibly playing a major role. The National Institutes of Health states on its website that “more than 100 genes on different chromosomes may be involved in causing ASD, to different degrees.”“This is coming from an environmental toxin and somebody made a profit by putting that environmental toxin in our air, our water, our medicines, our food.”“Genetic markers alone are not going to dictate your destiny. You need an environmental toxin,” Kennedy said of the link between genetic mutations and autism.“This is coming from an environmental toxin, and somebody made a profit by putting that environmental toxin in our air, our water, our medicines, our food. And it’s to their benefit to say, to normalize it, to say all this is all normal, it’s always been here,” he insisted.Kennedy said that within two to three weeks, his department would announce a series of new studies to “identify precisely what environmental toxins are causing it.”He said researchers will examine everything from food additives, mold, water, medicines and ultrasounds.Dr. Walter M. Zahorodny, an associate professor at Rutgers who has overseen public monitoring of autism in New Jersey and was part of the CDC’s study, also spoke alongside Kennedy and said that “there’s better recognition of autism and better awareness because there are more children with autism.”We Don't Work For Billionaires. We Work For You.Big money interests are running the government — and influencing the news you read. While other outlets are retreating behind paywalls and bending the knee to political pressure, HuffPost is proud to be unbought and unfiltered. Will you help us keep it that way? You can even access our stories ad-free.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.You've supported HuffPost before, and we'll be honest — we could use your help again. We won't back down from our mission of providing free, fair news during this critical moment. But we can't do it without you.For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless journalism. We hope you'll join us.Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.“Autism went from being a very unusual, rare disability, which affected, as the secretary said, one child in maybe 10,000, to being known in every community, every school district,” he said.Zahorodny urged “a correct perception” of the condition, saying it’s something extremely serious, “that we don’t understand, and it must be triggered or caused by environmental or risk factors.”

Health
Food
Water

RFK Jr. Is Using a New Study on Autism Rates to Push His Anti-Vaccine Agenda

In a press conference Wednesday morning that surely delighted his allies in the anti-vaccine movement, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. responded to a report about apparent rising autism rates with a vow to look at “environmental factors” as a possible cause. While Kennedy didn’t explicitly discuss vaccines, his remarks made it […]

In a press conference Wednesday morning that surely delighted his allies in the anti-vaccine movement, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. responded to a report about apparent rising autism rates with a vow to look at “environmental factors” as a possible cause. While Kennedy didn’t explicitly discuss vaccines, his remarks made it clear, again, that he’ll likely use the power and money of the federal government to prop up the long-debunked claim that vaccines cause autism. He also repeatedly made crude and stigmatizing references to people with profound autism (which he calls “severe” autism,” an outdated term) painting a picture of such people as a burden on society and to their families.  “These are kids who will never pay taxes,” Kennedy declared. “They’ll never hold a job. They’ll never play baseball. They’ll never write a poem. They’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted. We have to recognize we are doing this to our children.”  “The epidemic,” Kennedy said at another point, “is real.” Autism, he added, “destroys families and more importantly it destroys our greatest resource, our children.” Many children, he claimed, were “fully functional” and “regressed.”  RFK Jr. called today’s press conference to discuss new findings published this week in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which found an increase in apparent autism rates, from 1 in 36 children to 1 in 31. The report, based on 2022 data, found that the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder was higher in 8-year-old children than in previous years, and higher in Black, Hispanic and Asian Pacific Islander children than in white children. Kennedy made it clear that he believes “environmental factors” are driving the increase in the condition, not genetics. In his previous role as chairman of Children’s Health Defense, Kennedy repeatedly claimed that vaccines cause autism, which they do not, and accused the CDC of lying to “minimize the crisis.” (Among other things, a massive study of 10 million children published in Denmark in 2019 showed no link between the MMR vaccine and autism.) From the podium on Wednesday, Kennedy declared that “overall, autism is increasing in prevalence at an alarming rate” and called it “shocking” and “relentless.” He added, again, and without apparent basis, that “most causes are now severe” and insisted that 25 percent of boys diagnosed with autism “are non-verbal, non toilet-trained and have other stereotypical features” including “stimming and toe-walking,” traits he has brought up frequently in past remarks and cast in a negative light. (Stimming can be a self-soothing behavior, but autistic adults have reported trying to mask it to reduce stigma from others.) “Obviously there are people who don’t want us to look at environmental exposures,” he proclaimed. He said that the newly created Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), which part of HHS, would be responsible for overseeing autism rates. The AHA merged several previously independent offices; HHS has also faced deep cuts and layoffs throughout the agency. Kennedy said future autism studies may look at medication, mold, food addivities, air and water pollution and advanced parental age as other possible factors. There’s long been a scientific debate about how much of the rise in apparent autism rates is due to better diagnosis and detection, with most serious researchers agreeing that better screening plays a major role. Kennedy rejected the idea that autism increases are the result of enhanced diagnostic criteria or better detection. He also trotted out a new phrase, “epidemic denial,” that he clearly plans to use against scientists and media outlets who disagree with his framing of autism rates or their potential causes. At several points, he called people who question or contextualize increased autism rates “deniers” and said they are engaging in “the myth of epidemic denial.”  (Kennedy himself has dabbled in AIDS denialism.)  At the conference, Kennedy also briefly ceded the podium to Rutgers autism researcher Walter Zahorodny, who, among other things, also declared that autism is “real” and “not a quirky personality” trait, and concurred with Kennedy that the CDC report did not simply show better detection but a true increase in autism rates. It “strongly suggests that not only is this a high point in autism prevalence, but in the future rates can only be higher” he added. The Autistic Self-Advocacy Network said in a press release that the new data is “explained by better access to screening and improved understanding of autism.” The group added that more work needs to be done to address the economic and racial disparities that affect which kids receive early, accurate autism diagnoses; for instance, a higher income was related to “a higher diagnosis rate for Black, Hispanic, and Asian and Pacific Islander children.” ”We will continue to advocate to address diagnostic disparities, improve access to diagnosis and support, and protect the programs and services that make this possible,” ASN added.  Responding to Kennedy’s characterizations of autistic people, Alycia Halladay, the chief science officer at the Autism Science Foundation, told Mother Jones that Kennedy “failed to recognize the diverse spectrum of autism.” Of the apparent increase in autism rates, she said, “All of the scientific evidence points to access to services as being a driving force,” adding, “Also, about 20% of autism is caused by a known genetic variant, and there is no evidence that 85% of the increase in prevalence is due to environmental ‘toxins.'” Kennedy has previously vowed to find the cause of rising autism rates by September, which is not how science works. At the conference today, he seemed to slightly walk back that pledge, saying he expected to see “some answers” by September and vowing to “remove the taboo” so that scientists could freely study this issue, which he implied they could not do previously without being “gaslit” or having their licenses taken away.  To add to the concern that any RFK-led studies won’t be serious ones, the Washington Post reported in March that HHS hired David Geier to study vaccine-autism data. Geier is a longtime anti-vaccine figure who, with his father, former physician Mark Geier, purported to study autism and often acted as expert witnesses in cases of alleged vaccine injury. David Geier was disciplined by the Maryland Board of Physicians in 2012 for practicing medicine without a license, while his father’s license was revoked. Neither David Geier nor HHS have responded to repeated requests for comment from Mother Jones. Kennedy promised on Wednesday that HHS’ autism studies would be “thorough and comprehensive.”

Health
Crisis
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.