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.

Amazon says its plastic packaging can be recycled. An investigation finds it usually isn’t.

News Feed
Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Feeling guilty about all those blue-and-white plastic Amazon bags piling up around the house? Fear not — they can be recycled! At least, that’s what the packaging says. For years now, Amazon’s plastic bags, bubble-lined mailers, and air pillows have featured the ubiquitous “chasing arrows” recycling symbol along with the words “store drop-off.” The idea is simple: Since most curbside recycling programs don’t accept this type of plastic — it’s too expensive to process and can clog machines — consumers can instead leave it at retail stores across the country. From there, this plastic, known as “film,” will go to a specialized facility and be turned into new products. The problem, however, is that the system doesn’t seem to be working. An investigation published Tuesday by the nonprofits Environment America and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or U.S. PIRG, suggests that only a small fraction of Amazon’s plastic packaging makes it to a material recovery facility, the term for operations that sort glass, metal, plastic, and other items for recycling. The packaging is much more likely to end up in a landfill, incinerator, export terminal, or in the hands of a company that downcycles plastic film into things like benches. The report adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that store drop-off programs are an ineffective solution to the escalating plastic pollution crisis. According to environmental groups, these programs help justify the ongoing production of single-use plastic, helping manufacturers and retailers evade accountability while alleviating consumer guilt. “The store drop-off system is really not working, and plastic film is not recyclable,” said Jenn Engstrom, state director of U.S. PIRG’s California chapter and a co-author of the report. To find out what happens to Amazon’s plastic packaging, U.S. PIRG and Environment America attached small tracking devices — mostly Apple AirTags — to 93 bundles of Amazon plastic packaging marked for store drop-off and deposited them at retailers in 10 states. These stores, which were listed in an online directory, included mostly supermarkets like Safeway, Sprouts, Publix, Fred Meyer, QFC, and Whole Foods, although some bundles were placed at outlets like Kohl’s or Home Depot. A drop-off receptacle for plastic bags at a grocery store in Palo Alto, California. Paul Saukma / AP Photo The report authors were able to determine the fate of about half the bundles, since, as expected, many of the trackers likely died before reaching a final destination. Of those that survived, 13 went to a landfill, two went to a waste incinerator, and three went to the Port of Los Angeles, suggesting that the bundles were destined for processing or disposal overseas. Only four trackers eventually made their way to a material recovery facility that sorts plastics for recycling. U.S. PIRG and Environment America said they were able to contact three of those facilities: Two specifically said they do not accept Amazon packaging, and the third said it accepts only paper and cardboard. Two dozen trackers ended up in the hands of Trex, a company that makes benches and decking out of discarded plastic. But U.S. PIRG and Environment America question whether Trex is using Amazon packaging in its products; the contents of store drop-off bins are often littered with food and beverages, likely rendering this plastic too contaminated to use in manufacturing. Trex did not respond to Grist’s request for comment, but a similar company reports getting 70 to 80 percent of its plastic from “back-of-the-house shrink wrap,” referring to the material wrapped around shipping pallets, which tends to be cleaner than postconsumer plastic. Meanwhile, a Trex executive told Bloomberg News last year that there is not enough demand for recycled material to make store drop-off successful.  “All the claims the companies are making are just greenwashing,” he told Bloomberg. “Recycling’s failed.” While USPIRG and Environment America’s investigation may be the largest of its kind, it isn’t the first to find flaws in the store drop-off system. Last year, Bloomberg tracked 30 bundles of packaging and wrappers marked with the store drop-off icon and found that 13 of them — more than 40 percent — ended up at U.S. landfills. Just four made it to locations that can recycle plastic. A similar effort from ABC News found that about half of 46 bundles of plastic bags went to landfills and incinerators, while only four went to facilities “that say they are involved with recycling plastic bags.” In 2023, Dell dropped off Amazon plastic packaging (left) at an Albertsons in San Clemente, California. It turned up months later at a warehouse dump pile in Malaysia (right). Photos courtesy of The Last Beach Cleanup. Jan Dell, an independent chemical engineer and founder of the environmental nonprofit The Least Beach Cleanup, has been deploying her own trackers too. Since December 2022, she hasn’t traced a single bundle of film labeled for store drop-off to U.S. facilities that can turn the material into new bags. Twelve bundles have been sent to a landfill or waste station, and one to an incinerator. Four appeared to have traveled to Mexico, Vietnam, or Malaysia, countries that generally lack adequate recycling infrastructure.  “They’re absolutely lying with these labels,” Dell said. The store drop-off system has “never worked, it was never true.”  The labels in question are produced by an initiative called How2Recycle, which began selling them to big companies in 2012 — supposedly to clear up confusion among consumers and retailers about which products could be recycled. The initiative issues several versions of the recycling icon, with the one marked “store drop-off” reserved for products, like plastic bags and film, that aren’t accepted in curbside recycling programs. The store drop-off labels direct consumers to How2Recycle’s website, which links to a directory of retail locations with ]collection receptacles. Until last year, that directory was found at BagandFilmDirectory.org and featured more than 18,000 locations — but the consulting firm managing it shut it down following ABC News’ investigation, citing a lack of “real commitment from the industry,” as well as insufficient funding. Many of the locations listed did not actually have a receptacle, while the Target and Walmart locations appeared to be disposing of, rather than recycling, much of the film they received. “There’s more of an illusion of stuff getting recycled than there actually is because there is an imbalance in supply and demand,” Nina Butler, CEO of the consulting firm, told ABC News. How2Recycle now links customers to a different directory hosted at Earth911. How2Recycle did not respond to Grist’s request for comment. As scrutiny has increased over the use of the store drop-off label, some companies have pledged to stop using it altogether. Mondelez, which owns brands including Oreo and Ritz, said in March 2023, that it plans to phase out the label by 2025. Dell said she’s also noticed the label’s disappearance from packaging sold by Target and Georgia Pacific, a company that sells toilet paper, paper towels, and other pulp products. Target and Georgia Pacific did not respond to Grist’s request for comment. Read Next Inside the industry push to label your yogurt cup ‘recyclable’ Joseph Winters Amazon, for its part, did not respond to Grist’s questions about its use of the store drop-off label. When Dell asked the company, during a Zoom meeting in 2020 that she shared with Grist, to provide evidence that the its packaging is widely recycled through the store drop-off program — as required by California law — an Amazon spokesperson told the state recycling commission that the company has “really high confidence that store drop-off is a solution that is available in California.” Pat Lindner, Amazon’s vice president of mechatronics and sustainable packaging, told Grist that the company has no control over how its packaging is handled “once it has been disposed of by municipalities or recycling centers.” A spokesperson said the company is investing in better recycling infrastructure while also reducing plastics use overall. As of last year, for example, Amazon has eliminated plastic from shipments delivered in Europe, likely in response to EU regulations banning several categories of single-use plastic. The company also eliminated plastic packaging in India after Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to ban single-use plastic nationwide by 2022. In the U.S. last year, Amazon launched an automated fulfillment center in Euclid, Ohio, that uses paper exclusively instead of plastic packaging, and the company said it’s ramping up a program to ship items in their original packages instead of extra plastic ones. The company also said in a 2022 sustainability report that it was “phasing out padded bags containing plastics in favor of recyclable alternatives,” but the spokesperson did not address Grist’s request to clarify the timeline for this transition. Environmental advocates agree that Amazon has made progress, but say it should be doing more to reduce the hundreds of millions of pounds of single-use plastic trash it generates every year — and that it should remove the How2Recycle symbol from its packaging. In California, where state legislation often sets a national standard, a truth-in-advertising law signed by the governor in 2021 may soon restrict the use of store drop-off labels unless companies can prove that the system is effective. A separate law will require single-use plastic packaging sold in the state to be demonstrably recycled at least 65 percent of the time by 2032, a threshold that may push manufacturers toward paper, which is far easier to recycle. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Amazon says its plastic packaging can be recycled. An investigation finds it usually isn’t. on Mar 20, 2024.

Trackers placed in 93 bundles of Amazon packaging marked for "store drop-off" recycling showed many of them were buried or burned.

Feeling guilty about all those blue-and-white plastic Amazon bags piling up around the house? Fear not — they can be recycled! At least, that’s what the packaging says.

For years now, Amazon’s plastic bags, bubble-lined mailers, and air pillows have featured the ubiquitous “chasing arrows” recycling symbol along with the words “store drop-off.” The idea is simple: Since most curbside recycling programs don’t accept this type of plastic — it’s too expensive to process and can clog machines — consumers can instead leave it at retail stores across the country. From there, this plastic, known as “film,” will go to a specialized facility and be turned into new products.

The problem, however, is that the system doesn’t seem to be working.

An investigation published Tuesday by the nonprofits Environment America and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or U.S. PIRG, suggests that only a small fraction of Amazon’s plastic packaging makes it to a material recovery facility, the term for operations that sort glass, metal, plastic, and other items for recycling. The packaging is much more likely to end up in a landfill, incinerator, export terminal, or in the hands of a company that downcycles plastic film into things like benches.

The report adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that store drop-off programs are an ineffective solution to the escalating plastic pollution crisis. According to environmental groups, these programs help justify the ongoing production of single-use plastic, helping manufacturers and retailers evade accountability while alleviating consumer guilt.

“The store drop-off system is really not working, and plastic film is not recyclable,” said Jenn Engstrom, state director of U.S. PIRG’s California chapter and a co-author of the report.

To find out what happens to Amazon’s plastic packaging, U.S. PIRG and Environment America attached small tracking devices — mostly Apple AirTags — to 93 bundles of Amazon plastic packaging marked for store drop-off and deposited them at retailers in 10 states. These stores, which were listed in an online directory, included mostly supermarkets like Safeway, Sprouts, Publix, Fred Meyer, QFC, and Whole Foods, although some bundles were placed at outlets like Kohl’s or Home Depot.

Hand placing plastic bag into a drop-off receptacle
A drop-off receptacle for plastic bags at a grocery store in Palo Alto, California. Paul Saukma / AP Photo

The report authors were able to determine the fate of about half the bundles, since, as expected, many of the trackers likely died before reaching a final destination. Of those that survived, 13 went to a landfill, two went to a waste incinerator, and three went to the Port of Los Angeles, suggesting that the bundles were destined for processing or disposal overseas.

Only four trackers eventually made their way to a material recovery facility that sorts plastics for recycling. U.S. PIRG and Environment America said they were able to contact three of those facilities: Two specifically said they do not accept Amazon packaging, and the third said it accepts only paper and cardboard.

Two dozen trackers ended up in the hands of Trex, a company that makes benches and decking out of discarded plastic. But U.S. PIRG and Environment America question whether Trex is using Amazon packaging in its products; the contents of store drop-off bins are often littered with food and beverages, likely rendering this plastic too contaminated to use in manufacturing.

Trex did not respond to Grist’s request for comment, but a similar company reports getting 70 to 80 percent of its plastic from “back-of-the-house shrink wrap,” referring to the material wrapped around shipping pallets, which tends to be cleaner than postconsumer plastic. Meanwhile, a Trex executive told Bloomberg News last year that there is not enough demand for recycled material to make store drop-off successful. 

“All the claims the companies are making are just greenwashing,” he told Bloomberg. “Recycling’s failed.”

While USPIRG and Environment America’s investigation may be the largest of its kind, it isn’t the first to find flaws in the store drop-off system. Last year, Bloomberg tracked 30 bundles of packaging and wrappers marked with the store drop-off icon and found that 13 of them — more than 40 percent — ended up at U.S. landfills. Just four made it to locations that can recycle plastic. A similar effort from ABC News found that about half of 46 bundles of plastic bags went to landfills and incinerators, while only four went to facilities “that say they are involved with recycling plastic bags.”

Jan Dell, an independent chemical engineer and founder of the environmental nonprofit The Least Beach Cleanup, has been deploying her own trackers too. Since December 2022, she hasn’t traced a single bundle of film labeled for store drop-off to U.S. facilities that can turn the material into new bags. Twelve bundles have been sent to a landfill or waste station, and one to an incinerator. Four appeared to have traveled to Mexico, Vietnam, or Malaysia, countries that generally lack adequate recycling infrastructure. 

“They’re absolutely lying with these labels,” Dell said. The store drop-off system has “never worked, it was never true.” 

The labels in question are produced by an initiative called How2Recycle, which began selling them to big companies in 2012 — supposedly to clear up confusion among consumers and retailers about which products could be recycled. The initiative issues several versions of the recycling icon, with the one marked “store drop-off” reserved for products, like plastic bags and film, that aren’t accepted in curbside recycling programs.

The store drop-off labels direct consumers to How2Recycle’s website, which links to a directory of retail locations with ]collection receptacles. Until last year, that directory was found at BagandFilmDirectory.org and featured more than 18,000 locations — but the consulting firm managing it shut it down following ABC News’ investigation, citing a lack of “real commitment from the industry,” as well as insufficient funding. Many of the locations listed did not actually have a receptacle, while the Target and Walmart locations appeared to be disposing of, rather than recycling, much of the film they received.

“There’s more of an illusion of stuff getting recycled than there actually is because there is an imbalance in supply and demand,” Nina Butler, CEO of the consulting firm, told ABC News. How2Recycle now links customers to a different directory hosted at Earth911. How2Recycle did not respond to Grist’s request for comment.

As scrutiny has increased over the use of the store drop-off label, some companies have pledged to stop using it altogether. Mondelez, which owns brands including Oreo and Ritz, said in March 2023, that it plans to phase out the label by 2025. Dell said she’s also noticed the label’s disappearance from packaging sold by Target and Georgia Pacific, a company that sells toilet paper, paper towels, and other pulp products. Target and Georgia Pacific did not respond to Grist’s request for comment.

Amazon, for its part, did not respond to Grist’s questions about its use of the store drop-off label. When Dell asked the company, during a Zoom meeting in 2020 that she shared with Grist, to provide evidence that the its packaging is widely recycled through the store drop-off program — as required by California law — an Amazon spokesperson told the state recycling commission that the company has “really high confidence that store drop-off is a solution that is available in California.”

Pat Lindner, Amazon’s vice president of mechatronics and sustainable packaging, told Grist that the company has no control over how its packaging is handled “once it has been disposed of by municipalities or recycling centers.” A spokesperson said the company is investing in better recycling infrastructure while also reducing plastics use overall. As of last year, for example, Amazon has eliminated plastic from shipments delivered in Europe, likely in response to EU regulations banning several categories of single-use plastic. The company also eliminated plastic packaging in India after Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to ban single-use plastic nationwide by 2022.

In the U.S. last year, Amazon launched an automated fulfillment center in Euclid, Ohio, that uses paper exclusively instead of plastic packaging, and the company said it’s ramping up a program to ship items in their original packages instead of extra plastic ones. The company also said in a 2022 sustainability report that it was “phasing out padded bags containing plastics in favor of recyclable alternatives,” but the spokesperson did not address Grist’s request to clarify the timeline for this transition.

Environmental advocates agree that Amazon has made progress, but say it should be doing more to reduce the hundreds of millions of pounds of single-use plastic trash it generates every year — and that it should remove the How2Recycle symbol from its packaging. In California, where state legislation often sets a national standard, a truth-in-advertising law signed by the governor in 2021 may soon restrict the use of store drop-off labels unless companies can prove that the system is effective. A separate law will require single-use plastic packaging sold in the state to be demonstrably recycled at least 65 percent of the time by 2032, a threshold that may push manufacturers toward paper, which is far easier to recycle.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Amazon says its plastic packaging can be recycled. An investigation finds it usually isn’t. on Mar 20, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Study Finds Cancer-Linked Chemicals in Some Firefighter Gear

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Dec. 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Some protective gear worn by firefighters may contain chemicals linked to...

FRIDAY, Dec. 19, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Some protective gear worn by firefighters may contain chemicals linked to serious health risks, according to a new study.The research — published Dec. 16 in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters — found that certain firefighter turnout gear contains brominated flame retardants, or chemicals added to materials to slow flames, but also tied to cancer and hormone problems.This is one of the first in-depth studies to closely examine whether these chemicals are present in firefighter gear and how much could be released during use.Firefighters wear turnout gear made of three layers: An outer shell that resists flames, a middle moisture barrier that blocks germs and an inner lining that helps control body heat. To meet safety rules set by the National Fire Protection Association, manufacturers treat these layers with chemicals to reduce fire risk.For years, firefighters have raised concerns about PFAS, a group of chemicals once commonly used in turnout gear to repel water and oil. PFAS exposure has been linked to cancer and other health problems.Although PFAS-treated gear has not been directly tied to illness in firefighters, many states have passed laws banning the purchase of PFAS-treated gear starting in 2027. As a result, manufacturers have begun phasing those chemicals out.That raised a new question: What chemicals are being used instead?"There was a rumor that one of the turnout gear manufacturers might be using brominated flame retardants in the non-PFAS treated textiles," study leader Heather Stapleton, a professor at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment in Durham, N.C., said in a news release."Because some brominated flame retardants have known toxicity, I requested a sample of the gear in question to test," she added.Stapleton and her colleagues tested 12 sets of turnout gear, nine made between 2013 and 2020, and three made in 2024 that were marketed as PFAS-free.They tested each layer of the gear to see:PFAS showed up in all older gear, but 2024 gear had little to no extractable PFAS, supporting claims that newer gear avoids those chemicals.However, every single set of gear tested contained brominated flame retardants, and in many cases, levels were higher than PFAS.The highest levels of brominated flame retardants were found in gear labeled as non-PFAS, especially in the moisture barrier layer.This suggests that manufacturers may be intentionally adding brominated flame retardants to replace PFAS and still meet fire safety standards.One chemical, decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE), appeared most often. While it hasn’t been studied much in the U.S., a 2019 study in China linked DBDPE exposure to thyroid problems in manufacturing workers."I was really surprised that the manufacturers used DBDPE in turnout gear," Stapleton said. "It has similar properties as a toxic chemical called decaBDE that has been largely phased out globally, raising questions about its safety."In older gear, the outer shell had the highest chemical levels, most likely from smoke and soot during fires."When building materials burn, they can release brominated flame retardants into the air that stick to gear and don't wash out very well," Stapleton explained.But the presence of these chemicals inside the gear shows that manufacturing choices, and not just fire exposure, play a role.Researchers said they don’t know just yet how much of these chemicals firefighters absorb or what the long-term health effects may be.But the findings matter because turnout gear is expensive and often used for many years."Fire departments must consider both the financial and personal safety costs of keeping or replacing gear," said study co-author R. Bryan Ormond, an associate professor at N.C. State University’s Wilson College of Textiles in Raleigh, N.C.Stapleton said some companies now offer gear made without PFAS or brominated flame retardants, and she urged departments to demand more transparency in the equipment they use."We know firefighters receive higher exposure to multiple chemicals from all the hazards they face during their duty, and they shouldn't have to worry about receiving additional chemical exposures from their gear," Stapleton said.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has more on PFAS.SOURCE: Duke University, news release, Dec. 18, 2025 Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

New research affirms sustainable design principles can lead to safer chemical alternatives

A new commentary published in Nature Sustainability reflects on the results of a new study identifying a potentially less toxic bisphenol chemical as an example of the Safe and Sustainable by Design framework for creating a generation of safer chemical alternatives. In short: The Safe and Sustainable by Design framework, introduced by the European Commission in 2022, lays out principles for the redesign and assessment of industrial chemicals based on four considerations: hazard, worker’s exposure during production, exposure from use, and full life-cycle impacts. Using this framework, researchers identified a bisphenol chemical that does not have estrogenic properties, unlike toxic BPA. This new bisphenol also shows potential for high technical performance and is created from renewable materials. Key quote: “Importantly, this work signals a growing interest among chemists… to find safe substitutes for endocrine-disrupting commercial chemicals to enhance the welfare of the ecosphere and the sustainability of our civilization.” Why this matters: Existing bisphenol chemicals — including BPA and its common substitutes BPS and BPF — have well-established negative health consequences, particularly to metabolism and reproduction. While some countries have limited the use of BPA, the use of other estrogenic bisphenols has continued to increase, undermining regulations’ protective potential. This commentary emphasizes how critical it is that health and environmental impacts be prioritized as key considerations in the creation of new chemicals alongside economic potential and technical performance. Related EHN coverage: Op-ed: Building a safe and sustainable chemical enterpriseFDA’s current BPA safety standards are outdated, misguided and flawed, scientists sayMore resources: European Commission: Safe and Sustainable by Design frameworkTiered Protocol for Endocrine Disruption (TiPED), a tool used by the authors of this commentary to facilitate the early identification of potentially endocrine disrupting chemicals. Collins, Terrence et al. for Nature Sustainability. Dec. 4, 2025Margarita, Christiana et al. for Nature Sustainability. Dec. 4, 2025

A new commentary published in Nature Sustainability reflects on the results of a new study identifying a potentially less toxic bisphenol chemical as an example of the Safe and Sustainable by Design framework for creating a generation of safer chemical alternatives. In short: The Safe and Sustainable by Design framework, introduced by the European Commission in 2022, lays out principles for the redesign and assessment of industrial chemicals based on four considerations: hazard, worker’s exposure during production, exposure from use, and full life-cycle impacts. Using this framework, researchers identified a bisphenol chemical that does not have estrogenic properties, unlike toxic BPA. This new bisphenol also shows potential for high technical performance and is created from renewable materials. Key quote: “Importantly, this work signals a growing interest among chemists… to find safe substitutes for endocrine-disrupting commercial chemicals to enhance the welfare of the ecosphere and the sustainability of our civilization.” Why this matters: Existing bisphenol chemicals — including BPA and its common substitutes BPS and BPF — have well-established negative health consequences, particularly to metabolism and reproduction. While some countries have limited the use of BPA, the use of other estrogenic bisphenols has continued to increase, undermining regulations’ protective potential. This commentary emphasizes how critical it is that health and environmental impacts be prioritized as key considerations in the creation of new chemicals alongside economic potential and technical performance. Related EHN coverage: Op-ed: Building a safe and sustainable chemical enterpriseFDA’s current BPA safety standards are outdated, misguided and flawed, scientists sayMore resources: European Commission: Safe and Sustainable by Design frameworkTiered Protocol for Endocrine Disruption (TiPED), a tool used by the authors of this commentary to facilitate the early identification of potentially endocrine disrupting chemicals. Collins, Terrence et al. for Nature Sustainability. Dec. 4, 2025Margarita, Christiana et al. for Nature Sustainability. Dec. 4, 2025

Don’t talk – listen. Why communities affected by forever chemicals in water must be heard

When worried communities talk to authorities about forever chemicals, officials often seek to explain and clarify. But this isn’t what people actually want.

97s/Unsplash, CC BY-NC-NDUntil recently, Australia’s efforts to tackle “forever chemical” pollution focused on highly polluted firefighting and defence sites. But last year, elevated levels of some of these chemicals were detected in the untreated water supply for the Blue Mountains in New South Wales. Residents were understandably concerned. Community groups threatened to launch a class action, while residents sought to have their blood tested. NSW Water Minister Rose Jackson moved to reassure residents their “water is safe”, and a Sydney Morning Herald editorial said the state government was blind to the risks. Earlier this year, Australia banned three of these chemicals – PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS. PFOA is considered carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, while PFOS is considered possibly carcinogenic. But the environmental and health effects of forever chemical exposure remain a matter of debate, as the risk depends on concentration. In November, a Senate inquiry made dozens of recommendations to better regulate these chemicals. All too often, authorities respond to legitimate community concerns by pointing to the low level of risk. But as these chemicals build up in drinking water, wastewater and farming soils, this trust-the-experts approach isn’t going to work. Risks and concentration levels Forever chemicals are properly known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). They’re used in products such as carpets, clothes, food packaging and paper, as well as firefighting foams, pesticides and stain repellents. They don’t break down easily, and steadily accumulate in soil, surface water and groundwater. Around 15,000 PFAS chemicals are now ubiquitous in the environment. In highly contaminated sites such as firefighter training facilities or defence bases, the risk is clearer and responses can target specific facilities and geographic locations. But the question of what to do becomes much harder when forever chemicals become widely distributed in drinking water and wastewater systems, generally at levels well below thresholds considered dangerous according to Australian standards. In response to the Blue Mountains issue, Water NSW stopped two dams from supplying water as a precautionary measure. Sydney Water installed a new PFAS water treatment system. Community backlash Australian authorities began responding to PFAS contamination a decade ago. Since then, policymakers have restricted the import and manufacture of certain forever chemicals, banned some uses of PFAS-containing firefighting foams, developed a national plan to manage PFAS chemicals, officially set the levels of PFAS a person could safely consume in a day and developed guidelines for drinking water. Even with such actions, authorities have been subject to sustained public criticism from community groups and the media over the speed, adequacy and level of protections compared to the more restrictive thresholds set by the United States and European Union. At Williamtown in NSW, authorities were aware of the issue for three years before revealing it. Community groups lost faith in official responses, turning to external experts before ultimately launching a class action against the Department of Defence. Some compensation flowed from this based on financial losses. But researchers have found compensation does little to actually address residents’ health and environment concerns. Independent reviews have recommended official responses to PFAS should be more transparent. But little has changed. The same distrust is emerging in the Blue Mountains, while state and federal inquiries have raised questions over how PFAS risks are communicated and falling public trust in government agencies. Better communication misses the point Community backlash against issues such as PFAS contamination can often be framed as non-experts misunderstanding the science. Authorities often think the answer is to communicate better and more clearly to fix the deficit. For instance, the national PFAS policy describes communication as essential: if people affected by PFAS contamination cannot understand what governments are saying, they are more likely to view the information with scepticism or as a deliberate attempt to disguise the facts. The risk here is that focusing on better official communication is still about speaking, rather than listening. The community can become a noisy stakeholder to be managed rather than an active collaborator. But people in these communities are legitimately worried. They want to speak and be heard as equal partners. Is there a better way? PFAS contamination isn’t just a technological or legal issue. It’s also a social issue – it affects communities. When facing a pollution problem, affected communities often organise themselves and advocate for better outcomes. Community groups often commission independent research or conduct citizen science, while collaborating with scientists and engineers. Officials and residents should collectively work through the options and costs associated, as well as discussing what level of risk different communities are willing to accept. Public forums aren’t enough, as these tend to put experts at the centre, answering questions. The launch of the first community-based PFAS working group under the new PFAS National Coordinating Body is a positive initial step. Collaborative efforts like this are not easy. Authorities and community leaders can view each other with suspicion, and the unequal power dynamics play a role. As NSW Information Commissioner Rosalind Croucher recently pointed out, making contamination data easily available to communities helps ensure management is “transparent, evidence-based, and accountable to the communities it affects”. Hard but not impossible Like forever chemicals themselves, the issue of PFAS pollution isn’t going away. Finding better ways of responding will be essential, as the issue can’t be solved by scientists, engineers and policymakers in a top-down approach. Communities who have to drink the water must be given the right to speak – and be heard. Read more: Living with PFAS 'forever chemicals' can be distressing. Not knowing if they're making you sick is just the start Matthew Kearnes receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Australian government under the National Environmental Science Program, through the Sustainable Communities and Waste HubCameron Holley receives funding from an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant, partnering with the NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator. He is a Deputy Director of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response and a board member of the National Environmental Law Association (NELA). Carley Bartlett receives funding from an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant, partnering with the NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator. Her PhD research was supported by an Australian government Research Training Program scholarship.Patrick Bonney receives funding from an Australian Research Council Discovery Project on the governance of emerging contaminants.Denis O'Carroll does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Tunisians Revive Protests in Gabes Over Pollution From State Chemical Plant

By Tarek AmaraTUNIS, Dec 17 (Reuters) - Around 2,500 ‌Tunisians ​marched through the coastal city ‌of Gabes on Wednesday, reviving protests over...

TUNIS, Dec 17 (Reuters) - Around 2,500 ‌Tunisians ​marched through the coastal city ‌of Gabes on Wednesday, reviving protests over pollution from a ​state-owned phosphate complex amid rising anger over perceived failures to protect public health.People chanted ‍mainly "Gabes wants to live", on ​the 15th anniversary of the start of the 2011 pro-democracy uprising that sparked ​the Arab ⁠Spring movement against autocracy.The protest added to the pressure on President Kais Saied’s government, which is grappling with a deep financial crisis and growing street unrest, protests by doctors, journalists, banks and public transport systems. The powerful UGTT union has called ‌for a nationwide strike next month, signalling great tension in the country. The ​recent ‌protests are widely seen ‍as one ⁠of the biggest challenges facing Saied since he began ruling by decree in 2021.Protesters chanted slogans such as "We want to live" and "People want to dismantle polluting units", as they marched toward Chatt Essalam, a coastal suburb north of the city where the Chemical Group’s industrial units are located."The chemical plant is a fully fledged crime... We refuse to ​pass on an environmental disaster to our children, and we are determined to stick to our demand,” said Safouan Kbibieh, a local environmental activist.Residents say toxic emissions from the phosphate complex have led to higher rates of respiratory illnesses, osteoporosis and cancer, while industrial waste continues to be discharged into the sea, damaging marine life and livelihoods.The protests in Gabes were reignited after hundreds of schoolchildren suffered breathing difficulties in recent months, allegedly caused by toxic fumes from a plant converting phosphates into phosphoric ​acid and fertilisers.In October, Saied described the situation in Gabes as an “environmental assassination”, blaming policy choices made by previous governments, and has called for urgent maintenance to prevent toxic leaks.The protesters reject the temporary measures and ​are demanding the permanent closure and relocation of the plant.(Reporting by Tarek Amara, editing by Ed Osmond)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – December 2025

After the L.A. fires, heart attacks and strange blood test results spiked

A new study is the latest of several recent research papers documenting the physical toll of January's fires.

In the first 90 days after the Palisades and Eaton fires erupted in January, the caseload at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s emergency room looked different from the norm.There were 46% more visits for heart attacks than typically occured during the same time period over the previous seven years. Visits for respiratory illnesses increased 24%. And unusual blood test results increased 118%.These findings were reported in a new study published Wednesday in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The study, part of a research project documenting the fires’ long-term health effects, joins several recent papers documenting the disasters’ physical toll.While other U.S. wildfires have consumed more acres or cost more lives, the Palisades and Eaton fires were uniquely dangerous to human health because they burned an unusual mix of materials: the trees, brush and organic material of a typical wildfire, along with a toxic stew of cars, batteries, plastics, electronics and other man-made materials.There’s no precedent for a situation that exposed this many people to this kind of smoke, the paper’s authors said.“Los Angeles has seen wildfires before, it will see wildfires again, but the Eaton fire and the Palisades fire were unique, both in their size, their scale and the sheer volume of material that burned,” said Dr. Joseph Ebinger, a Cedars-Sinai cardiologist and the paper’s first author. The team did not find a significant increase in the overall number of visits to the medical center’s emergency room between Jan. 7, the day the fires began, and April 7. The department recorded fewer in-person visits for mental health emergencies and chronic conditions during that time compared to the same time period in earlier years, said Dr. Susan Cheng, director of public health research at Cedars-Sinai and the study’s senior author.The increase in visits for acute cardiovascular problems and other serious sudden illnesses made up the difference. The study team also looked at results from blood tests drawn from patients visiting the ER for serious physical symptoms without immediate explanation — dizziness without dehydration, for example, or chest pains not caused by heart attacks.Their blood tests returned unusual results at a rate more than double that seen in previous years. These atypical numbers cut across the spectrum of the blood panel, Cheng said. “It could be electrolyte disorder, change in protein levels, change in markers of kidney or liver function.”The rate of unusual test results held steady through the three-month period, leading the team to conclude that exposure to the fires’ smoke “has led to some kind of biochemical metabolic stress in the body that likely affected not just one but many organ systems,” Cheng said. “That’s what led to a range of different types of symptoms affecting different people.”Joan Casey, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Washington who was not part of the Cedars-Sinai team, noted that the study found health effects lasting over a longer period than similar studies have.Three months “is a substantial length of time to observe elevated visits, as most studies focused on acute care utilization following wildfire smoke exposure find increased visit counts over about a weeklong period,” Casey said. Her own research found a 27% increase in outpatient respiratory visits among Kaiser Permanente Southern California members living within 12.4 miles of the burn zones in the week following the fires.“The L.A. fires were such a severe event, including not only smoke, but also evacuation and substantial stress in the population, that effects may have lingered longer,” Casey said.Thirty-one people are known to have died as a direct result of injuries sustained in the fires. But researchers believe that when taking into account deaths from health conditions worsened by the smoke, the true toll is significantly higher.A research letter published earlier this year in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. calculated that there were 440 excess deaths in L.A. County between Jan. 5 and Feb. 1. That paper looked at deaths caused by a variety of factors, from exposure to air pollution to disrupted healthcare as a result of closures and evacuations.On Tuesday, a team from Stanford University published itsprojection that exposure to the fires’ smoke, specifically, led to 14 deaths otherwise unaccounted for.Wildfire is a major source of fine particulate pollution, bits measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter that are small enough to cross the barriers that separate blood from the brain and the lungs’ outer branches.Compared with other sources, wildfire smoke contains a higher proportion of ultrafine particles miniscule enough to penetrate the brain after inhalation, Casey told The Times earlier this year. The smoke has been linked to a range of health problems, including dementia, cancer and cardiovascular failure.In the last decade, increasing numbers of wildfires in Western states have released enough fine particulate pollution to reverse years’ worth of improvements under the Clean Air Act and other antipollution measures.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

CONTACT US

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

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