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.

Are the Microplastics Found in Testicles a Health Danger?

News Feed
Thursday, May 23, 2024

Microplastics are everywhere. These tiny polymers, shed by the 400 million-some metric tons of plastic that humans produce each year, are in the food we eat and the water we drink—and therefore our body. While microplastics’ impacts on human health have not yet been fully established, evidence suggests chemicals in some plastics can disrupt hormone signaling, potentially leading to a wide array of health effects.New research is painting an increasingly concerning picture of how microplastics may be impacting our reproductive health. In a study published last week in Toxicological Sciences, researchers tested 23 human testicles and 47 dog testicles and found microplastics in every sample. They also found that dog testes with higher concentrations of certain microplastics tended to have lower sperm counts. The findings add to previous work that showed that other reproductive organs are also affected—a study published in February found microplastics in all tested samples from the human placenta, the temporary organ that feeds oxygen and nutrients to a developing fetus.“There hasn’t been a body part that people have looked but haven’t found [microplastics] in,” says Tracey Woodruff, an environmental health researcher and director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco. Her research and that of others have found that these plastic fragments can harm human health. “It’s not a stretch to think that we’re just going to find more adverse health effects with microplastics,” she says.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Scientific American spoke with Woodruff about how microplastics impact our reproductive organs and what, if anything, we can do about the problem.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]Did it surprise you to see that researchers found microplastics in human testicles?Yes and no. I mean, they have been found in seminal fluid, the placenta, stool, blood and breast milk.... So it’s kind of surprising but also to be expected given everyplace else that they have been found. Also, it makes sense because chemical companies are producing so much plastic—it’s doubled in production since 2000 and is projected to triple by 2060.How do microplastics get into our body? Is it just through eating and drinking?Drinking, eating and breathing—for example, microplastics are generated from car tires, so they can get in the air, and then people can breathe them.How do they get into the testicles?Well, I think that they’re traveling around the body in your blood. Some of these particles are very, very small. With all of the places in your body that are being supplied by your blood, it’s an opportunity for [microplastics] to diffuse into different tissues.Would we expect to find microplastics in ovaries, too, or are they different somehow?Oh, no, I think we would expect to see them in the ovaries if we measured them.The new study found that dog testes with higher concentrations of certain microplastics had lower sperm counts, but these observations can’t prove a causal link. How might microplastics harm reproductive health?The developmental period—the fetal period through early childhood, when your reproductive systems are developing and growing—is a harmful period for exposure to chemicals, particularly endocrine disruptors [such as microplastics]. In a systematic review of the evidence, which my colleagues and I conducted in 2022, our conclusion was that microplastics are suspected to be a reproductive toxicant [a substance that impacts fertility] and to increase the risk of cancer—especially in the digestive system. That conclusion is based on animal experiments—researchers randomize the animals, expose them to different amounts of microplastics and measure the effects. The effects this new study found on sperm are very similar to the effects we saw in the rat and mice studies that were done earlier. So there’s some cause for concern.How can people limit their exposure to microplastics?Don’t microwave food in plastic. Reduce your use of plastic water bottles and other types of plastic containers. In the new study, the humans had three times more plastic in their testicles than the dogs did. That could be because humans are doing more things that expose them to plastics—for example, drinking out of plastic water bottles. We know dogs aren’t doing that, and maybe the disparity in the amount of microplastic is a reflection of that difference.There have been a lot of studies on chemicals added to plastics called phthalates, which we’re primarily exposed to from contaminated food. These show that if you eat less food prepared outside the home, you can reduce your exposures to phthalates, so I would anticipate that that would be true for microplastics as well.I microwaved plastic at lunch today, so I’m not feeling great about that decision.Then look at the health benefit you can get right away—you won’t do that tomorrow!Also, you can take personal action, for sure, but we can take [collective] actions now to mitigate these health effects. We don’t need more plastic—we have plenty of it in our life. There are currently international treaty negotiations around plastic—so we could decrease plastic production. And the government could start looking into both evaluating the health impacts of microplastics and implementing regulatory strategies to mitigate harmful exposures.What could the U.S. government do to curb plastic use?Microplastics could be evaluated [by the Environmental Protection Agency] under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Vinyl chloride [which is used to make PVC, one of the plastics that the study found in testes], is one of the chemicals EPA is currently evaluating under this act. The EPA could consider exposures to vinyl chloride as a microplastic in its risk evaluation and risk management rules to really lower harmful exposures.It’s an opportunity. We could change the course and become healthier. Regulations are a great driver of innovation. And the thing about plastics is that their source is fossil fuels. We have to reduce fossil fuel use anyway to address climate change—why not also stop companies from turning it into plastic? In the coming years we don’t want to be dealing with the consequences of microplastics, just as we are currently dealing with [the consequences of] climate change.

Evidence shows microplastics can end up in many different organs and may harm reproductive health

Microplastics are everywhere. These tiny polymers, shed by the 400 million-some metric tons of plastic that humans produce each year, are in the food we eat and the water we drink—and therefore our body. While microplastics’ impacts on human health have not yet been fully established, evidence suggests chemicals in some plastics can disrupt hormone signaling, potentially leading to a wide array of health effects.

New research is painting an increasingly concerning picture of how microplastics may be impacting our reproductive health. In a study published last week in Toxicological Sciences, researchers tested 23 human testicles and 47 dog testicles and found microplastics in every sample. They also found that dog testes with higher concentrations of certain microplastics tended to have lower sperm counts. The findings add to previous work that showed that other reproductive organs are also affected—a study published in February found microplastics in all tested samples from the human placenta, the temporary organ that feeds oxygen and nutrients to a developing fetus.

“There hasn’t been a body part that people have looked but haven’t found [microplastics] in,” says Tracey Woodruff, an environmental health researcher and director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco. Her research and that of others have found that these plastic fragments can harm human health. “It’s not a stretch to think that we’re just going to find more adverse health effects with microplastics,” she says.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Scientific American spoke with Woodruff about how microplastics impact our reproductive organs and what, if anything, we can do about the problem.

[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]

Did it surprise you to see that researchers found microplastics in human testicles?

Yes and no. I mean, they have been found in seminal fluid, the placenta, stool, blood and breast milk.... So it’s kind of surprising but also to be expected given everyplace else that they have been found. Also, it makes sense because chemical companies are producing so much plastic—it’s doubled in production since 2000 and is projected to triple by 2060.

How do microplastics get into our body? Is it just through eating and drinking?

Drinking, eating and breathing—for example, microplastics are generated from car tires, so they can get in the air, and then people can breathe them.

How do they get into the testicles?

Well, I think that they’re traveling around the body in your blood. Some of these particles are very, very small. With all of the places in your body that are being supplied by your blood, it’s an opportunity for [microplastics] to diffuse into different tissues.

Would we expect to find microplastics in ovaries, too, or are they different somehow?

Oh, no, I think we would expect to see them in the ovaries if we measured them.

The new study found that dog testes with higher concentrations of certain microplastics had lower sperm counts, but these observations can’t prove a causal link. How might microplastics harm reproductive health?

The developmental period—the fetal period through early childhood, when your reproductive systems are developing and growing—is a harmful period for exposure to chemicals, particularly endocrine disruptors [such as microplastics]. In a systematic review of the evidence, which my colleagues and I conducted in 2022, our conclusion was that microplastics are suspected to be a reproductive toxicant [a substance that impacts fertility] and to increase the risk of cancer—especially in the digestive system. That conclusion is based on animal experiments—researchers randomize the animals, expose them to different amounts of microplastics and measure the effects. The effects this new study found on sperm are very similar to the effects we saw in the rat and mice studies that were done earlier. So there’s some cause for concern.

How can people limit their exposure to microplastics?

Don’t microwave food in plastic. Reduce your use of plastic water bottles and other types of plastic containers. In the new study, the humans had three times more plastic in their testicles than the dogs did. That could be because humans are doing more things that expose them to plastics—for example, drinking out of plastic water bottles. We know dogs aren’t doing that, and maybe the disparity in the amount of microplastic is a reflection of that difference.

There have been a lot of studies on chemicals added to plastics called phthalates, which we’re primarily exposed to from contaminated food. These show that if you eat less food prepared outside the home, you can reduce your exposures to phthalates, so I would anticipate that that would be true for microplastics as well.

I microwaved plastic at lunch today, so I’m not feeling great about that decision.

Then look at the health benefit you can get right away—you won’t do that tomorrow!

Also, you can take personal action, for sure, but we can take [collective] actions now to mitigate these health effects. We don’t need more plastic—we have plenty of it in our life. There are currently international treaty negotiations around plastic—so we could decrease plastic production. And the government could start looking into both evaluating the health impacts of microplastics and implementing regulatory strategies to mitigate harmful exposures.

What could the U.S. government do to curb plastic use?

Microplastics could be evaluated [by the Environmental Protection Agency] under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Vinyl chloride [which is used to make PVC, one of the plastics that the study found in testes], is one of the chemicals EPA is currently evaluating under this act. The EPA could consider exposures to vinyl chloride as a microplastic in its risk evaluation and risk management rules to really lower harmful exposures.

It’s an opportunity. We could change the course and become healthier. Regulations are a great driver of innovation. And the thing about plastics is that their source is fossil fuels. We have to reduce fossil fuel use anyway to address climate change—why not also stop companies from turning it into plastic? In the coming years we don’t want to be dealing with the consequences of microplastics, just as we are currently dealing with [the consequences of] climate change.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Living Near Polluted Missouri Creek as a Child Tied to Later Cancer Risk

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 17, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Folks who grew up near a polluted Missouri creek during the 1940s...

THURSDAY, July 17, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Folks who grew up near a polluted Missouri creek during the 1940s through 1960s may have higher odds for cancer now, new research shows.The study focused on Coldwater Creek in St. Louis County. The area was contaminated with radioactive waste from the U.S. government’s atomic bomb program during World War II.Back then, uranium was processed in St. Louis and nuclear waste was stored near the city’s airport. That waste leaked into Coldwater Creek, which runs through several residential neighborhoods.Researchers found that people who lived within one kilometer (0.62 miles) of the creek as kids had an 85% higher risk of developing certain cancers later in life compared to those who lived more than 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) away.Those cancers include leukemia, thyroid cancer and breast cancer, which are known to be linked to radiation exposure.“The closer the childhood residence got to Coldwater Creek, the risk of cancer went up, and pretty dramatically," lead researcher Marc Weisskopf, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told The Wall Street Journal.For the study, Weisskopf’s team surveyed more than 4,200 adults who lived in the St. Louis area as children between 1958 and 1970.These people had donated their baby teeth years ago for radiation research. The new survey asked about cancer and other health issues.About 1 in 4 participants said they had been diagnosed with cancer. Risk dropped the farther someone lived from the creek as a child.Outside experts who reviewed the findings described them as concerning.“It emphasizes the importance of appreciating that radioactive waste is carcinogenic, particularly to children, and that we have to ensure that we have to clean up any remaining waste that’s out there,” Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiation risk expert at the University of California, San Francisco, told The Journal.In 2024, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began placing warning signs along parts of the creek that still have radioactive waste, The Journal reported.The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reported in 2019 that contamination have raised the risk of leukemia and lung and bone cancer. Later exposures, starting in the 2000s, were linked to a slight increase in lung cancer for those who lived nearby.But the agency said it’s hard to link any one person’s cancer directly to radiation. Genetics, lifestyle and other factors could also play a role.In this study, radiation exposure wasn’t directly measured. Cancer cases were also self-reported, not confirmed by medical records. Weisskopf plans to measure radiation levels using the stored baby teeth in future research.Radiation exposure has long been tied to cancer, but this study is among the first to look at lower, long-term environmental exposure in the U.S., not just high levels from nuclear disasters or bombings."Radiation, when it’s given unnecessarily, only causes risk," Dr. Howard Sandler, chair of radiation oncology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, told The Journal.SOURCE: The Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Disposable Vapes Release Toxic Metals, Lab Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, July 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — People using cheap disposable vape devices are likely inhaling high...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, July 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — People using cheap disposable vape devices are likely inhaling high levels of toxic metals with every puff, a recent study says.After a few hundred puffs, some disposable vapes start releasing levels of toxic metals higher than found in either last-generation refillable e-cigarettes or traditional tobacco smokes, researchers reported in the journal ACS Central Science.These metals can increase a person’s risk of cancer, lung disease and nerve damage, researchers said.“Our study highlights the hidden risk of these new and popular disposable electronic cigarettes — with hazardous levels of neurotoxic lead and carcinogenic nickel and antimony — which stresses the need for urgency in enforcement,” senior researcher Brett Poulin, an assistant professor of environmental toxicology at the University of California-Davis, said in a news release.Earlier studies found that the heating elements of refillable vapes could release metals like chromium and nickel into the vapor people breathe.For this study, researchers analyzed seven disposable devices from three well-known vape brands: ELF Bars, Flum Pebbles and Esco Bar.Before they were even used, some of the devices had surprisingly high levels of lead and antimony, researchers reported. The lead appears to have come from leaded copper alloys used in the devices, which leach into the e-liquid.The team then activated the disposable vapes, creating between 500 and 1,500 puffs for each device, to see whether their heating elements would release more metals.Analysis of the vapor revealed that:Levels of metals like chromium, nickel and antimony increased as the number of puffs increased, while concentrations of zinc, copper and lead were elevated at the start. Most of the tested disposables released higher amounts of metals than older refillable vapes. One disposable released more lead during a day’s use than one would get from nearly 20 packs of tobacco cigarettes. Nickel in three devices and antimony in two devices exceeded cancer risk limits. Four devices had nickel and lead emissions that surpassed health risk thresholds for diseases other than cancer. These results reflect only three of the nearly 100 disposable vape brands now available on store shelves, researchers noted.“Coupling the high element exposures and health risks associated with these devices and their prevalent use among the underage population, there is an urgent need for regulators to investigate this issue further and exercise regulatory enforcement accordingly,” researchers wrote.SOURCES: American Chemical Society, news release, June 20, 2025; ACS Central Science, June 25, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Trying to Quit Smoking? These Expert-Backed Tips Can Help

By David Hill, MD, Chair, Board of Directors, American Lung Association HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — According to...

THURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2022, the majority of the 28.8 million U.S. adults who smoked cigarettes wanted to quit; approximately half had tried to quit, but fewer than 10% were successful.Many folks say quitting smoking was the hardest thing they have ever done. This includes people who have climbed mountains, corporate ladders, tackled childbirth and raised families.Successfully overcoming tobacco addiction is a process, and it takes time. It can’t be done at once. Individuals taught themselves how to smoke, vape or chew tobacco products and practiced for so long that the behavior became as automatic as breathing, eating or sleeping.Quitting, then, is a process of overcoming addiction and learned behaviors. Individuals must learn to manage nicotine addiction, unlearn their automatic behavior of tobacco use, and replace it with healthy new alternatives.Because tobacco dependence is a chronic relapsing condition, Freedom From Smoking® identifies quitting tobacco use and maintaining abstinence as a process in which a person may cycle through multiple periods of relapse and remission before experiencing long-term lifestyle and behavior change.The CDC suggests that it takes eight to 11 attempts before quitting permanently.It’s essential to understand three challenges associated with quitting and create a plan to address each with proven-effective strategies:1. Psychological Link of Nicotine Addiction Over time, using tobacco products becomes an automatic behavior that needs to be unlearned.  After quitting, emotions can overwhelm a person.  Grief can also play an important role in the quitting process.  Create support systems through counseling classes, and among family, friends and co-workers. Mark a calendar for every day you are tobacco-free and reward yourself for days you avoid use. Use positive self-talk when cravings arise, such as “the urge will pass whether I smoke or not” or “smoking is not an option for me.”2. Sociocultural Link of Nicotine AddictionCertain activities and environmental cues can trigger the urge to smoke. As people mature, social factors or cues play a role in continuing use.  People who use tobacco may be reluctant to give up those connections or routines.  Identify your triggers and use replacements such as cinnamon sticks, doodling on a notepad or finding another activity to keep your hands busy. Create change and break routine by using the 3 A’s — AVOID (the situation), ALTER (the situation) or ALTERNATIVE (substitute something else). Keep a quit kit/survival kit with you at all times with items you can use to replace tobacco product use when the urge comes.3. Biological (Physical) Link of Nicotine AddictionAddiction occurs when a substance — like nicotine, alcohol or cocaine — enters the brain and activates the brain’s receptors for that substance, producing pleasure.  When a person quits, the brain’s nicotine receptors activate, creating cravings and withdrawal symptoms.  Over time, the receptors become inactive, and the withdrawal symptoms and urges to use fade away. Use cessation medications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (prescription or over-the-counter) in the proper doses for the full time period recommended by a clinician. Do not stop treatment early. Exercise alternative ways to release dopamine such as physical activity or listening to music.  Use stress management techniques, including deep breathing and relaxation exercises, daily if possible.Nearly 2 in 3 adults who have ever smoked cigarettes have successfully quit, according to the CDC You can, too! To learn more about strategies for countering the challenges associated with the three-link chain of nicotine addiction, visit Quit Smoking & Vaping | American Lung Association.Dr. David Hill is a member of the Lung Association's National Board of Directors and is the immediate past chair of the Northeast Regional Board of the American Lung Association. He serves on the Leadership Board of the American Lung Association in Connecticut and is a former chair of that board. He is a practicing pulmonary and critical care physician with Waterbury Pulmonary Associates and serves as their director of clinical research. He is an assistant clinical professor of medicine at the Yale University School of Medicine, an assistant clinical professor at the Frank Netter School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, and a clinical instructor at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine.Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Lead Exposure Can Harm Kids' Memory, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Even low levels of lead exposure can harm kids' working memory,...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, July 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Even low levels of lead exposure can harm kids' working memory, potentially affecting their education and development, according to a new study.Exposure to lead in the womb or during early childhood appears to increase kids' risk of memory decay, accelerating the rate at which they forget information, researchers reported July 9 in the journal Science Advances.“There may be no more important a trait than the ability to form memories. Memories define who we are and how we learn,” said senior researcher Dr. Robert Wright, chair of environmental medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.“This paper breaks new ground by showing how environmental chemicals can interfere with the rate of memory formation,” Wright said in a news release.For the study, researchers took blood lead measurements from the mothers of 576 children in Mexico during the second and third trimester of pregnancy. Later, the team took samples directly from the kids themselves, at ages 4 to 6.Between 6 and 8 years of age, the kids took a test called the delayed matching-to-sample task, or DMST, to measure their rate of forgetting.In the test, kids had to remember a simple shape for up to 32 seconds after it had been briefly shown to them, and then choose it from three offered options.The test lasted for 15 minutes, with correct responses rewarding the child with tokens that could be exchanged for a toy at the end of the experiment.“Children with higher levels of blood lead forgot the test stimulus faster than those with low blood lead levels,” Wright said.Researchers noted that the Mexican children in the study had higher median blood lead levels than those typically found in U.S. kids 6 to 10 years old – 1.7 Ug/dL versus 0.5 Ug/dL. (Median means half were higher, half were lower.)Children in Mexico are exposed to lead through commonly used lead-glazed ceramics used to cook, store and serve food, researchers said.However, the Mexican kids’ blood lead levels were still lower than the 3.5 Ug/dL level used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to identify kids in the United States with more lead exposure than others, researchers added.“In the U.S., the reduction of environmental exposures to lead, such as lead-based paint in homes, lead pipes, and lead in foods such as spices, is still of continued importance as even low levels of lead can have detrimental effects on children’s cognitive function and development,” researchers wrote in their paper.This study also shows that the DMST test can be used to help test the effect of other environmental hazards on kids’ memory, researchers said.“Children are exposed to many environmental chemicals, and this model provides a validated method to further assess the effect of additional environmental exposures, such as heavy metals, air pollution, or endocrine disruptors, on children’s working memory,” co-lead researcher Katherine Svensson, a postdoctoral fellow in environmental medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said in a news release.SOURCES: Mount Sinai, news release, July 9, 2025; Science Advances, July 9, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Nearly Half of Americans Still Live With High Levels of Air Pollution, Posing Serious Health Risks, Report Finds

The most recent State of the Air report by the American Lung Association found that more than 150 million Americans breathe air with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution

Nearly Half of Americans Still Live With High Levels of Air Pollution, Posing Serious Health Risks, Report Finds The most recent State of the Air report by the American Lung Association found that more than 150 million Americans breathe air with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution Lillian Ali - Staff Contributor April 25, 2025 12:50 p.m. For 25 of the 26 years the American Lung Association has reported State of the Air, Los Angeles—pictured here in smog—has been declared the city with the worst ozone pollution in the United States. David Iliff via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 3.0 Since 2000, the American Lung Association has released an annual State of the Air report analyzing air quality data across the United States. This year’s report, released on Wednesday, found the highest number of people exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution in a decade. According to the findings, 156 million Americans—or 46 percent of the U.S. population—live with levels of particle or ozone pollution that received a failing grade. “Both these types of pollution cause people to die,” Mary Rice, a pulmonologist at Harvard University, tells NPR’s Alejandra Borunda. “They shorten life expectancy and drive increases in asthma rates.” Particle pollution, also called soot pollution, is made up of minuscule solid and liquid particles that hang in the air. They’re often emitted by fuel combustion, like diesel- and gasoline-powered cars or the burning of wood. Ozone pollution occurs when polluting gases are hit by sunlight, leading to a reaction that forms ozone smog. Breathing in ozone can irritate your lungs, causing shortness of breath, coughing or asthma attacks. The 2025 State of the Air report, which analyzed air quality data from 2021 to 2023, found 25 million more people breathing polluted air compared to the 2024 report. The authors link this rise to climate change. “There’s definitely a worsening trend that’s driven largely by climate change,” Katherine Pruitt, the lead author of the report and national senior director for policy at the American Lung Association, tells USA Today’s Ignacio Calderon. “Every year seems to be a bit hotter globally, resulting in more extreme weather events, more droughts, more extreme heat and more wildfires.” Those wildfires produce the sooty particles that contribute to particulate pollution, while extreme heat creates more favorable conditions for ozone formation, producing smog. While climate change is contributing to heavy air pollution, it used to be much worse. Smog has covered cities like Los Angeles since the early 20th century. At one point, these “hellish clouds” of smog were so thick that, in the middle of World War II, residents thought the city was under attack. The Optimist Club of Highland Park, a neighborhood in northeast Los Angleles, wore gas masks at a 1954 banquet to highlight air pollution in the city. Los Angeles Daily News via Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY 4.0 The passage of the Clean Air Act and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 marked a turning point in air quality, empowering the government to regulate pollution and promote public health. Now, six key air pollutants have dropped by about 80 percent since the law’s passage, according to this year’s report. But some researchers see climate change as halting—or even reversing—this improvement. “Since the act passed, the air pollution has gone down overall,” Laura Kate Bender, an assistant vice president at the American Lung Association, tells CBS News’ Kiki Intarasuwan. “The challenge is that over the last few years, we’re starting to see it tick back up again, and that’s because of climate change, in part.” At the same time, federal action against climate change appears to be slowing. On March 12, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced significant rollbacks and re-evaluations, declaring it “the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.” Zeldin argued that his deregulation will drive “a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” Included in Zeldin’s push for deregulation is a re-evaluation of Biden-era air quality standards, including those for particulate pollution and greenhouse gases. The EPA provided a list of 31 regulations it plans to scale back or eliminate, including limits on air pollution, mercury emissions and vehicles. This week, the EPA sent termination notices to nearly 200 employees at the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. “Unfortunately, we see that everything that makes our air quality better is at risk,” Kate Bender tells CBS News, citing the regulation rollbacks and cuts to staff and funding at the EPA. “If we see all those cuts become reality, it’s gonna have a real impact on people’s health by making the air they breathe dirtier.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

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.