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.

Companies Legally Use Poison to Make Your Decaf Coffee

News Feed
Saturday, May 4, 2024

Do you drink decaffeinated coffee? Are you aware that it’s often made by applying a chemical so dangerous it was banned for use in paint stripper five years ago? And are you aware that companies think banning this chemical is really, really unfair?This week the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule prohibiting all but “critical” uses of methylene chloride, a highly toxic liquid that is believed to have killed at least 88 people since 1980—mostly workers refinishing bathtubs or doing other home renovations. Methylene chloride can cause liver damage and is linked to multiple cancers, among other health effects. Amazingly, while the EPA banned its sale for paint stripping in 2019 for this reason, it continues to be used for a lot of other purposes. And one of those is decaffeinating coffee, because the Food and Drug Administration decided in the 1980s that the risk to coffee drinkers was low given how the coffee was processed.The EPA’s ban on noncritical use of methylene chloride is one of many rules the Biden administration has announced or finalized ahead of the Congressional Review Act deadline. (The CRA, essentially, makes it easier for an unfriendly Congress to nix any administrative regulations finalized in the last 60 days of a legislative session.) A lot of the recently announced rules ban or curtail toxic substances that have made their way into everyday life and are poisoning people. The EPA has limited long-lasting chemicals called PFAS in drinking water, requiring water utilities within five years to build treatment systems that remove it. The agency has categorized two types of PFAS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, requiring manufacturers to monitor whether they’ve been released into the environment and, if so, clean them up. It has also—finally—fully banned asbestos. It’s finalized a rule to further restrict fine particulate pollution in the air, which has been linked to heart disease, heart attacks, asthma, low birth weight, Alzheimer’s, and other forms of dementia. It’s in the process of finalizing a rule reducing lead in drinking water, which would require the replacement of lead pipes throughout the nation.Banning poison is good politics. As mentioned in last week’s newsletter, while only 47 percent of respondents in a recent CBS News poll supported reentering the Paris climate agreement, 70 percent said they supported reducing toxic chemicals in drinking water. That’s consistent with other polls showing that a majority of people think the federal government is doing too little to protect “lakes, rivers and streams,” and that an overwhelming majority of people—even 68 percent of Republicans—believe the federal government should play some role in “addressing differences across communities in their health risks from pollution and other environmental problems.”But every single time one of these rules is announced, companies and industry groups respond with the most ridiculous statements. Let’s look at just a few recent examples.“A group of coffee makers against banning methylene chloride,” Boston radio station WBUR reported in early April, “recently wrote the FDA saying, ‘True coffee aficionados in blind tastings’ prefer coffee decaffeinated with the chemical.” Who knows how this study was done—“True coffee aficionados” are not known for preferring decaf, period, hence a recent P.R. push to improve decaf’s image. Nick Florko, a reporter for health news website Stat, told WBUR that the coffee makers’ letter to the FDA was a “pretty funny claim if you consider the fact that we’re talking about coffee here that’s essentially rinsed in paint thinner.” And this says nothing at all about what happens to workers involved in the decaffeination process. (Methylene chloride has previously been shown to poison even trained workers wearing protective gear.)National Coffee Association president William Murray said something even weirder, telling CNN via email that banning methylene chloride “would defy science and harm American[s’] health.” His logic appeared to be that since all coffee consumption, including decaf, shows signs of reducing cancer risk overall, it’s not really a problem to decaffeinate coffee using a known carcinogen. That’s loopy even for industry pushback. For one thing, it’s easy to imagine that coffee could be good in general, and less good if you add poison to it. For another, coffee can also be decaffeinated without methylene chloride, using only water. Now let’s look at PFAS pushback. Knowing the EPA rules were in progress, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in March launched the “Essential Chemistry for America” initiative, with the goal of “protecting ‘forever chemicals’ it deems ‘critical,’” according to E&E News. “We’re increasingly concerned that overly broad regulatory approaches threaten access to modern fluorochemistries, so we’re taking action to ensure their availability,” chamber vice president Marty Durbin said. Given that “access” language is typically used in a social and environmental justice context, restyling the regulation of poisons as threatening “access to modern fluorochemistries” is gutsy, to say the least. The private water industry is meanwhile throwing a fit about being asked to filter out PFAS. The rule will “throw public confidence in drinking water into chaos,” Mike McGill, president of water industry communications firm WaterPIO, told the AP. (You’d think the existence of PFAS in the water is what would tank public confidence, not the requirement that it be removed.) Then there’s the common threat from private water utilities—which, remember, turn a profit off providing a substance people can’t live without—that removing PFAS will increase people’s water bills. Robert Powelson, the head of the National Association of Water Companies, said that the costs of the federal regulation “will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers,” according to The Washington Post. “Water utilities do not create or produce PFAS chemicals,” Powelson added. “Yet water systems and their customers are on the front lines of paying for the cleanup of this contamination.”It’s true enough that water utilities are not the ones creating PFAS chemicals. On the other hand, there are lots of water contaminants that water utilities are responsible for filtering out if they want to keep making money from providing people with drinking water. Is there really any reason PFAS shouldn’t be among them? Saying that the cost of this regulation “will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers” shouldn’t be read as an expression of sympathy for disadvantaged households. The burden will fall on customers because the utilities will make sure of it. It’s a threat, and one that doesn’t mention the federal money from the Inflation Reduction Act that is being made available to help shoulder that burden. Those funds may well fall short, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re paying for-profit entities to transition to removing something they ought to have been filtering out long ago. And even if this federal rule hadn’t been made, companies would probably have to start removing PFAS anyway, because they are facing increasingly expensive lawsuits over not doing so. (The water utilities, in turn, are suing polluters to cover remediation costs—another source of funding.)It’s worth emphasizing what PFAS chemicals actually do to people, particularly in light of the American Water Works Association’s assertion to the AP that the cost of removing the chemicals “can’t be justified for communities with low levels of PFAS.” Researchers are now pretty sure that PFAS exposure increases the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. Studying people in northern Italy who drank PFAS-contaminated water, researchers also saw increased rates of kidney and testicular cancer. The Guardian report on this contained this disturbing finding too: Women with multiple children had lower levels of PFAS only because pregnancy transferred PFAS into their children’s bodies instead.Don’t let that get in the way of a good comms statement from industry groups, though. Remember: Forcing companies even to report their PFAS pollution, or remove PFAS from the water, is unfair.Good News/Bad NewsTwenty-nine-year-old Andrea Vidaurre has won the Goldman Environmental Prize for her work in environmental justice, pushing California to adopt new standards for truck and rail emissions that will curtail the air pollution harming working-class Latino communities in California’s Inland Empire. The United States has sided with petrostates in opposing production controls on plastic at the negotiations in Ottawa for a U.N. treaty to reduce plastic pollution. (Two weeks ago, I wrote about these negotiations, noting that the number of plastics industry lobbyists attending this session was not yet known. Now it is: 196 lobbyists from the fossil fuel and chemical industries registered for this round, according to the Center for International Environmental Law—a 37 percent increase from the number at the last session.)Stat of the Week9.6%That’s the percentage of the 250 most popular fictional films released between 2013 and 2022 in which climate change exists and a character depicted on screen knows it, according to a new “Climate Reality Check” analysis from Colby University and Good Energy. Read Sammy Roth’s newsletter about why climate change in movies is so important here.What I’m ReadingBig Oil privately acknowledged efforts to downplay climate crisis, joint committee investigation findsCongressional Democrats this week released a report confirming what news outlets have previously reported: Companies like Exxon knew about climate change very early on and covered it up. They also found in subpoenaed emails that Exxon tried to discredit reporting of its duplicity, while privately acknowledging that it was true:The new revelations build on 2015 reporting from Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times, which found that Exxon was for decades aware of the dangers of the climate crisis, yet hid that from the public.At the time, Exxon publicly rejected the journalists’ findings outright, calling them “inaccurate and deliberately misleading.” … But in internal communications, Exxon confirmed the validity of the reporting. In a December 2015 email about a potential public response to the investigative reporting, Exxon communications advisor Pamela Kevelson admitted the company did not “dispute much of what these stories report.” … “It’s true that Inside Climate News originally accused us of working against science but ultimately modified their accusation to working against policies meant to stop climate change,” Alan Jeffers, then a spokesperson for Exxon, wrote in a 2016 email to Kevelson. “I’m OK either way, since they were both true at one time or another.”Read Dharna Noor’s report in The Guardian.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

Do you drink decaffeinated coffee? Are you aware that it’s often made by applying a chemical so dangerous it was banned for use in paint stripper five years ago? And are you aware that companies think banning this chemical is really, really unfair?This week the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule prohibiting all but “critical” uses of methylene chloride, a highly toxic liquid that is believed to have killed at least 88 people since 1980—mostly workers refinishing bathtubs or doing other home renovations. Methylene chloride can cause liver damage and is linked to multiple cancers, among other health effects. Amazingly, while the EPA banned its sale for paint stripping in 2019 for this reason, it continues to be used for a lot of other purposes. And one of those is decaffeinating coffee, because the Food and Drug Administration decided in the 1980s that the risk to coffee drinkers was low given how the coffee was processed.The EPA’s ban on noncritical use of methylene chloride is one of many rules the Biden administration has announced or finalized ahead of the Congressional Review Act deadline. (The CRA, essentially, makes it easier for an unfriendly Congress to nix any administrative regulations finalized in the last 60 days of a legislative session.) A lot of the recently announced rules ban or curtail toxic substances that have made their way into everyday life and are poisoning people. The EPA has limited long-lasting chemicals called PFAS in drinking water, requiring water utilities within five years to build treatment systems that remove it. The agency has categorized two types of PFAS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, requiring manufacturers to monitor whether they’ve been released into the environment and, if so, clean them up. It has also—finally—fully banned asbestos. It’s finalized a rule to further restrict fine particulate pollution in the air, which has been linked to heart disease, heart attacks, asthma, low birth weight, Alzheimer’s, and other forms of dementia. It’s in the process of finalizing a rule reducing lead in drinking water, which would require the replacement of lead pipes throughout the nation.Banning poison is good politics. As mentioned in last week’s newsletter, while only 47 percent of respondents in a recent CBS News poll supported reentering the Paris climate agreement, 70 percent said they supported reducing toxic chemicals in drinking water. That’s consistent with other polls showing that a majority of people think the federal government is doing too little to protect “lakes, rivers and streams,” and that an overwhelming majority of people—even 68 percent of Republicans—believe the federal government should play some role in “addressing differences across communities in their health risks from pollution and other environmental problems.”But every single time one of these rules is announced, companies and industry groups respond with the most ridiculous statements. Let’s look at just a few recent examples.“A group of coffee makers against banning methylene chloride,” Boston radio station WBUR reported in early April, “recently wrote the FDA saying, ‘True coffee aficionados in blind tastings’ prefer coffee decaffeinated with the chemical.” Who knows how this study was done—“True coffee aficionados” are not known for preferring decaf, period, hence a recent P.R. push to improve decaf’s image. Nick Florko, a reporter for health news website Stat, told WBUR that the coffee makers’ letter to the FDA was a “pretty funny claim if you consider the fact that we’re talking about coffee here that’s essentially rinsed in paint thinner.” And this says nothing at all about what happens to workers involved in the decaffeination process. (Methylene chloride has previously been shown to poison even trained workers wearing protective gear.)National Coffee Association president William Murray said something even weirder, telling CNN via email that banning methylene chloride “would defy science and harm American[s’] health.” His logic appeared to be that since all coffee consumption, including decaf, shows signs of reducing cancer risk overall, it’s not really a problem to decaffeinate coffee using a known carcinogen. That’s loopy even for industry pushback. For one thing, it’s easy to imagine that coffee could be good in general, and less good if you add poison to it. For another, coffee can also be decaffeinated without methylene chloride, using only water. Now let’s look at PFAS pushback. Knowing the EPA rules were in progress, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in March launched the “Essential Chemistry for America” initiative, with the goal of “protecting ‘forever chemicals’ it deems ‘critical,’” according to E&E News. “We’re increasingly concerned that overly broad regulatory approaches threaten access to modern fluorochemistries, so we’re taking action to ensure their availability,” chamber vice president Marty Durbin said. Given that “access” language is typically used in a social and environmental justice context, restyling the regulation of poisons as threatening “access to modern fluorochemistries” is gutsy, to say the least. The private water industry is meanwhile throwing a fit about being asked to filter out PFAS. The rule will “throw public confidence in drinking water into chaos,” Mike McGill, president of water industry communications firm WaterPIO, told the AP. (You’d think the existence of PFAS in the water is what would tank public confidence, not the requirement that it be removed.) Then there’s the common threat from private water utilities—which, remember, turn a profit off providing a substance people can’t live without—that removing PFAS will increase people’s water bills. Robert Powelson, the head of the National Association of Water Companies, said that the costs of the federal regulation “will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers,” according to The Washington Post. “Water utilities do not create or produce PFAS chemicals,” Powelson added. “Yet water systems and their customers are on the front lines of paying for the cleanup of this contamination.”It’s true enough that water utilities are not the ones creating PFAS chemicals. On the other hand, there are lots of water contaminants that water utilities are responsible for filtering out if they want to keep making money from providing people with drinking water. Is there really any reason PFAS shouldn’t be among them? Saying that the cost of this regulation “will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers” shouldn’t be read as an expression of sympathy for disadvantaged households. The burden will fall on customers because the utilities will make sure of it. It’s a threat, and one that doesn’t mention the federal money from the Inflation Reduction Act that is being made available to help shoulder that burden. Those funds may well fall short, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re paying for-profit entities to transition to removing something they ought to have been filtering out long ago. And even if this federal rule hadn’t been made, companies would probably have to start removing PFAS anyway, because they are facing increasingly expensive lawsuits over not doing so. (The water utilities, in turn, are suing polluters to cover remediation costs—another source of funding.)It’s worth emphasizing what PFAS chemicals actually do to people, particularly in light of the American Water Works Association’s assertion to the AP that the cost of removing the chemicals “can’t be justified for communities with low levels of PFAS.” Researchers are now pretty sure that PFAS exposure increases the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. Studying people in northern Italy who drank PFAS-contaminated water, researchers also saw increased rates of kidney and testicular cancer. The Guardian report on this contained this disturbing finding too: Women with multiple children had lower levels of PFAS only because pregnancy transferred PFAS into their children’s bodies instead.Don’t let that get in the way of a good comms statement from industry groups, though. Remember: Forcing companies even to report their PFAS pollution, or remove PFAS from the water, is unfair.Good News/Bad NewsTwenty-nine-year-old Andrea Vidaurre has won the Goldman Environmental Prize for her work in environmental justice, pushing California to adopt new standards for truck and rail emissions that will curtail the air pollution harming working-class Latino communities in California’s Inland Empire. The United States has sided with petrostates in opposing production controls on plastic at the negotiations in Ottawa for a U.N. treaty to reduce plastic pollution. (Two weeks ago, I wrote about these negotiations, noting that the number of plastics industry lobbyists attending this session was not yet known. Now it is: 196 lobbyists from the fossil fuel and chemical industries registered for this round, according to the Center for International Environmental Law—a 37 percent increase from the number at the last session.)Stat of the Week9.6%That’s the percentage of the 250 most popular fictional films released between 2013 and 2022 in which climate change exists and a character depicted on screen knows it, according to a new “Climate Reality Check” analysis from Colby University and Good Energy. Read Sammy Roth’s newsletter about why climate change in movies is so important here.What I’m ReadingBig Oil privately acknowledged efforts to downplay climate crisis, joint committee investigation findsCongressional Democrats this week released a report confirming what news outlets have previously reported: Companies like Exxon knew about climate change very early on and covered it up. They also found in subpoenaed emails that Exxon tried to discredit reporting of its duplicity, while privately acknowledging that it was true:The new revelations build on 2015 reporting from Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times, which found that Exxon was for decades aware of the dangers of the climate crisis, yet hid that from the public.At the time, Exxon publicly rejected the journalists’ findings outright, calling them “inaccurate and deliberately misleading.” … But in internal communications, Exxon confirmed the validity of the reporting. In a December 2015 email about a potential public response to the investigative reporting, Exxon communications advisor Pamela Kevelson admitted the company did not “dispute much of what these stories report.” … “It’s true that Inside Climate News originally accused us of working against science but ultimately modified their accusation to working against policies meant to stop climate change,” Alan Jeffers, then a spokesperson for Exxon, wrote in a 2016 email to Kevelson. “I’m OK either way, since they were both true at one time or another.”Read Dharna Noor’s report in The Guardian.This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

Do you drink decaffeinated coffee? Are you aware that it’s often made by applying a chemical so dangerous it was banned for use in paint stripper five years ago? And are you aware that companies think banning this chemical is really, really unfair?

This week the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule prohibiting all but “critical” uses of methylene chloride, a highly toxic liquid that is believed to have killed at least 88 people since 1980—mostly workers refinishing bathtubs or doing other home renovations. Methylene chloride can cause liver damage and is linked to multiple cancers, among other health effects. Amazingly, while the EPA banned its sale for paint stripping in 2019 for this reason, it continues to be used for a lot of other purposes. And one of those is decaffeinating coffee, because the Food and Drug Administration decided in the 1980s that the risk to coffee drinkers was low given how the coffee was processed.

The EPA’s ban on noncritical use of methylene chloride is one of many rules the Biden administration has announced or finalized ahead of the Congressional Review Act deadline. (The CRA, essentially, makes it easier for an unfriendly Congress to nix any administrative regulations finalized in the last 60 days of a legislative session.) A lot of the recently announced rules ban or curtail toxic substances that have made their way into everyday life and are poisoning people. The EPA has limited long-lasting chemicals called PFAS in drinking water, requiring water utilities within five years to build treatment systems that remove it. The agency has categorized two types of PFAS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, requiring manufacturers to monitor whether they’ve been released into the environment and, if so, clean them up. It has also—finally—fully banned asbestos. It’s finalized a rule to further restrict fine particulate pollution in the air, which has been linked to heart disease, heart attacks, asthma, low birth weight, Alzheimer’s, and other forms of dementia. It’s in the process of finalizing a rule reducing lead in drinking water, which would require the replacement of lead pipes throughout the nation.

Banning poison is good politics. As mentioned in last week’s newsletter, while only 47 percent of respondents in a recent CBS News poll supported reentering the Paris climate agreement, 70 percent said they supported reducing toxic chemicals in drinking water. That’s consistent with other polls showing that a majority of people think the federal government is doing too little to protect “lakes, rivers and streams,” and that an overwhelming majority of people—even 68 percent of Republicans—believe the federal government should play some role in “addressing differences across communities in their health risks from pollution and other environmental problems.”

But every single time one of these rules is announced, companies and industry groups respond with the most ridiculous statements. Let’s look at just a few recent examples.

“A group of coffee makers against banning methylene chloride,” Boston radio station WBUR reported in early April, “recently wrote the FDA saying, ‘True coffee aficionados in blind tastings’ prefer coffee decaffeinated with the chemical.” Who knows how this study was done—“True coffee aficionados” are not known for preferring decaf, period, hence a recent P.R. push to improve decaf’s image. Nick Florko, a reporter for health news website Stat, told WBUR that the coffee makers’ letter to the FDA was a “pretty funny claim if you consider the fact that we’re talking about coffee here that’s essentially rinsed in paint thinner.” And this says nothing at all about what happens to workers involved in the decaffeination process. (Methylene chloride has previously been shown to poison even trained workers wearing protective gear.)

National Coffee Association president William Murray said something even weirder, telling CNN via email that banning methylene chloride “would defy science and harm American[s’] health.” His logic appeared to be that since all coffee consumption, including decaf, shows signs of reducing cancer risk overall, it’s not really a problem to decaffeinate coffee using a known carcinogen. That’s loopy even for industry pushback. For one thing, it’s easy to imagine that coffee could be good in general, and less good if you add poison to it. For another, coffee can also be decaffeinated without methylene chloride, using only water.

Now let’s look at PFAS pushback. Knowing the EPA rules were in progress, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in March launched the “Essential Chemistry for America” initiative, with the goal of “protecting ‘forever chemicals’ it deems ‘critical,’” according to E&E News. “We’re increasingly concerned that overly broad regulatory approaches threaten access to modern fluorochemistries, so we’re taking action to ensure their availability,” chamber vice president Marty Durbin said. Given that “access” language is typically used in a social and environmental justice context, restyling the regulation of poisons as threatening “access to modern fluorochemistries” is gutsy, to say the least.

The private water industry is meanwhile throwing a fit about being asked to filter out PFAS. The rule will “throw public confidence in drinking water into chaos,” Mike McGill, president of water industry communications firm WaterPIO, told the AP. (You’d think the existence of PFAS in the water is what would tank public confidence, not the requirement that it be removed.) Then there’s the common threat from private water utilities—which, remember, turn a profit off providing a substance people can’t live without—that removing PFAS will increase people’s water bills. Robert Powelson, the head of the National Association of Water Companies, said that the costs of the federal regulation “will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers,” according to The Washington Post. “Water utilities do not create or produce PFAS chemicals,” Powelson added. “Yet water systems and their customers are on the front lines of paying for the cleanup of this contamination.”

It’s true enough that water utilities are not the ones creating PFAS chemicals. On the other hand, there are lots of water contaminants that water utilities are responsible for filtering out if they want to keep making money from providing people with drinking water. Is there really any reason PFAS shouldn’t be among them?

Saying that the cost of this regulation “will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers” shouldn’t be read as an expression of sympathy for disadvantaged households. The burden will fall on customers because the utilities will make sure of it. It’s a threat, and one that doesn’t mention the federal money from the Inflation Reduction Act that is being made available to help shoulder that burden. Those funds may well fall short, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re paying for-profit entities to transition to removing something they ought to have been filtering out long ago. And even if this federal rule hadn’t been made, companies would probably have to start removing PFAS anyway, because they are facing increasingly expensive lawsuits over not doing so. (The water utilities, in turn, are suing polluters to cover remediation costs—another source of funding.)

It’s worth emphasizing what PFAS chemicals actually do to people, particularly in light of the American Water Works Association’s assertion to the AP that the cost of removing the chemicals “can’t be justified for communities with low levels of PFAS.” Researchers are now pretty sure that PFAS exposure increases the risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. Studying people in northern Italy who drank PFAS-contaminated water, researchers also saw increased rates of kidney and testicular cancer. The Guardian report on this contained this disturbing finding too: Women with multiple children had lower levels of PFAS only because pregnancy transferred PFAS into their children’s bodies instead.

Don’t let that get in the way of a good comms statement from industry groups, though. Remember: Forcing companies even to report their PFAS pollution, or remove PFAS from the water, is unfair.


Good News/Bad News

Twenty-nine-year-old Andrea Vidaurre has won the Goldman Environmental Prize for her work in environmental justice, pushing California to adopt new standards for truck and rail emissions that will curtail the air pollution harming working-class Latino communities in California’s Inland Empire.

The United States has sided with petrostates in opposing production controls on plastic at the negotiations in Ottawa for a U.N. treaty to reduce plastic pollution. (Two weeks ago, I wrote about these negotiations, noting that the number of plastics industry lobbyists attending this session was not yet known. Now it is: 196 lobbyists from the fossil fuel and chemical industries registered for this round, according to the Center for International Environmental Law—a 37 percent increase from the number at the last session.)


Stat of the Week
9.6%

That’s the percentage of the 250 most popular fictional films released between 2013 and 2022 in which climate change exists and a character depicted on screen knows it, according to a new “Climate Reality Check” analysis from Colby University and Good Energy. Read Sammy Roth’s newsletter about why climate change in movies is so important here.


What I’m Reading

Big Oil privately acknowledged efforts to downplay climate crisis, joint committee investigation finds

Congressional Democrats this week released a report confirming what news outlets have previously reported: Companies like Exxon knew about climate change very early on and covered it up. They also found in subpoenaed emails that Exxon tried to discredit reporting of its duplicity, while privately acknowledging that it was true:

The new revelations build on 2015 reporting from Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times, which found that Exxon was for decades aware of the dangers of the climate crisis, yet hid that from the public.

At the time, Exxon publicly rejected the journalists’ findings outright, calling them “inaccurate and deliberately misleading.” … But in internal communications, Exxon confirmed the validity of the reporting. In a December 2015 email about a potential public response to the investigative reporting, Exxon communications advisor Pamela Kevelson admitted the company did not “dispute much of what these stories report.” … “It’s true that Inside Climate News originally accused us of working against science but ultimately modified their accusation to working against policies meant to stop climate change,” Alan Jeffers, then a spokesperson for Exxon, wrote in a 2016 email to Kevelson. “I’m OK either way, since they were both true at one time or another.”

Read Dharna Noor’s report in The Guardian.

This article first appeared in Life in a Warming World, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Heather Souvaine Horn. Sign up here.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Study Reveals That Organic Farming Changes Plants’ Genetic Code

A research project conducted at the University of Bonn reveals differences in the growth of plants under organic and conventional farming methods. A long-term study...

Over a 23-year study at the University of Bonn, researchers found that barley grown organically adapted genetically to its environment, becoming more genetically diverse and robust compared to barley grown conventionally. The study emphasizes the necessity of developing crop varieties specifically for organic farming to harness these adaptive benefits. Credit: SciTechDaily.comA research project conducted at the University of Bonn reveals differences in the growth of plants under organic and conventional farming methods.A long-term study at the University of Bonn has shown that plants can genetically adapt to the specific conditions of organic farming. In the study, researchers cultivated barley on two adjacent fields, employing conventional farming techniques on one and organic practices on the other.Over the course of more than 20 years, the organic barley was enriched with specific genetic material that differed from the comparative culture. Among other things, the results demonstrate how important it is to cultivate varieties, especially for organic farming. The results have now been published in the journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development.At the end of the 1990s, Prof. Dr. Jens Léon started an experiment at the University of Bonn that he knew would run for a long period of time. His research group wanted to investigate the effects that farming conditions have on genetic material in plants. To this end, they carried out a complex long-term study over a period of 23 years at the Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation (INRES). “We first crossed high-yield barley with a wild form to increase genetic variation,” says Léon. “We then planted these populations on two neighboring fields so that the barley grew in the same soil and under the same climatic conditions.” The image above depcits the conventional population on the left and the organic barley on the right: Only experts can spot the differences with the naked eye. However, huge differences can be identified using molecular genetics. Credit: AG Prof. Léon/University of BonnThe only difference was the farming method. Conventional farming was used in one of the fields where the researchers used pesticides to combat pests, chemical agents to eliminate weeds, and mineral fertilizers to help ensure a good supply of nutrients. The researchers took a more ecological sound approach in the other field: no pesticides, combating weeds using mechanical methods, and fertilizing the soil with manure from stables. Some of the grains were retained every fall to sow the fields the following spring – using the organic grains on the organic field and the barley grown under conventional conditions on the comparative field. “We didn’t choose the grains based on any particular characteristics, however, but simply selected a small part of the harvest at random,” emphasizes Léon’s colleague Dr. Michael Schneider.Analyzing genome development in time-lapseThe researchers also analyzed the genomes of the conventionally and organically farmed plants on a yearly basis. Every single gene can exist in a variety of different forms called alleles. For example, the human gene responsible for eye color exists in the alleles “brown” and “blue.” The frequency with which certain alleles arise in a population can change over generations. Environmental conditions are one factor that plays a role in this process: Alleles that ensure plants thrive in their current environment are usually found more and more frequently.The researchers identified two interesting trends in their genetic tests: In the first twelve years, the allele frequency in the barley changed in the same way on both fields. “Our interpretation of this finding is that the very diverse populations caused by a cross with wild barley were adapting to the local conditions,” says Dr. Agim Ballvora, who also participated in the study. “After all, factors such as the climate, soil, and especially length of day were identical for both populations.” However, the allele frequencies of both cultures diverged increasingly in subsequent years. In particular, the barley grown using organic farming methods developed gene variants that were less sensitive to a nutrient deficit or lack of water – i.e., alleles that influenced the structure of the roots. “One reason for this is presumably the strong variations in the availability of nutrients in organic farming,” says Léon.Genetic heterogeneity facilitates the adaptation processThe conventionally farmed barley also became more genetically uniform over time, meaning that the genetic material in the individual plants grown on the field became more and more similar from year to year. However, the organic barley remained more heterogeneous. The allele frequencies of the organic culture also varied more widely over time. This resulted in some years being extremely favorable or unfavorable for some alleles. This could be because the environmental conditions fluctuate much more in organic farming than with conventional framing methods: If certain plant diseases take hold in one year, for example, the plants will rely most on those alleles that will protect them. The variability of the environmental forces acting on the plants seems to lead to greater genetic heterogeneity. “As a result, the plants are better able to adapt to these types of changes,” says Léon.Overall, the results demonstrate the importance of cultivating varieties optimized for organic farming. As their genetic makeup has adapted to these conditions, they will be more robust and deliver higher yields. “Furthermore, it seems to make sense when cultivating plants to cross-breed them with older or even wild varieties,” explains Léon. “Our data also indicate that this could even benefit conventional high-yield varieties.”Reference: “Deep genotyping reveals specific adaptation footprints of conventional and organic farming in barley populations—an evolutionary plant breeding approach” by Michael Schneider, Agim Ballvora and Jens Léon, 8 May 2024, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.DOI: 10.1007/s13593-024-00962-8The study was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Proposed Plastics Law Could Slash Wasteful Packaging

A law proposed in New York State seeks to reduce plastic packaging, ban certain plastic chemicals and mandate that producers of packaged consumer goods fund the recycling or disposal of what they sell

CLIMATEWIRE | ALBANY, New York — Democratic lawmakers are still fine-tuning a sweeping measure aimed at reducing the amount of plastic and packaging trash headed to the state’s crammed landfills.The rebranded extended producer responsibility bill seeks to reduce the amount of packaging being used, increase recyclability and charge producers of consumer goods for the costs of disposing of packaging that mostly ends up in landfills.But tweaks are still expected to the current version, and some lawmakers have concerns about the costs for consumers with the legislative session set to end June 6.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.Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said there are still conversations ongoing.“We want to make sure that we have input so at least whatever we do legislatively not only reflects, to the extent possible, the real concerns that people bring to us and we weigh it against the real results that we’re trying to achieve,” the Democrat from Yonkers said Tuesday.“Obviously, we all are getting all kinds of things that should not be in landfills, so we are trying to get to a point where we’ve got a piece of legislation that will pass.”Broadly, the goal is to mandate producers of packaged consumer goods — think Amazon, Unilever, Procter & Gamble — to fund the recycling or disposal of what they sell. There’s also mandates to stop using potentially harmful substances.Money raised would be used to reimburse local governments for the costs of waste disposal and recycling programs.It’s a big shift in the way recycling is funded in New York.Most costs are currently borne by local governments. The state’s climate plan, approved in late 2022 to map out the path for New York to achieve dramatic emissions reductions, backs sweeping new “extended producer responsibility” legislation to begin reducing emissions from waste in landfills.Industry opponents of the bill warn the measure would increase costs and limit the convenient choices that grocery shoppers have come to expect. They say there aren’t readily available alternatives to some of the chemicals that would be banned.Most supporters acknowledge there would be changes, but argue that habits are already shifting and that healthier, more refillable and less disposable choices would become more widely available because of the new requirements.They’re also emphasizing that customers ultimately pay for sending the trash to the landfill anyway, and that reducing packaging material can lower costs.“You don’t have to wrap everything in plastic,” said Assemblymember Michaelle Solages, a Democrat from Nassau County who is the chair of the influential Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic, and Asian Legislative Caucus. “I think it is a sin to even wrap fruits and vegetables in plastic.”Solages said there’s still work to do on the details, although there’s support for the spirit of the proposal. She said there are concerns about costs, and there are currently discussions about how to ensure those costs aren’t only on consumers.“We’re just throwing all this waste in our garbage,” Solages said in an interview. “At the end of the day, it’ll cost us more to clean up all the impacts to the Earth.”Under the legislation, companies that are covered would have to reduce packaging by 10 percent within three years, increasing to 50 percent in 12 years. Recycling rates would also have to increase to 75 percent of packing material, including plastic, to be reused or recycled in 2050.Assemblymember Deborah Glick, a Democrat from Manhattan, said there are also health risks from current packaging. Glick sponsors the bill, and as chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee, she has made it her top priority as the end of the legislative session nears.“We have a variety of problems related to the chemicals that are in the plastic that is wrapped around our food,” she said. “We know we have a growing health problem.”Producers could give consumers more options than are currently available, said Vanessa Fajans-Turner, executive director of Environmental Advocates NY.“This is product agnostic. This is not a referendum on how we shop or what we shop for,” she said. “There are alternatives for packaging.”There’s also significant labor opposition to the bill, and supporters recognize the challenge.The New York State Conference of Teamsters and United Steelworkers District 4 oppose the bill, as does the New York State AFL-CIO.The steelworkers oppose the inclusion of paper products, given the high recycling rate already, while the teamsters who represent some sanitation workers have concerns about the potential for new organizations to be responsible for collecting waste.“This legislation is a direct assault on organized labor,” the Teamsters opposition memo states. “This legislation allows municipal waste removal forces, both public employee and currently contracted private companies, to be replaced by a state supervised private collection force without any regard to workers’ rights.”Meera Joshi, New York City deputy mayor for operations, said there have been discussions with organized labor, and the city agrees there might be some protections that could be added.The city estimates it would get $150 million if the bill were enacted, and it would have to pay less to ship waste to landfills, meaning additional savings.“Our sanitation system covers all the cost of packaging that’s not recycled,” Joshi said in an interview. “Many states have adopted this. … We’re not reinventing the wheel here.”Assembly Democrats are sensitive to the prospect of higher costs being passed on to consumers. The Assembly conferenced on the bill earlier this week.Assemblymember Carrie Woerner, a Democrat from Saratoga County, said that any policies that would increase costs in an inflationary environment are a concern. She said she has a “conceptual appreciation” for the goals of the bill.But she said she has questions about the time lines, given how many food suppliers are national brands and would face difficulty specifically making changes in New York. Policymakers should consider aligning implementation with California’s measure, which was signed in 2022, she said.“I think the industry is trying hard to reduce the plastics they use and improve recyclability,” Woerner said. Food suppliers “have to be on a time line that is consistent from state to state. California got there first.”Glick said the gradual implementation of the requirements to reduce plastics and other packaging helps address cost concerns.“We're just giving them an incentive to be innovative,” she said. “The less packaging they use, the less they pay into a fund. So they reduce their costs and the less packaging they use, the less money they spend on that material. So it's just an excuse to raise prices.”The opposition from companies, including makers of plastics represented by the American Chemistry Council, has been consistent since environmental groups began pushing for an extended producer responsibility program several years ago.The chemical industry opposes restrictions on chemical recycling counting as recycling, arguing it unfairly bars the technology.Sen. Peter Harckham, the chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee, has pointed out the bill includes a provision requiring a report every three years that could spur changes to the definition by lawmakers.Business groups, chemical makers and product manufacturers of everything from toys and home appliances to footwear have also objected to a list of chemicals that would bar material from being recycled. There would also be a ban on additional toxic substances in packaging including various chemicals used to make plastics, flame retardants and PFAS.“This overly broad prohibition disregards sound science and could potentially have major unintended socioeconomic, environmental, and public health consequences by arbitrarily eliminating packaging best suited for, among other uses, food preservation, medical supply and device protection and hazardous materials containers,” the groups wrote in a memo opposing the bill.Environmental advocates in the past were split on different versions of the measure and strategies to get it passed. So that has made it even more difficult to get a bill passed.Gov. Kathy Hochul proposed her own version of the extended producer responsibility for packaging plan in her 2022 and 2023 budget proposals, but her administration has concerns about the current version.That includes the large number of staff they expect would be needed to implement it.This year, however, a key organization hired a high-powered and well-connected lobbyist with close ties to Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie to work on the bill.Beyond Plastics retained the firm of Patrick Jenkins, Heastie’s former college roommate, on May 1, according to public records. The group is based at Bennington College in Vermont and led by former EPA regional administrator Judith Enck.“We don’t have the firepower that Albany lobbyists have, but we could only afford him for a month,” Enck said.So far, it appears to have helped: Shortly afterward, the measure moved through several key Assembly committees.But opponents have retained many more lobbyists to block the bill, and national companies have been actively involved in the effort.Enck said she’s open to some changes, including around recycled content requirements for plastics due to potential health concerns about plastic touching food and beverages.One issue she won’t budge on, though: any allowance for chemical recycling. And she’s pushing the Legislature to also keep it out of any final deal.“The industry opposition is ferocious to say the least, and we're trying to counter that with grassroots support,” Enck said. “This is the closest we’ve ever been.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

High levels of weedkiller found in more than half sperm samples, study finds

Glyphosate found in samples from French infertility clinic raising questions about controversial chemical’s impact on fertilityMore than 55% of sperm samples from a French infertility clinic contained high levels of glyphosate, the world’s most common weedkiller, raising further questions about the chemical’s impact on reproductive health and overall safety, a new study found.The new research also found evidence of impacts on DNA and a correlation between glyphosate levels and oxidative stress on seminal plasma, suggesting significant impacts on fertility and reproductive health. Continue reading...

More than 55% of sperm samples from a French infertility clinic contained high levels of glyphosate, the world’s most common weedkiller, raising further questions about the chemical’s impact on reproductive health and overall safety, a new study found.The new research also found evidence of impacts on DNA and a correlation between glyphosate levels and oxidative stress on seminal plasma, suggesting significant impacts on fertility and reproductive health.“Taken together, our results suggest a negative impact of glyphosate on human reproductive health and possibly on progeny,” the authors wrote.The paper comes as researchers look for answers to why global fertility rates are dropping, and many suspect exposure to toxic chemicals like glyphosate is a significant driver of the decline.Glyphosate is used on a wide range of food crops and in residential settings in the US. The most popular glyphosate-based product is Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller, which has been at the center of legal and regulatory battles in recent years. US government research from 2023 found genotoxicity in farmers with high levels of the herbicide in their blood, suggesting an association between it and cancer.In December, a group of top US public health advocacy groups petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the product, though its defenders have said there is no definitive proof of its toxicity to humans. Still, dozens of countries have banned or restricted its use.The levels French researchers found in sperm were four times higher than in the men’s blood, which the authors wrote is the first time the comparison had been made. They called the finding “worrying”, and it suggests the chemical is particularly dangerous for reproductive systems.Oxidative stress “is considered to be one of the most important factors in male fertility by regulating the vitality and functionality of mammalian spermatozoa”, the authors wrote, and they found a “significant positive correlation” between stress and glyphosate levels.Agricultural workers recorded the highest glyphosate levels, and 96% of farmers included in the study had at least some. A landscaper also showed among the highest levels, and smokers typically had elevated levels much higher than those who did not smoke. Eating organic produce did not have a clear impact on levels.The study’s authors wrote it “would be wise for regulators to apply a precautionary principle” in regulation, which means erring on the side of caution to protect human health until further research can be done to confirm the problems identified in the study.

Journey Into the Fiery Depths of Earth’s Youngest Caves

What Iceland's volcanoes are revealing about early life on our planet

Francesco Sauro first explored a cave when he was 4 years old. He was with his dad, a professor of geography, in the Lessini mountains, near the northern Italian village of Bosco Chiesanuova, where his father had grown up. His dad was also an amateur cave explorer, and the trip was a kind of preordained rite of passage. “The only memory I have about those caves is that I cried,” Sauro recalls. “I was very scared because of the darkness.” When Sauro was 12, and visiting the area again with his family, the founder of a local museum told him that a nearby cave held the bones of ancient cave birds. “In that moment, my curiosity overcame my fear,” Sauro says. From that day on, he was hooked. Adrien Briod, of the Swiss drone company Flyability, operates a drone equipped with a lidar scanner to minutely map a network of lava tubes in 3D. Robbie Shone In the nearly three decades since, the 39-year-old geologist has trekked into dozens of caves around the world: on islands in the Atlantic Ocean, inside glacier mills in the Alps, beneath the forest floor of the Amazon rainforest. In 2013, he discovered some of the world’s oldest caves inside the mountain known as Auyán Tepui in Venezuela. All told, he’s surveyed more than 60 miles of these hidden worlds, including several caves that were unknown to humankind. Some were millions of years old. Others formed tens of thousands of years ago. Recently, he explored caves that are even younger: pristine cavities known as lava tubes, forged inside cooling mounds of molten rock during the eruption of the Fagradalsfjall volcano, in southern Iceland, in 2021. For explorers looking to set foot on uncharted territory, few spaces can match the novelty. But beyond that elemental thrill, these infant caves offer an exceedingly rare opportunity to study cavernous worlds almost from their moment of origin. This article is a selection from the June 2024 issue of Smithsonian magazine The researchers cross a lava field on the Reykjanes Peninsula to investigate a cave entrance in May 2023, during the second expedition to the site. Robbie Shone The most common caves on Earth are formed when rainwater mixes with carbon dioxide in the soil and turns into a weak acid, dissolving soft, soluble rock such as limestone below. Similar “destructional” caves are formed inside mountains and rocky formations made of less soluble material such as basalt, when flowing water slowly erodes the stone over long periods of time. “Constructional” caves, by contrast, are forged when flowing lava begins to cool, creating a top, crusty layer that solidifies into rock. As the molten lava beneath the crust flows out, it leaves behind a new cavity—a lava tube. “These caves are built in an instant of geologic time,” Sauro says. Lava tubes can range in size from a small hollow barely three feet in diameter to a large chamber more than 150 feet tall. They can be formed as a single conduit, or as a series of small, interconnected tubes. Some might be “tiered” one on top of another—a stack of caves. In a tent beside the volcano, Martina Cappelletti, far left, and Ana Miller, both microbiologists, with expedition leader Francesco Sauro. The researchers are examining high-resolution scans of bacteria collected from inside a cave. Robbie Shone Somewhere between 50 to 70 of the planet’s 1,500 or so active volcanoes erupt every year. When Mount Fagradalsfjall began to erupt in March 2021, capping what had been more than 800 years of dormancy, the world looked on with fascination, in part because an eruption elsewhere in Iceland a decade earlier spewed giant clouds of ash into the atmosphere over Europe, impacting air travel. This time there was no such disruption. Instead, tourists from Iceland and around the world swarmed to the site, some getting within 500 or so feet of the eruption, to glimpse the brilliant red and crimson lava gushing from the mountain and cascading down its sides. “It was the first case where we had cameras everywhere around the volcano, and images coming from the thousands of tourists that were going there to see this incredible show,” Sauro says. Mineral deposits after exposure to weather and UV light. Because some “metastable” minerals may change over time, researchers strove to retrieve samples quickly. Robbie Shone Sauro, a full-time speleologist and president of a geographical exploration society called La Venta who also works with NASA and the European Space Agency to help train astronauts in planetary exploration, monitored these developments from his home in northern Italy. He spent hours each day looking at photographs and video footage from the site. This rich stream of information was not just giving researchers the ability to track how and where the caves were forming. It also presented a rare chance to study the interiors of caves that hadn’t yet been touched by living matter: to observe the cooling process, the formation of minerals and the early microbial colonization of those environments in unprecedented detail. And because the caves were formed from lava surpassing temperatures of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, the environment inside would be completely sterile. “I was thinking: Hey, as soon as the eruption stops, this will become like an incredible laboratory,” Sauro recalls. “This will become a new world.” Mount Fagradalsfjall is not actually a single mountain but a cluster of small ridges on a plateau on the Reykjanes Peninsula, about 25 miles southwest of Reykjavik. The surrounding area is flat and covered in moss. The eruption began in a valley between the ridges. As it continued over the next few months, Sauro began making plans. He knew it was imperative to access the caves as soon as physically possible. Miller collects a mineral sample from a cave filled with toxic gases. Among the rare minerals found so far is wulffite, recorded only once before, near a Russian volcano. Robbie Shone That time was of the essence was a lesson that speleologists had learned in 1994, when studying lava tubes formed after Mount Etna erupted in Italy. When they entered the tubes nearly a year after the eruption had stopped, at which point the temperature inside was still a dangerously high 158 degrees, the researchers found rare crystals and minerals. Returning six months later, however, those minerals were gone. They were “metastable”—holding their form only at high temperatures. As the lava tubes cooled, they had disappeared, and so had the opportunity to examine them in detail. To prepare to enter the new caves in Iceland, Sauro and his team needed a precise understanding of where exactly they were forming and which tubes presented the easiest and safest access. Gro Pedersen, a geologist at the University of Iceland’s Nordic Volcanological Center, was tasked with collecting images. She and Birgir Óskarsson, from the Icelandic Institute of Natural History, surveyed the volcano from an airplane, flying over it once every two weeks or so between March and September 2021. They also collected other images captured by drones and satellite imagery. “Because of the different angles, we were actually able to create a topographic map, in addition to a good visual map of the lava flow field,” Pedersen says. Bogdan Onac, a mineralogist, uses a thermal imaging camera to map temperatures inside the cave. One cave wall, still glowing, was recorded at nearly 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. Robbie Shone Sauro and his colleagues, who had received a grant from the National Geographic Society, finally got close to the volcano in September 2021, about a week after the eruption subsided. Using their maps, the team identified windows, or “skylight points,” on the surface—locations that were potential entrances into newly formed caves. They flew a drone equipped with thermal imaging cameras over the site to map the temperatures of different parts of the volcanic landscape. In May 2022, they were able to approach the entrances of several caves, but thermal cameras indicated that inside temperatures were still reaching 900 degrees. “There was burning air coming out,” Sauro says. “The winds outside were cold. The contrast between the exterior and the interior was crazy.” Giovanni Rossi, center, and Tommaso Santagata through a 1,000-foot-long lava tube—among the youngest caves on Earth. Robbie Shone Sauro and his expedition members finally entered one of the caves that October, wearing metallurgist suits designed to withstand high temperatures and breathing from portable tanks filled with compressed air, because the air inside was too hot to breathe and laden with toxic gases. The walls were still radiating heat like a furnace, and in certain places the floor was nearly 400 degrees. Sauro and two other team members, equipped with thermal imaging cameras to monitor conditions, advanced cautiously, like a line of soldiers, allowing for the person in the middle and the person in the rear to pull back the line leader in case the expedition suddenly turned dangerous. “The air temperature could change from 100 to 200 degrees [Celsius] in just one meter,” Sauro says. In one tube Sauro entered, the cave wall was still glowing, with a temperature of nearly 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 degrees Fahrenheit). “It was one of the most impressive things I saw,” he says. Pedersen visited the caves after they had cooled further. “I know very few places on Earth where you can go into things that you have seen being born,” she says. “That’s kind of amazing.” Two lines of research interested Sauro and his colleagues. First, they were eager to study the minerals they would find inside the caves—those formed on the cave walls and other rocky surfaces. Second, they hoped to discover when these extreme habitats would be colonized by micro-organisms and discern which microbes would thrive. Learning how such newly formed caves might begin to harbor life could help researchers refine their ideas about how life developed on Earth, and it would also provide guidance about how and where to look for signs of life, current or past, on other planets, such as Mars. “We know that lava tubes were constantly forming in Martian volcanoes,” Sauro explains. “So they could have been quickly colonized, becoming a kind of Noah’s Ark for Martian life—if life ever existed there.” Mineral encrustations offer clues about which microbes first colonize caves—usually those, researchers found, that can derive energy from oxidizing inorganic materials such as sulfur, iron and copper. Robbie Shone Concerned that some minerals could change or disappear over time, the researchers brought a scanning electron microscope to the site to produce high-resolution images of the samples to help them identify them. Rogier Miltenburg, a technician with the biotechnology company Thermo Fisher Scientific, housed the instrument inside a tent next to the volcano, and he ran a generator inside the tent to maintain the vacuum needed for the microscope to function. The conditions were precarious: Once, when it was raining, a river started to form through the tent. “I had the power supply on the floor, and luckily the water sort of diverted around it,” Miltenburg recalls. “Otherwise we would have had a short.” Mineral encrustations offer clues about which microbes first colonize caves—usually those, researchers found, that can derive energy from oxidizing inorganic materials such as sulfur, iron and copper. Robbie Shone The researchers came across a variety of minerals along fissures and grooves on the cave surfaces. “We found this beautiful white stuff. And then we said, ‘Wait a minute, that’s green there, that’s blue there,’” says Bogdan Onac, a mineralogist at the University of South Florida who was part of the team. Using sterile spatulas, the researchers scraped off samples and packed them in vacuum-sealed bags. Since the temperatures in the lava tubes were so high at the outset, Onac was expecting the minerals to be completely dehydrated crystals, so he was surprised to find some whose texture resembled that of wet sugar, indicating that, in spite of the high heat, water molecules in the environment had been incorporated during mineralization. After collecting samples, Sauro and his colleagues would turn around and walk to the tent for a look at what they had found. By ascertaining a sample’s chemical composition from the images produced by the electron microscope, they could usually identify the mineral within half an hour. Rare forms of minerals—including sodium, potassium and copper—grow along a fracture in the walls of a 122 degree Fahrenheit lava tube on the Fagradalsfjall lava field. Robbie Shone The team had expected to find some minerals such as mirabilite, which is made up of hydrogen, sodium and sulfur. But they also found novel minerals formed from the combination of copper with sodium, potassium, sulfur and other elements, resulting in rare substances that the team is currently studying in greater detail. One surprise mineral, for instance, was wulffite—an emerald-green crystal whose composition includes sodium and potassium along with copper sulfate. “It has only been found once before in the history of mineralogy, in a Russian volcano site,” says Fabrizio Nestola, a mineralogist at the University of Padua. Nestola, who is conducting detailed analyses of the mineral samples at his Padua lab, is certain that some of the minerals will turn out to be entirely new to science, potentially revealing as yet unknown processes by which mineralization takes place. Samples prepared for the on-site scanning electron microscope. The instrument, housed in a tent, required a generator to maintain the vacuum it uses to function. Robbie Shone Sauro’s microbiologist colleagues, meanwhile, collected samples from patches of rock surfaces marked by “biofilms”—areas that had begun to be colonized by bacteria. After extracting samples and analyzing DNA from them at laboratories off-site, the researchers found that different micro-organisms had flourished in different parts of the same cave. “The first data indicate that environmental bacteria, mostly those associated with soil, begin the colonization,” says Martina Cappelletti of the University of Bologna, a microbiologist. “They are probably initially transported inside the cave through air currents.” These micro-organisms can thrive because they are able to subsist on rocks—that is, to derive energy from oxidizing inorganic materials. Over time, as the caves cooled, the diversity of microbes inside the caves increased. The findings suggest that such life-forms, which would not require water or organic matter to survive, should have the best chance to establish a foothold in extreme environments—whether in the distant past or on other planets. Onac inside the microscope tent. Already the researchers have found several rare minerals, he said. And not only that. “Some of them will be new to science.” Robbie Shone Indeed, tracking microbial colonization will help scientists searching for life elsewhere in the universe. Even on planets where surface conditions today seem inhospitable, lava tubes may once have provided temporary or enduring refuge to life-forms that rapidly colonized the interiors and survived. “If some specific microbial life is able to quickly colonize lava tubes on Earth, why could this not have happened on Mars?” Sauro says. The view from inside a lava tube whose walls have collapsed. “If you’re there while there are earthquakes—that’s not good,” Sauro deadpanned. Robbie Shone Penelope Boston, director of NASA’s Astrobiology Institute at NASA Ames, Moffett Field, describes lava tubes as “a model for what we may potentially find on other bodies in the solar system.” And volcanic activity isn’t limited to Earth and Mars. Even Io, one of Jupiter’s moons, has active volcanoes, suggesting that planets and moons beyond our solar system may have volcanoes—and lava tubes—too. That’s why Boston sees great value in studying the caves Sauro is investigating. “I think that designating places around the world where we have this ability to see an early history of microbial colonization from the get-go is something that deserves worldwide attention,” she says. A small lava lake inside a cave, now solidified. Robbie Shone A swirly segment of a surface lava field, near the volcano crater. Robbie Shone A wall detail near a cave entrance. Robbie Shone The eruption of Fagradalsfjall has subsided, but Sauro has been following news about other volcanoes in Iceland with interest. This past March, when a new eruption started on the Reykjanes Peninsula, at Mount Hagafell, a few miles west of Fagradalsfjall, he mused about “new tubes forming, literally, right now.” These uncharted caverns could be his next hunting ground. Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

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.