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.

It’s ‘almost impossible’ to eliminate toxic PFAS from your diet. Here’s what you can do

News Feed
Monday, July 22, 2024

In recent years, research has found or pointed to the presence of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” in a range of staples, products and beverages across the food system.Among them are kale, eggs, butter, protein powder, milk, ketchup, coffee, canola oil, smoothies, tea, beef, juice drinks and rice. Evidence suggests they’re most widely contaminating carryout food, seafood and even pet food.So, how can you avoid PFAS in your diet? Well, you can’t.“It’s almost impossible to shop your way out of contamination,” said Sarah Woodbury, vice-president of policy with Defend Our Health Maine, which has worked on issues around PFAS in the state’s food. “I genuinely do not think there is a way to 100% know what you’re getting into with contamination.”Even if it may be impossible to avoid the chemicals altogether, there are some steps you can take to reduce your exposure and protect your health.How are you exposed to PFAS in food?PFAS are a class of about 15,000 compounds typically used to make products that resist water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and accumulate, and are linked to cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders, birth defects and other serious health problems.While regulators have focused on reducing PFAS in water, there is general agreement that food represents the largest exposure route – though it’s not a settled question. No food is totally safe from contamination because PFAS are used across thousands of consumer products and industrial processes, pollution is so widespread and there are myriad entry points in the food system.The Food and Drug Administration does not have limits in place on PFAS in food. Though it monitors for the chemicals, it uses methodology that public health advocates charge makes it appear as if food is broadly less contaminated than it is.Among the most serious concerns is sewage sludge, which is used as a cheap alternative to fertilizer on cropland and is thought to universally teem with PFAS. Farms using the substance have been found to have concerning levels of the chemicals in their meat and produce as crops can uptake the compounds.Water used on crops or for livestock can be contaminated, as can animal feed, while most pesticides contain PFAS.Processed foods tend to have more PFAS than less processed, research suggests, in part because there are more entry points for the chemicals. Bulk food storage bins are often treated with PFAS, potentially contaminating widely used base ingredients like limonene.Some individual plastic food containers sold at stores are treated with the chemicals, and though the FDA recently phased out PFAS used in paper packaging products, including “compostable” molded fiber bowls, new PFAS compounds could be approved for use in the products in the future. Moreover, recycled paper, or packaging produced in other countries, often still contain PFAS.The chemicals are widely used in cookware to prevent food from sticking to pans, utensils, rice cookers, coffee filters and other items. Seafood, meanwhile, is often contaminated because lakes, waterways and the ocean are widely polluted.Change your consumption habitsResearch has found that those who generally eat diets higher in fresh fruits and vegetables may have lower PFAS blood levels. Produce requires less packaging and processing, reducing PFAS entry points. Eating less meat, especially red meat, is also advisable.“What I’ve been telling people from the get go is don’t eat blood products, and meat and dairy will have more blood than vegetables,” said Stephen Brown, a researcher with Sierra Club Michigan.A major caveat is that some veggies, especially leafy greens, take up the chemicals, and those grown near sources of PFAS pollution, or in sewage sludge, are likely to be contaminated.There is no way to know which farms are using sludge, researchers say. Even if there was, there is often no way to know which farms’ milk went into the carton one buys at the store.Organic foods are better because they should not contain most pesticides, but some farms in Maine found to be contaminated with PFAS from sludge were organic, and farms’ water could be contaminated. And all pasta sauces found to contain PFAS in recent testing were organic.Research also suggests consuming a variety of foods and beverages can lower PFAS blood levels. Regularly drinking one hypothetically contaminated brand of orange juice can create a real health threat. Switching brands could lower the amount of PFAS consumed.Eat out less and prepare food at homeResearch has found an association between higher PFAS levels in blood and frequently eating out because carryout food requires more packaging and the foods are typically more processed. Some public health advocates have told me they bring their own glass containers to restaurants to carry home leftovers to avoid toxic “doggie bags”.Conversely, cooking at home has been associated with lower PFAS blood levels. It can be difficult to avoid the chemicals in home cookware, but my story on how to choose nontoxic cookware, utensils and other kitchen items can help one navigate the minefield.At the store, buying products, like mustard, that are in glass jars instead of plastic when possible also helps avoid potentially PFAS-laden packaging.Eat a moderate amount of seafoodSaltwater fish may be safer than freshwater US fish because PFAS are more diluted in the ocean than in rivers or lakes, recent research suggests. That’s especially a concern for those who regularly catch and eat seafood, because “there’s a potentially significant exposure coming from that locally caught fish,” said David Andrews, a co-author of the Environmental Working Group study.People who are fishing should pay attention to states’ do-no-eat advisories, though those are often inadequate.Recent testing of 26 types of largely saltwater seafood sold fresh at a market in coastal New Hampshire found PFAS in all, with the highest concentrations in shrimp and lobster. Saltwater seafood near urban areas and military bases has also been found to have alarming levels of PFAS, including crabs, bass, oysters and clams from the Chesapeake Bay.The levels have been so high that I no longer eat food from the Chesapeake or Puget Sound, and rarely from the Great Lakes. I also check Google Maps to determine if oysters on a menu were raised near military bases. If they were, then I avoid them.

Found in products such as eggs and rice, ‘forever chemicals’ have been linked to cancer, kidney disease and moreIn recent years, research has found or pointed to the presence of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” in a range of staples, products and beverages across the food system.Among them are kale, eggs, butter, protein powder, milk, ketchup, coffee, canola oil, smoothies, tea, beef, juice drinks and rice. Evidence suggests they’re most widely contaminating carryout food, seafood and even pet food. Continue reading...

In recent years, research has found or pointed to the presence of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” in a range of staples, products and beverages across the food system.

Among them are kale, eggs, butter, protein powder, milk, ketchup, coffee, canola oil, smoothies, tea, beef, juice drinks and rice. Evidence suggests they’re most widely contaminating carryout food, seafood and even pet food.

So, how can you avoid PFAS in your diet? Well, you can’t.

“It’s almost impossible to shop your way out of contamination,” said Sarah Woodbury, vice-president of policy with Defend Our Health Maine, which has worked on issues around PFAS in the state’s food. “I genuinely do not think there is a way to 100% know what you’re getting into with contamination.”

Even if it may be impossible to avoid the chemicals altogether, there are some steps you can take to reduce your exposure and protect your health.

How are you exposed to PFAS in food?

PFAS are a class of about 15,000 compounds typically used to make products that resist water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and accumulate, and are linked to cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders, birth defects and other serious health problems.

While regulators have focused on reducing PFAS in water, there is general agreement that food represents the largest exposure route – though it’s not a settled question. No food is totally safe from contamination because PFAS are used across thousands of consumer products and industrial processes, pollution is so widespread and there are myriad entry points in the food system.

The Food and Drug Administration does not have limits in place on PFAS in food. Though it monitors for the chemicals, it uses methodology that public health advocates charge makes it appear as if food is broadly less contaminated than it is.

Among the most serious concerns is sewage sludge, which is used as a cheap alternative to fertilizer on cropland and is thought to universally teem with PFAS. Farms using the substance have been found to have concerning levels of the chemicals in their meat and produce as crops can uptake the compounds.

Water used on crops or for livestock can be contaminated, as can animal feed, while most pesticides contain PFAS.

Processed foods tend to have more PFAS than less processed, research suggests, in part because there are more entry points for the chemicals. Bulk food storage bins are often treated with PFAS, potentially contaminating widely used base ingredients like limonene.

Some individual plastic food containers sold at stores are treated with the chemicals, and though the FDA recently phased out PFAS used in paper packaging products, including “compostable” molded fiber bowls, new PFAS compounds could be approved for use in the products in the future. Moreover, recycled paper, or packaging produced in other countries, often still contain PFAS.

The chemicals are widely used in cookware to prevent food from sticking to pans, utensils, rice cookers, coffee filters and other items. Seafood, meanwhile, is often contaminated because lakes, waterways and the ocean are widely polluted.

Change your consumption habits

Research has found that those who generally eat diets higher in fresh fruits and vegetables may have lower PFAS blood levels. Produce requires less packaging and processing, reducing PFAS entry points. Eating less meat, especially red meat, is also advisable.

“What I’ve been telling people from the get go is don’t eat blood products, and meat and dairy will have more blood than vegetables,” said Stephen Brown, a researcher with Sierra Club Michigan.

A major caveat is that some veggies, especially leafy greens, take up the chemicals, and those grown near sources of PFAS pollution, or in sewage sludge, are likely to be contaminated.

There is no way to know which farms are using sludge, researchers say. Even if there was, there is often no way to know which farms’ milk went into the carton one buys at the store.

Organic foods are better because they should not contain most pesticides, but some farms in Maine found to be contaminated with PFAS from sludge were organic, and farms’ water could be contaminated. And all pasta sauces found to contain PFAS in recent testing were organic.

Research also suggests consuming a variety of foods and beverages can lower PFAS blood levels. Regularly drinking one hypothetically contaminated brand of orange juice can create a real health threat. Switching brands could lower the amount of PFAS consumed.

Eat out less and prepare food at home

Research has found an association between higher PFAS levels in blood and frequently eating out because carryout food requires more packaging and the foods are typically more processed. Some public health advocates have told me they bring their own glass containers to restaurants to carry home leftovers to avoid toxic “doggie bags”.

Conversely, cooking at home has been associated with lower PFAS blood levels. It can be difficult to avoid the chemicals in home cookware, but my story on how to choose nontoxic cookware, utensils and other kitchen items can help one navigate the minefield.

At the store, buying products, like mustard, that are in glass jars instead of plastic when possible also helps avoid potentially PFAS-laden packaging.

Eat a moderate amount of seafood

Saltwater fish may be safer than freshwater US fish because PFAS are more diluted in the ocean than in rivers or lakes, recent research suggests. That’s especially a concern for those who regularly catch and eat seafood, because “there’s a potentially significant exposure coming from that locally caught fish,” said David Andrews, a co-author of the Environmental Working Group study.

People who are fishing should pay attention to states’ do-no-eat advisories, though those are often inadequate.

Recent testing of 26 types of largely saltwater seafood sold fresh at a market in coastal New Hampshire found PFAS in all, with the highest concentrations in shrimp and lobster. Saltwater seafood near urban areas and military bases has also been found to have alarming levels of PFAS, including crabs, bass, oysters and clams from the Chesapeake Bay.

The levels have been so high that I no longer eat food from the Chesapeake or Puget Sound, and rarely from the Great Lakes. I also check Google Maps to determine if oysters on a menu were raised near military bases. If they were, then I avoid them.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

This moss survived in space for 9 months

In an experiment on the outside of the International Space Station, a species of moss survived in space for 9 months. And it could have lasted much longer. The post This moss survived in space for 9 months first appeared on EarthSky.

Meet a spreading earthmoss known as Physcomitrella patens. It’s frequently used as a model organism for studies on plant evolution, development, and physiology. In this image, a reddish-brown sporophyte sits at the top center of a leafy gametophore. This capsule contains numerous spores inside. Scientists tested samples like these on the outside of the International Space Station (ISS) to see if they could tolerate the extreme airless environment. And they did. The moss survived in space for 9 months and could have lasted even longer. Image via Tomomichi Fujita/ EurekAlert! (CC BY-SA). Space is a deadly environment, with no air, extreme temperature swings and harsh radiation. Could any life survive there? Reasearchers in Japan tested a type of moss called spreading earthmoss on the exterior of the International Space Station. The moss survived for nine months, and the spores were still able to reproduce when brought back to Earth. Moss survived in space for 9 months Can life exist in space? Not simply on other planets or moons, but in the cold, dark, airless void of space itself? Most organisms would perish almost immediately, to be sure. But researchers in Japan recently experimented with moss, with surprising results. They said on November 20, 2025, that more than 80% of their moss spores survived nine months on the outside of the International Space Station. Not only that, but when brought back to Earth, they were still capable of reproducing. Nature, it seems, is even tougher than we thought! Amazingly, the results show that some primitive plants – not even just microorganisms – can survive long-term exposure to the extreme space environment. The researchers published their peer-reviewed findings in the journal iScience on November 20, 2025. A deadly environment for life Space is a horrible place for life. The lack of air, radiation and extreme cold make it pretty much unsurvivable for life as we know it. As lead author Tomomichi Fujita at Hokkaido University in Japan stated: Most living organisms, including humans, cannot survive even briefly in the vacuum of space. However, the moss spores retained their vitality after nine months of direct exposure. This provides striking evidence that the life that has evolved on Earth possesses, at the cellular level, intrinsic mechanisms to endure the conditions of space. This #moss survived 9 months directly exposed to the vacuum space and could still reproduce after returning to Earth. ? ? spkl.io/63322AdFrpTomomichi Fujita & colleagues@cp-iscience.bsky.social — Cell Press (@cellpress.bsky.social) 2025-11-24T16:00:02.992Z What about moss? Researchers wanted to see if any Earthly life could survive in space’s deadly environment for the long term. To find out, they decided to do some experiments with a type of moss called spreading earthmoss, or Physcomitrium patens. The researchers sent hundreds of sporophytes – encapsulated moss spores – to the International Space Station in March 2022, aboard the Cygnus NG-17 spacecraft. They attached the sporophyte samples to the outside of the ISS, where they were exposed to the vacuum of space for 283 days. By doing so, the samples were subjected to high levels of UV (ultraviolet) radiation and extreme swings of temperature. The samples later returned to Earth in January 2023. The researchers tested three parts of the moss. These were the protonemata, or juvenile moss; brood cells, or specialized stem cells that emerge under stress conditions; and the sporophytes. Fujita said: We anticipated that the combined stresses of space, including vacuum, cosmic radiation, extreme temperature fluctuations and microgravity, would cause far greater damage than any single stress alone. Astronauts placed the moss samples on the outside of the International Space Station for the 9-month-long experiment. Incredibly, more than 80% of the the encapsulated spores survived the trip to space and back to Earth. Image via NASA/ Roscosmos. The moss survived! So, how did the moss do? The results were mixed, but overall showed that the moss could survive in space. The radiation was the most difficult aspect of the space environment to withstand. The sporophytes were the most resilient. Incredibly, they were able to survive and germinate after being exposed to -196 degrees Celsius (-320 degrees Fahrenheit) for more than a week. At the other extreme, they also survived in 55° degrees C (131 degrees F) heat for a month. Some brood cells survived as well, but the encased spores were about 1,000 times more tolerant to the UV radiation. On the other hand, none of the juvenile moss survived the high UV levels or the extreme temperatures. Samples of moss spores that germinated after their 9-month exposure to space. Image via Dr. Chang-hyun Maeng/ Maika Kobayashi/ EurekAlert!. (CC BY-SA). How did the spores survive? So why did the encapsulated spores do so well? The researchers said the natural structure surrounding the spore itself helps to protect the spore. Essentially, it absorbs the UV radiation and surrounds the inner spore both physically and chemically to prevent damage. As it turns out, this might be associated with the evolution of mosses. This is an adaptation that helped bryophytes – the group of plants to which mosses belong – to make the transition from aquatic to terrestrial plants 500 million years ago. Overall, more than 80% of the spores survived the journey to space and then back to Earth. And only 11% were unable to germinate after being brought back to the lab on Earth. That’s impressive! In addition, the researchers also tested the levels of chlorophyll in the spores. After the exposure to space, the spores still had normal amounts of chlorophyll, except for chlorophyll a specifically. In that case, there was a 20% reduction. Chlorophyll a is used in oxygenic photosynthesis. It absorbs the most energy from wavelengths of violet-blue and orange-red light. Tomomichi Fujita at Hokkaido University in Japan is the lead author of the new study about moss in space. Image via Hokkaido University. Spores could have survived for 15 years The time available for the experiment was limited to the several months. However, the researchers wondered if the moss spores could have survived even longer. And using mathematical models, they determined the spores would likely have continued to live in space for about 15 years, or 5,600 days, altogether. The researchers note this prediction is a rough estimate. More data would still be needed to make that assessment even more accurate. So the results show just how resilient moss is, and perhaps some other kinds of life, too. Fujita said: This study demonstrates the astonishing resilience of life that originated on Earth. Ultimately, we hope this work opens a new frontier toward constructing ecosystems in extraterrestrial environments such as the moon and Mars. I hope that our moss research will serve as a starting point. Bottom line: In an experiment on the outside of the International Space Station, a species of moss survived in space for nine months. And it could have lasted much longer. Source: Extreme environmental tolerance and space survivability of the moss, Physcomitrium patens Via EurekAlert! Read more: This desert moss could grow on Mars, no greenhouse needed Read more: Colorful life on exoplanets might be lurking in cloudsThe post This moss survived in space for 9 months first appeared on EarthSky.

Medical Imaging Contributing To Water Pollution, Experts Say

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Contrast chemicals injected into people for medical imaging scans...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Dec. 11, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Contrast chemicals injected into people for medical imaging scans are likely contributing to water pollution, a new study says.Medicare patients alone received 13.5 billion milliliters of contrast media between 2011 and 2024, and those chemicals wound up in waterways after people excreted them, researchers recently reported in JAMA Network Open.“Contrast agents are necessary for effective imaging, but they don’t disappear after use,” said lead researcher Dr. Florence Doo, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland Medical Intelligent Imaging Center in Baltimore.“Iodine and gadolinium are non-renewable resources that can enter wastewater and accumulate in rivers, oceans and even drinking water,” Doo said in a news release.People undergoing X-ray or CT scans are sometimes given iodine or barium-sulfate compounds that cause certain tissues, blood vessels or organs to light up, allowing radiologists a better look at potential health problems.For MRI scans, radiologists use gadolinium, a substance that alters the magnetic properties of water molecules in the human body.These are critical for diagnosing disease, but they are also persistent pollutants, researchers said in background notes. They aren’t biodegradable, and conventional wastewater treatment doesn’t fully remove them.For the new study, researchers analyzed 169 million contrast-enhanced imaging procedures that Medicare covered over 13 years.Iodine-based contrast agents accounted for more than 95% of the total volume, or nearly 12.9 billion milliliters. Of those, agents used in CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis alone contributed 4.4 billion milliliters.Gadolinium agents were less frequently used, but still contributed nearly 600 million milliliters, researchers said. Brain MRIs were the most common scan using these contrast materials.Overall, just a handful of procedures accounted for 80% of all contrast use, researchers concluded.“Our study shows that a small number of imaging procedures drive the majority of contrast use. Focusing on those highest-use imaging types make meaningful changes tractable and could significantly reduce health care’s environmental footprint,” researcher Elizabeth Rula, executive director of the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute in Reston, Va., said in a news release.Doctors can help by making sure their imaging orders are necessary, while radiologists can lower the doses of contrast agents by basing them on a patient’s weight, researchers said.Biodegradable contrast media are under development, researchers noted. Another solution could involve AI, which might be able to accurately analyze medical imaging scans even if less contrast media is used.“We can’t ignore the environmental consequences of medical imaging,” Doo said. “Stewardship of contrast agents is a measurable and impactful way to align patient care with planetary health and should be an important part of broader health care sustainability efforts.”SOURCES: Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, news release, Dec. 4, 2025; JAMA Network Open, Dec. 5, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Cars to AI: How new tech drives demand for specialized materials

Generative artificial intelligence has become widely accepted as a tool that increases productivity. Yet the technology is far from mature. Large language models advance rapidly from one generation to the next, and experts can only speculate how AI will affect the workforce and people’s daily lives. As a materials scientist, I am interested in how materials and the technologies that derive from them affect society. AI is one example of a technology driving global change—particularly through its demand for materials and rare minerals. But before AI evolved to its current level, two other technologies exemplified the process created by the demand for specialized materials: cars and smartphones. Often, the mass adoption of a new invention changes human behavior, which leads to new technologies and infrastructures reliant upon the invention. In turn, these new technologies and infrastructures require new or improved materials—and these often contain critical minerals: those minerals that are both essential to the technology and strain the supply chain. The unequal distribution of these minerals gives leverage to the nations that produce them. The resulting power shifts strain geopolitical relations and drive the search for new mineral sources. New technology nurtures the mining industry. The car and the development of suburbs At the beginning of the 20th century, only 5 out of 1,000 people owned a car, with annual production around a few thousand. Workers commuted on foot or by tram. Within a 2-mile radius, many people had all they needed: from groceries to hardware, from school to church, and from shoemakers to doctors. Then, in 1913, Henry Ford transformed the industry by inventing the assembly line. Now, a middle class family could afford a car: Mass production cut the price of the Model T from US$850 in 1908 to $360 in 1916. While the Great Depression dampened the broad adoption of the car, sales began to increase again after the end of World War II. With cars came more mobility, and many people moved farther away from work. In the 1940s and 1950s, a powerful highway lobby that included oil, automobile, and construction interests promoted federal highway and transportation policies, which increased automobile dependence. These policies helped change the landscape: Houses were spaced farther apart, and located farther away from the urban centers where many people worked. By the 1960s, two-thirds of American workers commuted by car, and the average commute had increased to 10 miles. Public policy and investment favored suburbs, which meant less investment in city centers. The resulting decay made living in downtown areas of many cities undesirable and triggered urban renewal projects. Long commutes added to pollution and expenses, which created a demand for lighter, more fuel-efficient cars. But building these required better materials. In 1970, the entire frame and body of a car was made from one steel type, but by 2017, 10 different, highly specialized steels constituted a vehicle’s lightweight form. Each steel contains different chemical elements, such as molybdenum and vanadium, which are mined only in a few countries. While the car supply chain was mostly domestic until the 1970s, the car industry today relies heavily on imports. This dependence has created tension with international trade partners, as reflected by higher tariffs on steel. The cellphone and American life The cellphone presents another example of a technology creating a demand for minerals and affecting foreign policy. In 1983, Motorola released the DynaTAC, the first commercial cellular phone. It was heavy, expensive, and its battery lasted for only half an hour, so few people had one. Then in 1996, Motorola introduced the flip phone, which was cheaper, lighter, and more convenient to use. The flip phone initiated the mass adoption of cellphones. However, it was still just a phone: Unlike today’s smartphones, all it did was send and receive calls and texts. In 2007, Apple redefined communication with the iPhone, inventing the touchscreen and integrating an internet navigator. The phone became a digital hub for navigating, finding information, and building an online social identity. Before smartphones, mobile phones supplemented daily life. Now, they structure it. In 2000, fewer than half of American adults owned a cellphone, and nearly all who did used it only sporadically. In 2024, 98% of Americans over the age of 18 reported owning a cellphone, and over 90% owned a smartphone. Without the smartphone, most people cannot fulfill their daily tasks. Many individuals now experience nomophobia: They feel anxious without a cellphone. Around three-quarters of all stable elements are represented in the components of each smartphone. These elements are necessary for highly specialized materials that enable touchscreens, displays, batteries, speakers, microphones, and cameras. Many of these elements are essential for at least one function and have an unreliable supply chain, which makes them critical. Critical materials and AI Critical materials give leverage to countries that have a monopoly in mining and processing them. For example, China has gained increased power through its monopoly on rare earth elements. In April 2025, in response to U.S. tariffs, China stopped exporting rare earth magnets, which are used in cellphones. The geopolitical tensions that resulted demonstrate the power embodied in the control over critical minerals. The mass adoption of AI technology will likely change human behavior and bring forth new technologies, industries, and infrastructure on which the U.S. economy will depend. All of these technologies will require more optimized and specialized materials and create new material dependencies. By exacerbating material dependencies, AI could affect geopolitical relations and reorganize global power. America has rich deposits of many important minerals, but extraction of these minerals comes with challenges. Factors including slow and costly permitting, public opposition, environmental concerns, high investment costs, and an inadequate workforce all can prevent mining companies from accessing these resources. The mass adoption of AI is already adding pressure to overcome these factors and to increase responsible domestic mining. While the path from innovation to material dependence spanned a century for cars and a couple of decades for cellphones, the rapid advancement of large language models suggests that the scale will be measured in years for AI. The heat is already on. Peter Müllner is a distinguished professor in materials science and engineering at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Generative artificial intelligence has become widely accepted as a tool that increases productivity. Yet the technology is far from mature. Large language models advance rapidly from one generation to the next, and experts can only speculate how AI will affect the workforce and people’s daily lives. As a materials scientist, I am interested in how materials and the technologies that derive from them affect society. AI is one example of a technology driving global change—particularly through its demand for materials and rare minerals. But before AI evolved to its current level, two other technologies exemplified the process created by the demand for specialized materials: cars and smartphones. Often, the mass adoption of a new invention changes human behavior, which leads to new technologies and infrastructures reliant upon the invention. In turn, these new technologies and infrastructures require new or improved materials—and these often contain critical minerals: those minerals that are both essential to the technology and strain the supply chain. The unequal distribution of these minerals gives leverage to the nations that produce them. The resulting power shifts strain geopolitical relations and drive the search for new mineral sources. New technology nurtures the mining industry. The car and the development of suburbs At the beginning of the 20th century, only 5 out of 1,000 people owned a car, with annual production around a few thousand. Workers commuted on foot or by tram. Within a 2-mile radius, many people had all they needed: from groceries to hardware, from school to church, and from shoemakers to doctors. Then, in 1913, Henry Ford transformed the industry by inventing the assembly line. Now, a middle class family could afford a car: Mass production cut the price of the Model T from US$850 in 1908 to $360 in 1916. While the Great Depression dampened the broad adoption of the car, sales began to increase again after the end of World War II. With cars came more mobility, and many people moved farther away from work. In the 1940s and 1950s, a powerful highway lobby that included oil, automobile, and construction interests promoted federal highway and transportation policies, which increased automobile dependence. These policies helped change the landscape: Houses were spaced farther apart, and located farther away from the urban centers where many people worked. By the 1960s, two-thirds of American workers commuted by car, and the average commute had increased to 10 miles. Public policy and investment favored suburbs, which meant less investment in city centers. The resulting decay made living in downtown areas of many cities undesirable and triggered urban renewal projects. Long commutes added to pollution and expenses, which created a demand for lighter, more fuel-efficient cars. But building these required better materials. In 1970, the entire frame and body of a car was made from one steel type, but by 2017, 10 different, highly specialized steels constituted a vehicle’s lightweight form. Each steel contains different chemical elements, such as molybdenum and vanadium, which are mined only in a few countries. While the car supply chain was mostly domestic until the 1970s, the car industry today relies heavily on imports. This dependence has created tension with international trade partners, as reflected by higher tariffs on steel. The cellphone and American life The cellphone presents another example of a technology creating a demand for minerals and affecting foreign policy. In 1983, Motorola released the DynaTAC, the first commercial cellular phone. It was heavy, expensive, and its battery lasted for only half an hour, so few people had one. Then in 1996, Motorola introduced the flip phone, which was cheaper, lighter, and more convenient to use. The flip phone initiated the mass adoption of cellphones. However, it was still just a phone: Unlike today’s smartphones, all it did was send and receive calls and texts. In 2007, Apple redefined communication with the iPhone, inventing the touchscreen and integrating an internet navigator. The phone became a digital hub for navigating, finding information, and building an online social identity. Before smartphones, mobile phones supplemented daily life. Now, they structure it. In 2000, fewer than half of American adults owned a cellphone, and nearly all who did used it only sporadically. In 2024, 98% of Americans over the age of 18 reported owning a cellphone, and over 90% owned a smartphone. Without the smartphone, most people cannot fulfill their daily tasks. Many individuals now experience nomophobia: They feel anxious without a cellphone. Around three-quarters of all stable elements are represented in the components of each smartphone. These elements are necessary for highly specialized materials that enable touchscreens, displays, batteries, speakers, microphones, and cameras. Many of these elements are essential for at least one function and have an unreliable supply chain, which makes them critical. Critical materials and AI Critical materials give leverage to countries that have a monopoly in mining and processing them. For example, China has gained increased power through its monopoly on rare earth elements. In April 2025, in response to U.S. tariffs, China stopped exporting rare earth magnets, which are used in cellphones. The geopolitical tensions that resulted demonstrate the power embodied in the control over critical minerals. The mass adoption of AI technology will likely change human behavior and bring forth new technologies, industries, and infrastructure on which the U.S. economy will depend. All of these technologies will require more optimized and specialized materials and create new material dependencies. By exacerbating material dependencies, AI could affect geopolitical relations and reorganize global power. America has rich deposits of many important minerals, but extraction of these minerals comes with challenges. Factors including slow and costly permitting, public opposition, environmental concerns, high investment costs, and an inadequate workforce all can prevent mining companies from accessing these resources. The mass adoption of AI is already adding pressure to overcome these factors and to increase responsible domestic mining. While the path from innovation to material dependence spanned a century for cars and a couple of decades for cellphones, the rapid advancement of large language models suggests that the scale will be measured in years for AI. The heat is already on. Peter Müllner is a distinguished professor in materials science and engineering at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Synthetic chemicals in food system creating health burden of $2.2tn a year, report finds

Scientists issue urgent warning about chemicals, found to cause cancer and infertility as well as harming environmentScientists have issued an urgent warning that some of the synthetic chemicals that help underpin the current food system are driving increased rates of cancer, neurodevelopmental conditions and infertility, while degrading the foundations of global agriculture.The health burden from phthalates, bisphenols, pesticides and Pfas “forever chemicals” amounts to up to $2.2tn a year – roughly as much as the profits of the world’s 100 largest publicly listed companies, according to the report published on Wednesday. Continue reading...

Scientists have issued an urgent warning that some of the synthetic chemicals that help underpin the current food system are driving increased rates of cancer, neurodevelopmental conditions and infertility, while degrading the foundations of global agriculture.The health burden from phthalates, bisphenols, pesticides and Pfas “forever chemicals” amounts to up to $2.2tn a year – roughly as much as the profits of the world’s 100 largest publicly listed companies, according to the report published on Wednesday.Most ecosystem damage remains unpriced, they say, but even a narrow accounting of ecological impacts, taking into account agricultural losses and meeting water safety standards for Pfas and pesticides, implies a further cost of $640bn. There are also potential consequences for human demographics, with the report concluding that if exposure to endocrine disruptors such as bisphenols and phthalates persists at current rates, there could be between 200 million and 700 million fewer births between 2025 and 2100.The report is the work of dozens of scientists from organisations including the Institute of Preventive Health, the Center for Environmental Health, Chemsec, and various universities in the US and UK, including the University of Sussex and Duke University. It was led by a core team from Systemiq, a company that invests in enterprises aimed at fulfilling the UN sustainable development goals and the Paris agreement on climate change.The authors said they had focused on the four chemical types examined because “they are among the most prevalent and best studied worldwide, with robust evidence of harm to human and ecological health”.One of the team, Philip Landrigan, a paediatrician and professor of global public health at Boston College, called the report a “wake-up call”. He said: “The world really has to wake up and do something about chemical pollution. I would argue that the problem of chemical pollution is every bit as serious as the problem with climate change.”Human and ecosystem exposure to synthetic chemicals has surged since the end of the second world war, with chemical production increasing by more than 200 times since the 1950s and more than 350,000 synthetic chemicals currently on the global market.Three years ago, researchers from the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC) concluded that chemical pollution had crossed a “planetary boundary”, the point at which human-made changes to the Earth push it outside the stable environment of the past 10,000 years, the period in which modern human civilisation has developed.Unlike with pharmaceuticals, there are few safeguards to test for the safety of industrial chemicals before they are put into use, and little monitoring of their effects once they are. Some have been found to be disastrously toxic to humans, animals and ecosystems, leaving governments to pick up the bill.This report assesses the impact of four families of synthetic chemicals endemic in global food production. Phthalates and bisphenols are commonly used as plastic additives, employed in food packaging and disposable gloves used in food preparation.Pesticides underpin industrial agriculture, with large-scale monoculture farms spraying thousands of gallons on crops to eliminate weeds and insects, and many crops treated after harvest to maintain freshness.Pfas are used in food contact materials such as greaseproof paper, popcorn tubs and ice-cream cartons, but have also accumulated in the environment to such an extent they enter food via air, soil and water contamination.All have been linked to harms including endocrine (hormone system) disruption, cancers, birth defects, intellectual impairment and obesity.Landrigan said that during his long career in paediatric public health he had seen a shift in the conditions affecting children. “The amount of disease and death caused by infectious diseases like measles, like scarlet fever, like pertussis, has come way down,” he said. “By contrast, there’s been this incredible increase in rates of non-communicable diseases. And of course, there’s no single factor there … but the evidence is very clear that increasing exposure to hundreds, maybe even thousands of manufactured chemicals is a very important cause of disease in kids.”Landrigan said he was most concerned about “the chemicals that damage children’s developing brains and thus make them less intelligent, less creative, just less able to give back to society across the whole of their lifetimes”.“And the second class of chemicals that I worry really worried about are the endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” he added. “Bisphenol would be the classic example, that get into people’s bodies at every age, damage the liver, change cholesterol metabolism, and result in increased serum cholesterol, increased obesity, increased diabetes, and those internally to increase rates of heart disease and stroke.”Asked whether the report could have looked beyond the groups of chemicals studied, Landridge said: “I would argue that they’re only the tip of the iceberg. They’re among the very small number of chemicals, maybe 20 or 30 chemicals where we really have solid toxicologic information.“What scares the hell out of me is the thousands of chemicals to which we’re all exposed every day about which we know nothing. And until one of them causes something obvious, like children to be born with missing limbs, we’re going to go on mindlessly exposing ourselves.”

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.