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

Forever Chemicals' Might Triple Teens' Risk Of Fatty Liver Disease

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Jan. 8, 2026 (HealthDay News) — PFAS “forever chemicals” might nearly triple a young person’s risk...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Jan. 8, 2026 (HealthDay News) — PFAS “forever chemicals” might nearly triple a young person’s risk of developing fatty liver disease, a new study says.Each doubling in blood levels of the PFAS chemical perfluorooctanoic acid is linked to 2.7 times the odds of fatty liver disease among teenagers, according to findings published in the January issue of the journal Environmental Research.Fatty liver disease — also known as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) — occurs when fat builds up in the organ, leading to inflammation, scarring and increased risk of cancer.About 10% of all children, and up to 40% of children with obesity, have fatty liver disease, researchers said in background notes.“MASLD can progress silently for years before causing serious health problems,” said senior researcher Dr. Lida Chatzi, a professor of population and public health sciences and pediatrics at the Keck School of Medicine of USC in Los Angeles.“When liver fat starts accumulating in adolescence, it may set the stage for a lifetime of metabolic and liver health challenges,” Chatzi added in a news release. “If we reduce PFAS exposure early, we may help prevent liver disease later. That’s a powerful public health opportunity.”Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are called “forever chemicals” because they combine carbon and fluorine molecules, one of the strongest chemical bonds possible. This makes PFAS removal and breakdown very difficult.PFAS compounds have been used in consumer products since the 1940s, including fire extinguishing foam, nonstick cookware, food wrappers, stain-resistant furniture and waterproof clothing.More than 99% of Americans have measurable PFAS in their blood, and at least one PFAS chemical is present in roughly half of U.S. drinking water supplies, researchers said.“Adolescents are particularly more vulnerable to the health effects of PFAS as it is a critical period of development and growth,” lead researcher Shiwen “Sherlock” Li, an assistant professor of public health sciences at the University of Hawaii, said in a news release.“In addition to liver disease, PFAS exposure has been associated with a range of adverse health outcomes, including several types of cancer,” Li said.For the new study, researchers examined data on 284 Southern California adolescents and young adults gathered as part of two prior USC studies.All of the participants already had a high risk of metabolic disease because their parents had type 2 diabetes or were overweight, researchers said.Their PFAS levels were measured through blood tests, and liver fat was assessed using MRI scans.Higher blood levels of two common PFAS — perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) — were linked to an increased risk of fatty liver disease.Results showed a young person’s risk was even higher if they smoked or carried a genetic variant known to influence liver fat.“These findings suggest that PFAS exposures, genetics and lifestyle factors work together to influence who has greater risk of developing MASLD as a function of your life stage,” researcher Max Aung, assistant professor of population and public health sciences at the Keck School of Medicine, said in a news release.“Understanding gene and environment interactions can help advance precision environmental health for MASLD,” he added.The study also showed that fatty liver disease became more common as teens grew older, adding to evidence that younger people might be more vulnerable to PFAS exposure, Chatzi said.“PFAS exposures not only disrupt liver biology but also translate into real liver disease risk in youth,” Chatzi said. “Adolescence seems to be a critical window of susceptibility, suggesting PFAS exposure may matter most when the liver is still developing.”The Environmental Working Group has more on PFAS.SOURCES: Keck School of Medicine of USC, news release, Jan. 6, 2026; Environmental Research, Jan. 1, 2026Copyright © 2026 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

China Announces Another New Trade Measure Against Japan as Tensions Rise

China has escalated its trade tensions with Japan by launching an investigation into imported dichlorosilane, a chemical gas used in making semiconductors

BEIJING (AP) — China escalated its trade tensions with Japan on Wednesday by launching an investigation into imported dichlorosilane, a chemical gas used in making semiconductors, a day after it imposed curbs on the export of so-called dual-use goods that could be used by Japan’s military.The Chinese Commerce Ministry said in a statement that it had launched the investigation following an application from the domestic industry showing the price of dichlorosilane imported from Japan had decreased 31% between 2022 and 2024.“The dumping of imported products from Japan has damaged the production and operation of our domestic industry,” the ministry said.The measure comes a day after Beijing banned exports to Japan of dual-use goods that can have military applications.Beijing has been showing mounting displeasure with Tokyo after new Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi suggested late last year that her nation's military could intervene if China were to take action against Taiwan — an island democracy that Beijing considers its own territory.Tensions were stoked again on Tuesday when Japanese lawmaker Hei Seki, who last year was sanctioned by China for “spreading fallacies” about Taiwan and other disputed territories, visited Taiwan and called it an independent country. Also known as Yo Kitano, he has been banned from entering China. He told reporters that his arrival in Taiwan demonstrated the two are “different countries.”“I came to Taiwan … to prove this point, and to tell the world that Taiwan is an independent country,” Hei Seki said, according to Taiwan’s Central News Agency.“The nasty words of a petty villain like him are not worth commenting on,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning retorted when asked about his comment. Fears of a rare earths curb Masaaki Kanai, head of Asia Oceanian Affairs at Japan's Foreign Ministry, urged China to scrap the trade curbs, saying a measure exclusively targeting Japan that deviates from international practice is unacceptable. Japan, however, has yet to announce any retaliatory measures.As the two countries feuded, speculation rose that China might target rare earths exports to Japan, in a move similar to the rounds of critical minerals export restrictions it has imposed as part of its trade war with the United States.China controls most of the global production of heavy rare earths, used for making powerful, heat-resistance magnets used in industries such as defense and electric vehicles.While the Commerce Ministry did not mention any new rare earths curbs, the official newspaper China Daily, seen as a government mouthpiece, quoted anonymous sources saying Beijing was considering tightening exports of certain rare earths to Japan. That report could not be independently confirmed. Improved South Korean ties contrast with Japan row As Beijing spars with Tokyo, it has made a point of courting a different East Asian power — South Korea.On Wednesday, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung wrapped up a four-day trip to China – his first since taking office in June. Lee and Chinese President Xi Jinping oversaw the signing of cooperation agreements in areas such as technology, trade, transportation and environmental protection.As if to illustrate a contrast with the China-Japan trade frictions, Lee joined two business events at which major South Korean and Chinese companies pledged to collaborate.The two sides signed 24 export contracts worth a combined $44 million, according to South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources. During Lee’s visit, Chinese media also reported that South Korea overtook Japan as the leading destination for outbound flights from China’s mainland over the New Year’s holiday.China has been discouraging travel to Japan, saying Japanese leaders’ comments on Taiwan have created “significant risks to the personal safety and lives of Chinese citizens in Japan.”Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Pesticide industry ‘immunity shield’ stripped from US appropriations bill

Democrats and the Make America Healthy Again movement pushed back on the rider in a funding bill led by BayerIn a setback for the pesticide industry, Democrats have succeeded in removing a rider from a congressional appropriations bill that would have helped protect pesticide makers from being sued and could have hindered state efforts to warn about pesticide risks.Chellie Pingree, a Democratic representative from Maine and ranking member of the House appropriations interior, environment, and related agencies subcommittee, said Monday that the controversial measure pushed by the agrochemical giant Bayer and industry allies has been stripped from the 2026 funding bill. Continue reading...

In a setback for the pesticide industry, Democrats have succeeded in removing a rider from a congressional appropriations bill that would have helped protect pesticide makers from being sued and could have hindered state efforts to warn about pesticide risks.Chellie Pingree, a Democratic representative from Maine and ranking member of the House appropriations interior, environment, and related agencies subcommittee, said Monday that the controversial measure pushed by the agrochemical giant Bayer and industry allies has been stripped from the 2026 funding bill.The move is final, as Senate Republican leaders have agreed not to revisit the issue, Pingree said.“I just drew a line in the sand and said this cannot stay in the bill,” Pingree told the Guardian. “There has been intensive lobbying by Bayer. This has been quite a hard fight.”The now-deleted language was part of a larger legislative effort that critics say is aimed at limiting litigation against pesticide industry leader Bayer, which sells the widely used Roundup herbicides.An industry alliance set up by Bayer has been pushing for both state and federal laws that would make it harder for consumers to sue over pesticide risks to human health and has successfully lobbied for the passing of such laws in Georgia and North Dakota so far.The specific proposed language added to the appropriations bill blocked federal funds from being used to “issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling” inconsistent with the conclusion of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) human health assessment.Critics said the language would have impeded states and local governments from warning about risks of pesticides even in the face of new scientific findings about health harms if such warnings were not consistent with outdated EPA assessments. The EPA itself would not be able to update warnings without finalizing a new assessment, the critics said.And because of the limits on warnings, critics of the rider said, consumers would have found it difficult, if not impossible, to sue pesticide makers for failing to warn them of health risks if the EPA assessments do not support such warnings.“This provision would have handed pesticide manufacturers exactly what they’ve been lobbying for: federal preemption that stops state and local governments from restricting the use of harmful, cancer-causing chemicals, adding health warnings, or holding companies accountable in court when people are harmed,” Pingree said in a statement. “It would have meant that only the federal government gets a say – even though we know federal reviews can take years, and are often subject to intense industry pressure.”Pingree tried but failed to overturn the language in a July appropriations committee hearing.Bayer, the key backer of the legislative efforts, has been struggling for years to put an end to thousands of lawsuits filed by people who allege they developed cancer from their use of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers sold by Bayer. The company inherited the litigation when it bought Monsanto in 2018 and has paid out billions of dollars in settlements and jury verdicts but still faces several thousand ongoing lawsuits. Bayer maintains its glyphosate-based herbicides do not cause cancer and are safe when used as directed.When asked for comment on Monday, Bayer said that no company should have “blanket immunity” and it disputed that the appropriations bill language would have prevented anyone from suing pesticide manufacturers. The company said it supports state and federal legislation “because the future of American farming depends on reliable science-based regulation of important crop protection products – determined safe for use by the EPA”.The company additionally states on its website that without “legislative certainty”, lawsuits over its glyphosate-based Roundup and other weed killers can impact its research and product development and other “important investments”.Pingree said her efforts were aided by members of the Make America Healthy Again (Maha) movement who have spent the last few months meeting with congressional members and their staffers on this issue. She said her team reached out to Maha leadership in the last few days to pressure Republican lawmakers.“This is the first time that we’ve had a fairly significant advocacy group working on the Republican side,” she said.Last week, Zen Honeycutt, a Maha leader and founder of the group Moms Across America, posted a “call to action”, urging members to demand elected officials “Stop the Pesticide Immunity Shield”.“A lot of people helped make this happen,” Honeycutt said. “Many health advocates have been fervently expressing their requests to keep chemical companies accountable for safety … We are delighted that our elected officials listened to so many Americans who spoke up and are restoring trust in the American political system.”Pingree said the issue is not dead. Bayer has “made this a high priority”, and she expects to see continued efforts to get industry friendly language inserted into legislation, including into the new Farm Bill.“I don’t think this is over,” she said.This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group

Forever Chemicals' Common in Cosmetics, but FDA Says Safety Data Are Scant

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Jan. 3, 2026 (HealthDay News) — Federal regulators have released a mandated report regarding the...

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Jan. 3, 2026 (HealthDay News) — Federal regulators have released a mandated report regarding the presence of "forever chemicals" in makeup and skincare products. Forever chemicals — known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS — are manmade chemicals that don't break down and have built up in people’s bodies and the environment. They are sometimes added to beauty products intentionally, and sometimes they are contaminants. While the findings confirm that PFAS are widely used in the beauty industry, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admitted it lacks enough scientific evidence to determine if they are truly safe for consumers.The new report reveals that 51 forever chemicals — are used in 1,744 cosmetic formulations. These synthetic chemicals are favored by manufacturers because they make products waterproof, increase their durability and improve texture.FDA scientists focused their review on the 25 most frequently used PFAS, which account for roughly 96% of these chemicals found in beauty products. The results were largely unclear. While five were deemed to have low safety concerns, one was flagged for potential health risks, and safety of the rest could not be confirmed.FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary expressed concern over the difficulty in accessing private research. “Our scientists found that toxicological data for most PFAS are incomplete or unavailable, leaving significant uncertainty about consumer safety,” Makary said in a news release, adding that “this lack of reliable data demands further research.”Despite growing concerns about their potential toxicity, no federal laws specifically ban their use in cosmetics.The FDA report focuses on chemicals that are added to products on purpose, rather than those that might show up as accidental contaminants. Moving forward, FDA plans to work closely with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update and strengthen recommendations on PFAS across the retail and food supply chain, Makary said. The agency has vowed to devote more resources to monitoring these chemicals and will take enforcement action if specific products are proven to be dangerous.The U.S. Food and Drug Administration provides updates and consumer guidance on the use of PFAS in cosmetics.SOURCE: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, news release, Dec. 29, 2025Copyright © 2026 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

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.