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.

L.A. fire cleanups reports describe repeated violations, illegal dumping allegation

News Feed
Monday, December 29, 2025

The primary federal contractor entrusted with purging fire debris from the Eaton and Palisades fires may have illegally dumped toxic ash and misused contaminated soil in breach of state policy, according to federal government reports recently obtained by The Times.The records depict harried disaster workers appearing to take dangerous shortcuts that could leave hazardous pollution and endanger thousands of survivors poised to return to these communities. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allocated $60 million to hire personnel to monitor daily cleanup operations and document any health and safety risks. The Times obtained thousands of government oversight reports that detail these federal efforts to rid fire-destroyed homes of toxic debris between February and mid-May. The records, which were obtained on a rolling basis over several months, include dozens of instances in which oversight personnel flagged workers for disregarding cleanup procedures in a way that likely spread toxic substances. The latest batch of reports — turned over to The Times on Dec. 1 — contained allegations of improper actions involving Environmental Chemical Corp., the primary federal contractor, and the dozens of debris-removal crews it supervised. For example, on April 30, federally hired workers were clearing fire debris from a burned-down home in the Palisades burn scar. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, after the last dump truck left, an official with Environmental Chemical Corp., a Burlingame, Calif., company hired to carry out the federal debris removal mission, ordered workers to move the remaining ash and debris to a neighboring property.The crew used construction equipment to move four or five “buckets” worth of fire debris onto the neighboring property. It’s unclear if that property was also destroyed in the Palisades fire, and, if so, whether it had been already remediated.“I questioned if this was allowable and then the crew dumped material into the excavator bucket and planned to move it on the lowboy with material in bucket,” a federal supervisor wrote in a report intended to track performance of contractors. “Don’t think this is allowed.” According to the report, the workers also left glass, ash and other fire debris on the property the crew had been clearing, because they “were in a rush to get to the next site.” Experts who reviewed the reports said the behavior described may amount to illegal dumping under California law. Other reports obtained by The Times describe federal cleanup workers, on multiple occasions, using ash-contaminated soil to backfill holes and smooth out uneven portions of fire-destroyed properties in the Palisades burn scar. If that were true, it would be a breach of state policy that says contaminated soil from areas undergoing environmental cleanup cannot be used in this way. The reports also cite multiple occasions where workers walked through already cleared properties with dirty boot covers, possibly re-contaminating them. The inspectors also reported crews spraying contaminated pool water onto neighboring properties and into storm drains, and excavator operators using toothed buckets that caused clean and contaminated soil to be commingled.“Obviously, there was some really good work done,” state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Pacific Palisades) said about the federal cleanup. “But it appears that we’ve got some folks who are knowingly breaking the law and cutting corners in their cleanup protocol. “We’ve got to figure out how widespread this was, and anybody who was responsible for having broken a law in this area needs to be held accountable.” The Army Corps did not respond to requests for comment. An ECC executive said that without information such as the properties’ addresses or parcel numbers, he could not verify whether the accusations made in the oversight reports were substantiated by the companies’ own investigations or if any issues raised by the inspectors were resolved. Such specifics were redacted in the version of the reports sent to The Times. “At a high level, ECC does not authorize the placement of wildfire debris or ash on neighboring properties, does not permit the use of contaminated material as fill, and operates under continuous [Army Corps] oversight,” said Glenn Sweatt, ECC’s vice president of contracts and compliance.Between February and September, the Army Corps responded to nearly 1,100 public complaints or other inquiries related to the federal fire cleanup. Over 20% of grievances were related to quality of work, according to the Army Corps assessment of complaints. Some of these complaints point to the same concerns raised by the inspectors. For example, a resident in the Eaton burn scar filed a complaint on June 19 that “crews working on adjacent properties moved fire debris and ash onto his property after he specifically asked them not to.” Other property owners in Altadena filed complaints that crews had left all sorts of fire debris on their property — in some cases, buried in the ground. The Army Corps or ECC ordered crews to go back and finish up the debris removal for some properties. Other times, the officials left the work and costs to disaster victims. A Palisades property owner complained on May 7 that after the Army Corps supposedly completed cleaning his property, he found “parts of broken foundation [that] were buried to avoid full removal.” He said it cost him $40,000 to hire a private contractor to gather up and dispose of several dumpsters of busted-up concrete. James Mayfield, a hazardous materials specialist and owner of Mayfield Environmental Engineering, was hired by more than 200 homeowners affected by the fires to remove debris and contaminated soil — including, in some cases, from properties already cleared by Army Corps contractors. When Mayfield and his workers excavated additional soil from Army Corps-cleared properties, he said they occasionally uncovered ash, slabs of burned stucco, and other debris. “All you have to do is scoop and you can see the rest of the house underneath the ground,” Mayfield said. “It was never cleared at all.” After January’s wildfires, local health authorities warned the soil could be riddled with harmful pollutants from burned-down homes and cars, including lead, a heavy metal that can cause irreversible brain damage when inhaled or ingested by young children.Soil testing has been standard practice after major wildfires in California since 2007. Typically, after work crews clear away fire debris and several inches of topsoil from burned-down homes, federal or state disaster officials arrange for the same contractors to test the soil for lingering contamination. If they find contamination above state benchmarks, they are required to excavate another layer of that soil and conduct additional rounds of testing.But the aftermath of the Eaton and Palisades fires has been different. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has repeatedly refused to pay for soil testing in California, insisting the practice is not necessary to remove any immediate threats after the fires. The Newsom administration unsuccessfully petitioned FEMA to reconsider conducting soil testing to protect returning residents and workers. But as pressure mounted on the state to fund soil testing, the California Environmental Protection Agency secretary downplayed public health risks from fire contamination.Indeed, the vast majority of wildfire cleanups in California are managed by state agencies. Since the January wildfires, California officials have been noticeably guarded when questioned about how the state will respond when the next major wildfire inevitably strikes.Asked whether the state will continue to adhere to its long-standing post-fire soil sampling protocols, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services wouldn’t directly answer whether it would pay for soil testing after future wildfires. Its director, Nancy Ward, declined to be interviewed.“California has the most advanced testing systems in the nation, and we remain committed to advocating for the safe, timely removal of debris after a wildfire,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement. “Protecting public health and the well-being of impacted communities remains the state’s foremost priority.”Some environmental experts and lawmakers worry that abandoning long-established wildfire protocols, like soil testing, may set a precedent where disaster victims will assume more costs and work to ensure that their properties are safe to return to and rebuild upon.U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (D–Los Angeles) called for the Army Corps to review the results of large-scale soil testing initiatives, including data from USC, to determine which contractors were assigned to clean properties where heavy contamination persists. Such an analysis, he said, might help the federal government figure out which contractors performed poor work, so that they they aren’t hired in future disasters. “I’m going to press the Army Corps to look at where the testing indicates there was still contaminants and who is the contractor for that, to see whether there are certain contractors that had a high failure rate,” Sherman said.“I want to make sure they’re ... evaluating these contractors vis-à-vis the next disaster,” he added. “And, ultimately it’s in the testing.”Throughout much of Altadena and Pacific Palisades, thousands of empty lots are awaiting permits to rebuild. But many property owners fear the possibility of contamination. The Department of Angels, a community-led nonprofit formed after the January wildfires, surveyed 2,300 residents whose homes were damaged or destroyed by the Eaton and Palisades blazes. About one-third of respondents said they wanted testing but had not received it.“The government abandoned testing and left us on our own,” one victim wrote. “We have each had to find out what is the best route to test and remediate, but without standardization and consistency, we are a giant experiment.”

We reviewed thousands of pages of Army Corps of Engineering quality assurance reports for the January fire soil cleanup. The results were startling.

The primary federal contractor entrusted with purging fire debris from the Eaton and Palisades fires may have illegally dumped toxic ash and misused contaminated soil in breach of state policy, according to federal government reports recently obtained by The Times.

The records depict harried disaster workers appearing to take dangerous shortcuts that could leave hazardous pollution and endanger thousands of survivors poised to return to these communities.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allocated $60 million to hire personnel to monitor daily cleanup operations and document any health and safety risks. The Times obtained thousands of government oversight reports that detail these federal efforts to rid fire-destroyed homes of toxic debris between February and mid-May.

The records, which were obtained on a rolling basis over several months, include dozens of instances in which oversight personnel flagged workers for disregarding cleanup procedures in a way that likely spread toxic substances.

The latest batch of reports — turned over to The Times on Dec. 1 — contained allegations of improper actions involving Environmental Chemical Corp., the primary federal contractor, and the dozens of debris-removal crews it supervised.

For example, on April 30, federally hired workers were clearing fire debris from a burned-down home in the Palisades burn scar. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, after the last dump truck left, an official with Environmental Chemical Corp., a Burlingame, Calif., company hired to carry out the federal debris removal mission, ordered workers to move the remaining ash and debris to a neighboring property.

The crew used construction equipment to move four or five “buckets” worth of fire debris onto the neighboring property. It’s unclear if that property was also destroyed in the Palisades fire, and, if so, whether it had been already remediated.

“I questioned if this was allowable and then the crew dumped material into the excavator bucket and planned to move it on the lowboy with material in bucket,” a federal supervisor wrote in a report intended to track performance of contractors. “Don’t think this is allowed.”

According to the report, the workers also left glass, ash and other fire debris on the property the crew had been clearing, because they “were in a rush to get to the next site.”

Experts who reviewed the reports said the behavior described may amount to illegal dumping under California law. Other reports obtained by The Times describe federal cleanup workers, on multiple occasions, using ash-contaminated soil to backfill holes and smooth out uneven portions of fire-destroyed properties in the Palisades burn scar. If that were true, it would be a breach of state policy that says contaminated soil from areas undergoing environmental cleanup cannot be used in this way.

The reports also cite multiple occasions where workers walked through already cleared properties with dirty boot covers, possibly re-contaminating them. The inspectors also reported crews spraying contaminated pool water onto neighboring properties and into storm drains, and excavator operators using toothed buckets that caused clean and contaminated soil to be commingled.

“Obviously, there was some really good work done,” state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Pacific Palisades) said about the federal cleanup. “But it appears that we’ve got some folks who are knowingly breaking the law and cutting corners in their cleanup protocol.

“We’ve got to figure out how widespread this was, and anybody who was responsible for having broken a law in this area needs to be held accountable.”

The Army Corps did not respond to requests for comment. An ECC executive said that without information such as the properties’ addresses or parcel numbers, he could not verify whether the accusations made in the oversight reports were substantiated by the companies’ own investigations or if any issues raised by the inspectors were resolved. Such specifics were redacted in the version of the reports sent to The Times.

“At a high level, ECC does not authorize the placement of wildfire debris or ash on neighboring properties, does not permit the use of contaminated material as fill, and operates under continuous [Army Corps] oversight,” said Glenn Sweatt, ECC’s vice president of contracts and compliance.

Between February and September, the Army Corps responded to nearly 1,100 public complaints or other inquiries related to the federal fire cleanup. Over 20% of grievances were related to quality of work, according to the Army Corps assessment of complaints.

Some of these complaints point to the same concerns raised by the inspectors. For example, a resident in the Eaton burn scar filed a complaint on June 19 that “crews working on adjacent properties moved fire debris and ash onto his property after he specifically asked them not to.”

Other property owners in Altadena filed complaints that crews had left all sorts of fire debris on their property — in some cases, buried in the ground.

The Army Corps or ECC ordered crews to go back and finish up the debris removal for some properties. Other times, the officials left the work and costs to disaster victims.

A Palisades property owner complained on May 7 that after the Army Corps supposedly completed cleaning his property, he found “parts of broken foundation [that] were buried to avoid full removal.” He said it cost him $40,000 to hire a private contractor to gather up and dispose of several dumpsters of busted-up concrete.

James Mayfield, a hazardous materials specialist and owner of Mayfield Environmental Engineering, was hired by more than 200 homeowners affected by the fires to remove debris and contaminated soil — including, in some cases, from properties already cleared by Army Corps contractors.

When Mayfield and his workers excavated additional soil from Army Corps-cleared properties, he said they occasionally uncovered ash, slabs of burned stucco, and other debris.

“All you have to do is scoop and you can see the rest of the house underneath the ground,” Mayfield said. “It was never cleared at all.”

After January’s wildfires, local health authorities warned the soil could be riddled with harmful pollutants from burned-down homes and cars, including lead, a heavy metal that can cause irreversible brain damage when inhaled or ingested by young children.

Soil testing has been standard practice after major wildfires in California since 2007. Typically, after work crews clear away fire debris and several inches of topsoil from burned-down homes, federal or state disaster officials arrange for the same contractors to test the soil for lingering contamination. If they find contamination above state benchmarks, they are required to excavate another layer of that soil and conduct additional rounds of testing.

But the aftermath of the Eaton and Palisades fires has been different. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has repeatedly refused to pay for soil testing in California, insisting the practice is not necessary to remove any immediate threats after the fires. The Newsom administration unsuccessfully petitioned FEMA to reconsider conducting soil testing to protect returning residents and workers. But as pressure mounted on the state to fund soil testing, the California Environmental Protection Agency secretary downplayed public health risks from fire contamination.

Indeed, the vast majority of wildfire cleanups in California are managed by state agencies. Since the January wildfires, California officials have been noticeably guarded when questioned about how the state will respond when the next major wildfire inevitably strikes.

Asked whether the state will continue to adhere to its long-standing post-fire soil sampling protocols, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services wouldn’t directly answer whether it would pay for soil testing after future wildfires. Its director, Nancy Ward, declined to be interviewed.

“California has the most advanced testing systems in the nation, and we remain committed to advocating for the safe, timely removal of debris after a wildfire,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement. “Protecting public health and the well-being of impacted communities remains the state’s foremost priority.”

Some environmental experts and lawmakers worry that abandoning long-established wildfire protocols, like soil testing, may set a precedent where disaster victims will assume more costs and work to ensure that their properties are safe to return to and rebuild upon.

U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (D–Los Angeles) called for the Army Corps to review the results of large-scale soil testing initiatives, including data from USC, to determine which contractors were assigned to clean properties where heavy contamination persists. Such an analysis, he said, might help the federal government figure out which contractors performed poor work, so that they they aren’t hired in future disasters.

“I’m going to press the Army Corps to look at where the testing indicates there was still contaminants and who is the contractor for that, to see whether there are certain contractors that had a high failure rate,” Sherman said.

“I want to make sure they’re ... evaluating these contractors vis-à-vis the next disaster,” he added. “And, ultimately it’s in the testing.”

Throughout much of Altadena and Pacific Palisades, thousands of empty lots are awaiting permits to rebuild. But many property owners fear the possibility of contamination.

The Department of Angels, a community-led nonprofit formed after the January wildfires, surveyed 2,300 residents whose homes were damaged or destroyed by the Eaton and Palisades blazes. About one-third of respondents said they wanted testing but had not received it.

“The government abandoned testing and left us on our own,” one victim wrote. “We have each had to find out what is the best route to test and remediate, but without standardization and consistency, we are a giant experiment.”

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.