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.

Military's use of toxic 'forever chemicals' leaves lasting scars

News Feed
Thursday, April 10, 2025

This excerpt comes from the forthcoming book Poisoning the Well: How Forever Chemicals Contaminated America, which details how a set of toxic compounds have devastated entire communities across the country. It has been edited for length and clarity. Colorado Springs and its suburbs in El Paso County are surrounded not only by natural wonders like the Garden of the Gods, a massive park filled with red rock formations, but also several military installations, including Peterson Space Force Base, the US Air Force Academy, and the US Army’s Fort Carson. Mark Favors grew up in the shadow of these bases, part of a tightly knit Black family within the largely White Colorado Springs. As Mark tells it, Cold War–era patriotism molded the city into a libertarian stronghold in which the small-government ideology reigned and “politics was highly, highly, highly discouraged.” Military service, on the other hand, was the bread and butter of the community, a major source of jobs in a rural region. The area is home to about 45,000 military personnel and 15,000 federal employees, as well approximately 90,000 veterans. Mark’s family is no different. Today an ICU nurse in New York City, Mark is himself a veteran, as is his uncle and multiple other relatives. His large squadron of cousins, multiple-times-removed—some blood relations, and others not—have served in most branches of the military, leaving an intercontinental web of bootprints in their wake. Likewise, his mom, Lillian Clark Favors, is a retired Air Force security manager, and his grandmother, Arletha, spent thirty-six years working as a civil servant at Fort Carson. It is a staunchly patriot family—but one that has, in recent years, begun to question why this long history of military service seems to dovetail with an extensive pattern of disease. Sitting at his mother’s dining room table in Colorado Springs, Mark attempted to tabulate exactly how many people in his extended family had suffered from various iterations of cancer and other sometimes-fatal illnesses. That headcount, he estimated, includes more than two dozen cousins, siblings, and in-laws—but does not even begin to touch upon the friends and neighbors who have similar stories. “Another one of my cousins, he’s getting a port now,” Mark said, referring to the under-skin catheters used in kidney dialysis. At least five of his sick family members suffered from kidney-related diseases. Mark has also noticed how tightly the illness tracks with proximity to certain bases. As far back as 1987, when his mother’s department was transferred from the older Ent Air Force Base, near downtown Colorado Springs, to a new building at Peterson Space Base, on the outskirts of the city, colleagues started falling ill. A colonel in her group, Lillian remembered, decided to retire so that he would be able to take his grandson to kindergarten every day. “And then he got sick, and it was like, in two months, he was dead,” she said. Most striking for Mark’s family, however, is the number of relatives who developed diseases after moving to Widefield, about five miles southwest of Peterson. On retirement from the base, Mark’s grandmother decided to turn her hobby of making porcelain dolls into a second career and relocated to the suburb with her husband and son (Mark’s father) in the late 1970s. Mark’s cousin Vikki recalled the moment when her grandmother pulled the family together one Thanksgiving in the late 1980s—with the news that her doctors had discovered a lump and that she was going to need surgery. Following the diagnosis and the surgery, Arletha went through a course of chemotherapy. “And then she started having issues breathing,” Vikki continued. Her cancer had returned. She succumbed to her illness on November 19, 1991, after about a week in the hospital. “She just never was able to recover,” Vikki said. Members of the immediate family who never moved from Colorado Springs to Widefield enjoyed long lives, several living into their nineties. Meanwhile, Arletha’s husband also died of cancer, and her son, who had no kidney issues prior to living in Widefield, developed renal failure and had a subsequent kidney transplant. But after the new kidney became cancerous, he too passed away, at the age of sixty-nine, in 2017. Less than a year later, Mark was visiting his mother when a CBS This Morning special came on TV. As they watched an episode about perfluorochemicals—PFCs—Mark had an unsettling epiphany. “I just started doing more research into it,” Mark remembered, detailing how he began exploring Colorado state environmental mapping data. PFCs, which today are known as PFAS, are a family of synthetic chemicals that have been used in a wide variety of household products from nonstick pans to waterproof clothing and cosmetics to fast food wrappers. These substances have also been linked to various cancers, kidney, liver and thyroid problems and immune system and fertility issues. They were also used for years in military-grade firefighting foam known as aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, which in many cases leached off of bases and into the water supplies of unsuspecting communities nearby. Among Mark’s first moves was to talk to local politicians, as well as try to get his family’s water tested. Ultimately, Mark discovered that the Widefield property was contaminated with PFAS at levels that far surpassed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) drinking water health advisories at the time. Courtesy of Mark Favors Several sets of groundwater samples taken just a half mile west of the property between 2016 and 2018 indicated that the area’s contamination was up to four times those safety thresholds. Rising from his seat at the dining table, Mark milled around the room and picked up a framed certificate that honored his mother for her four decades of service at Peterson. Similar certificates are likely sitting in houses all over Colorado Springs, documenting not only years of service but years of exposure to toxic chemicals. Members of the Favors family had no idea that the firefighting foam being used on nearby bases contained PFAS, or that those chemicals were dangerous, or that they were leaching into the local water supply. But the military, like industry, already had some indication of AFFF’s toxic effects decades before such information became public knowledge. In 1971, the Air Force Research Laboratory flagged the foam in use at the time—3M’s “Light Water”—as both a possible threat to certain fish and a “serious pollutant,” due to its inability to easily break down in water. A few years later, Air Force researchers tested another iteration of Light Water and deemed it “less toxic” than previous PFAS-based foams, but still said it should not be released in substantial quantities if animals would be exposed for several days after the release. In the same era, a 1975 report prepared by a contractor for the Defense Department affirmed that AFFF foams contain PFAS “which are largely resistant to biodegradation.” Five years later, a Navy review suggested that AFFF shouldn’t be used in training at all, noting that it “may present serious environmental pollution problems” and that existing treatment facilities cannot process the substance. Other problematic aspects of PFAS that are more widely known today, such as their toxic byproducts when PFAS are heated, were also noted in the 1970s and 1980s. There did appear to be some knowledge gaps, however, including, as one naval commander put it in correspondence accompanying a 1978 report, 3M’s failure to disclose “any useful information” about the foam’s ingredients. Nevertheless, a 1979 navy guide had also already listed “firefighting agents (e.g., AFFF)” as “hazardous.” Meanwhile, a 1981 document went as far as raising legal concerns, flagging AFFF sludge for evaluation as potentially hazardous waste “to assess the Navy’s responsibility” under a waste cleanup law. The knowledge soon trickled down to the installation level, with a 1985 report conducted at Peterson likewise describing AFFF as a “hazardous material,” though the report said that it did not produce hazardous waste. In 1991, assessments from the Army Corps of Engineers conducted at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, Fort Ord in California, and Fort Carson in Colorado all recommended a transition to “nonhazardous substitutes.” These warnings did have some effect—at least at select military installations. The Colorado Army base started using water rather than foam for training exercises in 1993, according to a Fort Carson spokesperson. Subsequent policy allowed AFFF to be used only in emergencies, until the base replaced it entirely in 2018. Meanwhile, neighboring Peterson took much longer to act—despite a 1989 internal analysis that demanded better management of AFFF waste. But a central issue was that the air force simply has more planes on their installations than does the army on theirs, and jet fuel is particularly flammable when vaporized at high temperatures. In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration for years required all airport firefighters to test their AFFF supplies—and until 2019, the foam was discharged into the environment. Regardless of exactly why the military continued to use AFFF long after the hazards were known, the results were hard-hitting: in communities like Widefield, the firefighting foam flowed into the local water supply—and ultimately tainted residential taps. To Mark Favors, that fact embodies the region’s symbiotic yet subservient relationship with the Defense Department, which he said has left a “trail of human devastation” in its path. Given the extent of the contamination and the onslaught of illnesses that have rattled families across El Paso County, both Mark and his mother, Lillian, now look back at past years with newfound suspicion. “It just kind of makes you wonder, as I say, did they know there was a problem from the beginning, when they started buying the foam or whatever?” Lillian asked. “Did they know?” By November 2016, the US Army Corps of Engineers had detected PFAS at Peterson—noting that the chemicals “may present potential, non-carcinogenic risks to human health and the environment.” Subsequent inspections, published the following year, found significant levels of PFAS in the groundwater at the base’s fire training area. Although no drinking water wells were immediately adjacent to that area, the “migration of PFAS-impacted groundwater offsite is possible and downgradient drinking water wells could be impacted,” the authors concluded. Even down the I-25 highway at Fort Carson, the US Army base where AFFF hadn’t been used in more than three decades, the environment has remained contaminated both on and off the base itself. At multiple spots cited in a January 2022 report, levels of several types of PFAS exceeded risk thresholds set by military leadership—who use those levels to determine the need for further investigation of a given site. In response to the findings, a spokesperson said that the army would evaluate “the nature and extent of PFAS releases and conduct risk assessments using the latest EPA toxicity data.” Such contamination is by no means limited to Colorado, but it has reached military families via vastly different pathways. Peterson’s PFAS pollution has largely flowed into the faucets of off-installation communities downstream, while households on-base have benefited from clean drinking water supplied by Colorado Springs Utilities. This was not necessarily the case on other Defense Department establishments: an internal memorandum showed that as of December 2019, the military served as the direct drinking water provider for about 175,000 people in twenty-four on-site neighborhoods in which levels of PFOA, PFOS, or both were considered unsafe. After the EPA updated the levels that were considered safe in 2022, an advocacy organization called the Environmental Working Group estimated that 600,000 service members were imbibing contaminated water. Meanwhile, blood tests issued to military firefighters over the past few years—as mandated by Congress—have revealed PFAS in virtually all samples. At least one scathing assessment of the military’s behavior has come from within—from the inspector general (IG), an independent internal watchdog for the Defense Department. In 2021, the watchdog dinged the military for declining to “proactively mitigate” risks related to AFFF, contrary to its own policies. While officials had issued a “risk alert” for the foam in 2011, that warning was never elevated, and administrators therefore did not have to respond—and they didn’t until 2016. The watchdog also found “no evidence” that officials on bases, including firefighters, were made aware of the alert. “As a result, people and the environment may have been exposed to preventable risks from PFAS‑containing AFFF,” the report said. Richard Kidd, a high-ranking military official overseeing environmental issues, justified the behavior on the grounds that the military “learned about the health hazards posed by PFAS basically at the same pace as the rest of America.” Only when the EPA issued a final health advisory in 2016 could the Defense Department “take objective, measurable actions,” he added. Yet to many, the military’s actions are too little, too late. Former Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), a vocal advocate for PFAS action, lamented in a March 2024 interview what he described as “the lack of urgency at the very top of the Defense Department” across presidential administrations. Reached for comment in early 2024 under what was then the Biden administration, a spokesperson for the Pentagon’s leadership declined to answer a list of questions about the military’s use of AFFF, its early knowledge about the substance’s pollution potential, or suggestions that it should have been more proactive. Courtesy of Mark Favors In the spring of 2019, the environment subpanel of the congressional House Oversight and Reform Committee began holding a series of hearings on PFAS. The first three sessions established scientific facts about the substances and featured witness testimony about the pervasiveness of the compounds. They also included corporate voices who downplayed the public health risk, as Harley Rouda—a California Democrat and subcommittee chairman at the time—told his colleagues. The goal of the fourth meeting, in November 2019, he explained, was to encourage “immediate federal action to regulate and cleanup these dangerous chemicals.” Mark Favors was there to testify, revisiting his family’s painful experiences of cancer and death. He spoke alongside actor Mark Ruffalo, who portrayed Rob Bilott, a lawyer who helped bring the PFAS issue into public view and represented contamination victims,in Dark Waters—a film that dramatized the lawyer’s fight against DuPont. Both Bilott and resident Bucky Bailey, born missing one nostril after his mother was exposed to PFOA from working at DuPont while pregnant, were sitting in the gallery during the testimonies. At first, Mark Favors was confused as to why he, out of all PFAS activists, was chosen to speak alongside Ruffalo that day. But then he remembered the sheer number of cancer-related deaths that had stricken his family members, many of whom were veterans. “Most of them survived either Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq, and they’re now in a military cemetery—not for combat wounds but for being poisoned by the military,” Mark said. In addition to sharing his family’s experiences, Mark’s goal in testifying was to push for a congressional investigation into wrongdoing related to PFAS. At the helm of any such investigation, he believes, should be an impartial entity, independent of the Defense Department. Mark noted that courts have held the air force accountable for other wrongs, like failing to notify the FBI about an assault conviction of a former serviceman. After that man went on to carry out a 2017 mass shooting, the air force had to pay $230 million to affected families. But when it comes to contamination, the law dictates that the Department of Defense leads all investigations of pollution that begins on its property, rather than the EPA. And at this point, Mark’s confidence in the Defense Department has been badly shaken, to put it mildly. During the November 2019 hearing, Republicans and Democrats alike professed a commitment to ensuring that American communities have access to clean, uncontaminated drinking water—although they had very different thoughts about how to get there. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) cautioned against “taking any sweeping actions” that could harm the economy, while stressing that he does “wholeheartedly support if any families have been poisoned intentionally by corporate America that they get compensated for that.” On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) used most of her time to revisit Mark’s main points, reflecting on the notion that “the army has said this is dangerous.” “That is why we need subpoenas issued for this and we need a comprehensive investigation from Congress,” Mark said in his testimony. “I concur. I concur with you, Mr. Favors,” the congresswoman agreed. Courtesy of Mark Favors The military as a whole is evaluating hundreds of potentially polluted bases to see which might require PFAS cleanup. By the end of 2023, the Defense Department had assessed more than 700 bases and found that 574 of them needed remediation. But such widespread restoration could take years — well into the 2030s for some bases and through 2048 for one particularly problematic site. Nonetheless, the military was taking some intermediate cleanup steps at a small fraction of these polluted installations—just forty as of 2024—while the larger process played out. Amid the lucky locations were Peterson and Fort Carson. Mark Favors has pressed on in hopes that one distant Hail Mary might rattle the scoreboard that has thus far indicated repeated defeat. After all, he explained, the mission of “taking on the Pentagon is not for the weak.” He went so far as to chase down then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) after a PFAS-related hearing, upon remembering that Harris’s stepson had graduated from Colorado College in Colorado Springs in 2017. “You remember when you went to your stepson’s graduation?” Mark asked her. “You know the creek behind Colorado College? . . . That’s all contaminated with PFAS.” Following that revelation, he recalled, Harris’s “mouth literally hit the floor.” What Mark would want from a congressional investigation, in theory, is quite simple. He would aim to “to find out what really happened, how pervasive is it, what can be done to prevent it.” Another critical component would involve holding “people accountable if there was something nefarious, as the documents imply.” A key reason behind the need for such an investigation, from Mark’s perspective, is the lack of legal recourse. Mark has faced repeated stumbling blocks in his quest “to get justice and accountability,” as he said in his 2019 congressional testimony.

This excerpt comes from the forthcoming book Poisoning the Well: How Forever Chemicals Contaminated America, which details how a set of toxic compounds have devastated entire communities across the country. It has been edited for length and clarity. Colorado Springs and its suburbs in El Paso County are surrounded not only by natural wonders like the Garden...

This excerpt comes from the forthcoming book Poisoning the Well: How Forever Chemicals Contaminated America, which details how a set of toxic compounds have devastated entire communities across the country. It has been edited for length and clarity.

Colorado Springs and its suburbs in El Paso County are surrounded not only by natural wonders like the Garden of the Gods, a massive park filled with red rock formations, but also several military installations, including Peterson Space Force Base, the US Air Force Academy, and the US Army’s Fort Carson.

Mark Favors grew up in the shadow of these bases, part of a tightly knit Black family within the largely White Colorado Springs.

As Mark tells it, Cold War–era patriotism molded the city into a libertarian stronghold in which the small-government ideology reigned and “politics was highly, highly, highly discouraged.”

Military service, on the other hand, was the bread and butter of the community, a major source of jobs in a rural region. The area is home to about 45,000 military personnel and 15,000 federal employees, as well approximately 90,000 veterans.

Mark’s family is no different. Today an ICU nurse in New York City, Mark is himself a veteran, as is his uncle and multiple other relatives. His large squadron of cousins, multiple-times-removed—some blood relations, and others not—have served in most branches of the military, leaving an intercontinental web of bootprints in their wake.

Likewise, his mom, Lillian Clark Favors, is a retired Air Force security manager, and his grandmother, Arletha, spent thirty-six years working as a civil servant at Fort Carson.

It is a staunchly patriot family—but one that has, in recent years, begun to question why this long history of military service seems to dovetail with an extensive pattern of disease.

Sitting at his mother’s dining room table in Colorado Springs, Mark attempted to tabulate exactly how many people in his extended family had suffered from various iterations of cancer and other sometimes-fatal illnesses. That headcount, he estimated, includes more than two dozen cousins, siblings, and in-laws—but does not even begin to touch upon the friends and neighbors who have similar stories.

“Another one of my cousins, he’s getting a port now,” Mark said, referring to the under-skin catheters used in kidney dialysis. At least five of his sick family members suffered from kidney-related diseases.

Mark has also noticed how tightly the illness tracks with proximity to certain bases. As far back as 1987, when his mother’s department was transferred from the older Ent Air Force Base, near downtown Colorado Springs, to a new building at Peterson Space Base, on the outskirts of the city, colleagues started falling ill.

A colonel in her group, Lillian remembered, decided to retire so that he would be able to take his grandson to kindergarten every day. “And then he got sick, and it was like, in two months, he was dead,” she said.

Most striking for Mark’s family, however, is the number of relatives who developed diseases after moving to Widefield, about five miles southwest of Peterson.

On retirement from the base, Mark’s grandmother decided to turn her hobby of making porcelain dolls into a second career and relocated to the suburb with her husband and son (Mark’s father) in the late 1970s.

Mark’s cousin Vikki recalled the moment when her grandmother pulled the family together one Thanksgiving in the late 1980s—with the news that her doctors had discovered a lump and that she was going to need surgery. Following the diagnosis and the surgery, Arletha went through a course of chemotherapy.

“And then she started having issues breathing,” Vikki continued.

Her cancer had returned. She succumbed to her illness on November 19, 1991, after about a week in the hospital.

“She just never was able to recover,” Vikki said.

Members of the immediate family who never moved from Colorado Springs to Widefield enjoyed long lives, several living into their nineties. Meanwhile, Arletha’s husband also died of cancer, and her son, who had no kidney issues prior to living in Widefield, developed renal failure and had a subsequent kidney transplant. But after the new kidney became cancerous, he too passed away, at the age of sixty-nine, in 2017.

Less than a year later, Mark was visiting his mother when a CBS This Morning special came on TV. As they watched an episode about perfluorochemicals—PFCs—Mark had an unsettling epiphany. “I just started doing more research into it,” Mark remembered, detailing how he began exploring Colorado state environmental mapping data.

PFCs, which today are known as PFAS, are a family of synthetic chemicals that have been used in a wide variety of household products from nonstick pans to waterproof clothing and cosmetics to fast food wrappers. These substances have also been linked to various cancers, kidney, liver and thyroid problems and immune system and fertility issues. They were also used for years in military-grade firefighting foam known as aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, which in many cases leached off of bases and into the water supplies of unsuspecting communities nearby.

Among Mark’s first moves was to talk to local politicians, as well as try to get his family’s water tested. Ultimately, Mark discovered that the Widefield property was contaminated with PFAS at levels that far surpassed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) drinking water health advisories at the time.

Courtesy of Mark Favors

Several sets of groundwater samples taken just a half mile west of the property between 2016 and 2018 indicated that the area’s contamination was up to four times those safety thresholds. Rising from his seat at the dining table, Mark milled around the room and picked up a framed certificate that honored his mother for her four decades of service at Peterson.

Similar certificates are likely sitting in houses all over Colorado Springs, documenting not only years of service but years of exposure to toxic chemicals.

Members of the Favors family had no idea that the firefighting foam being used on nearby bases contained PFAS, or that those chemicals were dangerous, or that they were leaching into the local water supply.

But the military, like industry, already had some indication of AFFF’s toxic effects decades before such information became public knowledge.

In 1971, the Air Force Research Laboratory flagged the foam in use at the time—3M’s “Light Water”—as both a possible threat to certain fish and a “serious pollutant,” due to its inability to easily break down in water.

A few years later, Air Force researchers tested another iteration of Light Water and deemed it “less toxic” than previous PFAS-based foams, but still said it should not be released in substantial quantities if animals would be exposed for several days after the release.

In the same era, a 1975 report prepared by a contractor for the Defense Department affirmed that AFFF foams contain PFAS “which are largely resistant to biodegradation.”

Five years later, a Navy review suggested that AFFF shouldn’t be used in training at all, noting that it “may present serious environmental pollution problems” and that existing treatment facilities cannot process the substance.

Other problematic aspects of PFAS that are more widely known today, such as their toxic byproducts when PFAS are heated, were also noted in the 1970s and 1980s.

There did appear to be some knowledge gaps, however, including, as one naval commander put it in correspondence accompanying a 1978 report, 3M’s failure to disclose “any useful information” about the foam’s ingredients.

Nevertheless, a 1979 navy guide had also already listed “firefighting agents (e.g., AFFF)” as “hazardous.”

Meanwhile, a 1981 document went as far as raising legal concerns, flagging AFFF sludge for evaluation as potentially hazardous waste “to assess the Navy’s responsibility” under a waste cleanup law.

The knowledge soon trickled down to the installation level, with a 1985 report conducted at Peterson likewise describing AFFF as a “hazardous material,” though the report said that it did not produce hazardous waste.

In 1991, assessments from the Army Corps of Engineers conducted at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, Fort Ord in California, and Fort Carson in Colorado all recommended a transition to “nonhazardous substitutes.”

These warnings did have some effect—at least at select military installations. The Colorado Army base started using water rather than foam for training exercises in 1993, according to a Fort Carson spokesperson.

Subsequent policy allowed AFFF to be used only in emergencies, until the base replaced it entirely in 2018.

Meanwhile, neighboring Peterson took much longer to act—despite a 1989 internal analysis that demanded better management of AFFF waste.

But a central issue was that the air force simply has more planes on their installations than does the army on theirs, and jet fuel is particularly flammable when vaporized at high temperatures.

In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration for years required all airport firefighters to test their AFFF supplies—and until 2019, the foam was discharged into the environment.

Regardless of exactly why the military continued to use AFFF long after the hazards were known, the results were hard-hitting: in communities like Widefield, the firefighting foam flowed into the local water supply—and ultimately tainted residential taps.

To Mark Favors, that fact embodies the region’s symbiotic yet subservient relationship with the Defense Department, which he said has left a “trail of human devastation” in its path.

Given the extent of the contamination and the onslaught of illnesses that have rattled families across El Paso County, both Mark and his mother, Lillian, now look back at past years with newfound suspicion.

“It just kind of makes you wonder, as I say, did they know there was a problem from the beginning, when they started buying the foam or whatever?” Lillian asked. “Did they know?”

By November 2016, the US Army Corps of Engineers had detected PFAS at Peterson—noting that the chemicals “may present potential, non-carcinogenic risks to human health and the environment.”

Subsequent inspections, published the following year, found significant levels of PFAS in the groundwater at the base’s fire training area. Although no drinking water wells were immediately adjacent to that area, the “migration of PFAS-impacted groundwater offsite is possible and downgradient drinking water wells could be impacted,” the authors concluded.

Even down the I-25 highway at Fort Carson, the US Army base where AFFF hadn’t been used in more than three decades, the environment has remained contaminated both on and off the base itself.

At multiple spots cited in a January 2022 report, levels of several types of PFAS exceeded risk thresholds set by military leadership—who use those levels to determine the need for further investigation of a given site.

In response to the findings, a spokesperson said that the army would evaluate “the nature and extent of PFAS releases and conduct risk assessments using the latest EPA toxicity data.”

Such contamination is by no means limited to Colorado, but it has reached military families via vastly different pathways.

Peterson’s PFAS pollution has largely flowed into the faucets of off-installation communities downstream, while households on-base have benefited from clean drinking water supplied by Colorado Springs Utilities.

This was not necessarily the case on other Defense Department establishments: an internal memorandum showed that as of December 2019, the military served as the direct drinking water provider for about 175,000 people in twenty-four on-site neighborhoods in which levels of PFOA, PFOS, or both were considered unsafe.

After the EPA updated the levels that were considered safe in 2022, an advocacy organization called the Environmental Working Group estimated that 600,000 service members were imbibing contaminated water.

Meanwhile, blood tests issued to military firefighters over the past few years—as mandated by Congress—have revealed PFAS in virtually all samples.

At least one scathing assessment of the military’s behavior has come from within—from the inspector general (IG), an independent internal watchdog for the Defense Department.

In 2021, the watchdog dinged the military for declining to “proactively mitigate” risks related to AFFF, contrary to its own policies. While officials had issued a “risk alert” for the foam in 2011, that warning was never elevated, and administrators therefore did not have to respond—and they didn’t until 2016.

The watchdog also found “no evidence” that officials on bases, including firefighters, were made aware of the alert.

“As a result, people and the environment may have been exposed to preventable risks from PFAS‑containing AFFF,” the report said.

Richard Kidd, a high-ranking military official overseeing environmental issues, justified the behavior on the grounds that the military “learned about the health hazards posed by PFAS basically at the same pace as the rest of America.”

Only when the EPA issued a final health advisory in 2016 could the Defense Department “take objective, measurable actions,” he added.

Yet to many, the military’s actions are too little, too late.

Former Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), a vocal advocate for PFAS action, lamented in a March 2024 interview what he described as “the lack of urgency at the very top of the Defense Department” across presidential administrations.

Reached for comment in early 2024 under what was then the Biden administration, a spokesperson for the Pentagon’s leadership declined to answer a list of questions about the military’s use of AFFF, its early knowledge about the substance’s pollution potential, or suggestions that it should have been more proactive.

Courtesy of Mark Favors

In the spring of 2019, the environment subpanel of the congressional House Oversight and Reform Committee began holding a series of hearings on PFAS. The first three sessions established scientific facts about the substances and featured witness testimony about the pervasiveness of the compounds.

They also included corporate voices who downplayed the public health risk, as Harley Rouda—a California Democrat and subcommittee chairman at the time—told his colleagues.

The goal of the fourth meeting, in November 2019, he explained, was to encourage “immediate federal action to regulate and cleanup these dangerous chemicals.”

Mark Favors was there to testify, revisiting his family’s painful experiences of cancer and death.

He spoke alongside actor Mark Ruffalo, who portrayed Rob Bilott, a lawyer who helped bring the PFAS issue into public view and represented contamination victims,in Dark Waters—a film that dramatized the lawyer’s fight against DuPont. Both Bilott and resident Bucky Bailey, born missing one nostril after his mother was exposed to PFOA from working at DuPont while pregnant, were sitting in the gallery during the testimonies.

At first, Mark Favors was confused as to why he, out of all PFAS activists, was chosen to speak alongside Ruffalo that day. But then he remembered the sheer number of cancer-related deaths that had stricken his family members, many of whom were veterans.

“Most of them survived either Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq, and they’re now in a military cemetery—not for combat wounds but for being poisoned by the military,” Mark said.

In addition to sharing his family’s experiences, Mark’s goal in testifying was to push for a congressional investigation into wrongdoing related to PFAS. At the helm of any such investigation, he believes, should be an impartial entity, independent of the Defense Department.

Mark noted that courts have held the air force accountable for other wrongs, like failing to notify the FBI about an assault conviction of a former serviceman. After that man went on to carry out a 2017 mass shooting, the air force had to pay $230 million to affected families.

But when it comes to contamination, the law dictates that the Department of Defense leads all investigations of pollution that begins on its property, rather than the EPA. And at this point, Mark’s confidence in the Defense Department has been badly shaken, to put it mildly.

During the November 2019 hearing, Republicans and Democrats alike professed a commitment to ensuring that American communities have access to clean, uncontaminated drinking water—although they had very different thoughts about how to get there.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) cautioned against “taking any sweeping actions” that could harm the economy, while stressing that he does “wholeheartedly support if any families have been poisoned intentionally by corporate America that they get compensated for that.”

On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) used most of her time to revisit Mark’s main points, reflecting on the notion that “the army has said this is dangerous.”

“That is why we need subpoenas issued for this and we need a comprehensive investigation from Congress,” Mark said in his testimony. “I concur. I concur with you, Mr. Favors,” the congresswoman agreed.

Courtesy of Mark Favors

The military as a whole is evaluating hundreds of potentially polluted bases to see which might require PFAS cleanup. By the end of 2023, the Defense Department had assessed more than 700 bases and found that 574 of them needed remediation.

But such widespread restoration could take years — well into the 2030s for some bases and through 2048 for one particularly problematic site.

Nonetheless, the military was taking some intermediate cleanup steps at a small fraction of these polluted installations—just forty as of 2024—while the larger process played out. Amid the lucky locations were Peterson and Fort Carson.

Mark Favors has pressed on in hopes that one distant Hail Mary might rattle the scoreboard that has thus far indicated repeated defeat. After all, he explained, the mission of “taking on the Pentagon is not for the weak.”

He went so far as to chase down then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) after a PFAS-related hearing, upon remembering that Harris’s stepson had graduated from Colorado College in Colorado Springs in 2017.

“You remember when you went to your stepson’s graduation?” Mark asked her. “You know the creek behind Colorado College? . . . That’s all contaminated with PFAS.”

Following that revelation, he recalled, Harris’s “mouth literally hit the floor.”

What Mark would want from a congressional investigation, in theory, is quite simple. He would aim to “to find out what really happened, how pervasive is it, what can be done to prevent it.”

Another critical component would involve holding “people accountable if there was something nefarious, as the documents imply.”

A key reason behind the need for such an investigation, from Mark’s perspective, is the lack of legal recourse. Mark has faced repeated stumbling blocks in his quest “to get justice and accountability,” as he said in his 2019 congressional testimony.

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.