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.

‘Wake-up call’: pipeline leak exposes carbon capture safety gaps, advocates say

News Feed
Friday, April 19, 2024

Estimated 2,548 barrels of carbon dioxide leaked from Exxon pipeline in Louisiana on 3 April, triggering alarm among residentsA major leak of CO2 from an ExxonMobil pipeline in Louisiana exposes dangerous safety gaps that should halt the planned multibillion-dollar carbon capture industry, environmental advocates say.An estimated 2,548 barrels of carbon dioxide (CO2) leaked from the Exxon pipeline in Sulphur in Calcasieu Parish on 3 April, triggering an emergency response and alarm among residents who live in close proximity to scores of polluting pipelines, petrochemical and fossil fuel facilities. Continue reading...

Estimated 2,548 barrels of carbon dioxide leaked from Exxon pipeline in Louisiana on 3 April, triggering alarm among residentsA major leak of CO2 from an ExxonMobil pipeline in Louisiana exposes dangerous safety gaps that should halt the planned multibillion-dollar carbon capture industry, environmental advocates say.An estimated 2,548 barrels of carbon dioxide (CO2) leaked from the Exxon pipeline in Sulphur in Calcasieu Parish on 3 April, triggering an emergency response and alarm among residents who live in close proximity to scores of polluting pipelines, petrochemical and fossil fuel facilities. Continue reading...

Estimated 2,548 barrels of carbon dioxide leaked from Exxon pipeline in Louisiana on 3 April, triggering alarm among residents

A major leak of CO2 from an ExxonMobil pipeline in Louisiana exposes dangerous safety gaps that should halt the planned multibillion-dollar carbon capture industry, environmental advocates say.

An estimated 2,548 barrels of carbon dioxide (CO2) leaked from the Exxon pipeline in Sulphur in Calcasieu Parish on 3 April, triggering an emergency response and alarm among residents who live in close proximity to scores of polluting pipelines, petrochemical and fossil fuel facilities.

Continue reading...
Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Don’t talk – listen. Why communities affected by forever chemicals in water must be heard

When worried communities talk to authorities about forever chemicals, officials often seek to explain and clarify. But this isn’t what people actually want.

97s/Unsplash, CC BY-NC-NDUntil recently, Australia’s efforts to tackle “forever chemical” pollution focused on highly polluted firefighting and defence sites. But last year, elevated levels of some of these chemicals were detected in the untreated water supply for the Blue Mountains in New South Wales. Residents were understandably concerned. Community groups threatened to launch a class action, while residents sought to have their blood tested. NSW Water Minister Rose Jackson moved to reassure residents their “water is safe”, and a Sydney Morning Herald editorial said the state government was blind to the risks. Earlier this year, Australia banned three of these chemicals – PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS. PFOA is considered carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, while PFOS is considered possibly carcinogenic. But the environmental and health effects of forever chemical exposure remain a matter of debate, as the risk depends on concentration. In November, a Senate inquiry made dozens of recommendations to better regulate these chemicals. All too often, authorities respond to legitimate community concerns by pointing to the low level of risk. But as these chemicals build up in drinking water, wastewater and farming soils, this trust-the-experts approach isn’t going to work. Risks and concentration levels Forever chemicals are properly known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). They’re used in products such as carpets, clothes, food packaging and paper, as well as firefighting foams, pesticides and stain repellents. They don’t break down easily, and steadily accumulate in soil, surface water and groundwater. Around 15,000 PFAS chemicals are now ubiquitous in the environment. In highly contaminated sites such as firefighter training facilities or defence bases, the risk is clearer and responses can target specific facilities and geographic locations. But the question of what to do becomes much harder when forever chemicals become widely distributed in drinking water and wastewater systems, generally at levels well below thresholds considered dangerous according to Australian standards. In response to the Blue Mountains issue, Water NSW stopped two dams from supplying water as a precautionary measure. Sydney Water installed a new PFAS water treatment system. Community backlash Australian authorities began responding to PFAS contamination a decade ago. Since then, policymakers have restricted the import and manufacture of certain forever chemicals, banned some uses of PFAS-containing firefighting foams, developed a national plan to manage PFAS chemicals, officially set the levels of PFAS a person could safely consume in a day and developed guidelines for drinking water. Even with such actions, authorities have been subject to sustained public criticism from community groups and the media over the speed, adequacy and level of protections compared to the more restrictive thresholds set by the United States and European Union. At Williamtown in NSW, authorities were aware of the issue for three years before revealing it. Community groups lost faith in official responses, turning to external experts before ultimately launching a class action against the Department of Defence. Some compensation flowed from this based on financial losses. But researchers have found compensation does little to actually address residents’ health and environment concerns. Independent reviews have recommended official responses to PFAS should be more transparent. But little has changed. The same distrust is emerging in the Blue Mountains, while state and federal inquiries have raised questions over how PFAS risks are communicated and falling public trust in government agencies. Better communication misses the point Community backlash against issues such as PFAS contamination can often be framed as non-experts misunderstanding the science. Authorities often think the answer is to communicate better and more clearly to fix the deficit. For instance, the national PFAS policy describes communication as essential: if people affected by PFAS contamination cannot understand what governments are saying, they are more likely to view the information with scepticism or as a deliberate attempt to disguise the facts. The risk here is that focusing on better official communication is still about speaking, rather than listening. The community can become a noisy stakeholder to be managed rather than an active collaborator. But people in these communities are legitimately worried. They want to speak and be heard as equal partners. Is there a better way? PFAS contamination isn’t just a technological or legal issue. It’s also a social issue – it affects communities. When facing a pollution problem, affected communities often organise themselves and advocate for better outcomes. Community groups often commission independent research or conduct citizen science, while collaborating with scientists and engineers. Officials and residents should collectively work through the options and costs associated, as well as discussing what level of risk different communities are willing to accept. Public forums aren’t enough, as these tend to put experts at the centre, answering questions. The launch of the first community-based PFAS working group under the new PFAS National Coordinating Body is a positive initial step. Collaborative efforts like this are not easy. Authorities and community leaders can view each other with suspicion, and the unequal power dynamics play a role. As NSW Information Commissioner Rosalind Croucher recently pointed out, making contamination data easily available to communities helps ensure management is “transparent, evidence-based, and accountable to the communities it affects”. Hard but not impossible Like forever chemicals themselves, the issue of PFAS pollution isn’t going away. Finding better ways of responding will be essential, as the issue can’t be solved by scientists, engineers and policymakers in a top-down approach. Communities who have to drink the water must be given the right to speak – and be heard. Read more: Living with PFAS 'forever chemicals' can be distressing. Not knowing if they're making you sick is just the start Matthew Kearnes receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Australian government under the National Environmental Science Program, through the Sustainable Communities and Waste HubCameron Holley receives funding from an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant, partnering with the NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator. He is a Deputy Director of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response and a board member of the National Environmental Law Association (NELA). Carley Bartlett receives funding from an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant, partnering with the NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator. Her PhD research was supported by an Australian government Research Training Program scholarship.Patrick Bonney receives funding from an Australian Research Council Discovery Project on the governance of emerging contaminants.Denis O'Carroll does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Tunisians Revive Protests in Gabes Over Pollution From State Chemical Plant

By Tarek AmaraTUNIS, Dec 17 (Reuters) - Around 2,500 ‌Tunisians ​marched through the coastal city ‌of Gabes on Wednesday, reviving protests over...

TUNIS, Dec 17 (Reuters) - Around 2,500 ‌Tunisians ​marched through the coastal city ‌of Gabes on Wednesday, reviving protests over pollution from a ​state-owned phosphate complex amid rising anger over perceived failures to protect public health.People chanted ‍mainly "Gabes wants to live", on ​the 15th anniversary of the start of the 2011 pro-democracy uprising that sparked ​the Arab ⁠Spring movement against autocracy.The protest added to the pressure on President Kais Saied’s government, which is grappling with a deep financial crisis and growing street unrest, protests by doctors, journalists, banks and public transport systems. The powerful UGTT union has called ‌for a nationwide strike next month, signalling great tension in the country. The ​recent ‌protests are widely seen ‍as one ⁠of the biggest challenges facing Saied since he began ruling by decree in 2021.Protesters chanted slogans such as "We want to live" and "People want to dismantle polluting units", as they marched toward Chatt Essalam, a coastal suburb north of the city where the Chemical Group’s industrial units are located."The chemical plant is a fully fledged crime... We refuse to ​pass on an environmental disaster to our children, and we are determined to stick to our demand,” said Safouan Kbibieh, a local environmental activist.Residents say toxic emissions from the phosphate complex have led to higher rates of respiratory illnesses, osteoporosis and cancer, while industrial waste continues to be discharged into the sea, damaging marine life and livelihoods.The protests in Gabes were reignited after hundreds of schoolchildren suffered breathing difficulties in recent months, allegedly caused by toxic fumes from a plant converting phosphates into phosphoric ​acid and fertilisers.In October, Saied described the situation in Gabes as an “environmental assassination”, blaming policy choices made by previous governments, and has called for urgent maintenance to prevent toxic leaks.The protesters reject the temporary measures and ​are demanding the permanent closure and relocation of the plant.(Reporting by Tarek Amara, editing by Ed Osmond)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – December 2025

After the L.A. fires, heart attacks and strange blood test results spiked

A new study is the latest of several recent research papers documenting the physical toll of January's fires.

In the first 90 days after the Palisades and Eaton fires erupted in January, the caseload at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s emergency room looked different from the norm.There were 46% more visits for heart attacks than typically occured during the same time period over the previous seven years. Visits for respiratory illnesses increased 24%. And unusual blood test results increased 118%.These findings were reported in a new study published Wednesday in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The study, part of a research project documenting the fires’ long-term health effects, joins several recent papers documenting the disasters’ physical toll.While other U.S. wildfires have consumed more acres or cost more lives, the Palisades and Eaton fires were uniquely dangerous to human health because they burned an unusual mix of materials: the trees, brush and organic material of a typical wildfire, along with a toxic stew of cars, batteries, plastics, electronics and other man-made materials.There’s no precedent for a situation that exposed this many people to this kind of smoke, the paper’s authors said.“Los Angeles has seen wildfires before, it will see wildfires again, but the Eaton fire and the Palisades fire were unique, both in their size, their scale and the sheer volume of material that burned,” said Dr. Joseph Ebinger, a Cedars-Sinai cardiologist and the paper’s first author. The team did not find a significant increase in the overall number of visits to the medical center’s emergency room between Jan. 7, the day the fires began, and April 7. The department recorded fewer in-person visits for mental health emergencies and chronic conditions during that time compared to the same time period in earlier years, said Dr. Susan Cheng, director of public health research at Cedars-Sinai and the study’s senior author.The increase in visits for acute cardiovascular problems and other serious sudden illnesses made up the difference. The study team also looked at results from blood tests drawn from patients visiting the ER for serious physical symptoms without immediate explanation — dizziness without dehydration, for example, or chest pains not caused by heart attacks.Their blood tests returned unusual results at a rate more than double that seen in previous years. These atypical numbers cut across the spectrum of the blood panel, Cheng said. “It could be electrolyte disorder, change in protein levels, change in markers of kidney or liver function.”The rate of unusual test results held steady through the three-month period, leading the team to conclude that exposure to the fires’ smoke “has led to some kind of biochemical metabolic stress in the body that likely affected not just one but many organ systems,” Cheng said. “That’s what led to a range of different types of symptoms affecting different people.”Joan Casey, an environmental epidemiologist at the University of Washington who was not part of the Cedars-Sinai team, noted that the study found health effects lasting over a longer period than similar studies have.Three months “is a substantial length of time to observe elevated visits, as most studies focused on acute care utilization following wildfire smoke exposure find increased visit counts over about a weeklong period,” Casey said. Her own research found a 27% increase in outpatient respiratory visits among Kaiser Permanente Southern California members living within 12.4 miles of the burn zones in the week following the fires.“The L.A. fires were such a severe event, including not only smoke, but also evacuation and substantial stress in the population, that effects may have lingered longer,” Casey said.Thirty-one people are known to have died as a direct result of injuries sustained in the fires. But researchers believe that when taking into account deaths from health conditions worsened by the smoke, the true toll is significantly higher.A research letter published earlier this year in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. calculated that there were 440 excess deaths in L.A. County between Jan. 5 and Feb. 1. That paper looked at deaths caused by a variety of factors, from exposure to air pollution to disrupted healthcare as a result of closures and evacuations.On Tuesday, a team from Stanford University published itsprojection that exposure to the fires’ smoke, specifically, led to 14 deaths otherwise unaccounted for.Wildfire is a major source of fine particulate pollution, bits measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter that are small enough to cross the barriers that separate blood from the brain and the lungs’ outer branches.Compared with other sources, wildfire smoke contains a higher proportion of ultrafine particles miniscule enough to penetrate the brain after inhalation, Casey told The Times earlier this year. The smoke has been linked to a range of health problems, including dementia, cancer and cardiovascular failure.In the last decade, increasing numbers of wildfires in Western states have released enough fine particulate pollution to reverse years’ worth of improvements under the Clean Air Act and other antipollution measures.

How justice gets sold to the lowest bidder in rural CA

The law firm Fitzgerald, Alvarez and Ciummo has earned a nickname: The WalMart of public defense.  Over three decades, the firm has won county contracts to provide poor people with criminal defense in the state’s rural stretches. It’s done so by making aggressively low bids.  Old iterations of the firm’s website asked local politicians what […]

The front entrance of the Fitzgerald, Alvarez and Ciummo law firm in Madera on Oct. 20, 2025. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local The law firm Fitzgerald, Alvarez and Ciummo has earned a nickname: The WalMart of public defense.  Over three decades, the firm has won county contracts to provide poor people with criminal defense in the state’s rural stretches. It’s done so by making aggressively low bids.  Old iterations of the firm’s website asked local politicians what they might do with all the money they could save on public defense: “Better schools? Better fire protection? More police? Improved roads? More parks?”  Today, nearly half of California counties pay private lawyers and firms to represent poor people in criminal cases. Most of them do it through what’s known as a “flat-fee” contract, meaning they pay a fixed amount, regardless of how many cases the attorneys handle or how much time they spend on each case.  As CalMatters investigative reporter Anat Rubin details, these arrangements so clearly disincentivize investigating and litigating cases that they’ve been banned in other parts of the country.  But they have flourished in California.  In San Benito County, for example, a state evaluation found that Ciummo attorneys barely spoke with their clients and seldom filed legal motions on their behalf.  Defendants asked them to contest the prosecution’s evidence, to interview witnesses, to do anything, really, to challenge law enforcement’s narrative of the crime. Instead, they ushered almost all of them to plea deals.  Even some law enforcement leaders — the people trying to put the Ciummo firm’s clients behind bars — are raising the alarm. They say they’re not being challenged like they should be in a functioning system.  Joel Buckingham, San Benito County District Attorney: “Police officers must make mistakes sometimes.”  Read the full story. This is the second part of Anat’s series examining the lack of key safeguards against wrongful conviction in California. Be sure to read her first piece, The Man Who Unsolved a Murder. Focus on Inland Empire: Each Wednesday, CalMatters Inland Empire reporter Aidan McGloin surveys the big stories from that part of California. Read his newsletter and sign up here to receive it. Become a member: Keep independent, trustworthy information in every Californian’s hands and hold people in power accountable for what they do, and what they don’t. Any gift makes you a member for a year, give $10+ for a limited edition tote. Please give now. Other Stories You Should Know GOP begins legal fight against Prop. 50 A “No on Prop. 50” sign at the Kern County Republican Party booth at the Kern County Fair in Bakersfield on Sept. 26, 2025. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local On Monday the Trump administration and California Republicans made their arguments challenging Proposition 50 before a panel of federal judges, kicking off the court battle over California’s voter-approved gerrymandering efforts, write CalMatters’ Maya C. Miller and Mikhail Zinshteyn. Republicans say that Prop. 50’s congressional maps violate the 14th and 15th amendments because race, they argue, was used as a factor in determining district lines. They are seeking a preliminary injunction on the maps before Dec. 19 — the date when candidates can start collecting signatures to get on the 2026 primary ballot — to temporarily ban the use of the maps in an election. Prop. 50 supporters argue that the maps were drawn to create a partisan advantage for Democrats, and it was only incidental if the maps lent any outsized influence to certain ethnic or racial groups. Prop. 50 opponents face an uphill battle, given that the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld Texas’ redrawn maps by overturning a lower court’s finding that the Texas GOP committed unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. Read more here. Seeking solutions to a sewage crisis A warning sign about sewage and chemical contamination is posted along the shore of Imperial Beach on Nov. 21, 2025. Photo by Adriana Heldiz, CalMatters Members of the California legislature brought together policymakers and scientists during a joint environmental committee hearing last week, which explored how the state can tackle the Tijuana River sewage crisis, reports CalMatters’ Deborah Brennan. During the hearing, lawmakers and others reviewed how neglect, failed infrastructure and industrial waste created the decadeslong environmental disaster. They discussed potential mitigating solutions such as updating air quality standards; improving working conditions for those who are exposed to the pollution; and holding companies accountable for their role in polluting the river.  State Sen. Catherine Blakespear, an Encinitas Democrat who led the hearing: “What is happening in the Tijuana River Valley is an international, environmental disaster that undermines everything that California stands for. … The sewage flowing into San Diego County’s coastline is poisoning our air and water, harming public health, closing beaches and killing marine life.” This year, the U.S. repaired and expanded a San Diego wastewater treatment plant, while Mexico repaired a plant near the border. But more work is still required, including at the Imperial Beach shoreline, which has remained closed for years. On Monday the U.S. and Mexico signed an agreement addressing the crisis.  Read more here. And lastly: Wiener’s bid for Congress State Sen. Scott Wiener during a Senate floor session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Jan. 23, 2025. Photo by Fred Greaves for CalMatters In October state Sen. Scott Wiener announced his run for Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat, entering a contest that highlights a broader debate over the future direction of Democratic leadership. Maya and CalMatters’ video strategy director Robert Meeks have a video segment on the San Francisco Democrat as part of our partnership with PBS SoCal. Watch it here. SoCalMatters airs at 5:58 p.m. weekdays on PBS SoCal. California Voices CalMatters columnist Dan Walters: Gov. Gavin Newsom champions pro-housing policies, but he’s tougher on Republican-leaning communities, like Huntington Beach, compared to Democratic ones, such as Marin County. A new report finds that California neighborhoods closest to oil wells and refineries disproportionately harm Latino and Black residents, underscoring how the environmental injustices of the oil age are being repackaged in the plastic economy, write Veronica Herrera and Daniel Coffee, UCLA professor and researcher, respectively.  Other things worth your time: Some stories may require a subscription to read. Dating app rape survivors file lawsuit accusing Hinge, Tinder of ‘accommodating rapists’ // The Markup Trump immigration raids take toll on child-care workers in CA and nationwide // Los Angeles Times CA sues Trump for blocking EV charging funds // The Mercury News CA lawmakers say they’ll keep pushing to regulate AI // The Sacramento Bee Newsom leads backlash to Trump’s unhinged response to Reiner killings // San Francisco Chronicle CA AG Bonta leads coalition opposing proposed collection of diversity data // EdSource National Guard troops under Trump’s command leave LA before court’s deadline // Los Angeles Times How some of LA’s biggest apartment owners avoid Section 8 tenants // Capital & Main

The plastic chemicals in our food

See the thousands of plastic chemicals in what we eat.

When Americans eat a burger, they aren’t just biting through bun, lettuce, tomato and cheese. Instead, the burger — or its packaging, or the utensil used to cook it — also likely contains a blend of chemicals scientists believe harm human health. PFAS. Phthalates. BPA. Flame retardants.These chemicals act on the body in multiple ways — confusing hormones, disrupting immune systems and boosting cancer cells. But they all have one thing in common: They are intimately linked to plastic.Couch cushions, rugs and carpets are made of polyester fibers; furniture and flooring is coated in plastic laminates. The vast majority of food is wrapped in plastic packaging, and Americans cook with plastic spatulas on plastic-coated pans.Plastic ushered in a new era of convenience and filled homes with cheap, disposable goods. But it also has exposed ordinary people to tens of thousands of chemicals that slip out of those items into household dust, food, water — and from there, into bodies. Some of these chemicals are known to disrupt pregnancies, triggering birth defects and fertility problems later in life; others have been linked to cancer and developmental problems.The Washington Post used a comprehensive database, built by scientists in Switzerland and Norway, of 16,000 chemicals linked to plastic materials to see how people interact with chemicals in their everyday lives. Of those, scientists say, more than 5,400 chemicals are considered hazardous to human health. Researchers believe that many of these chemicals are harming Americans even at typical levels of exposure.Here’s how some of the most dangerous chemicals go from everyday items in our kitchens into our bodies.Many plastic chemicals are found in utensils, food packaging and cookware that come in close contact with the food we eat. These chemicals are added to plastic to make it more flexible or hard, more slippery, or more stain-resistant.Flame retardants, for example, are generally found in household furniture or electronics. But thanks to plastic recycling, they are also increasingly coming in close contact with food.Black plastic — like the plastic that forms this tray or plastic spatula — is often made from recycled electronic waste. It can contain high concentrations of brominated flame retardants, which have been linked to lowered IQs and neurodevelopment problems in children.Nonstick pans and compostable plates and cutlery often contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS or “forever chemicals.”Studies show that phthalates, a class of chemicals added to plastic to make it stretchy and soft, are present in the vast majority of foods purchased at a grocery store, especially highly processed foods.In one study by an independent research group in California, researchers found the chemicals in three-quarters of the food tested. Manufacturers say that they began phasing phthalates out of food packaging starting in the 2000s, but the chemicals can still be used in equipment used for storing or processing foods.Bisphenol A, or BPA, a chemical that was first used as an artificial form of estrogen, was once the main ingredient in plastic water bottles and the lining on the insides of cans.Despite manufacturer phaseouts, research shows that many foods, including canned foods and canned drinks, still contain BPA or other, similarly structured chemicals, like BPS or BPF. A study by Consumer Reports last year, for example, found these chemicals in 79 percent of foods tested, although the levels have fallen over the past two decades. They have been linked to fertility problems and obesity.Chemicals are what give plastic its unique and varied properties. A single type of plastic — say, polyvinyl chloride — could be treated with phthalates to make it soft and flexible, stabilizers to keep it from breaking down in high temperatures, flame retardants to prevent fire and colorants or dyes.Some of these chemicals have uses beyond plastic. PFAS, for example, can also be used in pesticides and firefighting foams. But researchers have found that the vast majority of their uses come back to plastic. According to one study led by researchers at New York University, 93 percent of the exposure to PFOA, one of the most widely studied PFAS, stems from plastics.Many of these chemicals have endocrine-disrupting properties — meaning they confuse the body’s hormones, particularly in developing children.“When you’re talking about endocrine-disrupting chemicals, a lot of it is plastic,” said Leonardo Trasande, a professor of pediatrics and population health at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine and one of the authors of that study.The chemical industry points out that these chemicals play key roles in human society. “Phthalates, bisphenols, PFAS, and flame retardants serve critical functions that help protect health and safety in everyday life,” Robert Simon, vice president of chemical products and technology at the American Chemistry Council, said in an email. “For example, some are used in critical healthcare applications, to improve product durability, or to provide essential fire protection.”Simon added that the FDA has found that phthalates and BPA are safe in the amounts found in Americans’ diets. “Typical consumer exposure to BPA in food packaging is far below safe limits set by government agencies,” he said.But scientists say that this blend of chemicals adds up to a stew of potentially toxic materials that fill our homes and the food we eat. The world produces an estimated 450 million metric tons of plastic every year; almost all of that plastic comes with some sort of chemical additive.“Something that is 1 percent of plastic or 0.1 percent of plastic is being produced in unfathomable volumes that are going into consumer products,” said Christos Symeonides, a developmental pediatrician at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne. “Including food packaging and children’s toys and the clothing that we wear.”Phthalates, flame retardants, bisphenols and PFAS are some of the most widely known — and most concerning — plastic chemicals.But each of these groups can have dozens or hundreds of different chemicals within it — each with slightly different effects on the human body.According to data from the Centers for Disease Control, more than 90 percent of Americans are exposed to key chemicals in these groups.About half of those chemicals are listed as hazardous by governments or industry; only a small number are considered to pose no risk. The rest don’t have enough official hazard data to determine health effects.In total, there are more than 5,400 chemicals in plastics that meet the criteria for chemicals “of concern” to human health, according to government and industry data. That means chemicals that persist in the environment, accumulate in human and animal bodies, spread easily in the environment, or are known to be toxic to human or animal life.Just 161 are classified as not hazardous.Then there are more than 10,700 chemicals without enough information to judge their safety.“These chemicals haven’t been assessed by governments or by the industry itself,” said Martin Wagner, a professor of biology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and one of the creators of the plastic database. “Governments lack the capacity to keep up with all these chemicals.”Researchers once thought plastics were largely inert — not chemically reactive and so safe to have in close contact with food and the human body. But the chemicals added to plastics are not tightly bonded to the polymers. When plastic is heated — or in contact with fatty or acidic foods — those chemicals can spill out.The consequence is that virtually every person in the United States has measurable levels of plastic chemicals in their blood and urine. For example, according to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the median level of DEHP — one of the most dangerous phthalates — in urine in the United States is 13 micrograms per liter. But some patients can have levels as high as 60 micrograms. The higher the level, the greater the risk of birth defects or neurodevelopmental issues.Most of the evidence for harm from plastic chemicals comes from long-term, epidemiological research. Many studies look at how a mother’s exposure to chemicals can affect her children. A 10-fold increase in maternal levels of brominated flame retardants, for example, is associated with a 3.7-point IQ drop in her child. Women with the highest phthalate exposure are 12 to 16 percent more likely to have a premature birth. And BPA exposure during pregnancy is associated with a higher likelihood of obesity and diabetes.On their own, small amounts of these chemicals may pose only a minor risk. But in combination, the effects can be more dramatic. “We’re not exposed to these chemicals individually,” said Ryan Babadi, an environmental toxicologist and the science director for the group Toxic-Free Future. “We’re constantly being exposed to mixtures all the time.”When combined, chemicals that are individually below safe levels can create dangerous health effects.People are exposed to these chemicals from a range of different sources — flame retardants are in electronics and in household dust; PFAS can be found in tap water across the country.But one of the most concerning sources of exposure, according to many scientists, is food and food packaging.Historically, most plastic food packaging contained phthalates, to make the plastic more stretchy and flexible; plastic water bottles and lined metal cans contained BPA. But even after manufacturer phaseouts, studies show that chemicals are still deeply embedded in the food supply. One analysis by a group in California found that, of 312 foods tested from grocery stores and restaurants, 86 percent contained either phthalates or bisphenols — including baby formula and sourdough bread.Some of the highest concentrations appear to be in highly processed foods. According to one study, pregnant women who ate 10 percent more calories from ultra-processed foods had 13 percent higher levels of DEHP in their urine.Researchers say bisphenols, PFAS, and flame retardants can still be present in some food packaging, and highly processed foods are contaminated by plastic chemicals on their route from a factory onto a plate.“It’s also the materials that are used when you process foods — the filling lines, the storage containers, the processing equipment,” said Jane Muncke, chief scientific officer and managing director for the Zurich-based Food Packaging Forum.The food industry says that packaged foods help keep the contents safe. “Packaging exists to protect and keep food safe for consumption. Food contact substances go through a rigorous scientific risk-based review and approval process before they go to market,” Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy at the Consumer Brands Association, a trade group that represents many large food companies, said in an email.For consumers, experts warn, it’s impossible to tell from packaging whether a product is actually chemical-free. A “BPA-free” can, for example, may still use other bisphenols, like BPS or BPF.Scientists advise people to avoid cooking with and heating plastic — as well as storing fatty or acidic foods in the material. Avoiding ultra-processed foods can help, as can preparing more foods from scratch at home. Those changes can particularly help lower exposure to the more short-lived chemicals, like phthalates or bisphenols.But “forever chemicals” and flame retardants persist in the environment and in human bodies — making them very difficult to remove from the food supply. PFAS, for example, can be found in soils in parts of North Carolina and Maine, where PFAS-treated sewage sludge has been dumped on agricultural land. “In some regions produce is contaminated, sometimes milk is contaminated,” said Heather Stapleton, an exposure scientist and professor in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University.Ultimately, researchers argue that countries need stricter standards to regulate the chemicals that go into plastic. Pharmaceuticals, they argue, are held to high standards to prove safety — but the chemicals that reach our bodies through plastics are a dizzying maze of missing information. “The medicines that you put in your mouth are tightly regulated,” said Sarah Dunlop, an emeritus professor of biological sciences at the University of Western Australia and director of plastics and human health at the Minderoo Foundation. “Whereas the chemical industry has complete carte blanche.”“The problem is, none of the plastics that we have right now are safe,” said Wagner, of Norwegian University of Science and Technology. “That’s not a very nice thing to hear, but that’s what the data tell us.”About this storyPhotos by Marvin Joseph. Design and development by Emily Wright. Editing by Juliet Eilperin, Simon Ducroquet, Dominique Hildebrand, Virginia Singarayar and Gaby Morera Di Núbila.The Post interviewed more than a dozen scientists on the risks of plastic chemicals and how people are exposed to these chemicals in their everyday lives. Exposure numbers for BPA are from 2008 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Exposure numbers for PFOA are from 2020 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.Chemicals listed as hazardous include those listed in the PlastChem database with a hazard score of 0.5 and above. The items displayed in this photo are representative and have not been tested for chemicals.

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.