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.

We think we control our health – but corporations selling forever chemicals, fossil fuels and ultra-processed foods have a much greater role

News Feed
Wednesday, May 1, 2024

shutterstock Ahmet Misirligul/ShutterstockYou go to the gym, eat healthy and walk as much as possible. You wash your hands and get vaccinated. You control your health. This is a common story we tell ourselves. Unfortunately, it’s not quite true. Factors outside our control have huge influence – especially products which can sicken or kill us, made by companies and sold routinely. For instance, you and your family have been exposed for decades to dangerous forever chemicals, some of which are linked to kidney and testicular cancers. You’re almost certainly carrying these chemicals, known as PFAS or forever chemicals, in your body right now. And that’s just the start. We now know exposure to just four classes of product – tobacco, alcohol, ultra-processed foods and fossil fuels – are linked to one out of every three deaths worldwide. That is, they’re implicated in 19 of the world’s 56 million deaths each year (as of 2019). Pollution – largely from fossil fuels – is now the single largest environmental cause of premature death. Communities of colour and low-income communities experience disproportionate impacts; For example, over 90% of pollution related deaths occur in low middle income countries. This means the leading risk factor for disease and death worldwide is corporations who make, market and sell these unhealthy products. Worse, even when these corporations become aware of the harms their products cause, they have often systematically hidden these harms to boost profits at the expense of our health. Major tobacco, oil, food, pharmaceutical and chemical corporations have all applied similar techniques, privatising the profits and spreading the harms. Tobacco companies long questioned the link between smoking and cancer. Nopphon_1987/Shutterstock Profit and loss statements When companies act to conceal the harm their products do, they prevent us from protecting ourselves and our children. We now have many well-documented cases of corporate wrongdoing, such as asbestos, fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides) sugar, silica, and of course tobacco. In these instances, corporations intentionally manufactured doubt or hid the harms of their products to delay or prevent regulation and maintain profits. Decades of empirical evidence shows these effective tactics have actually been shared and strategically passed from one industry or company to the next. For instance, when large tobacco companies Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds bought food companies Kraft, General Foods and Nabisco in the 1980s, tobacco executives brought across marketing strategies, flavouring and colourings to expand product lines and engineered fatty, sweet and salty hyperpalatable foods such as cookies, cereals and frozen foods linked to obesity and diet-related diseases. These foods activate our reward circuits and encourage us to consume more. Or consider how ‘forever chemicals’ became so widespread. A team of scientists (including this article’s co-author) investigated previously secret internal industry documents from 3M and DuPont, the largest makers of forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS. The documents showed both 3M and DuPont used tactics from the tobacco industry’s playbook, such as suppressing unfavourable research and distorting public debate. Like Big Tobacco, 3M and DuPont had a financial interest in suppressing scientific evidence of the harms of their products, while publicly declaring in-demand products such as Teflon were safe. For decades, forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS have been used to make Teflon pans, Scotchgard, firefighting foam and other non-stick materials. By the early 2000s, one of these, PFOS, ended up in our blood at 20 times the level its manufacturer, 3M, considered safe. As early as 1961, the chief toxicologist at DuPont’s Teflon subsidiary reported the company’s wonder-material had “the ability to increase the size of the liver of rats at low doses”, and recommended the chemicals be handled “with extreme care”. According to a 1970 internal memo, the DuPont-funded Haskell Laboratory found the chemical class C8 (now known as PFOA/PFOS) was “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested”. Teflon was hailed as a wonder material, making non-stick pans possible. But the original chemicals used to make Teflon were dangerous. Minko Dima/Shutterstock Both 3M and DuPont did extensive internal research on the risks their products posed to humans, but they shared little of it. The risks of PFOA including pregnancy-induced hypertension, kidney and testicular cancers, and ulcerative colitis was not publicly established until 2011. Now, 60 years after DuPont first learned of the harms these products could cause, many countries are facing the human and environmental consequences and a very expensive cleanup. Even though the production of PFOA and PFOS is being phased out, forever chemicals are easily stored in the body and take decades to break down. Worse, PFOA and PFOS are just two of over 15,000 different PFAS chemicals, most of which are still in use. How can we prevent corporate injury to our health? My co-author and I work in the field known as commercial determinants of health, which is to say, the damage corporations can do to us. Corporate wrongdoing can directly injure or even kill us. One of the key ways companies have been able to avoid regulation and lawsuits is by hiding the evidence. Internal studies showing harm can be easily hidden. External studies can be influenced, either by corporate funding, business-friendly scientists, legal action or lobbying policymakers to avoid regulation. Here are three ways to prevent this happening again: 1) Require corporations to adhere to the same standards of data sharing and open science as independent scientists do. If a corporation wants to bring a new product to market, they should have to register and publicly release every study they plan to conduct on its harms so the public can see the results of the study. 2) Sever the financial links between industry and researchers or policymakers. Many large corporations will spend money on public studies to try to get favourable outcomes for their own interests. To cut these financial ties means boosting public health research, either through government funding or alternatives such as a tax on corporate marketing. It would also mean capping corporate political donations and bringing lobbying under control by restricting corporate access and spending to policymakers and increasing transparency. And it would mean stopping the revolving door where government employees or policymakers work for the industry they used to regulate once they leave office. 3) Mandate public transparency of corporate funding to researchers and policymakers. In 2010, the United States introduced laws to enforce transparency on how much medical and pharmaceutical companies were spending to influence the products doctors chose to use. Research using the data unearthed by these laws has shown the problem is pervasive. We need this model for other industries so we can clearly see where corporate money is going. Registries should be detailed, permanent and easy to search. These steps would not be easy. But the status quo means corporations can keep selling dangerous or lethal products for much longer than they should. In doing so, they have become one of the largest influences on our health and will continue to harm generations to come – in ways hard to counter with yoga and willpower. And your health is more important than corporate profits. Read more: Chemicals, forever: how do you fix a problem like PFAS? Nicholas Chartres receives funding from The JPB Foundation, The World Health Organization and Health CanadaLisa Bero received or receives funding from Cochrane, NHMRC, Health Canada, the State of Colorado.

Corporations have an incentive to make profits – even if their products hurt or even kill people. Here’s how to stop history repeating.

shutterstock Ahmet Misirligul/Shutterstock

You go to the gym, eat healthy and walk as much as possible. You wash your hands and get vaccinated. You control your health. This is a common story we tell ourselves. Unfortunately, it’s not quite true.

Factors outside our control have huge influence – especially products which can sicken or kill us, made by companies and sold routinely.

For instance, you and your family have been exposed for decades to dangerous forever chemicals, some of which are linked to kidney and testicular cancers. You’re almost certainly carrying these chemicals, known as PFAS or forever chemicals, in your body right now.

And that’s just the start. We now know exposure to just four classes of product – tobacco, alcohol, ultra-processed foods and fossil fuels – are linked to one out of every three deaths worldwide. That is, they’re implicated in 19 of the world’s 56 million deaths each year (as of 2019). Pollution – largely from fossil fuels – is now the single largest environmental cause of premature death. Communities of colour and low-income communities experience disproportionate impacts; For example, over 90% of pollution related deaths occur in low middle income countries.

This means the leading risk factor for disease and death worldwide is corporations who make, market and sell these unhealthy products. Worse, even when these corporations become aware of the harms their products cause, they have often systematically hidden these harms to boost profits at the expense of our health. Major tobacco, oil, food, pharmaceutical and chemical corporations have all applied similar techniques, privatising the profits and spreading the harms.

man smoking
Tobacco companies long questioned the link between smoking and cancer. Nopphon_1987/Shutterstock

Profit and loss statements

When companies act to conceal the harm their products do, they prevent us from protecting ourselves and our children. We now have many well-documented cases of corporate wrongdoing, such as asbestos, fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides) sugar, silica, and of course tobacco. In these instances, corporations intentionally manufactured doubt or hid the harms of their products to delay or prevent regulation and maintain profits.

Decades of empirical evidence shows these effective tactics have actually been shared and strategically passed from one industry or company to the next.

For instance, when large tobacco companies Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds bought food companies Kraft, General Foods and Nabisco in the 1980s, tobacco executives brought across marketing strategies, flavouring and colourings to expand product lines and engineered fatty, sweet and salty hyperpalatable foods such as cookies, cereals and frozen foods linked to obesity and diet-related diseases. These foods activate our reward circuits and encourage us to consume more.

Or consider how ‘forever chemicals’ became so widespread. A team of scientists (including this article’s co-author) investigated previously secret internal industry documents from 3M and DuPont, the largest makers of forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS.

The documents showed both 3M and DuPont used tactics from the tobacco industry’s playbook, such as suppressing unfavourable research and distorting public debate. Like Big Tobacco, 3M and DuPont had a financial interest in suppressing scientific evidence of the harms of their products, while publicly declaring in-demand products such as Teflon were safe.

For decades, forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS have been used to make Teflon pans, Scotchgard, firefighting foam and other non-stick materials. By the early 2000s, one of these, PFOS, ended up in our blood at 20 times the level its manufacturer, 3M, considered safe.

As early as 1961, the chief toxicologist at DuPont’s Teflon subsidiary reported the company’s wonder-material had “the ability to increase the size of the liver of rats at low doses”, and recommended the chemicals be handled “with extreme care”. According to a 1970 internal memo, the DuPont-funded Haskell Laboratory found the chemical class C8 (now known as PFOA/PFOS) was “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested”.

teflon pan water drops
Teflon was hailed as a wonder material, making non-stick pans possible. But the original chemicals used to make Teflon were dangerous. Minko Dima/Shutterstock

Both 3M and DuPont did extensive internal research on the risks their products posed to humans, but they shared little of it. The risks of PFOA including pregnancy-induced hypertension, kidney and testicular cancers, and ulcerative colitis was not publicly established until 2011.

Now, 60 years after DuPont first learned of the harms these products could cause, many countries are facing the human and environmental consequences and a very expensive cleanup.

Even though the production of PFOA and PFOS is being phased out, forever chemicals are easily stored in the body and take decades to break down. Worse, PFOA and PFOS are just two of over 15,000 different PFAS chemicals, most of which are still in use.

How can we prevent corporate injury to our health?

My co-author and I work in the field known as commercial determinants of health, which is to say, the damage corporations can do to us.

Corporate wrongdoing can directly injure or even kill us.

One of the key ways companies have been able to avoid regulation and lawsuits is by hiding the evidence. Internal studies showing harm can be easily hidden. External studies can be influenced, either by corporate funding, business-friendly scientists, legal action or lobbying policymakers to avoid regulation.

Here are three ways to prevent this happening again:

1) Require corporations to adhere to the same standards of data sharing and open science as independent scientists do.

If a corporation wants to bring a new product to market, they should have to register and publicly release every study they plan to conduct on its harms so the public can see the results of the study.

2) Sever the financial links between industry and researchers or policymakers.

Many large corporations will spend money on public studies to try to get favourable outcomes for their own interests. To cut these financial ties means boosting public health research, either through government funding or alternatives such as a tax on corporate marketing. It would also mean capping corporate political donations and bringing lobbying under control by restricting corporate access and spending to policymakers and increasing transparency. And it would mean stopping the revolving door where government employees or policymakers work for the industry they used to regulate once they leave office.

3) Mandate public transparency of corporate funding to researchers and policymakers.

In 2010, the United States introduced laws to enforce transparency on how much medical and pharmaceutical companies were spending to influence the products doctors chose to use. Research using the data unearthed by these laws has shown the problem is pervasive. We need this model for other industries so we can clearly see where corporate money is going. Registries should be detailed, permanent and easy to search.

These steps would not be easy. But the status quo means corporations can keep selling dangerous or lethal products for much longer than they should.

In doing so, they have become one of the largest influences on our health and will continue to harm generations to come – in ways hard to counter with yoga and willpower. And your health is more important than corporate profits.


Read more: Chemicals, forever: how do you fix a problem like PFAS?


The Conversation

Nicholas Chartres receives funding from The JPB Foundation, The World Health Organization and Health Canada

Lisa Bero received or receives funding from Cochrane, NHMRC, Health Canada, the State of Colorado.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ ubiquitous in Great Lakes basin, study finds

PFAS chemicals present in air, rain, atmosphere and water in basin, which holds nearly 95% of US freshwaterToxic PFAS “forever chemicals” are ubiquitous in the Great Lakes basin’s air, rain, atmosphere and water, new peer-reviewed research shows.The first-of-its-kind, comprehensive picture of PFAS levels for the basin, which holds nearly 95% of the nation’s freshwater, also reveals that precipitation is probably a major contributor to the lakes’ contamination. Continue reading...

Toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” are ubiquitous in the Great Lakes basin’s air, rain, atmosphere and water, new peer-reviewed research shows.The first-of-its-kind, comprehensive picture of PFAS levels for the basin, which holds nearly 95% of the nation’s freshwater, also reveals that precipitation is probably a major contributor to the lakes’ contamination.“We didn’t think the air and rain were significant sources of PFAS in the Great Lakes’ environment, but it’s not something that has been studied that much,” said Marta Venier, a co-author with Indiana University.PFAS are a class of 15,000 chemicals used across dozens of industries to make products resistant to water, stains and heat. The chemicals are linked to cancer, kidney disease, birth defects, decreased immunity, liver problems and a range of other serious diseases.They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and are highly mobile once in the environment, so they continuously move through the ground, water and air. PFAS have been detected in all corners of the globe, from penguin eggs in Antarctica to polar bears in the Arctic.The new paper is part of a growing body of evidence showing how the chemicals move through the atmosphere and water.Measurements found PFAS levels in the air varied throughout the basin – they were much higher in urban locations such as Chicago than in rural spots in northern Michigan. That tracks with how other chemical pollutants, like PCBs, are detected, Venier said.But levels in rain were consistent throughout the basin – virtually the same in industrialized areas such as Chicago and Cleveland as in Sleeping Bear Dunes, a remote region in northern Michigan. The finding was a bit “puzzling” Venier said, adding that it probably speaks to the chemicals’ ubiquity.A fisherman in Bayfield, Wisconsin. Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty ImagesPFAS “background levels” are now so high and the environmental contamination so widespread that the atmospheric counts, including in rain, are relatively consistent. The PFAS in rain could be carried from local sources, or have traveled long distances from other regions. Regardless, it is a major source of pollution that contributes to the lakes’ levels, Venier added.Water contamination levels were highest in Lake Ontario, which holds the most major urban areas, such as Toronto and Buffalo, and is last in line in the lake system’s west to east flow. Lake Superior, which is the largest and deepest body with few urban areas on its shores, showed the lowest levels.PFAS tend to accumulate in Lake Superior and Huron because there’s little water exchange, while Lake Ontario relatively quickly moves the chemicals into the Saint Lawrence Seaway and Atlantic Ocean.The study did not address what the levels mean for human health and exposure, but fish consumption advisories are in place across the region, and many cities have contaminated drinking water.The levels found in water and atmosphere will probably increase as scientists are able to identify more PFAS, most of which cannot be detected by currently reliable technology.“We need to take a broad approach to control sources that release PFAS into the atmosphere and into bodies of water … since they eventually all end up in the lakes,” Venier said.

MIT Researchers Identify Genetic Markers That Could Revolutionize ALS Treatment

In a study of cells from nearly 400 ALS patients, MIT researchers identified genomic regions with chemical modifications linked to disease progression. An analysis revealed...

MIT researchers have discovered significant epigenetic modifications in ALS patients that could lead to targeted therapies. These modifications, identified in motor neurons from 380 ALS patients, indicate that ALS might consist of various subtypes, each with distinct genetic influences on disease progression.In a study of cells from nearly 400 ALS patients, MIT researchers identified genomic regions with chemical modifications linked to disease progression.An analysis revealed a strong differential signal associated with a known subtype of ALS, and about 30 locations with modifications that appear to be linked to rates of disease progression in ALS patients.For most patients, it’s unknown exactly what causes amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a disease characterized by degeneration of motor neurons that impairs muscle control and eventually leads to death. Studies have identified certain genes that confer a higher risk of the disease, but scientists believe there are many more genetic risk factors that have yet to be discovered. One reason why these drivers have been hard to find is that some are found in very few patients, making it hard to pick them out without a very large sample of patients. Additionally, some of the risk may be driven by epigenomic factors, rather than mutations in protein-coding genes.Working with the Answer ALS consortium, a team of MIT researchers has analyzed epigenetic modifications — tags that determine which genes are turned on in a cell — in motor neurons derived from induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells from 380 ALS patients.This analysis revealed a strong differential signal associated with a known subtype of ALS, and about 30 locations with modifications that appear to be linked to rates of disease progression in ALS patients. The findings may help scientists develop new treatments that are targeted to patients with certain genetic risk factors.“If the root causes are different for all these different versions of the disease, the drugs will be very different and the signals in IPS cells will be very different,” says Ernest Fraenkel, the Grover M. Hermann Professor in Health Sciences and Technology in MIT’s Department of Biological Engineering and the senior author of the study. “We may get to a point in a decade or so where we don’t even think of ALS as one disease, where there are drugs that are treating specific types of ALS that only work for one group of patients and not for another.”MIT postdoc Stanislav Tsitkov is the lead author of the paper, which was published on May 2 in the journal Nature Communications.What is amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)?Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a neurological disorder that targets motor neurons—nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord responsible for controlling voluntary muscle movement and breathing. As these motor neurons deteriorate and die, they cease transmitting messages to muscles, leading to muscle weakening, twitching (fasciculations), and wasting away (atrophy).Over time, ALS progresses, and individuals affected by the disease gradually lose the ability to initiate and control voluntary movements such as walking, talking, and chewing, including the ability to breathe. The symptoms of ALS worsen progressively.Finding Risk FactorsALS is a rare disease that is estimated to affect about 30,000 people in the United States. One of the challenges in studying the disease is that while genetic variants are believed to account for about 50 percent of ALS risk (with environmental factors making up the rest), most of the variants that contribute to that risk have not been identified.Similar to Alzheimer’s disease, there may be a large number of genetic variants that can confer risk, but each individual patient may carry only a small number of those. This makes it difficult to identify the risk factors unless scientists have a very large population of patients to analyze.“Because we expect the disease to be heterogeneous, you need to have large numbers of patients before you can pick up on signals like this. To really be able to classify the subtypes of disease, we’re going to need to look at a lot of people,” Fraenkel says.About 10 years ago, the Answer ALS consortium began to collect large numbers of patient samples, which could allow for larger-scale studies that might reveal some of the genetic drivers of the disease. From blood samples, researchers can create induced pluripotent stem cells and then induce them to differentiate into motor neurons, the cells most affected by ALS.“We don’t think all ALS patients are going to be the same, just like all cancers are not the same. And the goal is being able to find drivers of the disease that could be therapeutic targets,” Fraenkel says.In this study, Fraenkel and his colleagues wanted to see if patient-derived cells could offer any information about molecular differences that are relevant to ALS. They focused on epigenomic modifications, using a method called ATAC-seq to measure chromatin density across the genome of each cell. Chromatin is a complex of DNA and proteins that determines which genes are accessible to be transcribed by the cell, depending on how densely packed the chromatin is.In data that were collected and analyzed over several years, the researchers did not find any global signal that clearly differentiated the 380 ALS patients in their study from 80 healthy control subjects. However, they did find a strong differential signal associated with a subtype of ALS, characterized by a genetic mutation in the C9orf72 gene.Additionally, they identified about 30 regions that were associated with slower rates of disease progression in ALS patients. Many of these regions are located near genes related to the cellular inflammatory response; interestingly, several of the identified genes have also been implicated in other neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease.“You can use a small number of these epigenomic regions and look at the intensity of the signal there, and predict how quickly someone’s disease will progress. That really validates the hypothesis that the epigenomics can be used as a filter to better understand the contribution of the person’s genome,” Fraenkel says.“By harnessing the very large number of participant samples and extensive data collected by the Answer ALS Consortium, these studies were able to rigorously test whether the observed changes might be artifacts related to the techniques of sample collection, storage, processing, and analysis, or truly reflective of important biology,” says Lyle Ostrow, an associate professor of neurology at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, who was not involved in the study. “They developed standard ways to control for these variables, to make sure the results can be accurately compared. Such studies are incredibly important for accelerating ALS therapy development, as they will enable data and samples collected from different studies to be analyzed together.”Targeted DrugsThe researchers now hope to further investigate these genomic regions and see how they might drive different aspects of ALS progression in different subsets of patients. This could help scientists develop drugs that might work in different groups of patients, and help them identify which patients should be chosen for clinical trials of those drugs, based on genetic or epigenetic markers.Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a drug called tofersen, which can be used in ALS patients with a mutation in a gene called SOD1. This drug is very effective for those patients, who make up about 1 percent of the total population of people with ALS. Fraenkel’s hope is that more drugs can be developed for, and tested in, people with other genetic drivers of ALS.“If you had a drug like tofersen that works for 1 percent of patients and you just gave it to a typical phase two clinical trial, you probably wouldn’t have anybody with that mutation in the trial, and it would’ve failed. And so that drug, which is a lifesaver for people, would never have gotten through,” Fraenkel says.The MIT team is now using an approach called quantitative trait locus (QTL) analysis to try to identify subgroups of ALS patients whose disease is driven by specific genomic variants.“We can integrate the genomics, the transcriptomics, and the epigenomics, as a way to find subgroups of ALS patients who have distinct phenotypic signatures from other ALS patients and healthy controls,” Tsitkov says. “We have already found a few potential hits in that direction.”Reference: “Disease related changes in ATAC-seq of iPSC-derived motor neuron lines from ALS patients and controls” by Stanislav Tsitkov, Kelsey Valentine, Velina Kozareva, Aneesh Donde, Aaron Frank, Susan Lei, the Answer ALS Consortium, Jennifer E. Van Eyk, Steve Finkbeiner, Jeffrey D. Rothstein, Leslie M. Thompson, Dhruv Sareen, Clive N. Svendsen and Ernest Fraenkel, 2 May 2024, Nature Communications.DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-47758-8The research was funded by the Answer ALS program, which is supported by the Robert Packard Center for ALS Research at Johns Hopkins University, Travelers Insurance, ALS Finding a Cure Foundation, Stay Strong Vs. ALS, Answer ALS Foundation, Microsoft, Caterpillar Foundation, American Airlines, Team Gleason, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Fishman Family Foundation, Aviators Against ALS, AbbVie Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, ALS Association, National Football League, F. Prime, M. Armstrong, Bruce Edwards Foundation, the Judith and Jean Pape Adams Charitable Foundation, Muscular Dystrophy Association, Les Turner ALS Foundation, PGA Tour, Gates Ventures, and Bari Lipp Foundation. This work was also supported, in part, by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the MIT-GSK Gertrude B. Elion Research Fellowship Program for Drug Discovery and Disease.

California's effort to plug abandoned, chemical-spewing oil wells gets $35-million boost

The Biden administration funding is among the "largest ever in American history to address legacy pollution," U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland said.

California will receive more than $35 million in federal funding to help address the scourge of abandoned oil wells that are leaking dangerous chemicals and planet-warming methane in areas across the state, including many in Los Angeles.The investment from the Biden-Harris administration is among the “largest ever in American history to address legacy pollution,” U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland said Friday during a joint announcement with Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Deputy Secretary for Energy Le-Quyen Nguyen.California will use the funding to plug and remediate 206 high-risk orphaned oil and gas wells and decommission 47 attendant production facilities with about 70,000 feet of associated pipelines.“Capping hazardous orphaned wells and addressing legacy pollution across our country will have a profound impact on our environment, our water quality, and the health and well-being of our communities,” Haaland said. Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science. The Golden State is home to at least 5,300 abandoned or orphaned oil wells — or wells for which there are no legally liable parties to plug them — according to estimates from the California Geologic Energy Management Division. There are more than 35,000 known idle wells, with thousands more that will soon come to the end of their lives.Many are located in and around communities where residents have been sickened by their toxic emissions. What’s more, many unclogged wells leak methane, a planet-warming gas that is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. California Deputy Secretary for Energy Le-Quyen Nguyen, left, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass announce federal funding to plug and remediate orphaned oil wells. (Hayley Smith / Los Angeles Times) “We have thousands of orphaned wells in California, and each well poses a risk to public health, safety and the environment, as well as further contributes to climate change,” Nguyen said. “The funding that was announced today by Secretary Haaland will continue our momentum in plugging these orphaned wells in California, as well as remediating those sites and removing that legacy pollution. It will also make a meaningful, positive impact to our communities, as well as creating good jobs.”California’s award is part of a larger, $660-million formula grant pot that will be released to states on a rolling basis, Haaland said. As part of its award, California will also work to detect and measure methane emissions from orphaned oil and gas wells, screen for groundwater and surface water impacts, and prioritize cleaning up wells near disadvantaged communities. The grant program stems from an overall $4.7-billion investment from President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to plug orphaned wells nationwide. Other buckets of funding include more than $565 million in initial grant funding that has already been awarded to 25 states, including $25 million to California. A planned matching grants program will also award up to $30 million apiece to states that commit to increasing their spending on cleaning up orphaned wells. Bass said it was too soon to specify how much of the state’s latest award will go to Los Angeles. However, state officials said some of the initial funding is being used to plug 19 wells that remain uncapped at the AllenCo drill site in South Los Angeles, which stand among more than 370 high-priority wells identified in the first round of planning. Residents who live near the AllenCo site have complained for years about headaches, nosebleeds, respiratory diseases and other health issues. Among them is Nalleli Cobo, who grew up about 30 feet from the site and was diagnosed with reproductive cancer at age 19. “I’ve lost my childhood to the fossil fuel industry and I’ve also lost my future to the fossil fuel industry, and that’s not the reality that our community should be facing,” Cobo said. “When you ask a person what belongs in a community, not a lot of people will say an oil well.” She noted that about 18 million Americans live one mile or less from an active oil or gas well. Friday’s federal investment announcement is “definitely a step in the right direction,” she said, “but we need to make sure we are prioritizing communities like sacrifice zones, because we are the front-line communities that live day in and day out breathing these toxic emissions.”Officials said the latest round of funding advances Biden’s Justice40 Initiative, which aims to deliver at least 40% of benefits from certain climate, housing and energy investments to disadvantaged communities.“This is an issue of environmental justice,” Bass said. “Today we are locking arms across the city, state and federal governments to continue our work to end neighborhood oil drilling in the city of Los Angeles to protect the health of Angelenos and advance our vision of environmental justice.” Since the enactment of Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021, states have plugged more than 7,700 orphaned wells and reduced approximately 11,530 metric tons of potential methane emissions, according to the Department of the Interior.Gov. Gavin Newsom in October also approved AB 1167, legislation that will require companies that acquire oil wells to secure bonds to properly seal the wells once their use has ended. Some local communities, such as Culver City, have banned new drilling and are moving to phase out existing wells. “California is one of the states that is leading the way in putting these new resources to work, because it’s going to take all of us working together to ensure that we are making the kind of enduring impact that will last for generations to come,” Haaland said.But while the federal support is encouraging, there is still much work that remains, said Brenda Valdivia, a lifelong resident of the Vista Hermosa Heights neighborhood in L.A. Valdivia said she developed an autoimmune disease and had two strokes following her exposure to nearby wells. “We could always do more,” she said. Times staff writer Tony Briscoe contributed to this report.

Study Reveals That Organic Farming Changes Plants’ Genetic Code

A research project conducted at the University of Bonn reveals differences in the growth of plants under organic and conventional farming methods. A long-term study...

Over a 23-year study at the University of Bonn, researchers found that barley grown organically adapted genetically to its environment, becoming more genetically diverse and robust compared to barley grown conventionally. The study emphasizes the necessity of developing crop varieties specifically for organic farming to harness these adaptive benefits. Credit: SciTechDaily.comA research project conducted at the University of Bonn reveals differences in the growth of plants under organic and conventional farming methods.A long-term study at the University of Bonn has shown that plants can genetically adapt to the specific conditions of organic farming. In the study, researchers cultivated barley on two adjacent fields, employing conventional farming techniques on one and organic practices on the other.Over the course of more than 20 years, the organic barley was enriched with specific genetic material that differed from the comparative culture. Among other things, the results demonstrate how important it is to cultivate varieties, especially for organic farming. The results have now been published in the journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development.At the end of the 1990s, Prof. Dr. Jens Léon started an experiment at the University of Bonn that he knew would run for a long period of time. His research group wanted to investigate the effects that farming conditions have on genetic material in plants. To this end, they carried out a complex long-term study over a period of 23 years at the Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation (INRES). “We first crossed high-yield barley with a wild form to increase genetic variation,” says Léon. “We then planted these populations on two neighboring fields so that the barley grew in the same soil and under the same climatic conditions.” The image above depcits the conventional population on the left and the organic barley on the right: Only experts can spot the differences with the naked eye. However, huge differences can be identified using molecular genetics. Credit: AG Prof. Léon/University of BonnThe only difference was the farming method. Conventional farming was used in one of the fields where the researchers used pesticides to combat pests, chemical agents to eliminate weeds, and mineral fertilizers to help ensure a good supply of nutrients. The researchers took a more ecological sound approach in the other field: no pesticides, combating weeds using mechanical methods, and fertilizing the soil with manure from stables. Some of the grains were retained every fall to sow the fields the following spring – using the organic grains on the organic field and the barley grown under conventional conditions on the comparative field. “We didn’t choose the grains based on any particular characteristics, however, but simply selected a small part of the harvest at random,” emphasizes Léon’s colleague Dr. Michael Schneider.Analyzing genome development in time-lapseThe researchers also analyzed the genomes of the conventionally and organically farmed plants on a yearly basis. Every single gene can exist in a variety of different forms called alleles. For example, the human gene responsible for eye color exists in the alleles “brown” and “blue.” The frequency with which certain alleles arise in a population can change over generations. Environmental conditions are one factor that plays a role in this process: Alleles that ensure plants thrive in their current environment are usually found more and more frequently.The researchers identified two interesting trends in their genetic tests: In the first twelve years, the allele frequency in the barley changed in the same way on both fields. “Our interpretation of this finding is that the very diverse populations caused by a cross with wild barley were adapting to the local conditions,” says Dr. Agim Ballvora, who also participated in the study. “After all, factors such as the climate, soil, and especially length of day were identical for both populations.” However, the allele frequencies of both cultures diverged increasingly in subsequent years. In particular, the barley grown using organic farming methods developed gene variants that were less sensitive to a nutrient deficit or lack of water – i.e., alleles that influenced the structure of the roots. “One reason for this is presumably the strong variations in the availability of nutrients in organic farming,” says Léon.Genetic heterogeneity facilitates the adaptation processThe conventionally farmed barley also became more genetically uniform over time, meaning that the genetic material in the individual plants grown on the field became more and more similar from year to year. However, the organic barley remained more heterogeneous. The allele frequencies of the organic culture also varied more widely over time. This resulted in some years being extremely favorable or unfavorable for some alleles. This could be because the environmental conditions fluctuate much more in organic farming than with conventional framing methods: If certain plant diseases take hold in one year, for example, the plants will rely most on those alleles that will protect them. The variability of the environmental forces acting on the plants seems to lead to greater genetic heterogeneity. “As a result, the plants are better able to adapt to these types of changes,” says Léon.Overall, the results demonstrate the importance of cultivating varieties optimized for organic farming. As their genetic makeup has adapted to these conditions, they will be more robust and deliver higher yields. “Furthermore, it seems to make sense when cultivating plants to cross-breed them with older or even wild varieties,” explains Léon. “Our data also indicate that this could even benefit conventional high-yield varieties.”Reference: “Deep genotyping reveals specific adaptation footprints of conventional and organic farming in barley populations—an evolutionary plant breeding approach” by Michael Schneider, Agim Ballvora and Jens Léon, 8 May 2024, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.DOI: 10.1007/s13593-024-00962-8The study was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Proposed Plastics Law Could Slash Wasteful Packaging

A law proposed in New York State seeks to reduce plastic packaging, ban certain plastic chemicals and mandate that producers of packaged consumer goods fund the recycling or disposal of what they sell

CLIMATEWIRE | ALBANY, New York — Democratic lawmakers are still fine-tuning a sweeping measure aimed at reducing the amount of plastic and packaging trash headed to the state’s crammed landfills.The rebranded extended producer responsibility bill seeks to reduce the amount of packaging being used, increase recyclability and charge producers of consumer goods for the costs of disposing of packaging that mostly ends up in landfills.But tweaks are still expected to the current version, and some lawmakers have concerns about the costs for consumers with the legislative session set to end June 6.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said there are still conversations ongoing.“We want to make sure that we have input so at least whatever we do legislatively not only reflects, to the extent possible, the real concerns that people bring to us and we weigh it against the real results that we’re trying to achieve,” the Democrat from Yonkers said Tuesday.“Obviously, we all are getting all kinds of things that should not be in landfills, so we are trying to get to a point where we’ve got a piece of legislation that will pass.”Broadly, the goal is to mandate producers of packaged consumer goods — think Amazon, Unilever, Procter & Gamble — to fund the recycling or disposal of what they sell. There’s also mandates to stop using potentially harmful substances.Money raised would be used to reimburse local governments for the costs of waste disposal and recycling programs.It’s a big shift in the way recycling is funded in New York.Most costs are currently borne by local governments. The state’s climate plan, approved in late 2022 to map out the path for New York to achieve dramatic emissions reductions, backs sweeping new “extended producer responsibility” legislation to begin reducing emissions from waste in landfills.Industry opponents of the bill warn the measure would increase costs and limit the convenient choices that grocery shoppers have come to expect. They say there aren’t readily available alternatives to some of the chemicals that would be banned.Most supporters acknowledge there would be changes, but argue that habits are already shifting and that healthier, more refillable and less disposable choices would become more widely available because of the new requirements.They’re also emphasizing that customers ultimately pay for sending the trash to the landfill anyway, and that reducing packaging material can lower costs.“You don’t have to wrap everything in plastic,” said Assemblymember Michaelle Solages, a Democrat from Nassau County who is the chair of the influential Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic, and Asian Legislative Caucus. “I think it is a sin to even wrap fruits and vegetables in plastic.”Solages said there’s still work to do on the details, although there’s support for the spirit of the proposal. She said there are concerns about costs, and there are currently discussions about how to ensure those costs aren’t only on consumers.“We’re just throwing all this waste in our garbage,” Solages said in an interview. “At the end of the day, it’ll cost us more to clean up all the impacts to the Earth.”Under the legislation, companies that are covered would have to reduce packaging by 10 percent within three years, increasing to 50 percent in 12 years. Recycling rates would also have to increase to 75 percent of packing material, including plastic, to be reused or recycled in 2050.Assemblymember Deborah Glick, a Democrat from Manhattan, said there are also health risks from current packaging. Glick sponsors the bill, and as chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee, she has made it her top priority as the end of the legislative session nears.“We have a variety of problems related to the chemicals that are in the plastic that is wrapped around our food,” she said. “We know we have a growing health problem.”Producers could give consumers more options than are currently available, said Vanessa Fajans-Turner, executive director of Environmental Advocates NY.“This is product agnostic. This is not a referendum on how we shop or what we shop for,” she said. “There are alternatives for packaging.”There’s also significant labor opposition to the bill, and supporters recognize the challenge.The New York State Conference of Teamsters and United Steelworkers District 4 oppose the bill, as does the New York State AFL-CIO.The steelworkers oppose the inclusion of paper products, given the high recycling rate already, while the teamsters who represent some sanitation workers have concerns about the potential for new organizations to be responsible for collecting waste.“This legislation is a direct assault on organized labor,” the Teamsters opposition memo states. “This legislation allows municipal waste removal forces, both public employee and currently contracted private companies, to be replaced by a state supervised private collection force without any regard to workers’ rights.”Meera Joshi, New York City deputy mayor for operations, said there have been discussions with organized labor, and the city agrees there might be some protections that could be added.The city estimates it would get $150 million if the bill were enacted, and it would have to pay less to ship waste to landfills, meaning additional savings.“Our sanitation system covers all the cost of packaging that’s not recycled,” Joshi said in an interview. “Many states have adopted this. … We’re not reinventing the wheel here.”Assembly Democrats are sensitive to the prospect of higher costs being passed on to consumers. The Assembly conferenced on the bill earlier this week.Assemblymember Carrie Woerner, a Democrat from Saratoga County, said that any policies that would increase costs in an inflationary environment are a concern. She said she has a “conceptual appreciation” for the goals of the bill.But she said she has questions about the time lines, given how many food suppliers are national brands and would face difficulty specifically making changes in New York. Policymakers should consider aligning implementation with California’s measure, which was signed in 2022, she said.“I think the industry is trying hard to reduce the plastics they use and improve recyclability,” Woerner said. Food suppliers “have to be on a time line that is consistent from state to state. California got there first.”Glick said the gradual implementation of the requirements to reduce plastics and other packaging helps address cost concerns.“We're just giving them an incentive to be innovative,” she said. “The less packaging they use, the less they pay into a fund. So they reduce their costs and the less packaging they use, the less money they spend on that material. So it's just an excuse to raise prices.”The opposition from companies, including makers of plastics represented by the American Chemistry Council, has been consistent since environmental groups began pushing for an extended producer responsibility program several years ago.The chemical industry opposes restrictions on chemical recycling counting as recycling, arguing it unfairly bars the technology.Sen. Peter Harckham, the chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee, has pointed out the bill includes a provision requiring a report every three years that could spur changes to the definition by lawmakers.Business groups, chemical makers and product manufacturers of everything from toys and home appliances to footwear have also objected to a list of chemicals that would bar material from being recycled. There would also be a ban on additional toxic substances in packaging including various chemicals used to make plastics, flame retardants and PFAS.“This overly broad prohibition disregards sound science and could potentially have major unintended socioeconomic, environmental, and public health consequences by arbitrarily eliminating packaging best suited for, among other uses, food preservation, medical supply and device protection and hazardous materials containers,” the groups wrote in a memo opposing the bill.Environmental advocates in the past were split on different versions of the measure and strategies to get it passed. So that has made it even more difficult to get a bill passed.Gov. Kathy Hochul proposed her own version of the extended producer responsibility for packaging plan in her 2022 and 2023 budget proposals, but her administration has concerns about the current version.That includes the large number of staff they expect would be needed to implement it.This year, however, a key organization hired a high-powered and well-connected lobbyist with close ties to Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie to work on the bill.Beyond Plastics retained the firm of Patrick Jenkins, Heastie’s former college roommate, on May 1, according to public records. The group is based at Bennington College in Vermont and led by former EPA regional administrator Judith Enck.“We don’t have the firepower that Albany lobbyists have, but we could only afford him for a month,” Enck said.So far, it appears to have helped: Shortly afterward, the measure moved through several key Assembly committees.But opponents have retained many more lobbyists to block the bill, and national companies have been actively involved in the effort.Enck said she’s open to some changes, including around recycled content requirements for plastics due to potential health concerns about plastic touching food and beverages.One issue she won’t budge on, though: any allowance for chemical recycling. And she’s pushing the Legislature to also keep it out of any final deal.“The industry opposition is ferocious to say the least, and we're trying to counter that with grassroots support,” Enck said. “This is the closest we’ve ever been.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

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.