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.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

A Texas school leader says material about diversity in state-approved textbooks violated the law.

News Feed
Wednesday, April 2, 2025

This article is co-published with ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published. Also, sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. In 2022, conservative groups celebrated a “great victory” over “wokeified” curriculum when the Texas State Board of Education squashed proposed social studies requirements for schools that included teaching kindergartners how Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez “advocated for positive change.” Another win came a year later as the state board rejected several textbooks that some Republicans argued could promote a “radical environmental agenda” because they linked climate change to human behavior or presented what conservatives perceived to be a negative portrayal of fossil fuels. By the time the state board approved science and career-focused textbooks for use in Texas classrooms at the end of 2023, it appeared to be comfortably in sync with conservatives who had won control of local school boards across the state in recent years. But the Republican-led state education board had not gone far enough for the conservative majority on the school board for Texas’ third-largest school district. At the tail end of a school board meeting in May of last year, Natalie Blasingame, a board member in suburban Houston’s Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, proposed stripping more than a dozen chapters from five textbooks that had been approved by the state board and were recommended by a district committee of teachers and staffers. The chapters, Blasingame said, were inappropriate for students because they discussed “vaccines and polio,” touched on “topics of depopulation,” had “an agenda out of the United Nations” and included “a perspective that humans are bad.” In a less-publicized move, Blasingame, a former bilingual educator, proposed omitting several chapters from a textbook for aspiring educators titled “Teaching.” One of those chapters focuses on how to understand and educate diverse learners and states that it “is up to schools and teachers to help every student feel comfortable, accepted and valued,” and that “when schools view diversity as a positive force, it can enhance learning and prepare students to work effectively in a diverse society.” Blasingame did not offer additional details about her opposition to the chapters during the meeting. She didn’t have to. The school board voted 6-1 to delete them. Natalie Blasingame, a member of the Cypress-Fairbanks School Board, proposed cutting chapters from five textbooks. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune The decision to strip chapters from books that had already won the approval of the state’s conservative board of education represents an escalation in local school boards’ efforts to influence what children in public schools are taught. Through the years, battles over textbooks have played out at the state level, where Republicans hold the majority. But local school boards that are supposed to be nonpartisan had largely avoided such fights — they weighed in on whether some books should be in libraries but rarely intervened so directly into classroom instruction. Cypress-Fairbanks now provides a model for supercharging these efforts at more fine-grained control, said Christopher Kulesza, a scholar at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. “One of the things that would concern me is that it’s ideology pushing the educational standards rather than what’s fact,” he said. The board’s actions send a troubling message to students of color, Alissa Sundrani, a junior at Cy-Fair High School, said. “At the point that you’re saying that diversity, or making people feel safe and included, is not in the guidelines or not in the scope of what Texas wants us to be learning, then I think that’s an issue.” With about 120,000 students, nearly 80% of whom are of Hispanic, Black and Asian descent, Cy-Fair is the largest school district in Texas to be taken over by ideologically driven conservative candidates. Blasingame was among a slate of candidates who were elected through the at-large voting system that ProPublica and The Texas Tribune found has been leveraged by conservative groups seeking to influence what children are taught about race and gender. Supporters say the system, in which voters cast ballots for all candidates districtwide instead of ones who live within specific geographic boundaries, results in broader representation for students, but voting rights advocates argue that it dilutes the power of voters of color. First image: Cy-Fair’s administration building. Second image: People gather before a school board meeting. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune Blasingame and others campaigned against the teaching of critical race theory, an advanced academic concept that discusses systemic racism. Most of the winning candidates had financial backing from Texans for Educational Freedom, a statewide PAC that sought to build a “stronghold” of school board trustees “committed to fighting Critical Race Theory and other anti-American agendas and curriculums.” The PAC helped elect at least 30 school board candidates across the state between 2021 and 2023, in part because it focused on anti-CRT sentiment, said its founder, Christopher Zook Jr. “You could literally go out and say, CRT, you know, ‘Stop critical race theory in schools,’ and everyone knew what that means, right?” he said. “The polling showed that that messaging works.” Shortly before Blasingame and two fellow conservatives won election in 2021, Texas lawmakers passed a landmark law that sought to shape how teachers approach instruction on race and racism. The law, which aimed to ban critical race theory, prohibits the “inculcation” of the notion that someone’s race makes them “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.” Blasingame made no mention of the law when she pushed to remove chapters about teaching a diverse student body, but pointed to it as the reason for her objection in text messages and an interview with ProPublica and the Tribune. Though Blasingame acknowledged that one of the chapters had “very good presentation on learning styles,” she said removing the whole chapter was the only option because administrators said individual lines could not be stricken from the book. The textbook referred to “cultural humility” and called for aspiring teachers to examine their “unintentional and subtle biases,” concepts that she said “go against” the law. The school board needed to act because the book “slipped through” before the state’s education agency implemented a plan to make sure materials complied with the law, Blasingame said. Blasingame recommended removing several chapters from a textbook called “Teaching.” The chapters included references to “cultural humility” and “unintentional and subtle biases,” which she believes are not permitted under state law, which specifies how topics concerning race can be taught. Credit: Document obtained and sentences enlarged by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune State Board Chair Aaron Kinsey, who is staunchly anti-CRT, declined to say if he thought the body had allowed textbooks to slip through as Blasingame suggested. Kinsey, however, said in a statement that contracts with approved publishers include requirements that their textbooks comply with all applicable laws. He did not comment on Cy-Fair removing chapters. Cy-Fair appears to have taken one of the state’s most aggressive approaches to enforcing the law, which does not address what is in textbooks but rather how educators approach teaching, said Paige Duggins-Clay, the chief legal analyst for the Intercultural Development Research Agency, a San Antonio-based nonprofit that advocates for equal educational opportunity. “It definitely feels like Cy-Fair is seeking to test the boundaries of the law,” Duggins-Clay said. “And I think in a district like Cy-Fair, because it is so diverse, that is actively hurting a lot of young people who are ultimately paying the cost and bearing the burden of these really bad policies.” The law’s vagueness has drawn criticism from conservative groups who say it allows school districts to skirt its prohibitions. Last month, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the Coppell school district in North Texas and accused administrators of illegally teaching “woke and hateful” CRT curriculum. The suit points to a secret recording of an administrator saying that the district will do what’s right for students “despite what our state standards say.” The lawsuit does not provide examples of curriculum that it alleges violates state law on how to teach race. In a letter to parents, Superintendent Brad Hunt said that the district was following state standards and would “continue to fully comply with applicable state and federal laws.” Teachers and progressive groups have also argued that the law leaves too much open to interpretation, which causes educators to self-censor and could be used to target anything that mentions race. Blasingame disputes the critique. A longtime administrator and teacher whose family emigrated from South Africa when she was 9 years old, she said she embraces diversity in schools. “Diversity is people and I love people,” she said. “That’s what I’m called to do, first as a Christian and then as an educator.” But she said she opposes teaching about systemic racism and state-sanctioned efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion, saying that they overemphasize the importance of skin color. “They seed hate and teach students that they are starting off behind and have unconquerable disadvantages that they will suffer all their lives,” Blasingame said. “Not only does this teach hate among people, but how could you love a country where this is true?” The assertion that teaching diversity turns students of color into victims is simply wrong, educators and students told the news organizations. Instead, they said, such discussions make them feel safe and accepted. One educator who uses the “Teaching” textbook said the board members’ decision to remove chapters related to diversity has been painful for students. “I don’t know what their true intentions are, but to my students, what they are seeing is that unless you fit into the mold and you are like them, you are not valued,” said the teacher, who did not want to be named because she feared losing her job. “There were several who said it made them not want to teach anymore because they felt so unsupported.” The board’s interpretation of the state’s law on the teaching of race has stifled important classroom discussions, said Sundrani, the student in the district. Her AP English class, a seminar about the novel “Huckleberry Finn,” steered clear of what she thinks are badly needed conversations about race, slavery and how that history impacts people today. “There were topics that we just couldn’t discuss.” Disclosure: Rice University and Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

The decision to strip chapters from books that had already won the approval of the state’s Republican-controlled board of education represents an escalation in how local school boards run by ideological conservatives influence what children learn.

This article is co-published with ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published. Also, sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

In 2022, conservative groups celebrated a “great victory” over “wokeified” curriculum when the Texas State Board of Education squashed proposed social studies requirements for schools that included teaching kindergartners how Rosa Parks and Cesar Chavez “advocated for positive change.”

Another win came a year later as the state board rejected several textbooks that some Republicans argued could promote a “radical environmental agenda” because they linked climate change to human behavior or presented what conservatives perceived to be a negative portrayal of fossil fuels.

By the time the state board approved science and career-focused textbooks for use in Texas classrooms at the end of 2023, it appeared to be comfortably in sync with conservatives who had won control of local school boards across the state in recent years.

But the Republican-led state education board had not gone far enough for the conservative majority on the school board for Texas’ third-largest school district.

At the tail end of a school board meeting in May of last year, Natalie Blasingame, a board member in suburban Houston’s Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, proposed stripping more than a dozen chapters from five textbooks that had been approved by the state board and were recommended by a district committee of teachers and staffers.

The chapters, Blasingame said, were inappropriate for students because they discussed “vaccines and polio,” touched on “topics of depopulation,” had “an agenda out of the United Nations” and included “a perspective that humans are bad.”

In a less-publicized move, Blasingame, a former bilingual educator, proposed omitting several chapters from a textbook for aspiring educators titled “Teaching.” One of those chapters focuses on how to understand and educate diverse learners and states that it “is up to schools and teachers to help every student feel comfortable, accepted and valued,” and that “when schools view diversity as a positive force, it can enhance learning and prepare students to work effectively in a diverse society.”

Blasingame did not offer additional details about her opposition to the chapters during the meeting. She didn’t have to. The school board voted 6-1 to delete them.

Natalie Blasingame, a member of the Cypress-Fairbanks School Board, proposed cutting chapters from five textbooks. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune

The decision to strip chapters from books that had already won the approval of the state’s conservative board of education represents an escalation in local school boards’ efforts to influence what children in public schools are taught. Through the years, battles over textbooks have played out at the state level, where Republicans hold the majority. But local school boards that are supposed to be nonpartisan had largely avoided such fights — they weighed in on whether some books should be in libraries but rarely intervened so directly into classroom instruction. Cypress-Fairbanks now provides a model for supercharging these efforts at more fine-grained control, said Christopher Kulesza, a scholar at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

“One of the things that would concern me is that it’s ideology pushing the educational standards rather than what’s fact,” he said.

The board’s actions send a troubling message to students of color, Alissa Sundrani, a junior at Cy-Fair High School, said. “At the point that you’re saying that diversity, or making people feel safe and included, is not in the guidelines or not in the scope of what Texas wants us to be learning, then I think that’s an issue.”

With about 120,000 students, nearly 80% of whom are of Hispanic, Black and Asian descent, Cy-Fair is the largest school district in Texas to be taken over by ideologically driven conservative candidates. Blasingame was among a slate of candidates who were elected through the at-large voting system that ProPublica and The Texas Tribune found has been leveraged by conservative groups seeking to influence what children are taught about race and gender. Supporters say the system, in which voters cast ballots for all candidates districtwide instead of ones who live within specific geographic boundaries, results in broader representation for students, but voting rights advocates argue that it dilutes the power of voters of color.

First image: Cy-Fair’s administration building. Second image: People gather before a school board meeting. Credit: Danielle Villasana for ProPublica and The Texas Tribune

Blasingame and others campaigned against the teaching of critical race theory, an advanced academic concept that discusses systemic racism. Most of the winning candidates had financial backing from Texans for Educational Freedom, a statewide PAC that sought to build a “stronghold” of school board trustees “committed to fighting Critical Race Theory and other anti-American agendas and curriculums.” The PAC helped elect at least 30 school board candidates across the state between 2021 and 2023, in part because it focused on anti-CRT sentiment, said its founder, Christopher Zook Jr. “You could literally go out and say, CRT, you know, ‘Stop critical race theory in schools,’ and everyone knew what that means, right?” he said. “The polling showed that that messaging works.”

Shortly before Blasingame and two fellow conservatives won election in 2021, Texas lawmakers passed a landmark law that sought to shape how teachers approach instruction on race and racism. The law, which aimed to ban critical race theory, prohibits the “inculcation” of the notion that someone’s race makes them “inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.”

Blasingame made no mention of the law when she pushed to remove chapters about teaching a diverse student body, but pointed to it as the reason for her objection in text messages and an interview with ProPublica and the Tribune. Though Blasingame acknowledged that one of the chapters had “very good presentation on learning styles,” she said removing the whole chapter was the only option because administrators said individual lines could not be stricken from the book.

The textbook referred to “cultural humility” and called for aspiring teachers to examine their “unintentional and subtle biases,” concepts that she said “go against” the law. The school board needed to act because the book “slipped through” before the state’s education agency implemented a plan to make sure materials complied with the law, Blasingame said.

Blasingame recommended removing several chapters from a textbook called “Teaching.” The chapters included references to “cultural humility” and “unintentional and subtle biases,” which she believes are not permitted under state law, which specifies how topics concerning race can be taught. Credit: Document obtained and sentences enlarged by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune

State Board Chair Aaron Kinsey, who is staunchly anti-CRT, declined to say if he thought the body had allowed textbooks to slip through as Blasingame suggested. Kinsey, however, said in a statement that contracts with approved publishers include requirements that their textbooks comply with all applicable laws. He did not comment on Cy-Fair removing chapters.

Cy-Fair appears to have taken one of the state’s most aggressive approaches to enforcing the law, which does not address what is in textbooks but rather how educators approach teaching, said Paige Duggins-Clay, the chief legal analyst for the Intercultural Development Research Agency, a San Antonio-based nonprofit that advocates for equal educational opportunity.

“It definitely feels like Cy-Fair is seeking to test the boundaries of the law,” Duggins-Clay said. “And I think in a district like Cy-Fair, because it is so diverse, that is actively hurting a lot of young people who are ultimately paying the cost and bearing the burden of these really bad policies.”

The law’s vagueness has drawn criticism from conservative groups who say it allows school districts to skirt its prohibitions. Last month, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the Coppell school district in North Texas and accused administrators of illegally teaching “woke and hateful” CRT curriculum. The suit points to a secret recording of an administrator saying that the district will do what’s right for students “despite what our state standards say.” The lawsuit does not provide examples of curriculum that it alleges violates state law on how to teach race. In a letter to parents, Superintendent Brad Hunt said that the district was following state standards and would “continue to fully comply with applicable state and federal laws.”

Teachers and progressive groups have also argued that the law leaves too much open to interpretation, which causes educators to self-censor and could be used to target anything that mentions race.

Blasingame disputes the critique. A longtime administrator and teacher whose family emigrated from South Africa when she was 9 years old, she said she embraces diversity in schools.

“Diversity is people and I love people,” she said. “That’s what I’m called to do, first as a Christian and then as an educator.”

But she said she opposes teaching about systemic racism and state-sanctioned efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion, saying that they overemphasize the importance of skin color.

“They seed hate and teach students that they are starting off behind and have unconquerable disadvantages that they will suffer all their lives,” Blasingame said. “Not only does this teach hate among people, but how could you love a country where this is true?”

The assertion that teaching diversity turns students of color into victims is simply wrong, educators and students told the news organizations. Instead, they said, such discussions make them feel safe and accepted.

One educator who uses the “Teaching” textbook said the board members’ decision to remove chapters related to diversity has been painful for students.

“I don’t know what their true intentions are, but to my students, what they are seeing is that unless you fit into the mold and you are like them, you are not valued,” said the teacher, who did not want to be named because she feared losing her job. “There were several who said it made them not want to teach anymore because they felt so unsupported.”

The board’s interpretation of the state’s law on the teaching of race has stifled important classroom discussions, said Sundrani, the student in the district. Her AP English class, a seminar about the novel “Huckleberry Finn,” steered clear of what she thinks are badly needed conversations about race, slavery and how that history impacts people today.

“There were topics that we just couldn’t discuss.”

Disclosure: Rice University and Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Tickets are on sale now for the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get tickets before May 1 and save big! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

"A fighter and a champion": Democratic Rep. Grijalva dies after cancer battle

The former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus shared a lung cancer diagnosis last year

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., died on Thursday morning at age 77, his office announced. Arizona’s longest-tenured member of Congress was diagnosed with lung cancer last spring, undergoing nearly a year of treatment. During his 22-year stint on Capitol Hill, Grijalva championed environmental protection, public education and reproductive freedom. The Tucson-born representative previously co-chaired the Congressional Progressive Caucus and House Committee on Natural Resources, and sat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He was a vocal opponent of attacks on Arizona's immigrant community. Democratic elected officials in Grijalva’s home state reacted to the news on Thursday with shock and sadness. “Congressman Grijalva was not just my colleague, but my friend. As another Latino working in public service, I can say from experience that he served as a role model to many young people across the Grand Canyon State,” Senator Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., said in a post to social media. “I am praying for his family during this time of grief, and I hope that that they find comfort knowing his legacy is one that will stand tall for generations.” “I’m devastated to hear of the passing of my colleague Raul Grijalva. He was a fighter for Arizonans and a champion for Indigenous communities and our planet. We will all miss him dearly. My thoughts are with his family, friends, loved ones, and constituents,” Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., said in a statement. Grijalva’s seat will remain vacant for at least six months under Arizona state law until a primary and special election can be held.

Education
Indigenous
Resources

The Pandemic’s Biggest Missed Opportunity

Treating clean indoor air as a public good would have protected Americans against all sorts of airborne diseases.

In the early evening of March 7, 2020, I was on my cellphone in an airport terminal, telling a friend that I was afraid to write an article that risked ruining my journalistic reputation. I had been speaking with the small but close-knit aerobiologist community about the possibility that the new coronavirus could travel easily from person to person through the air—not just through large droplets that reach only a short distance from an infected person or through handshakes. The scientists had stressed that the idea of airborne transmission of the new virus was still mostly theoretical, but they’d seemed pretty concerned.When my story came out the following week, it was, to my knowledge, the first article by a journalist to make the case that the virus causing COVID-19 might travel efficiently through the air, and could potentially cover many meters in a gaseous cloud emitted with a cough or a sneeze. To avoid stoking undue worry, I had argued against calling the virus “airborne” in the headline, which ran as “They Say Coronavirus Isn’t Airborne—But It’s Definitely Borne by Air.” That idea was not immediately accepted: Two weeks later, the World Health Organization tweeted, “FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airborne.” As the pandemic unfolded, though, it became clear that the coronavirus did indeed spread through airborne transmission—even if the WHO took more than a year and a half to officially describe the coronavirus as a long-range airborne pathogen.By then, amid the loud debate over mask mandates, vaccine boosters, and individuals’ responsibility for the health of others, a parallel debate had emerged over ventilation. Wearing an N95 or receiving a third COVID shot were ultimately individual choices, but breathing safer air in indoor spaces required buy-in from bigger players such as education departments and transit agencies. Some advocates held up clean air as a kind of public good—one worth investing in for shared safety. If it had succeeded, this way of thinking would have represented one of the most lasting paths for governments to decrease people’s risks from COVID and from airborne diseases more generally.In the United States, the federal government regulates the quality of air outdoors, but it has relatively little oversight of indoor air. State and local jurisdictions pick up some of the slack, but this creates a patchwork of rules about indoor air. Local investment in better air-quality infrastructure varies widely too. For example, a 2022 survey of COVID-ventilation measures in U.S. public-school districts found that only about a quarter of them used or planned to use HEPA filters, which have a dense mesh for trapping particles, for indoor air. An even smaller fraction—about 8 percent—had installed air-cleansing systems that incorporated ultraviolet light, which can kill germs.For decades, experts have pushed the idea that the government should pay more attention to the quality of indoor air. In his new book, Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe, the journalist Carl Zimmer shows the long arc of this argument. He notes that Richard Riley, a giant in the field of aerobiology who helped show that tuberculosis can be airborne, believed that individuals shouldn’t have to ensure that the air they breathe is clean. Just as the government regulates the safety of the water that flows into indoor pipes, it should oversee the safety of air in indoor public spaces.More than half a century before the coronavirus pandemic, Riley positioned this idea as an alternative to requirements for widespread masking, which, he said, call for “a kind of benevolent despotism,” Zimmer reports. If cleaner air was the one of the best ways to reduce the societal burden of disease, then the two best ways to achieve it were to push people to wear masks in any public space or to install better ventilation. The latter approach—purifying the air—would mean that “the individual would be relieved of direct responsibility,” Riley reasoned in a 1961 book he co-authored: “This is preventive medicine at its best, but it can only be bought at the price of civic responsibility and vigilance.”Medical breakthroughs in the years that followed may have deflated enthusiasm for this idea. Zimmer writes that the huge advances in vaccines during the 1960s made the world less interested in the details of airborne-disease transmission. Thanks to new vaccines, doctors had a way to prevent measles, the WHO launched a campaign to eradicate smallpox, and polio seemed on its way out. On top of that, researchers had come up with an arsenal of lifesaving antibiotics and antivirals. How viruses reached us mattered less when our defenses against them were so strong.In the first year or so of the coronavirus pandemic, though, one of the only defenses against COVID was avoiding it. And as a debate raged over how well the virus spread in air, the science of aerobiology was thrust into the spotlight. Some members of the public started fighting for good ventilation. A grassroots effort emerged to put homemade air purifiers and portable HEPA filters in public places. Teachers opened classroom windows when they learned that their schools lacked proper ventilation, travelers started carrying carbon-monoxide monitors to gauge the air quality aboard planes, and restaurants began offering outdoor dining after diagrams were published showing how easily one person eating inside can expose those seated nearby to the virus.The federal government did take some small steps toward encouraging better ventilation. In mid-2023, the CDC put out new recommendations urging five air changes an hour (essentially replacing all of the air within a room) in all buildings. But it was a recommendation, not a requirement, and local governments and owners of public buildings have been slow to take on the burden of installing or overhauling their ventilation systems. Part of this was surely because of the daunting price tag: In 2020, the Government Accountability Office estimated that approximately 36,000 school buildings had substandard systems for heating, ventilation, and cooling; the estimated cost for upgrading the systems and ensuring safe air quality in all of the country’s schools, some experts calculated, would be about $72 billion. Portable HEPA filters, meanwhile, can be noisy and require space, making them less-than-ideal long-term solutions.For the most part, momentum for better indoor air quality has dissipated, just as interest in it faded in the 1960s. Five years after COVID-19 precipitated lockdowns in the U.S., the rate of hospitalizations and mortality from the disease are a fraction of what they once were, and public discussion about ventilation has waned. Truly improving indoor air quality on a societal scale would be a long-term investment (and one that the Trump administration seems very unlikely to take on, given that it is slashing other environmental-safety protections). But better ventilation would also limit the cost of diseases other than COVID. Tuberculosis is airborne, and measles is frighteningly good at spreading this way. There is also evidence for airborne dissemination of a range of common pathogens such as influenza, which in the U.S. led to an estimated 28,000 deaths in the 2023–24 flu season. The same holds true for RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus, which each year causes 58,000 to 80,000 hospitalizations of children under age 5 in the United States, and kills as many as 300 of them. Virologists are also now asking whether bird flu could evolve to efficiently transmit through air, too.For those of us still concerned about airborne diseases, it feels as though little has changed. We’re right where we were at the start of the pandemic. I remember that moment in the airport and how I’d later worried about stoking panic in part because, during my flight, I was the only person wearing an N95—one that I had purchased months ago to wear in the dusty crawl space beneath my home. On the plane, I felt like a weirdo. These days, I am, once again, almost always the lone masker when I take public transportation. Sometimes I feel ridiculous. But just the other week, while I was seated on the metro, a woman coughed on my head. At that moment, I was glad to have a mask on. But I would have been even more relieved if the enclosed space of the metro car had been designed to cleanse the air of whatever she might have released and keep it from reaching me.

Education
Government
Health

Massive study of adolescent brains puts “gateway drug" theory into question

New research offers clues into the neurological reasons kids start using drugs

Those who grew up when Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) pamphlets were common in the school counselor's office are probably familiar with the “gateway drug” theory, which suggests the use of one substance like cannabis or alcohol will send a person down the path to try “harder” drugs like cocaine or meth later in life. The gateway drug theory and many other ideas about drug use have been put into question in recent years as more resources are dedicated to understanding substance use, which has been highly stigmatized for decades. After initially labeling cannabis as a gateway drug in 2010, President Joe Biden even later walked back his stance, saying in 2019: “I don’t think it is a gateway drug. There’s no evidence I’ve seen to suggest that.” The roots of substance use disorder are complex and not fully understood, but one of the hallmarks of addiction is understood to be caused by repeated drug use that neurologically changes the brain. Because the use of one substance like alcohol or nicotine is associated with the use of other drugs like cannabis, many have drawn causal links between the use of various drugs in theories like the gateway drug hypothesis. However, this idea has been highly debated, and as the understanding of substance use has improved, scientists began to understand that people may have a “common liability” to substances in general and that drug use is influenced by a host of factors. "Our behavior is determined basically by our brain and our experience, and our experience can affect our brain as well." A new study published late December analyzed brain scans of adolescents before and after they first tried alcohol, nicotine or cannabis, shedding light on one factor that could be influencing whether people decide to start using drugs. Writing in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Alex Miller, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of psychiatry at Indiana University School of Medicine, and his team found that adolescents who initiated substance use had differences in certain brain structures compared to kids who didn’t use drugs. Importantly, most differences existed before they started using alcohol, nicotine or cannabis. “The study sort of helps us highlight which regions may be important to further explore, with respect to their association as pre-existing risk factors for substance use initiation,” Miller told Salon in a phone interview.  Structural brain differences have been previously found in people who use drugs and were assumed to be effects of drug use, said Dr. Jonathan Foulds, a professor of public health sciences at Penn State College of Medicine who was not involved in the study. This study shows certain differences were there among adolescents who used substances prior to use, meaning they could not have been caused by the substance use, he said. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. “Our behavior is determined basically by our brain and our experience, and our experience can affect our brain as well,” Foulds told Salon in a phone interview. This study "casts doubt on some of the prior gateway theories because it seems like many of the same brain differences that are a risk factor for nicotine use are also a risk factor for alcohol and cannabis use.” The differences observed in the study were small but statistically significant within a large sample size close to 10,000 participants, Miller said. Specifically, those who initiated these substances before age 15 had larger overall brains and a thinner prefrontal cortex in certain regions compared to kids who didn’t initiate drug use. The prefrontal cortex is responsible for things like decision making and information processing, and some research has found that a thinner prefrontal cortex is associated with more impulsive behavior and risky decision making, which could be linked to kids initiating substance use, Miller said.  On the other hand, some of the measures observed in this study went in the opposite direction to what is observed in brain scans of people who have substance use disorder. For example, heavy drug use has been linked to smaller overall brain sizes, and heavy cannabis consumption has been linked to smaller hippocampal volumes. In this study, substance use was linked to larger overall brain sizes and larger hippocampal volumes. Importantly, this doesn’t mean that children with these differences in anatomy will inevitably go on to try drugs, said Dr. Bertha Madras, a psychobiology professor at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved with the study either. There are dozens of risk factors that influence whether kids use drugs, including genetics, accessibility to substances, and the prenatal environment.  It may be that some other factor is influencing the anatomical differences and drug use, like a predisposition to risky behaviors or teens’ perception of how harmful substance use is, Madras. “Integrating the whole picture would give us a much better view of what the risk factors for using drugs are and what the risk factors that are consequent to drug use are,” Madras told Salon in a phone interview. This analysis uses data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, which was designed to follow a large group of children over many years to help determine the neurological origins and consequences of substance use. Miller said he plans to use the data to try and tease out what is behind these brain differences and whether they are due to genetics or potential environmental risk factors.  In October, another study using the ABCD dataset found that certain brain activity in childhood could predict substance use initiation and that this was associated with children’s exposure to pollution. “Understanding the complex interplay between the factors that contribute and that protect against drug use is crucial for informing effective prevention interventions and providing support for those who may be most vulnerable,” said Dr. Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in a press release. Read more about drug policy

Education
Health
Pollution

Why Are Pesticide Companies Fighting State Laws to Address PFAS?

Adam Nordell is one of the farmers who lost it all. After he was forced to hang up his hoe and relocate his family, he went to work for a local nonprofit called Defend Our Health, where he now uses what he calls his “unwanted knowledge base” to do outreach and education in farm communities […] The post Why Are Pesticide Companies Fighting State Laws to Address PFAS? appeared first on Civil Eats.

What Our Investigation Revealed Several states are trying to phase out the use of pesticides containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), long-lasting chemicals linked to serious health risks including cancer, liver damage, and reproductive effects that have already contaminated farm fields, drinking water, and human bodies. CropLife America and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), the pesticide industry’s trade organizations, have been working to stop and slow those efforts. CropLife America and RISE hire local lobbyists, some of whom also head up farmer organizations and represent local farmers in comments, hearings, and meetings with legislators. RISE also deploys a “grassroots network” of individuals who work in and with pesticide companies—e.g., retailers, golf courses, and landscapers—to contact their state lawmakers using tested “key” messages and encourages them to emphasize their personal experiences as citizens. Beyond PFAS, when state lawmakers introduce bills to restrict pesticide use in other ways, CropLife America and RISE often utilize a similar playbook to influence legislation. About five years ago, regulators in Maine started to find alarming levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—commonly called PFAS or forever chemicals—in farm fields. They soon discovered the main source: sewage sludgespread as fertilizer. Some farmers could no longer produce safe food due to PFAS’ links to cancer and other health risks. Some had to shift what and where they planted, while others shut down their operations for good. Tests found water in hundreds of rural wells unsafe to drink, and families faced an uncertain future with fear. Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide IndustryRead all the stories in our series: Overview: Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry How the agrichemical industry is shaping public information about the toxicity of pesticides, how they’re being used, and the policies that impact the health of all Americans. Inside Bayer’s State-by-State Efforts to Stop Pesticide Lawsuits As the agrichemical giant lays groundwork to fend off Roundup litigation, its use of a playbook for building influence in farm state legislatures has the potential to benefit pesticide companies nationwide. Are Companies Using Carbon Markets to Sell More Pesticides? Many programs meant to help farmers address climate change are now owned by companies that sell chemicals, which could boost practices that depend on pesticides rather than those that reduce their use. Why Farmers Use Harmful Insecticides They May Not Need Neonicotinoids coat nearly all the corn and soybean seeds available for planting. Agrichemical companies have designed it that way. Why Are Pesticide Companies Fighting State Efforts to Address PFAS? In Maine, Maryland, and beyond, the industry is using a ‘grassroots’ network of farmers, lobbyists, and other tactics to slow legislators’ attempts to get forever chemicals out of food and water. Adam Nordell is one of the farmers who lost it all. After he was forced to hang up his hoe and relocate his family, he went to work for a local nonprofit called Defend Our Health, where he now uses what he calls his “unwanted knowledge base” to do outreach and education in farm communities and connect affected farmers with resources. Nordell is still living with the consequences of PFAS contamination, and he prefers not to linger on the topic of the trauma it caused his family. But if there’s one positive thing he remembers about 2020, when all of this was coming to light, it’s that the state’s often fractured farming community came together. “I was an organic vegetable farmer, and conventional dairy farmers were reaching out expressing concern,” he said. “The prospect of chemical contamination is something that nobody wants on their farm and that everyone recognizes as posing a potential threat.” Sensing a public health and food security crisis of epic proportions, Maine’s legislators got to work. In short order, they wrote and passed trailblazing state laws to tackle the thorny problem from multiple directions. They created a $60 million fund to support affected farmers, for example, and started a phaseout of consumer products that contain “intentionally added” PFAS. Most importantly for farmers at the time, they banned the spreading of sludge, a move Nordell said drew enthusiastic support from many, but not all, farmers. At the same time, in 2020, watchdog groups first discovered PFAS in certain pesticides, which directed national attention to whether farm chemicals might be another source of contamination. How significant of a PFAS source pesticides might be remains unresolved, especially because different highly accredited labs have produced conflicting tests. One initial study found high levels of PFAS in common pesticides, but when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did its own testing on the same products, it reported none. Environmental groups are currently contesting the agency’s report. “The prospect of chemical contamination is something that nobody wants on their farm and that everyone recognizes as posing a potential threat.” Regardless of those results, a few things have become clear: Based on the most commonly used global definition of PFAS, more than 60 pesticides registered by the EPA contain an active ingredient defined as PFAS. Other pesticides may contain PFAS as undisclosed additives or from chemicals leaching from the plastic containers in which they’re stored. When Maine lawmakers turned their attention to tackling pesticides as a source of PFAS, they encountered new opposition. Between 2021 and 2024, CropLife America and Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), the pesticide industry’s trade organizations, paid lobbyists in the state more than $100,000 to work on multiple bills, including PFAS regulations. At the same time, RISE alerted Maine-based members of what it calls its “grassroots network.” To create that network, RISE recruits individuals who make, sell, or are heavily invested in the use of pesticides (like golf course superintendents and landscapers) around the country, provides trainings and messaging, and then sends advocacy alerts when laws are introduced in a given state. So, while Maine passed the country’s first laws requiring companies to disclose whether pesticides they sell contain PFAS and to eventually phase out those that do, the fight continues. After the trade groups pushed for delays in the implementation of the law, legislators in 2023 delayed the phaseout of PFAS in pesticides by two years. Then, in 2024, based on Maine lobbying records, CropLife and RISE advocated for a bill to exempt agriculture entirely from the requirements. Although it initially failed, lawmakers expect it will be introduced again next year. In 2023 testimony submitted to Maine legislators supporting rollbacks to the regulations on PFAS in pesticides, Karen Reardon, vice president of public affairs for RISE, argued that the state’s PFAS definition is overly broad and lacks a scientific basis. She also said companies were worried that submitting affidavits on PFAS in their products could expose their trade secrets, and state regulators needed more time to develop a system that would adequately protect “confidential business information.” Some farm groups, including the Maine Potato Board and Maine Farm Bureau, also oppose the rules for PFAS in pesticides and have called for the agricultural exemption, citing the fact that losing access to certain pesticides could hurt the state’s farmers. In arguing for an exemption for agriculture last March, Donald Flannery, then the executive director of the Maine Potato Board, cited the economic value Maine’s farmers bring to the state. He noted that pesticides used in Maine “are all approved and licensed by EPA,” and said that while he acknowledged the need to clean up PFAS pollution, business and industry should be allowed to move forward in the meantime. If pesticides are not exempt from PFAS regulations, he said, “there is risk of losing products, which will have a negative impact on our ability to grow and protect our crops.” Supporters of the PFAS regulations dispute that idea because the law contains a safeguard allowing farmers to use pesticides that contain PFAS if there is a “currently unavoidable use.” (For example, if a farmer shows there is no alternative product that can address a pest issue they face.) A Well-Worn Playbook The battle over regulating PFAS in pesticides in Maine looks a lot like another heating up in Maryland. In fact, it illustrates a scenario repeated in states nationwide each year, where the pesticide industry activates a well-worn playbook in an effort to stop restrictions on pesticide use that are intended to address a broad range of impacts.And it involves some of the same tactics Civil Eats reported on in this series, in our story on Bayer’s lobbying efforts to pass laws limiting their liability for alleged harms caused by glyphosate.  First, CropLife, RISE, and the companies they represent fund state-level lobbying. At the same time, they activate individuals within companies that sell and use pesticides to advocate for what the companies want. Lastly, they align with farmer organizations that likely have more clout in the eyes of lawmakers and the public. Rick Zimmerman, a New York lobbyist who has represented both pesticide companies and farm groups to oppose state pesticide restrictions, said that alignment was not about using farmer capital. Instead, he said, it happens because farmer groups and the pesticide industry are generally opposed to state governments getting involved in the regulation of farm chemicals. “The various organizations and companies that I represented are on common ground,” he said. “It’s just a natural opportunity for organizations and companies with similar interests to be able to collaborate and work together.” However, whether the issue is neonicotinoid use in New York or small towns in Colorado passing their own pesticide laws, the strategy has real impacts. In the case of PFAS, Nordell and others said that it could mean consequences for farmers, farmworkers, and broader communities. “Are there large out-of-state corporations that have a financial incentive engendering opposition to [Maine’s pesticide] laws? Yes, certainly. They show up in committee every session, and I think there’s a lot of misinformation about what will happen as we regulate PFAS out of the economy.” Maine’s initial assessment found close to 1,500 pesticide products that are made with an active ingredient that meets the state’s definition of PFAS. Nordell said that while the contamination from sludge was relatively easy to test and trace, pesticides may not be as visible as a source of PFAS. “We should really think about farmworkers who are spraying the pesticides. We should think about the neighbors of the farmers who depend on clean water like we all do. All of us are dependent on a clean food system. When, for the sake of commerce, we turn a blind eye to environmental toxins, we all suffer in any scenario—but certainly when we’re talking about the safety of the food supply,” Nordell said. “Are there large out-of-state corporations that have a financial incentive engendering opposition to [Maine’s] laws? Yes, certainly. They show up in committee every session, and I think there’s a lot of misinformation about what will happen as we regulate PFAS out of the economy.” Representatives from CropLife America and RISE did not respond to Civil Eats’ repeated requests for interviews, or to detailed questions sent asking for their comments on points covered in this article. CropLife and RISE Lead the Way While Maine grappled with PFAS within its borders, other sources of PFAS, like fire-fighting foam and takeoutcontainers, entered the national conversation. PFAS pollution was increasingly measured in drinking water and human bodies, and information  on the health risks linked to exposure to common PFAS like PFOA and PFOS, even at very low levels, began to accumulate. A few states to the south, Maryland has also been trying to stay ahead of the game, and the Maryland Pesticide Education Network (MPEN) is central to that effort. MPEN has been one of the most active pesticide watchdog groups in the country for three decades, and over the last few years, they turned their attention to PFAS. PFAS expert Linda Birnbaum is a toxicologist who spent 20 years at the EPA and directed the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. As she put it during MPEN’s annual conference in November, “You give me a physiological system, and it’s likely there will be evidence that PFAS disrupt it,” she said, pointing to associated harms including kidney cancer, liver toxicity, high cholesterol, and birth defects. Even so, Ruth Berlin, MPEN’s executive director, was not surprised when CropLife and RISE showed up earlier this year, after Delegate Sheila Ruth introduced a state law to ban selling pesticides that contain PFAS as an active ingredient starting in June 2025. Berlin said that RISE representatives came with many of the same talking points they’d used to fight previous pesticide restrictions. For example, if lawmakers take away the use of any pesticide, “they’re going to destroy farming. They’re going to destroy public health. And it’s safe because EPA vets these pesticides.”  CropLife America is a well-known trade association that advances the interests of farm chemical giants. RISE presents itself as a separate organization that represents the “specialty” pesticide industry and tends to work on the off-farm side of things. They operate under the same 501(c)(6) and share a D.C. address. They hold joint conferencesand share lobbyists . But RISE flies more under the radar than CropLife America, even though it played a pivotal role in a coalition that helped pass laws now on the books in more than 40 states that prevent local governments from further restricting pesticide use. Those laws make it illegal, for example, for a given city council to ban pesticide spraying at schools. Astroturfing 101: Creating a ‘Grassroots’ Network Developing and operating its “grassroots network” is key to how RISE responds to state laws. As RISE’s director of state affairs, Jon Gaeta, explained in a webinar at the start of 2022, “When there’s a regulatory issue at the state level, RISE is ready to spring into action.” “This committee is very interesting because we do have what I like to call ‘activist legislators’ . . . that truly do believe in the environmental cause, and, unfortunately, they have run a significant amount of pesticide legislation that can be detrimental to our industry.” During the presentation, Gaeta showed participants where that was currently happening. He flagged Maine as a “battleground situation,” particularly with pesticide regulation bills coming out of the state’s committee on agriculture, conservation, and forestry. “This committee is very interesting because we do have what I like to call ‘activist legislators,’” he said. “These are legislators that truly do believe in the environmental cause, and, unfortunately, they have run a significant amount of pesticide legislation that can be detrimental to our industry.” However, Gaeta noted that RISE had been able to leverage the fact that the committee provides easy opportunities for testimony. “We had a lot of great people show up last year and tell their stories about how they use certain pesticides and what they do for a living and that really does make a difference,” he said. Gaeta pointed to Colorado as another focal point. RISE was anticipating that lawmakers there would try to pass a bill that would again allow local communities to restrict pesticide use where they saw fit. “This is going to be an uphill battle,” he said. “We really do need folks to flex their grassroots muscle in Colorado.” Kate Burgess, conservation manager for the National Council of Environmental Legislators, tracks state pesticidelaws around the country. She pointed to Colorado as “an example that saw intense lobbying from the pesticide industry.” The Colorado bill failed to gain traction, and RISE touted its role in its 2024 annual report: “With mounting political pressure for local control, 36 pesticide applicators showed up to testify in person against the bill. Leveraging these voices, our in-state lobbyist managed the vote count throughout the session, ultimately preventing a full floor vote in both legislative chambers.” Two screenshots from the RISE 2024 Annual Report. At left, a “legislative heat map” showing the states where the most bills were introduced that could affect the pesticide industry. Right: A list of “successes in the states” that notes how the group’s targeted lobbying efforts tracked 684 bills nationwide, and through lobbying pressure in Colorado was able to prevent a vote on the state’s pesticide preemption law. Ensuring those applicators showed up with effective talking points is a key function of RISE’s grassroots network. During another 2022 RISE webinar on messaging, McGavock Edwards, a senior vice president at PR firm Eckel & Vaughn, presented key messages that would later be provided to members in a toolkit. The messages had been developed using RISE public survey results and tested for resonance. They are also prominent on RISE’s public-facing website. They include that pesticides improve quality of life by enabling green spaces like athletic fields and by eliminating invasive species, and that they benefit public health by controlling disease-carrying insects like mosquitos and ticks. At left, a screenshot from a RISE webinar spotlighting the key messages the group asks their network of advocates to use when communicating with policymakers. At right: A screenshot of a RISE webinar with Jon Gaeta showing how members of the group’s advocacy network can get involved. The National Association of Landscape Professionals, a RISE member, deployed several of those messages in its comments submitted in opposition to the Colorado law. It also included that, “Experts at the Environmental Protection Agency rigorously evaluate each pesticide’s active ingredients for human and environmental safety and efficacy before deciding to register the product for sale and use.” That language is similar to points on a list of five key regulatory messages provided in the 2022 RISE messaging webinar by Karen Reardon, vice president of public affairs at the organization. They were selected as being especially resonant based on the results of the RISE survey. “These are the ones that work,” she said, mentioning, specifically, that they’d also tested the word “rigorous.” In Maryland, the same language was applied to argue against phasing out pesticides that contain PFAS. “EPA subjects all new pesticide products to rigorous human health and environmental review and testing requirements to satisfy these standards for registration,” Reardon wrote in RISE’s testimony. Some of RISE’s grassroots training webinars are created and presented in conjunction with CropLife America, but CropLife also does its own trainings of industry professionals who advocate for pesticides in state legislatures. In a 2021 grassroots advocacy webinar hosted by RISE and CropLife America, Leslie Garcia, manager of sustainability and stewardship at Valent USA, a California-based pesticide maker owned by Japanese chemical giant Sumimoto Chemical Company, talked about bringing the CropLife AgVocate training program to employees at Valent. In particular, she said, Valent focused on training employees in departments such as IT and finance, who might not have expertise in agriculture or chemistry and “who aren’t aways aware of the legislative threats to our industry or how to be a voice for the industry within their own personal networks,” Garcia said. After a series of trainings at Valent, she reported in the webinar, 80 percent of employees signed up for the CropLife America “Call-to-Action Network.” CropLife also works closely with the Clyde Group, a D.C.-based branding and communications agency, to train advocates and affect state laws. According to Clyde’s website, its team has done more than 100 CropLife trainings “to prepare advocates to confidently speak to their elected officials, give testimonies, and engage media.” They have also “engaged advocates to speak” on CropLife’s behalf in 15 states. In October 2022, the California Association for Pest Control Advisors dedicated more than a day of its annual conference to advocacy training. There, Anthony LaFauce from the Clyde Group told the pest control advisors that they should never show up to advocate in a business suit. Instead, he said, they should dress the part of a farmer. Farmer or Pesticide Lobbyist? Back in Maine, Representative Bill Pluecker, an Independent, is one of the “activist legislators” Gaeta referred to in the RISE webinar. Pluecker is an active farmer who has served in the House of Representatives since 2018 and also works for the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association. For several years, he’s been one of the lawmakers leading the charge to get pesticides that contain PFAS out of Maine. “PFAS is something that Mainers across the political spectrum are paying attention to,” he told Civil Eats. This is because, in Maine as elsewhere, contamination extends beyond farms: “We have large chunks of area where not only can you not eat the fish, but you also can’t eat the turkey, and you can’t eat the deer.” While not everyone agrees on exactly what bans on PFAS in pesticides should look like, Pluecker said farmers have rarely shown up to oppose the regulations. Instead, he said it always seemed to be representatives of CropLife and RISE. But Pluecker added that heading into the 2025 legislative session, it seems like the industry is working harder to leverage farmer voices on the issue, because of the political sway they hold. When the session starts, he expects exempting agriculture from the rules on PFAS in pesticides may be back on the table. At the end of 2023, Julie Ann Smith, former executive director of the Maine Farm Bureau, posted on her LinkedIn that she had started as a lobbyist for a new advocacy organization called the Maine Farmers Coalition. The first publicly available record of the organization’s website is from January 2024, where it says the organization “represents the backbone of the state’s agricultural sector” and lists two members, a large potato company that spans farms and processing and the state’s biggest wild blueberry company. In March, Smith testified at a hearing on behalf of Maine Farmers Coalition in support of exempting pesticides from PFAS regulations. Smith said the farmers she represents understand concerns surrounding PFAS and their potential health effects but that the EPA has already implemented a roadmap to address PFAS pollution. Exempting pesticides “would ensure that farmers are still able to grow and protect their crops and strike a balance between protecting the environment and ensuring food security for all,” she said. In April, the Maine Farmers Coalition hosted an online meeting for farmers. PFAS was on a list of discussion topics related to “critical legislation that will impact your farm.” In August, according to an email provided to Civil Eats, Smith reached out to Maine Senators Henry Ingwersen and Tracy Brenner and Representatives Lori Gramlich and Bill Pluecker, from her Maine Farmers Coalition email, to try to organize a dinner with industry representatives from Syngenta, a global pesticide giant that is a subsidiary of ChemChina. Smith said she would review questions from Civil Eats but did not respond to an email that provided detailed questions by press time. Syngenta did not report lobbying in Maine last year, but it has been active in efforts to slow the implementation of PFAS restrictions in the past. In 2023, CropLife and RISE were pushing the Maine Board of Pesticides to delay reporting requirements for PFAS in pesticides. When the Board failed to extend the deadline, Syngenta declared in a letter to its distributors and retailers that it would not re-register its products in the state going forward, because reporting on PFAS in their products would pose “too high of a risk” that their formulas would be disclosed. “Although the BPC [Board of Pesticides Control] confirmed that such information must be held confidential as a matter of law, the BPC has not provided sufficient assurances regarding how it could ensure the protection of this information. Without confidence in that process, the potential economic and competitive harm that would result from such a disclosure (inadvertent or otherwise) is too high of a risk,” wrote Vern Hawkins, president of Syngenta Crop Protection. Pluecker called the move a “threat” the industry used to try to get regulators to roll back the requirements. According to state records, Syngenta did register a long list of its pesticides for use in the state in 2024. A Syngenta representative said the company would review detailed questions from Civil Eats, including on whether the company is affiliated with Maine Farmers Coalition in any way and why they changed course on registration. After several follow-up emails from Civil Eats, she said, “We are to unable to help you with this story at this time.“ Meanwhile, between 2022 and 2024, state records show CropLife America and RISE employed the same lobbyists from Mitchell Tardy Jackson, a Maine lobbying firm, to convince lawmakers to oppose multiple pesticide restrictions, including regulating PFAS. Mitchell Tardy Jackson also lobbies for the Maine Potato Board. This pattern of alignment of farm groups with CropLife America and RISE is in line with how opposition to pesticide restrictions has manifested in other states, where individuals who represent local farmer groups are also being compensated by the pesticide industry. In Maryland in March, lobbyist Lindsay Thompson submitted comments in opposition to the proposed state law to ban PFAS in pesticides on behalf of the Maryland Grain Producers Association, “the voice of grain farmers growing corn, wheat, barley, and sorghum across the state.” At the same time, she was being paid to lobby for the Maryland Green Industry Council and the Maryland Association of Green Industries, trade groups for pesticide sellers and users (like nurseries and turf makers) that often work closely with RISE. A few months earlier, she was registered as a lobbyist on behalf of RISE. She is now registered as a lobbyist for CropLife America. Thompson did not respond to a request for comment. In New York, Rick Zimmerman, who at one time led the New York Farm Bureau, has a client list that includes CropLife America and Syngenta. Before the state passed a law to ban the use of neonicotinoid coatings on some seeds, he submitted comments in opposition to the law on behalf of the Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance, the Northeast Dairy Producers’ Association, and the New York State Vegetable Growers’ Association. Many lobbyists work for multiple clients in related industries, said Dan Raichel, director of pollinators and pesticides at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), so in some ways the situation is not uncommon. “But there is a tension there,” he said. In the case of New York, he pointed to the fact that the bill would have restricted the use of chemicals known to be lethal to pollinators so they could not be used on corn, soy, and wheat seeds. Fruit and vegetable growers would have been able to continue spraying the insecticides as needed. Still, Zimmerman opposed the bill on behalf of vegetable growers. “That always struck me as odd. These are people that rely on pollinators,” Raichel said. “So, here’s a bill that would help with pollinator populations and beneficial insects and soil health. It was not targeted towards the fruit and vegetable industry and would not affect them at all.” Zimmerman disputed that idea. Many of New York’s vegetable farmers, he said, plant sweet corn, and their ability to use neonicotinoid coatings on those seeds was impacted by the ban. Overall, he added, the farm groups he represents are opposed to state lawmakers regulating specific groups of pesticides because they believe the current registration and review process in place is already science-based and thorough. “It’s a fundamental question as to whether the state should take the authority to ban a particular pesticide product through legislation,” he said. “Whenever the legislature gets involved in these sorts of decisions, it goes well beyond the science, and it becomes a politically driven campaign to eliminate a particular product.” “It’s a fundamental question as to whether the state should take the authority to ban a particular pesticide product through legislation. Whenever the legislature gets involved in these sorts of decisions, it goes well beyond the science, and it becomes a politically driven campaign to eliminate a particular product.” Still, Raichel doesn’t see it as politics; he’s focused on environmental impacts he feels current regulations don’t adequately take into account. And after years of working to support the New York bill, he hadn’t heard a lot from growers on those points. “The people that we were seeing in Albany were the [industry] representatives,” he said. “I’m sure there were farmers involved, but how much of an issue was this, that real farmers actually cared about? It was hard to say.” Whether or not farmers will show up to oppose restricting PFAS in pesticides is one big question heading into Maine’s 2025 session, Pluecker said. Lobbying data shows that compared to 2021 and 2022, CropLife America and RISE started to shift spending toward targeting Maine’s executive branch in 2023 and 2024. If the industry successfully organizes more farmers through its network and the new Maine Farmers Coalition, they may have more momentum. “It’s going to be an interesting conversation in the statehouse, because farmers are going to come forward and they’re going to try to say they’ve been harmed in some way by the existing law, but the existing law hasn’t gone into effect,” says Pluecker. “In fact, it has been pushed back for another two years since it was passed three years ago.” In the end, Pluecker said, he hears the argument often that there’s no need to regulate PFAS in pesticides because most of the PFAS contamination detected so far came from sludge and that’s been taken care of. But Nordell said farmers and others should look to the situation with sludge as an analogy for how to act now to avoid a similar fate due to other PFAS sources, including pesticides. “There were strong critiques of the safety of using sewage sludge as a fertilizer back in the ‘80s. There were toxicologists who recognized that it was not a safe practice, and concerns were overridden,” Nordell said. In fact, sludge application was embraced by state and federal regulators. In most states , it still is. Nordell sees stark parallels to sludge in the 1980s and PFAS in pesticides today—and says that it’s time to learn from past mistakes. “We need to be asking hard questions and . . . to move as quickly as we can to protect farming communities from further exposure, to protect our farming resources, our farm soils, and our irrigation and drinking water on farms from further contamination.” The post Why Are Pesticide Companies Fighting State Laws to Address PFAS? appeared first on Civil Eats.

Education
Health
Agriculture

MIT affiliates named 2024 Schmidt Futures AI2050 Fellows

Five MIT faculty members and two additional alumni are honored with fellowships to advance research on beneficial AI.

Five MIT faculty members and two additional alumni were recently named to the 2024 cohort of AI2050 Fellows. The honor is announced annually by Schmidt Futures, Eric and Wendy Schmidt’s philanthropic initiative that aims to accelerate scientific innovation. Conceived and co-chaired by Eric Schmidt and James Manyika, AI2050 is a philanthropic initiative aimed at helping to solve hard problems in AI. Within their research, each fellow will contend with the central motivating question of AI2050: “It’s 2050. AI has turned out to be hugely beneficial to society. What happened? What are the most important problems we solved and the opportunities and possibilities we realized to ensure this outcome?”This year’s MIT-affiliated AI2050 Fellows include:David Autor, the Daniel (1972) and Gail Rubinfeld Professor in the MIT Department of Economics, and co-director of the MIT Shaping the Future of Work Initiative and the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Labor Studies Program, has been named a 2024 AI2050 senior fellow. His scholarship explores the labor-market impacts of technological change and globalization on job polarization, skill demands, earnings levels and inequality, and electoral outcomes. Autor’s AI2050 project will leverage real-time data on AI adoption to clarify how new tools interact with human capabilities in shaping employment and earnings. The work will provide an accessible framework for entrepreneurs, technologists, and policymakers seeking to understand, tangibly, how AI can complement human expertise. Autor has received numerous awards and honors, including a National Science Foundation CAREER Award, an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellowship, an Andrew Carnegie Fellowship, and the Heinz 25th Special Recognition Award from the Heinz Family Foundation for his work “transforming our understanding of how globalization and technological change are impacting jobs and earning prospects for American workers.” In 2023, Autor was one of two researchers across all scientific fields selected as a NOMIS Distinguished Scientist.Sara Beery, an assistant professor in the Department of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and a principal investigator in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), has been named an early career fellow. Beery’s work focuses on building computer vision methods that enable global-scale environmental and biodiversity monitoring across data modalities and tackling real-world challenges, including strong spatiotemporal correlations, imperfect data quality, fine-grained categories, and long-tailed distributions. She collaborates with nongovernmental organizations and government agencies to deploy her methods worldwide and works toward increasing the diversity and accessibility of academic research in artificial intelligence through interdisciplinary capacity-building and education. Beery earned a BS in electrical engineering and mathematics from Seattle University and a PhD in computing and mathematical sciences from Caltech, where she was honored with the Amori Prize for her outstanding dissertation.Gabriele Farina, an assistant professor in EECS and a principal investigator in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), has been named an early career fellow. Farina’s work lies at the intersection of artificial intelligence, computer science, operations research, and economics. Specifically, he focuses on learning and optimization methods for sequential decisio­­­n-making and convex-concave saddle point problems, with applications to equilibrium finding in games. Farina also studies computational game theory and recently served as co-author on a Science study about combining language models with strategic reasoning. He is a recipient of a NeurIPS Best Paper Award and was a Facebook Fellow in economics and computer science. His dissertation was recognized with the 2023 ACM SIGecom Doctoral Dissertation Award and one of the two 2023 ACM Dissertation Award Honorable Mentions, among others.Marzyeh Ghassemi PhD ’17, an associate professor in EECS and the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, principal investigator at CSAIL and LIDS, and affiliate of the Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning in Health and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, has been named an early career fellow. Ghassemi’s research in the Healthy ML Group creates a rigorous quantitative framework in which to design, develop, and place ML models in a way that is robust and fair, focusing on health settings. Her contributions range from socially aware model construction to improving subgroup- and shift-robust learning methods to identifying important insights in model deployment scenarios that have implications in policy, health practice, and equity. Among other awards, Ghassemi has been named one of MIT Technology Review’s 35 Innovators Under 35; and has been awarded the 2018 Seth J. Teller Award, the 2023 MIT Prize for Open Data, a 2024 NSF CAREER Award, and the Google Research Scholar Award. She founded the nonprofit Association for Health, Inference and Learning (AHLI) and her work has been featured in popular press such as Forbes, Fortune, MIT News, and The Huffington Post.Yoon Kim, an assistant professor in EECS and a principal investigator in CSAIL, has been named an early career fellow. Kim’s work straddles the intersection between natural language processing and machine learning, and touches upon efficient training and deployment of large-scale models, learning from small data, neuro-symbolic approaches, grounded language learning, and connections between computational and human language processing. Affiliated with CSAIL, Kim earned his PhD in computer science at Harvard University; his MS in data science from New York University; his MA in statistics from Columbia University; and his BA in both math and economics from Cornell University. Additional alumni Roger Grosse PhD ’14, a computer science associate professor at the University of Toronto, and David Rolnick ’12, PhD ’18, assistant professor at Mila-Quebec AI Institute, were also named senior and early career fellows, respectively.

Education
Government
Health

Suggested Viewing

Mayday Terranean

Mayday Terranean is a documentary film portraying the problems of the Mediterranean Sea as well as the beauty it still has to offer. Scientists, conservationists and activists from countries around the Mediterranean Sea talk about the topic, their relationship to ocean conservation and shed light on the story of this wonderful but endangered place.

Water
Pollution
Conservation

Trashy Waters

Alabama is not a dumpster. Litter washing into our waterways is a problem not only affecting our pocketbooks and well-being, but it also spoils our enjoyment of Alabama’s great outdoors. Join a passionate group of watershed guardians as they address the enormous issue of litter accumulating in our creeks, streams and rivers.

Water
Waste
Education

Taking Flight

In an area where traditional education fails students, one Mayan woman starts her own school in order to rebuild her community from the ground up. Through her integral education, which includes meals for students and workshops for their parents, Ingrid Villaseñor strengthens her home of Panajachel one step at a time.

Culture
Inspirational
Education

Women Are The Answer

Population growth has been left out of the climate debate because it is considered controversial, yet it is one of the most important factors. The global population has passed the 7 billion mark and India will soon overtake China as the most populous nation in the world, but one state in southern India has found the solution: Kerala educates its women. The unique history of Kerala and ‘the Kerala Model’ is outlined, using it as an example of achieving population control in developing countries without coercion. Links are highlighted within the documentary between issues such as women’s education, women’s rights and status in society, women’s health, population growth, global poverty and global food shortage, economic growth and environmental stability.

Education
Culture
Documentary

Rise and Fall

A film to provide an awareness of climate change and the individual measures we can take to combat it. The production process of Rise and Fall began as your stereotypical documentary meant to showcase various aspects of the Earth and Ocean Sciences Department at UNCW. Still, as the interview process was underway, it was quickly decided to move in another direction. It is an essay film about the science of climate change, what we can do in our day-to-day lives to combat it, and its impacts. Without using talking heads, the images of the natural world provide a sensual look at what will be affected by climate change.

Climate
Nature
Documentary

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.