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.

Amazon says its plastic packaging can be recycled. An investigation finds it usually isn’t.

News Feed
Wednesday, March 20, 2024

Feeling guilty about all those blue-and-white plastic Amazon bags piling up around the house? Fear not — they can be recycled! At least, that’s what the packaging says. For years now, Amazon’s plastic bags, bubble-lined mailers, and air pillows have featured the ubiquitous “chasing arrows” recycling symbol along with the words “store drop-off.” The idea is simple: Since most curbside recycling programs don’t accept this type of plastic — it’s too expensive to process and can clog machines — consumers can instead leave it at retail stores across the country. From there, this plastic, known as “film,” will go to a specialized facility and be turned into new products. The problem, however, is that the system doesn’t seem to be working. An investigation published Tuesday by the nonprofits Environment America and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or U.S. PIRG, suggests that only a small fraction of Amazon’s plastic packaging makes it to a material recovery facility, the term for operations that sort glass, metal, plastic, and other items for recycling. The packaging is much more likely to end up in a landfill, incinerator, export terminal, or in the hands of a company that downcycles plastic film into things like benches. The report adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that store drop-off programs are an ineffective solution to the escalating plastic pollution crisis. According to environmental groups, these programs help justify the ongoing production of single-use plastic, helping manufacturers and retailers evade accountability while alleviating consumer guilt. “The store drop-off system is really not working, and plastic film is not recyclable,” said Jenn Engstrom, state director of U.S. PIRG’s California chapter and a co-author of the report. To find out what happens to Amazon’s plastic packaging, U.S. PIRG and Environment America attached small tracking devices — mostly Apple AirTags — to 93 bundles of Amazon plastic packaging marked for store drop-off and deposited them at retailers in 10 states. These stores, which were listed in an online directory, included mostly supermarkets like Safeway, Sprouts, Publix, Fred Meyer, QFC, and Whole Foods, although some bundles were placed at outlets like Kohl’s or Home Depot. A drop-off receptacle for plastic bags at a grocery store in Palo Alto, California. Paul Saukma / AP Photo The report authors were able to determine the fate of about half the bundles, since, as expected, many of the trackers likely died before reaching a final destination. Of those that survived, 13 went to a landfill, two went to a waste incinerator, and three went to the Port of Los Angeles, suggesting that the bundles were destined for processing or disposal overseas. Only four trackers eventually made their way to a material recovery facility that sorts plastics for recycling. U.S. PIRG and Environment America said they were able to contact three of those facilities: Two specifically said they do not accept Amazon packaging, and the third said it accepts only paper and cardboard. Two dozen trackers ended up in the hands of Trex, a company that makes benches and decking out of discarded plastic. But U.S. PIRG and Environment America question whether Trex is using Amazon packaging in its products; the contents of store drop-off bins are often littered with food and beverages, likely rendering this plastic too contaminated to use in manufacturing. Trex did not respond to Grist’s request for comment, but a similar company reports getting 70 to 80 percent of its plastic from “back-of-the-house shrink wrap,” referring to the material wrapped around shipping pallets, which tends to be cleaner than postconsumer plastic. Meanwhile, a Trex executive told Bloomberg News last year that there is not enough demand for recycled material to make store drop-off successful.  “All the claims the companies are making are just greenwashing,” he told Bloomberg. “Recycling’s failed.” While USPIRG and Environment America’s investigation may be the largest of its kind, it isn’t the first to find flaws in the store drop-off system. Last year, Bloomberg tracked 30 bundles of packaging and wrappers marked with the store drop-off icon and found that 13 of them — more than 40 percent — ended up at U.S. landfills. Just four made it to locations that can recycle plastic. A similar effort from ABC News found that about half of 46 bundles of plastic bags went to landfills and incinerators, while only four went to facilities “that say they are involved with recycling plastic bags.” In 2023, Dell dropped off Amazon plastic packaging (left) at an Albertsons in San Clemente, California. It turned up months later at a warehouse dump pile in Malaysia (right). Photos courtesy of The Last Beach Cleanup. Jan Dell, an independent chemical engineer and founder of the environmental nonprofit The Least Beach Cleanup, has been deploying her own trackers too. Since December 2022, she hasn’t traced a single bundle of film labeled for store drop-off to U.S. facilities that can turn the material into new bags. Twelve bundles have been sent to a landfill or waste station, and one to an incinerator. Four appeared to have traveled to Mexico, Vietnam, or Malaysia, countries that generally lack adequate recycling infrastructure.  “They’re absolutely lying with these labels,” Dell said. The store drop-off system has “never worked, it was never true.”  The labels in question are produced by an initiative called How2Recycle, which began selling them to big companies in 2012 — supposedly to clear up confusion among consumers and retailers about which products could be recycled. The initiative issues several versions of the recycling icon, with the one marked “store drop-off” reserved for products, like plastic bags and film, that aren’t accepted in curbside recycling programs. The store drop-off labels direct consumers to How2Recycle’s website, which links to a directory of retail locations with ]collection receptacles. Until last year, that directory was found at BagandFilmDirectory.org and featured more than 18,000 locations — but the consulting firm managing it shut it down following ABC News’ investigation, citing a lack of “real commitment from the industry,” as well as insufficient funding. Many of the locations listed did not actually have a receptacle, while the Target and Walmart locations appeared to be disposing of, rather than recycling, much of the film they received. “There’s more of an illusion of stuff getting recycled than there actually is because there is an imbalance in supply and demand,” Nina Butler, CEO of the consulting firm, told ABC News. How2Recycle now links customers to a different directory hosted at Earth911. How2Recycle did not respond to Grist’s request for comment. As scrutiny has increased over the use of the store drop-off label, some companies have pledged to stop using it altogether. Mondelez, which owns brands including Oreo and Ritz, said in March 2023, that it plans to phase out the label by 2025. Dell said she’s also noticed the label’s disappearance from packaging sold by Target and Georgia Pacific, a company that sells toilet paper, paper towels, and other pulp products. Target and Georgia Pacific did not respond to Grist’s request for comment. Read Next Inside the industry push to label your yogurt cup ‘recyclable’ Joseph Winters Amazon, for its part, did not respond to Grist’s questions about its use of the store drop-off label. When Dell asked the company, during a Zoom meeting in 2020 that she shared with Grist, to provide evidence that the its packaging is widely recycled through the store drop-off program — as required by California law — an Amazon spokesperson told the state recycling commission that the company has “really high confidence that store drop-off is a solution that is available in California.” Pat Lindner, Amazon’s vice president of mechatronics and sustainable packaging, told Grist that the company has no control over how its packaging is handled “once it has been disposed of by municipalities or recycling centers.” A spokesperson said the company is investing in better recycling infrastructure while also reducing plastics use overall. As of last year, for example, Amazon has eliminated plastic from shipments delivered in Europe, likely in response to EU regulations banning several categories of single-use plastic. The company also eliminated plastic packaging in India after Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to ban single-use plastic nationwide by 2022. In the U.S. last year, Amazon launched an automated fulfillment center in Euclid, Ohio, that uses paper exclusively instead of plastic packaging, and the company said it’s ramping up a program to ship items in their original packages instead of extra plastic ones. The company also said in a 2022 sustainability report that it was “phasing out padded bags containing plastics in favor of recyclable alternatives,” but the spokesperson did not address Grist’s request to clarify the timeline for this transition. Environmental advocates agree that Amazon has made progress, but say it should be doing more to reduce the hundreds of millions of pounds of single-use plastic trash it generates every year — and that it should remove the How2Recycle symbol from its packaging. In California, where state legislation often sets a national standard, a truth-in-advertising law signed by the governor in 2021 may soon restrict the use of store drop-off labels unless companies can prove that the system is effective. A separate law will require single-use plastic packaging sold in the state to be demonstrably recycled at least 65 percent of the time by 2032, a threshold that may push manufacturers toward paper, which is far easier to recycle. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Amazon says its plastic packaging can be recycled. An investigation finds it usually isn’t. on Mar 20, 2024.

Trackers placed in 93 bundles of Amazon packaging marked for "store drop-off" recycling showed many of them were buried or burned.

Feeling guilty about all those blue-and-white plastic Amazon bags piling up around the house? Fear not — they can be recycled! At least, that’s what the packaging says.

For years now, Amazon’s plastic bags, bubble-lined mailers, and air pillows have featured the ubiquitous “chasing arrows” recycling symbol along with the words “store drop-off.” The idea is simple: Since most curbside recycling programs don’t accept this type of plastic — it’s too expensive to process and can clog machines — consumers can instead leave it at retail stores across the country. From there, this plastic, known as “film,” will go to a specialized facility and be turned into new products.

The problem, however, is that the system doesn’t seem to be working.

An investigation published Tuesday by the nonprofits Environment America and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, or U.S. PIRG, suggests that only a small fraction of Amazon’s plastic packaging makes it to a material recovery facility, the term for operations that sort glass, metal, plastic, and other items for recycling. The packaging is much more likely to end up in a landfill, incinerator, export terminal, or in the hands of a company that downcycles plastic film into things like benches.

The report adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that store drop-off programs are an ineffective solution to the escalating plastic pollution crisis. According to environmental groups, these programs help justify the ongoing production of single-use plastic, helping manufacturers and retailers evade accountability while alleviating consumer guilt.

“The store drop-off system is really not working, and plastic film is not recyclable,” said Jenn Engstrom, state director of U.S. PIRG’s California chapter and a co-author of the report.

To find out what happens to Amazon’s plastic packaging, U.S. PIRG and Environment America attached small tracking devices — mostly Apple AirTags — to 93 bundles of Amazon plastic packaging marked for store drop-off and deposited them at retailers in 10 states. These stores, which were listed in an online directory, included mostly supermarkets like Safeway, Sprouts, Publix, Fred Meyer, QFC, and Whole Foods, although some bundles were placed at outlets like Kohl’s or Home Depot.

Hand placing plastic bag into a drop-off receptacle
A drop-off receptacle for plastic bags at a grocery store in Palo Alto, California. Paul Saukma / AP Photo

The report authors were able to determine the fate of about half the bundles, since, as expected, many of the trackers likely died before reaching a final destination. Of those that survived, 13 went to a landfill, two went to a waste incinerator, and three went to the Port of Los Angeles, suggesting that the bundles were destined for processing or disposal overseas.

Only four trackers eventually made their way to a material recovery facility that sorts plastics for recycling. U.S. PIRG and Environment America said they were able to contact three of those facilities: Two specifically said they do not accept Amazon packaging, and the third said it accepts only paper and cardboard.

Two dozen trackers ended up in the hands of Trex, a company that makes benches and decking out of discarded plastic. But U.S. PIRG and Environment America question whether Trex is using Amazon packaging in its products; the contents of store drop-off bins are often littered with food and beverages, likely rendering this plastic too contaminated to use in manufacturing.

Trex did not respond to Grist’s request for comment, but a similar company reports getting 70 to 80 percent of its plastic from “back-of-the-house shrink wrap,” referring to the material wrapped around shipping pallets, which tends to be cleaner than postconsumer plastic. Meanwhile, a Trex executive told Bloomberg News last year that there is not enough demand for recycled material to make store drop-off successful. 

“All the claims the companies are making are just greenwashing,” he told Bloomberg. “Recycling’s failed.”

While USPIRG and Environment America’s investigation may be the largest of its kind, it isn’t the first to find flaws in the store drop-off system. Last year, Bloomberg tracked 30 bundles of packaging and wrappers marked with the store drop-off icon and found that 13 of them — more than 40 percent — ended up at U.S. landfills. Just four made it to locations that can recycle plastic. A similar effort from ABC News found that about half of 46 bundles of plastic bags went to landfills and incinerators, while only four went to facilities “that say they are involved with recycling plastic bags.”

Jan Dell, an independent chemical engineer and founder of the environmental nonprofit The Least Beach Cleanup, has been deploying her own trackers too. Since December 2022, she hasn’t traced a single bundle of film labeled for store drop-off to U.S. facilities that can turn the material into new bags. Twelve bundles have been sent to a landfill or waste station, and one to an incinerator. Four appeared to have traveled to Mexico, Vietnam, or Malaysia, countries that generally lack adequate recycling infrastructure. 

“They’re absolutely lying with these labels,” Dell said. The store drop-off system has “never worked, it was never true.” 

The labels in question are produced by an initiative called How2Recycle, which began selling them to big companies in 2012 — supposedly to clear up confusion among consumers and retailers about which products could be recycled. The initiative issues several versions of the recycling icon, with the one marked “store drop-off” reserved for products, like plastic bags and film, that aren’t accepted in curbside recycling programs.

The store drop-off labels direct consumers to How2Recycle’s website, which links to a directory of retail locations with ]collection receptacles. Until last year, that directory was found at BagandFilmDirectory.org and featured more than 18,000 locations — but the consulting firm managing it shut it down following ABC News’ investigation, citing a lack of “real commitment from the industry,” as well as insufficient funding. Many of the locations listed did not actually have a receptacle, while the Target and Walmart locations appeared to be disposing of, rather than recycling, much of the film they received.

“There’s more of an illusion of stuff getting recycled than there actually is because there is an imbalance in supply and demand,” Nina Butler, CEO of the consulting firm, told ABC News. How2Recycle now links customers to a different directory hosted at Earth911. How2Recycle did not respond to Grist’s request for comment.

As scrutiny has increased over the use of the store drop-off label, some companies have pledged to stop using it altogether. Mondelez, which owns brands including Oreo and Ritz, said in March 2023, that it plans to phase out the label by 2025. Dell said she’s also noticed the label’s disappearance from packaging sold by Target and Georgia Pacific, a company that sells toilet paper, paper towels, and other pulp products. Target and Georgia Pacific did not respond to Grist’s request for comment.

Amazon, for its part, did not respond to Grist’s questions about its use of the store drop-off label. When Dell asked the company, during a Zoom meeting in 2020 that she shared with Grist, to provide evidence that the its packaging is widely recycled through the store drop-off program — as required by California law — an Amazon spokesperson told the state recycling commission that the company has “really high confidence that store drop-off is a solution that is available in California.”

Pat Lindner, Amazon’s vice president of mechatronics and sustainable packaging, told Grist that the company has no control over how its packaging is handled “once it has been disposed of by municipalities or recycling centers.” A spokesperson said the company is investing in better recycling infrastructure while also reducing plastics use overall. As of last year, for example, Amazon has eliminated plastic from shipments delivered in Europe, likely in response to EU regulations banning several categories of single-use plastic. The company also eliminated plastic packaging in India after Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to ban single-use plastic nationwide by 2022.

In the U.S. last year, Amazon launched an automated fulfillment center in Euclid, Ohio, that uses paper exclusively instead of plastic packaging, and the company said it’s ramping up a program to ship items in their original packages instead of extra plastic ones. The company also said in a 2022 sustainability report that it was “phasing out padded bags containing plastics in favor of recyclable alternatives,” but the spokesperson did not address Grist’s request to clarify the timeline for this transition.

Environmental advocates agree that Amazon has made progress, but say it should be doing more to reduce the hundreds of millions of pounds of single-use plastic trash it generates every year — and that it should remove the How2Recycle symbol from its packaging. In California, where state legislation often sets a national standard, a truth-in-advertising law signed by the governor in 2021 may soon restrict the use of store drop-off labels unless companies can prove that the system is effective. A separate law will require single-use plastic packaging sold in the state to be demonstrably recycled at least 65 percent of the time by 2032, a threshold that may push manufacturers toward paper, which is far easier to recycle.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Amazon says its plastic packaging can be recycled. An investigation finds it usually isn’t. on Mar 20, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Texas reaches $12.6 million settlement in connection with 2019 Port Neches chemical plant explosion

The settlement directs TCP Group to repair equipment and to pay $12.6 million in penalties for clean air violations at its Southeast Texas facility.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. Texas reached a $12.6 million settlement with TPC Group over environmental violations related to the November 2019 explosions at the company’s Port Neches chemical plant, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Friday. The settlement requires TPC Group to repair or replace its equipment and to pay $12.6 million in penalties for violations of state emissions laws at the company’s Port Neches plant after the 2019 blast. The explosions the day before Thanksgiving 2019 prompted the evacuations of more than 50,000 people from the area — about 100 miles east of Houston. The blasts spewed more than 11 million pounds of hazardous substances, causing more than $130 million in offsite property damage and additional impacts to human health and the environment, according to the U.S. Justice Department. Texas sued TPC Group in 2020, alleging that the company continued to operate its plant in Port Neches despite knowing that the facility had issues and for violating emissions limits even after the blast. The state also alleged that the Houston-based company violated clean air laws multiple times from January 2018 to September 2019. In a statement, TPC Group said that it was “working closely” with the Texas Commission on Environment Quality and the attorney general’s office to ensure its compliance with the state’s emission limits. The company described “operational challenges caused by custom emission control units” that it installed while converting the Port Neches plant after the explosion. “TPC Group is committed to complying with the emission limits of its permits and has been working diligently to address the issues,” Sara Cronin, TPC Group’s vice president of communications and public affairs, said in a statement. “The agreement is reflective of our dedication to work every day to be a positive part of the communities in which we operate and a leader in producing C4 petrochemicals. In May, TPC Group pleaded guilty to a violation of the Clean Air Act and agreed to pay more than $30 million associated with the explosions. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2022. In August, it agreed to pay $150 million in penalties related to violations alleged by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The most important Texas news,sent weekday mornings. “In Texas, we believe in ensuring all industries operate safely and being responsible stewards of our environment,” Paxton said in a statement Friday. “These penalties send a clear message: operate responsibly to protect the health and safety of your fellow Texans, or face the consequences.”

What is methanol and how does it affect the body?

Travellers are being warned of the dangers after six tourists in Laos died from methanol poisoning.

What is methanol and how does it affect the body?Michelle RobertsDigital health editor, BBC NewsGetty ImagesThe UK Foreign Office advises travellers: "Take care if offered, particularly for free, or when buying spirit-based drinks. If labels, smell or taste seem wrong then do not drink."Travellers are being warned of the dangers of methanol poisoning after six tourists to Laos have died. Methanol is an industrial chemical found in antifreeze and windshield washer fluid. It's not meant for human consumption and is highly toxic.Drinking even small amounts can be damaging. A few shots of bootleg spirit containing it can be lethal. What does methanol do to you?It looks and tastes like alcohol, and the first effects are similar - it can make you feel intoxicated and sick.Initially, people might not realise anything is wrong. The harm happens hours later as the body attempts to clear it from the body by breaking it down in the liver. This metabolism creates toxic by-products called formaldehyde, formate and formic acid.These build up, attacking nerves and organs which can lead to blindness, coma and death. Dr Christopher Morris, a senior lecturer at Newcastle University, said: "Formate, which is the main toxin produced, acts in a similar way to cyanide and stops energy production in cells, and the brain seems to be very vulnerable to this. "This leads to certain parts of the brain being damaged. The eyes are also directly affected and this can cause blindness which is found in many people exposed to high levels of methanol."So far, five of the six who have died have been women.Toxicity from methanol is related to the dose you get and how your body handles it.As with alcohol, the less you weigh, the more you can be affected by a given amount.Dr Knut Erik Hovda from Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), which tracks methanol poisonings, says awareness varies a lot among tourists and healthcare staff in different parts of the world - and that could mean delays in diagnosing it."The symptoms are often so vague until you get really sick," he told the BBC.How is methanol poisoning treated?Poisoning is a medical emergency and should be treated in hospital. There are drug treatments that can be given, as well as dialysis to clean the blood. Some cases can be treated using alcohol (ethanol) to outcompete the methanol metabolism. But this has to be done quickly.Prof Alastair Hay, an expert in environmental toxicology from the University of Leeds, explained: "Ethanol acts as a competitive inhibitor largely preventing methanol breakdown, but markedly slowing it down, allowing the body to vent methanol from the lungs and some through the kidneys, and a little through sweat.”Dr Hovda said getting help quickly after consuming methanol was crucial to chances of surviving."You can ease all affects if you get to hospital early enough and that hospital has the treatment needed," he said."You can die from a very small proportion of methanol and you can survive from a quite substantial one, if you get to help."The most important antidote is regular alcohol."Getty ImagesMethanol is an industrial chemical found in antifreeze and windshield washer fluid. It's not meant for human consumption and is highly toxicHow can travellers avoid methanol poisoning?MSF says the majority of methanol poisonings happen in Asia, but some also occur in Africa and Latin America.The advice for travellers is to know what you’re drinking and be aware of the risks.Drink from reputable, licensed premises and avoid home-brewed drinks or bootleg spirits.Methanol is produced during the brewing process and concentrated by distillation. Commercial manufacturers will reduce it to levels which are safe for human consumption. However, unscrupulous backyard brewers or others in the supply chain may sometimes add industrially produced methanol, to make it go further and increase profits. Dr Hovda said methanol was mixed into alcohol "mostly for profit reasons, because it's cheaper and easily available".It is also possible for high levels of methanol to be produced by contaminating microbes during traditional ethanol fermentation.The UK Foreign Office advises travellers: "Take care if offered, particularly for free, or when buying spirit-based drinks. If labels, smell or taste seem wrong then do not drink."Which drinks could contain methanol?Affected drinks may include:To protect yourself from methanol poisoning:Seek urgent medical attention if you or someone you are travelling with show signs of methanol poisoning.

California limits on ‘forever chemicals’ PFAS in products are effective, study says

Levels in people’s blood for 37 chemicals linked to health issues declined after they were designated under Prop 65California’s nation-leading restrictions on toxic chemicals in consumer products reduced the population’s body levels for many dangerous compounds linked to cancer, birth defects, reproductive harm and other serious health issues.New peer-reviewed research showed levels in residents’ blood for 37 chemicals the authors analyzed had declined after the substances were designated under Proposition 65, which regulates toxic chemicals in consumer goods. Continue reading...

California’s nation-leading restrictions on toxic chemicals in consumer products reduced the population’s body levels for many dangerous compounds linked to cancer, birth defects, reproductive harm and other serious health issues.New peer-reviewed research showed levels in residents’ blood for 37 chemicals the authors analyzed had declined after the substances were designated under Proposition 65, which regulates toxic chemicals in consumer goods.Among levels that fell were highly toxic PFAS “forever chemicals”, flame retardants, diesel chemicals, phthalates and bisphenol.The findings come as the federal government faces mounting criticism for not doing enough to rein in toxic chemicals in consumer goods, and the paper’s authors say their findings suggest regulations work.“It suggests a tangible public health payoff from the state’s more stringent environmental regulations,” said Claudia Polsky, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law, and a study co-author.Researchers largely looked at chemicals covered by Proposition 65, which was implemented in 1986. It requires companies that sell products in California to warn consumers if the goods contain harmful chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm.About 850 chemicals have been designated under the law. The paper compared data for 37 Prop 65 chemicals, or other compounds closely related to those that are designated, for which federal regulators also track levels in the US population’s bodies.Median levels decreased for several PFAS, which are among the most common and dangerous manmade substances. PFOS and N-MeFOSAA, two PFAS compounds, dropped by 77%, and PFOA levels fell by 62% – the levels are lower than national medians. Meanwhile, median bisphenol-A (BPA) concentrations decreased 15% after the designation.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThough people in California showed lower levels than the rest of the US in many instances, the law’s benefits may not be limited to California: levels of toxic chemicals in people’s bodies often went down in the state and across the US in the years following the chemicals’ Prop 65 designation, suggesting companies reformulated products to avoid the compounds.However, the authors cautioned that drops in body levels may not only be attributable to Prop 65. Though levels for phthalates, a common plasticizer, dropped in California, it coincided with a push by other states and the federal government to reduce the usage of some of the compounds.The study also found evidence of companies swapping out one toxic chemical for another problematic chemical with similar chemical structure and health effects. BPA levels dropped after it was designated, but levels of a related compound, bisphenol S (BPS), increased 20% over the same period.Similarly, levels of the phthalate DEHP, used in vinyl and other plastic products, went down after it was listed in 2003. At the same time, exposures to a closely related unlisted phthalate called DiNP went up. Levels of DiNP then dropped after it was also listed in 2013.The substitution “undermines the net health benefits of some chemical-specific restrictions and illustrates the need for chemical policies that address groups of closely related chemicals as classes”, the study’s authors wrote.

More people are drinking toxic “forever chemicals” than ever, EPA report finds

More than 143 million Americans are exposed to PFAS in drinking water — 11 million greater than once thought

On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency released newly-acquired data showing that over 143 million Americans are exposed to so-called “forever chemicals,” or PFAS. The source of this exposure is their drinking water — and as more data comes in, that number is expected to rise. In the analysis, the EPA learned that 11 million more people are exposed to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in their drinking water than was previously reported. The EPA performs an annual set of studies known as the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, of which this was the fifth iteration. The UCMR mandates that water utilities across the U.S. test drinking water for 29 different PFAS compounds. PFAS are linked to health problems like high blood pressure, liver disease, lowered sperm count, and various cancers. The EPA believes that pesticides are a major source of this PFAS contamination. In a paper cited by the EPA in their research, scientists publishing in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives recommended “a more stringent risk assessment approach for fluorinated pesticides, transparent disclosure of ‘inert’ ingredients on pesticide labels, a complete phase-out of post-mold fluorination of plastic containers, and greater monitoring in the United States.” A March report by the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) reached a similar conclusion. After discovering that pesticides are filled with PFAS, the center urged the EPA “to take control of this situation and remove pesticide products that are contaminated with these extremely dangerous, persistent chemicals." PFAS go by the nickname "forever chemicals" because they never organically degrade. The chemicals are fluorinated to prevent many microorganisms from breaking down the strong carbon-fluorine bonds. These bonds tend to be very chemically inert, which makes it difficult for biological systems to interact with them — but also makes them uniquely able to repel oil, water and stains. This is why they are popular in a wide range of consumer products from umbrellas and clothing to furniture, cookware and food packaging. Read more about pollution

Want to Lower Chemical Exposures in Pregnancy? Quit Nail Polish, Makeup and Hair Dye

By Carole Tanzer Miller HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Nov. 19, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Women who won't leave the house without makeup or a spritz of...

By Carole Tanzer Miller HealthDay ReporterTUESDAY, Nov. 19, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Women who won't leave the house without makeup or a spritz of hairspray may want to think twice about those habits when they're pregnant or breastfeeding.New research links these and other personal care products, including hair dyes, fragrances, lotions, moisturizers and nail polishes to higher levels of so-called PFAS "forever chemicals" that are harmful to health. Researchers report in the November issue of the journal Environment International that they found significantly higher levels of these synethetic chemicals -- called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) -- in the blood and breast milk of women who used the products during pregnancy. Because they resist water, oil and heat, PFAS have been used in consumer products and industry since the mid-20th century, researchers said in background notes. Over the years, they have been linked to many health issues, including heart problems, liver disease and cancers.The new study suggests that exposure to PFAS during pregnancy could lead to variety of health issues for babies. They include preterm birth and lower birth weight, as well as neurodevelopmental disorders -- even a poorer response to vaccines, said study author Amber Hall, a postdoctoral research associate at Brown University School of Public Health in Rhode Island."People who are concerned about their exposure to these chemicals during pregnancy or while breastfeeding may benefit from cutting back on personal care products during those times," Hall said in a university news release.Her team analyzed data from a study conducted between 2008 and 2011 of 2,000 pregnant women in 10 Canadian cities. The data included measurements of PFAS levels in the blood at six to 13 weeks of gestation and in breast milk after the birth. Participants self-reported how often they used eight types of products during their first and third trimesters, as well as one to two days postpartum and then again, at two to 10 weeks after giving birth.At all points, higher use of nail care products, fragrances, makeup, hair sprays, gels or dyes was associated with higher levels of PFAS in the blood. Results for third-trimester use and breast-milk concentrations were similar.By way of example, researchers noted that pregnant women who wore makeup every day in their first and third trimesters had higher levels of PFAS than those who didn't. Those who used permanent hair color one or two days after delivery had 16% to 18% higher levels of PFAS in their milk. But Hall cautioned that the study probably underestimated the extent of PFAS exposure. It examined only four types of forever chemicals among thousands deployed in industry and commerce.She conducted the investigation with the director of children's environmental health at Brown, Joseph Braun, who has studied health effect of PFAS chemicals for more than a decade."Not only do studies like these help people assess how their product choices may affect their personal risk, but they can also help us show how these products could have population-level effects," he said. "And that makes the case for product regulation and government action."SOURCE: Brown University, news release, Nov. 12, 2024Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.