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.

California sues Exxon Mobil over ‘sham’ of plastics recycling

News Feed
Monday, September 23, 2024

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of environmental nonprofits announced two distinct but related lawsuits against Exxon Mobil on Monday — not over the oil giant’s contribution to climate change, but over its role in the plastic pollution crisis. The attorney general’s lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court, represents the culmination of a two-year investigation into what Bonta has called the petrochemical industry’s “decades-long deception campaign” over the sustainability of plastics and the feasibility of plastics recycling. Drawing on documents subpoenaed from Exxon Mobil and trade groups that it belongs to, the complaint says that Exxon Mobil has known since the 1970s about the technical and economic limitations of plastics recycling but promoted it anyway, using it to justify booming plastic production. “The company has propped up sham solutions, manipulated the public, and lied to consumers,” Bonta told reporters at a press conference on Monday. “It’s time for Exxon Mobil to pay the price for its deceit.”  The attorney general’s complaint includes six discrete claims against Exxon Mobil, including destruction of natural resources, false advertising, greenwashing, public nuisance, water pollution, and unfair competition. The nonprofits involved in the second, more limited lawsuit include the Sierra Club and three water protection organizations: Heal the Bay, San Francisco Baykeeper, and Surfrider Foundation, which link the failure of plastics recycling to surging aquatic plastic pollution that they have spent millions of dollars scrambling to clean up. According to Bonta, the two lawsuits put more pressure on Exxon than just one. “More is more, more is better,” he said on Monday. The lawsuits single out Exxon Mobil as the world’s largest producer of polymers used to make single-use plastics — products like grocery bags, cutlery, and takeout containers that are used for just a few minutes before being thrown away. These products, along with packaging, account for nearly 40 percent of global plastic production, and are unlikely to be recycled due to technological and economic constraints. In the U.S., the overall plastics recycling rate is just 5 percent. It has never been higher than 10 percent. Most plastic is burned or sent to a landfill, or becomes litter in the natural environment. According to Heal the Bay CEO Tracy Quinn, who addressed reporters on Monday, the cleanup and prevention of plastic pollution costs taxpayers in California alone some $420 million a year. Chemicals used in plastics, as well as the accumulation of small plastic particles throughout the environment and in people’s bodies, may also be contributing to health problems. A woman walks with a plastic shopping bag in Sacramento, California. Associated Press The attorney general’s 147-page lawsuit says Exxon Mobil’s actions have directly contributed to the proliferation of plastic. First, it says, Exxon Mobil’s predecessor companies and trade groups worked to normalize the use of disposable plastics in the early 20th century. By the 1960s, Exxon and Mobil were pushing dozens of disposable plastic products designed to supplant their more natural, degradable counterparts. The 2011 book Plastic: A Toxic Love Story details how Mobil’s plastic produce bags, for example, were designed to replace the paper versions that had once been the norm in grocery stores, and how the company’s Hefty-brand plastic garbage bags helped displace the common consumer practice of lining trash cans with newspaper.  When plastic started ending up as litter on the side of the road and in waterways, Exxon, Mobil, and trade groups the companies belonged to tried to quell the public’s concern — and the threat of government regulation to reduce plastic production — by promoting anti-litter campaigns that deflected blame onto consumers, according to the attorney general’s lawsuit.  They also promoted recycling, allegedly spending millions of dollars on advertising beginning in the 1980s and ‘90s. A 12-page, editorial-style advertisement in the July 1989 issue of Time magazine, for example, told readers there was an “urgent need to recycle” in order to keep plastics out of landfills and the environment. Documents cited in the lawsuits, however, show that members of the Society of the Plastics Industry — one of the trade groups Exxon and Mobil belonged to — had been discussing the infeasibility of plastics recycling since as early as the 1970s. An internal report from 1973 claimed that “when plastics leave fabrication points, they are almost never recovered” for recycling. Documents show that other industry groups publicly set targets for recycling that they knew they would be unable to meet. “Lies,” Bonta told reporters. “The end goal was to drive people to buy, buy, buy, and to drive Exxon Mobil’s profits up, up, up.” The newest deception, he alleged, is related to a supposedly new way to recycle products that Exxon Mobil and other companies call “chemical recycling” or “advanced recycling.” This kind of recycling involves melting plastic into its constituent polymers and, in theory, reshaping it back into plastic products. Exxon’s corporate communications suggest there are “no evident technical limitations regarding how many times a plastic product can be put through advanced recycling processes.” Most chemical recycling ventures, however, have been unable to operate beyond a demonstration capacity, and they cannot handle large volumes of postconsumer plastic waste. Exxon Mobil has one operational facility, in Texas, and according to documents obtained by the attorney general’s office, 92 percent of the plastic that undergoes chemical recycling processes there is not turned into new plastic products; it is converted into fuel.  An Exxon Mobil petrochemical refinery in Baytown, Texas. AP Photo / Pat Sullivan Bonta’s office called Exxon Mobil’s promotion of chemical recycling “nothing more than a public relations stunt meant to encourage the public to keep purchasing single-use plastics that are fueling the plastics pollution crisis.” In response to Grist’s request for comment, an Exxon Mobil spokesperson said that “advanced recycling works” and that the company has used it to process “more than 60 million pounds of plastic waste into usable raw materials, keeping it out of landfills.” “For decades, California officials have known their recycling system isn’t effective,” the spokesperson said. “They failed to act, and now they seek to blame others. Instead of suing us, they could have worked with us to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills.” Other companies facing legal action over their contribution to the plastic pollution crisis include Coca-Cola, Frito Lay, and Pepsi, all of which were named in a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the City of Baltimore. Separately, New York state Attorney General Letittia James sued Pepsi last year over pollution along the Buffalo River. Bonta told reporters on Monday that he’s seeking civil penalties against Exxon Mobil, and for the company to be forced to give up revenue it earned as a result of its deceptive marketing. He said he wants “billions of dollars” from Exxon Mobil to clean up existing plastic pollution and reeducate California consumers about the risks of plastics and the limitations of recycling. His lawsuit and the nonprofits’ also seek an injunction that would force Exxon to stop promoting plastics recycling. “It’s time for Exxon Mobil to tell the truth.” Bonta said. Environmental groups not involved in the complaints applauded the attorney general’s efforts and said they hope it will lead to legal action in other jurisdictions. “This is the single most consequential lawsuit filed against the plastics industry for its persistent and continued lying about plastics recycling,” Judith Enck, president of the environmental advocacy group Beyond Plastics and a former regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, said in a statement. “This lawsuit will set an invaluable precedent for others to follow.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline California sues Exxon Mobil over ‘sham’ of plastics recycling on Sep 23, 2024.

Attorney General Rob Bonta said the company has “manipulated the public and lied to consumers.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of environmental nonprofits announced two distinct but related lawsuits against Exxon Mobil on Monday — not over the oil giant’s contribution to climate change, but over its role in the plastic pollution crisis.

The attorney general’s lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court, represents the culmination of a two-year investigation into what Bonta has called the petrochemical industry’s “decades-long deception campaign” over the sustainability of plastics and the feasibility of plastics recycling. Drawing on documents subpoenaed from Exxon Mobil and trade groups that it belongs to, the complaint says that Exxon Mobil has known since the 1970s about the technical and economic limitations of plastics recycling but promoted it anyway, using it to justify booming plastic production.

“The company has propped up sham solutions, manipulated the public, and lied to consumers,” Bonta told reporters at a press conference on Monday. “It’s time for Exxon Mobil to pay the price for its deceit.” 

The attorney general’s complaint includes six discrete claims against Exxon Mobil, including destruction of natural resources, false advertising, greenwashing, public nuisance, water pollution, and unfair competition. The nonprofits involved in the second, more limited lawsuit include the Sierra Club and three water protection organizations: Heal the Bay, San Francisco Baykeeper, and Surfrider Foundation, which link the failure of plastics recycling to surging aquatic plastic pollution that they have spent millions of dollars scrambling to clean up. According to Bonta, the two lawsuits put more pressure on Exxon than just one. “More is more, more is better,” he said on Monday.

The lawsuits single out Exxon Mobil as the world’s largest producer of polymers used to make single-use plastics — products like grocery bags, cutlery, and takeout containers that are used for just a few minutes before being thrown away. These products, along with packaging, account for nearly 40 percent of global plastic production, and are unlikely to be recycled due to technological and economic constraints.

In the U.S., the overall plastics recycling rate is just 5 percent. It has never been higher than 10 percent. Most plastic is burned or sent to a landfill, or becomes litter in the natural environment.

According to Heal the Bay CEO Tracy Quinn, who addressed reporters on Monday, the cleanup and prevention of plastic pollution costs taxpayers in California alone some $420 million a year. Chemicals used in plastics, as well as the accumulation of small plastic particles throughout the environment and in people’s bodies, may also be contributing to health problems.

Cropped view of a shopper dressed in black, walking while holding a Rite Aid-branded plastic bag.
A woman walks with a plastic shopping bag in Sacramento, California. Associated Press

The attorney general’s 147-page lawsuit says Exxon Mobil’s actions have directly contributed to the proliferation of plastic. First, it says, Exxon Mobil’s predecessor companies and trade groups worked to normalize the use of disposable plastics in the early 20th century. By the 1960s, Exxon and Mobil were pushing dozens of disposable plastic products designed to supplant their more natural, degradable counterparts. The 2011 book Plastic: A Toxic Love Story details how Mobil’s plastic produce bags, for example, were designed to replace the paper versions that had once been the norm in grocery stores, and how the company’s Hefty-brand plastic garbage bags helped displace the common consumer practice of lining trash cans with newspaper. 

When plastic started ending up as litter on the side of the road and in waterways, Exxon, Mobil, and trade groups the companies belonged to tried to quell the public’s concern — and the threat of government regulation to reduce plastic production — by promoting anti-litter campaigns that deflected blame onto consumers, according to the attorney general’s lawsuit. 

They also promoted recycling, allegedly spending millions of dollars on advertising beginning in the 1980s and ‘90s. A 12-page, editorial-style advertisement in the July 1989 issue of Time magazine, for example, told readers there was an “urgent need to recycle” in order to keep plastics out of landfills and the environment. Documents cited in the lawsuits, however, show that members of the Society of the Plastics Industry — one of the trade groups Exxon and Mobil belonged to — had been discussing the infeasibility of plastics recycling since as early as the 1970s. An internal report from 1973 claimed that “when plastics leave fabrication points, they are almost never recovered” for recycling. Documents show that other industry groups publicly set targets for recycling that they knew they would be unable to meet.

“Lies,” Bonta told reporters. “The end goal was to drive people to buy, buy, buy, and to drive Exxon Mobil’s profits up, up, up.”

The newest deception, he alleged, is related to a supposedly new way to recycle products that Exxon Mobil and other companies call “chemical recycling” or “advanced recycling.” This kind of recycling involves melting plastic into its constituent polymers and, in theory, reshaping it back into plastic products. Exxon’s corporate communications suggest there are “no evident technical limitations regarding how many times a plastic product can be put through advanced recycling processes.”

Most chemical recycling ventures, however, have been unable to operate beyond a demonstration capacity, and they cannot handle large volumes of postconsumer plastic waste. Exxon Mobil has one operational facility, in Texas, and according to documents obtained by the attorney general’s office, 92 percent of the plastic that undergoes chemical recycling processes there is not turned into new plastic products; it is converted into fuel. 

Smokestacks in background with sign in foreground reading ExxonMobil Baytown Complex Refinery North Gate
An Exxon Mobil petrochemical refinery in Baytown, Texas. AP Photo / Pat Sullivan

Bonta’s office called Exxon Mobil’s promotion of chemical recycling “nothing more than a public relations stunt meant to encourage the public to keep purchasing single-use plastics that are fueling the plastics pollution crisis.”

In response to Grist’s request for comment, an Exxon Mobil spokesperson said that “advanced recycling works” and that the company has used it to process “more than 60 million pounds of plastic waste into usable raw materials, keeping it out of landfills.”

“For decades, California officials have known their recycling system isn’t effective,” the spokesperson said. “They failed to act, and now they seek to blame others. Instead of suing us, they could have worked with us to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills.”

Other companies facing legal action over their contribution to the plastic pollution crisis include Coca-Cola, Frito Lay, and Pepsi, all of which were named in a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the City of Baltimore. Separately, New York state Attorney General Letittia James sued Pepsi last year over pollution along the Buffalo River.

Bonta told reporters on Monday that he’s seeking civil penalties against Exxon Mobil, and for the company to be forced to give up revenue it earned as a result of its deceptive marketing. He said he wants “billions of dollars” from Exxon Mobil to clean up existing plastic pollution and reeducate California consumers about the risks of plastics and the limitations of recycling. His lawsuit and the nonprofits’ also seek an injunction that would force Exxon to stop promoting plastics recycling.

“It’s time for Exxon Mobil to tell the truth.” Bonta said.

Environmental groups not involved in the complaints applauded the attorney general’s efforts and said they hope it will lead to legal action in other jurisdictions. “This is the single most consequential lawsuit filed against the plastics industry for its persistent and continued lying about plastics recycling,” Judith Enck, president of the environmental advocacy group Beyond Plastics and a former regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, said in a statement. “This lawsuit will set an invaluable precedent for others to follow.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline California sues Exxon Mobil over ‘sham’ of plastics recycling on Sep 23, 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.