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.

First Comprehensive Plastics Database Tallies Staggering 16,000 Chemicals—And It's Still Incomplete

News Feed
Thursday, March 14, 2024

First Comprehensive Plastics Database Tallies Staggering 16,000 Chemicals—And It’s Still IncompleteA massive new dataset highlights more than 4,200 plastic chemicals linked to health and environmental risks. But scientists say there are still large gaps in the scientific understanding of plastic ingredientsBy Katherine BourzacCredit: Richard Drury/Getty ImagesPlastics are inescapable. That soda bottle or disposable razor or even the coating on your mattress may expose you to hundreds of different chemicals, some of which scientists know very little about. Scientists are now a step closer to handling this complexity. On Thursday the PlastChem Project, a group of researchers in Norway and Switzerland, announced that it had identified more than 16,000 chemicals in plastic products in the first comprehensive database of all known plastic chemicals. The database, accompanied by a report, sorts the chemicals by their known environmental and health effects—a bank of information the PlastChem team hopes will inform governmental regulations, as well as international negotiations for a treaty to curb plastic use and production.“It’s a dynamite report,” says Miriam Diamond, who studies chemical contaminants at the University of Toronto and was not involved in the research. The new database brings together information from scientific papers and seven datasets that detail different chemicals, says Martin Wagner, PlastChem’s project lead and a biologist who studies plastics at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. It took his team about a year to compile and sort through all the data. A 2023 report from the United Nations Environment Program had previously estimated there are more than 13,000 chemicals associated with plastics. The new database expands this to a degree that shocks even scientists who study these issues. “Sixteen thousand chemicals—oh, my God,” Diamond says.In addition to the sheer volume of chemicals, “the striking thing for us is that at least 25 percent of these are chemicals of concern,” Wagner says. The researchers zeroed in on more than 4,200 of the chemicals in the database that they flagged for several qualities: the chemicals’ tendency to persist without degrading, ability to build up in the human body or other organisms, mobility through the environment and toxicity.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The chemical complexity of plastics has posed challenges in fully understanding their health and environmental effects—about 10,000 of the chemicals in the new database did not have sufficient information to determine their potential risks. But for some of them, there is strong evidence of health risks. Phthalates—used in coatings and flooring materials to make them thin and flexible—disrupt the reproductive system, Diamond says. Her research has also shown that exposure to phthalates in household dust in a child’s first year of life is linked with increased risk of asthma at age five. Bisphenols, including bisphenol A (BPA), are another group of plastic chemicals that are well-known for disrupting the body’s hormonal regulation. And then there are perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs, which have been linked with cancer risk and immune system problems.Wagner says he was surprised to learn about the risks associated with melamine. This material is used to make bowls and other dinnerware; it’s also combined with bamboo and other natural organic materials to make plastic alternatives. Melamine is classified as a carcinogen by the European Union and has been detected in drinking water, yet it is widely used. The chemical also readily moves through the environment, and it’s highly resistant to degradation.The report also highlights the continued presence of chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), that have been banned in plastics under the U.N.’s 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which went into effect in 2004.The health problems linked to plastic chemicals are a significant burden on society, Wagner says. A study published in January estimated that the annual health-related costs attributable to exposure to four types of plastic chemicals—including phthalates, bisphenols, PFASs and flame-retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)—cost $250 billion per year in the U.S., about 1.2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Exposure to these chemicals is associated with health problems, including developmental disorders, cancer, diabetes and infertility. “It sounds very scary and frustrating,” Wagner says. “But there are opportunities here to put plastics on a safe and sustainable pathway so that we don’t have to pay all these costs.”The PlastChem report recommends a few solutions. First, more information is needed on the 10,000 plastic chemicals that are insufficiently studied. “We urgently need some action on filling those data gaps,” Wagner says. This could take decades even with ample scientific funding. The report’s authors recommend prioritizing research on understudied chemicals based on the size of the market for them. The authors also push for a regulatory approach called “no data, no market,” which would put the onus on companies to provide toxicity data about chemicals before they can sell products that contain them.Wagner and the PlastChem team also recommend simplifying plastic recipes. There are about 3,000 chemicals used as dyes, for instance. This list could be streamlined to reduce potential health and environmental impacts. Simplifying plastics’ chemical footprint would also make it easier to recycle them. And the report calls for more transparency about what’s in plastics. Currently scientists must perform an intensive chemical analysis to find out what ingredients are in a given plastic product, what their concentrations are and whether they pose risks.In an e-mail to Scientific American, Matt Seaholm, CEO of the Plastics Industry Association, an industry trade group, took issue with the premise of the report. “Plastic as a material continues to offer safety, protection and efficiency while also being able to be reused and recycled,” Seaholm wrote. “Chemicals are chemicals and policies should be developed that are applicable to all of them. Trying to focus exclusively on ‘plastics chemicals’ risks redundancy and tunnel vision in policy.”Global plastic recycling rates are as low as 9 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Only 15 percent of plastic waste is collected for recycling, but 40 percent is discarded from the recycling process because of its low quality. If this continues, plastic pollution in aquatic ecosystems could triple from nine million to 14 million metric tons in 2016 to 23 million to 37 million by 2040.And as the PlastChem report highlights, scientists believe there is too little information in what is in all this plastic. “We don’t have enough research on plastic chemicals,” says Christopher Reddy, a marine geochemist who studies plastic pollution at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and was not involved with the report. “As we move forward, we need to identify the safest and most sustainable plastics and be strategic in the way we choose which polymers and which additives we need.”The PlastChem team hopes the database will provide guidance to policymakers heading into the next round of negotiations for an international plastics treaty that is overseen by the U.N. Environment Program’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution. Delegates at the meeting will discuss ways to limit plastic pollution by focusing on the entire life cycle of plastics: ways to regulate how they are designed and manufactured, as well as how to ensure that they are recycled. The High-Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, led by Norway and Rwanda, is pushing to ban or restrict production of problematic plastics and develop sustainability criteria, among other goals. The chemical industry has been pushing back on these efforts, asserting that the focus should be on recycling, not production. Scientists who study the plastic waste problem and environmental groups highlight that recycling is insufficient because of low rates, the inability to recycle some plastics and the fact that all the chemicals in plastic mean products made from recycled materials are of lower quality. The treaty negotiations will be held in Ottawa in April and may be finalized at the end of this year at a meeting in Busan, South Korea.“There’s a need for governments to act, and they have the opportunity to do it now,” Wagner says. “We need a systemic political solution.”

A massive new dataset highlights more than 4,200 plastic chemicals linked to health and environmental risks. But scientists say there are still large gaps in the scientific understanding of plastic ingredients

First Comprehensive Plastics Database Tallies Staggering 16,000 Chemicals—And It’s Still Incomplete

A massive new dataset highlights more than 4,200 plastic chemicals linked to health and environmental risks. But scientists say there are still large gaps in the scientific understanding of plastic ingredients

By Katherine Bourzac

Common household plastic items balanced in a stack on a plain gray surface with a beige wall backdrop

Credit:

Richard Drury/Getty Images

Plastics are inescapable. That soda bottle or disposable razor or even the coating on your mattress may expose you to hundreds of different chemicals, some of which scientists know very little about. Scientists are now a step closer to handling this complexity. On Thursday the PlastChem Project, a group of researchers in Norway and Switzerland, announced that it had identified more than 16,000 chemicals in plastic products in the first comprehensive database of all known plastic chemicals. The database, accompanied by a report, sorts the chemicals by their known environmental and health effects—a bank of information the PlastChem team hopes will inform governmental regulations, as well as international negotiations for a treaty to curb plastic use and production.

“It’s a dynamite report,” says Miriam Diamond, who studies chemical contaminants at the University of Toronto and was not involved in the research. The new database brings together information from scientific papers and seven datasets that detail different chemicals, says Martin Wagner, PlastChem’s project lead and a biologist who studies plastics at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. It took his team about a year to compile and sort through all the data. A 2023 report from the United Nations Environment Program had previously estimated there are more than 13,000 chemicals associated with plastics. The new database expands this to a degree that shocks even scientists who study these issues. “Sixteen thousand chemicals—oh, my God,” Diamond says.

In addition to the sheer volume of chemicals, “the striking thing for us is that at least 25 percent of these are chemicals of concern,” Wagner says. The researchers zeroed in on more than 4,200 of the chemicals in the database that they flagged for several qualities: the chemicals’ tendency to persist without degrading, ability to build up in the human body or other organisms, mobility through the environment and toxicity.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The chemical complexity of plastics has posed challenges in fully understanding their health and environmental effects—about 10,000 of the chemicals in the new database did not have sufficient information to determine their potential risks. But for some of them, there is strong evidence of health risks. Phthalates—used in coatings and flooring materials to make them thin and flexible—disrupt the reproductive system, Diamond says. Her research has also shown that exposure to phthalates in household dust in a child’s first year of life is linked with increased risk of asthma at age five. Bisphenols, including bisphenol A (BPA), are another group of plastic chemicals that are well-known for disrupting the body’s hormonal regulation. And then there are perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs, which have been linked with cancer risk and immune system problems.

Wagner says he was surprised to learn about the risks associated with melamine. This material is used to make bowls and other dinnerware; it’s also combined with bamboo and other natural organic materials to make plastic alternatives. Melamine is classified as a carcinogen by the European Union and has been detected in drinking water, yet it is widely used. The chemical also readily moves through the environment, and it’s highly resistant to degradation.

The report also highlights the continued presence of chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), that have been banned in plastics under the U.N.’s 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which went into effect in 2004.

The health problems linked to plastic chemicals are a significant burden on society, Wagner says. A study published in January estimated that the annual health-related costs attributable to exposure to four types of plastic chemicals—including phthalates, bisphenols, PFASs and flame-retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)—cost $250 billion per year in the U.S., about 1.2 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Exposure to these chemicals is associated with health problems, including developmental disorders, cancer, diabetes and infertility. “It sounds very scary and frustrating,” Wagner says. “But there are opportunities here to put plastics on a safe and sustainable pathway so that we don’t have to pay all these costs.”

The PlastChem report recommends a few solutions. First, more information is needed on the 10,000 plastic chemicals that are insufficiently studied. “We urgently need some action on filling those data gaps,” Wagner says. This could take decades even with ample scientific funding. The report’s authors recommend prioritizing research on understudied chemicals based on the size of the market for them. The authors also push for a regulatory approach called “no data, no market,” which would put the onus on companies to provide toxicity data about chemicals before they can sell products that contain them.

Wagner and the PlastChem team also recommend simplifying plastic recipes. There are about 3,000 chemicals used as dyes, for instance. This list could be streamlined to reduce potential health and environmental impacts. Simplifying plastics’ chemical footprint would also make it easier to recycle them. And the report calls for more transparency about what’s in plastics. Currently scientists must perform an intensive chemical analysis to find out what ingredients are in a given plastic product, what their concentrations are and whether they pose risks.

In an e-mail to Scientific American, Matt Seaholm, CEO of the Plastics Industry Association, an industry trade group, took issue with the premise of the report. “Plastic as a material continues to offer safety, protection and efficiency while also being able to be reused and recycled,” Seaholm wrote. “Chemicals are chemicals and policies should be developed that are applicable to all of them. Trying to focus exclusively on ‘plastics chemicals’ risks redundancy and tunnel vision in policy.”

Global plastic recycling rates are as low as 9 percent, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Only 15 percent of plastic waste is collected for recycling, but 40 percent is discarded from the recycling process because of its low quality. If this continues, plastic pollution in aquatic ecosystems could triple from nine million to 14 million metric tons in 2016 to 23 million to 37 million by 2040.

And as the PlastChem report highlights, scientists believe there is too little information in what is in all this plastic. “We don’t have enough research on plastic chemicals,” says Christopher Reddy, a marine geochemist who studies plastic pollution at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and was not involved with the report. “As we move forward, we need to identify the safest and most sustainable plastics and be strategic in the way we choose which polymers and which additives we need.”

The PlastChem team hopes the database will provide guidance to policymakers heading into the next round of negotiations for an international plastics treaty that is overseen by the U.N. Environment Program’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution. Delegates at the meeting will discuss ways to limit plastic pollution by focusing on the entire life cycle of plastics: ways to regulate how they are designed and manufactured, as well as how to ensure that they are recycled. The High-Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, led by Norway and Rwanda, is pushing to ban or restrict production of problematic plastics and develop sustainability criteria, among other goals. The chemical industry has been pushing back on these efforts, asserting that the focus should be on recycling, not production. Scientists who study the plastic waste problem and environmental groups highlight that recycling is insufficient because of low rates, the inability to recycle some plastics and the fact that all the chemicals in plastic mean products made from recycled materials are of lower quality. The treaty negotiations will be held in Ottawa in April and may be finalized at the end of this year at a meeting in Busan, South Korea.

“There’s a need for governments to act, and they have the opportunity to do it now,” Wagner says. “We need a systemic political solution.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Researchers Solve Decades-Old Color Mystery in Iconic Jackson Pollock Painting

Scientists have identified the origins of the blue color in one of Jackson Pollock’s paintings with a little help from chemistry

NEW YORK (AP) — Scientists have identified the origins of the blue color in one of Jackson Pollock's paintings with a little help from chemistry, confirming for the first time that the abstract expressionist used a vibrant, synthetic pigment known as manganese blue. “Number 1A, 1948,” showcases Pollock's classic style: paint has been dripped and splattered across the canvas, creating a vivid, multicolored work. Pollock even gave the piece a personal touch, adding his handprints near the top. The painting, currently on display at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, is almost 9 feet (2.7 meters) wide. Scientists had previously characterized the reds and yellows splattered across the canvas, but the source of the rich turquoise blue proved elusive.In a new study, researchers took scrapings of the blue paint and used lasers to scatter light and measure how the paint's molecules vibrated. That gave them a unique chemical fingerprint for the color, which they pinpointed as manganese blue. The analysis, published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the first confirmed evidence of Pollock using this specific blue.“It’s really interesting to understand where some striking color comes from on a molecular level,” said study co-author Edward Solomon with Stanford University.The pigment manganese blue was once used by artists, as well as to color the cement for swimming pools. It was phased out by the 1990s because of environmental concerns.Previous research had suggested that the turquoise from the painting could indeed be this color, but the new study confirms it using samples from the canvas, said Rutgers University’s Gene Hall, who has studied Pollock’s paintings and was not involved with the discovery.“I’m pretty convinced that it could be manganese blue,” Hall said.The researchers also went one step further, inspecting the pigment’s chemical structure to understand how it produces such a vibrant shade.Scientists study the chemical makeup of art supplies to conserve old paintings and catch counterfeits. They can take more specific samples from Pollock's paintings since he often poured directly onto the canvas instead of mixing paints on a palette beforehand. To solve this artistic mystery, researchers explored the paint using various scientific tools — similarly to how Pollock would alternate his own methods, dripping paint using a stick or using it straight from the can.While the artist’s work may seem chaotic, Pollock rejected that interpretation. He saw his work as methodical, said study co-author Abed Haddad, an assistant conservation scientist at the Museum of Modern Art.“I actually see a lot of similarities between the way that we worked and the way that Jackson Pollock worked on the painting," Haddad said.The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

California Votes To Ban PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Cookware, Other Items

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Sept. 15, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Every time you reach for a nonstick pan, you could be using chemicals...

MONDAY, Sept. 15, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Every time you reach for a nonstick pan, you could be using chemicals that are now on the chopping block in the state of California.Lawmakers have approved a bill to phase out PFAS — also called “forever chemicals” — in cookware, cleaning products, dental floss, ski wax, food packaging and certain children’s items.The proposal, Senate Bill 682, passed in a 41-19 vote and quickly cleared the state Senate. It now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has until Oct. 12 to sign it into law, CBS News reported.PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) have been widely used for decades, because they resist heat and water stains. But the chemicals build up in the body and environment and have been linked to cancers, liver and kidney damage and reproductive problems."Exposure to PFAS poses a significant threat to the environment and public health," the bill says.If signed, the law will roll out in stages: cookware must comply by 2030; cleaning products by 2031; and all other covered items by 2028.The plan has drawn sharp debate. Some chefs, including Rachael Ray, Thomas Keller and David Chang, argue that banning nonstick cookware made with PTFE (a type of PFAS better known as Teflon) could make cooking harder and more expensive for families, CBS News reported. “PTFEs, when manufactured and used responsibly, are proven to be safe and effective,” Ray, who sells a line of cookware bearing her name, wrote in a letter to lawmakers.But environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, say nonstick pans can release PFAS particles when scratched or overheated. Actor Mark Ruffalo also urged support for the bill. "Independent science shows that the PFAS in cookware can wind up in our food," he wrote on X.State Sen. Ben Allen proposed the legislation.“PFAS pose a level of serious risks that require us to take a measured approach to reduce their proliferation and unnecessary use,” he said.California has already banned PFAS in items like carpets, firefighting foam and cosmetics. If signed into law, SB 682 would make California one of the first states to phase out PFAS in cookware.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has more on PFAS.SOURCES: CBS News, Sept. 13, 2025; California Legislative Information, Sept. 9, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

The Trump Team Wants to Boost Birth Rates While Poisoning Children

“I want a baby boom,” Trump has said. His administration is indeed exploring a range of approaches to boost the birth rate, including baby bonuses and classes on natural fertility. Yet his focus is entirely on the production of babies. When it comes to keeping these babies alive, this administration is leaving parents on their own, facing some horrifying and unprecedented challenges. It’s common for right-wing American governments, whether at the state or federal level, to be only half-heartedly natalist: restricting abortion, birth control, and sex education, while also failing to embrace any policy that makes it easier to raise a family, like universal childcare, robust public education, school lunch, cash supports for parents, or paid family leave. But the Trump-Vance government has taken this paradox to a new level, with natalist rhetoric far surpassing that of other recent administrations, while real live children are treated with more depraved, life-threatening indifference than in any American government in at least a century. Due to brutal cuts at the Food and Drug Administration, where 20,000 employees have been fired, the administration has suspended one of its quality-control programs for milk, Reuters reported this week. Milk is iconically associated with child health, and this is not a mere storybook whimsy: Most pediatricians regard it as critical for young children’s developing brains and bones. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends two cups a day for babies between 1 and 2 years old. While some experts—and of course the administration—are downplaying the change, emphasizing that milk will still be regulated, a bird flu epidemic hardly seems like the right time to be cutting corners. A government so focused on making more babies shouldn’t be so indifferent to risks to our nation’s toddlers.This reckless approach to child safety is not limited to food. Also this week, The New York Times reported that the Environmental Protection Agency was canceling tens of millions of dollars in grants for research on environmental hazards to children in rural America. These hazards include pesticides, wildfire smoke, and forever chemicals, and the grants supported research toward solutions to such problems. Many focused on improving child health in red states like Oklahoma. Children are much more vulnerable than adults to the health problems that can stem from exposure to toxins. That makes Trump’s policies, for all his baby-friendly chatter, seem pathologically misopedic; he is reversing bans on so-called “forever chemicals” and repealing limits set by the Biden administration on lead exposure, all of which will have devastating effects on children’s mental and physical development.And of course there’s RFK Jr.’s crazy campaign against vaccines. This week, the health secretary said he was considering removing the Covid-19 vaccine from the list of vaccines the government recommends for children, even though to win Senate confirmation, he had agreed not to alter the childhood vaccine schedule. Even worse, RFK Jr. has used his office to promote disinformation about extensively debunked links between vaccines and autism, while praising unproven “treatments” for measles as an outbreak that has afflicted more than 600 people and killed at least three continues to spread. Trump’s public health cuts are meanwhile imperiling a program that gives free vaccines to children. So far, I haven’t even mentioned children outside the United States. Trump has not only continued Biden’s policy of mass infanticide in Gaza—at least 100 children there have been killed or injured every week by Israeli forces since the dissolution of the ceasefire in March—he has vastly surpassed that shameful record by dismantling USAID. (The Supreme Court demanded that the government restore some of the funding to the already-contracted programs, but it’s unclear what the results of that ruling will be.) Children across the globe will starve to death due to this policy. The cuts to nutrition funding alone, researchers estimate, will kill some 369,000 children who could otherwise have lived. That’s not even counting all the other children’s lives imperiled by USAID funding cuts to vaccines, health services, and maternal care, or the children who will go unprotected now that Trump has cut 69 programs dedicated to tracking child labor, forced labor, and human trafficking.Natalist or exterminationist? Pro-child or rabidly infanticidal? It’s tempting to dismiss such extreme contradictions within the Trump administration as merely chaotic and incoherent. But the situation is worse than that. Trying to boost births while actively making the world less safe for children is creepy—but not in a new way. The contradiction is baked into the eugenicist tradition that Vance and Trump openly embrace. Vance said at an anti-abortion rally in January that he wanted “more babies in the United States of America.” Vance also said he wanted “more beautiful young men and women” to have children. Notice he doesn’t just say “more babies”: the qualifiers are significant. Vance was implying that he wanted the right people to have babies: American, white, able-bodied, “beautiful” people with robust genetics. Children dying because of USAID cuts aren’t part of this vision, presumably, because those children are not American or white. As for infected milk, environmental toxins, or measles—here too, it’s hard not to hear social Darwinist overtones: In a far-right eugenicist worldview, children killed by those things likely aren’t fit for survival. In a more chaotic and dangerous environment, this extremely outdated logic goes, natural selection will ensure that the strongest survive. It’s also worth noting that this way of thinking originates in—and many of these Trump administration policies aim to return us to—an earlier era, when people of all ages, but especially children, were simply poisoned by industrial pollution, unvaccinated for diseases, and unprotected from industrial accidents. In such an unsafe world for children, people had many more of them; the world was such a dangerous place to raise kids that families expected to lose a few. That all-too-recent period is the unspoken context for natalist and eugenicist visions. That’s the world Trump and Vance seem to be nostalgic for, one in which women were constantly pregnant and in labor, and children were constantly dying horrible deaths. Doesn’t that sound pleasant for everyone?

“I want a baby boom,” Trump has said. His administration is indeed exploring a range of approaches to boost the birth rate, including baby bonuses and classes on natural fertility. Yet his focus is entirely on the production of babies. When it comes to keeping these babies alive, this administration is leaving parents on their own, facing some horrifying and unprecedented challenges. It’s common for right-wing American governments, whether at the state or federal level, to be only half-heartedly natalist: restricting abortion, birth control, and sex education, while also failing to embrace any policy that makes it easier to raise a family, like universal childcare, robust public education, school lunch, cash supports for parents, or paid family leave. But the Trump-Vance government has taken this paradox to a new level, with natalist rhetoric far surpassing that of other recent administrations, while real live children are treated with more depraved, life-threatening indifference than in any American government in at least a century. Due to brutal cuts at the Food and Drug Administration, where 20,000 employees have been fired, the administration has suspended one of its quality-control programs for milk, Reuters reported this week. Milk is iconically associated with child health, and this is not a mere storybook whimsy: Most pediatricians regard it as critical for young children’s developing brains and bones. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends two cups a day for babies between 1 and 2 years old. While some experts—and of course the administration—are downplaying the change, emphasizing that milk will still be regulated, a bird flu epidemic hardly seems like the right time to be cutting corners. A government so focused on making more babies shouldn’t be so indifferent to risks to our nation’s toddlers.This reckless approach to child safety is not limited to food. Also this week, The New York Times reported that the Environmental Protection Agency was canceling tens of millions of dollars in grants for research on environmental hazards to children in rural America. These hazards include pesticides, wildfire smoke, and forever chemicals, and the grants supported research toward solutions to such problems. Many focused on improving child health in red states like Oklahoma. Children are much more vulnerable than adults to the health problems that can stem from exposure to toxins. That makes Trump’s policies, for all his baby-friendly chatter, seem pathologically misopedic; he is reversing bans on so-called “forever chemicals” and repealing limits set by the Biden administration on lead exposure, all of which will have devastating effects on children’s mental and physical development.And of course there’s RFK Jr.’s crazy campaign against vaccines. This week, the health secretary said he was considering removing the Covid-19 vaccine from the list of vaccines the government recommends for children, even though to win Senate confirmation, he had agreed not to alter the childhood vaccine schedule. Even worse, RFK Jr. has used his office to promote disinformation about extensively debunked links between vaccines and autism, while praising unproven “treatments” for measles as an outbreak that has afflicted more than 600 people and killed at least three continues to spread. Trump’s public health cuts are meanwhile imperiling a program that gives free vaccines to children. So far, I haven’t even mentioned children outside the United States. Trump has not only continued Biden’s policy of mass infanticide in Gaza—at least 100 children there have been killed or injured every week by Israeli forces since the dissolution of the ceasefire in March—he has vastly surpassed that shameful record by dismantling USAID. (The Supreme Court demanded that the government restore some of the funding to the already-contracted programs, but it’s unclear what the results of that ruling will be.) Children across the globe will starve to death due to this policy. The cuts to nutrition funding alone, researchers estimate, will kill some 369,000 children who could otherwise have lived. That’s not even counting all the other children’s lives imperiled by USAID funding cuts to vaccines, health services, and maternal care, or the children who will go unprotected now that Trump has cut 69 programs dedicated to tracking child labor, forced labor, and human trafficking.Natalist or exterminationist? Pro-child or rabidly infanticidal? It’s tempting to dismiss such extreme contradictions within the Trump administration as merely chaotic and incoherent. But the situation is worse than that. Trying to boost births while actively making the world less safe for children is creepy—but not in a new way. The contradiction is baked into the eugenicist tradition that Vance and Trump openly embrace. Vance said at an anti-abortion rally in January that he wanted “more babies in the United States of America.” Vance also said he wanted “more beautiful young men and women” to have children. Notice he doesn’t just say “more babies”: the qualifiers are significant. Vance was implying that he wanted the right people to have babies: American, white, able-bodied, “beautiful” people with robust genetics. Children dying because of USAID cuts aren’t part of this vision, presumably, because those children are not American or white. As for infected milk, environmental toxins, or measles—here too, it’s hard not to hear social Darwinist overtones: In a far-right eugenicist worldview, children killed by those things likely aren’t fit for survival. In a more chaotic and dangerous environment, this extremely outdated logic goes, natural selection will ensure that the strongest survive. It’s also worth noting that this way of thinking originates in—and many of these Trump administration policies aim to return us to—an earlier era, when people of all ages, but especially children, were simply poisoned by industrial pollution, unvaccinated for diseases, and unprotected from industrial accidents. In such an unsafe world for children, people had many more of them; the world was such a dangerous place to raise kids that families expected to lose a few. That all-too-recent period is the unspoken context for natalist and eugenicist visions. That’s the world Trump and Vance seem to be nostalgic for, one in which women were constantly pregnant and in labor, and children were constantly dying horrible deaths. Doesn’t that sound pleasant for everyone?

The greater Pittsburgh region is among the 25 worst metro areas in the country for air quality: Report

PITTSBURGH — The greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area is among the 25 regions in the country with the worst air pollution, according to a new report from the American Lung Association.The nonprofit public health organization’s annual “State of the Air” report uses a report card-style grading system to compare air quality in regions across the U.S. This year’s report found that 46% of Americans — 156.1 million people — are living in places that get failing grades for unhealthy levels of ozone or particulate pollution. Overall, air pollution measured by the report was worse than in previous years, with more Americans living in places with unhealthy air than in the previous 10 years the report has been published.The 13-county region spanning Pittsburgh and southwestern Pennsylvania; Weirton, West Virginia; and Steubenville, Ohio received “fail” grades for both daily and annual average particulate matter exposure for the years 2021–2023.The region ranked 16th worst for 24-hour particle pollution out of 225 metropolitan areas and 12th worst for annual particle pollution out of 208 metropolitan areas. Particulate matter pollution, which comes from things like industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust, wildfires, and wood burning, causes higher rates of asthma, decreased lung function in children, and increased hospital admissions and premature death due to heart attacks and respiratory illness. Long-term exposure to particulate matter pollution also raises the risk of lung cancer, and research suggests that in the Pittsburgh region, air pollution linked to particulate matter and other harmful substances contributes significantly to cancer rates. According to the report, the Pittsburgh metro area is home to around 50,022 children with pediatric asthma, 227,806 adults with asthma, 173,588 people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), 250,600 people with cardiovascular disease, 1,468 people with lung cancer, and around 25,746 pregnant people, all of whom are especially vulnerable to the harmful impacts of particulate matter pollution exposure."The findings help community members understand the ongoing risks to the health of people in our region," said Matt Mehalik, executive director of the Breathe Project and the Breathe Collaborative, a coalition of more than 30 groups in southwestern Pennsylvania that advocate for cleaner air. "These findings emphasize the need to transition away from fossil fuels — in industry, transportation and residential uses — if we are to improve our health and address climate change." Allegheny County has received a failing grade for particulate matter pollution from the American Lung Association every year since the "State of the Air" report was first issued in 2004. The region is home to numerous polluting industries, with an estimated 80% of toxic air pollutants in Allegheny County (which encompasses Pittsburgh) coming from ten industrial sites, according to an analysis by the nonprofit environmental advocacy group PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center. The Ohio River near Pittsburgh Credit: Kristina Marusic for EHN In the 2024 State of the Air report, which looked at 2020-2022, Pittsburgh was for the first time ever not among the 25 cities most polluted by particulate matte, and showed some improvements in air quality, some of which may have resulted from pollution reductions spurred by the COVID-19 shut-down in 2020.The region earned a grade D for ozone smog this year, but its ranking improved from last year — it went from the 50th worst metro area for ozone smog in 2024’s report to the 90th worst in this year’s. Ozone pollution also comes from sources like vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, and occurs when certain chemicals mix with sunlight. Exposure to ozone pollution is linked to respiratory issues, worsened asthma symptoms, and long-term lung damage.Each year the State of the Air Report makes recommendations for improving air quality. This year those recommendations include defending funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), because sweeping staff cuts and reduction of federal funding under the Trump administration are impairing the agency’s ability to enforce clean air regulations. For example, the report notes that EPA recently lowered annual limits for fine particulate matter pollution from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9 micrograms per cubic meter, and that states, including Pennsylvania, have submitted their recommendations for which areas should be cleaned up. Next, the agency must review those recommendations and add its own analyses to make final decisions by February 6, 2026 about which areas need additional pollution controls. If it fails to do so due to lack of funding or staffing, the report suggests, air quality might suffer.“The bottom line is this,” the report states. “EPA staff, working in communities across the country, are doing crucial work to keep your air clean. Staff cuts are already impacting people’s health across the country. Further cuts mean more dirty air.”

PITTSBURGH — The greater Pittsburgh metropolitan area is among the 25 regions in the country with the worst air pollution, according to a new report from the American Lung Association.The nonprofit public health organization’s annual “State of the Air” report uses a report card-style grading system to compare air quality in regions across the U.S. This year’s report found that 46% of Americans — 156.1 million people — are living in places that get failing grades for unhealthy levels of ozone or particulate pollution. Overall, air pollution measured by the report was worse than in previous years, with more Americans living in places with unhealthy air than in the previous 10 years the report has been published.The 13-county region spanning Pittsburgh and southwestern Pennsylvania; Weirton, West Virginia; and Steubenville, Ohio received “fail” grades for both daily and annual average particulate matter exposure for the years 2021–2023.The region ranked 16th worst for 24-hour particle pollution out of 225 metropolitan areas and 12th worst for annual particle pollution out of 208 metropolitan areas. Particulate matter pollution, which comes from things like industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust, wildfires, and wood burning, causes higher rates of asthma, decreased lung function in children, and increased hospital admissions and premature death due to heart attacks and respiratory illness. Long-term exposure to particulate matter pollution also raises the risk of lung cancer, and research suggests that in the Pittsburgh region, air pollution linked to particulate matter and other harmful substances contributes significantly to cancer rates. According to the report, the Pittsburgh metro area is home to around 50,022 children with pediatric asthma, 227,806 adults with asthma, 173,588 people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), 250,600 people with cardiovascular disease, 1,468 people with lung cancer, and around 25,746 pregnant people, all of whom are especially vulnerable to the harmful impacts of particulate matter pollution exposure."The findings help community members understand the ongoing risks to the health of people in our region," said Matt Mehalik, executive director of the Breathe Project and the Breathe Collaborative, a coalition of more than 30 groups in southwestern Pennsylvania that advocate for cleaner air. "These findings emphasize the need to transition away from fossil fuels — in industry, transportation and residential uses — if we are to improve our health and address climate change." Allegheny County has received a failing grade for particulate matter pollution from the American Lung Association every year since the "State of the Air" report was first issued in 2004. The region is home to numerous polluting industries, with an estimated 80% of toxic air pollutants in Allegheny County (which encompasses Pittsburgh) coming from ten industrial sites, according to an analysis by the nonprofit environmental advocacy group PennEnvironment Research & Policy Center. The Ohio River near Pittsburgh Credit: Kristina Marusic for EHN In the 2024 State of the Air report, which looked at 2020-2022, Pittsburgh was for the first time ever not among the 25 cities most polluted by particulate matte, and showed some improvements in air quality, some of which may have resulted from pollution reductions spurred by the COVID-19 shut-down in 2020.The region earned a grade D for ozone smog this year, but its ranking improved from last year — it went from the 50th worst metro area for ozone smog in 2024’s report to the 90th worst in this year’s. Ozone pollution also comes from sources like vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, and occurs when certain chemicals mix with sunlight. Exposure to ozone pollution is linked to respiratory issues, worsened asthma symptoms, and long-term lung damage.Each year the State of the Air Report makes recommendations for improving air quality. This year those recommendations include defending funding for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), because sweeping staff cuts and reduction of federal funding under the Trump administration are impairing the agency’s ability to enforce clean air regulations. For example, the report notes that EPA recently lowered annual limits for fine particulate matter pollution from 12 micrograms per cubic meter to 9 micrograms per cubic meter, and that states, including Pennsylvania, have submitted their recommendations for which areas should be cleaned up. Next, the agency must review those recommendations and add its own analyses to make final decisions by February 6, 2026 about which areas need additional pollution controls. If it fails to do so due to lack of funding or staffing, the report suggests, air quality might suffer.“The bottom line is this,” the report states. “EPA staff, working in communities across the country, are doing crucial work to keep your air clean. Staff cuts are already impacting people’s health across the country. Further cuts mean more dirty air.”

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.