endocrine disrupting chemicals
Microplastics infiltrate human organs, raising health concerns
Recent research reveals that microplastics have permeated human organs, including the brain, liver, and kidneys, with potential health implications.
In short:
- In 2024, toxicologist Matthew Campen discovered that the adult human brain contains about a disposable spoon's worth of plastic, a 50% increase from eight years prior.
- Studies have found microplastics in human tissues such as placentas, breast milk, and semen, suggesting widespread infiltration of our bodies.
- Research indicates potential links between microplastic exposure and health issues like cardiovascular disease, reduced sperm count, and certain cancers.
Key quote:
"I can say, with a high degree of confidence, that microplastic particles are in the bodies of virtually every American today."
— Philip Landrigan, pediatrician and epidemiologist at Boston College
Why this matters:
The pervasive presence of microplastics in human organs raises serious health concerns. Reducing personal exposure to microplastics can be challenging, but opting for glass or metal food containers, using natural fiber clothing, and installing high-quality water filters are practical steps. Experts however, emphasize that individual actions, while beneficial, are not sufficient. As research continues to uncover the extent of this issue, it becomes increasingly clear that collective action is necessary to mitigate the impact of microplastics on both our planet and our health.
Read more:
How supermarkets turned home goods into the new fast fashion
In the UK, supermarkets have transformed shopping habits by offering trendy, affordable homeware alongside groceries, but this convenience comes with hidden ethical and environmental costs.
In short:
- Major UK supermarkets like Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco now feature aisles filled with stylish, low-cost homeware items, making it easy for shoppers to purchase home goods during routine grocery trips.
- This surge in accessible homeware has led to increased consumerism, with many buying items on impulse without considering the environmental impact or the working conditions of factory employees producing these goods.
- Industry insiders reveal that the fast homeware trend often involves mass production in factories where workers face challenging conditions and independent designers frequently find their creations replicated without consent.
Key quote:
"Somehow we need to slow down. We need to start thinking...thinking about why you're buying something, where it has come from and who has made it."
— Helen Gordon, co-founder of Nested Living and member of the British Institute of Interior Design's sustainability committee.
Why this matters:
The rise of fast homeware mirrors the fast fashion industry's issues, contributing to toxic pollution, environmental degradation and unethical labor practices. Opting for ethically produced, durable items not only supports fair labor practices but also promotes environmental sustainability.
Read more:
Plastics: a health and environmental emergency
Nate Hagens, Leo Trasande, Linda Birnbaum and Christina Dixon take on the plastic pollution crisis: We cannot recycle our way out of this problem.
We toss aside 5.7 million toothpaste tubes, 570,000 cell phones, and 2.3 million pairs of sneakers every hour around the globe. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Plastics production is unsustainable, unhealthy and growing exponentially. Podcaster Nate Hagens brings experts Dr. Leo Trasande, Linda Birnbaum and Christina Dixon together to discuss the impact to our health and environment.
Watch: The Great Simplification video
In short:
- Recycling is "at best, an energy intensive delay" of plastics disposal in the environment.
- Plastics contain thousands of largely untested but likely toxic chemicals
- Those that we know about are associated with nearly all major health problems, from autism and ADHD to infertility and diabetes.
New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants
“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.
Wildfire retardants, the hot-pink mix of water and chemicals sprayed from airplanes by the U.S Forest service to combat wildfires, are under scrutiny after a recent study found they’re a serious source of heavy metal pollution in the U.S.
The research, conducted by a team from the University of Southern California and published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, found that between 2009 and 2021, wildfire retardant application in the U.S. released at least 380,000 kg (more than 400 tons) of at least four toxic metals into the environment. Toxic metals — like cadmium, chromium and vanadium — accumulate in ecosystems and organisms and are linked to organ damage, cancer and neurological disorders.
“The heavy metals report from [the University of Southern California] has been a catalyst. It has created internal discussions about using these retardants,” Andy Stahl, the executive director of the nonprofit watchdog group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE), who was not involved with the study, told EHN.
Wildfire retardant is composed of about 85% water, 10% fertilizers and a mix of other undisclosed ingredients that sticks to plants and depletes the fire of oxygen. This study cracks open the “chemical black box” of the proprietary, undisclosed ingredients in wildfire retardants, according to Stahl.
Between 2009 and 2021, over 440 million gallons of fire retardant were sprayed from airplanes onto federal, state and private land, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Most of it was applied in the western U.S., where the area burned by wildfires has increased by eight-fold over the past four decades.
The new research comes as the Forest Service stretches its capacity to put out multiple fires in the Los Angeles area, two of them ranked among the most destructive and deadly blazes in California’s history. Since January 7, the fires have destroyed at least 15,000 structures and killed 28 people. On Wednesday, January 22, a new fire broke out near Castaic, north of Los Angeles.
Firefighters have argued that retardants are an important tool for protecting communities and slowing down fire. “Without aerially applied fire retardant to slow the growth of more isolated fires, potential exists for some of these fires to grow larger before firefighters can safely fight the fires,” a Forest Service report from 2011 reads.
Application of long-term fire retardants to the western United States between 2000 and 2011 (A) and 2012 and 2019 (B).From the study, "Metals in Wildfire Suppressants"
However, a series of lawsuits brought by FSEEE that date back to 2004 have called into question the chemicals’ potential impacts on wildlife and water pollution. In 2008, a federal judge ordered the Forest Service to conduct a study of wildfire retardants’ environmental impacts. In 2011 the study was published, finding that aerial retardant posed a risk to amphibians, rodents, insects and species whose habitat is limited to small geographic areas. As a result, the Forest Service enacted "exclusion zones" where retardant would not be used and established a 300-foot buffer when applying retardant around surface water by plane.
“That fiction lasted until they realized they missed a lot of times,” Stahl said.
The Forest Service data shows the agency has violated its own restrictions 457 times on National Forest System lands since 2012. Of those, 213 intrusions have landed partially in water, either “to protect human life or public safety” (23 intrusions) or by accident (190 intrusions). These intrusions, the FSEEE argued in a 2022 lawsuit, violated the Clean Water Act.
A year later, a US District judge partially agreed with the employees, ordering the Forest Service to apply for a permit from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the spraying. The permitting process might take years, so the judge also ordered the Forest Service to report back every six months about the state of the permit. “They’re one-sentence reports, ‘we have asked the EPA for a permit.’ That’s the report,” Stahl said.
In fire-devastated areas, damaged pipes can suck in smoke, and plastic pipes can melt and release harmful chemicals into water, causing spikes in concentrations of harmful chemicals like benzene and other carcinogens. The evidence of heavy metals’ presence in wildfire retardants, Stahl argued, adds to the burden these chemicals might be posing to water treatment systems.
Heavy metals precipitate to the bottom of the cleaning ponds of these systems, concentrating in a sludge that is often sold to farmers across the country to spray on farmland. Other harmful chemicals, like PFAS or “forever chemicals”, which have been associated with birth defects, cancer and developmental delays, have also been found in sewage sludge. “Now [we realize] it may have heavy metals at superfund levels,” Stahl said.
“The challenge for the Forest Service is they’ve done such a good job marketing this magic red elixir, that it's hard for them to back away from it and say, ‘oh, it turns out that the stuff we've been pouring all over your forests and your backyards and your residential areas is actually poisonous,’” Stahl said.
Petrochemical plants send millions of pounds of pollutants into waterways each year: Report
“This is not normal.”
Nearly 70 petrochemical companies across the nation, including 30 in Texas, are sending millions of pounds of pollutants into waterways each year due to weak or nonexistent regulations, according to a report published by the watchdog group Environmental Integrity Project.
The report analyzed wastewater discharges from petrochemical companies that produce plastics across the U.S., finding that a majority of the facilities had violated Clean Water Act permits and few were punished. In addition, only a few states are regulating some of the hazardous chemicals or substances of concern, and there are currently no limits set from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for these contaminants in effluent water guidelines for the plastics industry.
In the past 30 years, plastic production at petrochemical facilities has skyrocketed. The EPA estimates that plastic production in 1990 was at 17,130 tons, and by 2018 it had doubled, reaching 35,680 tons. Producing these plastics results in industrial wastewater discharges, some of which contain pollutants unregulated by federal wastewater guidelines. If the pollutant does have limits, they have been set by individual states.
The report found the following pollutants:
- Dioxins, recognized as one of the most toxic classes of compounds by the World Health Organization, can be a byproduct of producing plastics like poly-vinyl chloride, or PVC. Out of the 17 facilities that produce PVC, only three have site limits set by states.
- 1,4 dioxane, classified as a potential carcinogen, only had limits set at two facilities.
- An estimated 9.9 million pounds of nitrogen and 1.9 million pounds of phosphorus (known as nutrient pollution when combined) enter waterways from these plants annually, and can cause toxic algal blooms and fish-killing low-oxygen zones. Only one facility had limits for phosphorus pollution and none had total nitrogen limits.
- Plastic pellets, known as nurdles, are entering waterways in 27 states.
- Polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are not currently considered in wastewater samples for petrochemical plant permit applications.
A majority of the facilities have poor compliance records. Out of the 70 facilities, 83% had violated the Clean Water Act at least once in the last three years (58 facilities violated permits, yet only 8 were penalized). Nearly 40% of the facilities were operating on water pollution control permits that are outdated, “but have been administratively continued by state agencies,” according to the report.
Outdated Clean Water Act regulations
The Clean Water Act, issued by the EPA in 1972, has historically been enforced through effluent water guidelines. The petrochemical facilities in the report are regulated under a category of guidelines for organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers.
“The (plastics) industry has experienced significant, rapid growth in recent decades and is continuing to grow,” lead author of the report and research director at the Environmental Integrity Project, Kira Dunham, told EHN. “But…wastewater discharges are being regulated by standards from over 30 years ago.”
This category of guidelines Dunham mentions has not been updated by the EPA since 1993, despite requirements for the agency to “periodically” update guidelines in accordance with technological updates for pollution control.Texas petrochemical pollution
With 17 of the 30 facilities in Texas, the Houston area — known as the petrochemical capital of the U.S. — is the number one exporter of petrochemicals in the nation.
Nearly one-third of these Texas facilities discharge wastewater into the Houston Ship Channel. Earlier this year, EHN investigated community member concerns about wastewater contamination potentially entering dredge material removed from the channel. Independent analysis from Healthy Port Communities, a collaborative of Houston-based environmental groups, noted high levels of dioxins in the soil surrounding dredge material.
“Some of the places touched on in the (Environmental Integrity Project’s) report might have one major facility that has this… pattern of discharging pollutants into waterways,” Kristen Schlemmer, senior legal director of Houston- based water justice group Bayou City Waterkeeper, told EHN. “I don't want to discount that … but it at least makes it clear who you can focus on to address the problem. Whereas in Houston, we have so many different facilities that are polluting into our waterways, that it often just makes it seem like that's normal, and that's just the way things are going to be.”
Schlemmer added that these concerns for pollution related to wastewater discharges are heightened by disasters, like this year’s derecho storm and Hurricane Beryl, in which water grows contaminated across large portions of the region. Beyond climate disasters, the Houston region is prone to chemical disasters and the state averages about one chemical release a week based on 2023 data.
“I'm hoping through this work to show that this is not normal, and (to) raise the bar in terms of what our expectations are for the facilities that live in our backyards,” Schlemmer said. “If they're not going to comply with the law …I want them to … know that they're going to be facing legal action, either from us or for government regulators.”
Earlier this year, the Environmental Integrity Project sued the EPA along with Bayou City Water Keeper, the Center for Biological Diversity and nearly 300 water justice groups in the Waterkeeper Alliance. In the original intent to sue, the group states that the EPA “has failed to perform its mandatory duty under (the Clean Water Act) ... to biennially submit state water quality reports and an analysis thereof … to Congress.”
Just last week, the EPA released its biannual preliminary plan for effluent limitations guidelines and the announcement states that the EPA plans to conduct new studies that will clarify the impact of discharges from certain industries on waterways. The plan is open for public comment here.
Microplastics: a threat we can't ignore
Microplastics are invading our bodies, from the air we breathe to the food we eat, sparking growing concerns about their potential health risks.
In short:
- Microplastics, tiny plastic particles from everyday products, have been found in organs, blood and even the placenta, raising alarm over their health effects.
- These particles carry harmful chemicals like phthalates and PFAS, which disrupt hormones and may contribute to diseases such as heart conditions, cognitive deficits and cancer.
- Simple lifestyle changes, like avoiding microwaving plastic containers and choosing stainless steel or glass, can significantly reduce exposure.
Key quote:
“It’s so pervasive because there’s so many ways we don’t think something’s plastic, but we realize it actually is.”
— Dr. Leonardo Trasande, Director of Environmental Pediatrics, NYU School of Medicine
Why this matters:
The health implications are staggering, but the solutions often feel out of reach. Avoid plastic altogether? Good luck in a world practically built on it. But experts like Dr. Leonardo Trasande are pointing to small, practical changes as ways to limit the damage. Meanwhile, the bigger battle looms: curbing plastic production before these particles saturate every inch of the planet—and our bodies. Read more: Microplastics in farm soils: A growing concern.
Environmental justice advocates criticize lack of inclusion in plastic treaty negotiations
“We had to fight for every second we had on the floor.”
Environmental justice and Indigenous groups say they were largely excluded from key plastic treaty talks last week in Busan, South Korea, which took place over seven days and ended without a final text.
As oil and gas producing nations opposed reducing plastic production, the fifth round of talks in a series of UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee meetings ended without clear consensus on how to curb global plastic pollution. The group will reconvene next year with hopes of finalizing a treaty.
During previous plastic treaty talks, environmental justice and Indigenous delegations were permitted to listen and speak during negotiations between member states. That changed at this meeting, as the last several days of the talks consisted of private conversations.
“I was really disappointed with the process this time,” Sarah Martik, director of the Center for Coalfield Justice, an environmental justice advocacy group based in western Pennsylvania, told EHN. “There were two and a half days of informal meetings with delegates from member states held in private rooms, which completely cut out civil society. We have no notes and no records from those meetings … and we had very few opportunities to speak. We had to fight for every second we had on the floor.”
“I was really disappointed with the process this time.” Sarah Martik, Center for Coalfield Justice
Other U.S.-based environmental justice advocacy groups including the The Descendants Project in Louisiana’s Cancer Alley; the Port Arthur Community Action Network in Texas; and Breathe Free Detroit expressed similar frustrations, as did numerous Indigenous groups.
“[Holding negotiations during private meetings] is a blatant attempt to stifle dissent and pave the way for the influence of the petrochemical industry,” Frankie Orona, executive director of Society of Native Nations, said in a statement. “Despite our tireless advocacy and the support of numerous member states, the [latest treaty draft] fails to recognize our inherent rights and traditional knowledge, effectively silencing our voices in the fight against plastic pollution.”
The groups also said that oil and gas-producing countries “weaponized” the consensus-based decision-making process by intentionally stalling progress during the negotiations and effectively vetoing measures favored by a majority of other countries, like plastic production caps.
“Despite our tireless advocacy and the support of numerous member states, the [latest treaty draft] fails to recognize our inherent rights and traditional knowledge." - Frankie Orona, Society of Native Nations
China, the United States, India, South Korea and Saudi Arabia were the top five primary plastic-producing nations in 2023, according to data provider Eunomia. Some of these countries, like Saudi Arabia, Russia and India, oppose production caps. More than 100 of the approximately 170 countries attending the talks supported caps on plastic production. The U.S. and China were absent from the talks when countries pressed for production limits.
“Saudi Arabia and Russia kept taking the floor to be obstructionist, basically saying a whole lot of nothing, and we didn’t get an opportunity to speak on the floor until about two in the morning, when a lot of member states were already leaving,” Martik said.
“The elephant in the room is how the U.S. presidential election is going to impact all of this,” Martik added. “Delaying the final treaty until after Trump takes office could change how the U.S. is showing up at these negotiations.”
Disagreement over plastic production caps
Most plastic is made from fossil fuels, and as the world decarbonizes to tackle the climate crisis, oil and gas companies are increasingly turning to plastic production to stay profitable. More than 400 million tons of new plastic are created annually across the globe, and plastic production is expected to increase by an additional 70% by 2040 without policy changes.
“When I first engaged in [plastic treaty talks], I was standing in line at lunch and a delegate read my nametag and asked what I was doing there,” said Martik, who attended the talks as a member of Break Free From Plastic, a global advocacy organization. “I had to explain the connection between fracked gas being drilled in southwestern Pennsylvania and the global production of plastic.”
The plastic industry and oil-producing countries have fought against production caps, instead pushing the idea of a “circular economy.” But less than 10% of the world’s plastic is currently recycled, and attempts to improve recycling technology have so far largely proven unprofitable and inefficient.
“Delaying the final treaty until after Trump takes office could change how the U.S. is showing up at these negotiations.” - Sarah Martik, Center for Coalfield Justice
While plastic pollution chokes waterways and shorelines and microplastics turn up in every part of the human body, concerns about human health effects from every stage of plastic’s lifecycle have increased. In the U.S., health care costs attributable to chemicals in plastics are an estimated $250 billion every year.
“I think a worst-case scenario would have been that we walked away with a treaty that was ineffective and catered to the lowest-common denominator,” Martik said. “But we saw clearly that there are far more countries wanting to step up to the plate and be really ambitious about this than there are countries fighting a meaningful treaty.”