endocrine disrupting chemicals
Photo by Sören Funk on Unsplash
Pennsylvania plastics pollution settlement could set a national precedent for control of pellets
The case is the first citizen suit to successfully settle over “nurdles” in an inland waterway. State regulators weighed in to help.
Top Story
Photo credit: Photo by Mathias Reding on Unsplash
Plastic pollution treaty talks end with no agreement
Negotiators failed to reach a deal on a global treaty aimed at curbing plastic pollution and plan to resume talks at a later date as disputes over production limits and toxic chemicals persist.
In short:
- Delegates from 184 countries clashed over whether the treaty should cap plastic production or focus on recycling, reuse, and safer chemical use.
- Powerful fossil fuel-producing nations and the plastics industry resisted production limits, arguing the treaty should prioritize waste management.
- Negotiators released a revised draft recognizing the unsustainable growth of plastics and the need for a coordinated global response, but no consensus was reached.
Key quote:
“We are going in circles. We cannot continue to do the same thing and expect a different result.”
— Graham Forbes, head of Greenpeace delegation in Geneva
Why this matters:
Negotiations produced a draft that acknowledges the runaway growth of plastics and the global health and environmental risks — microplastics in oceans, toxic chemicals leaching into food and water, and communities burdened by mountains of waste — but it’s still just words on paper. The world is still waiting for leadership to turn concern into concrete action.
Read more: Read more:
- U.S. pressures countries to drop global plastics cap at treaty talks
- A stalled global plastic treaty threatens our future fertility
- Environmental justice advocates criticize lack of inclusion in plastic treaty negotiations
- Petrochemical plants send millions of pounds of pollutants into waterways each year: Report
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: gnepphoto/BigStock Photo ID: 398606702
Plastic treaty talks collapse over production limits and chemical controls
Negotiations on the world’s first global treaty to curb plastic pollution have hit a dead end, with nearly 100 countries rejecting a draft they say fails to tackle production or toxic chemicals.
In short:
- Countries pushing for strong action, including the European Union, UK, and Colombia, say the draft treaty ignores plastic production caps and the risks of harmful chemicals.
- Oil- and plastic-producing nations, backed by industry interests, want the treaty to focus only on recycling and waste management, avoiding limits on production.
- Delegates warn that without binding measures on production, chemicals, and financing, the treaty risks being a “step backward” in global efforts to reduce plastic pollution.
Key quote:
“It certainly seems like it was very biased toward the like-minded countries [Saudi, Russia, Iran etc]. There’s problems across the board. There’s no binding measures on anything. There’s no obligation to contribute resources to the financial mechanism. There’s no measures on production or chemicals. This text is just inadequate.”
— Dennis Clare, negotiator for Micronesia
Why this matters:
The world’s first attempt at a global plastic pact has hit the skids, and it’s exposing just how deep industry influence runs. Without binding measures, experts warn, this treaty could be less a breakthrough and more a global shrug, leaving ecosystems and public health to bear the cost.
Read more:
- U.S. pressures countries to drop global plastics cap at treaty talks
- A stalled global plastic treaty threatens our future fertility
- Environmental justice advocates criticize lack of inclusion in plastic treaty negotiations
- Petrochemical plants send millions of pounds of pollutants into waterways each year: Report
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: IrinaKr/BigStock Photo ID: 240205927
Final push for plastic pollution treaty talks as groups urge bold action
Environmental and Indigenous leaders are pushing for a strong, legally binding treaty to curb plastic pollution, as United Nations negotiations in Geneva near their conclusion.
In short:
- Environmental and Indigenous groups rally outside the UN in Geneva, calling for a robust treaty to tackle plastic pollution.
- The key issue centers on whether to limit plastic production or focus on recycling and reuse.
- Some nations, like Panama, are pushing for caps on plastic production, while oil-producing countries resist such measures.
Key quote:
“We need people outside of here to tell their countries to speak up for what it is that they’re standing for. Are they standing for them, their citizens, or big oil?””
— Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, head of Panama’s delegation
Why this matters:
The outcome of these talks will determine how much progress the world can make in curbing plastic production and its harmful effects on ecosystems and human health. Should the focus be on reducing plastic production, or will the world double down on recycling and reuse? This treaty is critical for public health — the chemicals used in plastic production and plastic recycling have been linked to a slew of health problems, from hormonal disruption to cancer. The final push is now, and the world is waiting for a resolution that doesn’t just clean up the current mess but slows its growth.
Read more:
- A stalled global plastic treaty threatens our future fertility
- A plastic recipe for societal suicide
- Environmental justice advocates criticize lack of inclusion in plastic treaty negotiations
- DuPont letter shows plastics industry dismissed recycling as viable solution in 1974
- What is chemical recycling?
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: elenathewise/Big Stock Photo
Hidden chemical load rivals climate crisis in scale of risk
A new report warns that the world’s 100-million-plus industrial chemicals are contaminating air, water, and human bodies with health effects ranging from ADHD to cancer.
In short:
- Researchers at Deep Science Ventures examined hundreds of studies and interviews and identified 3,600 food-contact chemicals in people, 80 of them deemed especially hazardous.
- PFAS “forever chemicals” now fall with rain and 90% of the global population breathes air that violates WHO limits.
- The review argues that toxicity testing still misses nonlinear, low-dose endocrine effects and receives only a sliver of the funding directed at climate research.
Key quote:
“The way that we’ve generally done the testing has meant that we’ve missed a lot of effects.”
— Harry Macpherson, senior climate associate, Deep Science Ventures
Why this matters:
From plastic wrappers to pesticide residues, synthetic compounds are with us from cradle to grave. Many slip past regulatory filters because traditional toxicology assumes that smaller doses are safer. Yet hormones operate on trillionths of a gram, and chemicals that mimic them can short-circuit development, immunity, and fertility at trace levels. Once released, these molecules cycle through soil, water, and air, reaching remote regions and persisting for decades. Health costs — from asthma medication to fertility treatment — land on families and public budgets, while manufacturers often face little accountability. As climate change reshapes ecosystems, chemical load adds another invisible pressure on wildlife and humans, complicating efforts to safeguard food, water, and future generations.
Related: Runaway plastic production fuels $1.5tn annual health burden, Lancet review finds
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Photo by OCG Saving The Ocean on Unsplash
New push for a global plastic treaty faces political divide over production cuts
A new round of global talks in Geneva may be the world’s last chance to seal a strong treaty to end plastic pollution, but deep divides remain.
In short:
- Delegates from nearly every nation are negotiating a legally binding treaty to tackle plastic pollution, with sharp disagreements over whether to cap production or just improve recycling and waste management.
- Powerful oil and plastics-producing nations, including the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, oppose production limits, while 100+ countries, along with major companies like Walmart and Coca-Cola, support cuts alongside recycling mandates.
- Indigenous leaders and small island nations say plastic pollution is threatening their food, health, and economies, and stress that the talks must not end in weak compromises.
Key quote:
“We will never recycle our way out of this problem.”
— Graham Forbes, Greenpeace plastics campaign lead
Why this matters:
Plastic is leaching into our food, our water, even our bodies. It's been linked to serious health issues, from endocrine disruption to cancer. This might be the world's last real shot at a global treaty that doesn’t just sweep the mess around. The question is whether political will can overpower petrochemical lobbying, and whether the world is ready to stop treating plastic like it’s disposable when it’s anything but.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Colorado kids with leukemia are more than twice as likely to live near dense oil and gas development
A recent study suggests that living near a higher density of oil and gas wells increases childhood cancer risk.
A recent study found that Colorado children who’d been diagnosed with Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia were more than twice as likely to live near dense oil and gas development, including both conventional and fracking wells, than healthy children throughout the state.
Oil and gas wells emit chemicals that have been linked to increased risk for this type of leukemia — the most common form of childhood cancer — including benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, among others.
Previous research in Colorado and Pennsylvania, which are among the top 10 energy-producing states in the country, have also linked living near oil and gas wells with higher risk for childhood leukemia, but this is the first to assess whether the density of wells and the volume of oil and gas being produced leads to greater risk.
The new study, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, looked at medical records for more than 3,000 children born in Colorado between 1992 and 2019. The researchers found that children who were diagnosed with leukemia between the ages of two and nine were more than twice as likely to live within five kilometers — about three miles — of dense oil and gas development compared to healthy children. The study also found that Children who’d been diagnosed with leukemia during this time period were between 1.4 and 2.64 times more likely to live within 13 kilometers (about eight miles) of dense oil and gas development.
“Considering the density of oil and gas development is really important,” Lisa McKenzie, lead author of the study and associate professor of environmental and occupational health at the Colorado School of Public Health, told EHN. “If you were in the unusual situation of having just one oil and gas well within a kilometer of your home, that might not have increased your child’s risk for leukemia. However, we found that if you had lots and lots of wells within 13 kilometers [about eight miles] of your home, that did increase the risk for childhood leukemia.”
The study included 451 children with leukemia and 2,706 healthy children, and considered the density of oil and gas development near their homes starting at the time their mothers conceived them through the time of their diagnosis (or a similar time frame for healthy children). The researchers assessed the density of oil and gas production by looking at the number of wells present, how close they were to a child’s home, the number of new wells being drilled, and how much oil and gas was being produced at various times within three, five, and 13 kilometers of their homes.
“Children living near the densest areas of oil and gas development had the highest risk increase,” McKenzie said, “but we also found that children with leukemia were much more likely to be living within three or five kilometers of any oil and gas wells than children without leukemia.”
The researchers controlled for other childhood cancer risk factors including other sources of pollution around the home, UV exposure, distance to the nearest highway, the mothers’ ages, and the child’s biological sex and birth weight.
“This study has numerous strengths,” Cassandra Clark, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Minnesota's Division of Pediatric Epidemiology and Clinical Research, told EHN. Clark, who was not involved in the study but co-authored a 2022 paper on childhood cancer risk and fracking in Pennsylvania that made similar findings, said this study’s strengths include using a larger sample size than previous research, controlling for other childhood cancer risks, and focusing on the age range where childhood leukemia incidence is highest.
“We have now seen three high-quality case-control studies documenting increased pediatric leukemia risk associated with proximity to oil and gas development, and the effects observed are relatively consistent across studies,” Clark said, adding that there’s now enough research on this for policymakers to “develop health-protective policies for oil and gas development.”
In 2020, Colorado legislators increased the state’s setback distances — the minimum distance between new fracking wells and homes, schools, hospitals, and businesses — from 500 feet from homes and 1,000 feet for high-occupancy buildings like schools, to 2,000 feet (a little more than half a kilometer) from all schools and homes. Those distances are among the most health-protective in the country.
In Pennsylvania, for example, the setback distance is 500 feet (about 0.15 kilometers) for any occupied building, but this can be waived by property owners, and some facilities operate within 300 feet of residential buildings. Public health experts have warned that these distances are not great enough to protect public health, but efforts to expand setback distances in the state have repeatedly been shot down by Pennsylvania lawmakers.
“Our research suggests that just increasing setback distances isn’t enough,” McKenzie said. “Current setback laws only consider where one new well is going. I would really encourage policymakers to consider the cumulative impacts of everything going on around homes or in areas where new oil and gas development is going to protect vulnerable populations like young children.”
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
