pfa's
Newsletter
Credit: Postmodern Studio/Big Stock Photo
Shein’s falling profits reveal cracks in ultra-fast fashion business model
Slowing profits and mounting legal challenges suggest Shein’s breakneck growth is stalling as regulators and consumers demand more accountability from fast fashion brands.
In short:
- Shein’s profits dropped nearly 40% in 2024, forcing the company to slash its valuation ahead of a planned IPO in London. Meanwhile, its sales continue to grow.
- The company faces increasing scrutiny over labor practices, pricing deception, and products found to contain hazardous chemicals like phthalates, PFAS, lead, and formaldehyde.
- Broader market signals suggest a shift: Other ultra-fast fashion brands are also seeing earnings drops as public pressure and regulation begin to take hold.
Key quote:
“Companies like Shein thrive on overproduction and rock bottom prices, but I really think that this decline signals that their model isn’t as bulletproof as it once seemed. Regulatory scrutiny is getting better and shoppers are getting smarter.”
— Katrina Caspelich, chief marketing officer of Remake
Why this matters:
Fast fashion, once hailed as a democratizing force in global style, is now facing a reckoning as its hidden costs become harder to ignore. Behind the racks of $5 shirts and micro-trends lies an industrial machine that churns out billions of garments annually, often under conditions that harm both people and the planet. Factories, many based in countries with weak labor protections, have come under fire for grueling hours, poor wages, and exposure to hazardous chemicals used to dye and finish garments. Those same chemicals have been found in finished products, raising concerns about what consumers, especially children, might be absorbing through their skin.
The environmental toll is staggering, with textile dyeing ranked among the largest sources of water pollution globally and synthetic fibers shedding microplastics into waterways. While brands like Shein have ridden a wave of viral popularity, their rapid, opaque supply chains are now drawing scrutiny from U.S. and European regulators, who are exploring tougher oversight. As public awareness grows and watchdog groups highlight these links between fast fashion and toxic exposures, the industry’s low-cost, high-speed model may face limits it can’t ignore.
Learn more:
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
EPA’s research office faces deep cuts, sparking alarm over environmental protections
The potential elimination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development could result in mass layoffs of scientists and weaken the agency’s ability to assess and respond to environmental threats.
In short:
- Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former EPA science official, warns that the proposed restructuring could eliminate up to 1,155 scientific positions and shutter key research facilities.
- The Office of Research and Development plays a critical role in detecting pollutants, assessing toxic risks, and informing regulations with scientific research.
- Orme-Zavaleta argues that gutting this office would set back scientific progress for decades, leaving emerging threats like PFAS and nanoplastics unchecked.
Key quote:
"It took decades to build it. It will take decades to rebuild it."
— Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former principal deputy assistant administrator, EPA Office of Research and Development
Why this matters:
The EPA relies on scientific research to set regulations that protect public health and the environment. Proposed budget cuts to its research division could weaken the agency’s ability to detect and respond to environmental hazards, from industrial chemicals to climate-related disasters. Without independent studies, regulations may become more reactive than preventive, potentially exposing communities to unregulated pollutants and slowing responses to crises like chemical spills and harmful algal blooms.
Supporters of the cuts argue that regulatory decisions should lean more on industry-led research or state-level initiatives, while critics warn that weakening federal research could lead to regulatory capture, where industries influence policies in their favor. With climate-related disasters on the rise and concerns over water and air quality persisting, experts caution that reducing the EPA’s scientific capacity could leave the country less prepared to address emerging environmental threats.
Read more: Trump administration moves to dismantle EPA’s science office
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: National Cancer Institute/Unsplash
Trump promises action on toxics while his EPA weakens chemical rules
President Trump has pledged to tackle toxic chemicals, but his administration is rolling back regulations that limit industrial pollution and chemical exposure.
In short:
- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency dropped a lawsuit against a company emitting a likely carcinogen and signaled plans to weaken safety screenings for hazardous chemicals, including vinyl chloride.
- The administration is reversing Biden-era chemical safety rules, including protections against ethylene oxide emissions and limits on PFAS discharges into water.
- Several high-ranking EPA officials have ties to the chemical industry, raising concerns about regulatory capture.
Key quote:
"We know that the rules that were adopted in the Biden administration would result in significant health benefits for communities including lower cancer rates and rolling back those rules inevitably will result in more cancer, including more children with cancer."
— Eve Gartner, Earthjustice
Why this matters:
Toxic chemicals in air, water, and food contribute to cancer, reproductive disorders, and other health problems. PFAS, for example, persist in the environment and accumulate in the human body, increasing risks of immune dysfunction and hormone disruption. Weaker chemical regulations could lead to more pollution, disproportionately affecting communities near industrial sites. The administration’s industry-first approach to environmental policy will shape the country’s chemical safety landscape for years.
Read more: Chemical regulations leave children vulnerable to harmful exposure
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: designua/BigStock Photo ID: 104061326
The rain is cleaner, but now it’s full of plastic and forever chemicals
A generation after acid rain was largely eliminated, scientists say rainfall is now carrying something even more insidious — microplastics and forever chemicals that are nearly impossible to remove.
In short:
- Decades of environmental policy cleaned up acid rain, but modern pollutants like microplastics and PFAS (forever chemicals) have taken its place, contaminating rainfall worldwide.
- Microplastics from roads, clothing, and oceans get swept into the atmosphere and fall with the rain, while PFAS, used in nonstick cookware and water-resistant fabrics, persist in the environment for centuries.
- These pollutants seep into drinking water sources, and while treatment plants can remove some, a significant amount remains, exposing people and wildlife to chemicals linked to cancer, kidney disease, and immune disorders.
Key quote:
"It’s much worse than the acid rain problem. With acid rain, we could stop emitting acid precursors and then acid rain would stop falling. But we can’t stop the microplastic cycle anymore. It’s there and it’s not going away."
— Janice Brahney, biogeochemist at Utah State University
Why this matters:
Even if you don’t drink untreated rainwater, these pollutants are making their way into tap water, food, and even human brains. Water treatment plants can catch some of it, but not enough. And with microplastics now found in human lungs, blood, and even placentas, the long-term health consequences are still unfolding.
Read more: Toxic PFAS pollution is likely at more than 57,000 US locations.
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Brad Weaver/Unsplash
New Mexico lawmakers push to ban PFAS in fracking operations
Oil and gas companies in New Mexico are not required to disclose whether they use PFAS, a class of toxic chemicals, in fracking, but a new bill seeks to ban their use and increase transparency about other chemicals injected into the ground.
In short:
- House Bill 222 would prohibit PFAS in oil and gas extraction and require companies to disclose more information about fracking chemicals.
- Lawmakers delayed a vote on the bill to allow for revisions, while industry representatives argued it could undermine ongoing regulatory rulemaking.
- Advocates say a statutory ban is necessary to prevent future administrations from weakening regulations, pointing to past rollbacks on oil and gas waste disposal rules.
Key quote:
“We have a right to know fundamentally what chemicals are being put into the earth. We have a right to protect ourselves as well.”
— New Mexico State Senator Jeff Steinborn, (D-Las Cruces)
Why this matters:
PFAS, often called "forever chemicals," persist in the environment and have been linked to serious health risks, including cancer and immune system damage. Their presence in fracking fluids raises concerns about water contamination, particularly in regions already struggling with groundwater pollution. While oil and gas companies claim they do not use PFAS in New Mexico, the lack of mandatory disclosure leaves uncertainty. Similar bans in other states reflect growing recognition of the risks these chemicals pose to public health and the environment.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: BILLPERRY/Big Stock Photo
EPA partially unfreezes environmental funding after court ruling
A federal judge’s order has prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to lift a spending freeze on some programs under the bipartisan infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act, though major climate-related funds remain paused.
In short:
- The EPA instructed officials to resume disbursements for certain programs, including State and Tribal Assistance Grants, brownfield cleanups and Superfund projects.
- The spending freeze, enacted under a Trump administration order, had prevented states and nonprofits from accessing funds for climate and energy programs.
- A judge’s ruling barred enforcement of the freeze, but significant funds, including the $7 billion Solar for All and $5 billion climate pollution reduction grant programs, remain unavailable.
Key quote:
"They are flagrantly disregarding the law. It is outrageous."
— Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies
Why this matters:
Federal funding plays a crucial role in states' ability to tackle pollution, remediate hazardous waste sites and transition to cleaner energy sources. From Superfund cleanups to grants for wind and solar projects, these dollars shape the speed and scale of environmental progress at the state level. But when disbursements stall — whether due to bureaucratic hurdles, shifting political priorities or legal challenges — efforts to build climate resilience and address long-standing environmental injustices can grind to a halt.
Related: Trump administration shifts EPA leadership to political appointees
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: vverve/Big Stock Photo
Reviewing food and farming policy in the Biden administration: a focus on food equity, climate policies and farmers
President Biden’s administration reshaped food and agriculture policy by addressing corporate consolidation, investing in climate-smart farming, restricting pesticides and improving nutrition security programs.
In short:
- The USDA advanced regulations to curb corporate control in agriculture, bolstering protections for small farmers and investing $500 million to support small meatpacking plants.
- Climate-smart initiatives included $3 billion for sustainable farming practices, though critics flagged that major agribusinesses received some funding.
- The EPA phased out chlorpyrifos, reducing its use by 70%, and strengthened pesticide protections for farmworkers.
- The FDA banned brominated vegetable oil and Red No. 3, and updated lead limits in baby food, though some experts argue more restrictions are needed.
Key quote:
“Folks from across the country have pulled together towards our common goal of ending hunger, improving nutrition, and supporting the farmers, ranchers, farm workers, and food workers who grow and produce our food.”
— USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack
Why this matters:
Food systems impact public health, climate resilience and economic equity. Policies to limit corporate power, provide protection against pesticides and strengthen food safety can improve health and mitigate climate-related disruptions, but their effectiveness will depend on sustained political support and regulatory enforcement.
Related EHN coverage:
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
