soil pollution
Michigan reimagines its toxic land as a solar-powered future
Michigan wants to clean up its polluted past by turning contaminated industrial sites into a new solar-powered frontier.
In short:
- Michigan has over 24,000 contaminated brownfield sites, many left behind by heavy industry, and advocates see solar energy as a powerful way to reclaim these spaces.
- A recent survey found residents overwhelmingly support solar on previously disturbed land — like retired coal plants — over forests or farmland, reflecting broader public health and environmental priorities.
- The state is moving forward with a $129 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant to build solar projects on these “orphan” lands, though regulatory gaps, grid delays, and zoning issues remain major hurdles.
Key quote:
“The work now is to chart the near-term future of how Michiganders get their energy. This can be talked about through the lens of climate or the environment, but the public health ramifications are enormous as well."
— Kelly Thayer, senior policy advocate, Environmental Law & Policy Center
Why this matters:
With a $129 million EPA grant in hand, the state is trying to turn remediation potential into reality. That dream still runs into the messy reality of grid bottlenecks, clunky zoning rules, and a regulatory maze that wasn’t built for a clean energy future. But if Michigan can cut through the red tape, these “orphan” lands might finally get their second act — and bring cleaner air, local jobs, and long-overdue investment along with them.
Read more: In the race for clean energy, the US is both a leader and a laggard — here’s how
Mushrooms are cleaning up wildfire ruins — and may revive toxic land across America
After the deadly Los Angeles wildfires turned homes into chemical-laced rubble, one scientist is using mushrooms and native plants to detoxify the land and rethink how to clean up after disaster.
In short:
- Environmental toxicologist Danielle Stevenson is pioneering a sustainable cleanup method by planting native fungi and plants that naturally extract toxins from soil scorched by wildfires.
- Her technique, trialed successfully on LA brownfields like Taylor Yard, dramatically reduced petrochemical pollution and revived dead zones into thriving ecosystems within a year.
- Stevenson’s work challenges conventional “dig and dump” methods that relocate contaminated soil, often untreated, and could spark a broader “mycoeconomy” of fungi-powered environmental repair.
Key quote:
“I’ve seen amazing reductions in contaminants in relatively short times with very few inputs. I really believe in this stuff.”
— Danielle Stevenson, founder of the Centre for Applied Ecological Remediation
Why this matters:
Paired with native plants, these fungi may constitute a new approach to restoration — one that doesn’t rely on hauling toxic soil to another zip code, but on cleaning it where it lies. This is also climate adaptation: With wildfires expected to grow in scale and intensity, bioremediation could offer a cheaper, healthier, and more sustainable way to protect scorched communities from chemical exposure while healing the land. Stay tuned: Stevenson is now working to publish her findings in peer-reviewed journals.
Read more: How fungi could help clean up our biggest toxic messes
Trump’s EPA quietly backs off from enforcing pollution laws
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has dramatically scaled back enforcement against major polluters, raising fears about the future of public health protections.
In short:
- In the first three months of Trump’s second term, the EPA has filed no major pollution cases and is initiating around 100 fewer civil enforcement actions per month than during Biden’s last fiscal year.
- EPA staff say all major cases were paused in April for review by political appointees, and enforcement is being filtered through a higher bar — effectively granting polluters more leeway.
- Several cases finalized under Trump were in fact initiated and negotiated under Biden, further obscuring the administration’s enforcement record.
Key quote:
““The future is grim for environmental protection. The risk will be most felt in overburdened communities, but this will hurt red and blue districts alike. If the EPA cop is not on the beat, then people are going to be harmed.”
— Gary Jonesi, former top EPA enforcement attorney and director of CREEDemocracy
Why this matters:
For frontline communities — especially those already choking on refinery fumes or watching industrial runoff trickle into local waterways — the scaling back of enforcement has serious consequences. Environmental enforcement protects communities from harmful pollution that can cause cancer, respiratory disease, and neurological damage, among other acute and chronic health problems. The federal pullback could leave millions at risk while letting industry operate without accountability.
Soil tests reveal toxic metals lingering in L.A. burn zones after government cleanup
After federal agencies declined to test soil for toxic substances following the devastating Eaton and Palisades fires, Los Angeles Times reporters conducted independent testing and found alarming levels of contamination on properties across Los Angeles County.
Tony Briscoe, Noah Haggerty and Hayley Smith report for the Los Angeles Times.
In short:
- Soil testing revealed hazardous levels of arsenic, lead, and mercury on multiple properties previously cleared by federal disaster crews, with some sites exceeding California’s residential safety standards by more than three times.
- The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers removed debris and scraped topsoil but did not conduct soil sampling, leaving thousands of homeowners unaware of possible contamination.
- Health risks from the metals include neurological damage in children, cancer, and respiratory and kidney harm, with experts warning that homeowners now bear the burden of costly testing and remediation.
Key quote:
“Without effective hazard communication, you don’t give people the option to make good choices. It’s beyond wrong. It’s immoral.”
— Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics
Why this matters:
Soil contamination after wildfires is a growing public health and environmental concern, especially as climate change intensifies the frequency and severity of these disasters. Toxic substances like lead, arsenic, and mercury can remain in soil long after fires, posing risks not only to current residents but also to future generations who may unknowingly be exposed. The legacy of older construction materials — such as lead-based paint and arsenic-treated wood — compounds the danger.
The absence of mandatory post-fire soil testing places the onus on homeowners to detect and address contamination, often at great personal expense. This privatization of environmental health responsibilities reflects broader patterns of environmental injustice, where lower-income and underinsured residents are left to face disproportionate health risks. As more wildfires consume older housing stock across California and the nation, unchecked soil pollution could quietly undermine recovery efforts and long-term community health.
Read more: EPA's wildfire debris cleanup plan sparks backlash in Los Angeles
As regenerative agriculture gains momentum, report warns of “greenwashing”
“It is scientifically and ethically disingenuous to claim to be regenerating soil while you are using synthetic chemicals."
Editor's note: This story was originally published in The New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group, and is republished here with permission.
Billed as a type of food system that works in harmony with nature, “regenerative” agriculture is gaining popularity in US farm country, garnering praise in books and films and noted as one of the goals of the Make America Healthy Again movement associated with new Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Proponents of regenerative farming say the practice can mitigate harmful climate change, reduce water pollution, and make foods more nutritious as farmers focus on improving the health of soil, water, and ecosystems.
A growing number of farms and ranches around the US are achieving certification to let consumers know their grains, beef, eggs and other products as regeneratively grown. Internationally, the regenerative agriculture market has been forecast to see double-digit growth between 2023 and 2030.
But all that momentum comes with a dirty dark side, according to a new report that highlights what is becoming an increasingly contentious debate over the merits of regenerative agriculture.
The report issued Tuesday asserts that regenerative programs, which generally allow for the use of weedkillers and other chemicals, are being used to “greenwash” routine use of several dangerous pesticides on farm fields.
Corporations that sell such pesticides are entwined with the movement, incentivizing farmers financially to adopt regenerative practices, the report notes.
“With billions of dollars — and the future of our food system — at stake, we must ensure that the practice of regenerative agriculture is robust and is guarded against greenwashing,” states the April 29 report issued by Friends of the Earth (FOE), an environmental advocacy group.
Citing data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), FOE’s report specifically targets corn and soybean production in which farmers do not till their soil to eradicate weeds as has traditionally been common practice. Such “no-till” practices are a hallmark of regenerative agriculture because tillage can have multiple negative environmental impacts, including disrupting soil microorganisms considered essential for plant health.
Corn and soybean no-till acres total more than 100 million acres, according to the FOE report. The “vast majority (93%)” of those acres rely on “toxic pesticides that harm soil health and threaten human health,” the FOE report states.
Roughly one-third of total annual pesticide use in the US can be attributed solely to corn and soy grown in no- and minimum-till systems, according to the FOE analysis of USDA data. An estimated 61% of the use involves pesticides classified as highly hazardous to human health and/or the environment, the report states.
Bayer’s bid for regenerative
The new report takes aim at some of the world’s largest agrochemical companies, including Germany-based Bayer, which bought seed and chemical giant Monsanto in 2018 and calls regenerative agriculture its “vision for the future of farming.”
“Produce More. Restore Nature. Scale Regenerative Agriculture,” the company proclaims on its website.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide products introduced by Monsanto in the 1970s, is the most widely used pesticide in no-till corn and soy production. The herbicide has been classified as a probable human carcinogen by world health experts, and tens of thousands of people have sued Monsanto alleging they developed cancer due to their use of the company’s glyphosate products.
As part of its push for regenerative, Bayer offers growers rewards for engaging in certain practices, including not tilling their soil and for planting “cover” crops as a means to improve soil health. Farmers can receive up to $12 per acre for combining various “regenerative agriculture practices,” Bayer pledges.
To handle weed problems in regenerative fields, Bayer recommends a mix of strategies, including “sustainable use of herbicides.”
That type of recommendation exposes the corporate hypocrisy rooted in regenerative, no-till, practices, according to FOE.
“Pesticide companies like Bayer and Syngenta have capitalized on the growing interest in soil health by promoting conventional no-till — which relies heavily on their pesticides, genetically engineered seeds, and digital agriculture platforms — as regenerative,” the FOE report states.
When asked about the FOE report, Bayer said glyphosate-based products like Roundup are helpful to farmers who are implementing sustainable farming and regenerative practices.
“Tools like Roundup are essential as more and more farmers turn to practices such as planting cover crops to reduce erosion, capture moisture and sequester carbon in the soil,” the company said in a statement. “Products like Roundup also enable farmers to adopt no-till measures that help drastically reduce the amount of carbon released by the soil through tillage.”
Syngenta says that regenerative agriculture “can underpin the transformation of our global food systems,” and that “chemical inputs” can be useful, though in reduced amounts.
In March, Syngenta announced a partnership with PepsiCo to “support and drive” farmers to transition to regenerative agriculture.
Regenerative v. organic
The report comes amid growing rancor between some in the established organic industry and the burgeoning regenerative movement, as leaders on each side say their respective models are best for providing healthy food and protecting environmental and human health.
In contrast with the relatively young regenerative movement, the organic industry operates within a framework established more than 30 years ago with oversight through a national organic program within the USDA, with rules that generally prohibit synthetic pesticides and other chemicals.
Organic supporters echo the FOE report, saying that certifying some farm products and brands as regenerative is deceptive because farmers practicing regenerative can, and often do, use chemical weed killers that are harmful to the soil, people and the environment.
They say that describing products as regenerative if they’re grown with chemicals gives consumers a false sense of comfort in the agricultural practices used to produce food. And they say because regenerative agriculture has no government oversight or official standards, private certification can be easily corrupted.
“The proponents of non-organic ‘regenerative’ labels are in fact greenwashing conventional ag and its use of toxic persistent pesticides as well as synthetic nitrogen fertilizers,” said Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Organic Voices, an advocacy group for the organic industry.
“It is scientifically and ethically disingenuous to claim to be regenerating soil while you are using synthetic chemicals, which harm soil microorganisms, and it is well-established science that no-till systems actually require more, not less, chemical fertilizers and pesticides,” Hirshberg said.
In contrast, academics and those pursuing growth of regenerative practices say soil health is at the root, literally, of planetary health, and even if pesticides are used, they can be used at levels much reduced from conventional farming.
They say organic farmers often till their fields to address weeds, and that practice is worse than using herbicides.
“The science is very clear on this: there is a greater net benefit to using an herbicide to enable no-till … than to avoid it altogether ifthat means resorting to tillage,” said Andrew Margenot, associate director of the Agroecosystems Sustainability Center at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
Proponents of regenerative practices see them as a series of steps that may begin with no-till and use of weedkillers and other pesticides, but eventually expand to include a range of tactics, such as using “cover crops” to increase soil organic matter and limit pest outbreaks and incorporating livestock and animal manure into soil improvement efforts.
Using all the regenerative practices can eventually eliminate the need for chemicals or sharply reduce the need, proponents say.
Regenerative farming involves much more than not tilling the soil, said Gabe Brown, a North Dakota farmer, who authored a book on the benefits of regenerative and founded a certification company called Regenified to guide farmers and ranchers in the practices.
Though Brown said he is a consumer of organic foods, he believes that organic farmers who don’t use chemicals but do disrupt their soils through tilling are also harming the environment.
“One cannot claim that no-tilling alone will make a farm regenerative just like one cannot say that organic, alone, is regenerative,” Brown said. “If an organic producer tills too often it can be highly degrading. If a no-tiller uses too many synthetics, it can be degrading.”
Brown said the organic movement has “floundered” as achieving organic certification can be challenging and costly for many producers.
“The amount of interest in regenerative agriculture is truly making a difference … it’s exciting,” Brown said.
Seeking more funds for organic
Not tilling the soil is a core principle of regenerative practices, but the FOE report asserts that the impacts of tillage are not always harmful and that routine use of pesticides has greater disruptive effects on soil health than does routine tillage.
Looking just at conventional no-till corn and soy, the FOE report finds that “CO2-equivalent emissions” associated with the pesticides and synthetic fertilizers used to grow those crops are comparable to emissions from 11.4 million cars.
The FOE report recommends that instead of incentivizing no-till agriculture that allows pesticide use, Congress should increase funding for organic programs, and state, local and federal governments should allot more resources to research into technologies that can eradicate weeds without chemical weedkillers.
FOE also calls for:
- Any regenerative agriculture definitions promulgated by federal, state, or local governments, private or public regenerative certifications, or other regenerative initiatives to explicitly center and prioritize agrochemical reduction if they are going to meet their stated goals.
- Food manufacturers and retailers to set time-bound, measurable goals to phase out toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and transition toward ecological, least toxic approaches along their entire food and beverage supply chains.
- The USDA to increase incentives for farms that deeply reduce or eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and increase technical assistance to spur the adoption of practices that reduce agrochemical inputs.
“Given the urgency of the public health, biodiversity, and climate crises we face, the growing interest in regenerative agriculture must be harnessed in service of robust approaches that truly increase soil health and carbon sequestration, improve air and water quality, bolster farmers’ resilience, and protect biodiversity and human well-being,” the report states.
Opinion: Trump-era science cuts opens the door wide to industry-fueled pollution
The Trump administration’s move to gut EPA science programs could let polluting industries rewrite the rules on cancer-causing chemicals, writes Jennifer Sass for Scientific American.
In short:
- The Trump administration plans to eliminate the EPA’s independent research office, removing over 1,000 scientists whose work underpins clean air, water, and chemical safety laws.
- With industry lobbyists rewriting the rules and public science on the chopping block, environmental protections will increasingly rely on biased, polluter-funded research.
- Texas provides a cautionary tale: After EPA scientists found a strong link between ethylene oxide and breast cancer, Texas regulators pushed a weaker, industry-sponsored report that would allow thousands of times more pollution.
Key quote:
“Eliminating scientists from the EPA is kneecapping environmental safeguards. Every major environmental statute — the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Superfund law governing cleanup requirements — relies on EPA scientists to calculate how hazardous chemicals are, how people and wildlife may be exposed and what health and ecological harms may occur.”
— Jennifer Sass, senior scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council
Why this matters:
If successful, this move would give polluting industries a bigger voice in writing the rules, while pushing the people who actually study cancer risk and chemical safety out of the room. When science is sidelined, health risks skyrocket. If polluters get to define what’s “safe,” communities face higher chances of cancer, asthma, and long-term illness. Without that science, the system tilts even further in favor of corporations, while people are left breathing the consequences.
Read more:
Plants are struggling to breathe in a world full of plastic and smoke
Photosynthesis — the ancient process that feeds us and cools the planet — is under pressure from pollution, plastic, and climate change.
In short:
- Scientists warn that microplastics are disrupting photosynthesis in plants, potentially threatening global food production and accelerating climate change.
- While crops and young trees have helped absorb more CO₂ over the past 50 years, that carbon uptake is slowing due to nutrient-poor soils, drought, and other climate-related stresses.
- Researchers are now exploring how to "hack" photosynthesis — through genetic tools and insights from ancient organisms — to help plants become more efficient in a hotter, more volatile world.
Key quote:
“Microplastics are hindering photosynthesis… This threatens massive losses in crop and seafood production over the coming decades that could mean food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.”
— Denis J. Murphy, emeritus professor of biotechnology, University of South Wales
Why this matters:
Crops and wild plants that once gulped carbon like a sponge are now struggling, thanks to drought, degraded soils, and the lingering effects of fossil fuel addiction. As a result, researchers are turning to some radical ideas — genetically “tuning” photosynthesis, borrowing tricks from bacteria, even rewriting how plants handle sunlight. The hope is to create a more efficient engine for life in a climate-altered world. Because if Earth’s lungs fail, it’s not just the trees that go down with them.
Read more: From making it to managing it, plastic is a major contributor to climate change