environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-09-17--The PFAS and the Furious

The PFAS and the Furious

The PFAS and the Furious First of three parts • But for the courageous work of attorney Rob Bilott , the world may have never known about the dangers of the fluorinated “ forever chemicals ” known as PFAS .
Bilott ’ s book `` EXPOSURE : Poisoned Water , Corporate Greed , and One Lawyer ’ s Twenty-Year Battle Against DuPont '' was recently issued in paperback .
• This essay is a deep dive into one of the most sinister corporate crimes in history , the toxic threat it poses today and what it means for the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Exposure begins with Bilott ’ s investigation of a polluted farm in West Virginia but ultimately uncovers a global environmental catastrophe .
As public awareness has grown of the contamination and corporate coverup he exposed , so has public outrage that companies and politicians can no longer ignore .
Rob Bilott ’ s Exposure is a real-life whodunit , a page-turning courtroom drama , a David-and-Goliath story of one man against an industrial colossus and a shocking exposé of America ’ s utterly broken environmental policy .
You should also take this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of the title is yours .
You have a highly toxic industrial chemical in your blood that will circulate in your body for years .
So does everyone you know and love .
And there ’ s almost nothing you can do about it .
Seven years of independent scientific research , undertaken only because it was ordered by a federal judge , link this chemical in people to testicular and kidney cancer , pregnancy-induced hypertension , thyroid disease , ulcerative colitis and high cholesterol .
The research included the largest epidemiological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Its findings were so damning that the court ordered the chemical ’ s manufacturer , DuPont , to pay for lifetime medical monitoring of 69,000 people in West Virginia and Ohio .
These folks , including many loyal DuPont workers and their families , must spend the rest of their lives wondering if they will get sick from a chemical discovered in a DuPont lab accident .
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , 99 percent of Americans have been contaminated with this chemical .
It ’ s called PFOA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DuPont – and for decades was used to make Teflon .
Its close chemical cousin is PFOS , formerly an ingredient in 3M ’ s Scotchgard , which is also found in almost all Americans .
Your blood also almost certainly carries other chemicals in the notorious family of thousands of per- and polyfluoralkyl substances , or PFAS .
Beginning in the early 2000s , 3M and DuPont were pressured by public outrage and federal authorities to stop PFAS pollution from their factories .
Under threat of regulation , 3M “ voluntarily ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after cutting a deal with the Environmental Protection Agency , DuPont phased out production of PFOA by 2015 .
As a result , the levels of these “ legacy ” PFAS in Americans ’ blood have dropped since 2002 – but they ’ re still there .
And the level scientific and regulatory authorities consider safe has dropped even more .
The banned legacy chemicals have been replaced with other PFAS that appear to be just as toxic .
We know much less about their contamination of people and the environment , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with disturbing regularity , scientists discover other potential health effects of PFAS exposure .
To date : two additional cancers ( liver and pancreatic ) , weakened childhood immunity , reduced vaccine effectiveness , low birth weight , endocrine disruption , elevated risk of autoimmune diseases and added weight gain in children ( and in dieting adults ) .
In women , PFAS appear to target the ovary .
A review by scientists from my organization and Indiana University found that 26 individual PFAS display at least one key characteristic of known human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers have identified the most likely origins of your PFAS exposure : a complex interaction of social and biological phenomena called living in the modern world .
You have worn clothes that keep you dry , sat on furniture that sheds water and stains and set foot on carpet resistant to spills .
You have been in a car or an airplane .
You ’ ve cleaned or painted your house or polished something in it .
You ’ ve found yourself in proximity to a television , a computer , a projector @ @ @ @ @ @ @ device .
You used hairspray or sunscreen or makeup .
You waxed your skis .
You watched with satisfaction as a cooked egg slid off a nonstick frying pan .
PFAS slide off state and federal environmental laws and regulations with equal ease .
PFAS is in grease-proof food wrappings at the grocery and at fast food joints .
People who eat a lot of popcorn from microwaved bags , especially women , have elevated levels of PFAS in their blood .
Food exposure to PFAS remains a puzzle : Test results published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drug Administration , for instance , do not find much PFAS contamination of food .
Even so , manufacturers have phased out some PFAS in food packaging – again , ” voluntarily , ” after the FDA raised safety questions .
Speaking of eating , are you pretty good about flossing ?
If you ’ re a firefighter , for decades , you ’ ve almost certainly pulled on ready gear permeated with PFAS , and you ’ ve definitely sprayed foam loaded with the stuff on fuel fires , real or practice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in your lungs , and ran off into groundwater and surface waters nearby .
A generation ago , the notion of “ global contaminants ” was first applied to infamous compounds like DDT and PCBs .
But unlike those chemicals , the rates at which PFAS break down in nature are better measured in geological than in human time frames .
PFAS spread throughout the environment .
Toxic PFAS chemicals now permeate the natural world as improvidently as they pollute our blood and economy .
They are found in edible fish from South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polar bears in Greenland , Great Bay shellfish , deer in Michigan , ducks in Australia , zooplankton in Italian lakes , shrimp in Holland and birds the world over .
Adding to their image problems , eels seem to soak up these chemicals wherever they squirm , but charismatic fauna are hardly spared .
They defile seal pups and penguins in the Antarctic .
Scientists found PFAS in flamingos on the salt pans of Bonaire .
Are you a dog person ?
Cat person ?
It doesn ’ t really matter if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that poop around Albany , N.Y .
They have PFAS in them and lots of it , “ at doses above the provisional minimum risk level recommended for humans.
” PFAS drift in the Arctic atmosphere .
They showed up in 20 air samples collected during a crossing of the North Atlantic and Canadian Archipelago .
PFAS waft in the breeze across Northwest Europe .
When the German research vessel Polarstern cruised the Atlantic from Bremerhaven to Capetown , South Africa , scientists found PFAS in air samples grabbed throughout the voyage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finland .
The air came from 57 children ’ s bedrooms , and 98 percent of samples had PFAS .
It rains PFAS in Japan , China , France and 18 U.S. states .
PFAS is found in snow in the Arctic and in Western China .
Scientists recently reported 11 types of PFAS , some for the first time , in seawater .
They collected the samples from an Arctic icebreaker .
In Australia , PFAS contaminates rivers in the state of Victoria and their estuaries .
Scientists in Brazil found PFAS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sediment and in every river water sample tested .
PFAS were ubiquitous in surface water , groundwater and sediment in French Guiana , Guadeloupe , Martinique , Mayotte and Réunion .
Earlier this year , researchers reported PFAS contamination throughout the food web of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River in North and South Carolina – in water , bacteria , fungi , algae , biofilm , plants , insects , crayfish , mollusks and sport fish .
The higher up the food chain , the greater the PFAS concentrations .
Given their pervasiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little more than drawing breath .
It turns out breathing is not required .
PFAS pass from mother to fetus throughout pregnancy .
So if you or someone you know or love is expecting a child or grandchild , you can expect they ’ ll arrive pre-polluted with PFAS .
To the emissions , discharges and dumping of the Teflon and Scotchgard chemicals over decades by DuPont , 3M and other companies , add the PFAS from industrial facilities that made or make or use any of the hundreds of other toxic PFAS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s replacement for PFOA .
But if there is one aspect of the PFAS tragedy that has ignited public outrage , it is the widespread contamination of tap water .
In America , our drinking water supplies are contaminated with PFAS to an extent that science is just beginning to grasp .
Researchers and regulators have only recently begun to test for the stuff in private and community water supplies .
Wherever they look , it seems , they find it .
As test results come in , including tap water tests commissioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running tabulation of detections found across the country on the PFAS contamination map .
Our July 2020 update shows 2,230 contaminated sites in 49 states .
We estimate that up to 110 million Americans , a third of our population , drink , cook and bathe with PFAS-contaminated tap water .
And every edition of the map is out of date the instant we post it .
EWG scientists recently described the global cleanup challenge DuPont , 3M and other PFAS malefactors have foisted on the world .
Simply put , none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to contain or destroy PFAS .
PFAS “ disposal ” is really just another step in the contamination cycle .
My colleagues were too respectful of scientific propriety to use the term clusterfuck , but that ’ s the situation .
Their paper , in the journal Chemosphere , outlines the dismal prospects for managing any of the PFAS waste streams that now confront thousands of communities and hundreds of local governments in the U.S. Landfilled consumer products and other materials leach PFAS into ground and surface waters .
Wastewater treatment can actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persistent , mobile and very toxic PFAS , and increase the measurable PFAS concentrations in the treated outflow .
Incineration results in air pollution , even as it blows greenhouse gases into the atmosphere .
Chemical companies long ago pocketed billions in profits from PFOS and PFOA , but the chemicals persist , even as new versions enter commerce and , eventually , our water and our bodies .
Maddeningly , taxpayers around the world , not chemical manufacturers , must pay scientists to scour the biosphere for PFAS molecules , foot the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of diseases the chemicals may cause , and engineer what might someday be effective and affordable solutions to get PFAS out of our tap water and cleanse PFAS waste streams .
It seems inevitable now that the mind-numbing , globe-spanning dimensions of the PFAS calamity would have come to light .
But there was nothing inevitable about it .
The avalanche of PFAS facts and science that pop up now in the flash of a Google search might have remained hidden for another decade – maybe longer , plausibly forever .
The public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the PFAS in our blood , our babies , our water , our wildlife or the products we use every day .
Scientists might still be wondering why signatures of organic fluorine were peaking on their lab instruments when they scanned human plasma from blood banks , or water and wildlife from a small farm in West Virginia whose irascible owner stubbornly insisted that something coming out of the DuPont landfill adjacent to his property was killing his cattle .
American regulators and political leaders would still be the clueless dupes of DuPont @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more years kept secret what they knew full well : Their Teflon and Scotchgard chemicals were shockingly toxic and disturbingly capable of forever permeating the planet and its people .
But today , communities across the U.S. and around the world are up in arms .
Hundreds of scientists are on the hunt for PFAS and its harms .
Politicians in dozens of states have at long last stirred to action .
PFAS news – almost all of it bad – breaks daily .
And we owe it all to a quirk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tennant , who raised cows on a farm adjacent to a landfill where DuPont dumped waste from its factory in nearby Parkersburg , West Virginia .
The cows kept dying , he kept complaining and getting the runaround – until on Oct. 9 , 1998 , he placed a longshot phone call to someone who finally listened , took him seriously and did something about it .
The man at the other end of the line was a lawyer named Rob Bilott .
The courtroom exploits that followed made Bilott the author of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sordid saga of PFAS pollution .
Now he ’ s the author of an equally extraordinary book about it .
That puts him on the short list of the environmental movement ’ s most influential heroes of the past 25 years .
It makes Exposure the most important behind-the-scenes take to date on American environmental policymaking at the turn of the century .
To read his engrossing account is to understand – 50 years after Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and as the environmental rule of law has settled into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect or not protect our health and environment are really made , who really makes them , and how .
Exposure is not the first book about the PFAS saga .
Crusading journalist Callie Lyons , who from the beginning covered the unfolding PFAS crisis and Bilott ’ s seminal role in it for the Marietta Times of Ohio , in 2007 published Stain-Resistant , Nonstick , Waterproof , and Lethal : The Hidden Dangers of C8 .
Lyons is in the company of many bulldog journalists , notably Ken Ward and Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story , and others delivering fresh scoops today , like Sharon Lerner at The Intercept and a team of reporters at Bloomberg .
We have not one but two exceptional feature films centered on Bilott ’ s decades-long legal battle with DuPont : director Stephanie Schoetig ’ s critically acclaimed 2018 investigative documentary , The Devil We Know ( The Chemistry of a Cover-Up ) , and a riveting Hollywood take with a star-studded cast led by Mark Ruffalo as Bilott : Dark Waters , directed by Todd Haynes .
All of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Exposure is without question the definitive account of DuPont ’ s shockingly unethical handling of PFAS , the most important toxic chemical crisis and coverup in history .
The once-distinguished company , now forever disgraced , was led during the decisive years of the PFAS crisis by an avowed disciple of “ sustainability.
” We can never know for sure , but it is my firm belief that DuPont would still be poisoning you and your world with PFOA , and lying about it , if Rob Bilott had not pried loose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting in close quarters with a company that refused to tell the truth , and still does .
The most unsettling revelations in Exposure have less to do with the depredations of PFAS than with the broad and deep threats to our health and environment that originate in powerful , predatory companies like DuPont .
There is no tale better told that so vividly illuminates the fecklessness of government regulators or the flimsiness of the environmental rule of law , in the face of the deeply funded , boundlessly ambitious and effective anti-regulatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protection of politicians they so affordably rent .
From almost the beginning , EWG has had a front-row seat for the PFAS story , as Rob graciously acknowledges in the book .
Nevertheless , and leaving my personal familiarity with the PFAS drama aside , Exposure has literally reshaped how I think about the next chapters of my career as an environmental advocate .
It ’ s a book that should reshape the thinking of anyone who , by vocation or avocation , calls themselves an environmentalist .
Because at the core of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he eventually came to share with Earl B. Tennant : DuPont knew .
Rob Bilott simply refused to walk away until he knew , on behalf of his clients , and as fully as he could , exactly what DuPont ’ s managers knew about PFAS and its dangers , and when they knew it .
Fortunately for his clients and all the rest of us , DuPont ’ s employees could neither cause nor cover up the planetary PFAS catastrophe without writing down how they went about it .
The resulting archive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pages : confidential memos , secret studies and internal emails that were never meant to be seen outside DuPont .
Coming in Part 2 , The Revelations of Rob Bilott : Environmental laws and regulations meant to protect America ’ s environment and health are playthings for polluters like DuPont .

Tennant Farm, December 1999, from DuPont Cattle Team Report
Rob Bilott’s Exposure is a real-life whodunit, a page-turning courtroom drama, a David-and-Goliath story of one man against an industrial colossus and a shocking exposé of America’s utterly broken environmental policy. You should also take this book personally – because the “exposure” of the title is yours.
You have a highly toxic industrial chemical in your blood that will circulate in your body for years. So does everyone you know and love. And there’s almost nothing you can do about it.
Seven years of independent scientific research, undertaken only because it was ordered by a federal judge, link this chemical in people to testicular and kidney cancer, pregnancy-induced hypertension, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis and high cholesterol. The research included the largest epidemiological study ever of a toxic chemical.
Its findings were so damning that the court ordered the chemical’s manufacturer, DuPont, to pay for lifetime medical monitoring of 69,000 people in West Virginia and Ohio. These folks, including many loyal DuPont workers and their families, must spend the rest of their lives wondering if they will get sick from a chemical discovered in a DuPont lab accident.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 99 percent of Americans have been contaminated with this chemical. It’s called PFOA – C8 as it was known inside DuPont – and for decades was used to make Teflon. Its close chemical cousin is PFOS, formerly an ingredient in 3M’s Scotchgard, which is also found in almost all Americans. Your blood also almost certainly carries other chemicals in the notorious family of thousands of per- and polyfluoralkyl substances, or PFAS.
Beginning in the early 2000s, 3M and DuPont were pressured by public outrage and federal authorities to stop PFAS pollution from their factories. Under threat of regulation, 3M “voluntarily” stopped making PFOS in 2003, and after cutting a deal with the Environmental Protection Agency, DuPont phased out production of PFOA by 2015. As a result, the levels of these “legacy” PFAS in Americans’ blood have dropped since 2002 – but they’re still there. And the level scientific and regulatory authorities consider safe has dropped even more.
The banned legacy chemicals have been replaced with other PFAS that appear to be just as toxic. We know much less about their contamination of people and the environment, or the harm they may cause. But with disturbing regularity, scientists discover other potential health effects of PFAS exposure.
To date: two additional cancers (liver and pancreatic), weakened childhood immunity, reduced vaccine effectiveness, low birth weight, endocrine disruption, elevated risk of autoimmune diseases and added weight gain in children (and in dieting adults). In women, PFAS appear to target the ovary. A review by scientists from my organization and Indiana University found that 26 individual PFAS display at least one key characteristic of known human carcinogens.
***
After decades of study, researchers have identified the most likely origins of your PFAS exposure: a complex interaction of social and biological phenomena called living in the modern world.
You have worn clothes that keep you dry, sat on furniture that sheds water and stains and set foot on carpet resistant to spills. You have been in a car or an airplane. You’ve cleaned or painted your house or polished something in it. You’ve found yourself in proximity to a television, a computer, a projector, a cell phone or other electronic device. You used hairspray or sunscreen or makeup. You waxed your skis. You watched with satisfaction as a cooked egg slid off a nonstick frying pan. PFAS slide off state and federal environmental laws and regulations with equal ease.
PFAS is in grease-proof food wrappings at the grocery and at fast food joints. People who eat a lot of popcorn from microwaved bags, especially women, have elevated levels of PFAS in their blood. Food exposure to PFAS remains a puzzle: Test results published to date, by the Food and Drug Administration, for instance, do not find much PFAS contamination of food. Even so, manufacturers have phased out some PFAS in food packaging – again, ”voluntarily,” after the FDA raised safety questions.
Speaking of eating, are you pretty good about flossing?
If you’re a firefighter, for decades, you’ve almost certainly pulled on ready gear permeated with PFAS, and you’ve definitely sprayed foam loaded with the stuff on fuel fires, real or practice. It got on your skin, in your lungs, and ran off into groundwater and surface waters nearby.
A generation ago, the notion of “global contaminants” was first applied to infamous compounds like DDT and PCBs. But unlike those chemicals, the rates at which PFAS break down in nature are better measured in geological than in human time frames. PFAS spread throughout the environment. Toxic PFAS chemicals now permeate the natural world as improvidently as they pollute our blood and economy.
They are found in edible fish from South Carolina and Ireland, killer whales and polar bears in Greenland, Great Bay shellfish, deer in Michigan, ducks in Australia, zooplankton in Italian lakes, shrimp in Holland and birds the world over. Adding to PFAS’ image problems, eels seem to soak up these chemicals wherever they squirm, but charismatic fauna are hardly spared. They defile seal pups and penguins in the Antarctic. Scientists found PFAS in flamingos on the salt pans of Bonaire.
Are you a dog person? Cat person? It doesn’t really matter if your pet is anything like the ones that poop around Albany, N.Y. They have PFAS in them and lots of it, “at doses above the provisional minimum risk level recommended for humans.”
PFAS drift in the Arctic atmosphere. They showed up in 20 air samples collected during a crossing of the North Atlantic and Canadian Archipelago. PFAS waft in the breeze across Northwest Europe. When the German research vessel Polarstern cruised the Atlantic from Bremerhaven to Capetown, South Africa, scientists found PFAS in air samples grabbed throughout the voyage. PFAS showed up in the air in Finland. The air came from 57 children’s bedrooms, and 98 percent of samples had PFAS.
It rains PFAS in Japan, China, France and 18 U.S. states. PFAS is found in snow in the Arctic and in Western China. Scientists recently reported 11 types of PFAS, some for the first time, in seawater. They collected the samples from an Arctic icebreaker.
In Australia, PFAS contaminates rivers in the state of Victoria and their estuaries. Scientists in Brazil found PFAS in soil, leaves, coastal water and sediment and in every river water sample tested. PFAS were ubiquitous in surface water, groundwater and sediment in French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte and Réunion. Earlier this year, researchers reported PFAS contamination throughout the food web of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River in North and South Carolina – in water, bacteria, fungi, algae, biofilm, plants, insects, crayfish, mollusks and sport fish. The higher up the food chain, the greater the PFAS concentrations.
Given their pervasiveness, you may think PFAS exposure requires little more than drawing breath. It turns out breathing is not required. PFAS pass from mother to fetus throughout pregnancy. So if you or someone you know or love is expecting a child or grandchild, you can expect they’ll arrive pre-polluted with PFAS.
To the emissions, discharges and dumping of the Teflon and Scotchgard chemicals over decades by DuPont, 3M and other companies, add the PFAS from industrial facilities that made or make or use any of the hundreds of other toxic PFAS chemicals, including GenX, DuPont’s replacement for PFOA.
But if there is one aspect of the PFAS tragedy that has ignited public outrage, it is the widespread contamination of tap water.
In America, our drinking water supplies are contaminated with PFAS to an extent that science is just beginning to grasp. Researchers and regulators have only recently begun to test for the stuff in private and community water supplies. Wherever they look, it seems, they find it.
As test results come in, including tap water tests commissioned by EWG, my colleagues revise the running tabulation of detections found across the country on the PFAS contamination map. Our July 2020 update shows 2,230 contaminated sites in 49 states. We estimate that up to 110 million Americans, a third of our population, drink, cook and bathe with PFAS-contaminated tap water. And every edition of the map is out of date the instant we post it.
EWG scientists recently described the global cleanup challenge DuPont, 3M and other PFAS malefactors have foisted on the world. Simply put, none of our standard “cleanup” techniques promise to contain or destroy PFAS. PFAS “disposal” is really just another step in the contamination cycle.
My colleagues were too respectful of scientific propriety to use the term clusterfuck, but that’s the situation.
Their paper, in the journal Chemosphere, outlines the dismal prospects for managing any of the PFAS waste streams that now confront thousands of communities and hundreds of local governments in the U.S. Landfilled consumer products and other materials leach PFAS into ground and surface waters. Wastewater treatment can actually convert larger PFAS compounds into smaller, persistent, mobile and very toxic PFAS, and increase the measurable PFAS concentrations in the treated outflow. Incineration results in air pollution, even as it blows greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Chemical companies long ago pocketed billions in profits from PFOS and PFOA, but the chemicals persist, even as new versions enter commerce and, eventually, our water and our bodies. Maddeningly, taxpayers around the world, not chemical manufacturers, must pay scientists to scour the biosphere for PFAS molecules, foot the bill for puzzling out the astonishing range of diseases the chemicals may cause, and engineer what might someday be effective and affordable solutions to get PFAS out of our tap water and cleanse PFAS waste streams.
***
It seems inevitable now that the mind-numbing, globe-spanning dimensions of the PFAS calamity would have come to light. But there was nothing inevitable about it. The avalanche of PFAS facts and science that pop up now in the flash of a Google search might have remained hidden for another decade – maybe longer, plausibly forever.
The public might yet know next to nothing about the PFAS in our blood, our babies, our water, our wildlife or the products we use every day. Scientists might still be wondering why signatures of organic fluorine were peaking on their lab instruments when they scanned human plasma from blood banks, or water and wildlife from a small farm in West Virginia whose irascible owner stubbornly insisted that something coming out of the DuPont landfill adjacent to his property was killing his cattle.
Diseased cattle on Wilbur’s Tennant’s farm, April 1999, from a report by federal regulators.
American regulators and political leaders would still be the clueless dupes of DuPont and 3M, who for 40 or more years kept secret what they knew full well: Their Teflon and Scotchgard chemicals were shockingly toxic and disturbingly capable of forever permeating the planet and its people.
But today, communities across the U.S. and around the world are up in arms. Hundreds of scientists are on the hunt for PFAS and its harms. Politicians in dozens of states have at long last stirred to action. PFAS news – almost all of it bad – breaks daily. And we owe it all to a quirk of fate.
That angry farmer was Earl Tennant, who raised cows on a farm downstream from DuPont’s Teflon factory in Parkersburg, West Virginia. The cows kept dying, he kept complaining and getting the runaround – until on Oct. 9, 1998, he placed a longshot phone call to someone who finally listened, took him seriously and did something about it.
The man at the other end of the line was a lawyer named Rob Bilott.
DuPont’s Teflon factory in Parkersburg, West Virginia
The courtroom exploits that followed made Bilott the author of nearly all of the jaw-dropping chapters in the sordid saga of PFAS pollution. Now he’s the author of an equally extraordinary book about it. That puts him on the short list of the environmental movement’s most influential heroes of the past 25 years. It makes Exposure the most important behind-the-scenes take to date on American environmental policymaking at the turn of the century.
To read his engrossing account is to understand – 50 years after Richard Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and as the environmental rule of law has settled into middle age – exactly how decisions to protect or not protect our health and environment are really made, who really makes them, and how.
Exposure is not the first book about the PFAS saga. Crusading journalist Callie Lyons, who from the beginning covered the unfolding PFAS crisis and Bilott’s seminal role in it for the Marietta Times of Ohio, in 2007 published Stain-Resistant, Nonstick, Waterproof, and Lethal: The Hidden Dangers of C8. Lyons is in the company of many bulldog journalists, notably Ken Ward and Michael Hawthorne, who helped break the PFAS story, and others delivering fresh scoops today, like Sharon Lerner at The Intercept and a team of reporters at Bloomberg.
We have not one but two exceptional feature films centered on Bilott’s decades-long legal battle with DuPont: director Stephanie Schoetig’s critically acclaimed 2018 investigative documentary, The Devil We Know (The Chemistry of a Cover-Up), and a riveting Hollywood take with a star-studded cast led by Mark Ruffalo as Bilott: Dark Waters, directed by Todd Haynes.
All of the above are well worth your attention. But Exposure is without question the definitive account of DuPont’s shockingly unethical handling of PFAS, the most important toxic chemical crisis and coverup in history.
The once-distinguished company, now forever disgraced, was led during the decisive years of the PFAS crisis by an avowed disciple of “sustainability.” We can never know for sure, but it is my firm belief that DuPont would still be poisoning you and your world with PFOA, and lying about it, if Rob Bilott had not pried loose so many secrets through 20 years of fighting in close quarters with a company that refused to tell the truth, and still does.
The most unsettling revelations in Exposure have less to do with the depredations of PFAS than with the broad and deep threats to our health and environment that originate in powerful, predatory companies like DuPont. There is no tale better told that so vividly illuminates the fecklessness of government regulators or the flimsiness of the environmental rule of law, in the face of the deeply funded, boundlessly ambitious and effective anti-regulatory racket global companies operate today under the protection of politicians they so affordably rent.
From almost the beginning, EWG has had a front-row seat for the PFAS story, as Rob graciously acknowledges in the book. Nevertheless, and leaving my personal familiarity with the PFAS drama aside, Exposure has literally reshaped how I think about the next chapters of my career as an environmental advocate. It’s a book that should reshape the thinking of anyone who, by vocation or avocation, calls themselves an environmentalist.
Because at the core of Bilott’s story is the suspicion he eventually came to share with Earl B. Tennant: DuPont knew.
Rob Bilott simply refused to walk away until he knew, on behalf of his clients, and as fully as he could, exactly what DuPont’s managers knew about PFAS and its dangers, and when they knew it. Fortunately for his clients and all the rest of us, DuPont’s employees could neither cause nor cover up the planetary PFAS catastrophe without writing down how they went about it. The resulting archive ran into the hundreds of thousands of pages: confidential memos, secret studies and internal emails that were never meant to be seen outside DuPont.
Rob Bilott read every word.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-09-16--UPDATE: Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Likely Contaminate More Than 700 Military Sites

WASHINGTON – More than 700 Department of Defense sites are likely to be contaminated with the fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS , according to new data released this week by the Pentagon .
The Defense Department identified 34 new installations where PFAS chemicals are suspected , bringing the total number of installations where PFAS has been confirmed or suspected to 704 .
The list of additional installations can be found here .
States with newly disclosed sites include Alabama , Arkansas , California , Georgia , Illinois , Indiana , Kansas , Kentucky , Louisiana , Minnesota , Missouri , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , North Carolina , Tennessee , Texas , Virginia and Washington .
Most of the new sites are Army ammunition plants and depots .
One of the sites , Fort McPherson , Ga. , is being used by filmmaker Tyler Perry during the COVID-19 pandemic .
Previously , the Defense Department testified that more than 600 installations could be contaminated with PFAS , which have been linked to cancer , liver damage and harm to the reproductive and immune systems .
Following those revelations , EWG developed a map tracking all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at military sites .
The Pentagon ’ s use of firefighting foam made with PFAS , also known as aqueous film-forming foam , or AFFF , is the primary source of PFAS pollution at military installations .
EWG has so far confirmed PFAS in the tap water or groundwater at 328 military sites .
Until recently , PFAS contaminated the drinking water of dozens of bases , and many communities near these installations continue to drink contaminated water .
Through Freedom of Information Act requests , EWG also discovered that many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been found on or near military installations .
Within Defense Department documents , EWG found evidence of PFAS detections in groundwater at 14 installations that were above 1 million parts per trillion , or ppt , far above the 70 ppt drinking water advisory level recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency .
“ The Defense Department has failed to treat PFAS pollution with the urgency service members and their families rightly deserve , ” said EWG ’ s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber .
“ We ’ ve all known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the Defense Department is still trying to understand the scope of the problem.
” Defense Department officials have understood the risks of AFFF since the early 1970s , when Navy and Air Force studies first showed the firefighting foam was toxic to fish ; since the early 1980s , when the Air Force conducted its own animal studies on AFFF ; and since the early 2000s , when the maker of PFOS , the main ingredient in AFFF , exited the market .
In 2001 , a Defense Department memo concluded that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persistent , bioaccumulating and toxic.
” “ The Pentagon waited a decade to warn service members and has been slow to switch to PFAS-free alternatives to AFFF or clean up legacy PFAS pollution , ” Faber said .
“ What ’ s more , some military officials have argued for cleanup and screening levels that are less protective of our service members and their families than those proposed by EPA.
” “ In light of these new revelations , Congress should do much more to accelerate the cleanup of legacy PFAS contamination , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , Congress should increase funding for programs like the Defense Environmental Restoration Program and designate PFAS as hazardous substances under EPA ’ s Superfund program , which will ensure that PFAS manufacturers pay their fair share of cleanup costs.
” The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit , non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment .
Through research , advocacy and unique education tools , EWG drives consumer choice and civic action .

WASHINGTON – More than 700 Department of Defense sites are likely to be contaminated with the fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS, according to new data released this week by the Pentagon.
The Defense Department identified 34 new installations where PFAS chemicals are suspected, bringing the total number of installations where PFAS has been confirmed or suspected to 704. The list of additional installations can be found here.
States with newly disclosed sites include Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington. Most of the new sites are Army ammunition plants and depots.
One of the sites, Fort McPherson, Ga., is being used by filmmaker Tyler Perry during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Previously, the Defense Department testified that more than 600 installations could be contaminated with PFAS, which have been linked to cancer, liver damage and harm to the reproductive and immune systems.
Following those revelations, EWG developed a map tracking all of the suspected and confirmed cases of PFAS contamination at military sites.
The Pentagon’s use of firefighting foam made with PFAS, also known as aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, is the primary source of PFAS pollution at military installations.
EWG has so far confirmed PFAS in the tap water or groundwater at 328 military sites. Until recently, PFAS contaminated the drinking water of dozens of bases, and many communities near these installations continue to drink contaminated water.
Through Freedom of Information Act requests, EWG also discovered that many of the highest PFAS detections in the nation have been found on or near military installations.
Within Defense Department documents, EWG found evidence of PFAS detections in groundwater at 14 installations that were above 1 million parts per trillion, or ppt, far above the 70 ppt drinking water advisory level recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency.
“The Defense Department has failed to treat PFAS pollution with the urgency service members and their families rightly deserve,” said EWG’s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber. “We’ve all known for decades that PFAS are toxic, but the Defense Department is still trying to understand the scope of the problem.”
Defense Department officials have understood the risks of AFFF since the early 1970s, when Navy and Air Force studies first showed the firefighting foam was toxic to fish; since the early 1980s, when the Air Force conducted its own animal studies on AFFF; and since the early 2000s, when the maker of PFOS, the main ingredient in AFFF, exited the market. In 2001, a Defense Department memo concluded that the main ingredient in AFFF was “persistent, bioaccumulating and toxic.”
“The Pentagon waited a decade to warn service members and has been slow to switch to PFAS-free alternatives to AFFF or clean up legacy PFAS pollution,” Faber said. “What’s more, some military officials have argued for cleanup and screening levels that are less protective of our service members and their families than those proposed by EPA.”
“In light of these new revelations, Congress should do much more to accelerate the cleanup of legacy PFAS contamination,” said Faber. “To do so, Congress should increase funding for programs like the Defense Environmental Restoration Program and designate PFAS as hazardous substances under EPA’s Superfund program, which will ensure that PFAS manufacturers pay their fair share of cleanup costs.”
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-09-16--Industrial Animal Agriculture Poses Serious Threats to Human Health

For people who live near industrial animal feedlots , the stench , flies and day-and-night rumbling of trucks are more than a nuisance that impairs the use and enjoyment of their own property .
Concentrated animal feeding operations , or CAFOs – whether swine , cattle or poultry – also pose serious health threats .
As the reckless and explosive growth of CAFOs continues across the U.S. , the number of Americans potentially at risk continues to rise .
Here ’ s what that risk entails .
What Living Near a CAFO Is Like A poultry CAFO can house 100,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that huge fans must blow out ammonia-laden air so the birds can breathe .
That air then wafts past and into neighbors ’ houses .
These operations keep mounds of poultry litter – a potent-smelling mix of excrement , bedding and feathers , and even dead birds – that can be stored , uncovered , for weeks at a time .
Concentrated swine operations can house thousands of pigs .
Neighbors may have to deal with vultures circling and flies buzzing around “ dead boxes ” that hold the bodies of dead pigs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often rely on open cesspools that hold millions of gallons of liquid hog waste mixed with water , which is then sprayed on nearby cropland as fertilizer .
But the slightest breeze can blow it onto a neighbor ’ s porch or into her living room .
That ’ s the reality for many people throughout North Carolina .
Residents of eastern North Carolina , which is home to almost all the state ’ s nearly nine million swine , and most of its roughly 161 million broiler chickens and 16 million turkeys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year by EWG and Waterkeeper Alliance showed that Black people , Native Americans and Latinos are disproportionately affected .
Together , these 176 million animals produce about 147.5 million pounds of manure each day .
In 2018 , a study in the North Carolina Medical Journal tried to quantify the impacts of swine CAFOs on North Carolinians .
Duke University researchers analyzed deaths , hospital admissions and emergency room visits linked to anemia , kidney disease , infectious diseases and low birth weight in North Carolina communities located in ZIP codes with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even after adjusting for factors including poverty , North Carolina communities located near hog CAFOs had higher total and infant deaths , deaths due to anemia , kidney disease , tuberculosis , septicemia and higher hospital admissions , and emergency room visits of low birth weight infants .
These findings were consistent with other research showing the health hazards of proximity to North Carolina swine CAFOs .
• A study of 169 adolescents found that wheezing in students who reported allergies was almost one-fourth higher at schools where livestock odor was noticeable indoors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to those with no odor .
• A study found that , when tested , hospitalized patients in eastern North Carolina living near a moderate density of swine were more than 4.5 times as likely to have the bacteria that causes contagious antibiotic-resistant staph infections than people who did not live near swine operations .
Research conducted in other states also shows that the damage CAFOs wreak on land , air and water has serious implications for human health .
• A study of the effects of land use on the presence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other bacteria found , at swine sites compared with control sites , higher concentrations of E. coli and antibiotic resistance and other measures of the severity or harmfulness of disease .
Scientists and regulators routinely find antibiotic-resistant bacteria on animals at slaughterhouses and on raw meat in grocery stores .
More than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occur in the U.S. each year , killing more than 35,000 people .
• A study by Iowa State University , stemming from a lawsuit settlement between the Sierra Club and Tyson Foods , found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 10 tons of ammonia , a corrosive gas that can cause lung damage , in the year they were monitored .
• A study of private water wells in Idaho detected levels of veterinary antibiotics , as well as elevated levels of nitrate , which is found at high levels in animal manure .
In 2019 , a report by EWG and the Iowa Environmental Council mapped state tests of wells and found thousands contaminated with unsafe amounts of nitrate and bacteria .
Nitrate in tap water has been linked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If all that isn ’ t scary enough , experts at a conference at the University of Iowa School of Public Health raised concerns about siting swine and poultry CAFOs at the same location and the specter of a global pandemic arising from new strains of bird flu incubated in swine and transmitted to people .
This year has made it all too clear that a regional health problem can swiftly morph into a pandemic .
The unchecked growth and negligible oversight of CAFOs in the U.S. has serious consequences for human health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create , people who live near them will continue to suffer .

For people who live near industrial animal feedlots, the stench, flies and day-and-night rumbling of trucks are more than a nuisance that impairs the use and enjoyment of their own property. Concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs – whether swine, cattle or poultry – also pose serious health threats.
As the reckless and explosive growth of CAFOs continues across the U.S., the number of Americans potentially at risk continues to rise. Here’s what that risk entails.
What Living Near a CAFO Is Like
A poultry CAFO can house 100,000 chickens, crowded so tightly into barns that huge fans must blow out ammonia-laden air so the birds can breathe. That air then wafts past and into neighbors’ houses. These operations keep mounds of poultry litter – a potent-smelling mix of excrement, bedding and feathers, and even dead birds – that can be stored, uncovered, for weeks at a time.
Concentrated swine operations can house thousands of pigs. Neighbors may have to deal with vultures circling and flies buzzing around “dead boxes” that hold the bodies of dead pigs. For waste management, swine operations often rely on open cesspools that hold millions of gallons of liquid hog waste mixed with water, which is then sprayed on nearby cropland as fertilizer. But the slightest breeze can blow it onto a neighbor’s porch or into her living room.
That’s the reality for many people throughout North Carolina. Residents of eastern North Carolina, which is home to almost all the state’s nearly nine million swine, and most of its roughly 161 million broiler chickens and 16 million turkeys, are especially vulnerable. A report this year by EWG and Waterkeeper Alliance showed that Black people, Native Americans and Latinos are disproportionately affected. Together, these 176 million animals produce about 147.5 million pounds of manure each day.
The Health Risks CAFOs Pose to Humans
In 2018, a study in the North Carolina Medical Journal tried to quantify the impacts of swine CAFOs on North Carolinians. Duke University researchers analyzed deaths, hospital admissions and emergency room visits linked to anemia, kidney disease, infectious diseases and low birth weight in North Carolina communities located in ZIP codes with hog CAFOs.
They found that, even after adjusting for factors including poverty, North Carolina communities located near hog CAFOs had higher total and infant deaths, deaths due to anemia, kidney disease, tuberculosis, septicemia and higher hospital admissions, and emergency room visits of low birth weight infants.
These findings were consistent with other research showing the health hazards of proximity to North Carolina swine CAFOs.
A study of 169 adolescents found that wheezing in students who reported allergies was almost one-fourth higher at schools where livestock odor was noticeable indoors twice per month or more, relative to those with no odor.
A study found that, when tested, hospitalized patients in eastern North Carolina living near a moderate density of swine were more than 4.5 times as likely to have the bacteria that causes contagious antibiotic-resistant staph infections than people who did not live near swine operations.
Research conducted in other states also shows that the damage CAFOs wreak on land, air and water has serious implications for human health.
A study of the effects of land use on the presence of markers for virulent, antibiotic-resistant E. coli and other bacteria found, at swine sites compared with control sites, higher concentrations of E. coli and antibiotic resistance and other measures of the severity or harmfulness of disease.
Scientists and regulators routinely find antibiotic-resistant bacteria on animals at slaughterhouses and on raw meat in grocery stores. More than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections occur in the U.S. each year, killing more than 35,000 people.
If all that isn’t scary enough, experts at a conference at the University of Iowa School of Public Health raised concerns about siting swine and poultry CAFOs at the same location and the specter of a global pandemic arising from new strains of bird flu incubated in swine and transmitted to people. This year has made it all too clear that a regional health problem can swiftly morph into a pandemic.
The unchecked growth and negligible oversight of CAFOs in the U.S. has serious consequences for human health. Without limits to the pollution they create, people who live near them will continue to suffer.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-09-16--Food Additives State of the Science

Food Additives State of the Science

A new EWG guide brings attention to food additives , commonly found in many processed foods , that can increase the risk of cancer , harm the nervous system , change the body ’ s hormonal balance and affect the immune system .
We ’ re publishing the guide because the Food and Drug Administration ’ s regulatory approach to food additives does not consider the latest science on the health harms caused by additives that may be legally added to processed foods manufactured in the U.S .
Some of the chemicals highlighted in the guide are not allowed for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including potassium bromate , a carcinogenic bread additive , and brominated vegetable oil , a flavor stabilizer used in beverages that can harm the nervous system .
We especially recommend avoiding foods with synthetic colorants , known as FD & C colorants .
Dietary exposure to these colorants can lead to changes in the nervous system , such as increased risk of attention deficit disorders and other neurobehavioral changes in children .
Foods sold in Europe that carry several of these colorants must carry a warning stating they may harm activity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additives in the ingredient list on the food label , potentially harmful chemicals can migrate into food from food packaging and end up in our diet .
Such materials include PFAS , the family of fluorinated chemicals that can harm the developing fetus , suppress the immune system and cause other health harms .
PFAS are added to packaging to make it slick and nonstick .
Other food packaging chemicals , such as phthalates and bisphenol A , can disrupt the normal function of the endocrine system and affect reproductive system development .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Read ingredient labels to avoid these additives .
Choose fresh whole foods when possible .
* These are the most common categories where food additives can be found .
The food additives included in this table can be found in many different products , including some not listed here .
The only way to know whether a specific product contains a particular ingredient is to read the ingredient label .

A new EWG guide brings attention to food additives, commonly found in many processed foods, that can increase the risk of cancer, harm the nervous system, change the body’s hormonal balance and affect the immune system.
We’re publishing the guide because the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory approach to food additives does not consider the latest science on the health harms caused by additives that may be legally added to processed foods manufactured in the U.S.
Some of the chemicals highlighted in the guide are not allowed for use in food in the European Union, including potassium bromate, a carcinogenic bread additive, and brominated vegetable oil, a flavor stabilizer used in beverages that can harm the nervous system.
We especially recommend avoiding foods with synthetic colorants, known as FD&C colorants. Dietary exposure to these colorants can lead to changes in the nervous system, such as increased risk of attention deficit disorders and other neurobehavioral changes in children. Foods sold in Europe that carry several of these colorants must carry a warning stating they may harm activity and attention in children.
In addition to additives in the ingredient list on the food label, potentially harmful chemicals can migrate into food from food packaging and end up in our diet.
Such materials include PFAS, the family of fluorinated chemicals that can harm the developing fetus, suppress the immune system and cause other health harms. PFAS are added to packaging to make it slick and nonstick. Other food packaging chemicals, such as phthalates and bisphenol A, can disrupt the normal function of the endocrine system and affect reproductive system development.
EWG’s advice for families: Read ingredient labels to avoid these additives. Choose fresh whole foods when possible.
Food Additives To Avoid
Chemical Function Health Harm Products That May Contain Food Additives* Brominated vegetable oil Emulsifier Harm to the nervous system Soda, sports drinks Potassium bromate Dough conditioning Increased risk of cancer Bread, noodles, dough-based products Nitrate and nitrite Antimicrobials (meat preservatives) Increased risk of cancer Processed meat Propyl paraben Antimicrobials (preservatives) Endocrine disruption Corn tortillas Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA); butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT); propyl gallate; tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ) Antioxidants (preservatives) Increased risk of cancer
Change to the immune system Processed meat, ready-to-eat cereal, flour-based snacks FD&C colors (Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3) Synthetic colorants Neurobehavioral problems in children Candy, ready-to-eat baked goods, chips and snacks, cereal, soda Titanium dioxide Mineral colorants Change to the immune system in the digestive tract Candy, ready-to-eat baked goods, ice cream Acesulfame potassium, advantame, aspartame, neotame, saccharin, sucralose Non-nutritive synthetic sweeteners Weight gain and change to metabolism Diet beverages and other prepared beverages, ice cream
* These are the most common categories where food additives can be found. The food additives included in this table can be found in many different products, including some not listed here. The only way to know whether a specific product contains a particular ingredient is to read the ingredient label.
Food Packaging Chemicals That Can Harm Health


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-09-15--Time Is Running Out to Help Hungry Families and Food and Farm Workers

The devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic has never been clearer .
One in five American children are struggling with hunger .
Thousands of food and farm workers have contracted COVID-19 and hundreds have died .
Thousands of small family farms are facing economic ruin .
So , what did the “ skinny ” COVID-19 bill proposed last week by Senate Republicans do to address hunger , worker safety and the fate of small family farms ?
No new funds to address hunger .
No new funds or resources to protect food and farm workers .
In fact , the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the demise of family farms by providing $ 20 billion in virtually unlimited subsidies to the largest and most successful farm businesses .
The proposal by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) didn ’ t pass .
But the contrast with the HEROES Act passed in May by the Democratic-led House was stark .
The House bill would increase the standard benefit for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program , or SNAP , by 15 percent and raise the minimum SNAP benefit to $ 30 monthly .
The House bill would also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SNAP funds for women , infants and children to help low-income mothers who lost their jobs due to the pandemic .
The HEROES Act would also protect food and farm workers by directing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue an emergency standard requiring employers to provide personal protective equipment , and safe housing and transportation .
The bill would also provide new resources to protect food and farm workers , including $ 25 million for migrant farm workers .
According to data collected by the Food and Environment Reporting Network , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meatpacking workers , 9,451 food processing workers and 7,061 farmworkers – have tested positive for COVID-19 .
At least 252 food system workers have died .
Many farmers are struggling .
Prices for many farm products have fallen as President Trump ’ s trade war has closed important markets .
Labor shortages have been compounded by the spread of COVID-19 among farmworkers .
Nearly 30 million adults reported that members of their households did not have enough to eat during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to help the hungry and those who help keep us fed .

The devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic has never been clearer.
One in five American children are struggling with hunger. Thousands of food and farm workers have contracted COVID-19 and hundreds have died. Thousands of small family farms are facing economic ruin.
So, what did the “skinny” COVID-19 bill proposed last week by Senate Republicans do to address hunger, worker safety and the fate of small family farms?
Nothing.
No new funds to address hunger.
No new funds or resources to protect food and farm workers.
In fact, the “skinny” bill would actually have accelerated the demise of family farms by providing $20 billion in virtually unlimited subsidies to the largest and most successful farm businesses.
The proposal by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) didn’t pass. But the contrast with the HEROES Act passed in May by the Democratic-led House was stark.
The House bill would increase the standard benefit for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, by 15 percent and raise the minimum SNAP benefit to $30 monthly. The House bill would also increase by $1.1 billion the extra SNAP funds for women, infants and children to help low-income mothers who lost their jobs due to the pandemic.
The HEROES Act would also protect food and farm workers by directing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue an emergency standard requiring employers to provide personal protective equipment, and safe housing and transportation. The bill would also provide new resources to protect food and farm workers, including $25 million for migrant farm workers.
There’s a lot at stake.
According to data collected by the Food and Environment Reporting Network, almost 60,000 food system workers – 42,567 meatpacking workers, 9,451 food processing workers and 7,061 farmworkers – have tested positive for COVID-19. At least 252 food system workers have died.
Many farmers are struggling. Prices for many farm products have fallen as President Trump’s trade war has closed important markets. Labor shortages have been compounded by the spread of COVID-19 among farmworkers.
Nearly 30 million adults reported that members of their households did not have enough to eat during the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
It’s not too late, but time is running out to help the hungry and those who help keep us fed.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-09-18--EWG News Roundup (9/18): Harmful Food Additives, Trump Disses Climate Science and More

This week , EWG released an analysis that breaks down the state of the science for food additives and provides a list of harmful ones to avoid .
EWG ’ s bottom-line advice for families : Read ingredient labels to avoid risky additives , and choose fresh whole foods when possible .
Also this week , EWG President Ken Cook wrote an essay about the new book Exposure , by Rob Bilott , the Ohio attorney who exposed DuPont 's coverup of the dangers of the cancer-causing fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS .
In the first of a three-part review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies Bilott uncovered .
On Monday , President Trump appeared with California state officials at a briefing on the wildfires currently wreaking havoc on the West Coast .
During the meeting , President Trump entered into a terse exchange with a top state official , who urged the president not to ignore climate change science and its role in fueling the fires .
“ I don ’ t think science knows , actually , ” said Trump .
“ President Trump is an existential threat in so many ways to this country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s difficult to keep count , ” said EWG President Ken Cook , a Bay Area resident .
“ His refusal to embrace and act on the science of climate change mean bigger fires that destroy more property and devastate the lives of countless families.
” A newly released Government Accountability Office report shows that many recipients of President Trump ’ s farmer bailouts may not actually be farmers , despite the requirement they provide either “ active personal labor , ” “ active personal management , ” or a combination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ‘ active personal management ’ is incredibly vague , ” said Anne Weir Schechinger , EWG ’ s senior economics analyst .
“ People with minimal ties to farms can – and do – receive huge payments from the federal coffers just by dialing into a few shareholder conference calls a year , without ever having to set foot on the farm or get their hands dirty.
” And finally , EWG delved into recently released Department of Defense information showing PFAS contamination on military sites , the plethora of health risks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduced “ skinny ” COVID-19 stimulus plan that neglects families and farm workers .
Here ’ s some news you can use going into the weekend .
The department has added 34 new military installations that may be contaminated because of the military 's use of aqueous film-forming foam , or AFFF , the Environmental Working Group said today .
AFFF is used to extinguish unconfined fires .
KRDO ( Colorado Springs , Colo. ) : Environmentalists criticize DOD response to chemical clean up near military bases The Environmental Working Group , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health and the environment criticized the DOD for not addressing the chemical issues sooner following Tuesday 's hearing .
Reuters : U.S. details up to $ 14 billion in new aid for farmers “ Once again , the Trump administration is funneling too much money to farmers that do not need it and not enough to those that are facing economic ruin , ” said Scott Faber , senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group .
“ The only plausible explanation is that this is just old-fashioned vote buying.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Risk During the Pandemic According to the Environmental Working Group , as of mid-July , only eight states have mandatory protections in place for farmworkers , including personal protective equipment , distancing requirements , disinfection , testing , and housing and transportation adjustments .
With this ruling , FERC adhered to a strict definition of QF ’ s megawatt capacity that limits renewable energy generation ’ s ability to compete with utility-owned natural gas facilities on dispatchabilit The Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) started counting , and found more than a Billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ algae blooms .
The Environmental Working Group issued a report in the early 1990s with shock value .
It included Fort Wayne , Ind.
, on a list of U.S. cities where atrazine was above recommended levels in drinking water .
Washington Post : The Energy 202 : Joe Biden 's ethanol push to woo Iowa farmers sets up tension with environmentalists Scott Faber , the senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group , said that , while some biofuels made from agricultural waste or algae are more energy-efficient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ lost their chance to be a low-carbon alternative ” by lobbying against stronger emissions standards .
Vox : Why North Carolina has giant lagoons of pig poop A map of animal waste in North Carolina , from the Waterkeeper Alliance , local Riverkeeper groups , and the Environmental Working Group Inside Climate News : In a Dry State , Farmers Use Oil Wastewater to Irrigate Their Fields , but is it Safe ?
Bill Allayaud , the California Director for Government Affairs at the Environmental Working Group , said in an email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and industrial chemicals that may be present in oil production , and not just boron , salt and arsenic .
`` We waited years for this report and the main conclusion was `` 'we need more study , ' '' he said Environmental Health News : Disinfection dangers : How to avoid viruses without exposing yourself to toxics Look up your cleaning products on the internet and consult vetted resources , such as the Environmental Working Group 's list for safe cleaning products as well as the CDC and EPA lists for effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Way to Eat at a Restaurant Right Now , According to an MD Carry your own hand sani so you ’ ll know it ’ s made up of at least 60 percent alcohol and is from a brand that ’ s free of contaminants .
( Try perusing the Environmental Working Group ’ s list of good quality hand sanitizers . )
MindBodyGreen : How To Clean , Dry & Maintain Your Shower Curtain To Prevent Mold Ventilating your bathroom is always important , '' Tasha Stoiber , Ph.D. , a senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously told mbg .
`` Open the window , turn on the fan , and make sure your bathroom dries out .
Remove that moisture to make sure your shower curtain can dry . ''
Philadelphia Magazine : 8 Ways to Cut Back on Plastic Waste in Your Beauty and Wellness Routines Evaluate the brands you use on the Environmental Working Group ’ s Skin Deep website , which rates products for safety and healthiness .
Black Beauty : Black women at higher risk of using toxic skincare products In 2016 , EWG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of cosmetic products marketed to black women score low in potentially hazardous ingredients .
The Counter : “ The South hit the jackpot ” : Federal watchdog finds Trump administration ’ s trade relief program unevenly compensated farmers in some states The Environmental Working Group , an advocacy organization that has long criticized farm subsidies , has argued that the active personal management rule allows people who barely farm to receive subsidies intended to keep the agricultural economy afloat .
“ The USDA ’ s definition of ‘ active personal management ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schechinger , the group ’ s senior economic analyst , in a press release .
The Environmental Working Group and others have been critical that USDA aid does n't reach the most struggling farms while big farms qualify for support for decades .
Here 's how Farm Service Administrator Richard Fordyce responds in an exclusive interview .
Eat This , Not That : The 50 Unhealthiest Guilty Pleasure Foods on the Planet Banned in the United Kingdom and Canada , potassium bromate is still lurking in some U.S. foods such as pizza , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bagel chips , according to a 2015 analysis by the non-profit Environmental Working Group ( EWG ) .
The issue ?
A 1982 study found the dough strengthener induced tumors in rats and led the EPA to conclude bromate is a `` probable human carcinogen .
The Beet : The Number One Food You Should Be Eating But Probably Aren ’ t : Lentils They ’ re actually one of the most climate-friendly foods , according to the Environmental Working Group .
As a comparison , they produce almost 40 times less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food with the most impact on the planet .
Environmentalists argue that PFAS -- which have been dubbed “ forever ” chemicals due to an inability to break down their strong carbon-fluorine bond -- fail to be destroyed by incineration .
For instance , scientists with the Environmental Working Group recently published a study in Chemosphere that found burning PFAS does not effectively destroy the compounds , but instead returns the same chemicals or their byproducts back into the environment .
According to May information from the Environmental Working Group , PFAS has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military bases .
In coordination with a provision in the 2020 National Defense Act , the military is expected to prohibit the usage of PFAS after October 2024 .
Reprinted by KYR News .
The most simple way to do this is to check the Environmental Working Group 's Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 .
These lists break down which foods are the most important to buy organic ( most laden with pesticides ) and which are likely to be “ cleaner ” even if not organic .
Livestrong : How Bad Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Save Money ?
If you do have the financial freedom to be a bit choosy , follow the Environmental Working Group 's Clean Fifteen and Dirty Dozen lists , which highlight the fruits and vegetables that are the least and most contaminated with pesticide residue .
“ A lot of these folks are farmworkers , who are [ unwittingly ] helping to poison themselves , ” says Anne Schechinger , a senior analyst with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group ( EWG , a partner in this reporting project ) .
Reprinted by Consumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guardian .
Food Tank : How a Land Trust in Iowa is Combatting Big Ag Industrial agriculture ’ s excessive use of fertilizers is contaminating the water supply , hurting small Iowa farmers and the public , according to a study by the Environmental Working Group .

This week, EWG released an analysis that breaks down the state of the science for food additives and provides a list of harmful ones to avoid. EWG’s bottom-line advice for families: Read ingredient labels to avoid risky additives, and choose fresh whole foods when possible.
Also this week, EWG President Ken Cook wrote an essay about the new book Exposure, by Rob Bilott, the Ohio attorney who exposed DuPont's coverup of the dangers of the cancer-causing fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS. In the first of a three-part review, Cook documents the corporate coverups and lies Bilott uncovered.
On Monday, President Trump appeared with California state officials at a briefing on the wildfires currently wreaking havoc on the West Coast. During the meeting, President Trump entered into a terse exchange with a top state official, who urged the president not to ignore climate change science and its role in fueling the fires. “I don’t think science knows, actually,” said Trump.
“President Trump is an existential threat in so many ways to this country, its people and the entire planet, it’s difficult to keep count,” said EWG President Ken Cook, a Bay Area resident. “His refusal to embrace and act on the science of climate change mean bigger fires that destroy more property and devastate the lives of countless families.”
A newly released Government Accountability Office report shows that many recipients of President Trump’s farmer bailouts may not actually be farmers, despite the requirement they provide either “active personal labor,” “active personal management,” or a combination.
“The USDA’s definition of ‘active personal management’ is incredibly vague,” said Anne Weir Schechinger, EWG’s senior economics analyst. “People with minimal ties to farms can – and do – receive huge payments from the federal coffers just by dialing into a few shareholder conference calls a year, without ever having to set foot on the farm or get their hands dirty.”
And finally, EWG delved into recently released Department of Defense information showing PFAS contamination on military sites, the plethora of health risks posed by factory farms and the newly introduced “skinny” COVID-19 stimulus plan that neglects families and farm workers.
Here’s some news you can use going into the weekend.
PFAS Suspected at 700 Military Bases
E&E News: List of potentially contaminated military sites tops 700 (subscription)
The department has added 34 new military installations that may be contaminated because of the military's use of aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, the Environmental Working Group said today. AFFF is used to extinguish unconfined fires.
KRDO (Colorado Springs, Colo.): Environmentalists criticize DOD response to chemical clean up near military bases
The Environmental Working Group, a non-profit organization that focuses on protecting human health and the environment criticized the DOD for not addressing the chemical issues sooner following Tuesday's hearing.
COVID-19 and Farm Workers
Reuters: U.S. details up to $14 billion in new aid for farmers
“Once again, the Trump administration is funneling too much money to farmers that do not need it and not enough to those that are facing economic ruin,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “The only plausible explanation is that this is just old-fashioned vote buying.”
Mother Earth News: Farmworkers at Risk During the Pandemic
According to the Environmental Working Group, as of mid-July, only eight states have mandatory protections in place for farmworkers, including personal protective equipment, distancing requirements, disinfection, testing, and housing and transportation adjustments.
Energy
PV Magazine: FERC adopts big utilities’ narrative in PURPA ruling
With this ruling, FERC adhered to a strict definition of QF’s megawatt capacity that limits renewable energy generation’s ability to compete with utility-owned natural gas facilities on dispatchabilit
Algae Bloom Economic Analysis
Jefferson Public Radio (Redding, Calif.): The Rising Cost Of Harmful Algae Blooms
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) started counting, and found more than a Billion dollars spent since 2010 cleaning up harmful algae blooms.
Atrazine
Indiana Prairie Farmer: What water-monitoring project reveals about water quality
The Environmental Working Group issued a report in the early 1990s with shock value. It included Fort Wayne, Ind., on a list of U.S. cities where atrazine was above recommended levels in drinking water.
Biofuels
Washington Post: The Energy 202: Joe Biden's ethanol push to woo Iowa farmers sets up tension with environmentalists
Scott Faber, the senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, said that, while some biofuels made from agricultural waste or algae are more energy-efficient than traditional ethanol, the biofuel industry “lost their chance to be a low-carbon alternative” by lobbying against stronger emissions standards.
CAFOs
Vox: Why North Carolina has giant lagoons of pig poop
A map of animal waste in North Carolina, from the Waterkeeper Alliance, local Riverkeeper groups, and the Environmental Working Group
California Oil Wastewater to Iriigate Fields
Inside Climate News: In a Dry State, Farmers Use Oil Wastewater to Irrigate Their Fields, but is it Safe?
Bill Allayaud, the California Director for Government Affairs at the Environmental Working Group, said in an email that experts need to test other organic and industrial chemicals that may be present in oil production, and not just boron, salt and arsenic. "We waited years for this report and the main conclusion was "'we need more study,'" he said
Cleaning Products
Environmental Health News: Disinfection dangers: How to avoid viruses without exposing yourself to toxics
Look up your cleaning products on the internet and consult vetted resources, such as the Environmental Working Group's list for safe cleaning products as well as the CDC and EPA lists for effective disinfectant products.
Greatist: The Safest Way to Eat at a Restaurant Right Now, According to an MD
Carry your own hand sani so you’ll know it’s made up of at least 60 percent alcohol and is from a brand that’s free of contaminants. (Try perusing the Environmental Working Group’s list of good quality hand sanitizers.)
MindBodyGreen: How To Clean, Dry & Maintain Your Shower Curtain To Prevent Mold
Ventilating your bathroom is always important," Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, previously told mbg. "Open the window, turn on the fan, and make sure your bathroom dries out. Remove that moisture to make sure your shower curtain can dry."
Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database
Philadelphia Magazine: 8 Ways to Cut Back on Plastic Waste in Your Beauty and Wellness Routines
Evaluate the brands you use on the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep website, which rates products for safety and healthiness.
Black Beauty: Black women at higher risk of using toxic skincare products
In 2016, EWG Skin Deep found that less than 25% of cosmetic products marketed to black women score low in potentially hazardous ingredients.
Farm Subsidies
The Counter: “The South hit the jackpot”: Federal watchdog finds Trump administration’s trade relief program unevenly compensated farmers in some states
The Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that has long criticized farm subsidies, has argued that the active personal management rule allows people who barely farm to receive subsidies intended to keep the agricultural economy afloat. “The USDA’s definition of ‘active personal management’ is incredibly vague,” said Anne Schechinger, the group’s senior economic analyst, in a press release.
Successful Farming: Equitable distribution of farm aid dollars
The Environmental Working Group and others have been critical that USDA aid doesn't reach the most struggling farms while big farms qualify for support for decades. Here's how Farm Service Administrator Richard Fordyce responds in an exclusive interview.
Food
Eat This, Not That: The 50 Unhealthiest Guilty Pleasure Foods on the Planet
Banned in the United Kingdom and Canada, potassium bromate is still lurking in some U.S. foods such as pizza, wraps, rolls, bread crumbs, and bagel chips, according to a 2015 analysis by the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG). The issue? A 1982 study found the dough strengthener induced tumors in rats and led the EPA to conclude bromate is a "probable human carcinogen.
Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change + Health
The Beet: The Number One Food You Should Be Eating But Probably Aren’t: Lentils
They’re actually one of the most climate-friendly foods, according to the Environmental Working Group. As a comparison, they produce almost 40 times less greenhouse gas emissions than lamb, the food with the most impact on the planet.
PFAS
Inside EPA: EPA Officials Eye ‘Other Opportunities’ For Burn Test Of PFAS Surrogates (subscription)
Environmentalists argue that PFAS -- which have been dubbed “forever” chemicals due to an inability to break down their strong carbon-fluorine bond -- fail to be destroyed by incineration. For instance, scientists with the Environmental Working Group recently published a study in Chemosphere that found burning PFAS does not effectively destroy the compounds, but instead returns the same chemicals or their byproducts back into the environment.
Newsweek: 'Forever Chemical' Research Delayed Due to COVID-19, Pentagon Says
According to May information from the Environmental Working Group, PFAS has been found in groundwater sources near 678 military bases. In coordination with a provision in the 2020 National Defense Act, the military is expected to prohibit the usage of PFAS after October 2024. Reprinted by KYR News.
Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™
Yahoo! News: 6 rules for eating healthy on a budget
The most simple way to do this is to check the Environmental Working Group's Dirty Dozen and Clean 15. These lists break down which foods are the most important to buy organic (most laden with pesticides) and which are likely to be “cleaner” even if not organic.
Livestrong: How Bad Is It Really to Eat Non-Organic Foods to Save Money?
If you do have the financial freedom to be a bit choosy, follow the Environmental Working Group's Clean Fifteen and Dirty Dozen lists, which highlight the fruits and vegetables that are the least and most contaminated with pesticide residue.
Tap Water Database
Ensia: Thirsting for Solutions
“A lot of these folks are farmworkers, who are [unwittingly] helping to poison themselves,” says Anne Schechinger, a senior analyst with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG, a partner in this reporting project). Reprinted by Consumer Reports, Great Lakes Now and The Guardian.
Food Tank: How a Land Trust in Iowa is Combatting Big Ag
Industrial agriculture’s excessive use of fertilizers is contaminating the water supply, hurting small Iowa farmers and the public, according to a study by the Environmental Working Group.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-09-21--EWG Letter to CDC Director Calling for His Resignation

EWG Letter to CDC Director Calling for His Resignation Attached is a letter EWG President Ken Cook wrote to Dr. @ @ @ @ @ to resign as the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .

Chewing gum has long been popular among people of all ages. It’s a convenient way to freshen your breath, curb cravings and relieve stress. But before you reach for that stick of gum, you may want to...


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-09-21--After Covid-19 Flip-Flops, CDC Director Must Resign

Today I wrote to Dr. Robert Redfield calling on him to resign as the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
It was not a letter I wrote lightly .
But with the events of the past few months , the decision – and the need – to write it could not have been clearer .
Millions of people come to EWG every year for our science-based advice and guides to healthier living , from our Dirty Dozen™ guide to pesticides in produce to our Skin Deep® database of cosmetic product ratings and EWG VERIFIED™ product certification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our Healthy Living : Home Guide .
We develop this information to help people protect themselves and their families for two reasons .
First , because it is in people ’ s power to take practical , affordable steps to reduce toxic exposures , drink cleaner water , eat healthier food , find cleaner beauty products and so on .
EWG is here to help people exercise that self-help power , which can often accomplish the same health goals faster and deeper than any government regulation could possibly achieve .
The second reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when the government should be taking steps to protect all of us from pollution , toxic pesticides and sketchy chemicals , it simply isn ’ t doing its job .
Which is why since our inception almost 30 years ago , EWG has also been at the forefront of public policy research and advocacy to hold government and its leaders accountable for protecting the environment and human health .
From start to finish , we are watchdogs of public health in the public interest .
We publish research ; we campaign ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and companies ) to do the right thing .
We have never shied from publicly criticizing agencies , or politicians from either party , when we have concluded their actions failed to protect human health or , worse , through action or inaction actually threatened it .
When a Clinton-era advisory committee went soft on pesticide regulation , I publicly resigned in protest .
When the Bush administration convened a gaggle of energy lobbyists to write national energy policy , we called it out .
When Obama ’ s White House deep-sixed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation to regulate toxic industrial chemicals , we harshly and publicly criticized his gift to the chemical industry .
Of course , no administration has come close to making environmental and public health deregulation a priority the way Donald Trump ’ s has , and we have been second to none in our criticism of his government ’ s many destructive anti-environmental actions since 2017 .
Still , today ’ s letter to Redfield stands apart .
Like many other organizations working across the broad field of public health around the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific research and data on critical questions pertaining to the effects of toxic chemicals and pollution on human health .
To be clear , we have not always agreed with CDC ’ s scientific interpretations and guidance .
For instance , over the years we have noted with dismay the degree to which , in our opinion , the agency underplays the implications of its ongoing National Biomonitoring Program , which has documented the presence of hundreds of toxic industrial chemicals , contaminants and pesticides in Americans ’ blood and urine .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It doesn ’ t have the power to make companies or other government agencies control pollution , ban chemicals or take hazardous products off the market .
The CDC conducts scientific research and reviews and then issues its findings and conclusions , and sometimes guidance , to advance public health .
More to the point , the CDC has never said it ’ s just fine that Americans have hundreds of suspect chemicals in our bodies .
It has never issued guidance stating that more pollution would be good for the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our population because doing so will only turn up more toxic chemicals in more people , and that might cause Americans to panic .
But that is exactly what has gone wrong with the management of the coronavirus and the disease it causes , Covid-19 , under Dr. Redfield ’ s controversial leadership at the CDC – which , fittingly enough , was known in its early years as the Communicable Disease Center .
As news accounts and internal documents and emails have shown , Redfield has enabled the fundamental scientific mission and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by partisan political motives whose overall intent is to downplay the severity of Covid-19 and rush people back to work , and kids back to school , before it is safe to do so for the health of the overall population .
This summer , Redfield allowed the CDC ’ s good name to be put on Covid-19 school reopening guidance that was presented as the agency ’ s scientific work product .
But that document opened with a statement added by political appointees that overrode science and prioritized getting kids physically back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rushing parents back to work ) .
That was not what CDC scientists advised , and eventually the guidance was reversed .
Then Redfield stood by again as guidance issued under the CDC logo recommended against testing people who had come in contact with Covid-19-positive people who didn ’ t present symptoms of the disease .
That , too , was a political hatchet job , in this case designed to reduce the official infection count and make it seem as if Covid-19 was , well , “ just disappearing.
” This guidance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who – like virtually every expert in infectious disease control – recognize such testing as vital to tracing the march of a disease through a population , the better to target interventions .
As with the dangerous guidance to reopen schools , the CDC testing guidance , quite literally fatally flawed , was also reversed .
In recent testimony before Congress , Redfield very persuasively underscored the importance of wearing masks , going so far as to say they are likely to be a more effective way to contain the virus ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually have a vaccine .
Good for him .
But shortly after a White House response , he cartwheeled into a reversal of sorts , promoting the importance of vaccines we don ’ t yet have over the masks we have at the ready .
For all I know Redfield may have changed course yet again .
I haven ’ t looked at Twitter in over an hour .
As I write to Redfield , the CDC is no naif when it comes to high-stakes controversies , which have surrounded the agency since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CDC is to stand firmly on science – and science alone – when rogue waves of political and economic expediency threaten to wash away concern for public health .
Of course , institutions don ’ t do anything that isn ’ t done by the people who animate them .
And that ’ s the problem with Redfield .
Never before has a CDC leader dragged the agency through such a series of manifestly deadly misstatements of science , willful communications blunders and life-threatening guidance flip-flops , all at the behest of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimize the mortal danger the novel coronavirus poses to the American people .
Every administration has the right to appoint whomever it sees fit to operate the machinery of government .
But citizens are under no obligation to accept an operator like Redfield , who enables conspicuously dangerous advice to be issued in aid of electoral expediency by an agency that has been trusted around the world to provide scientific perspective and guidance , unfiltered by politics , on threats to public health .
And so by our reckoning , in these nightmarish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this : Either science goes , or Redfield goes .

Today I wrote to Dr. Robert Redfield calling on him to resign as the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
It was not a letter I wrote lightly. But with the events of the past few months, the decision – and the need – to write it could not have been clearer.
Millions of people come to EWG every year for our science-based advice and guides to healthier living, from our Dirty Dozen™ guide to pesticides in produce to our Skin Deep® database of cosmetic product ratings and EWG VERIFIED™ product certification; from our Tap Water Database to our Healthy Living: Home Guide. We develop this information to help people protect themselves and their families for two reasons.
First, because it is in people’s power to take practical, affordable steps to reduce toxic exposures, drink cleaner water, eat healthier food, find cleaner beauty products and so on. EWG is here to help people exercise that self-help power, which can often accomplish the same health goals faster and deeper than any government regulation could possibly achieve.
The second reason is that, in case after case, when the government should be taking steps to protect all of us from pollution, toxic pesticides and sketchy chemicals, it simply isn’t doing its job.
Which is why since our inception almost 30 years ago, EWG has also been at the forefront of public policy research and advocacy to hold government and its leaders accountable for protecting the environment and human health. From start to finish, we are watchdogs of public health in the public interest. We publish research; we campaign; we lobby to get the government (and companies) to do the right thing.
We have never shied from publicly criticizing agencies, or politicians from either party, when we have concluded their actions failed to protect human health or, worse, through action or inaction actually threatened it.
When a Clinton-era advisory committee went soft on pesticide regulation, I publicly resigned in protest. When the Bush administration convened a gaggle of energy lobbyists to write national energy policy, we called it out. When Obama’s White House deep-sixed the first Environmental Protection Agency effort in a generation to regulate toxic industrial chemicals, we harshly and publicly criticized his gift to the chemical industry.
Of course, no administration has come close to making environmental and public health deregulation a priority the way Donald Trump’s has, and we have been second to none in our criticism of his government’s many destructive anti-environmental actions since 2017.
Still, today’s letter to Redfield stands apart.
Like many other organizations working across the broad field of public health around the world, EWG has relied on the CDC for scientific research and data on critical questions pertaining to the effects of toxic chemicals and pollution on human health. To be clear, we have not always agreed with CDC’s scientific interpretations and guidance.
For instance, over the years we have noted with dismay the degree to which, in our opinion, the agency underplays the implications of its ongoing National Biomonitoring Program, which has documented the presence of hundreds of toxic industrial chemicals, contaminants and pesticides in Americans’ blood and urine.
But the CDC is not a regulatory agency. It doesn’t have the power to make companies or other government agencies control pollution, ban chemicals or take hazardous products off the market. The CDC conducts scientific research and reviews and then issues its findings and conclusions, and sometimes guidance, to advance public health.
More to the point, the CDC has never said it’s just fine that Americans have hundreds of suspect chemicals in our bodies. It has never issued guidance stating that more pollution would be good for the economy, or that we should stop testing our population because doing so will only turn up more toxic chemicals in more people, and that might cause Americans to panic.
But that is exactly what has gone wrong with the management of the coronavirus and the disease it causes, Covid-19, under Dr. Redfield’s controversial leadership at the CDC – which, fittingly enough, was known in its early years as the Communicable Disease Center.
As news accounts and internal documents and emails have shown, Redfield has enabled the fundamental scientific mission and processes of the CDC to be subverted by partisan political motives whose overall intent is to downplay the severity of Covid-19 and rush people back to work, and kids back to school, before it is safe to do so for the health of the overall population.
This summer, Redfield allowed the CDC’s good name to be put on Covid-19 school reopening guidance that was presented as the agency’s scientific work product. But that document opened with a statement added by political appointees that overrode science and prioritized getting kids physically back in school (and by extension, rushing parents back to work). That was not what CDC scientists advised, and eventually the guidance was reversed.
Then Redfield stood by again as guidance issued under the CDC logo recommended against testing people who had come in contact with Covid-19-positive people who didn’t present symptoms of the disease. That, too, was a political hatchet job, in this case designed to reduce the official infection count and make it seem as if Covid-19 was, well, “just disappearing.”
This guidance, too, directly contradicted agency scientists, who – like virtually every expert in infectious disease control – recognize such testing as vital to tracing the march of a disease through a population, the better to target interventions. As with the dangerous guidance to reopen schools, the CDC testing guidance, quite literally fatally flawed, was also reversed.
In recent testimony before Congress, Redfield very persuasively underscored the importance of wearing masks, going so far as to say they are likely to be a more effective way to contain the virus’s spread, even if we do eventually have a vaccine. Good for him. But shortly after a White House response, he cartwheeled into a reversal of sorts, promoting the importance of vaccines we don’t yet have over the masks we have at the ready.
For all I know Redfield may have changed course yet again. I haven’t looked at Twitter in over an hour.
As I write to Redfield, the CDC is no naif when it comes to high-stakes controversies, which have surrounded the agency since inception. The whole point of the CDC is to stand firmly on science – and science alone – when rogue waves of political and economic expediency threaten to wash away concern for public health. Of course, institutions don’t do anything that isn’t done by the people who animate them.
And that’s the problem with Redfield.
Never before has a CDC leader dragged the agency through such a series of manifestly deadly misstatements of science, willful communications blunders and life-threatening guidance flip-flops, all at the behest of political leaders whose publicly avowed goal is to minimize the mortal danger the novel coronavirus poses to the American people.
Every administration has the right to appoint whomever it sees fit to operate the machinery of government. But citizens are under no obligation to accept an operator like Redfield, who enables conspicuously dangerous advice to be issued in aid of electoral expediency by an agency that has been trusted around the world to provide scientific perspective and guidance, unfiltered by politics, on threats to public health.
And so by our reckoning, in these nightmarish pandemic times, it comes down to this: Either science goes, or Redfield goes.