environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-17--Farm Bailout Payments Could Ignite New Front in Trade War

Bailout payments aimed at relief for farmers from the impacts of President Trump ’ s trade war and the COVID-19 pandemic likely pushed 2019 federal farm spending beyond subsidy caps set by an international trade agreement , potentially inviting retaliation from trading partners .
Since the agreement was reached in 1994 , last year was the first time the U.S. has violated the spending limit .
This year , federal farm spending could again exceed the $ 19.1 billion cap on “ trade-distorting ” subsidies .
Increasing farm bailout payments , as some legislators have proposed , will only increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , Congress should provide more financial assistance to farmworkers and food processors threatened by COVID-19 and address long-standing discrimination against black farmers , which would not count against the cap .
For the 2019 crop year , which extended from the fall of 2018 to the fall of 2019 , U.S. taxpayers provided $ 34 billion to farmers – 78 percent more than the cap set by the 1994 agreement .
Those payments included $ 14.5 billion from the Market Facilitation Program , or MFP , designed to offset the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 6.5 billion in Coronavirus Food Assistance Program , or CFAP , payments to address the impacts of COVID-19 on the sale of crops harvested in 2019 .
Not all farm payments count against the $ 19.1 billion cap the U.S. accepted in the 1994 World Trade Organization Agriculture Agreement .
Only subsidies provided through five programs – Agricultural Risk Coverage , Price Loss Coverage , Crop insurance premium subsidies , MFP and CFAP – may potentially count .
( Roughly $ 1.6 billion of the CFAP payments will not count . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environment , provide food assistance , and address agriculture ’ s long history of racism do not count The WTO agreement also creates two other important exemptions that don ’ t count against the cap – up to 5 percent of total U.S. farm sales , and the same percentage of the value for each crop .
If spending on either exceeds the 5 percent threshold , the full amount counts against the cap .
As crop prices fell and farm subsidy spending increased , the U.S. likely crossed the threshold in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Spending for 2020 is escalating quickly , with the addition of $ 9.5 billion in CFAP funding , and potentially up to $ 8 billion in Paycheck Protection Program funding flowing to farmers , on top of the annual price assistance programs and crop insurance .
Subsidy spending in 2020 could be even greater if Congress increases subsidies to address COVID-19 , as some legislators have proposed .
According to agricultural market reports for 2019 and 2020 , nearly a third of total farm income in the U.S. will likely come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance .
USDA has initially estimated the value of 2019 farm sales as $ 378 billion .
If that ’ s correct , spending on “ trade distorting ” subsidies likely exceeded the 5 percent threshold .
If CFAP payments are classified as “ trade distorting , ” subsidy spending likely exceeded the cap by $ 11 billion .
For subsidies to remain under the $ 19.1 billion cap , actual farm sales in 2019 must top $ 400 billion , which is unlikely .
In fact , estimates of actual farm sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. will not have to report these subsidies to our trading partners until at least 2022 , and international legal challenges typically take years to be resolved .
But trading partners could ultimately be allowed to place tariffs on everything from cars to prescription drugs to electronics – as Brazil did after winning a similar trade dispute over cotton subsidies .
Providing more financial assistance to food processors or farm workers threatened by COVID-19 , as other legislators have proposed , would not increase the risk of a trade war .
Nor would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has robbed black farmers of millions of acres of land .
Spending to reduce the threat of COVID-19 would also avoid disruptions of food supplies from the closing of meatpacking plants and food processing plants .
And providing more financial assistance to transfer surplus food to food banks , like the $ 3 billion Families to Farmers Food Box program , would not count against the cap .

Bailout payments aimed at relief for farmers from the impacts of President Trump’s trade war and the COVID-19 pandemic likely pushed 2019 federal farm spending beyond subsidy caps set by an international trade agreement, potentially inviting retaliation from trading partners.
Since the agreement was reached in 1994, last year was the first time the U.S. has violated the spending limit. This year, federal farm spending could again exceed the $19.1 billion cap on “trade-distorting” subsidies. Increasing farm bailout payments, as some legislators have proposed, will only increase the risk of exceeding the cap. Instead, Congress should provide more financial assistance to farmworkers and food processors threatened by COVID-19 and address long-standing discrimination against black farmers, which would not count against the cap.
For the 2019 crop year, which extended from the fall of 2018 to the fall of 2019, U.S. taxpayers provided $34 billion to farmers – 78 percent more than the cap set by the 1994 agreement. Those payments included $14.5 billion from the Market Facilitation Program, or MFP, designed to offset the president’s trade war with China, and $6.5 billion in Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, or CFAP, payments to address the impacts of COVID-19 on the sale of crops harvested in 2019.
Federal Farm Payments for the 2019 Crop Year
*Final amount unknown until October 2020
Source: EWG, from Department of Agriculture data
Not all farm payments count against the $19.1 billion cap the U.S. accepted in the 1994 World Trade Organization Agriculture Agreement. Only subsidies provided through five programs – Agricultural Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage, Crop insurance premium subsidies, MFP and CFAP – may potentially count. (Roughly $1.6 billion of the CFAP payments will not count.) Other programs that pay farmers to protect the environment, provide food assistance, and address agriculture’s long history of racism do not count
The WTO agreement also creates two other important exemptions that don’t count against the cap – up to 5 percent of total U.S. farm sales, and the same percentage of the value for each crop. If spending on either exceeds the 5 percent threshold, the full amount counts against the cap.
As crop prices fell and farm subsidy spending increased, the U.S. likely crossed the threshold in 2019 and could do so again this year. Spending for 2020 is escalating quickly, with the addition of $9.5 billion in CFAP funding, and potentially up to $8 billion in Paycheck Protection Program funding flowing to farmers, on top of the annual price assistance programs and crop insurance.
Subsidy spending in 2020 could be even greater if Congress increases subsidies to address COVID-19, as some legislators have proposed. According to agricultural market reports for 2019 and 2020, nearly a third of total farm income in the U.S. will likely come from direct government aid and subsidized crop insurance.
USDA has initially estimated the value of 2019 farm sales as $378 billion. If that’s correct, spending on “trade distorting” subsidies likely exceeded the 5 percent threshold. If CFAP payments are classified as “trade distorting,” subsidy spending likely exceeded the cap by $11 billion. For subsidies to remain under the $19.1 billion cap, actual farm sales in 2019 must top $400 billion, which is unlikely. In fact, estimates of actual farm sales in 2019 continue to fall.
The U.S. will not have to report these subsidies to our trading partners until at least 2022, and international legal challenges typically take years to be resolved. But trading partners could ultimately be allowed to place tariffs on everything from cars to prescription drugs to electronics – as Brazil did after winning a similar trade dispute over cotton subsidies.
Providing more financial assistance to food processors or farm workers threatened by COVID-19, as other legislators have proposed, would not increase the risk of a trade war. Nor would expanding past efforts to address discrimination that has robbed black farmers of millions of acres of land. Spending to reduce the threat of COVID-19 would also avoid disruptions of food supplies from the closing of meatpacking plants and food processing plants. And providing more financial assistance to transfer surplus food to food banks, like the $3 billion Families to Farmers Food Box program, would not count against the cap.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-19--On Juneteenth – and Every Day – Support Environmental Justice

Today is Juneteenth .
This year the holiday is especially meaningful , as people of all backgrounds have gathered to raise their voices and declare : Black Lives Matter .
EWG stands in solidarity with Black , Indigenous and other people of color and redoubles our commitment to support and join leaders in the fight against racial injustice .
Juneteenth commemorates June 19 , 1865 , the day word finally reached Galveston , Texas , home of the most remote enslaved people in the U.S. , that the Civil War had ended and they were free – nearly two and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formally ended slavery .
Although slavery wasn ’ t legally abolished until December 1865 , and although today incarcerated people continue to be forced into labor , Juneteenth has become a day to celebrate the end of slavery in this country .
To that end , we ’ re using our email and social media platforms to highlight organizations we believe are leading the way with their focus on racial injustices and environmental racism .
For decades , communities of color have been forced to bear a far greater burden from pollution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and consumer products free from ingredients that are inferior and harm their health .
In honor of Juneteenth , please consider finding out more about these environmental justice organizations and making a donation .
NBFA 's education and advocacy efforts have been focused on civil rights , land retention , access to public and private loans , education and agricultural training , and rural economic development for black and other small farmers .
The Deep South Center for Environmental Justice is dedicated to improving the lives of children and families harmed by pollution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gulf Coast Region through research , education , community and student engagement for policy change , as well as health and safety training for environmental careers .
Black Women for Wellness is committed to the health and well-being of Black women and girls through health education , empowerment and advocacy .
WE ACT ’ s mission is to build healthy communities by ensuring that people of color and/or low income residents participate meaningfully in the creation of sound and fair environmental health and protection policies and practices .
The vision of the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights without discrimination based on race .

Today is Juneteenth. This year the holiday is especially meaningful, as people of all backgrounds have gathered to raise their voices and declare: Black Lives Matter. EWG stands in solidarity with Black, Indigenous and other people of color and redoubles our commitment to support and join leaders in the fight against racial injustice.
Juneteenth commemorates June 19, 1865, the day word finally reached Galveston, Texas, home of the most remote enslaved people in the U.S., that the Civil War had ended and they were free – nearly two and a half years after the Emancipation Proclamation formally ended slavery.
Although slavery wasn’t legally abolished until December 1865, and although today incarcerated people continue to be forced into labor, Juneteenth has become a day to celebrate the end of slavery in this country.
To that end, we’re using our email and social media platforms to highlight organizations we believe are leading the way with their focus on racial injustices and environmental racism. For decades, communities of color have been forced to bear a far greater burden from pollution, and a lack of access to food and consumer products free from ingredients that are inferior and harm their health.
In honor of Juneteenth, please consider finding out more about these environmental justice organizations and making a donation.
National Black Farmers Association
NBFA's education and advocacy efforts have been focused on civil rights, land retention, access to public and private loans, education and agricultural training, and rural economic development for black and other small farmers.
Deep South Center for Environmental Justice
The Deep South Center for Environmental Justice is dedicated to improving the lives of children and families harmed by pollution and vulnerable to climate change in the Gulf Coast Region through research, education, community and student engagement for policy change, as well as health and safety training for environmental careers.
Black Women for Wellness
Black Women for Wellness is committed to the health and well-being of Black women and girls through health education, empowerment and advocacy.
WE ACT
WE ACT’s mission is to build healthy communities by ensuring that people of color and/or low income residents participate meaningfully in the creation of sound and fair environmental health and protection policies and practices.
NAACP
The vision of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights without discrimination based on race.
Photo credit: Tippman98x / Shutterstock.com


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-23--Siding with Monsanto, California Judge Blocks Cancer Warning Label on Weedkiller Glyphosate

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California has blocked efforts by the state to require cancer warning labels on Bayer-Monsanto ’ s signature weedkiller , Roundup .
Glyphosate , the active ingredient in Roundup , is the most widely used herbicide in the world .
In 2015 , it was classified as “ probably carcinogenic ” to people by the International Agency for Research on Cancer , or IARC .
The IARC has steadfastly defended that decision despite ongoing attacks by Monsanto .
In 2017 , glyphosate was also listed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known to the state to cause cancer .
That OEHHA decision set in motion plans to list glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer under California ’ s Proposition 65 law requiring warning labels on products that contain carcinogenic chemical ingredients .
But U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb ignored OEHHA ’ s listing .
“ This decision , while cheered on by Bayer-Monsanto and the agricultural chemical industry , is a blow to the right of every Californian to know whether widely available , widely used products like Roundup could cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cook , himself a California resident .
“ The judge clearly ignored the overwhelming science that compelled both IARC and California ’ s top scientists to sound the alarm over glyphosate ’ s risks.
” Monsanto and other agribusiness interests sued California over its decision to warn the state ’ s residents about the potential cancer risks from exposure to glyphosate .
“ Requiring a simple label on products that contain chemicals linked to cancer would certainly seem reasonable to millions of California families , ” Cook said .
“ But it appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rather than public health , drove Judge Shubb ’ s decision.
” In his decision , Shubb claimed requiring a cancer warning label for glyphosate was a violation of the company ’ s right to free speech .
He wrote : “ Every regulator of which the court is aware , with the sole exception of the IARC , has found that glyphosate does not cause cancer or that there is insufficient evidence to show that it does.
” The Environmental Protection Agency , which regulates pesticides at the federal level , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the side of Monsanto .
A March 2017 New York Times investigation detailed Monsanto ’ s tooth-and-nail fight to subvert scientific research into the dangers of glyphosate , including potential collusion with a top EPA official who may have helped suppress evidence of glyphosate ’ s risk to human health .
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 .

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California has blocked efforts by the state to require cancer warning labels on Bayer-Monsanto’s signature weedkiller, Roundup.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is the most widely used herbicide in the world. In 2015, it was classified as “probably carcinogenic” to people by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC. The IARC has steadfastly defended that decision despite ongoing attacks by Monsanto.
In 2017, glyphosate was also listed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer. That OEHHA decision set in motion plans to list glyphosate as a chemical known to cause cancer under California’s Proposition 65 law requiring warning labels on products that contain carcinogenic chemical ingredients. But U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb ignored OEHHA’s listing.
“This decision, while cheered on by Bayer-Monsanto and the agricultural chemical industry, is a blow to the right of every Californian to know whether widely available, widely used products like Roundup could cause cancer,” said EWG President Ken Cook, himself a California resident. “The judge clearly ignored the overwhelming science that compelled both IARC and California’s top scientists to sound the alarm over glyphosate’s risks.”
Monsanto and other agribusiness interests sued California over its decision to warn the state’s residents about the potential cancer risks from exposure to glyphosate.
“Requiring a simple label on products that contain chemicals linked to cancer would certainly seem reasonable to millions of California families,” Cook said. “But it appears that protecting Bayer-Monsanto’s bottom line, rather than public health, drove Judge Shubb’s decision.”
In his decision, Shubb claimed requiring a cancer warning label for glyphosate was a violation of the company’s right to free speech. He wrote: “Every regulator of which the court is aware, with the sole exception of the IARC, has found that glyphosate does not cause cancer or that there is insufficient evidence to show that it does.”
The Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides at the federal level, and the Trump administration have long taken the side of Monsanto.
A March 2017 New York Times investigation detailed Monsanto’s tooth-and-nail fight to subvert scientific research into the dangers of glyphosate, including potential collusion with a top EPA official who may have helped suppress evidence of glyphosate’s risk to human health.
###
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--2020-06-24--EWG Investigation: Across Farm Country, Nitrate Pollution of Drinking Water for More Than 20 Million

EWG Investigation: Across Farm Country, Nitrate Pollution of Drinking Water for More Than 20 Million Americans Is Getting Worse

WASHINGTON – In much of America ’ s farm country , nitrate contamination of drinking water , largely caused by polluted runoff from crop fields , poses a serious health risk – and the problem is getting worse , according to an Environmental Working Group analysis of data from 10 states .
“ With every glass of water , over 20 million people in mostly agricultural areas are now getting a bigger dose of nitrate than before , ” said Anne Weir Schechinger , EWG senior economics analyst and author of the report .
“ Until farmers clean up their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to continue to decline , posing a growing threat to public health.
” The investigation found that in the water of more than 2,100 water utilities with the most serious problems , nitrate contamination grew steadily worse over time .
These community water systems serve 20.7 million people across vast stretches of the Midwest , Southwest , Atlantic Coast and California .
Data obtained by EWG under public records laws shows that between 2003 and 2017 , utility tests detected elevated levels of nitrate – at least 3 milligrams per liter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the tap water supplies of more than 4,000 water utilities .
The Environmental Protection Agency considers 3 mg/L in groundwater used for drinking water an indication of contamination above naturally occurring levels .
These 4,000-plus systems supply tap water to more than 45 million Americans in California , Illinois , Iowa , Kansas , Maryland , Nebraska , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , Texas and Wisconsin .
In 52 percent of those utilities , serving 20.7 million people , nitrate contamination increased during the period studied .
In California , Kansas and Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost 60 percent of the communities with already elevated nitrate levels .
EWG ’ s analysis underscores its October 2019 report showing that the 2016-2017 averages for nitrate contamination in almost 1,700 water systems were at or above the level that a meta-analysis found increases the risk of colon , kidney , ovarian and bladder cancers .
Nitrate is a primary chemical component of fertilizer and manure that can run off farm fields and seep into drinking water supplies .
Agriculture is considered “ non-point source ” pollution by the federal government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Water Act .
This means that farmers are not required to prevent nitrate and other farm pollution from entering waterways that are used as drinking water sources .
Yet keeping nitrate out of tap water is much cheaper than removing it .
An October 2018 EWG analysis found that many of the systems most affected by nitrate contamination are small and least able to afford the expensive water treatment that would be required to clean up nitrate .
Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act , the legal limit for nitrate in drinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was set in 1962 to guard against so-called blue baby syndrome , a potentially fatal condition that starves infants of oxygen if they ingest too much nitrate .
But more recent studies have shown strong evidence of an increased risk of colorectal cancer , thyroid disease and neural tube birth defects at levels of 5 mg/L or even lower .
“ As a society , we can not afford to let farm pollution of our tap water continue to grow unchecked , ” Schechinger said .
“ Farmers must be required to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can stop pollution from running off farm fields.
” People who are concerned about nitrate in their tap water can look up their water system in EWG ’ s Tap Water Database .
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 .
Visit www.ewg.org for more .

WASHINGTON – In much of America’s farm country, nitrate contamination of drinking water, largely caused by polluted runoff from crop fields, poses a serious health risk – and the problem is getting worse, according to an Environmental Working Group analysis of data from 10 states.
“With every glass of water, over 20 million people in mostly agricultural areas are now getting a bigger dose of nitrate than before,” said Anne Weir Schechinger, EWG senior economics analyst and author of the report. “Until farmers clean up their act, water quality in these communities is going to continue to decline, posing a growing threat to public health.”
The investigation found that in the water of more than 2,100 water utilities with the most serious problems, nitrate contamination grew steadily worse over time. These community water systems serve 20.7 million people across vast stretches of the Midwest, Southwest, Atlantic Coast and California.
Data obtained by EWG under public records laws shows that between 2003 and 2017, utility tests detected elevated levels of nitrate – at least 3 milligrams per liter, or mg/L – at least once in the tap water supplies of more than 4,000 water utilities. The Environmental Protection Agency considers 3 mg/L in groundwater used for drinking water an indication of contamination above naturally occurring levels.
These 4,000-plus systems supply tap water to more than 45 million Americans in California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin.
In 52 percent of those utilities, serving 20.7 million people, nitrate contamination increased during the period studied. In California, Kansas and Texas, it’s getting worse in almost 60 percent of the communities with already elevated nitrate levels.
EWG’s analysis underscores its October 2019 report showing that the 2016-2017 averages for nitrate contamination in almost 1,700 water systems were at or above the level that a meta-analysis found increases the risk of colon, kidney, ovarian and bladder cancers.
Nitrate is a primary chemical component of fertilizer and manure that can run off farm fields and seep into drinking water supplies. Agriculture is considered “non-point source” pollution by the federal government, rendering it largely exempt from the Clean Water Act. This means that farmers are not required to prevent nitrate and other farm pollution from entering waterways that are used as drinking water sources.
Yet keeping nitrate out of tap water is much cheaper than removing it. An October 2018 EWG analysis found that many of the systems most affected by nitrate contamination are small and least able to afford the expensive water treatment that would be required to clean up nitrate.
Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the legal limit for nitrate in drinking water is 10 mg/L. This limit was set in 1962 to guard against so-called blue baby syndrome, a potentially fatal condition that starves infants of oxygen if they ingest too much nitrate.
But more recent studies have shown strong evidence of an increased risk of colorectal cancer, thyroid disease and neural tube birth defects at levels of 5 mg/L or even lower.
“As a society, we cannot afford to let farm pollution of our tap water continue to grow unchecked,” Schechinger said. “Farmers must be required to be better neighbors by implementing conservation practices that can stop pollution from running off farm fields.”
People who are concerned about nitrate in their tap water can look up their water system in EWG’s Tap Water Database.
###
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. Visit www.ewg.org for more.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-24--Bayer-Monsanto Agrees to $10B Settlement With Victims Poisoned by Roundup Weedkiller

WASHINGTON – In a settlement reached today , Bayer AG agreed to pay $ 10 billion over claims its signature herbicide Roundup causes cancer in people , according to a report by Reuters .
The $ 10 billion settlement will be apportioned to four leading plaintiffs ’ law firms , who will in turn distribute the money to nearly 100,000 clients who were stricken with cancer after prolonged use of the toxic weedkiller .
The German company acquired the St. Louis-based agrochemical giant Monsanto in 2018 for $ 63 billion , and inherited liability in thousands of lawsuits filed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its main ingredient glyphosate was the cause of their cancer .
EWG President Ken Cook made this statement on the settlement : Today ’ s settlement is vindication for all those who have fallen ill with cancer as a result of being exposed to this chemical .
No amount of money can reverse the damage Bayer-Monsanto has inflicted on these victims and countless others , but because of their and their attorneys ’ tireless fight for justice , the company that exposed them is now paying a heavy price for its duplicitous deception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case uncovered , through the company ’ s own internal documents , the extent to which Monsanto-Bayer recognized early on the risk of cancer and other health problems posed by glyphosate and its commercial formulations .
Monsanto-Bayer aggressively conspired for decades to withhold or lie about the evidence to the public and to regulators , while relentlessly attacking scientists and organizations that sought to tell the truth about the company ’ s products .
This damning information only became public because plaintiff ’ s lawyers pried it out of the company in court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killed the company ’ s integrity as systemically as its chemicals kill plants .
Monsanto-Bayer ’ s dissembling for profit at the expense of public health is a permanent stain on its reputation .
Nothing in this settlement amends the conclusion that this is a company that simply can not be trusted .
Glyphosate , the most widely used herbicide in the world , was classified in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as “ probably carcinogenic ” to people .
In 2017 , glyphosate was also listed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer .
Glyphosate is mostly applied to corn , soybean and wheat crops , but is increasingly sprayed just before harvest on oats , chickpeas and other crops as a drying agent , or desiccant , to speed the harvest .
The pre-harvest use is why many oat-based cereals are contaminated with glyphosate .
Three separate rounds of laboratory tests commissioned by EWG in 2018 and 2019 found glyphosate in nearly every sample of popular oat-based cereals and other foods marketed to children .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bars made by General Mills and Quaker .
A new EWG testing report , coming next month , will show glyphosate contamination widespread in hummus and chickpeas .
Besides its use in agriculture , millions of Americans spray Roundup on their yards and gardens – a main source of exposure for those who were sickened and sued Bayer-Monsanto .
Four people in California have already won their cases in jury trials , including Dewayne Johnson , a Bay Area school groundskeeper .
“ Even as we celebrate and congratulate those who made this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being exposed to glyphosate through the food they eat , working as groundskeepers or farmworkers , or gardening at home , ” Cook said .
“ Bayer-Monsanto must be held accountable beyond today ’ s settlement .
The Food and Drug Administration must immediately eliminate its use as a pre-harvest desiccant , and the Environmental Protection Agency must ban all home uses .
That is the only way to assure future generations of Americans do not get sick or die from exposure to this cancer-causing chemical.
” The Environmental Working Group is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to live healthier lives in a healthier environment .
Through research , advocacy and unique education tools , EWG drives consumer choice and civic action .
Visit www.ewg.org for more .

WASHINGTON – In a settlement reached today, Bayer AG agreed to pay $10 billion over claims its signature herbicide Roundup causes cancer in people, according to a report by Reuters.
The $10 billion settlement will be apportioned to four leading plaintiffs’ law firms, who will in turn distribute the money to nearly 100,000 clients who were stricken with cancer after prolonged use of the toxic weedkiller.
The German company acquired the St. Louis-based agrochemical giant Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, and inherited liability in thousands of lawsuits filed by people who claim exposure to Roundup and its main ingredient glyphosate was the cause of their cancer.
EWG President Ken Cook made this statement on the settlement:
Today’s settlement is vindication for all those who have fallen ill with cancer as a result of being exposed to this chemical. No amount of money can reverse the damage Bayer-Monsanto has inflicted on these victims and countless others, but because of their and their attorneys’ tireless fight for justice, the company that exposed them is now paying a heavy price for its duplicitous deception. The most damning revelations in this case uncovered, through the company’s own internal documents, the extent to which Monsanto-Bayer recognized early on the risk of cancer and other health problems posed by glyphosate and its commercial formulations. Monsanto-Bayer aggressively conspired for decades to withhold or lie about the evidence to the public and to regulators, while relentlessly attacking scientists and organizations that sought to tell the truth about the company’s products. This damning information only became public because plaintiff’s lawyers pried it out of the company in court and made it public. That coverup killed the company’s integrity as systemically as its chemicals kill plants. Monsanto-Bayer’s dissembling for profit at the expense of public health is a permanent stain on its reputation. Nothing in this settlement amends the conclusion that this is a company that simply cannot be trusted.
Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, was classified in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as “probably carcinogenic” to people. In 2017, glyphosate was also listed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer.
Glyphosate is mostly applied to corn, soybean and wheat crops, but is increasingly sprayed just before harvest on oats, chickpeas and other crops as a drying agent, or desiccant, to speed the harvest. The pre-harvest use is why many oat-based cereals are contaminated with glyphosate.
Three separate rounds of laboratory tests commissioned by EWG in 2018 and 2019 found glyphosate in nearly every sample of popular oat-based cereals and other foods marketed to children. The contaminated brands included cereals and breakfast bars made by General Mills and Quaker.
A new EWG testing report, coming next month, will show glyphosate contamination widespread in hummus and chickpeas.
Besides its use in agriculture, millions of Americans spray Roundup on their yards and gardens – a main source of exposure for those who were sickened and sued Bayer-Monsanto. Four people in California have already won their cases in jury trials, including Dewayne Johnson, a Bay Area school groundskeeper.
“Even as we celebrate and congratulate those who made this day possible, millions of people are being exposed to glyphosate through the food they eat, working as groundskeepers or farmworkers, or gardening at home,” Cook said. “Bayer-Monsanto must be held accountable beyond today’s settlement. The Food and Drug Administration must immediately eliminate its use as a pre-harvest desiccant, and the Environmental Protection Agency must ban all home uses. That is the only way to assure future generations of Americans do not get sick or die from exposure to this cancer-causing chemical.”
###
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. Visit www.ewg.org for more.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-24--In Final Decision, EPA Fails to Protect Public From Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Consumer Products

This week the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule regulating the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS in consumer products .
True to form for the Trump administration , the rule significantly weakens a public health protection proposed under the Obama administration .
In 2015 , Obama ’ s EPA proposed a Significant New Use Rule , or SNUR , for so-called long-chain PFAS chemicals , including PFOA , a notorious compound formerly used to make DuPont ’ s Teflon .
Under pressure from the EPA , DuPont and other chemical makers had agreed in 2006 to phase out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after revelations of their health hazards .
PFAS are called “ forever chemicals ” because they never break down , and many build up in our blood .
The Teflon chemical and others like it are associated with cancer , reproductive and developmental harms , and reduced effectiveness of vaccines , among other health problems .
A SNUR is not a ban , but rather requires companies to notify the EPA and get approval before using the chemical in any way that has been designated as a significant new use .
The SNUR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent any of these uses from resurfacing without the agency ’ s knowledge and approval , and also to prevent any new uses of the chemicals .
The proposed rule broadly applied to all consumer products , ranging from carpets to wiring to clothing , regardless of how the PFAS was used in the product .
On Monday , the Trump EPA published its final rule to meet a deadline imposed by Congress in the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act , which passed in December .
The final rule only requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency when PFAS is used as a surface coating in a product , as it was in Teflon .
That means a company could import products with PFOA inside without informing the EPA – even though that product could break down and release PFOA .
The PFAS could also be released once the product is put in a landfill or incinerator .
The chemical can then make its way into air , water , soil and ultimately our bodies .
How was the rule weakened ?
Records released by the Senate Environment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , President Trump ’ s nominee to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission , was a driving force .
Beck formerly directed science policy at the American Chemistry Council , the powerful chemical manufacturers ’ lobby .
After Trump took office , she was appointed to a senior position in the EPA ’ s chemical safety office , which was responsible for the SNUR regulating PFAS .
While there , she sought to exploit a provision in a new toxic chemical law , passed in 2016 , to dramatically narrow the SNUR .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for exposure ” before the EPA can require notice and approval for new uses of chemicals in imported consumer products .
Beck used that provision to argue that that the rule should be limited to PFAS only when applied to the outside of products .
That ignores the fact there are many ways a consumer may face “ reasonable potential for exposure ” from PFAS inside products .
After she left the EPA to work at the White House , Beck continued to push to limit the SNUR to surface coatings .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she succeeded in her quest .
Thanks to Beck , importers will only have to inform the EPA about PFAS in imported products if it is used as a surface coating , instead of whether any long-chain PFAS is present .
Allowing companies to import PFOA inside these products without notice and approval leaves EPA and consumers in the dark and puts them at risk .
The EPA could have done what it set out to do in 2015 : protect us from all exposures to these hazardous chemicals in all consumer products @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure from the White House – again .

This week the Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule regulating the toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS in consumer products. True to form for the Trump administration, the rule significantly weakens a public health protection proposed under the Obama administration.
In 2015, Obama’s EPA proposed a Significant New Use Rule, or SNUR, for so-called long-chain PFAS chemicals, including PFOA, a notorious compound formerly used to make DuPont’s Teflon. Under pressure from the EPA, DuPont and other chemical makers had agreed in 2006 to phase out the use of many long-chain PFAS chemicals, after revelations of their health hazards.
PFAS are called “forever chemicals” because they never break down, and many build up in our blood. The Teflon chemical and others like it are associated with cancer, reproductive and developmental harms, and reduced effectiveness of vaccines, among other health problems.
A SNUR is not a ban, but rather requires companies to notify the EPA and get approval before using the chemical in any way that has been designated as a significant new use. The SNUR the EPA proposed in 2015 was meant to prevent any of these uses from resurfacing without the agency’s knowledge and approval, and also to prevent any new uses of the chemicals. The proposed rule broadly applied to all consumer products, ranging from carpets to wiring to clothing, regardless of how the PFAS was used in the product.
On Monday, the Trump EPA published its final rule to meet a deadline imposed by Congress in the FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which passed in December. The final rule only requires notification from importers and approval from the agency when PFAS is used as a surface coating in a product, as it was in Teflon.
That means a company could import products with PFOA inside without informing the EPA – even though that product could break down and release PFOA. The PFAS could also be released once the product is put in a landfill or incinerator. The chemical can then make its way into air, water, soil and ultimately our bodies.
How was the rule weakened? Records released by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee show that Nancy Beck, President Trump’s nominee to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission, was a driving force.
Beck formerly directed science policy at the American Chemistry Council, the powerful chemical manufacturers’ lobby. After Trump took office, she was appointed to a senior position in the EPA’s chemical safety office, which was responsible for the SNUR regulating PFAS. While there, she sought to exploit a provision in a new toxic chemical law, passed in 2016, to dramatically narrow the SNUR.
The provision requires a “reasonable potential for exposure” before the EPA can require notice and approval for new uses of chemicals in imported consumer products. Beck used that provision to argue that that the rule should be limited to PFAS only when applied to the outside of products. That ignores the fact there are many ways a consumer may face “reasonable potential for exposure” from PFAS inside products.
After she left the EPA to work at the White House, Beck continued to push to limit the SNUR to surface coatings. This week’s final rule shows that she succeeded in her quest.
Thanks to Beck, importers will only have to inform the EPA about PFAS in imported products if it is used as a surface coating, instead of whether any long-chain PFAS is present. Allowing companies to import PFOA inside these products without notice and approval leaves EPA and consumers in the dark and puts them at risk.
The EPA could have done what it set out to do in 2015: protect us from all exposures to these hazardous chemicals in all consumer products. Instead, the agency bowed to pressure from the White House – again.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-24--How the U.S. Can Have 90 Percent Clean Electricity by 2035

How the U.S. Can Have 90 Percent Clean Electricity by 2035 According to a new study , in just 15 years the U.S. can generate 90 percent of its electricity without coal-fired power plants or new natural gas plants – dirty energy sources that deepen the climate crisis and endanger public health .
The so-called 90 % Clean Plan would avert billions of dollars in health and environmental damages and create hundreds of thousands of jobs .
But it won ’ t happen without a federal clean energy standard that rejects the “ all-of-the-above ” approach , advocated in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous , unproven technologies .
The 90 % Clean Plan comes from researchers at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California , Berkeley .
They say that their target can be reached by 2035 , unlike other plans that aim to achieve “ deep decarbonization ” of the economy by 2050 or later – too late to head off the most catastrophic climate impacts .
Under the plan , by 2035 , solar , wind , other renewables , storage batteries and increased energy efficiency would supply most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas from existing plants would supply 10 percent .
Coal plants would be gone entirely , and no new gas plants or conventional nuclear reactors would be built .
Achieving this mix would : • Create 600,000 wind and solar jobs annually – many times more than would be lost in the fossil fuel sector .
• Avert $ 1.2 trillion in health and environmental damages through 2050 .
The Goldman School study was accompanied by an Energy Innovation report laying out policies needed to achieve the 90 % Clean target .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should mandate utility companies to invest in the cheapest resources to reach the goal .
“ Cheapest ” is key .
Because while the Goldman researchers include new “ advanced nuclear ” and natural gas plants with “ carbon capture ” technology in their definition of clean energy , wind and solar are already cheaper – and are here today .
Conversely , putting resources into developing those other technologies , essentially pipe dreams , would cost hundreds of billions , worsen the climate crisis and heighten threats to public health .
Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy standard ?
Hearings last week before the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee were only somewhat encouraging .
The House hearing began positively enough .
Committee Chairman Frank Pallone ( D-N.J. ) announced his support for extending the federal tax credits for wind and solar .
Witnesses from Energy Futures Initiative , the American Council on Renewable Energy , or ACORE , and ClearPath testified to the importance of making homes and businesses more energy efficient and to the key collective role of renewable energy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more support for clean energy will help counter the impact of the coronavirus pandemic .
As of May , the unemployment rate in the renewable , energy efficiency , and clean transportation sectors reached 18 percent .
Other witnesses said the clean energy sector must do more to boost racial and economic equality .
Richard J. Powell , executive director of the nonprofit ClearPath , emphasized the need to bring clean energy investment to communities of color , tribal communities and communities in poverty for job creation and cleaner air and water .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ main argument put forth by Energy Futures Initiative , ClearPath and many committee members was that we need an “ all-of-the-above ” strategy to meet our future electricity needs .
Witnesses in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing expressed similar views .
An all-of-the-above approach would include not only pursuing the pipe dream technologies included in the Goldman School report , but also continuing to rely on fossil fuel power plants into the indefinite future – and the climate-threatening infrastructure that supports them .
It would also slow the buildout of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology to keep obsolete coal and natural gas plants running and for advanced nuclear technology we simply don ’ t need .
“ All of the above ” is nothing more than a publicly financed safety net for fossil fuel and nuclear generation that can ’ t compete with clean energy and will not be needed as clean energy technologies advance to reach a 100 percent renewable electric system .
It ’ s time to move forward into the clean energy future , not cling to the remnants of dirty and dangerous energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ livable planet .

According to a new study, in just 15 years the U.S. can generate 90 percent of its electricity without coal-fired power plants or new natural gas plants – dirty energy sources that deepen the climate crisis and endanger public health.
The so-called 90% Clean Plan would avert billions of dollars in health and environmental damages and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But it won’t happen without a federal clean energy standard that rejects the “all-of-the-above” approach, advocated in recent Congressional hearings, that would gamble on dangerous, unproven technologies.
The 90% Clean Plan comes from researchers at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. They say that their target can be reached by 2035, unlike other plans that aim to achieve “deep decarbonization” of the economy by 2050 or later – too late to head off the most catastrophic climate impacts.
Under the plan, by 2035, solar, wind, other renewables, storage batteries and increased energy efficiency would supply most of the nation’s electricity. Natural gas from existing plants would supply 10 percent. Coal plants would be gone entirely, and no new gas plants or conventional nuclear reactors would be built. Achieving this mix would:
Create 600,000 wind and solar jobs annually – many times more than would be lost in the fossil fuel sector.
Avert $1.2 trillion in health and environmental damages through 2050.
Lower electricity costs for consumers.
The Goldman School study was accompanied by an Energy Innovation report laying out policies needed to achieve the 90% Clean target. Most importantly, it says the federal government should mandate utility companies to invest in the cheapest resources to reach the goal.
“Cheapest” is key. Because while the Goldman researchers include new “advanced nuclear” and natural gas plants with “carbon capture” technology in their definition of clean energy, wind and solar are already cheaper – and are here today. Conversely, putting resources into developing those other technologies, essentially pipe dreams, would cost hundreds of billions, worsen the climate crisis and heighten threats to public health.
Will the federal government set a national clean energy standard? Hearings last week before the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee were only somewhat encouraging.
The House hearing began positively enough. Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) announced his support for extending the federal tax credits for wind and solar. Witnesses from Energy Futures Initiative, the American Council on Renewable Energy, or ACORE, and ClearPath testified to the importance of making homes and businesses more energy efficient and to the key collective role of renewable energy and energy storage going forward.
Witnesses said more support for clean energy will help counter the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. As of May, the unemployment rate in the renewable, energy efficiency, and clean transportation sectors reached 18 percent.
Other witnesses said the clean energy sector must do more to boost racial and economic equality. Richard J. Powell, executive director of the nonprofit ClearPath, emphasized the need to bring clean energy investment to communities of color, tribal communities and communities in poverty for job creation and cleaner air and water. He said:
[These communities] struggle to pay a green premium for more clean energy, yet would benefit enormously from a clean energy future. Our focus must also be to provide for them better options -- for affordable clean energy, for clean air and water, for projects that build up and support communities, tax bases, and employment sustainably for generations.
But disappointingly, the main argument put forth by Energy Futures Initiative, ClearPath and many committee members was that we need an “all-of-the-above” strategy to meet our future electricity needs. Witnesses in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing expressed similar views.
An all-of-the-above approach would include not only pursuing the pipe dream technologies included in the Goldman School report, but also continuing to rely on fossil fuel power plants into the indefinite future – and the climate-threatening infrastructure that supports them. It would also slow the buildout of renewable power to wait for carbon capture technology to keep obsolete coal and natural gas plants running and for advanced nuclear technology we simply don’t need.
“All of the above” is nothing more than a publicly financed safety net for fossil fuel and nuclear generation that can’t compete with clean energy and will not be needed as clean energy technologies advance to reach a 100 percent renewable electric system. It’s time to move forward into the clean energy future, not cling to the remnants of dirty and dangerous energy sources that threaten our health and a livable planet.


environmentalworkinggroupewg--2020-06-24--Nitrate Pollution of Drinking Water for More Than 20 Million Americans Is Getting Worse

This interactive map shows the systems that had at least one nitrate test at or above 3 mg/L between 2003 and 2017 and whose contamination levels went up during that period .
Clicking on a state links to a more detailed interactive map for that state , with information about each system .
In 52 percent of those communities , serving 20.7 million people , nitrate contamination is getting worse .
In California , Kansas and Texas , it ’ s getting worse in almost 60 percent of the communities with elevated nitrate levels .
Those water systems supply tap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Each of the systems was contaminated with nitrate at or above 3 milligrams per liter , or mg/L , at least once in those 15 years .
The Environmental Protection Agency considers 3 mg/L in groundwater used for drinking water an indication of contamination above naturally occurring levels.2 Data obtained under public records laws shows that between 2003 and 2017 , tests detected elevated levels of nitrate in the tap water supplies of more than 4,000 community water systems in the states with the most widespread contamination – California , Illinois , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , Texas and Wisconsin .
Our investigation found that in the water of more than 2,100 utilities with the most serious problems , nitrate contamination has grown steadily worse .
These community water systems1 serve almost 21 million people across vast stretches of the Midwest , Southwest , Atlantic Coast and California .
In much of America ’ s farm country , nitrate contamination of drinking water , largely caused by polluted runoff from crop fields , poses a serious health risk – and the problem is getting worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis of data from 10 states .
EWG ’ s analysis underscores what we reported in a study and map released in October 2019 .
The earlier analysis found that two-year average nitrate contamination , from 2016 and 2017 , in almost 1,700 towns and cities were at or above the level that a meta-analysis found increases the risk of colon , kidney , ovarian and bladder cancers .
Nitrate is a primary chemical component of fertilizer and manure that can run off farm fields and seep into drinking water supplies .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treatment plants and septic systems , fertilizer and manure are the main culprits in agriculture-heavy regions .
Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act , the legal limit for nitrate in drinking water is 10 mg/L .
This limit was set in 1962 to guard against so-called blue baby syndrome , a potentially fatal condition that starves infants of oxygen if they ingest too much nitrate .
But more recent studies have shown strong evidence of an increased risk of colorectal cancer , thyroid disease and neural tube birth defects at levels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are concerned about nitrate in their tap water can look up their water system in EWG ’ s Tap Water Database .
Eighty-six percent of the communities with elevated levels of nitrate rely on groundwater for their drinking water .
Our analysis found that contamination is not only getting worse in places with nitrate tests above 3 mg/L – it ’ s also getting worse in many places that exceeded the EPA ’ s legal limit , or the lower level linked to cancer and other health effects .
• In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 991 communities where tests found nitrate above the EPA legal limit at least once , drinking water contamination got worse in almost half – 461 systems serving almost 9.9 million Americans .
• Of the 2,771 communities that tested at or above 5 mg/L , contamination got worse in 51 percent – 1,422 systems serving 15.9 million people .
In the period studied , the smallest communities were more likely to have worsening contamination .
Eighty percent of systems with worsening nitrate contamination served 3,300 or fewer people .
For all states except @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nitrate levels were in a rural area , rather than an urban area , as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau .
California is a special case , because so much of the state ’ s farming is located in what ’ s known as the urban-agricultural interface , with vast crop acreage inside urban areas .
For example , Fresno , a city of more than 500,000 people , is surrounded by 1.88 million acres of cropland in Fresno County , the nation ’ s most productive agricultural county .
Our analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with worsening nitrate contamination were in urban areas .
For more detail , see the California profile .
In the table below , systems are categorized according to the EPA ’ s community size classifications .
Removing nitrate from tap water is expensive .
A city can spread the cost of treatment over a large customer base .
But in small communities , the increased cost of treatment per person could be hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year , depending on the technology used .
For more information on the potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EWG report .
Details for each state are available in the state profiles found here : To see the methods used in this study and detailed results , click here .
1 Community water systems are public water supplies that serve residents in cities and towns year-round .
2 U.S. EPA , Estimated Nitrate Concentrations in Groundwater Used for Drinking .
“ While nitrate does occur naturally in groundwater , concentrations greater than 3 mg/L generally indicate contamination ( Madison and Brunett , 1985 ) , and a more recent nationwide study found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human activity ” ( Dubrovsky et al .
2010 ) .

In much of America’s farm country, nitrate contamination of drinking water, largely caused by polluted runoff from crop fields, poses a serious health risk – and the problem is getting worse, according to an Environmental Working Group analysis of data from 10 states.
Our investigation found that in the water of more than 2,100 utilities with the most serious problems, nitrate contamination has grown steadily worse. These community water systems1 serve almost 21 million people across vast stretches of the Midwest, Southwest, Atlantic Coast and California.
Data obtained under public records laws shows that between 2003 and 2017, tests detected elevated levels of nitrate in the tap water supplies of more than 4,000 community water systems in the states with the most widespread contamination – California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin.
Those water systems supply tap water for more than 45 million Americans. Each of the systems was contaminated with nitrate at or above 3 milligrams per liter, or mg/L, at least once in those 15 years. The Environmental Protection Agency considers 3 mg/L in groundwater used for drinking water an indication of contamination above naturally occurring levels.2
In 52 percent of those communities, serving 20.7 million people, nitrate contamination is getting worse. In California, Kansas and Texas, it’s getting worse in almost 60 percent of the communities with elevated nitrate levels.
This interactive map shows the systems that had at least one nitrate test at or above 3 mg/L between 2003 and 2017 and whose contamination levels went up during that period. Clicking on a state links to a more detailed interactive map for that state, with information about each system.
In Thousands of Communities, Nitrate Contamination of Drinking Water Is Getting Worse
Explore the Map
Source: EWG, from state data obtained under open records laws.
EWG’s analysis underscores what we reported in a study and map released in October 2019. The earlier analysis found that two-year average nitrate contamination, from 2016 and 2017, in almost 1,700 towns and cities were at or above the level that a meta-analysis found increases the risk of colon, kidney, ovarian and bladder cancers.
Health Hazards of Nitrate
Nitrate is a primary chemical component of fertilizer and manure that can run off farm fields and seep into drinking water supplies. Although nitrate pollution can also come from wastewater treatment plants and septic systems, fertilizer and manure are the main culprits in agriculture-heavy regions.
Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the legal limit for nitrate in drinking water is 10 mg/L. This limit was set in 1962 to guard against so-called blue baby syndrome, a potentially fatal condition that starves infants of oxygen if they ingest too much nitrate.
But more recent studies have shown strong evidence of an increased risk of colorectal cancer, thyroid disease and neural tube birth defects at levels of 5 mg/L or even lower. People who are concerned about nitrate in their tap water can look up their water system in EWG’s Tap Water Database.
Eighty-six percent of the communities with elevated levels of nitrate rely on groundwater for their drinking water. Our analysis found that contamination is not only getting worse in places with nitrate tests above 3 mg/L – it’s also getting worse in many places that exceeded the EPA’s legal limit, or the lower level linked to cancer and other health effects.
In the 10 states we investigated, of the 991 communities where tests found nitrate above the EPA legal limit at least once, drinking water contamination got worse in almost half – 461 systems serving almost 9.9 million Americans.
Of the 2,771 communities that tested at or above 5 mg/L, contamination got worse in 51 percent – 1,422 systems serving 15.9 million people.
Who Is Affected?
In the period studied, the smallest communities were more likely to have worsening contamination. Eighty percent of systems with worsening nitrate contamination served 3,300 or fewer people. For all states except California, two-thirds of communities with growing nitrate levels were in a rural area, rather than an urban area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau.
California is a special case, because so much of the state’s farming is located in what’s known as the urban-agricultural interface, with vast crop acreage inside urban areas. For example, Fresno, a city of more than 500,000 people, is surrounded by 1.88 million acres of cropland in Fresno County, the nation’s most productive agricultural county. Our analysis found that 71 percent of California communities with worsening nitrate contamination were in urban areas. For more detail, see the California profile.
In the table below, systems are categorized according to the EPA’s community size classifications.
Eighty Percent of Communities Where Nitrate Contamination Rose Were Small or Very Small
System size System count Percent of systems Very small (<501) 1,114 53% Small (501-3,300) 577 27% Medium (3,301-10,000) 188 9% Large (10,001-100,000) 196 9% Very large (>100,000) 36 2%
Source: EWG, from state data and EPA community size classifications.
Removing nitrate from tap water is expensive. A city can spread the cost of treatment over a large customer base. But in small communities, the increased cost of treatment per person could be hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year, depending on the technology used. For more information on the potential cost of nitrate treatment, see this EWG report.
State-by-State Results
Details for each state are available in the state profiles found here:
California
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Maryland
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Wisconsin
To see the methods used in this study and detailed results, click here.
Notes
1 Community water systems are public water supplies that serve residents in cities and towns year-round.
2 U.S. EPA, Estimated Nitrate Concentrations in Groundwater Used for Drinking. “While nitrate does occur naturally in groundwater, concentrations greater than 3 mg/L generally indicate contamination (Madison and Brunett, 1985), and a more recent nationwide study found that concentrations over 1 mg/L nitrate indicate human activity” (Dubrovsky et al. 2010).