By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

This week marks the first birthday of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemicals Safety for the 21st Century Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on June 22, 2016, after passing the Senate and House with overwhelming bipartisan support.

If balance is lost to short-term priorities of the new Administration and the chemical industry, the common ground so many of us fought for and found to support last year’s historic passage of the Lautenberg Act will quickly dissipate.

The Lautenberg Act significantly overhauled and substantially improved the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the core provisions of which had never been amended since their adoption in 1976.  Among the enhancements are new provisions that:

• mandate safety reviews for chemicals in active commerce;
• require safety findings for new chemicals before they are allowed on the market;
• replace TSCA’s burdensome safety standard — which prevented the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even from banning asbestos — with a pure, health-based safety standard;
• explicitly require protection of vulnerable populations like children, pregnant women and workers;
• give EPA enhanced authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals;
• make more information about chemicals available, by limiting companies’ ability to claim information as confidential, and by giving states and health and environmental professionals access to confidential information they need to do their jobs; and
• retain a significant role for states in assuring chemical safety, while strengthening the federal role.

Passage of the Lautenberg Act was made possible by the coming-together of members of both parties and a broad spectrum of stakeholders around two facts:  the old law wasn’t working for anyone, and a stronger federal chemicals management system was needed to restore lost confidence among the public and in the marketplace over the safety of chemicals.

At the one-year mark, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) remains confident that the law is strong and can and will ultimately deliver on its promises.  At the same time, its effective implementation in the near term is threatened on numerous fronts, unfolding as it is in one of the most anti-environmental and anti-regulatory climates this nation has faced in a long time.  

To be clear, aspects of the bipartisan and broad stakeholder support for the new law remain and are evident in spots:  Thanks to herculean efforts of career staff, along with calls from members of both parties for EPA to meet its deadlines, EPA complied with most of the early milestones set forth in the law.  The same appears likely for the next set of deadlines, some of which fall later this week.  To date, EPA’s reviews of and actions on new chemicals have been undertaken in a manner that adheres to the law’s new requirements, and appropriate additional resources are allowing the agency to eliminate the temporary backlog that resulted from the new requirements becoming effective immediately upon enactment.

This news pales, however, in light of the significant threats that implementation of the new law faces.  Among them:

• EPA’s BUDGET: The President’s proposed budget would decimate EPA’s funding and staffing, including in areas critical for effective TSCA implementation.  Despite preserving funding for the TSCA office, core agency functions such as enforcement and information management are on the chopping block.  Scientific initiatives on which the TSCA office heavily relies are also proposed to be cut to the bone.  The Office of Research and Development would be cut in half. That office includes:
  • the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which conducts hazard characterizations of chemicals subject to risk evaluations under TSCA, including more than half of the first 10 chemicals slated for such reviews; and
  • EPA’s ToxCast and related initiatives under the agency’s “Chemical Safety for Sustainability” research program, which has been shepherding the development of high-throughput testing and other predictive toxicology methods and computational tools that the Lautenberg Act calls on EPA to look to utilize in filling the major data gaps that exist for many chemicals regulated under TSCA.
• ANTI-REGULATORY EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND PENDING LEGISLATION: President Trump has signed several executive orders aimed at severely constraining EPA and other federal agencies from carrying out their missions to protect human health and the environment.  And a variety of bills have passed the House of Representatives and are pending in the Senate that would impose even more severe constraints, including by limiting the scientific information EPA can use in developing regulations and the independent scientific advice it can obtain.  One of these bills – the Regulatory Accountability Act – would, among other problems, impose across the entire federal government some of the worst flaws in the old TSCA that were removed by the Lautenberg Act; see here and here.
• INDUSTRY EFFORTS TO ROLL BACK EARLY TSCA ACTIONS: The Lautenberg Act authorized EPA to take action to address high risks it had identified in previous chemical risk assessments, including certain uses of trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (MC) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).  EPA proposed such rules in December and January, but much of the chemical industry has sought to derail, delay or dilute these rules, after failing to halt their proposal.  The fate of these rules is uncertain at this point, despite compelling ongoing evidence of the need for them.
  Many in the industry are also urging this Administration to repeal, delay or weaken a modest information-gathering rule on nanoscale materials that was over a decade in the making and was repeatedly scaled back in scope based on the industry’s concerns.  In response, EPA has already granted an initial delay, and the rule’s ultimate fate is uncertain.
  The law’s allowance for EPA to take early action was widely seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that the new law was working, which now may be lost.
• UNDUE INDUSTRY INFLUENCE OVER IMPLEMENTATION: A senior chemical industry official was recently appointed as principal deputy in EPA’s TSCA office, where, among other things, she has been active in drafting the final “framework” rules under the Lautenberg Act that will set forth the key procedures EPA will use to prioritize and evaluate the risks of chemicals under TSCA.  These rules, which are in their final stages and could be issued as soon as this week, will directly affect the financial interests of companies represented by her previous employer, the American Chemistry Council.

Each of these factors, which will heavily influence the early implementation of the Lautenberg Act, put at great risk the careful balance struck by the new law.  If that balance is lost to short-term priorities of the new Administration and the chemical industry, the common ground so many of us fought for and found to support last year’s historic passage of the Lautenberg Act will quickly dissipate, and the conditions that led the industry to want reform in the first place – retail regulation and state and local action in response to an ineffective federal system – will pick up even greater steam.  The crisis in confidence will remain unabated.

It was no accident that the Lautenberg Act built in many safeguards against inaction or unsound decisions, including deadlines, mandatory duties, public comment, mandatory documentation of EPA decision-making and judicial review.  All are meant to drive transparency and accountability.  EDF is prepared to use all of these tools to fight back against efforts to undermine scientifically robust and legally sound implementation of the law.

If this post seems too pessimistic, I hope I am wrong.  Even if I am right, I believe what has been created by the Lautenberg Act is durable and will survive the near-term threats I’ve noted, leading in the long run to a stronger federal system that better ensures the safety of chemicals on or entering the market.  Meanwhile, those of us who want to see health-protective implementation of the law certainly have our work cut out for us.

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

This week marks the first birthday of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemicals Safety for the 21st Century Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on June 22, 2016, after passing the Senate and House with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The Lautenberg Act significantly overhauled and substantially improved the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the core provisions of which had never been amended since their adoption in 1976.  Among the enhancements are new provisions that:

• mandate safety reviews for chemicals in active commerce;
• require safety findings for new chemicals before they are allowed on the market;
• replace TSCA’s burdensome safety standard — which prevented the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even from banning asbestos — with a pure, health-based safety standard;
• explicitly require protection of vulnerable populations like children, pregnant women and workers;
• give EPA enhanced authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals;
• make more information about chemicals available, by limiting companies’ ability to claim information as confidential, and by giving states and health and environmental professionals access to confidential information they need to do their jobs; and
• retain a significant role for states in assuring chemical safety, while strengthening the federal role.

Passage of the Lautenberg Act was made possible by the coming-together of members of both parties and a broad spectrum of stakeholders around two facts:  the old law wasn’t working for anyone, and a stronger federal chemicals management system was needed to restore lost confidence among the public and in the marketplace over the safety of chemicals.

At the one-year mark, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) remains confident that the law is strong and can and will ultimately deliver on its promises.  At the same time, its effective implementation in the near term is threatened on numerous fronts, unfolding as it is in one of the most anti-environmental and anti-regulatory climates this nation has faced in a long time.  

To be clear, aspects of the bipartisan and broad stakeholder support for the new law remain and are evident in spots:  Thanks to herculean efforts of career staff, along with calls from members of both parties for EPA to meet its deadlines, EPA complied with most of the early milestones set forth in the law.  The same appears likely for the next set of deadlines, some of which fall later this week.  To date, EPA’s reviews of and actions on new chemicals have been undertaken in a manner that adheres to the law’s new requirements, and appropriate additional resources are allowing the agency to eliminate the temporary backlog that resulted from the new requirements becoming effective immediately upon enactment.

This news pales, however, in light of the significant threats that implementation of the new law faces.  Among them:

• EPA’s BUDGET: The President’s proposed budget would decimate EPA’s funding and staffing, including in areas critical for effective TSCA implementation.  Despite preserving funding for the TSCA office, core agency functions such as enforcement and information management are on the chopping block.  Scientific initiatives on which the TSCA office heavily relies are also proposed to be cut to the bone.  The Office of Research and Development would be cut in half. That office includes:
  • the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which conducts hazard characterizations of chemicals subject to risk evaluations under TSCA, including more than half of the first 10 chemicals slated for such reviews; and
  • EPA’s ToxCast and related initiatives under the agency’s “Chemical Safety for Sustainability” research program, which has been shepherding the development of high-throughput testing and other predictive toxicology methods and computational tools that the Lautenberg Act calls on EPA to look to utilize in filling the major data gaps that exist for many chemicals regulated under TSCA.
• ANTI-REGULATORY EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND PENDING LEGISLATION: President Trump has signed several executive orders aimed at severely constraining EPA and other federal agencies from carrying out their missions to protect human health and the environment.  And a variety of bills have passed the House of Representatives and are pending in the Senate that would impose even more severe constraints, including by limiting the scientific information EPA can use in developing regulations and the independent scientific advice it can obtain.  One of these bills – the Regulatory Accountability Act – would, among other problems, impose across the entire federal government some of the worst flaws in the old TSCA that were removed by the Lautenberg Act; see here and here.
• INDUSTRY EFFORTS TO ROLL BACK EARLY TSCA ACTIONS: The Lautenberg Act authorized EPA to take action to address high risks it had identified in previous chemical risk assessments, including certain uses of trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (MC) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).  EPA proposed such rules in December and January, but much of the chemical industry has sought to derail, delay or dilute these rules, after failing to halt their proposal.  The fate of these rules is uncertain at this point, despite compelling ongoing evidence of the need for them.
  Many in the industry are also urging this Administration to repeal, delay or weaken a modest information-gathering rule on nanoscale materials that was over a decade in the making and was repeatedly scaled back in scope based on the industry’s concerns.  In response, EPA has already granted an initial delay, and the rule’s ultimate fate is uncertain.
  The law’s allowance for EPA to take early action was widely seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that the new law was working, which now may be lost.
• UNDUE INDUSTRY INFLUENCE OVER IMPLEMENTATION: A senior chemical industry official was recently appointed as principal deputy in EPA’s TSCA office, where, among other things, she has been active in drafting the final “framework” rules under the Lautenberg Act that will set forth the key procedures EPA will use to prioritize and evaluate the risks of chemicals under TSCA.  These rules, which are in their final stages and could be issued as soon as this week, will directly affect the financial interests of companies represented by her previous employer, the American Chemistry Council.

Each of these factors, which will heavily influence the early implementation of the Lautenberg Act, put at great risk the careful balance struck by the new law.  If that balance is lost to short-term priorities of the new Administration and the chemical industry, the common ground so many of us fought for and found to support last year’s historic passage of the Lautenberg Act will quickly dissipate, and the conditions that led the industry to want reform in the first place – retail regulation and state and local action in response to an ineffective federal system – will pick up even greater steam.  The crisis in confidence will remain unabated.

It was no accident that the Lautenberg Act built in many safeguards against inaction or unsound decisions, including deadlines, mandatory duties, public comment, mandatory documentation of EPA decision-making and judicial review.  All are meant to drive transparency and accountability.  EDF is prepared to use all of these tools to fight back against efforts to undermine scientifically robust and legally sound implementation of the law.

If this post seems too pessimistic, I hope I am wrong.  Even if I am right, I believe what has been created by the Lautenberg Act is durable and will survive the near-term threats I’ve noted, leading in the long run to a stronger federal system that better ensures the safety of chemicals on or entering the market.  Meanwhile, those of us who want to see health-protective implementation of the law certainly have our work cut out for us.

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

This week marks the first birthday of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemicals Safety for the 21st Century Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on June 22, 2016, after passing the Senate and House with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The Lautenberg Act significantly overhauled and substantially improved the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the core provisions of which had never been amended since their adoption in 1976.  Among the enhancements are new provisions that:

• mandate safety reviews for chemicals in active commerce;
• require safety findings for new chemicals before they are allowed on the market;
• replace TSCA’s burdensome safety standard — which prevented the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even from banning asbestos — with a pure, health-based safety standard;
• explicitly require protection of vulnerable populations like children, pregnant women and workers;
• give EPA enhanced authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals;
• make more information about chemicals available, by limiting companies’ ability to claim information as confidential, and by giving states and health and environmental professionals access to confidential information they need to do their jobs; and
• retain a significant role for states in assuring chemical safety, while strengthening the federal role.

Passage of the Lautenberg Act was made possible by the coming-together of members of both parties and a broad spectrum of stakeholders around two facts:  the old law wasn’t working for anyone, and a stronger federal chemicals management system was needed to restore lost confidence among the public and in the marketplace over the safety of chemicals.

At the one-year mark, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) remains confident that the law is strong and can and will ultimately deliver on its promises.  At the same time, its effective implementation in the near term is threatened on numerous fronts, unfolding as it is in one of the most anti-environmental and anti-regulatory climates this nation has faced in a long time.  

To be clear, aspects of the bipartisan and broad stakeholder support for the new law remain and are evident in spots:  Thanks to herculean efforts of career staff, along with calls from members of both parties for EPA to meet its deadlines, EPA complied with most of the early milestones set forth in the law.  The same appears likely for the next set of deadlines, some of which fall later this week.  To date, EPA’s reviews of and actions on new chemicals have been undertaken in a manner that adheres to the law’s new requirements, and appropriate additional resources are allowing the agency to eliminate the temporary backlog that resulted from the new requirements becoming effective immediately upon enactment.

This news pales, however, in light of the significant threats that implementation of the new law faces.  Among them:

• EPA’s BUDGET: The President’s proposed budget would decimate EPA’s funding and staffing, including in areas critical for effective TSCA implementation.  Despite preserving funding for the TSCA office, core agency functions such as enforcement and information management are on the chopping block.  Scientific initiatives on which the TSCA office heavily relies are also proposed to be cut to the bone.  The Office of Research and Development would be cut in half. That office includes:
  • the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which conducts hazard characterizations of chemicals subject to risk evaluations under TSCA, including more than half of the first 10 chemicals slated for such reviews; and
  • EPA’s ToxCast and related initiatives under the agency’s “Chemical Safety for Sustainability” research program, which has been shepherding the development of high-throughput testing and other predictive toxicology methods and computational tools that the Lautenberg Act calls on EPA to look to utilize in filling the major data gaps that exist for many chemicals regulated under TSCA.
• ANTI-REGULATORY EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND PENDING LEGISLATION: President Trump has signed several executive orders aimed at severely constraining EPA and other federal agencies from carrying out their missions to protect human health and the environment.  And a variety of bills have passed the House of Representatives and are pending in the Senate that would impose even more severe constraints, including by limiting the scientific information EPA can use in developing regulations and the independent scientific advice it can obtain.  One of these bills – the Regulatory Accountability Act – would, among other problems, impose across the entire federal government some of the worst flaws in the old TSCA that were removed by the Lautenberg Act; see here and here.
• INDUSTRY EFFORTS TO ROLL BACK EARLY TSCA ACTIONS: The Lautenberg Act authorized EPA to take action to address high risks it had identified in previous chemical risk assessments, including certain uses of trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (MC) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).  EPA proposed such rules in December and January, but much of the chemical industry has sought to derail, delay or dilute these rules, after failing to halt their proposal.  The fate of these rules is uncertain at this point, despite compelling ongoing evidence of the need for them.
  Many in the industry are also urging this Administration to repeal, delay or weaken a modest information-gathering rule on nanoscale materials that was over a decade in the making and was repeatedly scaled back in scope based on the industry’s concerns.  In response, EPA has already granted an initial delay, and the rule’s ultimate fate is uncertain.
  The law’s allowance for EPA to take early action was widely seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that the new law was working, which now may be lost.
• UNDUE INDUSTRY INFLUENCE OVER IMPLEMENTATION: A senior chemical industry official was recently appointed as principal deputy in EPA’s TSCA office, where, among other things, she has been active in drafting the final “framework” rules under the Lautenberg Act that will set forth the key procedures EPA will use to prioritize and evaluate the risks of chemicals under TSCA.  These rules, which are in their final stages and could be issued as soon as this week, will directly affect the financial interests of companies represented by her previous employer, the American Chemistry Council.

Each of these factors, which will heavily influence the early implementation of the Lautenberg Act, put at great risk the careful balance struck by the new law.  If that balance is lost to short-term priorities of the new Administration and the chemical industry, the common ground so many of us fought for and found to support last year’s historic passage of the Lautenberg Act will quickly dissipate, and the conditions that led the industry to want reform in the first place – retail regulation and state and local action in response to an ineffective federal system – will pick up even greater steam.  The crisis in confidence will remain unabated.

It was no accident that the Lautenberg Act built in many safeguards against inaction or unsound decisions, including deadlines, mandatory duties, public comment, mandatory documentation of EPA decision-making and judicial review.  All are meant to drive transparency and accountability.  EDF is prepared to use all of these tools to fight back against efforts to undermine scientifically robust and legally sound implementation of the law.

If this post seems too pessimistic, I hope I am wrong.  Even if I am right, I believe what has been created by the Lautenberg Act is durable and will survive the near-term threats I’ve noted, leading in the long run to a stronger federal system that better ensures the safety of chemicals on or entering the market.  Meanwhile, those of us who want to see health-protective implementation of the law certainly have our work cut out for us.

Restore the Mississippi River Delta is partnering with the Culinaria Center to host an Asian carp cooking competition on Tuesday, June 20th at the Southern Food and Beverage Museum. The event, Best of Bycatch, is being held in conjunction with the seventh annual New Orleans Eat Local Challenge. Best of Bycatch is the latest in an educational series sponsored by The Culinaria Center, a food law and policy institute that is part of the National Food and Beverage Foundation. As ...

The post Asian Carp: If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Eat ‘Em appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Restore the Mississippi River Delta is partnering with the Culinaria Center to host an Asian carp cooking competition on Tuesday, June 20th at the Southern Food and Beverage Museum. The event, Best of Bycatch, is being held in conjunction with the seventh annual New Orleans Eat Local Challenge. Best of Bycatch is the latest in an educational series sponsored by The Culinaria Center, a food law and policy institute that is part of the National Food and Beverage Foundation. As ...

The post Asian Carp: If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Eat ‘Em appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Restore the Mississippi River Delta is partnering with the Culinaria Center to host an Asian carp cooking competition on Tuesday, June 20th at the Southern Food and Beverage Museum. The event, Best of Bycatch, is being held in conjunction with the seventh annual New Orleans Eat Local Challenge. Best of Bycatch is the latest in an educational series sponsored by The Culinaria Center, a food law and policy institute that is part of the National Food and Beverage Foundation. As ...

The post Asian Carp: If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Eat ‘Em appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

The Future Energy Jobs Act is the biggest clean energy breakthrough in Illinois history, and may be one of the most innovative pieces of energy legislation enacted by any state recently.

By Steve Schwartzman

Michel Temer in April 2016. Credit: Fabio Rodrigues-Pozzebom/ Agencia Brasil via Wikimedia Commons.

Every conversation I have with my Brazilian friends and colleagues these days starts off with a discussion of whose political crisis is worse. It’s a hard question. But Brazil’s President Temer has the chance to show a little real leadership June 19th if he decides to veto a blatant giveaway of a large swath of protected Amazon forest to land grabbers and environmental lawbreakers.

U.S. and Brazilian presidents: The 19th-century take on development and the environment

Wildly unpopular U.S. President Trump was elected by maybe a third of eligible voters, with a substantial minority of votes cast. He is doing everything he and his staff can think of to roll back environmental protections in the United States and stymie progress on climate change globally. His ill-conceived scheme to pull the United States out the Paris Agreement would have us abdicate international leadership and surrender the enormous economic opportunity of the new, renewable, energy economy to China and other competitors.

Wildly unpopular Brazilian President Temer was put in power by an even more wildly unpopular Congress in an ultimately failed bid to shut down judicial investigations that are sending herds of them, and their business associates, to jail for massive graft and corruption. He (and his predecessor, who mismanaged the economy into the worst recession in Brazil’s modern history) has totally dropped the ball on controlling Amazon deforestation, which, in the absence of budget for enforcement has increased for two years running for the first time since 2004.

Brazil’s Amazon at risk

Since the weight of corruption scandals Temer is personally implicated in has him clinging to power by his fingernails, the yahoos in the “rural caucus” of the Congress (the voting bloc of big ranchers’ and agribusiness’ representatives) are taking the opportunity to run hog-wild with proposals to gut forest protections and roll back indigenous territories – two of the major reasons why Brazil became the world leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing deforestation by about 80% from 2004–2014.

By June 19th, Temer has to decide whether to veto measures that would deliver 600,000 hectares in an Amazon protected area to land-grabbers – and rampant deforestation. It's not just 600,000 hectares of forest at stake – caving to a flagrant play to carve up a federal conservation area to benefit slash-and-burn land grabbers is a terrible precedent for all of the Amazon protected areas.

All of this is rapidly eroding Brazil’s international climate leadership, and is bad news for the Paris Agreement. Brazil’s demonstration that a major emerging economy could reduce large-scale emissions while growing its economy and bringing millions out of poverty was a beacon of light in the climate negotiations that is dimming by the moment.

Brazil’s President Temer can show a little real leadership if he vetos a blatant giveaway of a large swath of protected Amazon forest to land grabbers and environmental lawbreakers

The abandonment of Brazil’s successful deforestation control program by President Temer and former President Dilma, if continued, will only hinder Brazil’s economic prospects in the 21st century global economy – like President Trump’s radical misreading (or ignorance) of the economic implications of the Paris Agreement for the United States. Increased deforestation will likely cause Brazil to lose market share as major commodity traders and consumer goods companies that have committed to zero-deforestation beef and soy supply chains curtail market access. Rampant violence and human rights abuses against indigenous peoples and grassroots environmental activists will expose public-facing companies to increasing reputational risk – and send them looking for lower-risk places to source.

On the other hand, support for sustainable development first movers such as Acre state and agriculture powerhouse Mato Grosso could make Brazil the go-to supplier for zero-deforestation commodities worldwide. And, as Amazon states, civil society and green business leaders have consistently advocated, if Brazil opened up to carbon market crediting for reduced deforestation in emerging international markets, it could unlock the finance needed to end deforestation in the Amazon and Brazil’s other mega-diverse biomes; make family and industrial agriculture 100% sustainable; and create sustainable prosperity in the 200 million hectares of indigenous territories and protected areas of the Amazon.

It’s hard to say whose loss is worse under U.S. and Brazil’s lamentable current policies, but maybe even harder to say whose gain would be greater if Trump and Temer would wake up and recognize the real opportunities in the 21st century economy.

Twenty-six. That is how many smog-related air quality alerts were forecast across our country for one single day earlier this week. From Pennsylvania to Rhode Island, “action days” were called urging “sensitive groups” (including children, people who are active outdoors, older Americans, and people with heart or lung disease) to reduce their time spent outdoors. […]

The post Delaying smog standards risks lives, jeopardizes Americans’ health appeared first on Climate 411.

By Mandy Warner

Twenty-six. That is how many smog-related air quality alerts were forecast across our country for one single day earlier this week.

From Pennsylvania to Rhode Island, “action days” were called urging “sensitive groups” (including children, people who are active outdoors, older Americans, and people with heart or lung disease) to reduce their time spent outdoors.

Smog is a dangerous air pollutant linked to premature deaths, asthma attacks, lower birth weight in infants, and serious heart and lung diseases.

Smog forms when industrial emissions from power plants, factories, cars, and other sources react with heat and sunlight in the atmosphere.

There have already been many alerts across the U.S. this year for smog pollution, and “smog season” has just begun. That shows we have more work to do to clean the air and protect our families and communities.

That is why it is disturbing to hear that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has decided to delay implementation of the updated smog standards by one year.

According to the American Lung Association’s 2017 State of the Air Report [PDF], more than one-third of all Americans live in areas with unhealthful levels of smog. More than 116 million people live in counties that received a grade of “F” for smog levels.

A one-year delay in the implementation of anticipated pollution from the smog standards would mean:

• 660 more deaths
• 230,000 asthma attacks among children
• 180,000 missed work or school days

These are real lives being affected by Administrator Pruitt’s irresponsible actions.

The smog standards are driven by medical science. Here are some of the medical and health associations that supported strengthening the ozone standards:

• The American Thoracic Society
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American Medical Association
• American Heart Association
• American Lung Association
• American Public Health Association
• Children’s Environmental Health Network
• National Association of County and City Health Officials
• Trust for America’s Health
• Health Care Without Harm
• Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
• American College of Chest Physicians
• American College of Preventive Medicine
• American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
• American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation
• National Association for the Medical Direction of Respiratory Care
• Society of Physicians for Social Responsibility

EPA’s mission is to protect public health and the environment. Administrator Pruitt’s decision to delay the smog standards runs counter to that bi-partisan, four-and-a-half decade mission. It also runs counter to the recommendations of leading medical and public health associations.

The successful history of implementing the Clean Air Act shows that states have the flexibility to design tailored solutions to address smog pollution, and that dramatic pollution reductions go hand-in-hand with a strong economy.

We need to reduce the amount of smog in our air – and to achieve that goal, we need EPA to lead.

By Mandy Warner

Twenty-six. That is how many smog-related air quality alerts were forecast across our country for one single day earlier this week.

From Pennsylvania to Rhode Island, “action days” were called urging “sensitive groups” (including children, people who are active outdoors, older Americans, and people with heart or lung disease) to reduce their time spent outdoors.

Smog is a dangerous air pollutant linked to premature deaths, asthma attacks, lower birth weight in infants, and serious heart and lung diseases.

Smog forms when industrial emissions from power plants, factories, cars, and other sources react with heat and sunlight in the atmosphere.

There have already been many alerts across the U.S. this year for smog pollution, and “smog season” has just begun. That shows we have more work to do to clean the air and protect our families and communities.

That is why it is disturbing to hear that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has decided to delay implementation of the updated smog standards by one year.

According to the American Lung Association’s 2017 State of the Air Report [PDF], more than one-third of all Americans live in areas with unhealthful levels of smog. More than 116 million people live in counties that received a grade of “F” for smog levels.

A one-year delay in the implementation of anticipated pollution from the smog standards would mean:

• 660 more deaths
• 230,000 asthma attacks among children
• 180,000 missed work or school days

These are real lives being affected by Administrator Pruitt’s irresponsible actions.

The smog standards are driven by medical science. Here are some of the medical and health associations that supported strengthening the ozone standards:

• The American Thoracic Society
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American Medical Association
• American Heart Association
• American Lung Association
• American Public Health Association
• Children’s Environmental Health Network
• National Association of County and City Health Officials
• Trust for America’s Health
• Health Care Without Harm
• Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
• American College of Chest Physicians
• American College of Preventive Medicine
• American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
• American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation
• National Association for the Medical Direction of Respiratory Care
• Society of Physicians for Social Responsibility

EPA’s mission is to protect public health and the environment. Administrator Pruitt’s decision to delay the smog standards runs counter to that bi-partisan, four-and-a-half decade mission. It also runs counter to the recommendations of leading medical and public health associations.

The successful history of implementing the Clean Air Act shows that states have the flexibility to design tailored solutions to address smog pollution, and that dramatic pollution reductions go hand-in-hand with a strong economy.

We need to reduce the amount of smog in our air – and to achieve that goal, we need EPA to lead.

By Kate Zerrenner

The 85th Texas Regular Legislative Session has drawn to a close. Now that we've had some time to digest what went down (and get some sleep), we can reflect. There is no doubt: This was a very hard Session. Emotions were high and lives were at stake.

Each Session ends up having themes or issues that remain high on the priority list throughout the five months legislators are in Austin. This year, the focus was on social issues, like transgender bathroom access and reproductive rights. And although the connection may not always be obvious, social issues are environmental issues, too.

All of these matters are fundamentally about people. When I fight for clean energy or water or taking action on climate change, I'm not doing it in a vacuum. We cannot disconnect these issues with the social issues we face in Texas and on a national scale right now. Immigration, health care, and education are all about protecting the most vulnerable among us and ensuring we treat each other with respect – and so is fighting for the environment.

The people-nature connection

As humans we are connected to nature. There is ample evidence that nature has mood-altering benefits to the human psyche. If my daughter is grumpy, spending some time outside playing in water or running in fresh air turns her mood on a dime. Our need to connect to nature and our planet is essential to our survival, and we are hardwired to remember that, even if our basic needs have been met.

Moreover, in the eyes of nature, we are all equal. Nature sees no skin color, no nationality, no ethnic or religious difference. Yet the effects of environmental pollution are not felt equally: Poor people and communities of color experience disproportionate impacts and health risks as a result of prejudice. So when we fight for environmental issues, we need to take that reality into account, and make sure we are fighting for people to have equitable access to a clean, healthy world.

Climate change is making this effort all the more critical. In fact, a recent report from The Roosevelt Institute has found that not only do the most vulnerable populations bear the brunt of a changing climate, but also social and economic inequality may actually be a driver that exacerbates climate change. This is because “when power and wealth are distributed more unequally, the rich and powerful (who gain more than others from environmentally degrading activities) are more able to impose environmental harm on the poorer and less powerful (who bear disproportionate costs).”

Room for hope

There is no silver bullet solution, but I am reminded of my China Studies professor who said, "Put on your Chinese ears and eyes." That is, think about it from the other person's perspective. We have sympathy for other people’s plight, but do we have empathy?

I like to think I do and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) does. So, we get up every day and put on a variety of ears and eyes and think about the solutions for the problems we face. We find partners, old and new, likeminded and sometimes our political adversaries.

Here are just a few of the ways EDF is working to protect people of all backgrounds in Texas and across the U.S.:

• Our Texas team is partnering with the Texas Energy Poverty Research Institute to study Texas’ low-income communities and their relationships to energy.
• Moms Clean Air Force, an EDF initiative, is helping spearhead the San Antonio Climate Action Coalition, urging the City of San Antonio to act on climate.
• Our California team is working with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power on the development and implementation of equity metrics which use data to help ensure all residents have access to clean energy.
• Our North Carolina team is advancing innovative mechanisms for financing clean energy in rural electric cooperatives so rural families and businesses receive safe, reliable, and affordable electricity.
• Our health team is focused on getting lead out of drinking water nationwide.

It’s tempting to feel hopeless when today’s problems seem so vast and varied. But there is a common theme among them: People. People are at the heart of why we at EDF do what we do, and why so many other advocates across a broad spectrum of areas do what they do. We find common ground, we build from there, and we build each other up.

As Texas heads into a special session next month, I can only hope state legislators will put their ”put on their people ears and eyes,” and use empathy to make these important decisions. Regardless, EDF and other social advocates will be there to try to protect people and our planet.

Photo source: iStock/wundervisuals

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

Food is meaningful – and surprising – source of young children’s exposure to lead.

No safe level of lead in blood has been identified. In children, even very low blood lead levels can cause behavioral problems and lower IQ. Protecting children’s ability to learn and thrive demands that we find effective ways to reduce exposures to lead from all sources.

EDF analyzed 11 years of data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and found that food, and baby food in particular, is a meaningful – and surprising – source of lead. If it were eliminated completely, we estimate the societal benefits at more than $27 billion annually.

EDF‘s analysis of 11 years of FDA data found:

• Lead was detected in 20% of baby food samples compared to 14% for other foods.
• Eight types of baby foods had detectable lead in more than 40% of samples.
• Baby food versions of apple and grape juices and carrots had more samples with detectable lead than the regular versions.

EDF also found that more than 1 million children consume more lead than FDA’s limit. Eliminating lead in food would save society more than $27 billion annually in total lifetime earnings from saved IQ points.

EDF evaluated data collected and analyzed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2003 to 2013 as part of the agency’s Total Diet Study (TDS). Since the 1970s, the TDS has tracked metals, pesticides, and nutrients in food. While we evaluated all types of food collected by FDA, we focused on types of baby food because infants are most vulnerable to lead.

Overall, 20% of 2,164 baby food samples and 14% of the other 10,064 food samples had detectable levels of lead. At least one sample in 52 of the 57 types of baby food analyzed by FDA had detectable levels of lead in it. Lead was most commonly found in the following baby foods types:

• Fruit juices: 89% of grape juice samples contained detectable levels of lead, mixed fruit (67%), apple (55%), and pear (45%)
• Root vegetables: Sweet potatoes (86%) and carrots (43%)
• Cookies: Arrowroot cookies (64%) and teething biscuits (47%)

We also found that the baby food versions of apple and grape juice and of carrots had samples with detectable lead more often than the regular versions.

Both FDA and food producers can and must do better to reduce lead in food, especially baby food.

EDF recommends that FDA:

• Ensure lead is not added to any food contact material where it is reasonably expected to get into food;
• Make clear that the international standards for fruit juice are inadequate;
• Update its limits and food safety guidance to reflect current scientific understanding of lead risks that better protect children; and
• Encourage manufacturers to reduce lead levels in food and take enforcement action when limits are exceeded.

Manufacturers need not wait for FDA to act. EDF recommends companies:

• Set a goal of less than 1 ppb of lead in baby food and other foods marketed to young children;
• Continue to prioritize lead contaminant minimization when sourcing ingredients;
• Test more frequently during processing to identify additional sources of lead and take appropriate corrective actions; and
• Publicly commit to consumers to drive down lead levels through health-protective limits and robust product stewardship.

In the meantime, parents of young children should consult with their child’s pediatrician to learn about all the ways to reduce lead exposure. They should also check with their favorite brands to ask whether the company:

• Regularly tests its products for lead; and
• Ensures that, especially for baby food, there is less than 1 ppb of lead in the food and juices they sell.

Healthy eating requires safe, nutritious food. Lead has no place in a child’s diet.

Download the report [PDF]

JOIN THE FORCE

By Jenny Ahlen

As a parent, environmental professional and wife of an accomplished chef, I spend a lot of time thinking about food and how to make the best choices when it comes to feeding my family. That’s why EDF’s report detailing lead in food has me so concerned.

Usually I think about, and maybe even felt guilty at times, about the nutritional content and environmental impacts of the food I choose, but it never occurred to me to worry that the food itself could be contaminated with lead.  And, let’s just be clear – there is no scientific evidence of a safe level of lead in blood. Lead can harm a child’s developing brain, potentially leading to learning problems, lower IQ, as well as cause behavioral problems.

While I knew that the major exposures to lead come from lead-based paint, contaminated soil and dust, and drinking water, I didn’t realize that in order to have a comprehensive plan to protect my child from harm, contaminated food should also be on my list.

According to EDF’s analysis of FDA data from 2003 to 2013, 20% of baby food and 14% of other food sampled contained detectable levels of lead. The baby food items with the highest rates of detection include grape, mixed fruit, apple, and pear juices, sweet potatoes and carrots, arrowroot cookies, and teething biscuits.

What business and consumers can do to eliminate lead contamination in baby foods
Click To Tweet

The following chart details the percentage of various food samples where lead was detected.

There are two key takeaways from this chart.

1. Some product types have a high percent of lead detection across the samples, while other product types have much smaller percentages.
2. While many samples of products have detected levels of lead, every category has some products with no detectable levels of lead. This suggests that lead in food is a problem with a solution.

So, what is a food company to do?

• Step 1 – Set a goal of less than 1 parts per billion (ppb) of lead in baby food and other foods marketed to young children
• Step 2 – Test for lead
• Step 3 – Identify the source of contamination – is it the raw ingredients, something the food is exposed to during processing, or something else?
• Step 4 – Take steps to eliminate the contamination
• Step 5 – Remain vigilant – keep testing and improving until the contamination is eliminated

5 steps businesses can take to eliminate lead contamination in foods
Click To Tweet

What can you do?

Ask companies if they regularly test their products for lead; and whether they ensure that there is less than 1 ppb of lead in the food and juices they sell. If they don’t, let them know it is a high priority concern for you.

I’m about to have another baby, and I hope that by the time baby number two is here and ready to eat solids, food companies have taken the steps necessary to eliminate lead. That way, I can spend more time focusing on eating great food and less time worrying about if it’s  contaminated.