Must-read recap: The New Lede's top stories
California paraquat ban moves forward; new hope for polluted communities; PFAS protections in the Farm Bill?; Iowa farm county seeks answers; corruption and the US EPA.
California paraquat ban moves forward
California has moved a step closer to banning the controversial weed killing chemical paraquat after a key state legislative committee last week allowed the measure to proceed.
The ban would take effect Jan. 1, 2026, outlawing the “use, manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale in commerce” of any pesticide product that contains paraquat. The bill provides for a process that allows state regulators to reevaluate paraquat and potentially reapprove it with or without new restrictions.
A chief concern cited by backers of the bill is research linking chronic paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s disease, an incurable and debilitating brain disease considered a top cause of death in the United States.
Several thousand farmers, agricultural workers and others are suing paraquat maker Syngenta, alleging they developed Parkinson’s because of long-term chronic effects of paraquat. (Read the rest of the story.)
New hope for long-polluted communities, but skepticism of Superfund success remains
Jackie Medcalf was a teenager when she moved with her family to a small farm near the San Jacinto River in Harris County, Texas. It felt like a good life, playing in the river and “eating off the land,” as Medcalf describes it.
But the animals quickly grew ill, as did Medcalf, suffering a range of health problems. Her father developed multiple myeloma at the age of 51. Tests of the family’s well water would later reveal contamination with several toxic metals. Testing of the eggs collected from the family’s chickens also found an array of heavy metals. The family was not alone, as others in the area reported similar problems.
There was little doubt about the source of the contamination: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the San Jacinto River Waste Pits as a Superfund site due to dumping in the 1960s of waste from a paper mill containing carcinogens and other types of toxins. The site has been on the EPA’s “National Priorities List” for cleanup since 2008. But 14 years later, those efforts have yet to be completed. (Read the rest of the story.)
Senate Farm Bill draft raises hopes for PFAS-impacted farmers
As US lawmakers haggle over the renewal of the massive Farm Bill, which funds programs ranging from food access for low-income families to crop insurance for farmers, one new issue sparking debate is a proposed safety net for farmers whose land has become contaminated with dreaded “forever chemicals.”
A recent Farm Bill draft released by the US Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry, includes language from the proposed Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act, which would direct the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to designate $500 million in grants to states, territories, and Tribes to monitor and clean up per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on agricultural land and in farm products. The funds would partly offset financial losses a farmer can suffer due to PFAS contamination.
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture has said it sees PFAS as an “emerging risk” that poses a “major hazard” to US farmers and ranchers.
And last year, the US Department of Defense said it had notified almost 4,000 farms across dozens of states to warn that they were at risk for PFAS contamination. Many farmers in Maine have learned that their land is contaminated, as have farmers in Texas, New Mexico and elsewhere. (Read the rest of the story.)
An Iowa Farm county seeks answers amid cancer rates 50% higher than national average
EMMETSBURG, IOWA –Raised in rural Iowa, 71-year-old Maureen Reeves Horsley once considered her tiny hometown in the northwest part of the state to be a blessed space. She recalls a time when the streams here ran clean and the lake water was clear.
The family farm where Horsley grew up was one of more than 1,200 farms in Palo Alto County in 1970. In her memory, the county’s 13,000 residents enjoyed a thriving agricultural-based economy and close-knit neighbors. Cows grazed in verdant pastures. And seemingly endless acres of corn marched to the horizon.
“We had good crops, corn and soybeans,” Horsley said of her family’s farm along the West Fork of the Des Moines River. “You could make it on a small amount of farmland. You felt safe. It was a good life.”
Two generations later Emmetsburg and Palo Alto County have been radically transformed into a place where many residents worry that the farms that have sustained their livelihoods are also the source of the health problems that have plagued so many families. (Read the rest of the story.)
Corrupt politics, not science, power the US EPA
(Opinion columns published in The New Lede represent the views of the individual(s) authoring the columns and not necessarily the perspectives of TNL editors.)
When I started my job in the Office of Pesticide Programs at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1979, many things quickly surprised and disappointed me – a pattern that persisted through my 25-year career there.
The first thing that astonished me was the scandal that came to light with the giant Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT). People would whisper in the corridors about fake lab studies. They would wonder aloud about the safety of our food. IBT was the country’s largest testing lab for drugs and pesticides, conducting toxicology studies for companies such as Monsanto until investigators discovered widespread fraudulent manipulation of test data. The US Department of Justice successfully prosecuted multiple IBT officials for fraud, and has caught others who similarly engaged in fraud to ensure approvals for risky products.
I learned the IBT story from Adrian Gross, a colleague in the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs. (Gross died in 1992.) We spent hours talking about the science and political corruption that often accompany the regulation of pesticides. Gross would speak of “cut-and-paste” science, in which studies the EPA relied on included passages simply copied from materials developed by the companies seeking approval to sell their risky products.
Over the time I worked at the EPA, I became convinced that the agency was serving industry much more than the public. My attempts to discuss concerns with supervisors made no difference, save for intensifying hostility toward me. (Read the rest of the opinion column by Evaggelos Vallianatos, former EPA program analyst.)