Must-read recap: The New Lede's top stories
US freshwater fish present health hazard, EPA announces historic funding for environmental justice, EPA unveils new proposed air pollution standard, and Big Oil's campaign against drilling ban.
Fishing fans take note: New study shows eating what you catch could be hazardous to your health
People who eat just one US freshwater fish a year are likely to show a significant increase of a cancer-causing chemical in their bloodstream, new research warns.
An analysis of US government data derived from more than 500 fish samples revealed that the majority of fish living in streams, rivers and lakes across the country are contaminated with per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at levels almost 300 times higher than found in fish from other sources, including ocean and farmed fish, according to the paper published recently in the journal Environmental Research.
Importantly, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), a type of PFAS known to be particularly harmful, was the largest contributor to total PFAS levels found in freshwater fish samples, averaging 74% of the total, according to the study.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers PFOS specifically to be a hazardous substance that “may present a substantial danger to human health” due to its links to cancer and effects on reproductive, developmental, and cardiovascular health. Other PFAS have also been linked to cancer, immune deficiencies, thyroid disease, and other health problems.
Freshwater fish represent an important US food source, especially for people living on a low income. About 660,000 people in the US eat fish they catch themselves three or more times per week.
“Consuming a single freshwater fish could measurably increase PFAS levels in your body,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and one of the authors of the paper. “These fish are incredibly contaminated.”
Many studies have shown that PFAS chemicals are pervasive in the environment and the new analysis underscores the growing understanding that humans and animals have little avenue for escaping contamination. The research paper found that fish from all 48 continental US states showed PFAS contamination, and only one of the samples did not contain any detectable PFAS. (Read the rest of the story.)
EPA announces $100 million in historic funding for environmental justice
The United States is allocating about $100 million in grant funding to aid communities struggling with polluted air, unsafe drinking water, and climate change impacts in a move that marks the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s largest-ever investment in environmental justice.
“For decades, too many communities, particularly low-income communities and communities of color, have borne the burden of climate and environmental pollution,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a press briefing Tuesday. “We also know that too many of these communities have faced barrier after barrier trying to access the federal funds they need and deserve. This administration has committed to putting an end to that injustice.”
The EPA plans include providing funds for state and local governments and tribes to use in collaboration with community organizations to address environmental and/or public health issues at the local level and to develop tools and processes that integrate environmental justice considerations into government programs. Funds will also be given directly to community-based organizations.
To be considered for funding, applicants must submit proposals by April 10. Regan expects applicants awarded grants to receive their funding by this fall.
“I’m really excited that that amount of money has been allocated,” said Mildred McClain, executive director of the Harambee House nonprofit in Savannah, Georgia, which focuses on improving environmental conditions in African American communities. “It’s a good start. But of course I would say from a community standpoint that we need much, much more.”
Regan acknowledged that the $100 million is only a fraction of the $3 billion allocated for environmental and climate justice block grants authorized under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and said to “stay tuned” for “additional grant opportunities in the months to come.”
Catherine Flowers, founder of the Center for Rural Enterprise and Environmental Justice, applauded the move to empower environmental justice communities through direct funding. (Read the rest of the story.)
EPA unveils new proposed air pollution standard; some say it falls short
US officials said Friday that they are moving to strengthen a key air quality standard, acknowledging a wealth of scientific evidence that demonstrates the dire health dangers posed by air pollution – and the lack of adequate protection provided by current US standards.
Promising “transformative” change, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan announced an agency proposal that would tighten the current air quality standard for what is commonly referred to as PM2.5, defined as fine particulate matter that is less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in diameter.
The agency proposal falls woefully short of recommendations by the World Health Organization, and some critics expressed disappointment in the effort. But other observers applauded the move.
“All decreases are good and will have health benefits,” said Scott Weichenthal, a researcher at McGill University in Canada who specializes in evaluating environmental risk factors for chronic diseases. “Larger decreases are better but there are practical realities that the EPA has to consider, and this is a move in the right direction.”
People are exposed to these harmful fine particles, known simply as soot, through a variety of common sources, including industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust and wildfire smoke. Soot exposure is known to contribute to a range of health problems, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The fine particulate matter can penetrate a person’s lungs and move into the blood stream, impacting other organs. Lower-income communities and people of color are seen at particular risk.
The EPA proposal calls for lowering the annual primary exposure standard from 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of air to 9-10 micrograms per cubic meter.
Setting the standard at the lower end of the proposed range would prevent up to 4,200 premature deaths per year, 270,000 lost workdays per year, and save billions of dollars in health care costs, according to EPA estimates.
Postcard from California: Big Oil’s campaign to kill drilling ban near homes and schools
In September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a landmark bill banning new oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet – about two-thirds of a mile – of homes, schools, day care centers, healthcare facilities, parks, and businesses open to the public. The measure also banned “reworking” old, unproductive wells lying within the buffer zones.
It was a huge win for environmental justice advocates, capping a decade-long campaign to protect Californians from the well-documented health risks of living near drill rigs, including premature births, heart disease and asthma. More than 7 million Californians – disproportionately lower-income people of color – live within a mile of active oil or gas wells.
Newsom signed the bill, SB 1137, on a Friday. The ink had hardly dried when, the following Monday, the oil and gas industry launched a petition drive to throw out the new law.
Under California’s referendum and initiative process, if enough registered and verified voters sign a petition to overturn a law, it goes on the ballot in the next general election. But even before voters get a chance to decide, the law is suspended until the election. Once hailed as a progressive tool of grassroots democracy, the initiative process is increasingly used by special interests to kill laws they don’t like.
Two weeks before Christmas, the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA) announced it had gathered almost a million signatures on a petition to block the law, which was supposed to take effect this month. If roughly two-thirds are certified by county and state election officials, the buffer zones provided for by SB 1137 can’t take effect until after November 2024.
It’s a despicable move by fossil fuel interests. The industry has already spent or raised more than $20 million to try to kill the historic measure aimed at protecting public health. Even if they are only successful in delaying the law’s implementation, the move gives the industry almost two years to drill new wells that can keep pumping after the restrictions kick in.
So how did they do it? Deep-pocketed corporate-backed initiative campaigns can hire armies of professional signature gatherers who wield clipboards outside supermarkets and malls, earning payment for each voter they sign up. (Read the rest of the opinion piece.)