toxics
Newsletter
Credit: Layne Harris/Unsplash
The Department of Energy’s ties to the plastics industry raise conflict concerns
The U.S. Department of Energy’s partnership with a major plastics lobbying group has fueled concerns that the agency is prioritizing industry-backed chemical recycling over broader efforts to reduce plastic production.
In short:
- In 2020, the Department of Energy (DOE) signed a five-year agreement with the American Chemistry Council to collaborate on plastics recycling, including controversial chemical recycling methods.
- Critics argue the partnership has led to industry-influenced research and funding, with little transparency about decision-making or public input.
- Despite doubts about chemical recycling’s feasibility, the DOE has invested millions in research, aligning with the petrochemical industry’s push to justify continued plastic production.
Key quote:
“There’s no transparency on how DOE is developing their policies around plastic waste. They seem very much in line with the industry agenda that's clearly formalized in the memorandum of understanding.”
— Daniel Rosenberg, director of federal toxics policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council
Why this matters:
Chemical recycling has yet to prove viable at scale, but industry-backed studies promote it as a solution to plastic pollution. The DOE’s support for these efforts may divert attention from more effective waste reduction strategies. A lack of transparency raises questions about whether public funds are being used in the public’s best interest or to serve corporate agendas.
Read more from EHN:
Keep reading...Show less
Popular
Credit: Andy Dean Photography/BigStock Photo ID: 362087353
CDC faces backlash for removing key public health data from its website
The CDC is under fire after abruptly removing crucial health data from its website, with top advisers demanding answers on why the information disappeared and when it will return.
In short:
- The CDC removed data on gender, vaccines, climate change, HIV and long COVID, citing compliance with Trump administration executive orders, sparking outrage among public health experts.
- A CDC advisory board sent a letter demanding explanations from acting director Susan Monarez, warning of "dire consequences" if the data isn’t restored.
- Some pages, like the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, have been reinstated, but concerns persist about transparency and the politicization of public health information.
Key quote:
“It’s more than a data set, it’s years and years of collecting data, analyzing data and putting it into a format that communities can use, literally, to extend their lives.”
— Daniel Dawes, health policy expert
Why this matters:
This isn’t just about missing web pages; it’s about trust. Public health relies on transparency. Without access to reliable data, doctors can’t make informed decisions, scientists can’t track trends and advocates are left fighting in the dark.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Trump White House Archived
EPA employees face sudden job threats amid growing tensions
More than 1,100 Environmental Protection Agency employees were blindsided with emails warning of immediate termination, fueling fear and frustration within the agency.
In short:
- Over 1,100 EPA employees received abrupt termination warnings due to their probationary status, including seasoned staff recently moved to new roles.
- The emails, tied to the implementation of Trump administration executive orders, have left workers demoralized, with many afraid to even open their emails.
- A freeze on government funds further complicates operations, leaving grantees unable to maintain critical environmental projects.
Key quote:
"Hundreds of EPA grantees are completely locked out of the grant system. They are unable to process payroll, they are unable to pay invoices, they're unable to do the critical work that they were granted to do."
— Michelle Roos, president of the nonprofit Environmental Protection Network
Why this matters:
The timing couldn’t be worse — a funding freeze has already stalled critical projects, leaving communities without the environmental oversight they depend on. Many legal experts say the Trump administration's actions are unconstitutional, because the funding has already been appropriated by Congress.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Wildfires may increase radioactive contamination in rivers
Wildfires in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone may have made radioactive contaminants more mobile, increasing their likelihood of washing into nearby rivers, researchers found.
In short:
- The 2020 wildfires burned about a third of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, raising concerns about the spread of radioactive isotopes like cesium-137 and strontium-90.
- Researchers found that ash from burned areas had higher water-soluble radionuclide levels than unburned soil, suggesting contaminants became more mobile.
- Although strontium-90 levels in the Sakhan River exceeded Ukraine’s limits more frequently after the fires, scientists say the overall impact on public health is minimal.
Key quote:
“... long-lived radionuclides could remain entrapped in the branches and trunks of trees for several decades.”
— Luigi Monte, a retired researcher who worked on radioecological modeling at the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development
Why this matters:
Wildfires in radioactive zones can remobilize contaminants, posing potential risks to water supplies. Depending on fire intensity, wind patterns and rainfall, radioactive contaminants can be lofted into the atmosphere or settle into waterways, raising questions about long-term environmental and health effects. In Ukraine, fires in the Chernobyl region have been monitored for years, with researchers noting occasional spikes in airborne radiation. In Japan, similar concerns have emerged around Fukushima, where vast stretches of land were contaminated by fallout from the 2011 nuclear disaster.
Related:
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: California Governor/Flickr
States step up climate action as Trump rolls back policies
As Trump moves to dismantle environmental protections and withdraw support for clean energy, state leaders and advocates are taking charge of climate action through legal challenges, new policies and renewable energy expansion.
In short:
- New York is forging ahead with climate legislation despite delays on key carbon pricing programs. A state agency is positioned to expand wind and solar, though its leadership is hesitant, frustrating advocates.
- California is bracing for legal battles, setting aside $50 million to fight Trump’s policies, including his attacks on EV mandates and emission rules. The state’s environmental advocates are pushing for new laws to hold fossil fuel companies accountable.
- Red states are benefiting from Biden-era clean energy incentives, with Republican lawmakers and labor unions urging the federal government to preserve renewable energy tax credits.
Key quote:
“Building decarbonization doesn’t need federal money or approval.”
— Patrick Crowley, president of the Rhode Island AFL-CIO
Why this matters:
Climate action isn’t waiting on Washington. With federal support in flux, states are proving they can drive the clean energy transition — whether through policy, investment or the courts.
Read more: Labor and environmental groups can both win in the clean energy transition. Here’s how.
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: National Cancer Institute/Unsplash
Trump’s science freeze leaves researchers in limbo
The Trump administration’s abrupt freeze on federal science communication and grant processes threw researchers into chaos, delaying critical projects and threatening the future of public health research.
In short:
- The administration halted communications at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other agencies, stalling grant reviews and disrupting scientific meetings.
- Clinical trials, including experimental cancer treatments, are now uncertain, while labs struggle to buy supplies or repair essential equipment.
- Scientists fear this signals a broader attack on government-funded research, with long-term consequences for disease treatment and public health innovation.
Key quote:
“The NIH freak-out may have less to do with the present disruption (however long it lasts) than with what it signifies.”
— Ian Bogost, professor at Washington University in St. Louis
Why this matters:
This kind of disruption can ripple through entire fields, delaying the rollout of critical treatments and leaving patients hanging. With Trump allies pushing to gut federal science, researchers warn that the damage could outlast the administration, making the U.S. a less reliable leader in global health and innovation.
Read more:
Want to keep toxic chemicals out of the environment? Start with campaign finance reform.
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Tim Reckmann/Flickr
The White House's sustainable chemistry plan lacks bold goals to drive change
The Biden administration’s sustainable chemistry strategy was supposed to nudge the U.S. chemical industry toward safer, greener alternatives, but without clear benchmarks or regulatory teeth, it risks being little more than a well-meaning memo.
In short:
- On Dec. 19, the Biden White House released a long-awaited federal strategy for sustainable chemistry, outlining broad objectives but failing to establish concrete objectives or incentives to drive industry-wide change.
- The plan emphasizes research and development but does not adequately address the financial and regulatory barriers preventing new green chemicals from replacing entrenched, polluting alternatives.
- Without clear criteria for defining and funding safer chemicals, the federal government risks propping up existing toxic processes under the guise of sustainability.
Key quote:
“We must continue to work together to develop and advance bold goals for sustainable chemistry.”
— Joel Tickner, professor of public health at U-Mass Lowell
Why this matters:
The plan highlights research and development as key drivers of change, but history suggests that without financial incentives or strong regulations, industry players will stick with what’s profitable — even if that means clinging to toxic, fossil-fuel-based processes.
Read more:
What it will take for the EU to be a model for safe chemicals.
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
