EDC Policy Updates

Members of the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, over 70 of whom attended the 5th negotiation session for the UN Plastics Treaty (INC5) in November, argue in a new article published in Cambridge Prisms: Plastics that the treaty must address the full life cycle of plastics and include production reduction targets. “It is critical that the treaty negotiations continue to be informed by independent science, to better ensure that when consensus is reached we have a global approach leading to reduced negative impacts from plastics across their entire life cycle.”

I have never been so motivated and grateful to be a woman in science as while watching Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Senate Finance Committee nomination hearing. As an environmental health researcher, I know there is strong evidence that industrial and commercial chemicals are linked to increasing rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, cancer, asthma, and many other chronic diseases. However, RFK Jr. has clearly demonstrated he has very little understanding of public health, science, or women.

California’s landmark warning-label law may be doing what critics said was impossible — getting companies to pull dangerous chemicals from their products. Hiroko Tabuchi reports for The New York Times.

A new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule aimed at reducing lead in drinking water faces a challenge from Rep. Gary Palmer ((R-Ala.), who introduced a resolution to overturn it using the Congressional Review Act. Keerti Gopal reports for Inside Climate News.

President Donald Trump’s administration is rapidly downsizing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, raising questions about whether it can still enforce key environmental protections. Lylla Younes reports for Grist.

A new push by Bayer and agricultural groups seeks state laws preventing lawsuits that claim its glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup causes cancer if the product follows EPA labeling rules. Hannah Fingerhut and David A. Lieb report for The Associated Press.

In a commentary published in Frontiers in Toxicology, researchers highlight the gaps preventing current regulatory approaches from adequately addressing harmful chemical exposures. “Ultimately, the best available scientific evidence must be used to support decision-making by regulatory authorities, and their decisions should be reviewed with the latest and best scientific evidence in mind. Approaches to toxicity testing, exposure assessment, risk assessment, and risk management should change with time. A static regulatory system puts human and environmental health at risk.”

The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is shifting away from climate concerns, aiming to cut staff, bring in industry lobbyists and prioritize artificial intelligence, energy dominance and auto industry growth. Oliver Milman and Dharna Noor report for The Guardian.

This article was originally published in The Revelator and is republished here under a Creative Commons license. The water flowing from taps in Wilmington, North Carolina, looked clean, tasted normal, and gave no indication that it carried an invisible threat. For decades the Cape Fear River had provided drinking water to hundreds of thousands of residents in the region. But in 2017 tests revealed what many had feared: high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), chemicals linked to cancer, immune dysfunction, and reproductive issues, coursing through their water supply.

Toxic PFAS chemicals have contaminated drinking water nationwide, and despite partisan divides, some Republicans and Democrats are pushing for stronger regulations to protect public health. Zoë Schlanger reports for The Atlantic.

As the Trump administration aggressively works to overhaul the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, more than 300 career employees have already left, while those remaining face mounting pressure to quit or work under an administration determined to roll back environmental protections. Sharon Lerner and Pratheek Rebala report for ProPublica.

The Biden administration tightened pollution rules and expanded air monitoring in toxic hotspots, but Trump’s return threatens to unravel those efforts, leaving vulnerable communities exposed to industrial pollution. Lisa Song reports for ProPublica.

The Trump administration is swiftly shutting down environmental initiatives, placing dozens of employees on leave and dismantling key offices within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department. Maxine Joselow and Amudalat Ajasa report for The Washington Post.

Lawmakers are pushing for PFAS restrictions, but with tens of thousands of these chemicals in use and only six regulated, experts say industry innovations outpace regulatory efforts. Katherine Fung reports for Newsweek.

Gov. Tony Evers is again pushing for groundwater regulations on PFAS, proposing new standards, increased funding and legislative changes to protect Wisconsin residents from the harmful chemicals. Laura Schulte reports for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

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. Joseph Winters and Emily Sanders report for Grist.

More than 1,100 Environmental Protection Agency employees were blindsided with emails warning of immediate termination, fueling fear and frustration within the agency. Tracy J. Wholf reports for CBS News.

An environmental group is suing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for failing to set limits on toxic PFAS chemicals in food despite having the tools to do so. Shannon Kelleher reports for The New Lede.

The spread of PFAS chemicals has created an environmental disaster, contaminating soil, water and food, while governments struggle to take effective action. Stéphane Foucart writes for Le Monde.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned Red Dye No. 3 in foods, beverages and oral medications because the chemical has been linked to cancer in animal studies. The chemical has also been banned or restricted in food and cosmetics in Australia, Japan, and countries in the European Union, but in online discussions many Americans questioned whether the ban was really necessary.