A new report grades clothing companies based on their commitment to phasing out a toxic class of chemicals known as PFAS.
Three of the companies graded are based in Oregon, including Keen Footwear, which received an 'A minus' for removing PFAS from its shoes. However, Nike and Portland-based Columbia Sportswear fared worse, getting 'D plus' and 'F' grades, respectively.
Charlie Fisher is state director of the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group, or OSPIRG. He said PFAS are used to make clothing water, grease and stain resistant.
"The problem is that these chemicals are toxic to human health and persist in the environment and our bodies for so long that they have been given the nickname 'forever chemicals'," said Fisher. "And exposure to PFAS has been linked to really a wide range of serious health effects, such as kidney and liver disease, immune system suppression and even cancer."
Of the 30 apparel brands surveyed in the report, 18 received a 'D' grade or lower for their weak commitments to eliminating PFAS. Levi Strauss received the highest marks.
The report was compiled by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Fashion FWD, and the US PIRG Education Fund.
Fisher said companies such as Columbia Sportswear are making some efforts to get PFAS out of their supply chain. He said Columbia Sportswear has a sustainable clothing line committed to removing PFAS this year.
"It demonstrates that they believe there's a feasibility in removing PFAS from the supply chain, yet they haven't made any commitments for the rest of their products," said Fisher. "And so, they show that it's possible and we just think that it's time that they take the next step."
The report recommends companies phase out PFAS and replace them with safe alternatives. It also says the apparel brands should label clothing that has PFAS in it so that consumers can make informed decisions about what they're buying.
get more stories like this via email
A coalition of advocacy groups has helped defeat a bill in the Idaho Legislature which would have given the pesticide industry blanket immunity from liability lawsuits.
The Pesticide Immunity Bill, Senate Bill 1245, was defeated 15-to-19 Friday by the Republican-controlled state Senate. The coalition was led by the Idaho Conservation League and included the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association and the Idaho Association of Resource Councils.
Jonathan Oppenheimer, governmental relations director for the Idaho Conservation League, said the motivation for them was consumer protection.
"We're not coming at this from a perspective of 'pesticides shouldn't be used,'" Oppenheimer explained. "We're coming at this from a perspective of, 'there should be justice for those who may be harmed by using products if they are not warned about those potential health consequences.'"
Oppenheimer noted the Senate's five Democrats joined with a group of right-wing Republicans to defeat the Idaho bill. He pointed out the pesticide industry is pushing similar bills in several other states, including Missouri. Iowa and Florida.
Liability-lawsuit immunity is controversial. Businesses argued it keeps them from getting hit with multimillion-dollar settlements, while consumer advocates countered it closes the courthouse door. Oppenheimer emphasized pesticide users who get sick would have little recourse.
"The pesticide industry is seeking broad immunity that would shield them from "failure to warn" claims that basically relate to the label that is provided on the pesticide products," Oppenheimer outlined. "As long as that label is approved by EPA and that the pesticide is approved for use in the United States, they would be immune from any liability under state law or federal law because federal law defers to the states relative to liability."
Only a few major industries have either federal or state immunity from lawsuits. The best known are firearms manufacturers and the computer technology sector. In addition, most federal, state and local governments are immune when they are performing statutory duties.
get more stories like this via email
Wildlife advocates are urging New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to sign what's known as the Birds and Bees Protection Act.
The bill bans neonicotinoids, a neurotoxic pesticide used to coat plants and seeds, since numerous studies have linked these chemicals to massive bee and pollinator die-offs. Between 2020 and 2021, it is estimated beekeepers lost more than 45% of their colonies.
Daniel Raichel, acting director of the pollinator initiative for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it is more than a warning.
"Bees are effectively 'canaries in the coal mine' for a much broader hollowing out of ecosystems that we see across the board; basically, hollowing them out from the bottom up," Raichel explained. "We see mass losses of insect life, with ripple effects to birds and fish."
He added the pesticides can affect human health, including muscle tremors, lower testosterone levels and birth defects. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates more than half of the U.S. population has been exposed to neonicotinoids on a regular basis, with the greatest exposure among children ages 3-5.
The bill is expected to be on the governor's desk soon.
The legislation was originally introduced in 2017, with changes made in the years since then. Raichel noted opposition came primarily from the chemical companies manufacturing 'neonic' products, but after a 2021 report from Cornell University explored the issue further, the bill gained traction.
"We were told, 'Hey, the state is looking into the science on this. Let's wait for the science,'" Raichel recounted. "The science came out in 2020. The bill adapted to the science, and here we are, right? The science is clearer than ever."
Raichel added signing the bill would curb improper use in New York of chemicals proven to be highly toxic. One recent study showed neonicotinoids make up 92% of the increase in toxins found in insect populations.
get more stories like this via email
Environmental groups say a proposal to cut $4 billion from the Environmental Protection Agency budget would gut the regulations designed to clean up toxic chemicals from public water systems in Illinois and across the country.
A group of House Republicans is demanding the cuts in exchange for their votes to keep the government from shutting down later his month, but they would jeopardize federal plans to eliminate "forever chemicals" known as PFAS found in U.S. water supplies.
Betsy Sutherland, who had directed EPA's Office of Science and Technology and worked on water issues, said this isn't the time to play politics with cleaning up the environment.
"Budget cuts will have real consequences for EPA's ability to protect human health and the environment," she said, "not just from PFAS, but from every environmental threat our country is facing."
These chemicals are among the most persistent toxic compounds in existence, contaminating everything from drinking water to food, packaging and personal-care products -- and they never break down in the environment. Illinois ranks in the middle of the pack for the level of PFAS in the state. Neighboring Michigan has among the highest rates in the country.
A bill in the House Appropriations Committee, which funds the EPA, proposes cutting the agency's budget by more than one-third in fiscal year 2024. If the measure is approved, Sutherland said, EPA funding would plummet to levels unseen in three decades.
"The cuts are incredibly short-sighted," she said. "Two weeks ago, EPA released PFAS monitoring data for 2,000 drinking water systems that show multiple PFAS chemicals are in the drinking water of over 26 million people."
John Reeder, vice president for federal affairs at the Environmental Working Group, said most PFAS emanate from the air emissions of industrial plants. He said the group's Federal PFAS Report Card found these chemicals in all 50 states, but industrial regions such as the Upper Midwest had the most sites.
"We hope that Congress is listening," he said. "Budget cuts for EPA, as well as DoD's cleanup program, have real consequences and would likely delay protection for millions of people exposed to PFAS, including many environmental-justice communities."
get more stories like this via email