Efforts to limit human exposure to so-called forever chemicals continue to unfold in Wisconsin. Meanwhile, advocates are hopeful residents will be protected by a new national drinking water standard.

On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a final rule which, for the first time, sets a legally enforceable drinking water benchmark for PFAS chemicals all states will have to follow. Scientists have been highlighting health risks with more detection of PFAS in everyday products and water sources.

Lynn Thorp, national campaigns director for Clean Water Action, said they welcome the move, but stressed it also serves as a wake-up call to chemical manufacturers.

"If we have to take this action and restrict them in drinking water, then we need to take equally aggressive action to keep the chemicals from getting into the water and the environment in the first place," Thorp contended.

There is some concern from operators of public water systems, who are fretting about costs to update facilities. However, officials noted there is federal funding to help with the transition. Last year, Wisconsin adopted its own PFAS standards for drinking water, but the new federal rule is tougher, and state officials say they are taking steps to adopt them.

Gov. Tony Evers and the Republican-led Legislature have been at odds over how to handle state funding to address PFAS. Meanwhile, some advocates feel the new federal standard is long overdue.

Thorp stressed given the heightened awareness over the past couple of years, the latest action shows policymakers are taking it seriously.

"I will say that the process has moved relatively rapidly, and I think that's a reflection of the seriousness of the problem," Thorp emphasized.

Under the new rule, the EPA estimated between 6% and 10% of 66,000 public drinking-water systems around the U.S. may have to take action to reduce PFAS. All of them have three years to complete initial monitoring. If levels exceed the new standards, the systems must take corrective action within five years.


get more stories like this via email

North Dakota lawmakers have opted to side with farm chemical manufacturers facing legal challenges about the safety of their products.

The state has finalized an update that limits the scope of how warning labels on these products can be viewed by the courts. This week, Gov. Kelly Armstrong signed a bill which said for a product like the weed-killer Roundup, a label consistent with federal Environmental Protection Agency language is good enough when warning about potential hazards. The agency currently finds no evidence Roundup causes cancer.

Sam Wagner, field organizer for the Dakota Resource Council, is among critics of the plan. He said the EPA's efforts and wording do not have enough teeth.

"The 'sufficient warning' clause basically would grant immunity to a company, saying that, 'We have warned you and the label has adequately told you what the risks are. So, if you have developed cancer, then you have done it on your own accord,'" Wagner explained.

Farm groups backed the new law, arguing it helps keep products on the market to protect crops from pests and disease. Similar bills surfaced in states like Iowa, Missouri and Georgia this year. Other states, like California, require more detailed labels amid a wave of lawsuits against manufacturers, some of which led to large monetary awards for plaintiffs.

Wagner contended his group's opposition is not just about high-profile products sold to farmers. He pointed to the roughly 1,600 chemicals registered with government agencies.

"Can you, with 100% certainty, say that every other chemical that we have -- and will be made in the future -- that they're going to be able to get it 100% right?" Wagner asked.

Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinburg, a farmer and bill supporter, said agricultural workers are well aware of the dangers thanks to the labeling and go to great lengths to protect themselves.

"There are strict label requirements on how you're supposed to dress," Myrdal pointed out. "You have rubber gloves, facial (and) eye (shields), long boots, all of those things when you deal with those chemicals. And you should do that, because that's what the label said on some of these chemicals."

One organization is taking the Trump administration's promises to "Make America Healthy Again" seriously.

The Center for Biological Diversity is petitioning the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and several federal agencies responsible for different facets of food safety. The group is asking them to ban what it said Kennedy has called "extraordinarily toxic pesticides" from food.

Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director and senior attorney at the center, thinks Tennesseans would agree it is time for action, since it is estimated more than 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the U.S.

"For Tennessee, that would mean, essentially, that the most dangerous pesticides would no longer be used on food crops, so it would benefit consumers," Burd asserted. "It would also help to keep farmworkers, growers and their surrounding communities safer because they wouldn't have any exposure to these pesticides after they would be banned."

Recent Consumer Reports testing found concerning pesticide levels, some 100 times higher than deemed safe, in 20 percent of 20% of the foods tested, including common produce items like blueberries and green beans.

Burd noted Secretary Kennedy has already called out herbicides like atrazine as toxic. It is used primarily on corn crops and has been linked to water contamination, fertility issues and other health risks.

"We've also named glyphosate, which is the most used herbicide in the country and the most used pesticide overall," Burd noted. "We use about 330 million pounds of that in agriculture each year in the United States, and that is a suspected carcinogen."

The Modern Ag Alliance called glyphosate "Tennessee farmers' Number One tool to control weeds and keep crop yields high." The petition urges the Food and Drug Administration to enforce safety for imported foods, the Environmental Protection Agency to ban toxic pesticides, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tie farm subsidies to pesticide-free practices. It also called for clear warnings in federal dietary guidelines to avoid foods contaminated with harmful pesticides.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental advocates in Iowa want state lawmakers to tighten regulations on large livestock feeding facilities, which they say will help protect the state's air and water.

They say right now, Iowa is headed in the wrong direction.

The group Iowa Food and Water Watch has a list of priorities for the 2025 Legislature - from opposing legislation that could limit pesticide companies' liability, to protecting ground and surface water from the 4,000 large animal feeding operations in the state.

Food and Water Watch Iowa Organizer Jennifer Breon said cleaning up Iowa's drinking water is at the top of the list - by requiring those operations to adhere to the U.S. Clean Water Act.

"Only 4% of Iowa's CAFOs or factory farms have Clean Water Act permits," said Breon, "and Iowa has more factory farms than any other state."

Livestock industry operators say they are always balancing efforts to be more environmental friendly with the need to keep up with consumer demand for meat products.

Beyond polluting the air, ground, and surface water near CAFOs, Breon said the 109 billion gallons of manure produced by Iowa's factory farms every year is threatening the state's recreational opportunities.

"It's impossible to swim in the lake in Iowa in the summertime frequently, because of E. coli and algae blooms," said Breon. "Our state is forced to issue warnings about beach closures, pretty much all summer long."

An analysis by Food and Water Watch found that Iowa's factory farms have been fined less than $750,000, despite multiple citations for water pollution over a decade.



get more stories like this via email