Tag: safety

‘Public Health Betrayal’: EPA Tosses Drinking Water Limits on 4 Toxic PFAS Chemicals

U.S. regulators said Wednesday they will do away with limits on certain types of toxic chemicals in U.S. drinking water, a move that critics warn could expose millions of Americans to dangerous contaminants.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it intends to rescind limits set under President Joe Biden in April 2024 on four types of harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals widely found in drinking water — perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) and GenX.

The EPA will keep the limits of 4 parts per trillion in drinking water for two other types of PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), the agency said in a statement.

But, in another move drawing criticism from health advocates, the agency said it will delay the deadline for drinking water systems to comply from 2029 to 2031.

“This is a public health betrayal, plain and simple,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.

“Science is clear: PFAS are dangerous even in tiny amounts. The agency must protect all Americans, not just from two chemicals, but from the entire class of harmful PFAS.”

The four PFAS chemicals the EPA plans to roll back regulations for “are the ones currently in use because industry developed them to replace PFOA and PFOS, so they are the chemicals most likely to increase contamination in the future,” Betsy Southerland, a former EPA senior scientist and a former director in the agency’s Office of Water, said in a statement.

PFAS are types of chemicals that have long been used in a wide variety of products and industrial processes, but many have been linked to health problems that include certain cancers and immune system and reproductive harms.

Countries around the world have been pushing companies to eliminate the use of PFAS, known to be particularly dangerous, such as PFOS and PFOA, but the chemicals remain difficult to eradicate.

A recent study found residents of a Michigan community polluted with PFAS from a paper mill continue to have high levels of the chemicals in their blood, even though the mill closed down 25 years ago.

Keep reading

FDA To Tighten Review Process for Food Additives

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is planning a major overhaul of the way food additives are reviewed for safety.

The move, announced on Thursday, will be a “major step to increase transparency and ensure the safety of chemicals in our food,” according to a statement made by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“No parent should ever worry about what’s in their child’s food,” Kennedy said in a statement.

“We’re taking decisive action and using every authority we have to clean up the food supply and protect American families.”

The new process will include a “modernized, evidence-based prioritization scheme” for existing chemicals, a “systematic post-market review process” for food chemicals that will be “shaped by stakeholder input,” and the development of an “updated list of chemicals under review.”

Chemicals subject to review include BHA and BHA, which are used as preservatives; ADA, a foaming agent added to sandwiches; phthalates; propylparaben, a preservative; and titanium dioxide. These chemicals have all been linked to chronic diseases, including reproductive harms and cancer.

The new review process will be rolled out over the coming months.

Health advocates have hailed the changes. Kendall Mackintosh, a member “MAHA Moms” movement, said they were “a long-overdue and necessary step in the right direction.”

“The announcement signals progress toward more transparency and accountability, and I’m hopeful this opens the door for deeper systemic reform,” Mackintosh added.

The FDA is also looking to eliminate its Generally Recognized as Safe loophole, which allows companies to self-regulate additives and use them in the food supply without independent testing.

In April, HHS announced it would phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes from U.S. foods and medications.

Keep reading

4 Vaccines for Pregnant Women? Doctors and Scientists Explain Why CDC Recommendation Is Dangerous

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends pregnant women get at least four vaccines: COVID-19, flu, whooping cough and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. Critics say the shots provide questionable benefit while posing known risks — including increased miscarriage rates and exposure to neurotoxins.

According to the CDC, maternal vaccines are important “because pregnant women and their babies can get sick from diseases like COVID-19, flu, RSV and more.”

What the CDC doesn’t say is that if a pregnant woman gets a vaccine, there is a 100% chance that she will be exposed to vaccine ingredients that may harm her and her baby, according to Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., Children’s Health Defense senior research scientist.

“There is a probability of disease exposure during pregnancy — but toxic exposure is assured with vaccination,” Jablonowski said. “Vaccines work by antagonizing the body with toxins, toxoids and other antigens to elicit an immune response. Pregnant women in modern medicine are trapped between fear and hazards.”

Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist and author of more than 1,000 publications, said that vaccines “are not medically necessary nor clinically indicated” during a healthy woman’s pregnancy.

“The downsides of vaccination during pregnancy can be serious,” McCullough said. “Vaccine-induced inflammation and fever can provoke a miscarriage, stillbirth or premature delivery, leaving the baby to face all the problems of being a ‘preemie.’”

That’s why many women tell their obstetricians they want to go “natural” and not take risks that come with vaccination, McCullough added.

Still, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorses the CDC’s recommendation that pregnant women get the COVID-19, RSV, Tdap and flu vaccines.

Keep reading

Georgia Governor Signs Bill Granting Immunity for Harms Caused by Pesticides and Fertilizers

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed SB144 into law, which has also been referred to as an immunity bill for agrochemical businesses that sell pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The bill states, “a manufacturer cannot be held liable for failing to warn consumers of health risks above those required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.” The Georgia legislature passed the bill and was awaiting Kemp’s signature, which he finalized on Monday.

Georgia became the second state in the nation to provide manufacturer immunity for harm caused by pesticides after North Dakota signed a similar bill into law last month. Bayer has been handling tens of thousands of lawsuits related to cancer allegedly caused by Roundup, a product that Bayer owns after the agrochemical corporation purchased Monsanto in 2018. In April, The HighWire reported about Bayer’s recent court loss in which the company is required to pay over $2 billion for causing a man’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but the high payout amount is expected to be appealed. This case was conducted in a Georgia courtroom.

The EPA is still awaiting a court decision regarding its most recent evaluation of glyphosate’s effect on human health. The EPA currently states, “No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate.” The EPA website also states, “No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.”

Meanwhile, the passage of SB144 in Georgia means a farmer cannot sue Bayer for harms allegedly caused by Roundup because the product contains the label required by the EPA. The label states, “Keep Out of Reach of Children CAUTION See [back/ side] [panel/ booklet/ label] for [additional] first aid and precautionary statements. Alternative Text: [See container label for [complete] use directions, first aid and precautionary statements.]”

Bayer issued a statement applauding the Governor for signing the legislation. The statement said, “The signing of SB 144 by Governor Kemp demonstrates that Georgia stands with its farmers, who work tirelessly to produce safe and affordable food for communities throughout the state. We thank Governor Kemp and the legislators, farmers and ag groups that supported this important piece of legislation.”

Keep reading

CT Scans May Account for 5 Percent of US Cancers—Doctors Say the Story Is More Complex

CT scans are essential to modern medicine, quickly diagnosing conditions from strokes to cancer. However, new research suggests that the very tool used to save lives could, in some cases, contribute to future cancer cases.

A University of California–San Francisco study estimates that CT scans performed in 2023 could lead to more than 100,000 future cancer cases—about 5 percent of annual U.S. diagnoses. That level of risk is comparable with other known factors such as alcohol and obesity.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the study concludes that while CT scans remain essential, they should be used more cautiously, especially for children and patients who undergo repeated imaging.

“CT can save lives, but its potential harms are often overlooked,” Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, lead author of the study and UC–San Francisco radiologist, said in a statement. “Reducing the number of scans and reducing doses per scan would save lives.”

Some experts worry that the message lacks balance and may scare patients from necessary care by emphasizing long-term cancer risks without proper context.

“It is frightening to see these numbers,” Dr. Donald Frush, pediatric radiologist at Duke University, told The Epoch Times. “But without putting them in the context of how valuable CT can be, we risk eroding public trust in a tool that saves lives every day.”

Keep reading

Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review

More than ten years ago, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a monograph concluding there was limited evidence in experimental animals for carcinogenicity of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field (RF EMF).

Objective

The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the effects of RF EMF exposure on cancer in experimental animals.

Methods

Eligibility criteria: Based on pre-established Populations, Exposures, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study Type (PECOS) criteria, studies in experimental animals of the following study types were included: chronic cancer bioassays, initiation-(co–)promotion studies, and studies with tumor-prone animals.

Information sources: MEDLINE (PubMed), Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science), and the EMF Portal.

Data abstraction and synthesis: Data are publicly available online as interactive visuals with downloadable metadata. We adapted the risk-of-bias (RoB) tool developed by Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) to include considerations pertinent to the evaluation of RF EMF exposure and cancer bioassays. Study sensitivity was assessed with a tool adopted from the Report on Carcinogens (RoC). We synthesized studies using a narrative approach. Effect size was calculated as the 1% Bayesian Average benchmark dose (BMD) of a respective study when dose–response or a trend was identified (see BMDAnalysisSupplementaryMaterial) (Supplement 1).

Evidence Assessment: Certainty of the evidence (CoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Developing and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, as refined by OHAT. Evidence from chronic cancer bioassays was considered the most directly applicable to evaluation of carcinogenicity.

Results

We included 52 studies with 20 chronic bioassays No studies were excluded based on risk of bias concerns. Studies were not considered suitable for meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in study design, species, strain, sex, exposure characteristics, and cancer outcome. No or minimal evidence of RF EMF exposure-related cancer outcomes was found in most systems or organs in any study (these included gastrointestinal/digestive, kidney, mammary gland, urinary, endocrine, musculoskeletal, reproductive, and auditory).

For lymphoma (18 studies), with 6 chronic bioassays (1,120 mice, 1,780 rats) inconsistency between two chronic bioassays was not plausibly explainable, and the CoE for lymphoma was rated ‘moderate’.

For brain tumors (20 studies), including 5 chronic bioassays (1,902 mice, 6,011 rats), an increase in glial cell-derived neoplasms was reported in two chronic bioassays in male rats. The CoE for an increased risk in glioma was judged as high. The BMD analysis was statistically significant for only one study and the BMD was 4.25 (95% CI 2.70, 10.24).

For neoplasms of the heart (4 chronic bioassays with 6 experiments), 3 studies were performed in rats (∼2,165 animals), and 1 in mice (∼720 animals). Based on 2 bioassays, statistically significant increases in malignant schwannomas was judged as high CoE for an increase in heart schwannomas in male rats. The BMDs from the two positive studies were 1.92 (95 %CI 0.71, 4.15) and 0.177 (95 %CI 0.125, 0.241), respectively.

Twelve studies reported neoplasms in the adrenal gland (5 chronic bioassays). The CoE for an increased risk in pheochromocytoma was judged as moderate. None of these findings were dose-dependent when compared to the sham controls.

Sixteen studies investigated tumors of the liver with 5 of these being chronic bioassays. The CoE was evaluated as moderate for hepatoblastomas.

For neoplasms of the lung (3 chronic bioassays), 8 studies were conducted in rats (∼1,296 animals) and 23 studies in mice (∼2,800 animals). In one chronic bioassay, a statistically significant positive trend was reported for bronchoalveolar adenoma or carcinoma (combined), which was rated as moderate CoE for an increase in lung neoplasms with some evidence from 2 initiation-(co–)promotion studies.

Keep reading

Not so fast on the FDA’s food dye ban — the Supreme Court has changed the rules 

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration announced long-awaited bans on certain food dyes and added new warnings about sugar in processed foods. Public health advocates cheered. Parents breathed a sigh of relief. But as someone who has spent years reporting on the intersection of federal science, health and regulation, I have a warning: In today’s legal climate, we are celebrating too soon. 

The Supreme Court’s recent reversal of the Chevron doctrine means every new regulation is now living on borrowed time — and the FDA’s food dye ban may be its first casualty. 

For 40 years, the “Chevron deference” gave federal agencies the benefit of the doubt in their interpretations of ambiguous laws within their areas of expertise. So when Congress writes broad rules, courts are to give agencies like the FDA, EPA and NOAA wide latitude to fill in the scientific and technical details.

But last year, in a move cheered by conservative legal activists, the Supreme Court struck down Chevron. Now, federal judges need not give such great deference to agencies as to what the law means, even on issues where the judges have no practical experience, such as food additives and clean air.

This is a landmark shift with potentially far-reaching consequences. While a regulation-friendly administration like Joe Biden’s can’t guarantee that new public health protections will survive the courts, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s FDA under the Trump administration should prepare to encounter similar hurdles.

The Chevron ruling presented us with a fitting preview of what happens when judges — as opposed to subject-matter experts at relevant agencies — determine the best way to interpret applicable regulatory frameworks within the law.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion overturning Chevron, referenced “nitrous oxide” as a pollutant from coal plants. Nitrous oxide — the compound best known for providing the temporary euphoria you may experience while a dentist fills a cavity — has nothing to do with the “nitrogen oxides” that actually come out of smokestacks and threaten respiratory health.  

Keep reading

MAHA Rising: HHS, FDA Announce Phase-Out Of All Artificial Food Dyes

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s quest to “Make America Healthy Again” grew far more substantial on Tuesday, with the announcement that the federal government will eliminate all petroleum-based synthetic food dyes by the end of 2026. The announcement came at a Washington DC news conference, with RFK Jr joined by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary and National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya. The podium was flanked by “MAHA Moms” and their children; the moms are a coalition of outspoken advocates of the Trump administration’s health agenda.  

Kennedy framed the move against artificial, petroleum-based dyes using forceful language: 

“For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent. These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development. That era is coming to an end. We’re restoring gold-standard science, applying common sense, and beginning to earn back the public’s trust. And we’re doing it by working with industry to get these toxic dyes out of the foods our families eat every day.”

Keep reading

Toothpaste widely contaminated with lead and other metals, US research finds

Toothpaste can be widely contaminated with lead and other dangerous heavy metals, new research shows.

Most of 51 brands of toothpaste tested for lead contained the dangerous heavy metal, including those for children or those marketed as green. The testing, conducted by Lead Safe Mama, also found concerning levels of highly toxic arsenic, mercury and cadmium in many brands.

About 90% of toothpastes contained lead, 65% contained arsenic, just under half contained mercury, and one-third had cadmium. Many brands contain a number of the toxins.

The highest levels detected violated the state of Washington’s limits, but not federal limits. The thresholds have been roundly criticized by public health advocates for not being protective – no level of exposure to lead is safe, the federal government has found.

Keep reading

Maine AG Wildly Claims ‘No Concerns Of Safety’ With Men In Women’s Sports

After the U.S. Department of Justice sued Maine for putting women and girls at risk by allowing males to compete in their sports, the state’s attorney general claimed — with zero evidence — that Maine’s ideology poses “no concerns of safety.”

“There are no concerns about individuals who are just choosing which gender they want to give themself in order to participate,” Democrat Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey said in an interview with CNN. “So that, that too is really after a lot of work on whether or not there’s any issue here that warrants this intrusion by the federal government into what’s going on in Maine schools.”

Frey was on CNN to defend his state’s refusal to comply with Title IX federal civil rights law by continuing to allow men to compete against women. His appearance came after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a civil lawsuit against Maine for its noncompliance in the wake of multiple federal agencies trying to get the state to stop putting women and girls at risk for weeks.

“We’ve been working through to understand what, if any problem, really exists with the participation, if some of the harms that are being alleged really are of some concern, and what we’ve identified is, there really is — there are no concerns of safety,” Frey told CNN.

Frey either has no clue what he is talking about or is lying through his teeth, because it is not hard to find instances of serious injuries to women and girls at the hands of the biologically stronger and larger males they are forced to compete against.

Take Payton McNabb, for instance. She was invited as one of President Donald Trump’s guests to his address to a joint session of Congress earlier this year because she suffered a concussion, brain bleed, and other trauma when a male athlete spiked a volleyball violently directly into her face. She still has issues with vision, partial paralysis, and mental health concerns associated with such injuries.

A Massachusetts girls’ basketball team had to forfeit after a male on the opposing team kept injuring players “basically, all game,” according to the account of the athletic director of the forfeiting team.

Keep reading