Land Archives - Page 34 of 72 - Plastic Education

Study finds human-created microplastics in Flathead Lake

A recent study conducted at the University of Montana’s Flathead Lake Biological Station confirmed microplastic pollution in Flathead Lake, which can be traced back to various types of human activity. The study, while not the first to identify microplastics in Flathead Lake, made important findings surrounding how much microplastic pollution is in the lake and where it originates. The research was led by FLBS visiting researcher Dr. Xiong Xiong from the Chinese Academy of Science’s Institute of Hydrobiology.

According to the study, which was recently published in the journal Environmental Pollution, Flathead Lake carries microplastic pollutants at levels similar to or higher than other lakes in similarly populated areas. Although the levels remain low in comparison to more populated regions, such pollution should still be of concern for residents of the area who drink, bathe and recreate in the water, researchers say. While microplastic levels are not yet high enough to indicate immediate human danger, the new findings are a sign of a growing problem that could have lasting implications for the Flathead’s ecosystems.

The National Ocean Service defines microplastics as “small plastic pieces less than five millimeters long which can be harmful to our ocean and aquatic life.” Once ingested by fish and other animals, they can carry toxins into the aquatic food chain and human food products. Significant concentrations of microplastics have also been found in drinking water systems. In the Flathead’s wide-ranging bodies of water, these pollutants have many origins.

Landfills and plastic waste disposal sites are the largest source of microplastic contamination at the mouth of the Flathead River. Microplastics are often picked up from these sites by water particles and carried into the water system. In addition to waste disposal, the researchers found that the everyday laundry cycle is dumping microplastics into the lake. Much of today’s clothing is made of synthetic fabrics that break into microscopic plastics in the wash. These plastics are transported into the water supply through home septic drain fields and community water treatment plants. Human activities in the water that involve plastic boats, ropes, floats and fishing line can also be cause for concern. Many of these recreational supplies are prone to degrading, adding further microplastics to the water.

“Plastics are a part of our daily lives and they’re embedded in all of the things that we do—in our economy, in our lifestyle. A consequence of that—because plastics don’t degrade—is that they show up everywhere we look,” UM Flathead Lake Biological Station director Jim Elser told the Beacon.

Despite these concerning findings, the researchers say there are many actions that can be taken to remedy increasing levels of pollution.

On an individual scale, adopting in-line washing machine filters, reducing one’s consumption of synthetic fiber materials and limiting single-use plastics can help decrease pollution. The study also suggests larger reforms such as improving plastic waste disposal procedures, strengthening education on the dangers of plastic pollution and improving wastewater treatment systems.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Interior Department announced that it will phase out single-use plastics at national parks and other public lands over the next ten years, a move that will curb plastic consumption in Northwest Montana. While the announcement addresses certain pollution sources mentioned in the FLBS research, the policy is limited to enforcement on federal lands.

To ultimately see larger scale changes, Elser said, “we need to start switching away and using less plastic.”

Microplastics might be entering marine food webs from the bottom up

Microplastics — tiny pieces of plastic less than five millimetres in size — have been found in marine and freshwater animals ranging from tiny zooplankton to large whales.

However, researchers are still struggling to understand the impact that microplastics are having on aquatic species.

Scientists have found that microplastics have the potential to cause harm to animals through pathways including replacing food and leaching added chemicals into their bodies. However, it’s unclear how much these effects are currently occurring in the environment.

Our recently published study explores how microplastics move within coastal marine food webs. We found that smaller animals feeding lower in the food web might be at greater risk from microplastic exposure than larger predatory animals.

Pollutants and food webs

Food webs are tangled networks of organisms feeding on each other. Where an animal is feeding within this tangled network is called its trophic position and may determine its exposure to pollutants.

For example, mercury pollution accumulates in the muscles of animals and is passed from prey to predators, reaching higher levels of concentration through the food web.

Read more:
Killer whales: why more than half world’s orcas are threatened by leftover industrial chemicals

This process is called biomagnification, and it’s why animals like tuna and salmon end up with potentially dangerous concentrations of pollutants.

Do microplastics biomagnify?

During the summer of 2018, we collected individuals — including clams, mussels, sea cucumbers, crabs, sea stars and fishes — across a food web from several sites around southern Vancouver Island.

A beach seine conducted to collect fish for the study. We found that most individuals had up to two microplastic particles in each of their guts and that the particles were mostly fibres.
(Kieran Cox), Author provided

We then determined the concentrations of microplastics found in the guts of the animals and the liver of the fishes and related these concentrations to each animal’s place in the food web.

The species of aquatic animals we analyzed for microplastic content and positions in the food web.
(Garth Covernton), Author provided

Animals higher in the food web did not contain greater concentrations of microplastics than animals lower in the food web, suggesting that biomagnification was not occurring.

Some of our past work has also shown a lack of evidence for biomagnification of microplastics. In that work, we compared microplastic concentrations in fish guts, reported in the scientific literature, with estimates of their place within food webs.

Some species might be at greater risk

Although we didn’t find evidence of biomagnification, we did find that concentrations of microplastics were higher for certain smaller species when compared to their body weight.

Microplastics did not increase at higher trophic levels — higher positions in the food web — according to a literature review.
(Garth Covernton), Author provided

This included filter feeding animals like clams, mussels and certain sea cucumbers, as well as a type of fish, the shiner surfperch. These fish might be ingesting more microplastics because the particles are similar in size and shape to their preferred food — small aquatic microorganisms like zooplankton and other small invertebrates.

However, the numbers of microplastics we found in all animals were less than two particles per individual on average. While this could mean that health risks to these animals are low, we have yet to understand how long-term exposure to low concentrations of microplastics could affect their health.

In our research, we were limited to studying particles greater than 100 microns in size — about the width of a human hair — as particles smaller than this are very difficult to study using a regular microscope. However, emerging methods may make them easier to investigate in the future. These smaller particles are potentially more toxic and we can’t rule out biomagnification at this scale, even if it’s not occurring for larger particles.

How are microplastics affecting aquatic food webs?

As microplastics pollution of the environment increases, we need to understand its possible effects to avoid potential ecosystem disasters in the future.

An aerial view of a lake with experimental enclosures where microplastics research is being conducted at the IISD-ELA, northwestern Ontario. Studying microplastics in natural freshwater labs will advance our understanding of how they might affect aquatic food webs.
(Garth Covernton), Author provided

Freshwater ecosystems, for example, are often more directly exposed to microplastics and can contain higher concentrations.

Researchers, including a member of our team, are currently conducting work at the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Experimental Lakes Area to help understand how microplastics exposure might affect freshwater ecosystems and food webs.

This work, alongside the work of other researchers, should advance our understanding of how microplastics can affect aquatic ecosystems, especially the effects on the small animals at the base of food webs that might be ingesting more of these particles.

California lawmakers want to make brands use less single-use plastic

Instead of focusing solely on ramping up recycling, the Plastic Pollution Producer Responsibility Act would require companies to cut the amount of plastic in their packaging—and nudge them toward reusable alternatives.
[Illustration: Fast Company]
By

Canada is banning single-use plastics by the end of the year

Canada is banning the manufacture and importation of single-use plastics by the end of the year, the government announced on Monday, in a major effort to combat plastic waste and address climate change.
The ban includes checkout bags, cutlery, straws and food-service ware made from or containing plastics that are hard to recycle, with a few exceptions for medical reasons.
It will come into effect in December 2022, and the sale of those plastic items will be prohibited as of December 2023, the government said.

Restaurants and grocery stores worry about a supply of alternative products as the government announces details of its ban on single-use plastics. in Toronto. June 20, 2022.
Steve Russell | Toronto Star | Getty Images

Canada is banning the manufacture and import of single-use plastics by the end of the year, the government announced on Monday, in a major effort to combat plastic waste and address climate change.
The ban will cover items like checkout bags, cutlery, straws, and food-service ware made from or containing plastics that are hard to recycle, with a few exceptions for medical reasons. It will come into effect in December 2022, and the sale of those items will be prohibited as of December 2023 to provide businesses in Canada enough time to transition and to deplete existing stocks, the government said.

Single-use plastics make up most of the plastic waste found on Canadian shorelines. Up to 15 billion plastic checkout bags are used each year and approximately 16 million straws are used every day, according to government data.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who vowed in 2019 to phase out plastics, said the ban will eliminate more than 1.3 million tons of plastic waste over the next decade — the equivalent of 1 million garbage bags of trash.

“We promised to ban harmful single-use plastics, and we’re keeping that promise,” Trudeau wrote in a tweet on Monday.
Canada will also prohibit the export of those plastics by the end of 2025 to address international plastic pollution.
“By the end of the year, you won’t be able to manufacture or import these harmful plastics,” said Steven Guilbeault, the federal minister of environment and climate change. “After that, businesses will begin offering the sustainable solutions Canadians want, whether that’s paper straws or reusable bags.”

“With these new regulations, we’re taking a historic step forward in reducing plastic pollution, and keeping our communities and the places we love clean,” Guilbeault said.

Virginia governor rolls back plastics phase-out

Every morning, the Energy News Network compiles the top stories about the clean energy transition and delivers them to your inbox for free. Sign up today!

At first whiff, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s executive order centered on curbing food waste and boosting recycling across Virginia might pass an environmentalist’s sniff test.

Scratch a bit deeper, however, and that same nose detects a less-than-pleasant odor.

Conservationists have no quibble with order No. 17’s initiative to keep leftovers out of landfills by doubling down on composting efforts statewide.

Where they smell greenwashing is in the section that cancels an initiative by the previous administration to eliminate single-use plastics. Instead, the new order urges state agencies, parks, colleges and universities to encourage recycling of the ubiquitous plastics.

“I would love to be positive about this,” said Tim Cywinski, spokesperson for the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club. “Youngkin easily could’ve written an order that didn’t get rid of the plastics phase-out.

“But every time he does something that seems good, he does something else and goes two steps backward.”

What’s the harm in backtracking on plastics? The Sierra Club is among those claiming it’s an invitation for companies with questionable claims about recycling plastic into fuel or feedstock for more plastic to move into the state.

In fact, Youngkin’s early April order does just that. The state Department of Environmental Quality is required to lead research on a report due next spring that outlines how Virginia can attract entities that specialize in post-consumer recycled products.

That order refers to those businesses as “clean technology companies.”

The American Chemistry Council has lobbied for years to locate plastic recyclers in Virginia, according to the Sierra Club.

“This is investing in something that is just going to pollute again,” said Connor Kish, Sierra’s legislative and political director. “What is clear is that Gov. Youngkin’s executive order undoes a lot of good work.”

Plastic ‘recyclers’ are no-shows thus far

Youngkin’s order fits with legislation the General Assembly passed last year — and signed into law by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam — that lowers the oversight burden for so-called “advanced recyclers” by classifying them as manufacturers rather than solid waste processors.

That change removes such recyclers from the oversight realm of the Virginia Solid Waste Management Act.

“There’s an entirely different permitting process for each of those,” Kish said. “One concern is, where is the plastic waste stored if these are classified as manufacturing?

“Air pollution, water pollution, really everything becomes an environmental concern for us if these facilities open.”

Plus, in 2020 Virginia legislators passed a separate bill that helped advanced recyclers gain tax exemptions and credits.

Kish and his colleagues had their first scare on that front two years ago when Northam announced that Braven Environmental would be investing $31.7 million in a manufacturing facility in Cumberland County. The county is 40-plus miles west of Richmond in the state’s Southside region.

Braven was referred to as “a leader in deriving fuel from landfill-bound plastic” in the news release. The company said it breaks down waste plastics via pyrolysis, not incineration, so the fuel is made with lower carbon emissions than traditional oil or gas production.

The company claimed its local presence would curb carbon pollution by cutting the need to transport waste plastic long distances out of state.

However, chemical recycling of plastic is expensive and inefficient because it requires extremely high temperatures.

Sierrans tracked the Braven development, but minimally, Kish said, “because you see flashy press releases about these companies all the time. They rarely open and I felt this one was never going to take flight.”

Sure enough, in an under-the-radar move in early January, Braven withdrew from the deal and its commitment to hire up to 80 employees.

The funding sources behind such companies are increasingly difficult to decipher, Kish said, and the technology doesn’t seem scalable beyond the laboratory.

“That’s why they fail to get off the ground; they can’t do this in a profitable way,” he said. “Lots of promises are made to communities and then they don’t show up.”

Momentum killer at GMU?

Youngkin’s order rescinds and replaces executive order 77, which Northam issued in March 2021.

The former governor was heralded by green groups statewide for issuing what they called one of the strongest executive orders nationwide aimed at single-use plastics.

It not only called for banning disposable bags and single-use foodware (bowls, utensils, plates, trays, etc.) at state agencies within four months, but also directed agencies and public universities to eliminate single-use plastic by 2025.

In addition, it instructed state leaders to deploy composting, reuse and other strategies to reduce solid waste and divert waste from landfills.

Northam’s executive order inspired public institutions such as George Mason University to launch its Circular Economy and Zero Waste Task Force in April 2021 to further its sustainability efforts campuswide.

Ironically, Youngkin recognized the northern Virginia university with a Governor’s Environmental Excellence Award on March 29 — roughly a week before he issued his executive order backpedaling on phasing out plastics.

George Mason was among six gold medal winners. The state lauded the university’s task force for an impressive and lengthy list of eco-accomplishments spurred by adopting a buy less, buy better procurement philosophy, converting more disposables to reusables and revamping waste diversion practices.

For instance, the task force won kudos for eliminating 92,000 pounds of single-use and polystyrene items in dining halls. As well, more than 556,000 pounds of food and other materials from dining halls were composted or recycled.

Interestingly, the university’s task force website noted that the school eliminated single-use plastic water bottles in July 2021. However, it no longer includes a line about ridding the campus of all single-use plastic bottles by 2025. That sentence had included a caveat noting that limited potential exemptions might be necessary.

That text change was made after an Energy News Network reporter sent questions to a university spokesperson and the task force co-leader about how Youngkin’s executive order would affect their plans for single-use plastics.

As well, the website no longer makes the clear link between the creation of the task force and Northam’s 2021 order.

The task force co-leader didn’t respond to follow-up queries. However, Stephanie Aaronson, deputy vice president for university branding said via email that “we plan to continue our award-winning work, including our already planned phaseout of single-use plastic bottles for items available in aluminum cans or refill options.”

Reduce is the silent R

The globe is awash in tons of plastic waste. Cywinski, of the Sierra Club, blames the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries for creating the concept of plastic being recyclable, knowing full well it wasn’t a viable solution.

A new joint report by The Last Beach Cleanup and Beyond Plastics estimates that the U.S. plastics recycling rate, which has never reached double digits, now hovers at a dismal 5% to 6%. It estimates that per capita plastic waste generation exploded by 263% from 1980 to 2018 — a jump from 60 pounds to almost 220 pounds per person per year.

The report recommended that companies and legislatures endorse policies such as single-use plastic bans to limit production, usage and disposal. The U.S. Department of Interior is evidently heeding that advice with a recent proposal to ban all single-use plastics by 2032 in national parks and on affiliated public lands.

That’s why Kish and the Sierra Club lament the stamping out of Northam’s executive order.

Virginia would be wise to spend money educating the public about shrinking the state’s plastic footprint rather than dangle incentives to entice fossil fuel companies.

“We teach the three R’s,” Kish said — reduce, reuse, recycle. “But too often we skip the ‘reduce’ part.”

Derek Havens of Mason Neck in northern Virginia says amen to that.

The 70-year-old was so irked by Youngkin’s turnabout that he vented via a mid-April letter to the editor published in the Washington Post.

“It shouldn’t surprise me that an environmental issue is being used as political football,” he said in a follow-up interview. “Recycling is a failed approach to these single-use plastics.

“It’s just a ruse so citizens feel like we’re doing something.”

Canada to ban single-use plastics to combat climate change, pollution

Canada will ban the manufacture and importation of “harmful” single-use plastics by the end of the year, the government said, in a sweeping effort to fight pollution and climate change.Most plastic grocery bags, cutlery and straws would come under the ban, with a few exceptions for medical needs, Canada’s Environment Ministry said Monday.“The ban on the manufacture and import of these harmful single-use plastics, barring a few targeted exceptions to recognize specific cases, will come into effect in December 2022,” it said in a statement.“To provide businesses in Canada with enough time to transition and to deplete their existing stocks, the sale of these items will be prohibited as of December 2023.” It will also stop exporting such plastics by the end of 2025, to prevent international pollution, it added.This Styrofoam-eating ‘superworm’ could help solve the garbage crisisPrime Minister Justin Trudeau, who first promised to phase out hard-to-recycle plastics in 2019, hailed the move as a boost to Canada’s efforts to tackle climate change. “We promised to ban harmful single-use plastics, and we’re keeping that promise,” he tweeted.“Over the next 10 years, this ban will result in the estimated elimination of over 1.3 million tonnes of plastic waste and more than 22,000 tonnes of plastic pollution. That’s equal to a million garbage bags full of litter,” he added.We promised to ban harmful single-use plastics, and we’re keeping that promise. The ban on the making and importing of plastic bags, cutlery, straws and other items comes into effect in December 2022 – and selling these items is prohibited as of December 2023.— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) June 20, 2022

In Canada, up to 15 billion plastic grocery bags are used every year, and approximately 16 million straws are used daily, according to government figures, with such single-use plastics making up most of the plastic litter found across Canada’s shorelines.“With these new regulations, we’re taking a historic step forward in reducing plastic pollution, and keeping our communities and the places we love clean,” said the environment and climate change minister, Steven Guilbeault.Global efforts continue on how to tackle the material that takes centuries to break down.Kenya, Chile, the United Kingdom and the European Union have all put in place various bans on single-use plastic goods — while Canada’s neighbor, the United States, ranks as the world’s leading contributor of plastic waste, according to a congressionally mandated report released last year.The United Nations, earlier this year, laid the foundations for an ambitious, legally binding treaty to reduce plastic waste. The global treaty to “end plastic pollution” could result in caps on plastic production or impose rules to make plastic easier and less toxic to repurpose.However, the treaty proposals are tentative and have received pushback from the oil and petrochemical industries.U.N. adopts historic resolution aimed at ending plastic pollutionThe coronavirus pandemic was also seen by environmentalists as a step back in the global plastic crisis for many nations. The use of disposable masks and personal protective equipment led to a sharp rise in pollution, with some 8 million metric tons of pandemic-related plastic waste created by 193 countries, according to a global study published last year. Much of the waste has ended up in oceans, threatening to disrupt marine life and pollute beaches.Here’s the plan 👇✅ 2022: ban on the manufacture and import of these single use plastics✅ 2023: ban on the sale✅ 2025: ban on the export Together these actions will eliminate more than 1.3 MILLION tonnes of plastic waste. pic.twitter.com/9uMFdM5rVZ— Steven Guilbeault (@s_guilbeault) June 20, 2022

Greenpeace Canada welcomed Ottawa’s move but said the country still had to do more.“The release of the regulations is a critical step forward, but we still aren’t even at the starting line,” Sarah King, head of the environmental group’s oceans and plastics campaign, said in a statement. “The government needs to shift into high gear by expanding the ban list and cutting overall plastic production.”The Sierra Club Canada Foundation, an environmental charity, also called on the Canadian government to implement “even faster action to stem the tide of plastic pollution.” It said public pressure was growing and suggested the list of goods be expanded to include drinking cups, cigarette filters and single-serve packets.Biden team sees climate ‘emergency,’ but powers are limitedThe United States contributes more to the polluting deluge than any other nation, generating about 287 pounds of plastics per person annually.Piecemeal efforts have been put in place by some states, with New York implementing a ban on single-use plastic bags in 2020. Earlier this month, a California bill was introduced to reduce plastic production for single-use products like shampoo bottles and food wrappers by 25 percent starting next decade.The Biden administration issued an order this month to phase out single-use plastic products and packaging on public lands by 2032, according to a statement by the Interior Department. That includes plastic and polystyrene food and beverage containers, bottles, straws and cups, it said.

It’s high time to put a lid on plastics

In summary

Plastics recycling has largely failed us, and the consequences for our environment and health are significant. California leaders are considering ways to curb the use of polluting plastics.

By Betty Yee, Special to CalMattersBetty Yee is the controller of California and a member of the California Ocean Protection Council.

Plastic waste is the legacy we are leaving our children. It is everywhere: In remote alpine lakes, in deep sea trenches, and even inside us. Studies show we consume up to a credit-card worth of plastic every week.

The latest stunning research has found microplastics in every single sample of freshly fallen Antarctic snow.

Meanwhile, the production of plastics is warming the planet. In 2019, the Center for International Environmental Law estimated the production and end-of-life management of plastics globally contributes the equivalent of 850 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. That figure is projected to grow as production increases unabated.

Sadly, plastics recycling has largely failed us, and the consequences for our environment and health are significant. For years, consumers have been led to believe that through their diligence, plastic waste could be managed responsibly and even contribute to a circular economy — that is, be reused and eliminate waste. The plastics industry has enthusiastically supported this idea.

We now know that many single-use plastics are difficult and uneconomical to recycle, resulting in a dismal 5% recycling rate for all plastic waste in the United States. The rest ends up in landfills, burned, leaked into our environment as litter or, eventually, as microplastics, polluting our air and water.

Colorado, Maine and Oregon recently have passed legislation to curb the proliferation of nonrecyclable packaging and other single-use plastics. It is time for California to reclaim its position of environmental leadership when it comes to plastics and put in place a meaningful and durable solution.

California has stepped up when called upon to take world-leading action on climate change, air quality and land conservation. As a state, we know how to craft smart, responsible, sustainable solutions to the toughest challenges. It is time for us to lead once again.

So what does action look like?

First, we must drastically reduce the amount of plastic we use, starting with single-use plastics and food-service ware. Throughout my tenure as state controller, I have worked to develop a sustainable “blue economy” for California. The foundation of this effort is a healthy ocean, free from plastic debris.

As a member of the Ocean Protection Council, I voted to adopt the world’s first Statewide Microplastics Strategy, calling for comprehensive statewide plastic source reduction, reuse and refill goals by 2023. Industry must lead this effort by reducing packaging; encouraging reusable or refillable alternatives; and substituting difficult-to-manage materials with recyclables such as glass, metal or paper.

Second, we must ensure that remaining plastics are truly recyclable. We must set ambitious targets and timelines for an industry that has long resisted such producer mandates, and we must provide the state with the ability to levy meaningful fines for noncompliance.

Third, we must hold plastic producers responsible for providing the financial resources needed to recycle effectively, and to clean up the mess left behind by years of inaction.

California leaders are considering two potential options to move us toward curbing the use of plastics.

A ballot initiative titled the California Recycling and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act is scheduled to go before voters in November. This measure would require industry to source-reduce single-use plastics by 25%, and to ensure that by 2030, all single-use plastic packaging and foodware used in California be recyclable, reusable, refillable or compostable.

On the legislative front, Sen. Ben Allen, my fellow Ocean Protection Council member, has just released a new draft of his Senate Bill 54, which would require producers to significantly reduce plastic packaging and ensure all packaging and food-service ware in California is reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2032. After years of negotiation, Sen. Allen has rallied a wide range of local governments and environmental organizations in support of this effort.

Whatever path state leaders choose, the one option we cannot afford is continued inaction. Californians cannot wait another year — another day — to address the plastic waste legacy we are heaping upon our children.

_____

Betty Yee previously has written about women on corporate boards.

The story you just read was funded by people like you.

CalMatters is a nonprofit newsroom and your tax-deductible donations help us keep bringing you and every Californian essential, nonpartisan information.

I used CalMatters’ voter guide and I know that providing that kind of in-depth information is rare and requires staff and effort. I appreciate the resource and want to give back.

Gloria, San Diego

Featured CalMatters Member

IN-DEPTH: What we know about PFAS in our food

After a much-publicized study this year found
high levels of a toxic chemical class in food wrappings, many of us are eyeing that pizza or to-go salad in a new light.

Experts warn, though, that we shouldn’t just be concerned about exposure from packaged food. The compounds, PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, appear to be widespread in our food supply
. PFAS have contaminated dairy and beef farms in Maine and Michigan, and recent testing from the consumer wellness site Mamavation found evidence of the compounds in organic pasta sauces, canola oils and nut butters.

But little is known about how much PFAS Americans are eating. In contrast to drinking water, which is extensively studied, “we have only anecdotal evidence for understanding (other) PFAS exposure sources for the U.S. general population,” Elsie Sunderland, a professor of environmental chemistry at Harvard University,
testified to the federal House Committee on Science, Space and Technology at the end of 2021.

Advocates and some researchers say the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s efforts to test for and regulate PFAS in food are inadequate, and the agency has likely underestimated health risks from our routine exposure.

More broadly, because PFAS can get into food in many ways, the issue “further highlights the need to stop creating and emitting PFAS globally,” Courtney Carignan, an exposure scientist and environmental epidemiologist at Michigan State University, told EHN.

PFAS in food

PFAS, a group of more than 9,000 man-made compounds, are known for their ability to repel water and oil and withstand high heat. These properties have made them useful in products ranging from firefighting foam to makeup to nonstick pans — and mean they take a long time to break down in the environment and in our bodies, earning them the moniker “forever chemicals.”

This longevity is problematic because some PFAS have been linked to certain kinds of cancer, heart disease, liver damage, lowered vaccine effectiveness, lower birth weights and other health effects. PFAS do “a really good job at crossing the placenta,” Stephanie Eick, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at Emory University, told EHN, adding that prenatal exposure to PFAS has been linked to cardiac issues and other problems later in life. Evidence is mounting that some newer PFAS are likely unsafe as well.

The European Union, which has more extensive PFAS testing and regulation than the U.S., has set a low combined suggested weekly food limit for four types of PFAS, estimating that most exceed this safety threshold. The U.S., meanwhile, only has drinking water health advisories for two PFAS compounds.

PFAS can get into the food we eat in a number of ways, from leaching off of food packaging coatings to contamination on farms. In a recent analysis, the Environmental Working Group estimated that the common practice of spreading sewage sludge for fertilizer could have contaminated up to 20 million acres of U.S. croplands with the forever chemicals.

Eick said it’s “very clear” from past studies that eating fish, which can concentrate pollutants found in the water they swim in and in the prey they eat, has been linked to higher PFAS levels.

Although the evidence is not as strong as for fish and shellfish, Eick said eggs, certain kinds of meat, especially liver and other organ meats and dairy products have also been found to have higher levels of longer chain PFAS in particular. EU scientists have also warned that fruit can contain elevated levels of PFAS.
Food packaging, especially for take-out food, has come under a lot of scrutiny lately as PFAS are commonly used to help grease- and water-proof containers, bags and bakery papers. A seminal study from 2019 found that people who on a daily basis ate microwaved popcorn, which generally comes in coated bags, had “significantly higher” PFAS blood levels, while regularly eating fast food and pizza also tended to be linked to higher PFAS levels. Overall, the risk from eating processed food is not quite as clear yet as eating a contaminated fish because the chemicals have to migrate from the packaging onto the food, noted Eick.

The microwaved popcorn study and others have found that some of the highest PFAS concentrations detected in humans were PFOA and PFOS — two older generation PFAS that are banned in Europe and have been phased out by U.S. manufacturers.

“It is still a major problem, even though we know that they have been phased out” said Eick, who conducted a study that found elevated levels of those and other older PFAS in pregnant people who ate fish and other animal products.

PFAS in organic food

Pizza and popcorn have both been linked to PFAS exposure. (Credit: Aleksandra Sapozhnikova/Unsplash) The consumer wellness site Mamavation has been testing a range of consumer products for fluorine, an indicator for PFAS, at an Environmental Protection Agency-certified lab. Leah Segedie, founder of Mamavation, told EHN that she has focused the testing on organic food and products marketed as green or natural, given that people buy those products in part because they think they’re safer.Recently published testing from Mamavation found that four out of 55 organic pasta sauces tested last year had fluorine, while five out of 17 canola oils, and four out of 33 nut butters had the PFAS indicator. Subsequent testing of a smaller number of sauces and oils this year did not turn up any evidence of the compounds. EHN.org partially funded the testing. Pete Myers, chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences, which publishes Environmental Health News, reviewed the findings.Linda Birnbaum, former director at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program and a scholar in residence at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, told Mamavation that while “the good news is that only 8% of the tomato and pasta sauces (tested) did not have any PFAS,” there would ideally be no PFAS in our food as the compounds can be toxic at low doses.Michigan State University’s Carignan said that her initial thoughts on the Mamavation pasta sauce testing were that the results could be false positives, as there’s a number of challenges with testing for PFAS in food. But she added that researchers know that produce with higher water content, like tomatoes, can absorb more of the compounds, so “it’s possible that the results are real.”

Limitations in the FDA’s testing of PFAS in food

The FDA’s effort to test for PFAS in food highlights some of the testing challenges. In 2019, the agency developed a new method to test for 16 out of the estimated 9,000+ PFAS in a range of common foods. The agency initially found the compounds in 14 out of 91 samples — including shockingly high levels in a piece of chocolate cake.The FDA later took back those results, saying that it appeared that and the other result for chocolate milk were false positives as the test couldn’t distinguish between the compound PFPeA and chocolate. The agency also raised its detection limit, saying that there were only two foods that it could confidently say had PFAS. The FDA has said that the sample size in this study was too small to draw conclusions from. Some environmental health researchers and advocates have raised concerns about the FDA’s testing efforts to date. The agency should test for the specific PFAS found in food packaging, not just those found in the environment, Melanie Benesh, an attorney with the Environmental Working Group, told EHN. Additionally, the FDA should reconsider its current detection limit, given that PFAS can be harmful in very low amounts, she added. “We really think that they should be, at a minimum, disclosing all of their detection so that we have a fuller picture of exactly how many foods are testing positive for some level of PFAS, even if it’s at low levels.”Overall, there’s an “absence of validated methods” to test for PFAS in food, according to Charles Neslund, scientific officer for Eurofins USA, a leading PFAS testing lab, although researchers are working to address this. The FDA, for example, is expanding its method to test for four additional PFAS. Scientists are also working to improve methods to test for fluorine in food packaging to quickly screen for the presence of PFAS. An emerging challenge is that limited methods exist to test for PFAS “precursors” — that is, compounds that break down in the environment or in our bodies into PFAS.

Steps to reduce health harms of PFAS in food

Starbucks is one multiple companies that have committed to a PFAS phaseout. (Credit: Asael Peña/Unsplash)So far seven states — California, Maine, Connecticut, New York, Vermont, Minnesota and Washington — are following Denmark in banning PFAS from food packaging, with the soonest of these bans going into effect in New York at the end of this year. In the meantime, a new certification tracks whether single-use food containers have PFAS, BPA and other toxics.In addition, a growing number of restaurants and fast food chains have started to ban PFAS from food packaging. Burger King, Chipotle, Taco Bell, Wendy’s, McDonald’, Sweetgreen and other chains have already banned or will soon eliminate food waste from packaging — although recent testing from Consumer Reports found that many companies with bans already in place still have the compounds in their packaging. Keith Vorst, an associate professor of food science at Iowa State University, told EHN that challenges remain in completely eliminating PFAS from food packaging, including a lack of safe and inexpensive grease proofing alternatives. Additionally, makers of recycled-plastic food containers are finding trace amounts of PFAS in their products even when the compounds are not added as a coating. If PFAS in food packaging bans move forward, there will need to be a consensus on what counts as intentionally added PFAS versus background contamination, he added. “I haven’t heard a single one of the companies I work with say ‘there’s a future for fluorochemistry in our products.’ ” In general, environmental health experts would like to see federal U.S. regulatory agencies cooperate to better address PFAS exposure research and issue appropriate health warnings. The EPA could, for example, conduct further testing of the sludge generated at wastewater treatment plants and crop fields where it was spread, said Benesh. “The extent to which food is being contaminated with sludge is, I think, dramatically underestimated, and the more we test, the more we’re going to realize how big of a problem this is,” Benesh said. Michigan now requires businesses, like paper mills and chemical companies, that create wastewater that’s especially high in PFAS to pre-treat that waste before it goes to public treatment plants. There are some simple measures that pregnant people and anyone concerned about PFAS exposure can take, such as cutting down how much fish and other animal products they consume, Eick said. She also suggests tossing out any nonstick pans with scratches on them and using the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database to make sure your personal care products are low-risk. Despite the widespread prevalence of PFAS, “I do really feel like it is possible to minimize exposure,” Eick added.From Your Site ArticlesRelated Articles Around the Web

IN-DEPTH: What we know about PFAS in our food

After a much-publicized study this year found
high levels of a toxic chemical class in food wrappings, many of us are eyeing that pizza or to-go salad in a new light.

PFAS in food

Eick said it’s “very clear” from past studies that eating fish, which can concentrate pollutants found in the water they swim in and in the prey they eat, has been linked to higher PFAS levels.

PFAS in organic food

Limitations in the FDA’s testing of PFAS in food

Steps to reduce health harms of PFAS in food

Canada sets dates to ban some single-use plastics

The Canadian government is banning companies from importing or making plastic bags and Styrofoam takeout containers by the end of this year, their sale by the end of next year, and their export by the end of 2025. Canada previously announced a ban but environment advocates were dismayed about delays and that Canada’s initial plan was to ban the items at home but continue to ship them abroad. Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced the dates Monday.

Read more: Canada to Ban Single-Use Plastics as Early as 2021 In addition to bags and takeout boxes, the ban will affect plastic straws, bags, cutlery, stir sticks, and six-pack rings that hold cans and bottles. The federal government listed plastics as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act last year which paved the way for regulations to ban some. However, a consortium of plastics producers is suing the government over the toxic designation in a case expected to be heard later this year. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau first promised in June 2019 that his government would phase out the production and use of hard-to-recycle plastic items as it aims for zero plastic waste by the end of the decade. Initially, he said the ban would happen in 2021, but the scientific assessment of plastics that was needed to put the ban in motion was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Plastic waste has been a growing problem around the world, with an estimated 10% or less of most manufactured plastic recycled. Read more: Is Reusable Packaging Actually Better for the Environment? A research study published by Environment and Climate Change Canada in 2019 found 3.3 million tons of plastic was thrown out, almost half of it plastic packaging. Less than one-tenth of that was recycled. Most of the plastic ended up in landfills, where it will take hundreds of years to decompose. An estimated 29,000 tons ended up as plastic pollution, littering parks, forests, waterways, and shorelines with cigarette butts, food wrappers, and disposable coffee cups.