Toxins in the News

Many of us are overwhelmed and I hesitate to add to that. My focus is on searching for positive news I can share and actions I can take, both politically and for the environment (impossible to really separate those).

In this post I do cover some stories that are not as positive.  But we need to pay just enough attention to keep us in the game. How much that is will be different for each of us.  I see dozens of stories on my feed every day that I could share, and you can too (see our groups and websites resources page for some sources of environmental news). I share some that catch my attention, mostly leaning towards the positive. This is admittedly subjective.  Anyone who isn’t a bit overwhelmed from time to time is in denial.  But if we disengage completely, don’t keep up, keep learning, keep watching, the bad guys win.

So, let’s start with a positive story on toxins:

Le Monde reported (in English!) that as of January 2026 they are banning PFAS “forever chemicals” in cosmetics and clothing in France (fine print: when alternatives exist)! We need more of this!

The not so good news:

The United States EPA is not going to take into account the economic healthcare costs and lives lost, but only the cost to industry when evaluating rules for fine particulate and ozone air pollution (remember there is no question that air pollution is costly and deadly).

From the Guardian article:

 “The change means the EPA will focus rules for fine particulate matter and ozone only on the cost to industry, part of a broader realignment under Donald Trump toward a business-friendly approach that has included the rollback of multiple policies meant to safeguard human health and the environment and slow climate change.

“The agency said in a statement late on Monday that it “absolutely remains committed to our core mission of protecting human health and the environment” but ‘will not be monetizing the impacts at this time’. The EPA will continue to estimate costs to businesses to comply with the rules and will continue “ongoing work to refine its economic methodologies” of pollution rules, spokesperson Brigit Hirsch said.

 “‘The EPA’s mandate is to protect public health, not to ignore the science in order to eliminate clean air safeguards that save lives,’ said John Walke, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“He called the change in how public health benefits are calculated ‘reckless, dangerous and illegal’, adding: “By pretending real health benefits do not count, EPA wants to open the door for industry to foul the air, while communities and families pay the price in asthma attacks, heart disease and premature deaths.’”

“The move comes as the Trump administration is seeking to abandon a rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution, arguing that the Biden administration did not have authority to set the tighter standard on pollution from tailpipes, smokestacks and other industrial sources.

“Since the EPA’s creation more than 50 years ago, Republican and Democratic administrations have used different estimates to assign monetary value to a human life in cost-benefit analyses.

“Under Biden, the EPA estimated that its proposed rule on PM2.5 would prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays by 2032. For every $1 spent on reducing PM2.5, the agency said, there could be as much as $77 in health benefits.”

Once again industry profits, we pay the price, both in terms of our health and economically (and some who live and work in more polluted areas or jobs pay a higher price than others, and these are not the same people who make the big bucks).

Speaking of the economics of environmental degradation:

As we know, climate change is an economic burden that will only get worse. I see this story as positive;  it is good that it is now out there that “borrowers are starting to face a financial penalty for ignoring the dangers ahead”.

As Alastair Marsh wrote in a piece for Greenberg Green Daily “Climate Takes it to the Banks”:

 “For years, climate experts have insisted that markets will naturally push companies to take climate change more seriously as risks become more apparent. Fresh research indicates that borrowers are starting to face a financial penalty for ignoring the dangers ahead.

“This month, a paper published by the European Central Bank found that banks with the greatest so-called transition risks now ‘face significantly higher borrowing costs’ in funding markets. That followed a December paper by analysts at the Central Bank of Ireland, which showed that companies facing physical climate risks are in a similar predicament, and will need to provide more collateral.

“The studies examined the two main ways companies should, theoretically, feel the pain of global warming. Transition risk — the notion that companies slow to cut high-carbon activities will be punished by regulators and markets — has often seemed difficult to quantify, in part because many governments keep delaying efforts to move toward net zero emissions. But physical risk — which covers the real-world impact that extreme weather has on assets such as buildings — is getting harder to ignore as climate disasters mount.”

Even the wealthy will eventually pay a price. There is something in the mindset of get mine now, greed and taking, that is hard to shake for many, it seems. They are betting they can discount the future! It won’t hurt them! What a horrible ethos.

Some news on micro- and nano- plastics:

There are concerns about microplastics in the environment, the biosphere and our bodies. Add to that concerns that they increase greenhouse gases indirectly so worsen climate change. A paper published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials: Plastics titled “From pollution to ocean warming: The climate impacts of marine microplastics” is dense and sobering reading. But you can get the big picture from the abstract:  

“In marine ecosystems, MPs [microplastics] alter the natural carbon sequestration by affecting phytoplankton and zooplankton, which are key agents of carbon cycling. Additionally, the plastisphere, a microbial community colonizing MPs, plays a significant role in GHG [greenhouse gas] production due to its diverse microbial networks. This review highlights the close relationship between MP pollution and climate change, suggesting that MPs may significantly contribute to climate change and potentially further affect ocean health in the form of ocean warming and ocean acidification.”

Now a cautionary tale about micro- and nano- plastics and evaluating and reporting research findings:

We have to be careful, however, perhaps especially so, when the science seems to validate our very legitimate concerns. A case in point: some studies that report on levels of microplastics in human tissues have been questioned. Some of the studies that reported microplastics in human tissues may have used flawed methods.  I have mixed feelings. I‘d like to be less worried about the effects of plastic particles in the human body, but poorly reported reseach clouds the issue rather than reassures me.

From the Guardian article:

“The Guardian has identified seven studies that have been challenged by researchers publishing criticism in the respective journals, while a recent analysis listed 18 studies that it said had not considered that some human tissue can produce measurements easily confused with the signal given by common plastics.

“There is an increasing international focus on the need to control plastic pollution but faulty evidence on the level of microplastics in humans could lead to misguided regulations and policies, which is dangerous, researchers say. It could also help lobbyists for the plastics industry to dismiss real concerns by claiming they are unfounded. While researchers say analytical techniques are improving rapidly, the doubts over recent high-profile studies also raise the questions of what is really known today and how concerned people should be about microplastics in their bodies.”

Well, science is always refining methods, assumptions, and conclusions as new information becomes available.

But both as someone trying to be aware and share about environmental issues and as a former Health Sciences Professor involved in academic medicine, this is very close to my heart, as it should be for all of us concerned about the environment. The point is not that nano- and micro- plastics aren’t a concern, but that we need to be scrupulous. When the techniques and conclusions are still being worked out, we need to say that explicitly and not fall into the trap of posturing, sensationalism, or fear-mongering, even if those weren’t our intentions.

I have no reason to doubt that these were well-meaning researchers, and this doesn’t mean that all research on microplastics is suspect, or, in these cases, necessarily wrong.

But as the article points out, those who want to maintain the status quo and profit from pollution will jump on any doubt, error or misleading communications. Scientists are human and even when trying to do the right thing can miss the mark.

Let’s all stay vigilant! Credibility is critical! Keep to the facts, what you know, best as you can when talking to others. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to know what you don’t know.

But in the political and environmental spheres, we know way more than enough to know the forces of greed are relentless and toxic and we must take care and take (peaceful) action, however big or small!

Well, hold on; let’s end on a feel good story (we need those too!), so in honor of fighting the good fight:

Earthjustice reports that as of December 2025 the US postal service (USPS) “has rolled out more than 2,600 electric vehicles for mail deliveries at 65 sites around the country, including in California, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, and New York. This is part of a historic decision in 2022 to electrify a majority of USPS mail trucks after sustained Earthjustice litigation and a wave of advocacy that saw thousands of Americans writing to the Postal Service about their trucks.

“Many letter carriers love the electric trucks, citing major upgrades like air conditioning, anti-lock brakes, and airbags. Best of all, the new vehicles mean cleaner air for the neighborhoods they operate in and a healthier climate overall.”