Dupont Agrees to Gradually Eliminate C-8

DuPont has agreed to take part in a new E-P-A program aimed at eliminating the use of a potentially toxic chemical. The chemical is known as C-8. And it’s used to make Teflon and other nonstick and stain-resistant products. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight has the story:

Transcript

DuPont has agreed to take part in a new program aimed at eliminating
the use of a potentially toxic chemical. The chemical is known as C-8,
and it’s used to make Teflon and other nonstick and stain-resistant
products. The voluntary program was proposed by the EPA. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight has the story:


The EPA wants DuPont and seven other chemical companies to
completely eliminate C-8 in the next nine years.


The effort is drawing praise from environmentalists. Timothy Kropp is a
senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group. He says finding
a substitute for C-8 can decrease pollution and damage to human health…


“This chemical is ubiquitous in people’s blood, and it’s persistent and
everywhere throughout the environment. It is such a wide ranging
chemical with so many concerns that it’s high time that someone took
care of this.”


One EPA official says this is a great opportunity for the industry to get
ahead of the curve and demonstrate leadership in protecting the
environment.


For the GLRC, I’m Fred Kight.

Related Links

Settlement Reached Between Dupont and Epa

The Environmental Protection Agency says DuPont hid information about the dangers of a chemical used to manufacture Teflon. The allegations prompted an investigation by the EPA, and now, the company will pay 16.5 million dollars to settle the complaint. The EPA says it’s the largest administrative penalty it has ever won. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight has the story:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency says DuPont hid information about the dangers of a
chemical used to manufacture Teflon. The allegations prompted an investigation by the EPA, and
now, the company will pay 16-point five million dollars to settle the complaint. The EPA says
it’s the largest administrative penalty it’s ever won. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred
Kight has the story:


Teflon is made using C-8, and the EPA alleged that for more than 20 years, DuPont withheld
information about the chemical’s health effects. The government also said DuPont didn’t tell what
it knew about the pollution of water supplies near one of its plants.


Tim Kropp is with the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C. He says what’s really
needed is for DuPont to quit making a product that’s been labeled a likely human carcinogen.


“DuPont has a pattern of supression and cover-up. They do not want to give public health
officials the information they need to answer these questions, and to solve these problems.”


DuPont says its interpretation of reporting requirements is different than the EPA’s and the
settlement closes the matter without any admission of wrongdoing.


For the GLRC, I’m Fred Kight.

Related Links

Group Releases Cosmetics Safety Database

Anyone who slathers on lotions, deodorants, and shampoos can now search an online database to find out how safe those products are for their health. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

Anyone who slathers on lotions, deodorants, and shampoos can now search an online
database to find out how safe those products are for their health. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:


The Environmental Working Group looked at the ingredients of more than 14,000
products, and it rated the safety of those products by matching their ingredients with
government listings of toxic chemicals. Consumers can search the database by product
type or by brand name.


Jane Houlihan is vice president for science at the Environmental Working Group. She
says the database is important because federal regulators in the U.S. leave safety testing
up to the cosmetics industry.


“What we have right now is a system where individual companies have the ability to
decide what’s safe enough to sell. We don’t have a national safety standard for cosmetics.
So safety really varies widely.”


Some of the products that have raised health concerns include dark hair dyes – which
some scientists have linked to bladder cancer, and there are concerns that chemicals used
in nail polishes could cause birth defects in baby boys.


For the GLRC, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Dupont Pledges to Cut Back on Controversial Chemical

The makers of the non-stick coating Teflon say they’re going to reduce the amount of a chemical that’s causing health concerns. The chemical is used in the manufacturing process. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight
reports:

Transcript

The makers of the non-stick coating Teflon say they’re going to reduce the amount of a
chemical that’s causing health concerns. The chemical is used in the manufacturing
process. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight reports:


The DuPont Company says the output of the chemical known as C8 will be cut by 90
percent by the end of next year. The chemical giant had agreed to the action in a deal
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is studying whether C8 poses
health risks to humans.


DuPont continues to argue that C8 is not harmful.


Just a few weeks ago, a judge okayed the settlement of a class action lawsuit in which the
company consented to pay at least 107 million dollars to resolve contamination claims by
residents living near one of its plants in West Virginia.


A local water district official welcomes the C8 cut but says he wishes they had done it 20
years ago. And an official with the organization Environmental Working Group
complains the plan did not go far enough and would not eliminate exposure
to the chemical.


For the GLRC, I’m Fred Kight.

Related Links

Farm Technology Harvests Trendy Subsidies

  • Ethanol often is made from corn, and one of the by-products, distillers grains, can be eaten by cows (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service)

It’s rare when a factory and a mega-farm can help reduce pollution. But a project planned in the Midwest promises just that. The project would produce a fuel additive that is thought to reduce air pollution; provide a market for farm goods; create scores of jobs… all while not harming the environment. The Ohio project is getting millions of dollars of help from the state and federal governments. But some people doubt the project will accomplish all it promises. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamara Keith
reports:

Transcript

It’s rare when a factory and a mega-farm can help reduce pollution. But a project planned in the Midwest promises just that. The project would produce a fuel additive that is thought to reduces air pollution, provide a market for farm goods, create scores of jobs – all while not harming the environment. The Ohio project is getting millions of dollars of help from the state and federal governments. But some people doubt the project will accomplish all it promises. Tamara Keith reports:


The project is called Harrison Ethanol. It will include an ethanol factory, using millions of bushels of corn to produce the gasoline additive. At the same location, thousands of dairy and beef cattle will live in fully enclosed barns. And then there’s the small power plant, which will be fueled by manure produced by the cattle. Wendel Dreve is the project’s director.


“I think the nicest way of describing our project is it’s a vertically-integrated, agriculturally-based industrial development.”


Dreve began working on the project nearly 4 years ago. He’s retired from the oil and gas industry and built a home in eastern Ohio farm country. His neighbors approached him about starting up a corn-powered ethanol factory – something that has not existed in Ohio in a decade.


“I told them that I didn’t think we could build a ethanol plant in Ohio because there are no state subsidies, so we had to figure out a way to raise the revenue streams internally and the only way we could figure out to do that was to employ animals.”


The 12-thousand cattle housed on site, will eat the main byproduct of ethanol production, a corn mush called distillers grains. The cattle will generate money too, from sales of milk and meat. But the cattle will create manure… lots of manure… about 50 million gallons of it a year. Dreve has a solution for that, too: a power-generating anaerobic digester.


“It eliminates nearly all of the odor, it processes all of the wastes from the entire facility. So it’s like an industrial waste treatment plant on site.”


60 times a day, manure will be flushed out of the animal barns and into the digester. A large, cement structure, where the manure is broken down by microbes.


“And at the other end, you get water and methane and carbon dioxide and some solids.”


The methane will run power generators, creating “green energy,” which can be sold at a premium. The carbon dioxide from the manure will be sold to make carbonated sodas. This would be the first anaerobic digester powered by cattle manure in Ohio, and one of only a handful nationwide. Dreve says his digester will be much better for the environment than open-air manure lagoons, the cheaper method most commonly used by farmers.


But not everyone agrees. Bill Weida is an economist and director of the Grace Factory Farm Project which opposes large concentrated animal farms. Weida says most anaerobic digesters are paid for with some kind of government assistance. Harrison Ethanol is no exception. The project received a 500-thousand-dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help pay for the digester.


“No one in their right mind who is looking for an economic investment would build a digester. The only reason you’d build one is if you had some sort of a government subsidy that would help pay for it.”


Harrison Ethanol also is receiving seventy-million dollars in financing assistance from the state of Ohio. In fact, the company indicates it got some very good legal and accounting help, to find the perfect location for the project to take advantage of state and federal tax credits. Add to that federal ethanol subsidies and federal subsidies for corn production, and Harrison Ethanol is getting plenty of help from taxpayers.


Ken Cook is executive director of the Environmental Working Group. He says ethanol might reduce air pollution and reliance on foreign oil, but it is not economically viable without those huge taxpayer subsidies.


“The worry is that what we’re really doing is bailing out failed agriculture policy with heavily subsidized energy policy. We’re going into the corn industry with another set of subsidies to basically turn corn, that would have been exported at a loss, into corn that is used to make fuel at a loss to taxpayers.”


That’s not how state officials see it. Bill Teets is a spokesman for the Department of Development which has been working to bring several ethanol plants to Ohio.


“We think that this is a great project because you help farmers, you create manufacturing, you have something that helps benefit the environment and it seems to be a good type of project that we can really benefit from.”


And if everything goes as planned, Wendel Dreve will build 2 more ethanol and cattle operations in Ohio. He’s already secured tax dollars from state and federal sources for those plants.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

Fire Retardant Chemicals Ring Alarm Bells

  • Meredith Buhalis and her daughter Zoe. Meredith's breast milk was tested for PBDEs as part of a study by the Environmental Working Group. (Photo by Meredith Buhalis)

Flame retardant chemicals help make our lives safer.
The chemicals are designed to keep plastics and foam from
catching on fire, but the flame retardants are worrying some
scientists because these chemicals are turning up in people’s
bodies, sometimes at alarmingly high rates. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals help make our lives safer. The chemicals are designed
to keep plastics and foam from catching on fire. But the flame retardants are
beginning to worry some scientists because these chemicals are turning up in
peoples’ bodies. Sometimes at alarmingly high rates. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:


If you take a look around your house, you can find a lot of things that have
flame retardant chemicals in them. They’re in your television set, the cushions
in your couch, and the padding underneath your carpet. They’re known as poly-bromiated-diphenyl
ethers, or PBDEs. And they’re either mixed in or sprayed on plastics and foam to keep a fire
from spreading.


Five years ago a Swedish study found these chemicals were accumulating in women’s breast
milk. Studies in the U.S. followed, and researchers also found PBDEs in Americans, but at
even higher levels. In fact, Americans have some of the highest levels ever measured. And
over time, the levels have been going up.


(sound of baby)


Meredith Buhalis was one of those people measured in a study by an envrionmental organization
called the Environmental Working Group. Buhalis and 20 other first time moms sent in samples
of their breast milk. When the samples were tested, all of them had some level of PBDEs in
them. Buhalis says when she read the results she didn’t know what to think.


“I guess I kind of read the results and the study was like, ‘Oh, well that sort of sucks.’
I wish I knew more about what that meant. ‘Cause I don’t. You know, they don’t know what
that means.”


Scientists don’t know how or if the chemicals affect human health. And some scientists
think the government and the chemical companies aren’t doing enough to look into PBDEs.


(sound of typing)


In his office at the University of Texas in Dallas, Dr. Arnold Schecter is working on an
article about the flame retardants. He’s been studying toxic chemicals for more than thirty
years. He and some of his colleagues think PBDEs are a lot like another type of chemical…


“It reminds us of PCBs. PCBs structurally are similar to the PBDEs. So there is the worry,
or the concern, that they may have many, if not all, the toxic effect that PCBs have on humans.”


So far the data on PCBs strongly suggest that the chemicals can cause cancer in humans as
well as other human health effects such as damage to the nervous and immune systems. The
companies that manufacture the flame retardants say it’s not fair to compare PBDEs with
PCBs. They say the chemicals are vastly different.


But no one really knows whether the chemicals are similar in the way they affect human
health. That’s because no one’s studied the human health effects of PBDEs.


“Unfortunately, there are no published human health studies and I don’t believe any have
been funded by the federal government to date. Nor by industry, nor by any foundations,
which is a bit different than the situation with PCBs and dioxins years ago when many
studies were being funded.”


Some animal studies suggest that the chemicals can permanently disrupt the hormone and
nervous systems, cause reproductive and developmental damage, and cause cancer. All that
makes scientists such as Dr. Schecter especially concerned about the most vulnerable
population – developing babies.


Because of the concerns, the biggest manufacturer of these chemicals in the U.S. has agreed
to stop making two of the PBDE formulations that were found to accumulate in people. Great
Lakes Chemical says production will stop by the end of this year. The chemicals will be
replaced with another type of brominated flame retardant.


The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum is a trade group that represents companies
that make the flame retardants. Peter O’Toole is the group’s U.S. Director. He says so
far the amount of chemicals found in people doesn’t concern the companies, but the upward
trend does.


“And again, it wasn’t of alarming numbers, but the manufacturer was concerned that these
numbers were going up nonetheless. And they thought it was prudent, and they talked to the
EPA and EPA thought it was prudent if there was some sort of mutual phase out of those materials.”


Dr. Schecter says he commends the company for taking this step. But he says even though these
two formulations will be phased out, the flame retardants are already in our environment now.
He says his research has found high levels of PBDEs by wiping the plastic casing on television
sets, and in the dust found in homes. He says what’s in our homes now isn’t going to vanish,
so we need to figure out how the chemicals get into us, so we can avoid potential health problems.


For its part, the U.S. Envrionmental Protection Agency says large-scale human health studies
take a long time to develop. An agency spokesperson says the EPA first needs to learn how a
person becomes highly exposed. After that, they say researchers will be able to ask the question,
“for the highly exposed people, are there any health effects?”


(sound of baby)


That leaves people such as Meredith Buhalis, with a lot more questions than answers.


“We are thinking of having another baby, and I think I would really like to know more about
PBDEs. I think about it when I think about that.” (to her daughter) “Oh thank you. Hi, baby.
Hi, Zoe.”


The Federal government doesn’t plan to regulate the chemicals anytime soon. But some states
aren’t waiting for more studies. A handful of states have placed restrictions on certain
types of PBDEs. And in other states, legislation is pending.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Epa Takes Heat on New Chemical Exposure Study

  • The Environmental Protection Agency is getting some criticism from environmental groups for their partnership with the American Chemistry Council. (Photo courtesy of epa.gov)

The Environmental Protection Agency is drawing fire from some environmental groups for accepting money from the chemical industry for a study on children’s exposure to pesticides. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams has more:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency is drawing fire from some environmental
groups for accepting money from the chemical industry for a study on
children’s exposure to pesticides. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Rebecca Williams has more:


The EPA has accepted a two million dollar contribution from the American
Chemistry Council to help fund the exposure study.


Some environmental groups are saying the partnership is a conflict of
interest for the agency. Tim Kropp is a senior scientist with the
Environmental Working Group.


“It doesn’t make sense for them to say that there’s no influence, and that it’s
all right for the regulated industries to be involved in a study that’s
going to affect policy, or may affect policy.”


EPA officials counter that the study design has been independently reviewed.
And that the American Chemistry Council won’t be able to affect the outcome
of the study. Linda Sheldon is with the EPA’s human exposure and
atmospheric sciences division.


“The American Chemistry Council is independent of the individual companies
that produced these particular chemicals. We feel that we have complete
control over the study and control over the research findings.”


Sheldon says the information from the study will be used for future EPA risk
assessments of chemicals.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

HIGHER PCBs IN FARMED SALMON

Researchers with an environmental group have found that farm-raised salmon are contaminated with higher levels of PCBs than wild salmon. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Researchers with an environmental group have found that farm-raised salmon are contaminated with higher levels of PCBs than wild salmon. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The Environmental Working Group
tested salmon from grocery stores for
PCBs. It found that average levels of
PCBs in farm-raised salmon were
five times higher than in wild salmon.


Ken Cook is the President of the
Environmental Working Group. He
says PCB contamination is serious.


“It’s got a cancer risk associated with
it. It can also cause developmental
problems in children,
so we’re concerned that we have
the farm salmon cleaned up,
get rid of some of these PCBs. And
it won’t be too hard to do.”


Cook says the higher PCB levels
come from the feed for the salmon.
It’s ground up and concentrated fish.
Concentrating the fish concentrates
PCBs, giving farm-raised salmon
higher exposures. The farm salmon
industry indicates that levels are well
within the standards set by the Food
and Drug Administration, but the
PCB levels in the farm-raised salmon
do surpass the stricter guidelines set
by the Environmental Protection
Agency.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is
Lester Graham.

Related Links

Apple Growers Trim Pesticides From the Farm

  • Bill Erwin and a number of other Michigan apple growers are involved in a huge project to reduce pesticide use in orchards. Erwin says he's among those who will continue the practice.

No one likes the idea of pesticides in baby food. But nobody likes the idea of a worm in an apple either. So apple growers have been involved in a three year project to reduce pesticides, but still turn out a crop that’s not plagued by insects. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

No one likes the idea of pesticides in baby food. But nobody likes the idea of a worm in
an apple either. Apple growers have been involved in a three year project to reduce
pesticides, but still turn out a crop that’s not plagued by insects. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Gerber makes baby food. A lot of those little jars of fruit use apples in the mix. A few
years ago the Consumers Union, an arm of the magazine Consumer reports, called for the
end of the use of many of the pesticides that end up in children’s food. And the
Environmental Working Group issued a scathing report on pesticides in kid’s food. Like
other baby food makers, Gerber knew it had to do something. It started with improving
methods to wash off or peel off pesticide residue on apples. But, there was only so much
that could be done in the plant.


Todd DeKryger is with Gerber Baby Foods. He says Gerber’s plants did what they could
to get rid of pesticide residue, but it wasn’t enough.


“Our customers were telling us, ‘We don’t want residues in the products we buy from
Gerbers.’ We turn around and tell our growers ‘We need a product without pesticide
residues.’ And it’s really been amazing how they have really bought into that whole idea
of providing a product. You know, and they say ‘Hey, look. We fed our kids Gerber and,
uh, yeah, okay, this makes sense. Now, how can I help?'”


Gerber got some help from a firm based in North Carolina. The Center for Agricultural
Partnerships contacted Gerber at its main plant in Michigan as well as Michigan State
University’s Extension Service and apple growers. They had money to pay for
publications and free consultants for three years for growers who wanted to try a way to
control bugs in the orchards called ‘Integrated Pest Management’ or IPM.


Larry Elworth is with the Center. He says IPM. has worked for other types of fruit
growers, but expertise was needed for the particular climates and growing conditions in
Michigan’s apple orchards to make IPM effective.


“It’s become a way of managing pests that gives growers way more information to use so
they can actually outsmart the insects rather than always relying on a chemical as the way
to control them.”


(apple picking sound)


That all sounded good, but no one had tried it in the apple orchards on a large scale.


“Well, our main concern was whether it was going to work or not.”


Bill Erwin operates Erwin Orchards and Cider Mill.


(sound of rolling apples)


Apple pickers are plucking fruit and gently rolling the apples into a big wooden crate for
shipping to retailers. Erwin says it seemed risky to change farming methods in the
orchards.


“We’ve been used to the chemistries. We’ve been used to the program and, uh, we
weren’t sure that using lighter chemistries was going to work and we weren’t sure that we
were going to be able to control the bugs.”


Erwin says pesticides are reliable. They kill bugs. The fruit looks good. And the orchard
is nice looking in that there’s no wildlife, bugs, birds or otherwise in the area for very
long. But Erwin says all the beneficial insects, such as ladybugs and spiders that eat bugs
that ruin fruit were also gone. Erwin says he noticed something else that bothered him –
humming bird nests – but no baby humming birds.


So, Erwin and a lot of other Michigan apple growers gave Integrated Pest Management a
shot. Erwin says they found using tactics such as mating disruption of pests works. The
worm in the apple is actually the coddling moth’s larvae which burrow into the fruit.
Apple growers used the female coddling moth’s pheremones against the insect. By
saturating the orchard with pheremones, males didn’t know which way to turn to find a
mate. No mate, no eggs. No eggs, no worm in the apple. And Erwin says he noticed
something else.


“Now we find humming birds. We find little baby humming bird nests everywhere in this
orchard. We see bluebirds out here. You never used to see those. And, so, we know we’re
doing something good with the environment and that makes us feel good about this
program. They’ve taught us something and it’s gonna be something we’re going to keep
going with.”


And it appears the results are good.


The Center for Agricultural Partnership’s Larry Elworth says the three year project was a
success.


“Growers had at least as good if not better quality apple crops than they had before. Fewer bites
from insects chewing on the surface. A lot fewer worms that had burrowed inside the
apples which gave them a higher quality crop and they actually got more revenue for
their crop than they’d been getting before. And they were also able to reduce their overall
costs for controlling insects.”


Gerber Baby Foods is relieved. By getting orchards closer to its plant to reduce pesticide
use, it’s ensured a local supply of apples. Otherwise, it meant trucking in fruit from
farther away and paying more for fruit that met consumers’ demands for pesticide free
baby food.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Old Treated Lumber Unsafe?

A new nationwide test for arsenic in treated lumber contradicts the EPA’s assurances that the wood is safe. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A new nationwide test for arsenic in treated lumber contradicts the EPA’s assurances that the wood is safe. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The EPA stated earlier this year that it did “not believe there is any reason to remove
or replace arsenic-treated structures.” The EWG – the Environmental Working Group –
coordinated a testing program of older backyard decks and playsets that use preservative-treated lumber. Consumers bought 263 test kits and sent samples to a university lab. Jon Corsiglia is with EWG.


“Well, the analysis is in direct contradiction to what EPA has been advising folks in that
the analysis shows older decks are leaking arsenic at just as high of levels as newer structures.”


The EWG suggests that people wash their hands after touching the wood, not let children play on the surfaces, and use a plastic table cloth on picnic tables made of treated wood. It also suggests replacing often-touched surfaces such as handrails with other materials.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.