In the early 60s, at the dawn of the plastics revolution, less than half a million tons of plastic were produced each year. Today, it's more than 380 million tons – nearly half of which is for single-use items, which often become trash within minutes of use. In Part I of this article, we discussed how the Norfolk Southern train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, exposed the extent and devastation of the plastics crisis and the urgent need for change. In Part II, we'll talk about solutions.  

Two months before the derailment, the United Nations kicked off negotiations for a global plastics treaty with the promise of limiting the production and use of plastic. Those negotiations are a critical opportunity to fundamentally rethink the plastics economy and rein in the destruction. 

How can we chart a path away from our current predicament? It's not complicated. First, we need to refuse, rethink, and redesign. 

Refuse, Rethink, ReDesign

According to the Ellen McArthur Foundation, by 2040, a circular economy approach to addressing plastics has the potential to reduce the annual volume of plastics entering our oceans by 80%; reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25%; generate savings of $200 billion per year and create 700,000 net additional jobs.  

This framework calls for eliminating all problematic and unnecessary plastic items; innovation to ensure that the plastics we use are reusable, recyclable, or compostable; and keeping the plastics we use circulating in the economy and out of the environment for as long as possible. For this approach to be viable, products must also be non-toxic, to ensure we don't continually recirculate hazardous chemicals through the economy and the environment.

The entire National Health Service in Scotland has adopted a model approach to better use plastics – an approach that may be useful for other sectors. Their goal is to reduce plastics wherever possible and, for the plastic they use, remain in the economy for as long as possible while reducing waste and harm. Their plan includes phasing out plastics that cause the most significant environmental and human health damage and avoiding single-use plastics where possible. They will give preference to polymers which can be recycled to a high standard using local infrastructure. The plan includes reducing packaging, prioritizing reusable schemes, actively seeking to eliminate suspected hazards, and switching to safer alternatives for all other uses. 

Bold commitments and the resources to make them happen are what we need at the institutional, municipal, state, and national levels. A lot is already happening. PVC has been restricted in countless corporate, institutional, city, and state frameworks across the globe. There are alternatives for many uses. For example, PVC has been restricted in some food packaging in Canada and South Korea.

Single-use plastic restrictions are widespread throughout the world. Starting in 2021, single-use plastic plates, cutlery, and straws cannot be placed on the market in the European Union. The same measure applies to cups, food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene, and all products made of oxo-degradable plastic. In Scotland, there is a nationwide ban on certain single-use plastics. To prevent plastic pollution, the Government of Canada now restricts the manufacture, import, and sale of six categories of single-use plastics that threaten the environment. Many countries have Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging laws. The policies require product manufacturers to be financially responsible for the end-of-use of their products and packaging by sharing the recycling costs or proper disposal. Companies representing 20% of all plastic packaging produced globally have committed to ambitious 2025 targets for packaging reduction. Plastic bags have already been banned in two U.S. states and hundreds of towns and cities. This is a short summary of a very long list, but these efforts are not enough. The Ecology Center has resources to help.

There is so much more to do, and we all need to take action close to home. Here are a few essential steps that the State of Michigan should take: 

Reject False Solutions to Plastic Pollution

The Michigan Legislature should repeal the "chemical recycling" deregulation provisions that were railroaded through the House and Senate during the Legislature's lame-duck session late last year. Then they should go further, and prohibit new high-heat waste facilities that industry is marketing as the solution to the plastic pollution problem, but are nothing more than dirty old technologies being put to new purposes.

Restrict Single-Use Plastic and Phase Out the Most Dangerous Plastics

In 2018, the State of Michigan preempted local governments from enacting their own restrictions on single-use packaging. Washtenaw County had adopted an ordinance to do just that, and other communities were exploring similar measures. The Michigan Legislature should repeal this preemption law. Then they should go further and phase out all non-essential uses of PVC, polystyrene, and other dangerous and unnecessary plastics. The state could even leverage its $25 billion in purchasing power to immediately prohibit state government buyers from purchasing single-use and toxic plastics.

Make the Polluter Pay to Prevent Plastics Pollution

Michigan's Bottle Bill was once the strongest in the U.S., recycling most of the state's beverage containers. But it hasn't been updated in decades, and the growth of non-carbonated beverages in plastic bottles and the diminishing value of a dime has undermined its success. The Bottle Bill needs to be expanded and modified while protecting people who are forced to drink bottled water.

We should also create an Extended Producer Responsibility law that makes manufacturers and packagers responsible for the "end of life" of their products. European countries, Canada, and four U.S. states have EPR systems, which can be designed to promote waste reduction, reuse, non-toxic design, and recycling.

Address the Growing Microplastic Pollution in the Great Lakes

Every year, 22 million pounds of plastic pollute the Great Lakes, and the damage piles up on beaches, in fish, and even within our bodies. There are numerous sources of microplastic pollution, and its remediation is virtually impossible, so prevention is the only solution. Michigan should create a statewide microplastics strategy like California did in 2018. And it should also designate microplastics as a pollutant to be regulated under the state's surface water laws.

The Ohio train derailment exposed glaring weaknesses in our regulatory system, including our continued reliance on toxic chemicals and our weak regulatory system for managing them. Advocates have outlined a plan to address these weaknesses. Chemical safety experts and rail safety proponents have long urged strong action. But ultimately, we can only solve the problem with federal and international action. At the international level, we need a strong global plastics treaty. Advocates are already developing a health-centered agenda for the negotiations – we need to pressure U.S. negotiators to support the most sweeping treaty. 

While we need systemic change, each person has a role to play, too. The Ecology Center has recommendations for individuals to take action, but we all must put our shoulders to the demand for policy and institutional change to move quickly to alternatives. 

We've gotten used to plastics in every part of our lives, but it wasn't that long ago that we did without it for most uses. While some plastics will continue to have a role in the economy, toxic plastics, unrecyclable plastics, and most single-use plastics are not necessary. The products we use daily have an outsized impact through their mining, manufacture, transport, use, and disposal – and those that are resource intensive or made from toxic materials will contaminate communities on the way to your home. None of us escape from the cost of this toxic life cycle. We don't have to live like this. The challenge is for all of us to demand a change. 

How an Ohio train derailment exposes the urgency of the plastics crisis 

As a black cloud as large as a town billowed over the farmland of East Palestine, Ohio, the country watched in horror. Scientists and advocates – who for years have worked to get toxic chemicals out of our homes and workplaces – were particularly horrified because they knew how predictable, devastating, and avoidable these accidents are.  

The Norfolk Southern train that sped through the small town near the Pennsylvania border, population 4,700, was 1.7 miles long – one of the new monster trains on the rails with only two crew members and a trainee managing the load. The train carried 115,580 gallons of vinyl chloride, an ingredient in PVC plastic, the third most common plastic globally. Thirty-eight of the 149 cars derailed; some burned. Concerned about a catastrophic explosion, authorities later released vinyl chloride from five tank cars, letting it evaporate from pits and burning it in a giant fireball that towered over the community.

When you burn vinyl chloride, you get phosgene, a lethal gas used as a chemical weapon in WWI, and hydrochloric acid, which is highly corrosive to the lungs. You also create dioxins, long-lived chemicals that are toxic in the tiniest amounts, cause cancer in every species tested, and are linked to many conditions, including diabetes, heart disease, nervous system disorders, immune and hormone system disruption, and multi-generational impacts. Dioxins are long-lasting and can contaminate soil and accumulate in the plants and animals exposed to them.

The accident has also created thousands of tons of liquid waste and contaminated soil being shipped to other communities, including Belleville and Romulus in Michigan, highlighting the interstate trade in toxic waste that shifts hazards to new transport routes and new disposal sites, often in poorer communities. 

Nearly a month after the derailment, EPA finally ordered Norfolk Southern to test the community for dioxin contamination. Community members are understandably terrified about their health and future, and there are no definitive answers yet. Advocates have insisted on a comprehensive and transparent testing plan funded by the company. 

The Norfolk Southern train derailment in Ohio is just the latest tragedy stemming from the plastics crisis. We are all downstream from the poison plastic firehose. It poisons our towns, workers, food and water supply, and bodies. We are drowning in it. Americans in ever larger numbers are demanding solutions, an international treaty is now being negotiated that promises to limit plastic production, and models of change are sprouting up everywhere. 

Of the seven major types of plastic, PVC is often considered the worst 

PVC has been the focus of restrictions because it is toxic at every stage of its life cycle and is loaded with toxic additives that leach from the final product and can enter the environment and our bodies. We all have plastic additives in our bodies. PVC is hard to recycle, can contaminate other recycling loads, and can generate extremely toxic chemicals if burned. Recent reports have linked some vinyl production to forced labor (Learn more in Poison Plastic: The Toxic Life Cycle of PVC). 

PVC manufacturing plants are disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color. PVC production has contributed to abandoned towns and health risks in nearby communities. Many of these communities are part of an 85-mile-long ribbon of land called "Cancer Alley," which accounts for 25% of the petrochemical production in the United States. A predominantly Black area, it is surrounded by chemical plants making the plastics we use every day and poisoning the residents while doing it. The country's highest cancer risks from air toxics are in this area. But the industry is also expanding to other areas, including emerging plastic hubs in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, increasing the potential to create new cancer alleys.

PVC has one thing going for it, however – it is cheap. And the oil and gas industry sees plastic, including PVC, as part of the oil industry's growth strategy to continue to reap huge profits while finding another market for their product.  

Although PVC is at the bottom of the hierarchy, it is part of a broader plastics crisis that now threatens the planet 

Global plastics production doubled from 2000 to 2019 and is expected to triple by 2060. Plastics account for 3.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly two-thirds of plastic waste comes from plastics with lifetimes of under five years, and almost half from single-use plastic. This month, a scientific commission recommended banning or severely restricting the manufacture and use of unnecessary plastics. 

The report noted that plastic causes disease and premature mortality at every stage of its life cycle, disproportionately harming vulnerable, low-income, and minority communities, particularly children. Toxic chemicals in plastic routinely detected in people are known to increase the risk of miscarriage, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and cancers. Micro- and nano plastic particles are threatening the ocean on which we all depend for oxygen, food, and livelihoods.

The report notes the risk comes from the entire life cycle of production – from living or working near oil and gas extraction, working in plastic manufacturing plants or living near them, eating food heated in plastic packaging, or breathing the air near incinerators where plastic waste gets burned as trash. The risk also comes from hazardous chemicals – some intended for plastics – that travel by rail and road through thousands of towns in the country and derail and crash with alarming frequency.

An odor still pervades East Palestine. Residents have compared it to turpentine, or bleach that 'sticks to your nose.' It creates a metallic taste in the mouth. The headaches, confusion, rashes, chest congestion, cough, nausea, and vomiting reported by residents are all symptoms of exposure to several of the volatile chemicals known to have been released—butyl acrylate, ethylhexyl acrylate, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, and vinyl chloride. Communities that host rail lines can't keep trains out, can't demand extra safety measures, and often don't know what trains are carrying.  

Residents still report a chemical sheen on parts of small creeks that run through town, and "chickens dying, cats coughing, and lethargic dogs throwing up, others are unable to use their hind legs." Experts have urged area farmers and residents to test their wells over the next few months for the presence of the spilled chemicals, including vinyl chloride, to protect the health of humans and livestock, and to test surface soils downwind for dioxin levels, particularly where food crops are to be grown.

There have been 106 train derailments that have released hazardous chemicals since 2015, about one each month for the last eight years (see Poison Rails: Toxic Transport in America).

It doesn't have to be this way

Americans are demanding alternatives, and the sentiment is bipartisan. A whopping 73% of voters support a halt to building new plastic production facilities and support policies that limit the use of single-use plastic. Eighty-two percent of voters support protecting people in neighborhoods affected by pollution from nearby plastic production facilities. Eight in 10 voters are concerned about single-use plastic products and are in favor of requiring companies to do a host of things, including reducing plastic packaging and foodware, increasing reusable packaging, and holding companies accountable for plastic waste. 

In Part II of this article, we'll talk about the solution to plastic pollution and what steps we can take now to get there.

For Immediate Release: March 23, 2023

New study finds toxic chemicals in 80% of receipt paper tested, down from 93% in 2017

Health advocates urge for continued work toward eliminating toxic bisphenols, such as BPS or BPA, from receipts through safer solutions

Ann Arbor, MI – Today, the Ecology Center’s Healthy Stuff Lab released a new report showing almost 80% of paper receipts from large retailers in the United States contain bisphenol S (BPS)– a toxic variation of bisphenol A (BPA), which was found in very few receipts. Although BPS is marketed as a safer replacement for BPA, both are endocrine-disrupting chemicals linked to health issues including cancer. 

The Ecology Center, Green America, Toxic-Free Future, and customers have been advocating for years for retailers to eliminate bisphenol-coated paper receipts by going paperless or using non-toxic paper instead. 

For their study, “Receipt Deceit: Toxic Chemicals in Receipt Paper,” released today, the Ecology Center tested 374 paper receipts from 144 major retailer chains in 22 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The samples included major grocers as well as restaurants, big box and department stores, drugstores, gas stations, home improvement, and convenience stores.

The researchers found BPS in nearly 80% of receipts tested, down from 84% of receipts tested in 2017. BPA was found in less than 1% of receipts tested, down from 9% in 2017. The group found safer chemical alternatives in 20% of receipts tested, up from 2% of receipts tested in 2017. In the report, the researchers note the positive progress toward removing dangerous receipts while emphasizing that this unnecessary toxic hazard is still common and poses a particular hazard to workers who handle receipts. Health advocates encourage minimizing the printing of receipts and a move toward digital options as a safer solution.

“Receipts are a common exposure route for hormone-disrupting bisphenols which readily absorb through the skin. Our studies show most retailers use bisphenol-coated receipt paper," said Melissa Cooper Sargent, environmental health advocate at the Ecology Center of Michigan. "Switching to non-toxic paper is an easy shift. We urge retailers to stop handing out chemical-laced paper to their consumers and putting employees at risk.”

"Fast food and fast casual restaurant workers often handle hundreds of receipts during each shift, which means that potential exposure to endocrine disrupting BPS or BPA is constant,” said Autumn Weintraub, Fast Food Campaign Director, Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ. “Working conditions mean that employees may have moist or greasy fingers or may frequently use hand sanitizer, all of which could greatly increase their exposure. Retailers have a responsibility to keep their workers safe while on the job. That includes keeping workers safe from harmful chemicals."

“Retailers can protect their customers, their communities, and their employees. Removing bisphenols from receipt paper is step one, and we encourage retailers to take the next step of not printing receipts altogether unless a customer asks for one and offer a digital receipt option to all customers,” said Dan Howells, climate campaigns director at Green America.

“BPA and BPS are known to disrupt our hormones and have been linked to numerous health harms, including cancer, birth defects, and other developmental issues," said Nancy Buermeyer, director of program & policy,  Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. "Now it’s time to remove these dangerous and unnecessary chemicals from thermal receipt paper. This exposure concerns all consumers; however, the risk is highest for cashiers, over 70% of whom are women. We look forward to California's Assembly Bill 1347, “Skip the Slip,” which calls for digital receipts and BPS/BPA-free receipts, becoming law.”

“No one should have to worry about toxic exposures from checking out at a store,” said Mike Schade, director of Mind the Store, a program of Toxic-Free Future. “For more than a decade, our studies have shown that bisphenols in receipt paper are a problem. This new study is proof that when we work toward safer alternatives, we can bend the curve down on these toxics in receipts. We encourage retailers to step up to protect their customers from this unnecessary exposure.”

Major retailers, including Best Buy, Costco, REI, Target, TJX Companies (including T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and HomeGoods), and Whole Foods Market, have taken action to eliminate bisphenols in receipts in recent years, according to the Retailer Report Card. Last week, Walgreens announced they will transition to phenol-free receipts at nearly 9,000 Walgreens and Duane Reade stores in the U.S. by the end of 2023, a move that follows its UK Boots stores. In 2020, CVS, the largest U.S. pharmacy chain, made a policy shift in response to pressure from Green America and thousands of its customers, when it increased promotion of digital and no-receipt options and stopped using phenol-coated receipt paper. CVS is a leader on Green America’s Skip the Slip scorecard.

States are also acting to minimize toxic chemicals that impact consumers. Washington has become the first state in the country to propose a statewide ban on bisphenols in receipts under the state’s Safer Products for Washington program, which is expected to go into effect January 1, 2025.  In California, Skip the Slip legislation was recently introduced that would require retailers to offer digital receipts and provide phenol-free paper receipts to customers that request them.

### 

ABOUT THE ECOLOGY CENTER

The Ecology Center’s Healthy Stuff Lab researches toxic chemicals found in our everyday environments. Our team of scientists conducts research and tests consumer products, air, soil, water, fish, food, and more for toxic chemicals. Founded in 1970, the Ecology Center is a Michigan-based nonprofit environmental health organization working at the local, state, and national levels for clean production, healthy communities, environmental justice, and a sustainable future. The Ecology Center tested over 200 paper receipts for bisphenols in 2018. www.ecocenter.org 

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA 

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses, investors, and consumers to solve today’s social and environmental problems. http://www.GreenAmerica.org 

ABOUT TOXIC-FREE FUTURE

Toxic-Free Future is a national leader in environmental health research and advocacy. Through the power of science, education, and activism, Toxic-Free Future drives strong laws and corporate responsibility that protects the health of all people and the planet. www.toxicfreefuture.org

Utilities continue fueling misinformation in first legislative hearing on power outages.

LANSING – Following the first Michigan legislative oversight hearing about power outages, several non-profit advocacy organizations urged lawmakers to hold accessible, community-focused public hearings to hear from more customers who have been impacted by repeated power outages, most recently during back-to-back ice storms, as they consider solutions to tackling climate change driving extreme weather.

The groups noted utility executives were given a significant amount of time to simply repeat the same empty rhetoric they’ve espoused over the years in response to charging the highest rates for the least reliable service in the Midwest. There were several instances throughout that hearing where lawmakers chided the utilities for not answering their questions and noted the attention given to shareholder profits at the expense of Michigan customers.

The Senate Energy and Environment Committee oversight hearing next week, as publicly posted, only includes further testimony from utilities and the Michigan Public Service Commission. 

“The legislative hearings should be an opportunity for people to be heard, not just executives from DTE and Consumers – we need accountability so customers and performance are put before profits. Nearly 1 million people were without power for days on end in the middle of winter, so early morning hearings where working people can’t participate is not enough. Schools were shut down for days, and families lost food, life-saving medicine and many were forced to evacuate their homes and seek shelter elsewhere. Michigan customers pay the highest rates for the worst service in the Midwest. That’s a fact. The status quo is only working for big utilities and shareholders and it’s high time the Legislature and Michigan Public Service Commission take action to address the problems. That includes hearing more directly from customers devastated by the power outages in future hearings, but it can’t end there. Lawmakers should move forward with bills to protect ratepayers from continued outages and ensure that utilities rapidly invest in energy efficiency and safe, clean renewable energy sources which will bolster our power grid for the long term.”

Groups that signed onto this statement include: Asthma & Allergy Foundation of America - Michigan Chapter, Clean Water Action, Ecology Center, Michigan Climate Action Network, Michigan Clinicians for Climate Action, Michigan Environmental Council, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), and Sierra Club.

###

Testimony cites need for accelerated coal retirement, more locally generated renewables

Lansing, MI – Today, a coalition of clean energy advocates — Vote Solar, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Ecology Center — filed intervenor testimony (part 1 and part 2) in DTE Energy’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). The IRP was filed in November of 2022 and serves as a proposal for how DTE plans to provide electricity for its 2.3 million customers for the next twenty years. 

In their testimony, the groups highlight an alternative path forward for DTE, including an accelerated retirement date for the massive Monroe coal-fired power plant. 

“The Monroe Power Plant is the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the country. Any unnecessary delays in retiring coal means additional harm to our climate and public health” says Daniel Abrams, Associate Attorney at the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “DTE’s proposed retirement dates are at odds with Michigan’s coal-free target and must be moved forward.” 

The intervening group’s testimony also emphasizes the need for a swift transition to renewable energy, proposing 1,307 more megawatts of solar and 827 more megawatts of battery storage by 2030 than DTE’s plan. In contrast, DTE proposes a slower and smaller renewable buildout and speculates that a large new fossil gas plant may be needed to replace Monroe. “Rapid and equitable decarbonization is of the utmost urgency, and renewable energy sources like solar have a critical role to play in that transition,” says Will Kenworthy, Midwest Senior Regulatory Director at Vote Solar. “By recognizing the immense value of clean energy and embracing a broad portfolio of renewable resources, DTE can reduce Michigan’s reliance on polluting fossil fuels, while keeping the lights on and bills affordable.” 

The IRP proceeding is happening against the backdrop of widespread, ongoing, and highly publicized power outages in DTE’s service territory. In recent weeks, hundreds of thousands of DTE customers have experienced outages, many for days at a time. 

“The need for a resilient, reliable grid is not just theoretical. We’re seeing the human impacts of unreliable power right now, especially in communities who already experience the worst impacts of climate change and pay disproportionately high energy bills,” says Alexis Blizman, Policy Director, Ecology Center. “It couldn’t be clearer that the status quo is not working for DTE ratepayers. Scaling up local distributed energy is a proven solution to dangerous outages, and one that DTE can and should embrace.”

“An equitable clean energy future for DTE is achievable, and we’ve leveraged state-of-the-art modeling and the latest research to illuminate a strong path forward,” says James Gignac, Midwest Senior Policy Manager, Union of Concerned Scientists. “We’re excited to share our findings with the Michigan Public Service Commission and are hopeful that the final plan moves us closer to the healthy, resilient, clean-powered Michigan that we know is possible. 

An order from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) on the IRP is expected by late August of this year. 

Attention Ann Arbor residents and business owners: Do you have ideas to help build Ann Arbor's recycling and composting outreach program? If so, we could use your help.  

Reducing, reusing, recycling, and composting help ensure that waste doesn't end up burnt or buried. Yet, confusion caused by package labeling, what plastics can or can’t be recycled, and recycling guidelines that can differ between communities can make participating difficult. The City of Ann Arbor has partnered with the Ecology Center to help connect our community with information on recycling, composting, and reusing that's easier to understand and more readily available. 

We will be hosting in-person meetings in Spring of 2023 (in-person or virtual meetings yet to be determined.) To participate, you'll need to attend two meetings; the first meeting will be approx. 2 hrs and the second meeting will be approx. 1 hour. At the first meeting you will share your thoughts, experiences, and ideas for making recycling, composting, and reusing easier to understand. The Ecology Center will be providing compensation in the form of a Visa gift card for meeting attendance. 

If you are interested, please fill out this 2-minute Community Interest Survey. Your participation will help us remove barriers to recycling, composting, and reusing to make Ann Arbor a healthier and more sustainable space. 

TAKE THE SURVEY

Community anglers found toxic PFAS at high levels in 12 species of commonly-consumed fish, putting subsistence anglers at elevated risk

Ann Arbor, MI, February 23, 2023 —A new community-based study finds toxic PFAS present in every fish sampled from the Huron and Rouge rivers. The Ecology Center’s Healthy Stuff Lab coordinated the community-based science project with local anglers, the Huron River Watershed Council, and Friends of the Rouge. The fish were independently tested and analyzed for 40 PFAS chemicals. 

The report raises concerns about whether the current Michigan fish consumption guidelines are keeping pace with emerging science on safe levels of PFAS in the environment. PFAS levels found in all fish were high enough that limited consumption is advised but too low to constitute a state-mandated “Do Not Eat” consumption advisory. 

Fish consumption guidelines are important and help anglers to make informed decisions about the risks and benefits of eating fish from contaminated water bodies, but they don’t prevent PFAS pollution. We need stronger policies and regulations that hold polluters accountable and get PFAS out of our everyday products,” said Erica Bloom, Toxics Campaign Director at the Ecology Center. 

Using hook and line fishing, community anglers hand-caught 100 fish samples representing 12 species from 15 locations in the Huron and Rouge rivers. Testing of the fish filets showed at least one of 14 different PFAS chemicals present in every fish, ranging from 11 to 133 parts per billion (ppb). The state of Michigan currently regulates only two of the 14 types of PFAS discovered.

I’m concerned that every fish tested had PFAS. I’ve been fishing since I was a child, and I take what I catch back to my family to eat,” said Purple Love, an avid fisherwoman in Detroit, Michigan. “We shouldn’t have to wonder if these fish are safe to eat. We need to get these chemicals out of our water and our food.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) issues a “Do Not Eat” consumption advisory if PFOS in fish filets exceed 300 ppb, but does not consider other PFAS chemicals for these advisories. PFOS is one of seven regulated PFAS in drinking water in Michigan. MDHHS advises limited consumption (certain number of meals per month) for PFOS levels between 9 to 299 ppb. Unfortunately, this permits many people to consume PFAS without knowing they are doing so. This is particularly concerning in Michigan where sport fishers and subsistence anglers regularly eat fish. Fish harvest is also fundamental to Great Lakes Native American culture. 

The results of the study surprised me because they showed just how pervasive PFAS is in fish, and how little we still understand about how PFAS accumulates in fish. PFAS levels were higher than expected at some locations, even in water bodies with no known direct source of contamination,” said Dan Brown, Watershed Planner for the Huron River Watershed Council. “It speaks to the need to halt PFAS production except when no safer alternatives exist. The longer we use them, the more they will build up in fish and the environment.  

While widespread information on the risks of PFAS in fish is needed, far more important is the elimination of PFAS from the environment and the prevention of more PFAS from entering our ecosystems. PFAS are still used in many manufacturing processes and present in many consumer goods. 

Finding PFAS in all fish underscored how ubiquitous these chemicals are and how they affect the simple pleasure of harvesting your own food. Engaging local anglers to collect and process the fish was a great opportunity because we all share a common goal of eliminating PFAS and restoring our waterways for the people and for the fish," said Sally Petrella, Monitoring Manager at Friends of the Rouge.  

Additional highlights from the study include: 

PFOS Still Highly Present in the Environment 

PFOS, a particularly toxic compound of PFAS, was found in every fish tested. PFOS was phased out of production in the United States more than 20 years ago but is still used in various applications, including metal plating. For example, Tribar Manufacturing in Milford, Michigan, used a PFOS-based mist suppressant until 2015 and releases its waste into the Huron River watershed.  

Whole Fish Tested to Understand Ecological Impacts

Most fish analyses conducted to date test only the filets for PFAS as humans mostly consume this part. However, turtles, birds, and other species consume whole fish; therefore, the Ecology Center tested the whole fish. 

Helpful Link: 

• Report Summary: Community-Based Study on PFAS in Fish 

###

Ecology Center is a non-profit environmental advocacy organization established in 1970 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Ecology Center develops innovative solutions for healthy people and a healthy planet in four primary areas: Environmental Health, Sustainable Food, Energy & Climate Change, and Zero Waste. This work is accomplished through educating consumers to help keep their families healthy and safe, pushing corporations to use clean energy, make safe products, and provide healthy food, providing people with innovative services that promote healthy people and a healthy planet and working with policymakers to establish laws that protect communities and the environment. For more information visit www.ecocenter.org and follow @Ecology_Center

Chemical recycling is a dangerous distraction from desperately needed solutions to address the plastic pollution crisis we face across the globe. Michigan advocates are now working furiously to repeal the poor decision. 

Chemical recycling, advanced recycling, or plastic-to-fuel technologies – these are the names the petrochemical industry deceptively uses for facilities where plastic waste is melted and boiled into either fuel or more plastic using chemicals and heat. We call these methods greenwashed incineration, burning plastic, and a false solution. 

The technologies used in so-called chemical recycling – pyrolysis and gasification – release high volumes of air pollutants and produce large quantities of toxic chemicals. Until recently, these facilities were regulated as incinerators in Michigan and thus subjected to a stringent permitting process. But at the end of December 2022, Governor Whitmer signed a bill that included provisions to reclassify these facilities as manufacturing, thereby deregulating them. 

The proposed bill package was initially a carefully negotiated set of changes to the state's solid waste laws to strengthen Michigan's recycling policy. But, unfortunately, at the eleventh hour, the petrochemical industry won provisions to deregulate the management of mixed plastic waste by greenlighting chemical recycling.  

If you've never heard of chemical recycling, you may wonder why environmentalists are so distressed about the deregulation of plastic waste management. Here are a few critical points to understand:

• Chemical recycling is not recycling. While the petrochemical industry may falsely claim it is, this term is purposefully deceptive. Leading governments and organizations around the globe deliberately exclude these technologies in their definitions of recycling. Authentic recycling strategies aim to keep material in circulation nearly indefinitely to prevent the extraction of more natural resources. While chemical "recycling," specifically plastics-to-fuel technologies, may result in a one-time value gained from the plastic, the material is ultimately lost from the economy, which means new virgin materials are needed to produce more products. 
• All chemical recycling is still in prototype. According to GAIA’s 2020 report, “All Talk and No Recycling: An Investigation of the U.S. Chemical Recycling Industry,” of the 37 plastic “chemical recycling'' facilities proposed since the early 2000s in the US, only three are currently operational, and none are successfully recovering plastic to produce new plastic. A notable example is the failed Renewology start-up in Boise, Idaho, which claimed to be able to turn residential post-consumer plastic into fuel but closed its doors less than a year later. 
• Most chemical recycling facilities turn plastic waste into fuel. While the petrochemical industry claims chemical recycling facilities can turn plastics into either fuel or plastic, no United States facility has successfully converted plastic waste from residential collection into plastic at scale. Chemical recycling in its usual form of plastics-to-fuel is just an alternative method of burning plastic and a mandate for continued oil and gas extraction.  
• Chemical recycling facilities produce massive amounts of hazardous waste and release toxic air pollutants. A 2022 report from the Natural Resources Defense Council found a single chemical recycling facility produced half a million pounds of hazardous waste in one year, including benzene, lead, cadmium, and chromium, which were ultimately incinerated. Michigan desperately needs less toxic air pollutants, not more unregulated emissions. 
• Most chemical recycling facilities have been sited in communities of color or low-income neighborhoods. The NRDC found six of the eight facilities researched for their report were located in Black or brown neighborhoods. Further, race is the most significant indicator of whether you’ll live near toxic waste in America. It's unacceptable to know the potential of these facilities to harm overburdened communities and allow their unchecked development regardless. 
• Chemical recycling will not solve our plastics pollution problem. Like many states, Michigan needs robust recycling reform, but it should not come at the expense of community health and further environmental injustices. Most so-called chemical recycling facilities are a dangerous distraction from needed investments in proven reuse strategies, recycling policies, and infrastructure. Authentic recycling solutions have proven environmental, social, and economic benefits compared to the significant financial, health, and climate risks created by chemical recycling proposals.
• How we manage America’s plastic waste, including whether we “chemically recycle” it or cease production, impacts the globe. As the pitfalls of using traditional recycling methods for hard-to-recycle plastics have become increasingly evident and American plastic waste continues to turn up in rivers, oceans, garbage piles, and burn pits around the planet, the petrochemical industry has swiftly shifted its waste management tactics towards chemical recycling. They kicked off a nationwide lobbying campaign to deregulate chemical recycling across the US, including slipping in provisions duplicative of Michigan’s into well-intentioned recycling bill packages in many states. To date, 21 states have greenlit chemical recycling. 

The oil and gas industry is also lobbying federal officials to no longer regulate chemical recycling facilities as incinerators under the Clean Air Act. America produces and consumes more plastic than any other country, and how we manage this crisis has global implications.

Due to plastic pollution, over-extraction, manufacturing, and unsustainable waste management practices, our freshwater is undrinkable, our wildlife is inedible, and our air, in many places, is unsafe to breathe. We no longer need scientists to tell us the Earth is in peril; most of America has already experienced the impacts of the climate crisis first-hand. There is a better solution that advocates have been promoting for years – reduce waste everywhere possible, reuse everything that we can, and recycle what’s left over. Anything without a non-toxic circular solution should no longer be produced.  

More Resources: 

Loopholes, Injustice, & the “Advanced Recycling” Myth from Just Zero 

Recycling Lies: “Chemical Recycling” of Plastic Waste is Just Greenwashing Incineration from the Natural Resources Defense Council 

Chemical Recycling: Distraction, Not Solution from the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives 

Chemical Recycling Will Not Solve Our Plastics Problem from the Alliance of Mission-Based Recyclers

On Wednesday, Governor Whitmer released her budget proposal, which is being lauded by a diverse group of non-profit organizations across the state. Among the billions of dollars in investments for climate resiliency, clean water, and land and wildlife protection, the proposed budget includes more than $498 million in programs and incentives to accelerate the transition to cleaner mobility in Michigan. 

Programs and incentives outlined in the budget include:

• $150 million for electric school buses
• $65 million to expand electric vehicle charging infrastructure networks and access, including fleet electrification, at-home charging, multifamily dwellings, and community charging needs
• $45 million for the Michigan Clean Fleet Initiative to support local governments and businesses transitioning their vehicle fleet to electric vehicles and clean fuels
• $10 million to begin the transition the of State of Michigan’s fleet to electric vehicles
• $160 million for transit capital grants to plan for and transition to cleaner modalities
• $15 million for a critical minerals recycling and reuse program to bolster the EV supply chain
• $5 million for the Office of Future Mobility and Electrification to support clean mobility projects in Southeastern Michigan 
• Approximately $48 million for sales tax incentives of up to $2,400 for the purchase of a new, used, or leased electric vehicle 
• A temporary sales tax pause on electric vehicle sales

This Governor’s proposal follows a concerted effort by a coalition of groups, including the Ecology Center, that advocated for equitable electrification investments to be included in the budget. Equitable investments are critical in making EVs more affordable and accessible for low- and moderate-income Michiganders. The proposal includes more funding than expected for electric school buses and cleaner government fleets. However, advocates will continue to push for more equitable clean mobility funding during the budget review.  

“The state that put the world on wheels can now help to lead the transition to electric vehicles with the clean mobility investments Governor Whitmer included in this budget,” said Charles Griffith, climate and energy program director for the Ecology Center. “The proposed clean mobility investments--for electric school buses, EV charging stations and cleaner government fleets, as well as a sales tax credit for the purchase of new and used EVs--will all help to reduce pollution from the tailpipe and improve public health, while also meeting the goals of the MI Healthy Climate Plan. While we will continue advocating for additional state budget support for e-bikes, public transit and additional non-motorized mobility programs, the governor’s budget is a great step forward.” 

The Ecology Center looks forward to collaborating with Governor Whitmer’s Administration and the Michigan state legislature to support a swifter and more equitable transition to clean energy.

A new report expands on the Ecology Center's testing of freshwater fish for PFAS; finds alarming PFAS levels in Great Lakes freshwater fish with subsistence and cultural anglers at the highest risk

As a young boy growing up in Chesterfield, Michigan, Jerrad frolicked through his Anchor Bay playground. 

"Catching frogs, catching fish; I spent most of my time outdoors," said Jerrad. 

As an adult, Jerrad still spends a lot of time fishing. "I never really had to grow up," he said.

But this summer, he fished for a reason beyond food, fun, and friendship–he helped lead a PFAS pollution study alongside other anglers, the Ecology Center, Huron River Watershed Council, and Friends of the Rouge. 

Over the past year, we connected with six local anglers to collect fish samples from the Huron and Rouge rivers to test for PFAS. We and our partners began the study because of concerned that anglers didn’t have enough information about PFAS and that Michigan's Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy could be doing more to educate anglers about the risks of PFAS in our local fisheries. While we put the final touches on our report to be released later this month, our fellow advocates at Environmental Working Group released a report with a similar analysis looking at PFAS levels in freshwater fish across the nation. 

EWG found PFAS were widely detected in fish across the United States. Seventy-four percent of the PFAS in fish was PFOS, a particularly hazardous PFAS compound phased out of production and use more than 20 years ago. Based on the data, researchers calculated eating one fish in a year equated to ingesting water with PFOS at 48 parts per trillion, or ppt, for one month. (The EPA drinking water health advisory for PFOS is 0.02 parts per trillion.) 

"People who consume freshwater fish, especially those who catch and eat fish regularly, are at risk of alarming levels of PFAS in their bodies," said David Andrews, Ph.D., EWG senior scientist and one of the study's lead authors. "Growing up, I went fishing every week and ate those fish. But now, when I see fish, all I think about is PFAS contamination."

The researchers also found freshwater fish from the Great Lakes region had much higher PFAS levels than the national average (11,800 ng/kg versus 9,500 ng/kg, respectively). 

PFAS are everywhere, in the clothes we wear, the cookware we use, the makeup we apply, and the products we use to clean our houses. In the Great Lakes, a significant environmental source comes from manufacturing facilities, municipal landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and fire-fighting foams, particularly around military bases. These industries contaminate the surface water, which is then consumed or absorbed by wildlife, and subsequently ingested by humans.  

EWG also found that freshwater fish had, on average, 280 times more PFAS than commercial fish. So can we no longer safely fish for food? Not only is this a tragic and devastating finding for Great Lakes anglers and residents alike, but PFAS pollution is also an environmental justice crisis. In the United States, while about 17.6 million people are high freshwater fish consumers, most are Black, non-Hispanic people. Fishing is also a pivotal part of many Native American cultures. Further, many people depend on freshwater fish to feed their families. For example, many Burmese refugees fish in the Niagara River and local tributaries for food. A study conducted last year found the Burmese, who consumed on average 88 meals of locally caught fish per year, had five PFAS present in their blood at about six times that of the US population. 

Based on the data, the Environmental Working Group is calling for the end of industrial discharges of PFAS, noting there are an estimated 40,000 industrial polluters of PFAS in the US.  

“For decades, polluters have dumped as much PFAS as they wanted into our rivers, streams, lakes, and bays with impunity. We must turn off the tap of PFAS pollution from industrial discharges, which affect more and more Americans every day,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs.

For many anglers, fish harvest and consumption are about more than just food. And while restrictive fish consumption advisories can disrupt cultural and traditional relationships with the waters, fish, and wildlife, they also allow anglers to make informed decisions to balance the risks and benefits of consuming fish that contain PFAS and other toxins. 

For Jerrad, one of his favorite things was sharing his bounty: he'd save his catch and host a big fish fry.

"Now, I worry about what I've caught and shared," said Jerrad. "And if I can continue to share fish with my family."