ReportWire

Tag: chemical

  • Here’s how the 2025 legislative session closed: The lowdown on the environment

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Gavin Newsom wrapped up the 2025 legislative session with the usual flurry of activity, signing several important environmental, energy and climate bills and vetoing others ahead of Monday’s deadline.

    Among the newest laws in California are efforts to accelerate clean energy projects and advance the state’s position as a climate leader — but also decisions to ramp up oil drilling and reject the phase-out of forever chemicals.

    Here’s a look at what happened this year:

    In September, Newsom signed a blockbuster suite of bills including the reauthorization of California’s signature cap-and-trade program, which sets limits on greenhouse gas emissions and lets large polluters buy and sell emissions allowances at quarterly auctions. The Legislature extended the program by 15 years to 2045, rebranded it as “cap-and-invest” and specified how its revenues will be allocated for wildfire prevention efforts, high-speed rail and other projects.

    The greenhouse gas trading program is seen as essential for the state to meet its climate targets, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

    “California really needed to act this year to decisively try to put in policies to meet our climate goals [and support] the economy and different sectors,” said Susan Nedell, senior western advocate with the nonpartisan policy group E2. She called state legislative efforts especially important as the Trump administration aims to erode California’s authority on tailpipe emission standards, electric vehicle initiatives and renewable energy projects, among others.

    “This is the time for California to lead, and I really feel like they came through on it as a state,” Nedell said.

    WHAT ELSE BECAME LAW

    • One of the more controversial bills of the year was Senate Bill 237, which makes it easier to drill up to 2,000 new oil wells in Kern County. It’s a tradeoff that also makes it more difficult to drill new oil or gas wells offshore. Legislators said it will help address the volatility of gasoline prices following announcements from oil companies Phillips 66 and Valero that they are shutting down two big refineries in the state. Environmental groups were quick to condemn the bill.
    • Also controversial was Assembly Bill 825, which will expand California’s participation in a regional power market — enabling the state to buy and sell more clean power with other Western states. Opponents feared that it will cede some control of California’s power grid to out-of-state authorities, including the federal government. Supporters said it will improve grid reliability and save money for ratepayers.
    • January’s firestorm in L.A. led to a renewed focus on the state’s approach to fires, including Senate Bill 254, which contains various policies to address California’s aging electric infrastructure and wildfire prevention goals. It will secure about $18 billion to replenish the state’s wildfire fund — a state insurance policy for utilities — which officials say will help protect ratepayers from excessive utility liability costs. It also will establish a program to speed up the construction of power lines needed for clean energy projects.
    • Assembly Bill 39 requires cities and counties with at least 75,000 residents to plan for more electrification infrastructure by 2030, including electric vehicle charging and building upgrades. The measures must address the needs of low-income households and disadvantaged communities.
    • Senate Bill 80 will create a $5-million fund to accelerate research and development for fusion energy. Fusion creates energy by slamming two atoms together. The state hopes to launch the world’s first fusion energy pilot project by the 2040s. “Fusion energy has the immense potential to provide consistent, clean baseload power on demand that will help us meet our clean energy goals,” said Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Merced), the bill’s author, in a statement.
    • Assembly Bill 888 creates a grant program to help low-income homeowners clear defensible space around their houses and install fire-safe roofs. It is “exactly the kind of proactive, people-first policy California needs,” said Eric Horne, California director for the nonprofit Megafire Action, which is geared to ending large wildfires.
    • Senate Bill 653 means that state agencies have to pay more attention to using native species in their fire prevention work and use science-based standards to avoid introducing invasive, fire-prone species.
    • Senate Bill 429 establishes the Wildfire Safety and Risk Mitigation Program at the California Department of Insurance, which will fund research into developing and deploying a public wildfire catastrophe model — a computer simulation that estimates property damage from large wildfires and helps communities better assess and prepare for risk.
    • Assembly Bill 462 streamlines approvals for accessory dwelling units on properties affected by the 2025 wildfires in the California Coastal Zone, requiring decisions on coastal permits within 60 days and eliminating some appeals.
    • Assembly Bill 818 accelerates local permitting for rebuilding homes and allows residents to place temporary homes, such as manufactured homes or ADUs, on private lots during reconstruction.
    • Assembly Bill 245 gives residents additional time to rebuild their homes or businesses in the wake of the 2025 wildfires without experiencing a property tax increase.
    • Senate Bill 614 will establish new regulations for the safe transport of carbon dioxide captured from large polluters or removed from the atmosphere. The legislation will authorize the development of dedicated pipelines to move CO2 to underground geological formations for permanent storage, and was described by Newsom as a vital next step for the state’s burgeoning carbon capture, removal and sequestration market.
    • Assembly Bill 14 expands the “Protecting Blue Whales and Blue Skies Program” statewide. The program encourages large vessels to voluntarily reduce their speed in designated areas in order to reduce air pollution and reduce the risk of fatal vessel strikes and harmful underwater acoustic impacts on whales.

    WHAT WAS VETOED

    • The governor vetoed Senate Bill 34, which would have required the South Coast Air Quality Management District to consider certain factors before implementing regulations at the region’s ports. Opponents, including health and environmental groups, said it would have ultimately weakened its authority and ability to meet clean air standards. In its place, the air district and the ports are pursuing a voluntary cooperative agreement that will include obligations for zero-emissions infrastructure and other clean-air efforts. “With the current federal administration directly undermining our state and local air and climate pollution reduction strategies, it is imperative that we maintain the tools we have,” Newsom wrote in his veto.
    • Assembly Bill 740 would have directed the state’s energy agencies to create an implementation plan for “virtual power plants” — networks of small energy resources such as smart thermostats, home batteries and rooftop solar panels that can help reduce strain on the grid. Newsom vetoed it earlier this month, stating that it would result in additional costs for the California Energy Commission’s already depleted operating fund. But Edson Perez, California lead at the nonprofit Advanced Energy United, called its veto a “costly mistake” and said the bill would have saved ratepayers more than $13 billion.
    • Newsom this week also vetoed Senate Bill 682, which would have phased out the use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” in consumer products such as nonstick cookwear and products for infants and children. The governor cited concerns about affordability in his veto.

    Earlier this year, the governor also signed the most significant reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, since it originally became law in 1970. Signed in June, Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131 exempt a broad array of housing development and infrastructure projects from CEQA in an effort to ease new construction in the state. Supporters said it will help address the state’s housing crisis, while many environmental groups were outraged by the move.

    “While California was able to advance on grid regionalization, strengthen energy affordability, uphold local air quality protection, and protect endangered species, we’re frustrated by the Governor’s vetoes of measures that would have banned forever chemicals, prioritized cost effective energy consumption, expanded virtual power plants to lower electricity bills, and banned microplastics,” said Melissa Romero, policy advocacy director with the nonprofit California Environmental Voters.

    [ad_2]

    Hayley Smith

    Source link

  • ‘Like a tanning bed for your nails’: Doctor sounds alarm over gel manicures

    [ad_1]

    One of the most popular ways to get your nails done is now banned in parts of Europe. And an expert says that should give everyone pause. “I was counseling patients or trying to steer them in other directions or alternatives,” said Dr. Farah Moustafa, a dermatologist and the director of Laser and Cosmetics at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts.That included Yara, who has been getting gel manicures regularly for about a decade. “I get them done every two or three weeks,” she said. “It makes my nails look very shiny and hardens them. It also lasts longer.”But when she noticed her nails getting really weak, she turned to Moustafa for advice.”She recommended that I stop getting gel nail polish done,” Yara said. Moustafa said she’s been worried about gel manicures for years, before the European Union banned the polish because of a chemical that may raise concerns about fertility. “The ban was based on some animal studies in which rats were fed large quantities of TPO and they were found to have fertility issues, and it was reproductively toxic,” Moustafa said. TPO stands for trimenthylbenzoyl diphenylphoshine oxide — a long name for a chemical agent that allows the nail polish to harden when exposed to UV light. That’s long been the appeal of gel polish: the shiny seal that makes the color last for weeks instead of days. There have been no scientific studies that definitively establish a link between TPO and health risks in humans. And a ban in the United States is seen as unlikely. Moustafa said, the chemical aside, the UV exposure has always worried her when it comes to gel. “The UV exposure is not good for your hands long-term and does increase your risk of skin cancer of the nail bed,” she said. “It’s like a tanning bed for your nails.”Moustafa suggests patients look at the labels before picking their polish or consider alternatives like dip powder or dazzle dry. For Yara, it was enough to make her hit pause, even though she admits she loves gel polish.”I’m going to try my best to stick with it,” she said. “I’ll probably do it occasionally when I have a wedding or something. But for now, day to day, I think I’m going to stick to regular nail polish.”

    BOSTON —

    One of the most popular ways to get your nails done is now banned in parts of Europe. And an expert says that should give everyone pause.

    “I was counseling patients or trying to steer them in other directions or alternatives,” said Dr. Farah Moustafa, a dermatologist and the director of Laser and Cosmetics at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts.

    That included Yara, who has been getting gel manicures regularly for about a decade.

    “I get them done every two or three weeks,” she said. “It makes my nails look very shiny and hardens them. It also lasts longer.”

    But when she noticed her nails getting really weak, she turned to Moustafa for advice.

    “She recommended that I stop getting gel nail polish done,” Yara said.

    Moustafa said she’s been worried about gel manicures for years, before the European Union banned the polish because of a chemical that may raise concerns about fertility.

    “The ban was based on some animal studies in which rats were fed large quantities of TPO and they were found to have fertility issues, and it was reproductively toxic,” Moustafa said.

    TPO stands for trimenthylbenzoyl diphenylphoshine oxide — a long name for a chemical agent that allows the nail polish to harden when exposed to UV light. That’s long been the appeal of gel polish: the shiny seal that makes the color last for weeks instead of days.

    There have been no scientific studies that definitively establish a link between TPO and health risks in humans. And a ban in the United States is seen as unlikely.

    Moustafa said, the chemical aside, the UV exposure has always worried her when it comes to gel.

    “The UV exposure is not good for your hands long-term and does increase your risk of skin cancer of the nail bed,” she said. “It’s like a tanning bed for your nails.”

    Moustafa suggests patients look at the labels before picking their polish or consider alternatives like dip powder or dazzle dry.

    For Yara, it was enough to make her hit pause, even though she admits she loves gel polish.

    “I’m going to try my best to stick with it,” she said. “I’ll probably do it occasionally when I have a wedding or something. But for now, day to day, I think I’m going to stick to regular nail polish.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Newsom signs bill to expel six food dyes from California public schools

    Newsom signs bill to expel six food dyes from California public schools

    [ad_1]

    Flamin’ Hot Cheetos, M&Ms and other items made with certain synthetic food dyes will be expelled from California public schools, charter schools and state special schools under a bill signed into law Saturday by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    Assembly Bill 2316, which will go into effect starting Dec. 31, 2027, spells the end for snack foods that contain the dyes known as blue 1, blue 2, green 3, red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6. All are common industry staples that can give foods unnaturally vibrant colors in an effort to make them more appealing.

    “Our health is inextricably tied to the food we eat,” Newsom said in a statement. “Today, we are refusing to accept the status quo, and making it possible for everyone, including school kids, to access nutritious, delicious food without harmful, and often addictive additives.”

    The chemicals have been linked to developmental and behavioral harms in children, according to the bill’s authors, who cited a 2021 report from the California Environmental Protection Agency. They expressed hope that the new law can have ripple effects beyond the Golden State.

    “California is once again leading the nation when it comes to protecting our kids from dangerous chemicals that can harm their bodies and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), who introduced the legislation.

    The new law “sends a strong message to manufacturers to stop using these harmful additives,” he added in a statement.

    Flamin’ Hot Cheetos contain three of the six newly forbidden chemicals: red 40, yellow 5 and yellow 6. The ingredient list for M&Ms includes those three dyes as well as blue 1 and blue 2.

    Other food items that could disappear from cafeterias and school vending machines as a result of this law include Cheetos, Doritos, sports drinks and sugary breakfast cereals such as Froot Loops and Cap’n Crunch.

    For Gabriel, the bill is personal. He told The Times in March that he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder as a child. His son also has the neurodevelopmental disorder.

    Last year, Newsom signed a first-in-the-nation ban on food additives found in popular cereals, candy, sodas and drinks, including brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben and red dye No. 3. That law will take effect Jan. 1, 2027, and impose fines of up to $10,000 for violations.

    California lawmakers hope the bans will prompt manufacturers to reformulate their recipes.

    AB 2316 faced opposition from the American Beverage Assn., the California Chamber of Commerce and the National Confectioners Assn.

    The groups said food additives should be regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, not evaluated on a state-by-state basis.

    But how or when the FDA will take action on the issue remains to be seen, said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at Environmental Working Group, which co-sponsored the law.

    “The FDA should certainly also take action on these dyes, but that’s no reason to wait to make sure that kids in California are safe,” Benesh said after the bill passed the Legislature.

    “There are plenty of alternatives to these chemicals,” Benesh said. “I think it’s on industry to find a way to reformulate and market their foods without using chemicals that may hurt our kids.”

    In addition to the ban on food dyes, Newsom also signed a bill that aims to standardize information about the expiration dates on food products. AB 660 is designed to give consumers more clear and consistent information about the freshness of their food in the hope that it will reduce food waste.

    “Having to wonder whether our food is still good is an issue that we all have struggled with,” the bill’s author, Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), said in a statement. The enactment of this bill is a “monumental step to keep money in the pockets of consumers while helping the environment and the planet.”

    Erica Parker, a policy associate with Californians Against Waste, which co-sponsored the bill, said the legislation will get rid of the confusion consumers face when examining products that have the words “sell by,” “expires on” or “freshest before” printed on their packaging.

    The result of that confusion “is a staggering amount of food waste. Californians throw away 6 million tons of food waste each year — and confusion over date labels is a leading cause,” she said in a statement when the bill was sent to Newsom’s desk.

    [ad_2]

    Nathan Solis, Susanne Rust

    Source link

  • Harmful chemicals in plastics cost U.S. healthcare $250 billion a year, researchers say

    Harmful chemicals in plastics cost U.S. healthcare $250 billion a year, researchers say

    [ad_1]

    They are used to give plastic products their distinctive durability, bendability and sleek, nonstick surface.

    Yet some of these chemical additives have been tied to maladies such as breast and prostate cancer, heart disease and diabetes, as well as problems with children’s brain development and adult fertility.

    Of particular concern are a class of additives known as endocrine disruptors — chemicals that mimic and confuse hormone signaling in humans.

    Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

    Now, a team of physicians, epidemiologists and endocrinologists have estimated the costs of plastic exposure on the U.S. healthcare system and come to a sobering conclusion.

    In 2018, several common endocrine disruptors cost the nation almost $250 billion — just $40 billion shy of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed 2024 budget for the entire state of California.

    “This study is really meant to put a bright, bold line underneath the fact that plastics are a human health issue,” said Leo Trasande, a pediatrician and public policy expert at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine and Wagner School of Public Service.

    “Fundamentally, we’re talking about effects that run the entire life span study from brain development in young children … to cancer,” he said.

    The study was conducted by researchers from NYU, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Defend Our Health — an environmental organization based in Portland, Maine.

    Using epidemiological and toxicity data, the researchers itemized the disease burden of a collection of fairly well-studied chemicals, including bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, a class of flame retardants known as PBDEs, and PFOAs — the “forever chemicals” used to make nonstick cookware and which have been found in nearly half of U.S. tap water samples tested by the federal government.

    They used previously published cost data on select disease burdens to come up with their estimate, which Trasande described as “conservative.”

    Both he and Avi Kar, senior attorney and senior director for the Natural Resource Defense Council’s Health and Food, People & Communities Program, said there are tens of thousands of chemicals used in plastic production and manufacturing that probably also contribute to negative health issues, but for which available data are scarce.

    “Even from a health perspective, these are likely underestimates,” said Kar, who was not involved in the research. He noted that “in addition to the costs associated with the chemicals and plastics, there are health costs associated with exposures to the macro and micro plastics, as well as the pollution associated with their production and disposal.”

    Kar and Trasande said that while research on the effect of micro- and nanoplastics in the human body is still in its early stages — they’ve been found in our brains, lungs, hearts and blood — there is a large body of research on these chemical additives.

    News that we may be ingesting hundreds of thousands of nanoplastic particles every time we drink a liter of water bottled in plastic has researchers concerned — not so much because of the plastic itself, but because these chemicals sit on those particles “like a passenger pigeon,” gaining unfettered entry into our cells and brains, said Trasande.

    “Apart from the plastic polymer itself, the chemicals associated with plastic may pose a health risk, if not a greater health risk as they are encapsulated or attracted to these plastic materials,” said Vahitha Abdul Salam, a senior lecturer in vascular pharmacology at Queen Mary University of London.

    She noted there are no standard risk assessment measures available for plastics or chemicals associated with plastics, which is why she is working in collaboration with others, such as the U.K.’s WRc Group — a water consultancy firm — “to identify and quantify the amount and types of plastics and their associated chemicals in the water systems and verify the potential harm of the top 10 materials/chemicals to human health using cell-based assays.”

    Meanwhile, Trasande and others are hopeful their work will register with lawmakers and spur them to consider the health and financial costs of plastic debris in the environment and humans.

    Kar said their work adds to a body of similar analyses, including those published by the Minderoo-Monaco Commission on Plastics and Human Health, an international coalition of researchers and physicians funded by the Minderoo Foundation and the U.N.’s Environment Program.

    “What this study tries to do is to say” to plastic manufacturers that “‘it’s not just that you’re hurting people’s lives, it’s that you’re costing the economy. … You are profiting as companies off the backs of people’s health and well-being,’” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Susanne Rust

    Source link

  • GST Awarded as a Prime Contractor on $900 Million Four-Year Base JE-CLaSS II Contract

    GST Awarded as a Prime Contractor on $900 Million Four-Year Base JE-CLaSS II Contract

    [ad_1]

    Global Systems Technology, Inc. to support the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) as a Prime Contractor.

    Press Release
    –

    Feb 3, 2023 12:00 EST


    YARDLEY, Pa., February 3, 2023 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Global Systems Technologies, Inc. (GST) has been awarded a $900 million, four-year base and one four-year option period contract to support the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND). The IDIQ contract, Joint Enterprise Contracted Logistics and Services Support II (JE-CLaSS II) is designed as a streamlined, quick response vehicle to provide contractor logistics support (CLS) and related services for JPEO-CBRND developed and/or managed systems. GST’s contract spans both unrestricted and small business suites (Domains 1 and 2).

    Achintya Bhattacharjee, GST President and CEO, said, “This award allows GST to expand into the chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) space as we conduct CBRN CLS activities in a variety of subject areas. We have a great team and look forward to offering our expertise in support of JPEO-CBRND’s critical mission.”

    GST is headquartered in Yardley, PA, with offices in Galloway, NJ, and Crystal City, VA.

    Source: Global Systems Technologies, Inc.

    [ad_2]

    Source link