G1. Progressive Green

EWG analysis: Almost all new food chemicals greenlighted by industry, not the FDA rcoleman July 22, 2025

Since 2000, the food and chemical industry has greenlighted nearly 99% of food chemicals introduced onto the market without federal safety review, according to a new EWG analysis. 

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for ensuring food is safe. But the industry instead is deciding what food chemicals are suitable for people to eat.

This problematic situation happened through companies exploiting a loophole in food chemicals laws allowing them to decide which chemicals are safe to consume. That’s contrary to what Congress intended when it passed the laws in 1958. 

What’s more, this loophole is now the way most new chemicals, including some that are concerning, such as EGCG, propyl paraben and theobromine, are allowed in foods. 

Since 2000, food and chemical companies have petitioned the FDA only 10 times to approve a new substance. By contrast, they have added 863 chemicals, through the “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, loophole. That’s 98.8% of new food chemicals. 

The loophole lets those companies – not the FDA – decide when a substance is safe.

Figure 1. New food chemicals introduced to market from 2000 to 2025

Image

Source: Food additive petitions filed in the Federal Register, and GRAS notices filed in the FDA’s GRAS notice inventory 

A food additive petition triggers rigorous FDA pre-market safety review of a chemical, and the agency has to approve the substance before it can be used in the marketplace. The 1958 Food Additives Amendment intended this review to serve as the main path of approval for  new food chemicals.

Nine of the 10 food additive petitions for new chemicals represented in the chart were first filed more than 10 years ago, including:  

• In 2000, Ecolab Inc. filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent.
• In 2001, Avecia Inc. filed a petition for a preservative, later withdrawn.
• In 2002, Safe Foods Corp. filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent.
• In 2002, Intralytix Inc. filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent.
• In 2005, Kareem I. Batarseh filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent.
• In 2006, ARCH Chemicals Inc. filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent, later withdrawn.
• In 2008, Lubrizol Advanced Materials Inc. filed a petition for a stabilizer and texturizer.
• In 2008, Zentox Corp. filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent, later withdrawn.
• In 2009, Ajinomoto Co. filed a petition for a non-nutritive sweetener.

Just one food additive petition for a new chemical, vitamin D2 mushroom powder, has been filed in the past decade.

For the other 863 new food chemicals added to the food supply since 2000, food chemical companies exploited the GRAS loophole so they could make their own safety determinations.

Food chemical reviews

The GRAS loophole was intended to apply narrowly to common ingredients like sugar, vinegar and baking soda. But as EWG’s analysis shows, the loophole – not FDA safety review – has become the main way new chemicals are allowed into food.

A GRAS determination shows a company believes “the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use.” The company can submit a notice to the FDA about its conclusion, through a process that is entirely voluntary. 

The FDA can review these notices and issue a “no questions” letter that means it doesn’t object to the finding. But it does not approve GRAS substances or affirm a company’s GRAS determination.

If the FDA does raise questions about a company’s safety conclusions, the company can withdraw its GRAS notice.  But it can continue to use the ingredient anyway, without further FDA review and despite the agency’s reservations. Concerned citizens do not have the chance to provide public comment on, or challenge, GRAS determinations.

EWG’s analysis includes only substances that have gone through this voluntary process, because little to no information is available when companies make their own GRAS determinations but do not notify the FDA. So the analysis certainly undercounts what’s added to food through the GRAS loophole. 

Experts estimate at least 1,000 substances have been added to the food supply without notice to the FDA.

EWG also looked at filings related to new or modified uses for existing food chemicals, in addition to new chemicals. For new or modified uses of existing food chemicals, petitions were submitted slightly more often: 48 times. 

But those 48 petitions are dwarfed by the 220 GRAS notices submitted since 2000 for new or modified uses of existing chemicals, in addition to the 863 new substances for which industry exploited the GRAS loophole.

Loophole puts consumers at risk

Because of the GRAS loophole, harmful ingredients have made their way into, and continue to enter, the food supply.

For example, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, a trade group composed of industry insiders, reviews and makes GRAS determinations on nearly all flavor ingredients. This includes seven carcinogenic flavor ingredients the association rubber-stamped as GRAS. The chemicals were later banned, in 2018, in response to a petition by EWG and other nonprofit groups.

Other GRAS substances include BHA, classified as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” by the National Toxicology Program, and BHT, which may disrupt hormone function by causing thyroid changes. Studies have also shown it affects animal development, which could indicate similar harms in humans. Green tea extract EGCG may increase risk of cancer but is classified as GRAS.

For decades, partially hydrogenated oils were considered GRAS – even though they are a major source of trans fat, which can increase cholesterol and harm the heart. When the FDA revoked GRAS status for these oils in a rare action, in 2015, it said removing them from food “could prevent thousands of heart attacks and deaths each year.”

Many of the GRAS notices lack critical health data. 

A 2020 review of GRAS notices submitted since 1997 found they were almost all inadequate. Only one of 900 notices assessed the effect of the chemical in combination with other, similar chemicals, even though both manufacturers and the FDA must consider cumulative impacts as part of a safety determination.

It’s time to close the GRAS loophole

The FDA is charged with protecting the U.S. food supply but has fallen short. 

Even Michael Taylor, a former FDA deputy commissioner for food, admitted in 2014 that the FDA “simply do[es] not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals.”

The Trump FDA announced in March it will “explore rulemaking” to mandate GRAS notices. But so far the agency has pledged only to explore changing a system that has been broken for more than 60 years. Without more concrete action, the FDA’s actions so far can best be seen as a “plan to plan” to close the GRAS loophole. 

Two states in the meantime have introduced legislation to bring more transparency to GRAS. The Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act in New York and the Food Chemical Disclosure Law in Pennsylvania would both make it illegal to sell food containing GRAS substances unless the manufacturer has submitted a scientifically robust GRAS notice either to the FDA or to a state agency as a support for the manufacturer’s GRAS determination. 

Already this year, more than 30 states have introduced bills to address harmful chemicals in our food supply.

It’s time to close the GRAS loophole and prevent new chemicals from being added to food through a side door, without government oversight.

In Congress, the Food Chemical Reassessment Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), aims to address inadequacies in food additive rules. The bill would require the FDA to regularly review and reassess food chemicals, many of which have not been reevaluated in decades.

The Ensuring Safe and Toxic-Free Foods Act, introduced by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), would narrow the GRAS loophole and require reassessment of food chemicals. 

Congress should stop the continued use of unsafe chemicals in our food supply, while ensuring that states retain power to continue addressing toxic chemicals in food.

Methodology and additional findings

To compare uses of the GRAS loophole and petitions, EWG looked at how many of each were filed for new chemicals between January 2000 and May 2025.

To find out how often the loophole was used, EWG reviewed all filings in the FDA’s GRAS notice inventory since 2000. For new substance notices that were filed, EWG located and categorized all notices for duplicate substances, based on whether they were:

• The original filing for a new substance
• A refiling of a previous notice, or
• A filing for a new or different use of an existing food chemical.

Our analysis found that between 2000 and 2025, companies filed 863 original GRAS notices for novel food chemicals. Out of a total of 1,118 GRAS filings, 35 were refilings and 220 were filings for a new food chemical or varied use of an existing one.

Because submission of a GRAS notice is voluntary, this may be an undercount. Companies may have determined that chemicals or uses are GRAS but not notified the FDA or other authorities. 

To find out how many food additive petitions were filed, EWG searched the Federal Register for food additive petitions filed since 2000. We identified a total of 97 petitions, including:

• 10 for new substances (three withdrawn).
• 48 for a new or different use of a chemical already approved through a previous food additive petition (one later withdrawn).
• 14 to ban or restrict existing food chemicals (one later withdrawn).
• 11 for food irradiation (two later withdrawn).
• 10 correcting or amending previous petitions (i.e., to change scope of use or correct information error).
• One submitted in response to a determination that a substance is not GRAS.

EWG’s comparison focuses only on GRAS notices in contrast to food additive petitions for new chemicals and requests to expand or change uses of chemicals already added directly to food.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors Melanie Benesh Guest Authors Bennet Rosenberg (EWG) July 22, 2025

A coalition of 27 western conservation groups sent a letter to Rep. Huffman and the members of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources advising all to exercise extreme caution on permitting reform in advance of a July 22 hearing titled “Permitting Purgatory: Restoring Common Sense to [National Environmental Policy Act] Reviews.”

“Given Congress’ composition, the signal our legislators sent with the 2025 Reconciliation Bill, and the Trump administration’s virtual lock on policy, permitting reform in this Congress is certain to virtually eliminate public participation and crucial environmental and health protections, opening the door to unchecked public lands exploitation without consideration of impacts to ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.” said Kyle Tisdel, Climate and Energy Program director at the Western Environmental Law Center. “A popular book advancing several myths about environmental protection and permitting has provided cover for those who want to push through widespread rollbacks of laws designed to protect communities and the environment. The history of deregulation in this country demonstrates that the public almost always loses to monied interests who take public resources. Ecological and community values are essential to a thriving, truly abundant world.”

Extreme antiregulatory political forces have attacked NEPA, our nation’s bedrock environmental law, from every conceivable angle for decades. When in power, conservatives have defunded and cut staff at agencies overseeing major project proposals for public lands and pointed to reduced efficiencies in reviews as evidence for deregulatory needs. NEPA experts testified as recently as 2023 that the largest impediment to “common-sense” environmental review is under-resourced agencies: “…the biggest source of delay is a lack of staff and unstable budgets. The most important thing to improve permit processing time is to bolster agency capacity. They must have sufficient staff and staff with relevant expertise,” said Prof. Jamie Pleune at the University of Utah’s S.J. Quinney College of Law.

Antiregulatory voices also frequently cite NEPA litigation as cause for rolling back this crucial law, but less than a quarter of a percent of annual NEPA decisions end up in court. Likewise, deregulatory interests bemoan the law’s requirement for public participation in major decisions as onerous and disposable. In fact, the opposite is true. Public participation reduces litigation and improves outcomes, as noted in this study.

And Congress has passed numerous updates to NEPA that are meaningfully reducing permitting times, such as FAST-41, the Inflation Reduction Act, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and others in addition to White House Council on Environmental Quality rule updates in 2024.

If anything, it is far more likely that permitting reform now would allow toxic ideas that compromise future needs and opportunities to flourish at the coming generations’ expense. We can improve the speed of permitting, and we already are. We must, because the climate crisis demands a swift and powerful response. But we must not erode community and environmental protections for major projects—especially fossil fuel projects—to achieve this goal.

Contact:

Kyle Tisdel, Western Environmental Law Center, 575-770-7501, tisdel@westernlaw.org

The post Conservationists to House Natural Resources Committee: Permitting reform under Trump would spell disaster appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

15 military Superfund sites claim no health risks – but PFAS in tap water tell a different story rcoleman July 21, 2025

Results from new Department of Defense drinking water tests seem to contradict claims by the Environmental Protection Agency saying that 15 military bases designated as EPA Superfund sites due to high levels of hazardous chemical contamination have “human exposure under control.”

The EPA maintains that the amount of chemicals on the bases no longer poses a risk to human health, yet DOD test results say otherwise. Tap water testing near 15 military sites finds the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS at levels that raise concern about potential health harms.

The apparent disagreement between agencies emerges against a backdrop of uncertainty about the future of federal limits for toxic chemicals like PFAS.

Bases in Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey and Washington, among others, have all reported PFAS in nearby drinking water wells above the federal standards.

Questionable health risk assessment

The contradiction between the two agencies raises urgent concerns about how the EPA assesses health risks at some of the nation’s most polluted areas, known as Superfund sites, as well as casts doubt on the likelihood and duration of cleanup at these sites.

PFAS contaminates the off-base drinking water at 15 military Superfund sites. These highly polluted areas have been targeted for cleanup by the EPA for other toxic chemicals. However, the EPA appears not to have taken PFAS fully into account yet.

The contradiction also calls into question whether communities near these installations are unknowingly drinking contaminated water as a result of stalled cleanup efforts.

Legally permitted levels

The levels of PFAS at these sites exceed current federal standards for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS and PFNA, according to Pentagon tests. 

The EPA may roll back the PFHxS and PFNA standards, while the DOD says that, for now, it will clean up sites to the existing standards.

The federal limits are known as maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs. They represent the highest amount of a chemical legally allowed in drinking water. An MCL standard is based on the health risks of PFAS exposure and the public health benefits associated with lower PFAS levels.

The EPA’s official public reports show that human health exposure from hazardous substances is “under control” at these 15 sites. The designation of a Superfund site as “under control” signals that the EPA has determined the site is no longer a source of toxic chemical exposure.

Therefore, the designation can reduce the agency’s urgency and prolong cleanup projects, which sends a message to the community that there is no longer a risk of exposure.

Despite the DOD test results, the EPA has not yet updated its records for the 15 military Superfund sites to reflect that human health exposure to PFAS is not, in fact, entirely under control. The threat remains. Civilian wells continue to receive PFAS-contaminated water, leaving many residents living near the sites still exposed to forever chemicals in their tap water.

In a rare move, the EPA recently updated its assessment of another site, the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, officially stating that human exposure and groundwater migration are no longer “under control” due to the presence of PFAS. Although this is the only known case of a change in status tied to PFAS, there may be others.

The military has provided bottled water or tap water filters to households near the bases, although only at a select number of the locations, not all 15.

PFAS remain near sites

The groundwater beneath homes close to these 15 military bases is still contaminated with PFAS, presenting a continued risk of exposure for well owners as well as additional expenses for well owners who have installed filtration. When the EPA updates the Superfund status to indicate that human health exposure is no longer under control, expedited cleanup actions are typically taken to address the problem.

Without the change in status, well owners and neighboring communities will remain in limbo because of the delay.

Other military Superfund sites may also be misclassified as having human exposure under control, even if there are elevated levels of forever chemicals in off-base wells. 

However, we don’t know the extent of off-base exposure. More than 600 bases have reported on-site PFAS contamination, but the vast majority have not tested surrounding wells. As the military tests more locations, new installations and communities will likely be added to this list.

Military Superfund sites with ‘human exposure under control,’ despite PFAS in tap water

Type of PFAS detectedWater test result (in parts per trillion)Date of sampleLuke Air Force Base – Glendale, - Ariz.PFOS28.33/31/2022PFOA63/31/2022March Air Force Base – Riverside, Calif. PFOS3909/7/2023PFOA1104/13/2022PFHxS3102/1/2024George Air Force Base – Victorville, Calif.PFOS23.27/27/2023PFOA1437/27/2023PFHxS8467/27/2023PFNA1810/26/2023Homestead Air Force Base – Homestead, Fla.PFOS1533/30/2023PFOA544/24/2024PFHxS1302/21/2022PFNA364/24/2024Whiting Naval Air Station – Milton, Fla.PFOS13012/8/2021PFOA2068/25/2021PFHxS1298/25/2021Brunswick Naval Air Station – Brunswick, MainePFOS10.611/10/2021Loring Air Force Base – Limestone, MainePFOS16810/24/2021PFOA13.510/24/2021PFHxS72.510/24/2021Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards – Falmouth, Mass.PFOS183/6/2024PFOA111/9/2022Pease Air Force Base – Portsmouth, N.H. PFOS8602/21/2023PFOA1406/12/2024PFHxS4303/21/2023Naval Air Engineering Center (part of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst) – Lakehurst, N.J.PFOS1,9009/7/2022PFOA579/7/2022PFHxS6709/7/2022Fort Dix (part of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst) – Pemberton Township, N.J.PFOS1,9009/7/2022PFOA579/7/2022PFHxS6709/7/2022Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station – Havelock - N.C.PFOS50.27/13/2023PFOA12.67/13/2023Tinker Air Force Base – Oklahoma City, Okla.PFOS1413/17/2025PFOA616/14/2022PFHxS5604/3/2024Bremerton Naval Base – Bremerton, Wash.PFOS25.97/21/2023PFOA3909/25/2023PFHxS18.97/21/2023Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (Seaplane Base) – Whidbey Island, Wash. PFOS4,72010/6/2021PFOA5235/19/2023PFHxS1,15010/6/2021Status of landmark protections

The EPA’s landmark standards for six PFAS in tap water, the MCLs which were finalized last year, are under threat. Some polluters and industry groups are pushing to dismantle these hard-won protections as part of a broader effort to gut environmental safeguards, and the agency has announced its intent to reconsider some of the standards.

The standards include first-time federal limits on the notorious forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS of 4 parts per trillion. The agency also set limits on three other types of PFAS, in addition to a mixture of these plus the forever chemical PFBS.

The agency’s plans for reconsidering the standards include rolling back limits for four currently regulated PFAS: PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and the PFBS mixture. If finalized, this would be a win for PFAS polluters and a serious setback for consumers, who, if in states without their own standards, would continue to be exposed to toxic forever chemicals.

In 2024, the EPA designated PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, formally called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Industry groups are now seeking to overturn the agency’s designation, and the EPA has until August 18 to respond to the legal challenge.

Under the Superfund law, site cleanup managers must follow federal drinking water standards to assess the location and extent of cleanup to determine whether people are still being exposed to toxic chemicals.

Ongoing risks for residents

PFAS are linked to a number of serious health harms, including impaired immune system response, liver and kidney damage, hormone disruption, developmental and reproductive issues, and several types of cancer. 

If the EPA rolls back the drinking water standards and hazardous substance designations, communities near these and many other military installations will remain contaminated, leaving exposed residents without resources to protect themselves.

The Pentagon has said that it will comply with the current EPA standards to address PFAS contamination at military sites. If the EPA cancels its limits for certain PFAS, the DOD could argue it is no longer legally obligated to clean up bases to meet those standards, a move that could halt or scale back cleanup efforts.

The Pentagon might also deny nearby communities access to clean drinking water by failing to provide bottled water or filtration, leaving thousands of civilians at continued risk of exposure to PFAS from nearby bases. This military response would threaten the health of residents in surrounding regions.

Slow cleanup progress is nothing new to communities near military installations with documented PFAS contamination. Despite knowing the health risks of PFAS for decades, the Defense Department has made few strides in cleaning up these chemicals. No site has yet to reach the formal cleanup stage of the Superfund process.

Without updated EPA reports reflecting the true scope of PFAS exposure at military sites, nearby communities will stay uninformed and unable to take action to protect themselves from continued exposure. These civilians are left defenseless against toxic threats.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Water Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Regional Issues Defense Communities Authors Jared Hayes Guest Authors Nicole Caplan (EWG) July 29, 2025

Few things in nature inspire wonder and awe like organisms that glow in the dark. A chemical reaction in living things can cause them to make their own light. This […]

The post Things that Glow in the Dark: Fireflies, Lightning Bugs, and More first appeared on Dogwood Alliance.

EWG comments on safer sunscreens to Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce rcoleman July 17, 2025

Attached are comments to the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in reference to safer sunscreens for the hearing “Legislative Proposals to Maintain and Improve the Public Health Workforce, Rural Health, and Over-the-Counter Medicines.”

File Download Document ewg-statement-for-record-sunscreens-7.16.25.pdf Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Sunscreen July 16, 2025

Für eine zukunftsfähige und langfristig bezahlbare Wärmeversorgung in Stade –
Wärmeplanung ohne Altholzkraftwerk beschliessen! Offener Brief von NABU, ROBIN WOOD und Biofuelwatch

Bitte hier klicken um den Brief zu lesen

 

Bundesfördermittel für Stader Wärmewende in Gefahr / Umweltorganisationen fordern in offenem Brief an Stadtverordnete eine Wärmeplanung ohne Altholzkraftwerk Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung von ROBIN WOOD, Biofuelwatch und NABU

17. Juli 2025 –

Die Umweltorganisationen ROBIN WOOD, NABU und Biofuelwatch haben heute in einem offenen Brief an die Stadt Stade appelliert, in ihrer Wärmeplanung auf das geplante Altholzheizkraftwerk der Hansekraft in Bützfleth zu verzichten und stattdessen in eine zukunftsfähige und langfristig bezahlbare Wärmeversorgung in Stade zu investieren.

Die Stadt Stade hat zwar bereits im März ihre Kommunale Wärmeplanung beschlossen. Bisher beinhaltet der Plan jedoch zwei mögliche Szenarien für die zukünftige Wärmeversorgung der Stadt: eines mit, das andere ohne das geplante größte Altholz- und sogar dem größten Holzkraftwerk in Deutschland. Die Unterzeichner*innen des Briefes warnen nun davor, dass die Holzverbrennung und der Neubau des Kraftwerks nicht nur klimaschädlich seien, sondern auch zu einer Explosion der Wärmekosten für die Anwohner*innen führen könnten, da Bundesfördermittel nicht genutzt werden könnten. Die Stadt sollte daher auf Fernwärme aus dem Kraftwerk – unabhängig von dessen Genehmigung und Bau – verzichten.

Aus einer Anfrage des NABU an das Bundesamt, das für die Fördermittelvergabe für Wärmenetze verantwortlich ist, geht hervor, dass die Stadt Stade bisher einem Irrtum aufgesessen ist: Ein hoher Anteil von Wärme aus dem Verbrennen von Altholz ist demnach nicht mit der „Bundesförderung für effiziente Wärmenetze” (BEW), auf die auch die Stadt Stade setzt, zu vereinbaren. Im Brief heißt es:

„So können Fördermittel für die Machbarkeitsstudie sowie auch die Betriebskostenförderung für Geothermie und Großwärmepumpen nur abgerufen werden, wenn der Anteil von Biomasse im Zielnetz unter 15 Prozent liegt. Zwischenzeitlich darf er die 25 Prozent (bei Netzen über 50 km Länge) nicht überschreiten. Entgegen den Aussagen der Stadt Stade zahlen alle Altholzsortimente auf diesen Anteil ein, auch A IV-Altholz, wie uns die Bafa bestätigte.“

Laut einer Antwort an die örtliche Bürgerinitiative ging die Stadt bislang davon aus, dass Wärme aus der Verbrennung von Altholz der Kategorie A IV nicht in die Biomassegrenze der BEW-Förderung eingerechnet würde und implizierte sogar, dass man die Grenze durch die Verschmischung der Altholzkategorien umgehen könne. A IV-Sortimente umfassen mit Holzschutzmitteln behandeltes Altholz und Altholz, das aufgrund seiner Schadstoffbelastung nicht den anderen Kategorien der Altholz-Verordnung zugeordnet werden kann.

Das eigentliche Ziel der Wärmeplanung, nämlich die Dekarbonisierung der Wärme, würde außerdem mit einem Holzkraftwerk nur auf dem Papier erreicht, da bei der Holzverbrennung real mindestens genauso viel CO2 freigesetzt wird, als wenn Kohle verbrannt würde. Im offenen Brief heißt es hierzu:

 „Der Wechsel von einem kohlenstoffhaltigen Energieträger zu einem anderen kann nicht als Fortschritt gewertet werden. Heutzutage stehen klimafreundliche und saubere Technologien zur Verfügung, darunter Solarthermie, Großwärmepumpen, Geothermie und Power-to-Heat mit überschüssigem Windstrom.“ 

Zusätzlich zu den gravierenden finanziellen Risiken sei auch die Versorgungssicherheit nicht garantiert. So seien Holzkraftwerke anfällig für Störfälle wie Brände und es sei außerdem mit einer erhöhten Emissionsbelastung im näheren Umfeld zu rechnen, wie im offenen Brief dargelegt wird:

„Die räumliche Nähe von Chemietanks, die unter der Störfallverordnung unter die höchste Risikokategorie fallen, und Holzlagern und -verbrennungsanlagen klingt in Anbetracht der vielen Feuer im Zusammenhang mit Holzkraftwerken besorgniserregend. Auch die Lärmbelastung und Luftverschmutzung im laufenden Betrieb werden zunehmen, was auch die örtliche Bürgerinitiative stark bewegt.“

Der offene Brief endet mit einem Appell an die Stadt, sich gegen das Altholzkraftwerk auszusprechen und eine kommunale Wärmeplanung ohne klimaschädliche Holzverbrennung zu beschließen.

Offener Brief der NGOs an Ratsmitglieder der Hansestadt Stade v. 17.07.2025

Mehr Informationen zu dem geplanten Altholzkraftwerk in Stade-Bützfleth sind in diesem Infopapier von NABU, DUH, Biofuelwatch und ROBIN WOOD zu finden (Stand: Nov. 2024).

California Senate environmental committee approves landmark bill to protect schoolkids from harmful UPF rcoleman July 16, 2025

SACRAMENTO – In a win for children’s health, today the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee passed a bipartisan bill that would, if enacted, phase out certain ultra-processed food, or UPF, from meals served in public schools. 

UPF are industrially manufactured and chemically modified products. They’re often made with potentially harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and durability.

Assembly Bill 1264, introduced by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would create a first-in-the-nation legal definition of UPF. 

The bill would also task Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment scientists to work with University of California researchers to research UPF links to disease and other health risks. These experts would then identify those that are “particularly harmful” and should be phased out of public school food.. 

Schools would be required to comply with the law starting in 2032.

“Our public schools should not be serving students ultra-processed food products filled with chemical additives that can harm their physical and mental health and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Gabriel. 

Some artificial food chemicals that are commonly found in UPF have been shown to affect the brain’s influence on behavior and learning. 

The bill has bipartisan support, including from Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (East Nicolaus) and Progressive Caucus Chair Alex Lee (D-San Jose).

“In California, Democrats and Republicans are joining forces to prioritize the health and safety of our children, and we are proud to be leading the nation with a bipartisan, science-based approach,” said Gabriel. 

“This new legislation will ensure that schools are serving our students the healthy, nutritious meals they need and deserve,” he added.

The Environmental Working Group is cosponsoring AB 1264. The bill now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Health threats of UPF

Experts say UPF food and drinks encourage people to eat more of them than they really want. The products are engineered to evoke a desire to consume more, they say.

Scientific research also links UPF to serious health harms, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease, reproductive and neurobehavioral harms, and mental health issues.

Obesity is chief among the health problems linked to UPF. Rates of obesity in the U.S. and globally have skyrocketed in tandem with rising UPF consumption.

“Ultra-processed foods aren’t just unhealthy – they’re engineered for overconsumption. Like addictive substances, they hijack the brain’s reward system, making it difficult for people to cut back, even when facing serious health consequences,” said Ashley Gearhardt, Ph.D., and professor of psychology at the University of Michigan.

“America’s diet is now dominated by ultra-processed foods, many of which were shaped by the same corporate strategies that once hooked people on cigarettes. The result? Rising rates of obesity, diabetes and diet-related diseases, especially in children,” added Gearhardt.

Food companies have consistently opposed efforts to regulate UPF. They market and sell these products to consumers, in California and nationwide, without disclosing their potential harms.

Landmark UPF legislation

“Processed foods can have a place in a healthy diet, but Americans – especially children – are consuming too many ultra-processed foods, which is contributing to increased rates of cancer, heart disease and diabetes,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.

“AB 1264 would take an important step toward protecting student health by identifying and removing the most harmful ultra-processed foods from California schools,” added Del Chiaro. “We commend Assemblymember Gabriel and all of the bill’s co-authors for taking commonsense steps toward better protecting the well-being of California’s children.”

In developing a definition of “particularly harmful” UPF, the experts would consider whether:

• The product includes additives that are banned, restricted or subject to warnings in other jurisdictions.
• Based on scientific research, the product or its ingredients are linked to cancer, cardiovascular or metabolic disease, developmental or reproductive harms, obesity, Type 2 diabetes or other health harms.
• The product or its ingredients contribute to food addiction.
• The product is high in fat, sugar or salt. 

California schools are projected to provide over 1 billion meals this school year. AB 1264 would help protect students from the harmful chemicals in “hyperpalatable” food and ensure that all children – from a diversity of economic backgrounds – have access to healthy and nutritious food.

“Healthy school meals are the fastest, most powerful way to create a healthier future for our children and our nation,” said Nora LaTorre, CEO of Eat Real, bill cosponsor along with EWG.

California leads the way

California is changing the national conversation about food safety and school nutrition. With strong bipartisan support, over the past two years the state has enacted two Gabriel-authored landmark food laws.

The California School Food Safety Act, signed into law in 2024, bans six harmful food dyes from being served in public schools. 

It followed a 2023 state law banning the manufacture, distribution or sale of food containing the chemicals Red Dye No. 3, propyl paraben, brominated vegetable oil and potassium bromate.

California has long been a bellwether state for public health protections. Now similar actions are sweeping the country, with food chemical bills introduced, debated and in some cases enacted in states from Arizona to Vermont, including Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania.

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in January directing California agencies to look for new ways to minimize the harms of UPF consumption. The order also instructs the agencies to reduce the purchase of soda, candy and other types of UPF, including those that contain artificial dye.

“Poor nutrition in childhood, predominantly due to processed foods, which are high in added sugars and low in nutrient quality, is a major and modifiable factor contributing to life-long risk for chronic diseases, including obesity, Type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and heart disease and also affects learning and classroom performance,” said Michael Goran, Ph.D., and program director for nutrition and obesity at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. 

Goran is also professor and vice chair for research in the department of pediatrics at Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California.

Prenatal vitamin and PFAS legislation

EWG is sponsoring two other bills in the California Legislature this session: Senate Bill 682 and 646. Both bills passed the California Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials this week. 

SB 682, authored by Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), would ban manufacturers from intentionally adding PFAS to various consumer products, including cookware, food packaging and cleaners.

SB 646, authored by Sen. Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-San Diego), would require prenatal multivitamin manufacturers to test for and publicly disclose levels of potentially harmful heavy metals in their products. 

Activist and social entrepreneur Hilary Swank testified in support of the bill in front of the California Senate Health Committee on April 2.

 “As a mom and entrepreneur, I am deeply committed to protecting my family and your families,” said Swank. “We know prenatal vitamins are essential for maternal and fetal health, but recent studies show that far too many contain heavy metals that can harm developing babies.”

If signed into law, SB 646 would make California the first state to mandate transparency for prenatal supplements, setting a national precedent for stronger maternal health protections.

“Expecting mothers deserve transparency about the ingredients in the supplements they take to support their health and their baby’s growth,” said Susan Little, EWG’s legislative director for California. “It’s alarming to find heavy metals in prenatal vitamins. This bill is a critical step toward giving consumers the facts and pushing companies to make safer products.”

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Family Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Regional Issues California Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 July 16, 2025

EWG testimony before the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee on AB 1264, to ban particularly harmful ultra-processed foods rcoleman July 16, 2025

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Scott Faber, and I am the Senior Vice President for Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group. I also teach Food Law at Georgetown University Law Center. Prior to joining EWG, I was the Vice President for Federal Affairs for the Consumer Brands Association. 

Processed foods are part of a healthy diet, and AB 1264 does not prohibit schools from offering processed foods. However, ultraprocessed foods are different from processed foods because they combine industrial ingredients and additives in ways that make foods hyperpalatable. 

These industrially engineered foods are not simply delicious; they are literally irresistible because they: 

• change the signals that are sent to our brain’s reward center.
• increase the speed with which that reward is delivered, and 
• interfere with signals that tell us to stop eating. 

More than half of the calories we consume are UPF – including 67% of the calories eaten by our children. Fortunately, many of our schools have already moved to eliminate UPF, replacing them with healthier processed foods, minimally processed foods, and whole foods from local farms. These schools have shown us we don’t need to make expensive changes to school kitchens to phase out the most harmful UPF. 

Because AB 1264 places the burden on vendors to stop selling harmful UPF to our kids, it will be food companies – not our school food professionals – who will be required to distinguish among minimally processed foods, processed foods, ultra-processed foods, and the most harmful UPF. 

Again, under AB 1264, only harmful UPF will need to be reformulated. As someone who worked for food companies, I’m confident that my food industry colleagues can meet this challenge. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I respectfully request an “aye” vote on AB 1264. 

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Regional Issues California Authors Scott Faber July 16, 2025

Here’s a quick look at what we’ve done together just in the last few months:

Breaking ground in Seville
During the recent UN Financing for Development Conference which took place during a sweltering heatwave in Seville, we called on governments to tax extreme wealth and invest in real solutions – alongside many other partner organisations. Through a variety of mediums, including a petition, webinar, video and blog post we made it crystal clear how the money could be spent to power up the transition to renewables at home and across the world along with cutting energy bills, creating green jobs and protecting communities from climate impacts.

And some HUGE news came out of the conference! A new alliance to tax the super-rich was launched by Spain and Brazil with support from South Africa and Chile [1]. Although many more countries need to join this coalition now, it marks a growing global shift towards taxing extreme wealth through international tax negotiations at the UN – and that’s super exciting!

Thanks to everyone who helped spread the message during this critical conference.

Coalition of partners making sure decision-makers hear our message loud and clear at the UN Financing for Development Conference in Seville. Photo: UN Photo / Julio Muñoz

France: The French Senate vote
In France, we pushed hard to get the Senate to pass the Zucman Tax: a 2% minimum tax on wealth over €100 million. The National Assembly approved it in February. All eyes then turned to the French Senate.

Though we narrowly lost the vote (just 30 votes short), we scored huge political wins. More than 65,000 people signed our joint petition with Oxfam and Attac and through a variety of actions, events and media coverage we showed that taxing the super-rich has strong public support, from mayors to MPs, from economists to everyday citizens. The 350 team in France is already planning more activities to keep up the pressure so… watch this space!

Fanny from 350 France speaking at a rally in Paris ahead of the vote. 

Germany: Turning up the heat on billionaires
In June, we joined with partners to take to the streets in Berlin, Nuremberg, Munich and Hildesheim. While billionaire lobbyists gathered behind closed doors, we held creative protests demanding the SPD (the centre-left party that is part of the government coalition) follow through on their promise to tax extreme wealth.

There were money-suitcases, satirical speeches, a polar bear mascot, and even a film premiere. But behind the fun was a serious demand: wealth taxes to fund the energy transition, public transport, housing and care. The pressure is building and more actions are planned.

Action in Nürnberg calling for taxes on extreme wealth. 

UK: People-powered push for fairness

We’re part of a growing coalition calling to tax the super-rich in the UK and public support is on the rise. A new poll shows that 75% of Brits want to see higher taxes on extreme wealth.

Together with partners, unions, economists, and even millionaires, we’ve joined rallies, launched open letters and pushed MPs to make pledges. We’re keeping the pressure on politicians who are rapidly running out of reasons to avoid taxing the super-rich and we’re building towards something big: a huge march in London on September 20th, part of global “Draw The Line” days of action, which we’ll share more about soon – you can sign up here to save the date.

We also just launched our TaxForce: a WhatsApp channel for people who want to take the next step in the Tax Their Billions campaign – and you can join!

350 staff joining a rally in Westminster ahead of the Spring Budget, to demand that the Government taxes the super-rich. 

Trump’s Gas: We won’t be blackmailed

President Trump is using trade threats to pressure Europe into buying more dirty, fracked gas from the US, what we call “TrumpGas”. It’s as bad for the climate as coal and comes with a price tag of pollution, human rights violations and environmental devastation. Together with our sister organisation in the Netherlands Fosseilvrij NL, we’re pushing back against the EU’s plan to purchase more gas that will only lock in further climate disasters.

Just this week, in the Netherlands, people “donated their farts” to protest TrumpGas, and they were delivered to the US consulate by a Dutch drag queen with three giant balloons! Check out the video if you’re finding this hard to believe! The deadline for the EU to accept Trump’s gas deal was extended until August 1 and the campaign will continue. You can sign the petition here.

 

Eyes now on COP30

The latest UN climate talks in Bonn made little progress. Political divisions and delays meant that key issues were left unresolved including taking forward the agreement to phase-out of fossil fuels and scaling up renewable energy at the scale we need. But civil society held the line. Together, we reminded governments that promises to triple renewables and end fossil fuel expansion must be kept. Now, all eyes turn to the big UN Climate Talks (COP30) in Belém, Brazil – and we’ll be ready. Digital action?

Photo from action led by 350, in collaboration with Indigenous communities and international partners at Bonn. 

A warning from Brussels
In a worrying twist, the far-right ‘Patriots for Europe’ bloc has taken control of the EU Parliament’s negotiations on climate targets [2]. They openly want to dismantle the Green Deal and stop Europe from achieving climate neutrality. We can’t let this happen. The climate crisis demands bold, united action not backsliding into fossil-fuelled nationalism. This is a dangerous moment, but also a call to action. There’s more leadership needed from countries like France and Germany who need to ensure the EU stands firm for the full and fair phase out of fossil fuels especially at COP30.

This is what people-power looks like. And we’re only halfway through the year.

Thank you for being part of this. We can’t wait to take even bolder action with you in the months ahead.

Sources
[1] Spain and Brazil push global action to tax the super-rich and curb inequality (United Nations)
[2] Patriots for Europe look to derail signature EU climate policy with key parliament file (Euronews)

The post Tax Their Billions: How it’s going in Europe appeared first on 350.

Yury Sergeev, a longtime employee of Bellona working from our Vilnius office, has been found guilty by Russian authorities for violating the country’s sweeping “undesirable organizations” law—despite having lived outside Russia since 2022.

Sergeev said he was informed of the verdict via the court’s online portal. The verdict likely stem from his continued work with Bellona, which was labeled “undesirable” by Russia’s Ministry of Justice in 2023—a move that effectively criminalized the group’s operations and associations both inside and outside Russia.

Information regarding the particulars of the court’s decision are unclear and are likely to remain so—but it’s fair to surmise that Sergeev has been found guilty of working with an environmental organization that Russia consider “destabilizing” to the foundations of its government.

“I knew the risks when I relocated and continued working for Bellona,’ said Sergeev.  “The Russian regime will not stop its repressive machine—if this case exists, it means our work matters.”

Bellona founder Frederic Hauge described the verdict as “prosecution by red tape,” part of a decades-long pattern of Russian legal harassment against the organization.

“Even now, operating beyond Russia’s borders, the authorities in Moscow continue to perceive us as a threat,” Hauge said. “This case may seem minor, but it’s part of a much larger and more troubling legacy of repression.”

A Longstanding Campaign of Intimidation

Since relocating to Lithuania following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Bellona’s staff has continued its mission: promoting environmental transparency and nuclear safety in the post-Soviet space. The group’s designation as “undesirable” in Russia came shortly thereafter, effectively banning its work and criminalizing contact with its members—even in personal contexts.

Despite the seemingly petty nature of the verdict, the consequences could be severe. If Sergeev refuses to pay the resulting fine—as he and Bellona intend—it could escalate into criminal charges, potentially jeopardizing his residency status abroad.

“Even absurd charges like these can interfere with visa renewals, citizenship applications, or travel,” said Hauge. “Russia is effectively trying to weaponize bureaucracy to silence its critics—even those who have fled.”

A History of Harassment

Bellona is no stranger to Russian state repression. Some 30 years ago, Russia’s security services began a campaign of harassment against Bellona’s office in Russia, which culminated in the prosecution of Bellona’s Alexander Nikitin for treason.  Nikitin was eventually acquitted, marking the first time in Russian history that a defendant won against the FSB. That prosecution was led by Alexander Gutsan, now a top Kremlin official and Putin’s envoy to Northwest Russia—where the current case against Sergeev originated.

“Isn’t it interesting that the charges against Yury originated in the region where our old friend Gutsan now represents Putin’s administration?” Hauge asked. “It might be that he has a bit of a grudge.”

Alexander Nikitin (left), Frederic Hauge (middle) and Lawyer Ivan Pavlov following Nikitin’s acquittal in 2000.

Bellona’s long work within Russia also faced routine harassment, our former offices in Murmansk and St Petersburg being declared “foreign agents,” in 2015 and 2017, respectively.  This designation carries with it onerous reporting procedures and subjects NGOs to heightened scrutiny by authorities who are often anxious to find wrongdoing.

Sergeev Responds: ‘Let Them Accuse Me’

In a personal statement, Sergeev emphasized his resolve and the importance of Bellona’s work:

“Environmental protection in Russia has always been met with surveillance, harassment, and intimidation. That’s the cost of doing something meaningful under authoritarianism. I’ve made my choice—and I have no regrets.”

He added: “We knew it was only a matter of time before someone — one of us who had relocated and kept working — would be targeted under this administrative article.”

Escalating Legal Risks Under Russia’s ‘Undesirable Organizations’ Law

The case against Sergeev stems from Russia’s 2015 law targeting so-called “undesirable organizations”—a vaguely worded statute that criminalizes nearly any form of cooperation or contact with targeted NGOs, including online sharing or personal correspondence.

Under Article 20.33 of Russia’s Code of Administrative Offences, individuals can be fined simply for participating in the activities of these organizations or disseminating their materials—even outside Russian territory. The punishments then escalate to criminal charges under yet another article—Article 284.1 of Russia’s Criminal Code, which imposes significantly harsher penalties, which can include prison sentences of up to six years.

“These laws are deliberately vague, and that’s the point,” said Bellona founder Frederic Hauge. “They allow Russian authorities to target anyone they choose with a shifting definition of illegality. Today, it’s Yury. Tomorrow, it could be any Russian citizen who has ever visited our website or forwarded a link.”

About Bellona

Founded in 1986, Bellona is an international environmental NGO with offices in Europe and a long history of advocating for environmental transparency, sustainable energy, and post-Soviet nuclear safety. Bellona relocated its Russian operations to Lithuania in 2022 in response to Russia’s unlawful full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The post Russia Targets Bellona Vilnius Staffer with ‘Prosecution by Red Tape’ appeared first on Bellona.org.

Camping is one of the best ways to spend your summer. It can bring a lot of joy to you and your family. But it’s important to respect the forest […]

The post How to Camp Without Destroying the Forest first appeared on Dogwood Alliance.

If they say “Why should we tax billionaires?” You can say:

• The super-rich are driving inequality and the climate crisis by hoarding wealth, investing in carbon polluting industries, and avoiding taxation – while the rest of us struggle with soaring energy costs, underfunded public services, and climate impacts like heatwaves and floods.
• Yet instead of taxing them properly, governments give billionaires a free pass and cut funding for vital public services while the rich get richer.
• The richest 1% produce as much carbon pollution as two-thirds of humanity while paying next to nothing in taxes.
• Billionaires like Elon Musk actively undermine democracy by funding far-right politicians and policies that serve their interests at the expense of our welfare and our planet.
• Governments claim to lack funds to invest in renewable energy and public services – but if they raised taxes on those most able to pay a little more, they could raise billions in additional tax revenue. Just a 2% tax on assets over £10 million would affect only 20,000 people (a TINY proportion of the population) yet could raise £24 billion a year!
• The majority of the British public supports taxing extreme wealth – along with unions, charities and even millionaires themselves!

If they say “Won’t the rich just leave if we raise taxes?” You can say:

Despite common claims from media and politicians that billionaires and multi-millionaires would leave at the drop of a hat if taxes on extreme wealth were increased slightly, there is little evidence to support this. Tax Justice UK recently released a report called “The millionaire exodus myth” which addresses this head on. They found:

• Millionaires are “highly immobile” and none of the findings provide any evidence that tax played any role in any relocation of wealthy individuals.
• The methodology used in reports suggesting a “millionaire exodus” which have been extremely widely shared across print and online news is flawed and claims are contradictory. The media has often also misreported or exaggerated the findings.

If they say “Isn’t it bad for business?” You can say:

You could argue that allowing a small number of people to accrue ‘unused’ wealth is actually worse for the economy than ensuring millions of people have fair wages, affordable green energy and thriving public services. Redistribution can ensure working people have more disposable income, thus raising demand for goods and services and benefiting British businesses and high streets.

If they say “Sounds great! What can I do?” You can say:

1. Sign the petition calling for the UK Government to raise taxes on the super-rich.
2. Write an email to your MP and ask them to back the Tax Their Billions pledge.
3. Read the Tax Their Billions Dossier if they want to find out more!
4. And finally, you can ask them to join you in the Tax Force WhatsApp channel to stay involved!

The post Conversation Guide: Tax Their Billions appeared first on 350.

On the eve of Independence Day, Republicans have passed an enormously unpopular bill (2-1 against) designed to transfer wealth from the poorest Americans to the richest 20% who already own 85% of the nation’s wealth. The bill will ravage America’s social safety net, environment, and climate, nearly triple the national deficit and fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) equivalent to the 16th largest military budget worldwide if it were a country. It will make all who live in the “Land of the Free” poorer, sicker, less safe, and less free. Repairing the damage this callous betrayal of a bill will impose on American families and our federal government will take generations, and the suffering millions will go through can never be undone.

“For the people who need the safety nets that civilized cultures provide, for the debt-saddled future residents of this country, for the environment, and for human health—this bill will be devastating,” said Sarah McMillan, Wildlands and Wildlife Program director at the Western Environmental Law Center. “Combined with the dismantling and undercutting of laws and regulations that protect people and the environment, we are facing an existential challenge over the coming years and beyond. This is why we are fighting hard to protect what we can now, and remain ‘at work in the ruins’ with the utmost urgency to help draw the blueprint for building a better America.”

The bill takes an “all of the above” approach to knifing clean energy and fortifying fossil fuels by slashing renewable tax credits; cutting consumer credits for EVs and home energy upgrades; eliminating climate and air pollution grant programs; increasing already staggering subsidies for coal, oil, and gas; and bolstering fossil fuel production on public lands even though it is at a historic high globally already.

The bill will among many other things:

• Kick 17 million of the most vulnerable Americans off Medicaid, cut nursing home staff, and kill nearly 500,000 health care jobs,
• Cut food assistance program SNAP by 20%, for 40 million Americans,
• Repeal most clean energy tax credits created under Biden,
• Raise Americans’ electricity bills and kill hundreds of thousands of jobs in renewable energy,
• Massively cut taxes for oil and gas companies,
• Rescind the moratorium on building new coal power plants,
• Require offshore oil and gas lease sales and new drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
• Require quarterly oil and gas lease sales on public lands,
• Rescind Inflation Reduction Act funding for clean energy programs,
• Boost USFS logging targets by 75% over the next decade (Source)
• Rescind funds for certain forest and tree-planting programs,
• Spend $46.5 billion on border wall construction while unlawful crossings are at a record low, $45 billion on immigrant detention facilities, and $31 billion on ICE,
• And add $3.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.

The post Statement: Trump bill sets table for über-wealthy to feast on American families, environment for generations appeared first on Western Environmental Law Center.

Behind the Mask of the Moratorium Pala'wan People continue to fight mining in the Philippines “It almost feels as we are on a ‘death row’, we do not know yet when the first bulldozer will start flattening our land…but we know it’s happening”

A member of Brooke’s Point lowland Pala’wan communities (Source of image and quote)

 

In solidarity with the Palawan indigenous peoples and local communities facing massive environmental degradation, in spite of the newly signed 50 years mining moratorium, Rainforest Rescue, asks you to sign the letter by May 30th.

Palawan is a UNESCO declared Man and Biosphere Reserve.  Since time immemorial, this unique natural paradise has been sustainably managed by the local Indigenous peoples, such as the Batak, the Pala’wan and Tagbanua. The Island hosts the highest number (6) of protected areas within the entire country. The global transition to a low-carbon future, and the resulting international demand for minerals such as nickel, is casting a dark shadow over the future of Pala’wan tribes. 

On March 5th 2025, due to intensive pressure by national/international advocate movements and the local Catholic Church, the Provincial Government has passed a 50 years mining moratorium, barring all new mining applications.  However, existing extractive activities have been allowed to continue.  Moreover, the companies, which were able to secured a Mineral Production Sharing Agreements (MPSA), before the moratorium, have been given the ‘green-signal’ to pursue their planned operations.  Now, hundreds of indigenous Pala’wan communities, as well as some of the most isolated upland groups, face the immediate risk of seeing their farms, forests and settlements being washed away by mining extraction. 

In support of threatened indigenous peoples, farmers and the fisher-folk, sign the letter by May 30th.

https://www.regenwald.org/csl/76692b78-f383-4df4-814f-be085bec09eb/en 

 

The letter, along with the names of your organization, will be submitted to the President of the Philippines, the Provincial Government of Palawan, to various authorities mentioned at the beginning of the letter, and to the UNESCO. 

 

 

 

 

 

Feature Image: A small town glows beneath a starry sky. (harpazo_hope / Getty Images)

Carlyn Zwarenstein writes about science for Salon. She reached out to get a Rights of Nature perspective from CELDF’s Education Director, Ben Price.

But voluntary standards for light pollution, like voluntary standards for much else where profit and community or ecosystem well-being might be at odds, have a habit of failing to meet the need, of being inconsistently applied, and of simply being ignored. In fact, Ben Price, director of education at the Community Environmental Legal Defence Fund, which assisted in establishment of the world’s first community rights of nature legislation, notes that the establishment of minimum protected areas tends to be supported or even promoted by the corporations that cause greatest environmental harm, effectively maximizing the amount of harm that can be done everywhere else. 

The federal Clean Air and Clean Water acts, and similar state laws, likewise set out in law just how much degradation or destruction of the natural world corporations or others can get away with. Partly as a result, environmental damage is far, far worse and natural habitats are far smaller and more fragmented than they were half a century ago, before these pieces of legislation existed.

Read full piece from the original source.

The post Take back the night: Establishing a “right to darkness” could save our night skies appeared first on CELDF.

This interview was conducted by the Environmental Coffeehouse welcoming Ben Price, CELDF Education Director & Tish O’Dell, Consulting Director of Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) who are working with Max Wilbert, Publicist for CELDF on the NYS Assembly Bill AO5156A, the Great Lakes and State Waters Bill of Rights, which is currently IN the NYS Assembly.

This new bill introduced into the New York State Assembly by Assemblyman Burke of the Assembly District 142, representing New York’s 142nd district, made up of South Buffalo and the surrounding areas on and near the shore of Lake Erie. Lake Erie and Lake Ontario provide drinking water to 6.2 million New Yorkers. All told, the Great Lakes provide drinking water for more than 40 million people, contain 95% of all the surface freshwater in the United States, and make up the largest freshwater ecosystem on the planet. But this ecosystem is struggling. According to experts, billions of gallons of raw sewage entering the lakes, increasing toxic algae blooms, invasive species, global warming, and both historic and ongoing industrial pollution represent serious threats to the ecosystem and human health.

“The rights of nature movement is gaining momentum around the world as global warming, species extinction, fresh water scarcity, and climate-driven migration are all getting worse,” says CELDF’s Education Director Ben Price, who helped draft the law. “Meanwhile, the U.S. is being left behind. For states to take on these issues in the absence of federal action could be a game-changer, as it was for women’s suffrage when the states led the way for years.” The bill would also enshrine the right to a clean and healthy environment for all people and ecosystems within the State, the right to freedom from “toxic trespass,” and would prohibit the monetization of the waters of New York State. This bill is of cross-border interest with Canada since both share the magnificent Great Lakes.

Watch Interview Here

The post Interview on the Great Lakes and NY State Waters Bill of Rights: Does Nature Have Rights? appeared first on CELDF.

In the first part of the program, author and Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund’s education director Ben Price joins the program to talk about his new book, Wouldn’t You Say, A Collection of Essays on Environment and Community. In the book and in our conversation, Ben explains that what we’re seeing today is not a perversion of the promise of America, it’s actually a proof of concept, a continuation of foundational ideologies never meant to protect we, the people, and certainly not to protect the ecosystems of which we are a part. Ben discusses rights of nature not as a legal north star but as a need to shift our thinking about relationships, between ourselves, the law, and empirical reality. Next up, Dr. Kim Wilson and Maya Schenwar join the show to discuss the book which they co-edited, We Grow the World Together: Parenting Toward Abolition. Maya and Kim discuss this multi-generational project which also combines voices from the inside and outside, highlighting the contrasts and connections between the carceral systems of literal and figurative cages, and how prisons are and have been the canaries in the coal mine for the restrictions on our basic rights. They discuss abolition as a tearing down but perhaps even more so of a building up, how kids are integral to the creative imagination necessary for building new worlds, and the emergent possibilities outside of our current death-making system.

Watch Interview with Ben Price Here LISTEN TO THE FULL SHOW HERE Order “Wouldn’t You Say?” Here!

The post Project Censored: Conversations on Environmental Justice, Abolition, and the Future We Build appeared first on CELDF.

Originally posted on REMA’s website 12th March 2025

• El 31 de marzo de 2025 vencen los contratos de ocupación temporal de tierras que tiene la empresa minera Equinox Gold con el ejido de Carrizalillo, Guerrero. Desde 2007, prácticamente el 100% de las parcelas de siembra y un 95% de las tierras de uso común están ocupadas por la actividad minera del proyecto Los Filos.
• Equinox Gold es una empresa canadiense que a inicios de 2025 operaba ocho minas en el continente americano. A finales de febrero anunció la fusión con Calibre Mining, para poder contar con diez operaciones mineras y otra más en vías de construcción en Canadá. Desde 2020, es dueña de Los Filos, mina ubicada en la zona central del estado de Guerrero, México.
• La empresa ha presionado a los ejidatarios de Carrizalillo para que acepten sus condiciones de renegociación. Una de ellas es una reducción de aproximadamente el 63% en el precio de la renta de tierra, así como disminución de las prestaciones sociales.
• En las últimas semanas se han presentado diversas amenazas en contra de los líderes comunitarios de Carrizalillo, quienes han señalado que no están dispuestos a aceptar las condiciones desiguales que busca imponer la empresa.

Más de una docena de líderes comunitarios del ejido de Carrizalillo, familiares y un asesor de la comunidad han recibido amenazas de muerte. Al menos 14 habitantes del ejido que trabajaban en la mina Los Filos han sido amenazados con despedidos injustificados. Otros más han recibido notificaciones de terminación de sus contratos y concesiones por haber participado en un paro de 12 horas frente a una puerta de las instalaciones mineras el día 19 de febrero. Varias de esas notificaciones han llegado acompañadas de textos amenazantes acusando a la comunidad de querer “[atentar] en contra de los intereses de la Empresa […] para infligirle el mayor daño económico posible, y obtener, por la vía de la extorsión beneficios indebidos”.

Estas son algunas de las amenazas y agresiones que han vivido los ejidatarios de Carrizalillo, en el marco de un conflicto provocado por la multimillonaria minera canadiense Equinox Gold, dueña de la mina Los Filos, ubicada en el municipio de Eduardo Neri, en la zona centro del estado de Guerrero, en México.

La empresa minera canadiense lleva semanas presionando a los ejidatarios de Carrizalillo para que acepten sus condiciones de renegociación de los convenios de ocupación temporal de tierras y de cooperación social que la empresa tiene con la comunidad. El próximo 31 de marzo se vence el plazo para la renovación de estos convenios, los cuales son necesarios para que la empresa pueda operar la mina, sobre todo considerando que prácticamente el 100% de su operación estratégica que incluye, patios, piletas, tajos, túneles, talleres, área de fundición y equipo de filtrado, bombeo y trituradoras se encuentran dentro de las tierras del ejido.

La operación minera literalmente envuelve el total del territorio de Carrizalillo. La zona urbana del ejido se encuentra a menos de 400 metros del patio de lixiviación de la mina y entre 900 y 1.5 kilómetros de distancia de la zona de dinamita de los tajos Los Filos y el Bermejal. Las tierras de cultivo, de recolección y pastoreo del ejido están ocupadas en su totalidad por la mina de oro que ha operado en su comunidad desde 2007.

Imagen satelital mina Los Filos 2025. En color lila se muestra el polígono agrario (uso común y parcelas) del ejido de Carrizalillo. Debajo de la imagen al lado izquierdo, se ubica la zona urbana de Carrizalillo que muestra la cercanía de la población con la operación minera.

En 2008, la mina Los Filos entró en operación comercial en manos de la empresa minera canadiense Goldcorp con la compra ilegal de las tierras de uso común del ejido Carrizalillo. Cuando la comunidad se dio cuenta de esta ilegalidad, inició un paro de la operación minera durante 83 días y una acción jurídica en el Tribunal Unitario Agrario de México que ratificó la ilegalidad de la compra de tierras y permitió una mejora en su convenio de ocupación temporal con la empresa. La empresa minera canadiense Leagold compró la mina Los Filos en 2017. En 2020, Equinox Gold adquirió Leagold y la mina Los Filos como parte de esta fusión empresarial. 

Además de la pérdida de su vida como campesinos, los ejidatarios de Carrizalillo han visto desaparecer más de 12 fuentes de agua que la población utilizaba. La comunidad ahora padece la contaminación de las fuentes de agua que quedan y sufren severos daños a la salud. Un estudio comunitario de salud llevado a cabo entre 2012 a 2014 encontró un aumento en enfermedades dentro de la población que se cree están relacionadas con la exposición al arsénico en el agua y metales pesados en el polvo que llega al pueblo desde la mina. Irritación ocular, enfermedades cutáneas, problemas respiratorios, partos prematuros y malformaciones congénitas son algunas de las afectaciones que sufren en forma recurrente los habitantes del ejido.

A principios de febrero de 2025, los representantes del ejido hicieron un llamado para que en la mesa de negociación la empresa dejara de utilizar amenazas y tácticas coercitivas para imponer nuevas condiciones en los contratos. Por ejemplo, la empresa busca recortar un poco más del 63% el precio de la renta de tierra, disminuir las prestaciones sociales y tener convenios por un lapso de 20 años. Desde que la mina abrió, en 2007, las negociaciones de los contratos han sido variables. El primer convenio fue de un año, posteriormente hubo otro de 3 años y desde entonces se mantienen entre 5 y 6 años de vigencia.

El ejido de Carrizalillo ha propuesto que la renta de la tierra corresponda a lo que se obtendría por la producción de maíz, frijol y semilla de calabaza en una hectárea de terreno. La empresa minera rechazó esa propuesta. 

En una carta dirigida al presidente de Equinox Gold, el ejido de Carrizalillo solicitó que en las negociaciones sólo estuvieran presentes los directivos de la empresa canadiense, sin la presencia de funcionarios del estado de Guerrero. Los funcionarios sólo han apoyado a la empresa y no a la comunidad. Los ejidatarios de Carrizalillo también han solicitado que en las negociaciones no se incorpore a otras comunidades que viven a varios kilómetros de distancia de la mina y que no han perdido una sola hectárea de tierras de cultivo. 

La respuesta al llamado de los ejidatarios de Carrizalillo a negociar en condiciones de respeto y sin imposición fue una campaña por redes sociales y por la radiodifusora de la mina, en donde se difunde información falsa y en contra de los representantes del ejido. Esto aunado a otras amenazas que han ido en aumento. Aquí se enumeran algunas de ellas:

• A partir del 23 de febrero, más de una docena de líderes comunitarios, familiares y un asesor de la comunidad han recibido amenazas de muerte a través de medios electrónicos y paquetes de mensajería. El ejido ha hecho responsable a Equinox Gold y sospecha de su gerente de responsabilidad social de Los Filos, el señor Hugo Vergara, de ser el que dirige la campaña de desprestigio en contra del ejido por haber, de forma reiterada, manifestado su desprecio en contra de la representación del ejido.
• El 1 de marzo de 2025, dos altos funcionarios de la empresa Equinox Gold, el señor André Souza de Amorín, Gerente General de Equinox Gold para Los Filos, y señor Armando Fausto Ortega, vicepresidente Senior de Equinox Gold en México, hicieron una visita sorpresa a Carrizalillo reiterando la amenaza de que la mina cerraría si el ejido se negaba a firmar un acuerdo final con la empresa ese día.
• A partir del 3 de marzo de 2025, la empresa empezó a girar notificaciones con la terminación de relación contractual de concesiones a, por lo menos, 25 integrantes del ejido indicando que “se ve en la necesidad de terminar anticipadamente la relación contractual de servicios y Órdenes de Compra”, por participar en una protesta frente la Caseta 4 de la empresa el 19 de febrero. En algunas de estas cartas, la empresa acusa a la comunidad de querer “[atentar] en contra de los intereses de la Empresa […] para infligirle el mayor daño económico posible, y obtener, por la vía de la extorsión beneficios indebidos”. Incluso, los representantes de la empresa entregaron oficios a personas que no estuvieron en esa protesta, pero aseguran que tienen fotografías y testigos, además de llevar a un notario. Eso es una muestra de que la empresa dirige sus ataques a personas concretas del ejido.
• A partir del 9 de marzo de 2025, Equinox Gold empezó a presionar a trabajadores de la Sección Sindical 269 de la mina Los Filos. En pleno horario de operación, la empresa determinó que varios operadores —todos habitantes del ejido Carrizalillo— debían bajar de sus equipos y dejar que operadores de la comunidad de Mezcala tomaran su turno.
•  Había una clara intención de despedir a 14 trabajadores del ejido de Carrizalillo y llamarlos a la oficina para que firmaran su finiquito por despido. 
• La radiodifusora “La Filosita”, que la empresa opera dentro de la mina Los Filos, ha difundido mensajes en las que se acusa a los representantes del ejido de Carrizalillo de obstaculizar los esfuerzos por alcanzar un nuevo acuerdo para la renovación de los contratos, en detrimento de los trabajadores y los niños de la comunidad.
• La empresa también ha amenazado con interponer procesos penales en contra de varios miembros del ejido, pero no hay evidencias concretas de cuáles han sido las causales o delitos incurridos para que ello suceda.
• El ultimátum de la empresa respecto a que «podrá suspender las operaciones indefinidamente o hasta que se establezcan nuevos acuerdos», ha sido publicado por diversos medios. Inclusive, se mencionan los nombres de representantes de la comunidad y se les señala como responsables de la amenaza del cierre de la mina exponiendolos a ellos y a sus familias.
• El 8 de marzo de 2025, la empresa solicitó presentarse en la comisaria del ejido de Carrizalillo para tener una reunión con los representantes ejidales y revisar las cláusulas del convenio social aún vigente. Al encuentro llegó la licenciada Angela Piñeros, del equipo de desarrollo comunitario de la empresa, junto con un notario para hacer entrega del finiquito de los convenios de arrendamiento de parcelas sin que los parcelarios fueran convocados. 

Las amenazas de muerte y la campaña de estigmatización dirigida a representantes del ejido de Carrizalillo también tienen consecuencias al resto de las y los habitantes de la comunidad y representan un acto de violencia psicológica instrumentado por la empresa. La empresa no debe ignorar que las amenazas de muerte que han recibido representantes del ejido están ligadas a la actuación de sus operadores. La empresa tampoco puede hacer caso omiso sobre los actos de violencia que pueda generar su campaña de desinformación y estigmatización en contra del ejido de Carrizalillo.

No es menor que la empresa no tome en cuenta el contexto de violencia sistémica extrema que  enfrenta el estado de Guerrero. Ni que haga a un lado el hecho de que el ejido de Carrizalillo ya ha enfrentado el desplazamiento forzado de la mitad de su población en 2015 y el asesinato de 60 personas  en los últimos 15 años.

La empresa minera canadiense Equinox Gold se creó en 2017, tres años después compró la mina Los Filos, como parte de una agresiva estrategia de crecimiento que involucró la compra de proyectos mineros en Brasil, México, Estados Unidos y Canadá.

En el año 2020, Equinox Gold tenía seis minas en operación, siendo la mina Los Filos la de mayor producción y con mayores reservas de oro, si se compara con todas las demás que opera. A inicios de 2025, ya operaba ocho minas en el continente americano; la mina Greenstone de Ontario, Canadá, ya superó a Los Filos en tamaño. A principios de marzo de 2025, Equinox anunció su fusión con otra empresa minera canadiense, Calibre Mining, para agregar operaciones mineras en Nicaragua y Estados Unidos, y otra más en vías de construcción en Canadá.

La mina Los Filos sigue siendo un activo grande para Equinox Gold: en 2024 sus ingresos significaron el 27% del total de sus operaciones mineras. Además, tiene un potencial de extracción de aproximadamente 5 millones de onzas de oro. Para lograr ese potencial de extracción, la empresa ha señalado que requiere invertir en una nueva planta de procesamiento.

El actual conflicto entre la empresa minera canadiense y la comunidad de Carrizalillo tiene como antecedente el paro de la mina que habitantes del ejido realizaron en septiembre del 2020. Este paro fue por el incumplimiento de la empresa a varias cláusulas del convenio social, relacionadas con la falta de agua potable, el sobreprecio para medicamentos y la escasez de empleos sindicalizados, entre otras.

Al no generarse un espacio de diálogo, espacio que la comunidad buscó por tres meses, los habitantes de Carrizalillo montaron un campamento afuera de la mina, el cual se mantuvo durante meses hasta lograr una modificación al convenio que garantizara su cumplimiento. Sin embargo, hasta ahora, la empresa no cumple con realizar un proyecto que garantice el acceso de agua potable a la comunidad.

Durante ese conflicto, Equinox Gold respondió tachando de criminales las acciones de la comunidad, acusándolos de extorsión y demandándoles en el Tribunal Unitario Agrario. Esta acción se resolvió en mediación después de varios años de litigio. Desde entonces, la empresa ha mantenido una relación tensa con los habitantes del ejido de Carrizalillo: ignoran sus oficios, les estigmatizan y realizan comentarios despectivos sobre las preocupaciones que la comunidad manifiesta.

El ejido de Carrizalillo busca el reinicio de las negociaciones pero un ambiente de respeto, que sea independiente de otras dos comunidades que viven a una distancia considerablemente mayor de la mina y que no han sufrido impactos comparables de sus operaciones, y que también sea independiente de los funcionarios del estado de Guerrero, a quienes han denunciado por presionarles indebidamente en la mesa que en vez de ser de negociación se ha convertido en una mesa de imposición. Asimismo el ejido ha pedido la presencia de funcionarios del gobierno federal para asegurar condiciones favorables de seguridad durante las negociaciones. Si la empresa decide suspender o cerrar la mina, debe entablar conversaciones con la comunidad de Carrizalillo para determinar los planes de cierre adecuados teniendo en cuenta las necesidades de la comunidad.  

Sperrins Gold Mine Inquiry Suspended Transboundary Solidarity for Environmental Justice in Ireland A public inquiry into a major mining project in Northern Ireland was suspended shortly after starting due to breaches in laws protecting public participation. Local communities have resisted the project for over a decade. An all-island solidarity movement is emerging, advocating for environmental justice against the backdrop of global extractive industry pressures. V’cenza Cirefice

Photograph Author’s own (2025)

A Public Inquiry into one of the largest mining applications in Europe, in the Sperrin Mountains, North of Ireland, was suspended only three days after it started on the 15th of January 2025. The project is proposed by Dalradian Gold and local communities have been resisting for over ten years, with Save our Sperrins established in 2014.

International and domestic laws and regulations that protect the right for transboundary participation in such proceedings were breached. The Department for Infrastructure, the body responsible for granting the mining application, failed to comply with their own (EIA) planning regulations, and the Aarhus and Espoo Conventions. These conventions, ratified by the UK government, enshrine the right to public participation in environmental issues.

Currently, the Department for Infrastructure has notified the Government in the South, and a public consultation process began on 26th February that runs until the 23rd of April. Anyone in Ireland can make a submission.

This is the second suspension of the public inquiry which has been full of issues surrounding public participation.

While the Island is sold as one country to the global mining industry and government departments on either side of the border work closely together to facilitate mining, it’s ironic that Northern Ireland’s government departments were found to be acting illegally for failing to consult with the Republic of Ireland, both their government and citizens.

Land and Water Protectors present at the inquiry from the Sperrins, and communities across the border in County Donegal and Country Leitrim, reminded the forum that we live on an Island, and that pollution will not stop at the border. While policies and regulatory systems might recognize borders, river systems, ecosystems and air do not.

Photograph Author’s own (2025)

The well-paid, suited and mainly male civil servants and legal teams supporting the company and the State, argued dry regulatory and legal technicality, devoid of emotion. Not only does this create an intimidatory atmosphere but reflects wider trends where extractive industries are presented as an emotionless and rational sector. The erasure of emotion from accounts of the social impact of extractivism on communities is part of a tactic to make invisible the everyday lived impacts of these projects.

The people of the Sperrins and wider afield who resist extractivism held their own, testament to the upskilling and self-education achieved during this struggle. For these ordinary people there is much at stake – their livelihoods, the very air they breathe, the water they drink and the land they raise their children on.

Mining Playbook: Isolate and Localise

Central to the ways extractive industries operate is the social engineering of communities to manufacture consent- this involves the divide and conquer of communities, buying a social licence to operate by sponsoring community groups or through greenwashing narratives. Such as Dalradian’s claims minerals extracted would be used for renewable energy, claims proven false by the Advertising Standards Agency in 2021.

Research shows that as part of the mining playbook companies aim to localise and isolate their plans. In the Sperrins, company and State work hard to keep this issue local and unconnected to wider communities, ecologies and systems of oppression. This is part of the logic of extractivism that tries to rupture relationships between communities and the more-than-human world.

Social engineering involves subtle manipulation and coercion, one tactic identified is managing the inclusion and exclusion of who is allowed to participate and who is considered a “stakeholder”. The exclusion of most of the Island of Ireland, or any human or non-human community outside the direct vicinity of the mine, is very much in the company’s favour. 

Transboundary resistance for environmental justice

In challenging these tactics and the extractive logics at play, the resistance movement has been building a strong all-island resistance movement. CAIM (communities against the injustice of mining) was set up in 2021 as a grassroots network of communities resisting mining.  Members of CAIM from Leitrim and Donegal were pivotal in highlighting the breaches during the public inquiry, leading to its suspension.

Strong international solidarity networks have also been fostered with hundreds of frontline communities around the world, including the Zapatistas, the Lakota Nation, and many more. Translocal solidarity building moves resistance struggles beyond ethnicity, state and species. This is the case in the Sperrins as the resistance connects with diverse people from around the world beyond the borders of nation-states, while also including the more-than-human world in our kinship.

The horizontal webs of solidarity are central to these experiences. Through CAIM and other all-island solidarity webs of peer-to-peer knowledge are developed. Communities have been building skils and forging collective relationships to resist extractivism. The relationships built through this resistance movement are building on past struggles against extractivism, from anti-fracking movements in Antrim, Fermanagh and Leitrim, and the struggle against Shell in the Shell to Sea movement, County Mayo.

This movement reminds us that not only will the impacts be felt across the Island of Ireland and further afield, but that this project is part of a global push to extract more for the infinitely growing economic system.

Similar solidarity building has been developing on the Iberian Peninsula, between Portugal and Spain, where transboundary anti-mining activism is working to challenge extractive logics and the rush for critical minerals.

What we know is solidarity cannot be contained by borders; this is an international struggle against an industry and system incompatible with well-being and a good life for all.

As green extractivism ramps up across Europe, building these relationships and transboundary solidarities could be key to defending land, communities and life.

Act today:

Sign this petition to ask for more transparency in the process.

Make a submission to the public consultation running until 23rd April 2025

Follow Save our Sperrins online here and here.

 

This article was originally published in Rundale –  a new Irish media platform sharing critical left analysis and collaborative writing on contemporary socio-economic, political and environmental issues, with an all-island focus.