News Feeds

The Trump administration has announced what it is calling “a major step forward” in the fight against a class of toxic chemicals called PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Extended exposure to PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they can persist indefinitely in the environment, has been linked to various cancers, autoimmune diseases, and other harms.

On Monday, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lauded Donald Trump as the first president who is “completely committed” to removing forever chemicals, which are found at unsafe levels in tap water in some 80 percent of congressional districts and lurk in the blood of 97 percent of Americans. 

But what Kennedy considers a step forward looks like a big step back to most of those who have long kept an eye on the issue. That’s because the Trump administration is unraveling key parts of the PFAS limits approved by Joe Biden’s administration in 2024, which are the first and only regulations to put limits on PFAS in drinking water in the nation’s history. Restrictions on four substances in the PFAS class would be rescinded entirely, while water utilities would be given two additional years to comply with limits for two other substances. The Environmental Protection Agency first signaled its intention to make these changes last year, just a few months after Trump took office. The changes will be finalized after a 60-day public comment period expires. 

Secretary Kennedy, who is known for his pledge to “Make America Healthy Again,” turned attention instead to the EPA’s recent announcement of $1 billion in grant funding for small and disadvantaged communities to detect and eliminate PFAS. “We have a president who has made a greater financial commitment than any president in U.S. history,” Kennedy said. But the commitment was not exactly Trump’s to make: The $1 billion comes from an appropriation made by Congress in 2021, when Joe Biden was president. 

PFAS has been used in a wide variety of products, including industrial firefighting foams, for decades. As evidence of health harms linked to these substances has mounted, many manufacturers have developed new types of PFAS that have comparatively shorter lifespans. But this new generation of chemicals, of which there are thousands of members, may also cause adverse health impacts.

“The Biden administration had at least set health protective limits for six of these chemicals out of the literally thousands that have been registered for use in the marketplace,” said John Rumpler, clean water director for the environmental advocacy nonprofit Environment America. “Now the EPA is walking back from even that small step toward protecting our drinking water.” 

On Monday, the administration tried to rationalize the proposed roll backs by saying that Biden-era PFAS limits were approved in a rush that would have made them vulnerable to ongoing legal challenges. Water utilities and chemical companies have sued the EPA over its PFAS rules, arguing that the regulations are procedurally flawed, financially onerous, and require compliance on timelines that are too tight. 

But the EPA has itself sought to undermine the limits since Trump took office last year, asking a federal appeals court to summarily vacate Biden-era restrictions on four types of PFAS last fall. The EPA has since stopped defending the standards in court. 

“This is about being realistic,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said at an event alongside Kennedy on Monday. “A deadline you cannot physically meet is not a public health protection.” He pointed to the fact that technology capable of removing the chemicals is improving and may eventually bring costs down for utilities burdened by the price of removing PFAS from tap water. 

In a statement provided to Grist, the EPA said that “the previous administration’s rule set deadlines many water systems simply could not meet — risking costly violations that punish communities without removing a single part per trillion from anyone’s tap.”

So far, the EPA has offered little in the way of a regulatory substitute for the limits it is removing. “I don’t think there’s anything new here,” said Jared Thompson, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental protection group that is one of several groups defending the Biden-era limits in ongoing litigation brought by chemical companies.

“It seems like they have largely adopted the positions of the chemical industry challengers and the water industry challengers who are saying that these standards are not appropriate,” he added. 

Zeldin asserted that the EPA is going to “do it right” this time, and the EPA’s statement to Grist said that “it is entirely possible the result will be more stringent requirements” once the four PFAS substances whose limits are being rescinded are reviewed a second time.

But some outside experts think Zeldin is already doing it wrong. The Safe Drinking Water Act, which Congress passed in 1974, has a provision that states that the EPA can’t weaken drinking water standards once they’ve been set.

“There are going to be legal challenges,” said Richard L. Revesz, dean emeritus at the New York University School of Law and former administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under Biden. “They’ll have to give reasons and those reasons are very likely to be inadequate.” 

Editor’s note: The Natural Resources Defense Council is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

toolTips('.classtoolTips12','An acronym for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS are a class of chemicals used in everyday items like nonstick cookware, cosmetics, and food packaging that have proven to be dangerous to human health. Also called “forever chemicals” for their inability to break down over time, PFAS can be found lingering nearly everywhere — in water, soil, air, and the blood of people and animals.
');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump’s EPA vows to fight ‘forever chemicals’ by loosening regulations on May 20, 2026.

Before he became prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney was perhaps one of the world’s biggest supporters of the idea that climate action was good business. He led the clean energy investment fund for Brookfield, one of the world’s largest financial firms, and founded a global alliance of bankers and politicians who wanted to channel their resources toward green energy. When he took over from outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, many expected that he would follow the previous Liberal leader’s ambitious climate agenda, which included taxing fossil fuels and subsidizing clean technology. 

But just like in Carney’s beloved sport of hockey, momentum in the climate world can change fast. In the year since he took over, Carney has unveiled a suite of new policies to gut Canada’s ambitious climate regulations and support the country’s powerful fossil fuel industry. This reversal reached a climax last week when he struck a deal with the province of Alberta to prop up its tar sands oil industry and vowed to expand the country’s power grid through the use of natural gas.

Carney is pitching the reversal as a political and economic necessity. Canada is facing the prospect of a severe economic downturn as a result of President Donald Trump’s disruptive trade agenda, and a group of conservatives in Alberta are waging a campaign to secede from Canada altogether. He has claimed that the country can achieve economic security by investing in oil and gas production while still making progress toward reducing its own carbon emissions.

“It will be an opportunity to accelerate the energy transition across Canada, and it’s also an opportunity for Canada to be a reliable supplier for partners across the globe, and to do so in a manner that makes Canada more prosperous and independent,” said Carney in announcing the strategy. 

The reversal reveals a stark truth about the direction of global climate action: Despite the rapid deployment of clean energy, even countries and politicians once seen as climate leaders are turning to fossil fuels to protect against the turmoil of Trump’s trade disputes and the war in Iran. 

But Carney’s new strategy doesn’t seem to have pleased anyone. Major oil producers and conservatives in Alberta are still pressuring Carney for further concessions, and a broad spectrum of left-wing politicians and civil society groups have condemned it as short-sighted. The critics argue that doubling down on fossil fuel exports is the wrong move at a time when the rest of the world may be shifting away from them.

“The problem is we’re defaulting back to what Canada’s known how to do in the past, rather than what the world’s going to need in the future,” said Simon Donner, a climate scientist at the University of British Columbia who served as chair of the federal government’s climate policy advisory board until he resigned late last year. 

Carney has already rolled back several of Trudeau’s climate initiatives. He scrapped Canada’s federal electric vehicle mandate and eliminated the country’s unpopular consumer carbon tax, which added a surcharge on gas stations and power bills. The one major policy he left alone was the “industrial carbon price,” which charges polluters a fee for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit. The nation’s biggest emitters are multinational oil and gas companies, which produce sticky crude from the massive tar sands fields in Alberta; the oil sector produces about 30 percent of Canada’s emissions, more than buildings or cars.

Canada and Alberta have a mutual dependence. Oil makes up more than 15 percent of Canada’s export volume, and Alberta’s oil wealth makes it a net contributor to the federal budget. Under the Canadian constitution, provinces have control over natural resources, and Alberta leaders have long viewed the industrial carbon tax as a threat to their sovereignty. But the oil industry in Alberta needs help from the Liberal government, too. The inland province is producing more oil than it can sell, and the industry’s future growth depends on building another pipeline to the Pacific Ocean, which needs federal support. (The existing pipeline to the Pacific is nearing capacity. Oil producers are also seeking to build new pipelines to the United States.)

Last week, Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith unveiled a “grand bargain” meant to resolve this conflict: Carney removed a proposed hard cap on carbon emissions from the oil sector, and in exchange Alberta agreed to support a long-term increase in carbon prices. The federal government will also expedite permitting for a new Pacific Coast pipeline, while oil producers agreed to build a massive carbon capture system that would offset emissions from oil drilling.

Climate advocates in Canada say the final deal is toothless, and makes major concessions to the oil and gas industry. The deal will lower the headline price of the industrial carbon tax and slow down the rate of the price increase by three-quarters, whereas Carney had at first proposed to tighten the price. The proposed carbon capture project has also shrunk to a fraction of its original size, and the oil industry hasn’t agreed to it yet.

“It would have been a big enough motivator to find those emissions cuts, but it wouldn’t have jeopardized the possibility of oil and gas companies making money,” said Julia Levin, the associate director for national climate policy at the nonprofit Environmental Defence. She noted that under the previous framework, the per-barrel cost of the carbon tax comes out to the price of a Timbit, the Canadian equivalent of a Munchkin donut hole: about 50 cents. Now, she says, “the companies don’t have to do anything at all for 15 years.” 

A Syncrude oil sands mining facility near Fort McKay, Alberta. Prime Minister Mark Carney is relying on oil produced in Alberta to help Canada weather the economic turbulence of President Trump’s trade war. Ed Jones / AFP via Getty Images

Even early news of a potential deal triggered a revolt within Carney’s own party, leading to the resignation of his climate minister, Steven Guilbeault, as well as two members of the government’s independent climate advisory panel. But the industry isn’t satisfied, either. The chief executive of the Canadian oil company Cernovus said last week he doesn’t think the country should have a carbon price at all, saying it “doesn’t incent us to decarbonize,” and some producers have said they still worry about making money even under the loose regulations. A leader of the Alberta separatist campaign said the deal only made him more convinced the province needs to leave Canada.

Richard Masson, a longtime oil sands executive who has worked for Shell and the government of Alberta, said that companies should see the carbon tax as the price of doing business in a country where most voters want some action on climate change.

“The producers will probably take a little bit less return, but in the world we’re in, there’s enough money to go around,” he said. “You’re saying, ‘I’m going to spend a premium on this to prevent having the world turn its back on me.’”

Masson also said that the ultimate climate impact of the deal depends on whether a pipeline to the Pacific actually comes together. Carney has already eased environmental permitting laws to make it easier, and last month he created a $25 billion development fund that could help pay for construction. But there is still no private company that has come forward to build it, and a number of First Nations tribes with treaty rights on the Pacific coast have rejected the idea. 

“No offer of equity or ownership will change our position, and no proponent is acceptable to us,” said Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations, in response to the pipeline plan. First Nations have ironclad consultation rights under British Columbia provincial law, and securing a pipeline without tribal agreement will be impossible.

Even so, in what seemed to be a further embrace of fossil fuels for economic security, Carney also unveiled a “national electricity strategy” at the same time as the Alberta deal. This strategy seeks to double the size of Canada’s grid by 2050 through investments in renewable energy and a new network of transmission lines connecting the provinces. But it also calls for natural gas to have a major role on Canada’s future power grid, even though the country has made major investments in zero-carbon power and gets most of its electricity from hydropower dams and nuclear reactors. 

Here again, the Carney government framed the decision as a necessary step toward geopolitical resilience. The strategy claims that “Canada’s economic growth and long-term competitiveness will depend on its ability to attract and retain investment in high-growth, electricity-intensive sectors, including artificial intelligence … liquid natural gas export facilities, mining, and critical minerals.”

Underlying all these moves is the assumption that fossil fuels will provide protection against economic uncertainty. As long as Canada can extract and export natural resources, it will be able to balance its budgets and keep its citizens safe. But despite Carney’s reputation as a shrewd central banker, critics of his government view the prime minister’s new strategy as short-sighted — Carney is pinning his economic hopes on the sale of a commodity that the world is starting to abandon.

“This is the sort of decision that they’re probably happy about today, and we will look back in 10 years and think, ‘What the hell were we doing?’” said Donner, the former chair of the government’s climate advisory board.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Once a climate leader, Canada is now doubling down on oil on May 20, 2026.

The end of South Litchfield Beach is a sprawling spit of sand, where tides and waves combine to create a wide beach that is popular with people and nesting birds. So Robert...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: May 19, 2026
Contact: Anja Semanco | anja@alaskawild.org | 724-967-2777 

Alaska Wilderness League Condemns Nomination of Steve Pearce to Lead Bureau of Land Management 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In response to yesterday’s nomination of former Congressman Steve Pearce to serve as Director of the Bureau of Land Management Alex Cohen, director of government affairs at Alaska Wilderness League, issued the following statement: 

“Time and again, this administration has shown it will go to extremes to sell off Alaska’s iconic public lands to private interests, from buying stakes in foreign mining companies to opening up every acre possible for development,” said Alex Cohen, government affairs director at Alaska Wilderness League. “Public lands belong in public hands, and Steve Pearce’s tenure in Congress — where he repeatedly demonstrated his opposition to protecting our public lands — makes him the wrong man for the top job at the BLM. We urge the Senate to reject his nomination this week, and we’ll oppose every effort he would bring to give away our wildest places if he’s confirmed.” 

The Bureau of Land Management oversees roughly 245 million acres of public lands across the United States, including critical landscapes in Alaska that are central to subsistence traditions, wildlife habitat, recreation, and climate resilience. 

During his time in Congress, Pearce built a record closely aligned with extractive industry interests, repeatedly supporting expanded drilling and mining on public lands while opposing conservation protections and climate action. His nomination comes as the administration intensifies efforts to dismantle protections across Alaska, including renewed attempts to expand drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, weakening protections for the Western Arctic, and rolling back protections for the Tongass National Forest. 

### 

The Salt and Gila Rivers flow through central Arizona, providing water supplies to communities, Tribes, agriculture, and industry –and connecting people to nature. This river corridor also...

Legal Fellow

Location: Salt Lake City, Utah (on-site, full-time, exempt)
Salary Range: $70,000-$78,000, commensurate with experience
Application Deadline: June 15, 2026

Download the Legal Fellow Job Description as a PDF

About the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is the only nonprofit organization working full-time to protect Utah’s redrock wilderness—some of the most spectacular public lands in America. Since 1983, SUWA’s staff, board, and members have worked to defend this landscape from threats like fossil fuel development, unnecessary road construction, and destructive off-road vehicle use. With offices in Salt Lake City, Moab, and Washington, DC, and tens of thousands of supporters across the country, SUWA has secured lasting protections for more than 5.5 million acres of wild public lands.

Our mission is to preserve the outstanding wilderness at the heart of the Colorado Plateau and ensure these lands remain in their natural state for the benefit of all. We are committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion in our work and in our organization, knowing that the redrock is for everyone.

Position Summary

The legal fellow is a 2-year litigation position that will focus on defense of Utah’s wildest federal public lands. SUWA’s litigation docket includes cases involving national monuments, off-road vehicles, Quiet Title Act (R.S. 2477), energy development, and vegetation removal. The legal fellow works closely with other program staff in SUWA’s Salt Lake and Moab offices and is supervised by the legal director.

 Qualifications

• 1-3 years of relevant experience, including familiarity with federal public land, environmental, and administrative law statutes and regulations.
• Demonstrated interest in environmentalism or conservation—passion for wilderness and public lands preferred.
• Excellent time management, analytical, legal research, and writing skills.
• Ability to handle a substantial workload that will, at times, require working nights and weekends.
• Commitment to wilderness preservation and SUWA’s mission.
• Utah Bar Licensure: (1) Utah bar membership, or (2) the ability to transfer UBE score; or (3) be admitted by motion

Location, Compensation & Benefits

• Location: SUWA’s Salt Lake City Office. We work a hybrid schedule with at least 3 days per week in the office.
• Salary range: $70,000-$78,000, commensurate with experience.
• Comprehensive benefits package including health, dental, vision, retirement contributions, and general leave policies; details can be found online at suwa.org/careers

Application Process

Please submit a cover letter, resume, law school transcript, 3-5 page writing sample, and 3 references to Steve Bloch, Legal Director, at hiring@suwa.org.

Application deadline: June 15, 2026

The lands SUWA works to protect are the ancestral homelands of many Tribes, including those that were forcibly removed at the hands of the U.S. government in an effort to exterminate their cultures, languages, and ways of life. These injustices are still felt today, but the quest to erase the Tribes failed: Indigenous communities continue their traditions and remain an integral part of the landscape and our community. We are committed to working toward understanding this history; to expanding present-day common ground, collaboration, and reconciliation with our Tribal neighbors; and to advocating that Tribes receive a seat at the table when others would exclude them.

SUWA is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate in hiring or employment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, age, disability, veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by federal, state, or local law.

The post Now Hiring: Legal Fellow (Salt Lake City) appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Grand Staircase-Escalante Remains in the Spotlight

 

For months now, the fight to protect Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument’s management plan has been the number one priority at SUWA. Senator Lee and Representative Maloy are seeking to undo the plan using the Congressional Review Act (additional background can be found here) and their efforts may soon be coming to a head: we’re anticipating a vote in either the House or the Senate during the first two weeks of June.

If both chambers of Congress pass the measure by simple majority votes, the plan will be undone and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be barred from issuing another plan that is “substantially the same” in the future. Thanks to the Protect Wild Utah movement, opposition is growing nationwide—conveyed through phone calls, in-district meetings, letters to the editor, DC fly-ins, and so much more—and we know members of Congress are getting the message! 

Here are a few recent materials we wanted to highlight:

• Executive Director Scott Braden has a piece—Congress is gunning for a National Monument in Utah—in Writers on the Range.
• Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert wrote an op-ed for the Salt Lake Tribune (which no longer has a paywall!)
• The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has issued a statement in opposition to use of the CRA.
• Over 150 scientists joined a sign-on letter in opposition, garnering stories in the Salt Lake Tribune, Outside, and other outlets.
• SUWA launched a “Love for GSE” Storymap of art inspired by the monument (and we’re still accepting submissions)

We’ll be in touch as soon as we know more about the vote timing. No matter where you live, our Grassroots Organizing Team can help you find the most effective ways to take action. Click here to learn more.

Photo © Jeff Foott

Speak Up for the San Rafael Swell and Desert!

 

Utah’s San Rafael Swell and San Rafael Desert are home to irreplaceable cultural and historic resources, important wildlife habitat, and unmatched recreation opportunities, including destinations such as Mexican Mountain, Buckhorn Draw, Tomsich Butte, Sweetwater Reef, designated wilderness areas, and the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area. Unfortunately, Trump’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering substantially expanding damaging off-road vehicle use across these unique landscapes.

As a refresher, the BLM completed travel management plans for these two regions in 2022 and 2024. Those plans were far from ideal, designating hundreds of miles of new motorized vehicle routes at the expense of natural and cultural resources as well as non-motorized recreationists. Now the BLM is planning to go even further with a proposal to open hundreds of miles of additional off-road vehicle routes in its latest quest to transform quiet, wild places into motorized playgrounds.

The agency is accepting public comments through Monday, June 8. While the comment deadline is the same for each plan, they are being analyzed separately. Please follow the link below to submit comments, especially if you have first-hand knowledge of one or both landscapes.

>> Click here to submit your comments by June 8.

Photo © Ray Bloxham/SUWA

Tell BLM: No Active Airstrip in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness!

 

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Price field office is proposing to authorize aircraft takeoffs and landings in the Labyrinth Canyon Wilderness by designating the unauthorized Keg Knoll backcountry airstrip as open for aircraft use. The airstrip is located on the west side of Labyrinth Canyon and north of Canyonlands National Park.

While the Wilderness Act gives the BLM some discretion to allow (or prohibit) continued use at airstrips that were legally established prior to wilderness designation, it does not allow the agency to authorize aircraft use when the airstrip was not legally open prior to the wilderness designation. That’s the situation here. And there are plenty of backcountry airstrips throughout Utah that don’t impact designated wilderness areas (only around 4% of BLM land in Utah is designated wilderness).

The BLM is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) and intends to issue a decision soon. Please follow the link below to submit comments as soon as possible. At the Trump administration’s direction, the agency is not planning to release a draft EA to the public or hold a formal public comment period.

>> Click here to submit comments now

Photo © Ray Bloxham/SUWA

Proposed Plan for San Rafael Swell Recreation Area Favors Development, ORV Dominance 

 

Last week, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the final environmental assessment and proposed resource management plan (RMP) amendment for the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area and surrounding region. You may recall that this 117,000-acre recreation area was established under the 2019 Dingell Act, along with 663,000 acres of BLM wilderness and other conservation designations.

The BLM is required to update its management plan for each of the new designations. Unfortunately, for the recreation area, it’s choosing to reverse course and emphasize off-road vehicle use and extractive development over conservation. This includes removing over 12,000 acres of natural areas (wilderness-quality lands managed to protect their wilderness values), eliminating commonsense recreation management and resource protection requirements, and reducing or eliminating Areas of Critical Environmental Concern outside of designated wilderness.

“We’re disappointed that BLM, at the behest of the Trump administration, squandered this opportunity to set out a proactive, comprehensive vision for resource protection and recreation management in the incredible San Rafael Swell and instead focused its energy and limited resources on rolling back existing protections to allow for more development and off-road vehicle abuse,” said SUWA Wildlands Director Neal Clark.

>> Read our full statement

Photo © Ray Bloxham/SUWA

DC Update: The Good, Bad, and Ugly News from this Month

The Bad: Senate Confirms Steve Pearce as BLM Director. Yesterday, by a vote of 46–43 the U.S. Senate confirmed anti-public lands politician and former U.S. Representative Steve Pearce (R-NM) as the next director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

“Today’s vote is disappointing,” said SUWA DC Director Travis Hammill. “Anyone who cares about the future of public lands, national monuments, or the redrock knows that Steve Pearce has fundamentally disqualifying views—such as opposing the very existence of public lands—and should not hold the position of Director of the Bureau of Land Management.” >> Read our full statement 

The Ugly: Trump Interior Department Rescinds Public Lands Rule. We’ve known for a while that this was coming, and last week the BLM’s Public Lands Rule (aka the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule) was officially rescinded. Responding to the news, SUWA Legal Director Steve Bloch said, “The Public Lands Rule reiterated that the BLM had to put conservation on equal footing with other uses and laid out a framework for the agency to restore degraded landscapes and protect intact public lands for current and future generations. Americans and Utahns widely supported the Rule and we are deeply disappointed to see the Trump administration’s shortsighted effort to undo it. Our work to Protect Wild Utah continues, undeterred.” >> Read our full statement

The Good: House Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition (SEEC) Endorses ARRWA. Earlier this month, the SEEC endorsed 21 member-led bills—and America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act (championed by SEEC member Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-NM-01) is among them! According to the coalition’s May 7 release, “The bills we are endorsing today reiterate that we must protect our nature and wildlife, invest in American science and clean energy innovation, hold polluters and corrupt corporations accountable, and safeguard our communities against rapidly worsening extreme weather fueled by the climate crisis. This is the future that the American people want and deserve.”

>> Please add your support today by asking your members of Congress to cosponsor America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act (or thanking them if they already have!).

The post May 2026 Redrock Report appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

What is the sunscreen filter bemotrizinol? Iris Myers May 19, 2026

For the first time in over 25 years, the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to approve a new sunscreen ultraviolet, or UV, filter for the U.S. market: bemotrizinol, or BEMT. 

It’s a UV filter that since 1999 has been used in sunscreens in other countries, offering greater protection against harmful ultraviolet A, or UVA, rays.

UVA radiation is the sun wavelength that penetrates deepest into the skin, leads to premature skin aging, suppresses the immune system and increases risk of skin cancers, like melanoma. The sunscreens most Americans use do not provide enough UVA protection. 

For decades, Americans have had access to fewer sunscreen ingredients than consumers in Europe and Asia. In some cases the sunscreen sold in the U.S. offers UVA protection that is much worse than the sunscreens sold overseas.

EWG’s own peer-reviewed research found that U.S. sunscreens deliver on average just 24% of the UVA protection implied by their SPF labels. 

But that might be about to change.

Proposal could improve sunscreen options

In late 2025, the FDA proposed to add BEMT to the U.S. list of active ingredients allowed in sunscreens. The proposal allows for use up to 6%.

If the agency finalizes its decision, BEMT will be the first new UV filter approved for the U.S. market in over 25 years. 

BEMT could be widely adopted into sunscreen formulations, since it will be allowed for use in combination with almost all currently approved active ingredients.

The only restriction on using the filter would be a ban on combining it with two other UV filters: para-aminobenzoic acid, or PABA, and trolamine salicylate. In 2019 and again in 2021, the FDA proposed these two filters are not “generally recognized as safe and effective,” or GRASE, for use in sunscreens sold in the U.S.

In the European Union, BEMT is sold by numerous companies under trade names that include Tinosorb® S, Parsol® Shield, AakoSun BEMT, and Escalol™ S. The chemical company CIBA Speciality Chemicals invented the filter and applied for FDA approval in 2005, so it has already had more than two decades of regulatory review. CIBA was acquired by BASF, which manufactures and markets BEMT internationally.

DSM, a pharmaceutical company, has been leading calls for FDA approval of its version of BEMT, sold as PARSOL® Shield. If the FDA finalizes its approval, DSM would have 18 months of marketing exclusivity. 

After that period, other manufacturers would be able to use BEMT in their formulations, which should expand the range of products available to consumers. 

Data submitted to the FDA about products with BEMT at concentrations up to 6%, led the agency to propose the ingredient as safe and effective. 

Similarly, European Union Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety 1999 findings report that at levels up to 10%, BEMT does not irritate the skin and is not associated in animal studies with harm to the reproductive system.

A step forward in UVA protection

The most important use of BEMT would be closing the UVA protection gap that has plagued American sunscreens for decades.

In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs, and the FDA oversees sunscreen safety. The agency said in 2019 and 2021 only two of 16 ingredients on the market – zinc oxide and titanium – are GRASE.

Due to safety concerns, the FDA has flagged PABA and trolamine salicylate as not GRASE. 

The 12 other ingredients on the U.S. market are also not GRASE. But that status is primarily due to insufficient data. The agency has requested additional safety data on these ingredients, although they are still allowed for use in products sold in the U.S.

Problems with existing filters

The best sunscreens are those that provide broad spectrum protection – from both UVA and ultraviolet B, or UVB, rays. 

UVA rays don’t easily burn the skin. But they can cause it to age, suppress the immune system and contribute to the development of skin cancer. 

Zinc oxide and avobenzone are the only two UV filters in U.S. sunscreens today that are effective at reducing UVA rays significantly. 

Avobenzone is chemically unstable and must be paired with other ingredients to prevent it from breaking down in sunlight. Breakdown products of avobenzone have also been shown to cause allergic reactions. 

BEMT solves these problems. According to the FDA review, it provides strong broad-spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB radiation. 

It is more stable in sunlight than avobenzone and – unlike avobenzone – can be combined with zinc oxide to provide greater UVA protection. It also has more safety data than any non-mineral filters on the U.S. market.

Minimal health concerns 

Data suggests that most available non-mineral UV filters may have safety concerns.

The FDA’s proposed approval of BEMT includes extensive scientific review requiring data on absorption into the body and likelihood of irritation and sensitization, as well as animal studies of carcinogenicity and potential to harm reproduction or development. 

Minimal skin absorption 

Documents submitted to the FDA report that BEMT at concentrations up to 6% is minimally absorbed into the body and the amount that does absorb is below the concentration FDA considers to be indicative of systemic exposure after application.   

Compared to the other 12 ingredient chemical filters on the U.S. market, BEMT has robust data for safety and does not absorb into the skin. 

FDA studies in 2019 and 2020 showed that a one-time application of six other chemical actives – oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, avobenzone and octinoxate – were absorbed through the skin at levels above 0.5 nanograms per milliliter, the maximum concentration the FDA says may be found in blood without potential safety concerns. 

One ingredient, oxybenzone, was detected at 258.1 nanograms per milliliter in blood after multiple lotion applications – 515 times the FDA’s threshold of concern. 

No evidence of carcinogenicity 

In a two-year long animal study, BEMT was applied to the skin of rats. The results indicated that BEMT did not cause abnormal, unregulated growth on the skin. This suggests that BEMT is likely not cancer-causing when applied to skin. 

No reproductive harm

The FDA also reviewed a multi-generational reproductive study and concluded that there were no harmful reproductive effects on the rats giving birth or the survival and development of their offspring.

Not irritating

Data submitted to the FDA also included a repeated insult patch test and cumulative irritation patch test, a photo-allergenicity test and a phototoxicity test. Results suggest BEMT was not irritating to the skin. 

More options are still needed

Approving BEMT is a meaningful step forward, but it doesn’t solve every problem with the U.S. sunscreen market.

For over 20 years, companies have submitted some safety data to the FDA in hopes of adding BEMT to the U.S. market. Even with the addition of avobenzone in 1999, the U.S. has been left with fewer options because the FDA’s approval process has been so slow. 

In sunscreens sold in Europe and elsewhere worldwide, BEMT is formulated with other active ingredients that are not approved for use in the U.S.

Sunscreens are often formulated with a mixture of active ingredients and, even with the addition of BEMT, the U.S. sunscreen market, would still lag behind the EU market. 

In the U.S., 16 active ingredients are permitted and in the EU, about 30 filters are available for formulation. 

With a law known as the 2020 CARES Act, the FDA’s rules for over-the-counter drugs were modernized. The law restructured the regulation of all OTC monograph drugs and replaced the legacy rulemaking process with a streamlined administrative order system. This change simplified the regulatory process. 

If the FDA finalizes the addition of BEMT, it’ll be the first new sunscreen active ingredient allowed in the U.S. in nearly 30 years. Other sunscreen companies could also submit applications to allow additional sunscreen ingredients on the market.

But, so far, these manufacturers seem unwilling to produce the safety data that the FDA requests.

Tips for sun safety

• Cover up and wear sunglasses. Shirts, hats, shorts and pants provide the best protection from UV rays. Good shades protect your eyes from UV radiation, which may cause cataracts.
• Find shade or make it. Picnic under a tree, read beneath an umbrella or take a canopy to the beach. Keep infants in the shade, because they are still developing the tanning pigments, known as melanin, that protect skin.
• Wear sunscreen. EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens evaluates the safety and efficacy of SPF-rated products, including sunscreens for recreational use and SPF-rated daily-use moisturizers and lip products. The best ratings are for products that provide broad spectrum protection formulated with ingredients that pose fewer health concerns when absorbed by the body. 
• Look for EWG Verified®. Consumers can also shop for EWG Verified sunscreens, making it easier to find products that are safer and effective.

Areas of Focus Cosmetics Sunscreen Household & Consumer Products Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. David Andrews, Ph.D. May 19, 2026

‘Balcony solar’ bill to cut energy costs clears California Senate Anthony Lacey May 19, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group applauds California’s Senate for passing a bill today that would let residents install small, portable “balcony solar” systems in apartments, condos and single-family homes, bringing them relief from sky-high electricity bills.

Senate Bill 868, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, cleared the Senate in a 35-1 vote, with four abstensions. It now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network.

“EWG commends the Senate for advancing this proposal, a major step forward for energy affordability and consumer choice,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. 

A 400-watt balcony solar system can cut monthly utility bills for the average apartment dweller by up to $250 per year. Small balcony solar systems start at $500 today, but broader adoption enabled by SB 868 could drive prices down and give renters and low-income households more access to clean energy. 

“These systems are simple, practical and proven. They give people the ability to plug into clean energy savings immediately,” said Del Chiaro.

Balcony solar systems are as simple as plugging in a toaster or other electrical appliance at home. But red tape means the systems aren’t widely used. SB 868 would eliminate those barriers.

“We strongly encourage the Assembly to promptly take up and pass the balcony solar bill, ensuring that as we head into a hot summer, millions of Californians can look forward to having access to this technology and begin to see meaningful reductions in their energy bills,” Del Chiaro added.

Consumer-friendly cost-saving tool

California’s electricity rates have climbed dramatically in recent years, leaving the state with some of the nation’s highest energy costs. 

SB 868 would give Californians a practical, consumer-friendly tool to take greater control over their energy bills. System size is capped at 1,200 watts, enough to power everyday appliances like fridges, lights, Wi-Fi routers or an air conditioning unit.

The bill includes strict safety requirements modeled on internationally recognized standards. All systems must be certified by UL, or Underwriters Laboratories, the global independent safety science organization, or an equivalent nationally recognized testing laboratory. 

The legislation also requires that balcony solar systems have automatic shutoff protections that are triggered within seconds if the grid goes down, helping protect utility workers.

Balcony solar is already thriving in Europe, with over 4 million systems installed in Germany alone. But in California, regulatory barriers have kept this technology out of reach for many. 

SB 868 would remove those barriers while establishing statewide safety standards that do not currently exist.

###

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 Energy Renewable Energy California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 19, 2026

by Natalie Al-Shihabi, Conservation Leadership Initiative InternAudubon Florida’s Conservation Leadership Initiative (CLI) grants 25 undergraduate students annually the chance to match with a local...

GUILFORD, Conn. — More than half of Connecticut’s salt marshes have been lost after hundreds of years of human intervention, but there is a growing movement to restore these habitats for the...

It would have been a strange scene to onlookers — all thirty of us out in the field dancing to music from the 70s wearing colorful rain gear while April snow blew sideways. Despite the weather and...

The grid operator’s first 10-year forecast to incorporate small, customer-sited energy storage systems finds considerable uncertainty about their role on a changing grid.

Each summer, young explorers arrive at Audubon’s Rowe Sanctuary ready to discover the wonders of the Platte River ecosystems. From scooping up insects with sweep nets to daily birding adventures to...

For 10 days in the Philippines, environmental advocates from across the world moved through neighbourhoods before sunrise with waste pickers, sorted discarded plastics by hand, observed community composting systems, and studied how ordinary residents are helping to build functioning zero-waste communities. 

This included six environmental organisations from Africa (Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana and Togo.) The experience, participants from Africa say, challenged long-held assumptions about waste management and offered practical lessons that could help African communities confront the growing crisis of plastic pollution.

The Asia-Pacific Zero Waste Academy, co-organised by the Mother Earth Foundation and GAIA Asia Pacific, brought together 36 participants from 12 countries for an intensive training programme on community-level zero-waste implementation. Through workshops, field visits and study tours, participants were exposed to waste segregation systems, reuse and refill models, composting initiatives and material recovery facilities operating across communities in the Philippines.

The programme sought to demonstrate that zero waste “is not just a concept, it is a system we can build”.

Participants engaged directly with waste pickers and community waste workers in barangays such as San Agustin, where they participated in waste collection exercises, monitoring activities, and community education campaigns. They also conducted baseline surveys and observed how local governments and residents collaborate to sustain waste management systems.

Visits to material recovery facilities in Dampalit, Malabon City, San Fernando, and Barangay Malpitic in Pampanga offered practical insights into waste-sorting, recycling, and reduction systems. Attendees later travelled to Dumaguete City for dialogues with members of the Dumaguete Waste Workers Association and the Philippines National Waste Pickers Alliance, where discussions focused on the social and economic dimensions of zero-waste systems.

For End Plastic Pollution, Mazingira Plus, Up Cycle It Ghana, NGO Jeunes Verts Togo, and CODAF, the experience challenged assumptions about what is required to build sustainable waste systems.

Abdalla Mikulu, executive director of Mazingira Plus in Tanzania, said the academy deepened his understanding of how women-led community systems are addressing plastic pollution and organic waste challenges.

“I was especially inspired by the adaptability of reuse and refill models across different local contexts and their role in reducing single-use plastics,” he said. “It reinforced that zero waste systems can be designed to fit both low- and high-income communities through context-specific approaches.”

Participants also undertook Waste Assessment and Brand Audits (Waba), sorting through discarded packaging to trace patterns of production and consumption. The exercise examined how single-use packaging travels across borders into local communities and highlighted the structural systems driving plastic pollution.

The academy concluded with “The Great Challenge”, during which participants designed practical zero waste implementation plans. The African participants presented a model for implementing a zero waste system in a community in Togo, focusing on reuse, refill systems and organic waste management.

Nirere Sadrach, founder of End Plastic Pollution Uganda, described the programme as an opportunity to gain practical knowledge that could strengthen zero-waste projects in Uganda.

“It was an opportunity to experience the practice of waste segregation, reuse, refill and composting, and to work with waste pickers and community leaders to ensure the functionality of the zero waste model,” he said.

For Melody Enyinnaya of CODAF Nigeria, the academy marked “a paradigm shift”.

“Witnessing communities in Malabon, San Fernando and Siquijor living proof that zero waste is not a distant ideal but an achievable, everyday reality, powered by strong legislation, community ownership and remarkably simple infrastructure, has completely transformed how I approach our work in Nigeria,” she said.

She argued that African countries require “stronger political will, better data, and communities that are trusted and empowered to lead” rather than expensive technologies.

Frank Sekyere of Upcycle It Ghana said the programme demonstrated that adopting zero waste approaches was “a necessary step towards a sustainable future”.

“The hands-on experience, particularly with the 10 steps to zero waste implementation, was truly eye-opening,” he said. “Every effort, no matter how small, plays a vital role in creating a cleaner, more sustainable world.”

Raissa Oureya of the NGO Jeunes Verts Togo said the academy demonstrated that zero-waste communities can be built with locally available resources and strong local leadership.

“I am returning motivated and full of energy to implement the zero waste project in my municipality, Golfe 4,” she said. “Zero waste is not perfect, but it’s possible.”

ENDS.

The post “Zero waste is possible”: GAIA Africa Members return from Philippines with lessons for tackling waste pollution first appeared on GAIA.

Editor's note: Conservation along the Platte River is a collaborative effort, and Rowe Sanctuary works closely with many partners to work towards our habitat and landscape goals.  This month, we...

Nebraska is the home of Arbor Day, established in 1874 to promote tree-planting; an effort that has since spread across the country with great success.  It is ironic, then, land managers along...

On Monday and Tuesday, Paris hosted the G7 Finance Ministers’ meeting, bringing together finance ministers and central bank governors from some of the world’s most powerful economies, alongside counterparts from Brazil, India, Kenya, South Korea, Ukraine, Syria, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. But behind the diplomatic pageantry,and despite the G7’s call for innovative financial instruments to urgently address overlapping crises,French host Roland Lescure squandered a major opportunity.

While fossil fuel companies raked in billions in profits in the first quarter of 2026 amid the South-West Asia conflict, campaigners at 350.org condemn the French G7 presidency’s glaring inaction on windfall and excess profits taxes targeting the oil and gas industry.

Fanny Petitbon, 350 France Country Manager, said:

“France has built its G7 presidency on the bold promise to use this forum as a lever to reinforce economic security in times of crisis and to respond to the legitimate concerns of citizens. But fine words ring hollow. When it comes to taxing the obscene profits recently made by oil and gas corporations, Paris chose complete silence. Not a single word appeared in the final communiqué.

Once again, the interests of a powerful minority are being protected. Companies like TotalEnergies, which boast of their so-called foresight while doing little more than speculating on war and human suffering, have cashed in billions,while families around the world pay the price at the pump and on their energy bills.

The G7’s initiative to expand insurance coverage for people and countries experiencing extreme weather events is welcome. But without turning off the fossil fuel tap and forcing the biggest polluters to foot the bill, climate finance risks becoming little more than taxpayers cleaning up a mess that oil giants are still being paid to create.

President Macron has positioned himself as a global leader on climate and economic justice. Yet this silence tells a very different story. Is this really the legacy he wants to leave in his final G7 presidency? The Leaders' Summit, to be held in Évian from June 15 to 17, is the last chance to course-correct and finally choose people over profit.”

Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline.

Does electromagnetic radiation from wind turbines pose a threat to human health?

Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from wind turbines are well below international exposure safety limits.

Wind turbines produce EMFs mainly from their electrical equipment. Multiple studies have found their strength to be lower than everyday exposure to many common household appliances, such as microwaves and vacuum cleaners.  

In a field study at a Canadian wind farm, average magnetic fields at the base of operating turbines were around 0.1 microtesla (µT) and dropped to background levels within 2 meters. Turbines under high wind and low wind conditions emitted equivalent levels of radiation. Another 2020 study found wind turbines produced under 0.1 µT at 4 meters distance.

For comparison, an electric can opener measures about 60 µT at 6 inches but 0.2 µT at 4 feet. International guidelines set a safety reference level of 100 µT at 50 Hz, far above the turbine measurements reported in field studies.

Go to full rebuttal on Skeptical Science or to the fact brief on Gigafact

This fact brief is responsive to quotes such as this one.

Sources

Environmental Health Measuring electromagnetic fields (EMF) around wind turbines in Canada: is there a human health concern?

Radiation Protection Dosimetry EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE MEASUREMENT IN THE VICINITY OF WIND TURBINES

World Health Organization Radiation: Electromagnetic fields

Frontiers in Human Health Wind Turbines and Human Health

Columbia Law School Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles

Please use this form to provide feedback about this fact brief. This will help us to better gauge its impact and usability. Thank you!

About fact briefs published on Gigafact

Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer "yes/no" answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact — a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all of our published fact briefs here.

“Who remembers the four rules?” I ask, holding up my ready-to-count fist to the group of toddlers, preschoolers, and parents gathered for this week's Nature Playgroup. “Scoop them!” one...