Minnesota is the site of a high-profile drinking-water contamination case linked with so-called forever chemicals and advocates are hopeful residents will be protected in the future by a new national standard announced Wednesday.

The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a final rule which, for the first time, sets a legally enforceable drinking-water benchmark for PFAS chemicals all states will have to follow. Scientists have been highlighting health risks with more detection of PFAS in everyday products and water sources.

Avonna Starck, state director for Clean Water Action, said requiring near-zero levels sends a strong message.

"We've been hearing from polluters that it's too hard, it's too expensive, it's not feasible to stop using these chemicals," Starck pointed out. "This standard really said, 'No, actually this is something that we're gonna do, this is something that we can do.'"

There is some concern from operators of public water systems, who fret about costs to update facilities. However, officials noted there is federal funding to help with the transition. Minnesota recently adopted its own PFAS law, which emphasizes product bans, following a 2018 settlement with manufacturer 3M over claims its production of PFAS chemicals damaged drinking water and natural resources.

The subsequent state law was named in honor of Amara Strande, who died last year from cancer her family believes is linked to the toxic chemical waste from 3M. Her sister Nora said the new federal standard for drinking water is welcome news.

"PFAS is in the air, it's in the water, it's in our products, it's in our land," Strande outlined. "We need to work on this on multiple levels."

Under the new rule, the EPA estimated between 6% and 10% of 66,000 public drinking water systems around the U.S. may have to take action to reduce PFAS. All of them have three years to complete initial monitoring. If levels exceed the new standards, the systems must take corrective action within five years.


get more stories like this via email

Missouri may, at one time, have had a reputation as the "meth-lab capital of the country" - but a five-part podcast uncovers its true history.

"Home Cooked: A Fifty-Year History of Meth in America" delves into the relationship of methamphetamine use with broader drug policies and social and cultural ramifications.

Reporter Olivia Weeks with The Daily Yonder, who produced and hosts the podcast, said meth use was once associated with rural areas, but that assumption is inaccurate. Weeks said Missouri fought back against its meth-lab reputation.

"They policed their meth-lab problem really strongly, and had really high lab bust numbers and then those have basically disappeared," she said. "But now, the rest of the country is dealing with this problem that was associated with Missouri."

In the podcast, she explains that most of the methamphetamine entering the United States comes through commercial points of entry, hidden in legal shipping containers, rather than being smuggled across the border by individuals.

Weeks said the real dangers of meth result in part from it being outlawed. She explained that even when it was a prescription drug in the 1950s and '60s, there was illegal use - but at least it was made by pharmaceutical companies. Once methamphetamine became illegal, she said, the lack of control over its production has led to environmental damage and dangerous chemical processes being attempted in home labs.

"The main problem, main danger of using methamphetamine is that you don't know what's in it," she said, "and you don't know what dose you're taking."

She acknowledged the pharmaceutical industry's history of exploiting addictive drugs, and cautioned against a simple solution such as decriminalizing or legalizing meth use. Instead, she said, her research has prompted her to support harm-reduction strategies that keep users safe.

This story was produced with original reporting by Olivia Weeks for The Daily Yonder.

Nonorganic fruits and vegetables are loaded with chemical pesticides, including fungicides which can harm male reproductive systems, according to the 2024 Shoppers Guide to Pesticides in Produce.

Alexa Friedman, senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group, explained food is the primary way most people in Wyoming and across the nation are exposed to pesticides, which have been linked to a number of negative health outcomes.

"Things like cardio metabolic disorders, different types of diabetes, as well as some cancers," Friedman outlined. "If you are exposed to multiple pesticides over the course of a lifetime they might lead to a greater risk in any of these health outcomes."

Conventionally-grown strawberries top this year's Dirty Dozen list, followed by spinach, kale and collard and mustard greens, grapes, peaches, pears, nectarines, apples, bell and hot peppers, cherries, blueberries and green beans.

Fungicides, which can be endocrine disrupters and harm human hormone systems, are often applied after harvest to keep produce mold-free on its way to market. Most of the produce tested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture fell within the legal allowance for pesticide residue but Friedman argued "legal" does not necessarily mean "safe."

"Even if the amount of pesticides are within legal limits on these produce, it doesn't mean it's safe for everyone, particularly susceptible populations like children," Friedman stressed.

The shopper's guide also includes the Clean Fifteen, a list of fruits and vegetables with very low or no pesticide residues. Organic avocados, sweet corn and pineapple top the list.

Friedman encouraged people to continue to eat as many fruits and vegetables as possible, organic or conventional, due to their nutritional value compared with highly processed foods.

"We always recommend continuing to consume fruits and vegetables, and to up your fruit and vegetable intake," Friedman pointed out. "If you are interested in purchasing organic versions of the produce that's on the Dirty Dozen, there are also some more budget friendly options in the frozen aisles."


get more stories like this via email

A coalition of advocacy groups has helped defeat a bill in the Idaho Legislature which would have given the pesticide industry blanket immunity from liability lawsuits.

The Pesticide Immunity Bill, Senate Bill 1245, was defeated 15-to-19 Friday by the Republican-controlled state Senate. The coalition was led by the Idaho Conservation League and included the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association and the Idaho Association of Resource Councils.

Jonathan Oppenheimer, governmental relations director for the Idaho Conservation League, said the motivation for them was consumer protection.

"We're not coming at this from a perspective of 'pesticides shouldn't be used,'" Oppenheimer explained. "We're coming at this from a perspective of, 'there should be justice for those who may be harmed by using products if they are not warned about those potential health consequences.'"

Oppenheimer noted the Senate's five Democrats joined with a group of right-wing Republicans to defeat the Idaho bill. He pointed out the pesticide industry is pushing similar bills in several other states, including Missouri. Iowa and Florida.

Liability-lawsuit immunity is controversial. Businesses argued it keeps them from getting hit with multimillion-dollar settlements, while consumer advocates countered it closes the courthouse door. Oppenheimer emphasized pesticide users who get sick would have little recourse.

"The pesticide industry is seeking broad immunity that would shield them from "failure to warn" claims that basically relate to the label that is provided on the pesticide products," Oppenheimer outlined. "As long as that label is approved by EPA and that the pesticide is approved for use in the United States, they would be immune from any liability under state law or federal law because federal law defers to the states relative to liability."

Only a few major industries have either federal or state immunity from lawsuits. The best known are firearms manufacturers and the computer technology sector. In addition, most federal, state and local governments are immune when they are performing statutory duties.


get more stories like this via email