Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Donate

Author: Stephen Lester

Categories
Backyard Talk

World Wide Environmental Justice Map



A terrific new resource is available to identify environmental justice (EJ) communities worldwide. The Environmental Justice Organizations, Liability, and Trade (EJOLT) has developed a worldwide interactive EJ Atlas. In an article published recently in the Guardian of London, an interactive map was published that you can click on a button and read the story about the struggle of local grassroots community based groups to address toxics waste sites, oil refineries, deforestation and much, much more.

According to the Guardian, “the EJ Atlas aims to make ecological conflicts more visible and to highlight the structural impacts of economic activities on the most vulnerable populations. It serves as a reference for scientists, journalists, teachers and a virtual space for information, networking and knowledge sharing among activists, communities and concerned citizens.”

The article goes on to say that the atlas was inspired by the work of participating Environmental Justice organizations including the World Rainforest Movement, Oilwatch International, OCMAL, the Latin American Observatory of Mining Conflicts, whose work fighting and supporting impacted communities for over 20 years has helped articulate a global movement for environmental justice. The atlas is a project of Ejolt, a European supported research project that brings together 23 organizations to catalogue and analyze ecological conflicts. The stories were entered by collaborating activists and researchers and moderated by a team at the Autonomous University of Barcelona.

“Beyond stories of disaster and degradation, the struggles documented in the atlas highlight how impacted communities are not helpless victims. These are not only defensive and reactionary battles but proactive struggles for common land, for energy and food sovereignty, for Buen Vivir, indigenous ways of life and for justice. The environment is increasingly a conduit for frustrations over the shape of capitalist development. Tracking these spaces of ecological resistance through the Environmental Justice Atlas highlights both the urgency and the potential of these movements to trigger broader transcendental movements that can confront asymmetrical power relations and move towards truly sustainable economic systems.”

Last year the U.S. portion of the Atlas went live and included the 40 most influential environmental justice cases in U.S. history as identified from a national survey of environmental justice activists, scholars, and other leaders. The survey and mapping effort were led by professors Paul Mohai and Rebecca Hardin and a group at the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment.

Below are links to the article and the Atlas, including a link that takes you directly to the U.S. portion.

Mapping the Global Battle to Protect Our Planet

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/mar/03/mapping-environmental-protest-justice-defending-land?CMP=share_btn_tw#img-1

Map of Environmental Justice Conflicts in the U.S.

http://ejatlas.org/country/united-states-of-america

Map of Environmental Justice Conflicts Worldwide

http://ejatlas.org/



Categories
Backyard Talk

Chemical Exposures and Health Care Costs

A new economic analysis has concluded that exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals likely costs the European Union €157 billion ($209 billion U.S.) a year in actual health care expenses and lost earning potential, according to a new series of studies published in the Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

A total of four papers were published (overview, neurobehavioral, male reproduction and obesity & diabetes) that focused on specific health conditions that can partly be attributed to endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) exposure. These included infertility and male reproductive dysfunction, birth defects, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and neurobehavioural and learning disorders. A team of eighteen researchers from eight countries led by Leonardo Trasande, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Environmental Medicine & Population Health at NYU Medical Center, were involved in this landmark initiative.

EDCs interfere with numerous hormone functions and are commonly found in thousands of household products including plastics made with vinyl, electronics, pesticides, and cosmetics.

The overview paper concluded that “EDC exposures in the EU are likely to contribute substantially to disease and dysfunction across the life course with costs in the hundreds of billions per year. These estimates represent only those EDCs with the highest probability of causation; a broader analysis would have produced greater estimates of burden of disease and costs.”

The papers were prepared in conjunction with an evaluation being done by the EU Commission of the economic impact to industry of regulating EDCs in Europe. According to the authors, “Our goal here is to estimate the health and economic benefit of regulating EDCs in Europe, based on current evidence.”

The expert panels put together for this analysis “achieved consensus for probable (20%) EDC causation for IQ loss and associated intellectual disability, autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, childhood obesity, adult obesity, adult diabetes, cryptorchidism, male infertility, and mortality associated with reduced T.”

“The analysis demonstrates just how staggering the cost of widespread endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure is to society,” said Leonardo Trasande, the lead author in a press statement released by the Endocrine Society. “This research crystalizes more than three decades of lab and population-based studies of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the EU.”

The press release goes on to say:

“In the EU, researchers found the biggest cost driver was loss of IQ and intellectual disabilities caused by prenatal exposure to pesticides containing organophosphates. The study estimated the harm done to unborn children costs society between €46.8 billion and €195 billion a year. About 13 million lost IQ points and 59,300 additional cases of intellectual disability per year can be attributed to organophosphate exposure.

“Adult obesity linked to phthalate exposure generated the second-highest total, with estimated costs of €15.6 billion a year.

“Our findings show that limiting exposure to the most common and hazardous endocrine-disrupting chemicals is likely to yield significant economic benefits,” said one of the study’s authors, Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. “This approach has the potential to inform decision-making in the environmental health arena. We are hoping to bring the latest endocrine science to the attention of policymakers as they weigh how to regulate these toxic chemicals.”

The impact of this paper is staggering. It should be a “wake up call” said Linda Birnbaum, Director of the U.S. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences when asked about the results. It also provides more evidence that low level exposure to chemicals found in everyday household products is affecting the health of many people not just in the Europe, but worldwide.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Health Studies: What you can expect and what you can do

Whether your group is new or has been organized for years, one of the most pressing questions you’ll face is about health problems in your community. Typically, if you raise enough public attention and pressure, the state will ask the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to do a health study. While you may initially be excited, be careful what you ask for. ATSDR has a poor track record at investigating health problems in communities. You are more likely to get a result that is “inconclusive by design” than you are to get an honest answer to your questions. At least that’s what history tells us.

You can expect at least two things from ATSDR: First, the agency is going to treat your community like every other community that they have gone into. Second, ATSDR is going to use the standard methods they use to evaluate and investigate the health problems in your community.  Unfortunately, these scientific methods cannot answer with any accuracy or assurance the questions that people have about health problems in their community. The best state-of-the-art scientific methods that ATSDR will use cannot determine what’s causing an increase in cancer, birth defects or any other adverse effect in a population of people.

In 99 out of 100 instances, health studies conducted by ATSDR or other government agencies are inconclusive or at best incapable of determining what might be causing an observed increase in a disease found in a community. Given this likely outcome, it’s critical to have a plan for how to get the most from a health study done in your community.

One important step is to define as a community what you want. Do you want a typical epidemiological study where a questionnaire is distributed throughout the community asking about health problems and the results are then compared to a matched unexposed community? Do you want a clinic set up in the community where people could be tested to evaluate their health? Maybe some portion of the community wants to be relocated or evacuated and you want ATSDR to recommend such action.

Once you’re clear on what you want, then you need to figure out how to achieve these goals. This will take some strategic planning and a strong organized community effort. Ask these three questions about the health study, the answers to which will give you a good sense of the intent of the investigators and the limits of the study:

  • What are the goals of the investigation?
  • How will the investigators get the information they need?
  • How are they going to release the results?

Based on what you find out, you may decide that you don’t want to participate in this study. Or you may decide you want to change the agency’s plan to something that will be useful to your group. Changing their plan will require a strong organized community effort and a plan to get your points across to the agency. CHEJ can help you develop a plan to address a health study. Contact us at chej@chej.org

Also, tune in tomorrow at 12 noon EST to participate in a training session on Health Studies: What can they tell you about health problems in your community?


(RSVP Online Now)

Categories
Backyard Talk

Health Effects of Fracking – New Evidence

The evidence linking adverse health effects and exposure to chemicals generated during the natural gas extraction process of hydraulic fracturing (also known as fracking) continues to mount. The latest evidence, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found that people living near natural gas wells may be at increased risk for adverse health impacts including respiratory and skin conditions. The study examined nearly 500 people in 180 households in Washington County, PA, home to some of the most intense fracking activities in the U.S. The authors found that residents who lived less than a kilometer (about 2/3 of a mile) from a gas well reported more adverse health symptoms than residents who lived more than 2 kilometers from a gas well (about a mile and a third). Residents living less than a kilometer from a gas well were also more likely to report skin conditions during the past year as well as upper respiratory symptoms. The effects did not go away when adjusted for potential confounding variables including age, cigarette smoking, education level and occupation. The study did not find an association between proximity to a natural gas well and increased cardiac, neurological or gastrointestinal symptoms. According to the author, this study is the largest to examine general health conditions among people living near fracking sites.

Researchers from Yale University, the University of Washington and Colorado State University collected their data by going door-to-door and asking people to participate in a general health study. The authors followed the study participants for two years from 2012 to 2014. They did not tell people that the study was looking at the adverse health effects of fracking. The authors hoped this approach would reduce the potential for bias in people reporting the results. There are plans for an even longer term study.

The authors concluded that “airborne irritant exposures related to natural gas extraction activities could be playing a role. Such irritant exposures could result from a number of activities related to natural gas drilling, including flaring of gas wells and exhaust from diesel equipment.” According to the authors, the results underscores the need for ongoing health monitoring of people living near natural gas extraction activities in order to better understand the potential health risks. “We’re at a stage in which we know enough to recommend prudent precaution and exposure reduction,” stated Peter Rabinowitz, one of the co-authors, from the University of Washington.

To read the full paper, click here.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr. left many legacies – as a crusader for civil rights, voting rights, religious harmony, peace and economic justice. As we reflect on his legacy, I was struck by a story written by Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post that talked about how “timeless” King’s economic message was (“to our society’s great shame”) and how much further we still have to go.

In the weeks before his death, King was preparing for a march on Washington as part of the Poor People’s Campaign, and he formulated a speech called “The Other America.” Although not as well known as King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, there’s much that still rings true in this speech five decade later. Robinson quotes King’s speech given in New York City in March 1968:

“One America is flowing with the milk of prosperity and the honey of equality. That America is the habitat of millions of people who have food and material necessities for their bodies, culture and education for their minds, freedom and human dignity for their spirits … But as we assemble here tonight, I’m sure that each of us is painfully aware of the fact that there is another America, and that other America has daily ugliness about it that transforms the buoyancy of hope into the fatigue of despair. In that other America millions of people find themselves forced to live in inadequate substandard housing, and often dilapidated housing conditions…

“In this other America, thousands of young people are deprived of an opportunity to get an adequate education … because the schools are so inadequate, so over-crowded, so devoid of quality, so segregated if you will, that the best in these minds can never come out.

According to Robinson, the problem was structural as he quoted King further: “This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.”

Robinson states that King continued this theme eight days later when he addressed striking sanitation workers in Memphis: “Do you know that most of the poor people in our country are working every day? They are making wages so low that they cannot begin to function in the mainstream of the economic life of our nation. These are the facts which must be seen, and it is criminal to have people working on a full-time basis and full-time job getting part-time income.”

According to Robinson, King explained the shift in his focus:

“Now our struggle is for genuine economic equality, which means economic equality. For we know that it isn’t enough to integrate lunch counters. What does it profit a man to be able to eat at an integrated lunch counter if he doesn’t earn enough money to buy a hamburger and a cup of coffee?“

Robinson concludes with “What King saw in 1968 – and what we all should recognize today – is that it is useless to try to address race without also taking on the larger issue of inequality.”

To read the Robinson’s article in full, go to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-mlks-call-for-economic-justice/2015/01/15/3599cb70-9cfe-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html

To read King’s Other America speech in full, go to http://www.gphistorical.org/mlk/mlkspeech/mlk-gp-speech.pdf


Categories
Backyard Talk

Guest Blog: Fracking Impacts Without Drilling

Guest blog by Ann M. Nau, Vice President, Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community

In talking about ‘fracking’, oftentimes the industry tries to limit the discussion to the actual process of injecting liquid at high pressure into rock formations to extract gas. However, there is a broad network of infrastructure that is required to support that process, including storage facilities, compressor stations, metering stations, processing facilities, gathering lines, and intrastate and interstate pipelines. And regulatory oversight of those components falls to various local and federal agencies, if it is regulated at all. Very generally speaking, activities related to drilling fall under state authority while the federal government has oversight of interstate pipelines and associated facilities.  And what that means for towns like Myersville is that while there is currently no fracking in Maryland, the natural gas boom has already negatively affected our community.

Myersville is a picturesque rural community of approximately 1,600, nestled in the Middletown Valley of Frederick County, MD about 40 miles north of Washington, DC. It is a place where families have lived for generations and where newcomers have settled, seeking the serenity and closeness a small town offers.

And it is here, approximately 1 mile from our only elementary school that Dominion Transmission (DTI), a subsidiary of Virginia-based power giant Dominion, sought to build and operate a 16 thousand horsepower natural gas compressor station to move gas along its interstate pipeline. This station would annually release 23.5 tons per year of Nitrogen Oxides in addition to particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and green houses gases.

The citizens of Myersville were overwhelming opposed to this plan. We held rallies, wrote over 600 opposition letters, hired an attorney, and formed a community group.

In August of 2012, the Town Council unanimously voted against Dominion’s application to amend the Town Master Plan, finding among others things that the project posed a risk to the citizens.  And by doing so, the Town denied Dominion the necessary local zoning approval required by Maryland Department of the Environment to issue an air permit.  Despite all of this, in December of 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC authorized the project.  Armed with that certificate, DTI sued both the Town of Myersville and MDE, using the power of federal preemption granted in the Natural Gas Act to override local and state zoning.

FERC is an independent regulatory agency within the US Department of Energy with jurisdiction over interstate electricity sales, natural gas pricing, and oil pipeline rates.  It also reviews and authorizes liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, interstate natural gas pipelines and hydropower projects. The   Commission is composed of five embers, or Commissioners, who are appointed by the President and

In spite of our best efforts, as you enter Myersville, you are greeted by Dominion’s toxic-emission spewing gas compressor station. And while Myersville may be one of the first communities in Maryland impacted by build out from fracking, I can assure you it will not be the last. Already, our friends in Cove Point, MD are battling the LNG export plant and Williams Transco seeks approval to increase compression capabilities in Howard County. In fact, an industry group states that to support natural gas drilling nationally, they will need PER YEAR for the next 25 years1:

•           850 miles of new natural gas transmission mainlines,

•           Over 800 miles of new laterals to and from power plants, processing facilities and storage fields

•           14,000 miles of new gas gathering lines

•           More than 580,000 hp for pipelines and gathering compression

To put that into perspective, here is a 2008 map of natural gas pipelines and compressor stations.



So when we discuss fracking, we need to consider all the impacts associated with it– from drilling rigs, compressor stations, pipelines, processing plants, storage facilities and export plants.  We must not allow separate regulatory schemes to divide and conquer us.  Because what happens to our neighbors in West Virginia, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Western MD, in Myersville, in Howard County, in Lusby, affects all us.

1http://www.ingaa.org/file.aspx?id=21498

Ann M. Nau is the Vice President of the Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community, http://mcrcmd.org/.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Grassroots Activism Makes the Difference in New York

Right before Christmas, the Washington Post ran an interesting article you may have missed. It laid out the conundrum of two states coming to very different conclusions about fracking within its boundaries. Both states, New York and Maryland, had moratoriums in place and were evaluating pretty much the same technical and scientific information, yet they came to very different conclusions.

In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo chose to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” in New York State. Fracking is the process of injecting a chemical/water mixture under extreme pressure deep into the earth in order to “fracture” rock and release natural gas (or oil). Cuomo’s decision followed a report from the New York Department of Health that found “significant public health risks” associated with fracking including concerns about water contamination and air pollution. In a press statement, the state health commissioner stated that there was “insufficient scientific evidence to affirm the safety of fracking.”

On the other hand, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley decided to allow fracking go forward in the western part of the state. This decision was based on a joint report from  the Maryland Departments of the Environment and Natural Resources, which concluded that with adequate regulation, “the risks of Marcellus Shale development can be managed to an acceptable level.” Both reports acknowledged that there are risks from fracking, due primarily to groundwater and air contamination, but also that there is a great deal that is not known about the extent of these risks, or the long term effects.

The articles concludes “that these two decisions on fracking, while draped in scientific language, were — in fact — probably not really scientific decisions at all.” Thank you Washington Post for pointing out what grassroots activists have known for years – that most decisions about environmental risks are based on political, economic and other factors, and not on available science, no matter what anyone tells you.

The article goes on to attribute the different decisions to four factors – politics, who did the studies for each state, the amount of land affected and the use of the precautionary principle by one state (NY) and not the other. All these factors liked came into play, but there‘s another factor not mentioned that likely played an even larger role, and that is the role of grassroots activism. In New York, grassroots activists were overwhelmingly opposed to fracking and this position was repeatedly made known to Cuomo and other state decision-makers. Since being elected in 2010 Cuomo could not go anywhere in the state without seeing signs asking him to ban fracking. This message was delivered time after time by numerous groups in New York as well as by celebrities, scientists and others.

The lesson here isn’t that reasonable agencies and state governors came to different decisions based on different evidence and information. It’s that the grassroots activism in New York made a huge difference and helped convince Cuomo and other decision makers in the state that there was enough known about the risks posed by fracking not to move forward and that the unknown risks were too serious to ignore.

Categories
Backyard Talk

Dioxin Levels in Food – Where's the Beef?

Last year the USEPA completed and published the non-cancer portion of its health assessment for dioxin, one of the most toxic substances ever tested.This event passed without much fan-fare and little coverage by the media. With exception to CHEJ, even the environmental and health advocacy community paid it little attention. This is remarkable because the EPA’s health assessment on dioxin adds an important piece of new information that answers the question about the levels of dioxin in the American food supply. Until publishing this report, EPA had sidestepped the question of setting a reference dose for dioxin because they knew if they did this, they could no longer deny the obvious – the average daily intake of dioxin in food exceeds our best measure of what’s safe, EPA’s reference dose.



A reference dose is generally defined as “a level below which exposures are generally considered to be safe.” EPA’s Reference Dose for dioxin is 0.7 picograms TEQ per kilogram per day (pg/kg/d). According to EPA data, the adult daily intake of dioxin is 66 pg/day. Dividing this value by the average weight of an adult (70 kilograms), you get an average daily intake of dioxin of 0.94 TEQ pg/kg/d, 34% higher than the safe level. For children the numbers are even higher because of their smaller body size.

For example, a 2003 study by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Dioxin in Food found that children ages 1 to 5 were exposed to 1.09 pg TEQ/kg/day and children ages 6-11 years old were exposed to 0.69 pg TEQ/kg/day. According to this analysis, dioxin exposure in children 1 to 5 years old exceeds EPA’s reference dose and that children 6 to 11 years old have dioxin exposure that is virtually identical to the reference dose. A recent research paper found that the average daily intake of dioxin in 207 pre-school aged children was 1.01 pg TEQ/kg/day, well above the EPA reference dose of 0.7 pg /kg day.

EPA has argued for some time that dioxin exposures are going down and in 2009 EPA published a paper that estimated the daily average intake of dioxin to be only 0.54 pg TEQ/kg/day. This estimate was based on an EPA estimate of dioxin levels in food. Unfortunately, there is no consensus of how much dioxin exists in the food we eat. We know that over 95% of our daily exposure results from ingestion of animal fat, primarily meat and dairy and that people who live near specific dioxin sources are exposed to even higher concentrations.

It is clear however that large numbers of the U.S. population, especially children, are being exposed to dioxin in food at levels that exceed EPA’s reference dose. We need to stop pretending that dioxin levels in food are not a problem and take this issue on. We need better data on dioxin levels in food and how it gets there, and for EPA, FDA, and USDA to engage in this issue. This is not likely however, until the public begins to demand it.


[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

Categories
Backyard Talk

New Health Studies Guide for Community Groups

The Boston University Superfund Research Program (BU SRP)recently made available the first four chapters of a new health studies guide targeted to community groups. The new guidebook, called Is a Health Study the Answer for Your Community? A guide for making informed decisions is available at www.busrp.org/hsg. For many years, environmental health scientists at BU included Dr. David Ozonoff and Dr. Richard Clapp worked with community groups to address health problems in communities. This experience together with input from many experts and organizations including CHEJ was used to develop this Health Studies Guide. The intent is to assist community groups and individuals who think that some form of environmental health investigation or health study may be useful or necessary in their community.


The guide begins by helping readers consider factors that might influence their decision about whether to do a health study. Readers are encouraged to thoughtfully define their goals, to consider whether a health study will be useful in meeting these goals, and, if so, to choose the appropriate kind of study. The guide includes a wide menu of health study types and helps you think through which one might be best to address the questions you are trying to answer. It takes you through the process of choosing and designing a study, but it is not a complete how-to guide. It does not, for example, explain how to do your own epidemiologic study or risk assessment, nor does it describe how to conduct a health survey, though helpful resources are included in the Appendix. One chapter explains how to evaluate the strength of a study’s results and how to think about what the results mean. The guide closes with a glossary to help sort through various technical terms and jargon.

The authors readily acknowledge that a health study may not be the answer to the fundamental questions that you are asking about the health problems in your family or in your community. Instead they offer alternatives to traditional health studies that may help achieve community goals. This guide should be a useful tool not only for those who are contemplating a study, but also for those who are involved in a study or are the subjects of one. It will help you think about your expectations for the study’s findings, costs, and time frame. We couldn’t agree more with this advice “Above all, if you decide on a health study you will want to organize and work with your entire community so that it is meaningful to you.”

Two additional chapters are still being developed and are expected to be completed in the near future. The authors welcome your comments and input.

[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]

Categories
Backyard Talk

Flame Retardants Linked to Lower Intelligence and Hyperactivity in Early Childhood

Researcher at the University of Cincinnati presented a paper at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics earlier this month showing that prenatal exposure t o chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) is associated with lower intelligence and hyperactivity in early childhood. PBDEs have been used for decades as flame retardants to reduce the impact of fires in everyday products such as furniture, carpeting and electronics.

The authors collected blood samples from 309 pregnant women enrolled in a study at the university to measure PBDE levels. After the children were born, the authors conducted intelligence and behavioral tests annually until the children were 5 years old. PBDE levels in blood were found to be associated with deficits in child cognition at age 5 and with hyperactivity at ages 2 to 5 years. A ten fold increase in PBDE blood levels was associated with about a 4 point IQ deficit in 5-year old children.

Although PBDEs except deca-PBDE are no longer used in the U.S. as flame retardants, they are found in many consumer products bought years ago. In addition, these chemicals are highly persistent in the environment because they do not easily biodegrade, so they remain in human tissue for years and are transferred to the developing fetus from the mother. Dr. Aimin Chen, the lead author of the study, commented that the “study raises further concerns about [PBDE] sic toxicity in developing children.“ To view the abstract of the paper, “Cognitive Deficits and Behavior Problems in Children with Prenatal PBDE Exposure,” go to http://www.abstracts2view.com/pas/view.php?nu=PAS13L1_3550.8.

In related news, officials in Europe in charge of three key international treaties reported that delegates agreed by consensus to a gradual phase out the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane, or HBCD, which is used in building insulation, furniture, vehicles and electronics. HBCD is the third most commonly used brominated flame retardant world-wide following tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and decabromodiphenyl ether (deca-BDE). The phase out would begin a little more than a year from now, but there also would be specific exemptions for five years on some construction uses in buildings. HBCD will be added to the Stockholm Convention, which now regulates 22 toxic substances internationally including DDT and PCBs. The treaty takes aim at chemicals that can travel long distances in the environment and don’t break down easily. Delegates also agreed to tougher controls on disclosure of information about exports for two flame retardants, PentaBDE and OctaBDE. For more information, see <http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/nations-agree-to-new-ban-on-flame-retardant-tighter-export-controls-on-other-materials/2013/05/10/8420c5a8-b96d-11e2-b568-6917f6ac6d9d_story.html#license-8420c5a8-b96d-11e2-b568-6917f6ac6d9d>.

[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]