Major food producer hit with lawsuit after contaminating local water supply: 'Every day that goes by, people's risk of getting cancer ... continues'
Perdue Farms is under investigation in Maryland for contaminating the water supplies of neighbors via its wastewater processing. Groundwater and a stream bordering the farm are allegedly affected. A class-action lawsuit against Perdue on the matter is expected to take years.
In the meantime, lawyers representing the residents have sent a letter to Perdue demanding action within 90 days pending the investigation, or else they will go to a federal judge to force the limitation of sludge fertilizer use.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a wide grouping of chemicals that have been dubbed "forever chemicals" because of their persistence in ecosystems and bodies. They're typically used in anti-stick coating like Teflon, water-resistant fabrics, cosmetics, food packaging, and potentially in this case, sewage. Exposure to these toxic chemicals has shown links to infertility and cancer.
Perdue's case is far from an isolated incident. One Alabama woman suffered multiple heart issues related to exposure to PFAS in her water. An abandoned property in South Carolina remained an ongoing source of forever chemical contamination to nearby communities.
Broadly, legislation is possible. Canada has been taking legal steps to protect consumers against forever chemicals. German insurance providers are dialing back coverage of companies being subject to PFAS-related lawsuits. Conversely, the EPA recently rolled back water regulations that would protect Americans from some PFAS.
Perdue said it is providing bottled water and filtration systems to 356 affected homes and is nearly finished testing the wells of 920 homes.
Residents say this is still not enough, so long as its waste management hasn't changed.
"Every day that goes by, people's risk of getting cancer and other health problems from PFAS-contaminated groundwater continues," said attorney Phil Federico, per WUSA9. "We've got to get them clean water now and stop this. This risk that they're being exposed to."
How often do you worry about the quality of your drinking water?
Never
Sometimes
Often
Always
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Poll: Americans think Paramount is cancelling 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' because of politics — and they don't approve
More favor (46%) than oppose (31%) "late-night talk show hosts getting involved in politics by speaking out on political issues." More Americans disapprove (40%) than approve (33%) of Paramount's controversial decision earlier this month to cancel CBS's long-running late-night program with host Stephen Colbert, according to a new Yahoo/YouGov poll. And while CBS has claimed the decision was 'purely … financial' — adding that it was 'not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount' — more Americans believe that politics rather than money was the real reason behind it. The survey of 1,729 U.S. adults was conducted in the immediate aftermath of Paramount's Late Show announcement, from July 24 to July 28 — a period that coincided with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) finally agreeing to sign off on the company's proposed $8 billion mega-merger with the Hollywood studio Skydance. Colbert is a sharp critic of President Trump, and skeptics have accused Paramount of cancelling the Late Show not because late-night talk shows are losing money but because the company wanted to appease the Trump administration and get its Skydance deal over the line. Last October, Trump sued Paramount for the way CBS's 60 Minutes program edited an interview with his Democratic rival, Kamala Harris — and earlier this month, Paramount decided to settle with Trump and pay $16 million to his future presidential library, even though several legal experts said the case was frivolous. Colbert — who is scheduled to keep hosting the Late Show until it goes dark next May — mocked the settlement on-air, calling it a 'big fat bribe.' 'As someone who has always been a proud employee of this network, I'm offended, and I don't know if anything will ever repair my trust in this company,' Colbert told his audience. 'But just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help.' The new Yahoo/YouGov poll shows that more Americans agree with Colbert's theory of why his show was cancelled than agree with other, more 'purely financial' explanations. When asked why CBS and Paramount are canceling the Late Show — and instructed to select all the reasons that apply — the share who select 'Paramount is trying to curry favor with the Trump administration' (37%) and 'Stephen Colbert is too critical of Donald Trump' (36%) is greater than the share who select 'the Late Show is losing money (32%), 'the Late Show is losing viewers' (30%) and 'the late-night format is losing relevance' (26%). Partisan preferences are clearly playing a role in the reaction to the Late Show's demise. Far more Americans think Colbert is liberal (53%) than think he's moderate (10%) or conservative (3%), and Democrats (72%) are six times more likely to disapprove of the decision than Republicans (12%). Still, there is no consensus that Colbert has gone overboard politically. In fact, more Americans (35%) say he is "about right" politically than say he's "too political" (28%). And more also favor (46%) than oppose (31%) "late-night talk show hosts getting involved in politics by speaking out on political issues." That might help explain why a majority of Americans still say they watch Colbert's content — either 'always' (5%), 'occasionally' (21%) or when they 'see clips online' (27%). The rest (47%) say they never watch Colbert. Finally, when Americans are asked to select up to three of their favorite late-night talk show hosts, Colbert (25%) ties Jimmy Fallon (25%) for first place, with Jimmy Kimmel (22%), Jon Stewart (19%), John Oliver (11%) Seth Meyers (7%), Bill Maher (7%), Andy Cohen (3%) and Taylor Tomlinson (2%) trailing behind them. __________________ The Yahoo survey was conducted by YouGov using a nationally representative sample of 1,729 U.S. adults interviewed online from July 24 to 28, 2025. The sample was weighted according to gender, age, race, education, 2024 election turnout and presidential vote, party identification and current voter registration status. Demographic weighting targets come from the 2019 American Community Survey. Party identification is weighted to the estimated distribution at the time of the election (31% Democratic, 32% Republican). Respondents were selected from YouGov's opt-in panel to be representative of all U.S. adults. The margin of error is approximately 3.1%. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
5 things to know about the Trump EPA's proposed repeal of the ‘endangerment finding'
The Trump administration on Tuesday proposed to repeal a 2009 landmark finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the public. The 'endangerment finding' came after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) if it determines that they harm Americans' wellbeing. But now, the EPA says it no longer believes that gases such as carbon dioxide harm the public. Here are five things to know: The finding determined that GHGs caused harm In 2009, the Obama administration made two key determinations: that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane endangered public health and welfare, and that auto sector emissions played a part in that danger. Now, the EPA is proposing to overturn that finding and instead determine that 'that there is insufficient reliable information to retain the conclusion that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines in the United States cause or contribute to endangerment to public health and welfare in the form of global climate change.' It underpins automobile regulations The move to repeal the endangerment finding is not simply symbolic. It was a legal finding that underpins climate regulations, and particularly those that pertain to cars and trucks. The EPA's proposal on Tuesday also seeks to repeal the nation's car and truck regulations, meaning the agency is not requiring any set number of electric models on the market and that automakers' fleets can emit as much as they would like. It said that the move will have cost savings, but it also expected to exacerbate climate change and other pollutants. The regulation did not explicitly address climate regulations from other sectors, but the EPA has separately proposed to remove all climate regulations from power plants. The move stands in contrast with evidence of climate harm The push to repeal the endangerment finding stands in stark contrast to mounting evidence that climate change is already causing widespread, costly harm. The EPA itself reports that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide are heating the planet, leading to 'extreme events harm people, damage property, strain infrastructure, reduce crop yields, and more.' Before the Trump administration pulled it offline, the federal National Climate Assessment showed greenhouse gases causing both an accelerating pace of billion-plus dollar disasters and a more insidious onslaught of sickness caused by heat, smoke and migrating pathogens. Though plants on land and sea absorb some of the planet-heating carbon dioxide released when fossil fuels are burned, research shows emissions are now outpacing nature's ability to absorb them. In April, federal scientists reported that atmospheric CO2 rose faster last year than at any point in human history. Meanwhile, each of the past 10 years has been the hottest ever recorded. A hotter atmosphere is both thirstier and more volatile, fueling extreme weather — from flash droughts and floods to stronger hurricanes and firestorms. Repairing that damage cost the U.S. economy $1 trillion last year alone. As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned in February, rising flood, fire, and wind risks could make parts of the country uninsurable. That meant, Powell said, that within as little as a decade 'there are going to be regions of the country where you can't get a mortgage.' Meanwhile, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to U.S. emissions, making up about 28 percent in 2022. The change is likely to face court challenges Environmental groups and others are likely to challenge the Trump administration's move. They say that courts should reject attempts to overturn the endangerment finding because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change poses a threat to the public. It's not ultimately clear whether their efforts will be successful. And some experts worry that the move to overturn the endangerment finding and subsequent litigation could constrain a future Democratic administration from regulating altogether. 'I would imagine they will have a real problem with the D.C. circuits, you know, because they really are trying to defy a very clear D.C. circuit precedent,' Joe Goffman, who led the EPA's Air and Radiation Office under the Biden administration, told The Hill last week. But he noted that if the case gets to the Supreme Court, it's not clear how it will rule. 'The Supreme Court has changed considerably since 2007,' Goffman said. He added that he thinks the Trump administration is 'hoping to end up with is a reading of the Clean Air Act … that established certain tests that the agency has to make in order to establish its authority, tests that for all practical intents and purposes, a future agency won't be able to meet.' New York Attorney General Letitia James, a frequent challenger of Trump administration actions, released a statement saying, 'This is a lawless, shameful gift to Big Oil, and we cannot let it stand.' The shift is part of broader anti-climate effort by Trump The repeal of the endangerment rule is part of a broader second-term Trump effort against climate action — which some senior officials now frame as a greater threat than climate change itself. In its chapter on the EPA, the far-right Project 2025 plan calls for an 'update' to the 2009 finding on 'the perceived threat of climate change,' calling it 'a favored tool that the Left uses to scare the American public into accepting their ine!ective, liberty-crushing regulations, diminished private property rights, and exorbitant costs.' A March EPA press release claimed the overhaul 'represents the death of the Green New Scam and drives a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.' But the campaign goes far beyond EPA. The administration has pulled billions meant to help cities brace for extreme weather or rebuild stronger after disasters. It has also repealed billions of dollars in tax credits for low-carbon energy sources and has sought to put up new hurdles for solar and wind power. And it has launched a broad assault on federal climate research — from Pentagon studies on warming and conflict, to medical research on tropical disease spread, to NASA satellites that help farmers plan crops. Meanwhile, the administration is ramping up U.S. oil and gas exports — including a deal to pressure Europe into buying nearly ten times more — while blocking rules to limit the release of the potent greenhouse gas methane from fracking.
New York Post
29 minutes ago
- New York Post
Beware: Synthetic kratom 7-OH powers a new opioid crisis
Vape shops are popping up in every neighborhood in America, but few people — even doctors — know that many of these shops are selling a dangerous new opioid. It's concentrated 7-OH, a synthetic byproduct of the kratom plant that binds strongly to the body's opioid receptors — making it up to 13 times more potent than morphine. This addictive compound is ubiquitous, it's being pushed deceptively to consumers, and its use is quietly growing. Advertisement In previous waves of the opioid crisis — prescription opioids, heroin and fentanyl — the Food and Drug Administration realized too late that a public health crisis was raging, and got caught flat-footed. Let's not make that mistake again. On Tuesday, in collaboration with the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FDA began the process of reviewing whether products with unusually high levels of 7-OH should be classified as controlled substances. Advertisement To be clear, the kratom plant leaf, which contains trace amounts of 7-OH and has been consumed for centuries, is not our focus at the FDA. Rather, we are seeking to remove a dangerous synthetic opioid from retail shelves nationwide. As a part of this effort, the FDA issued seven warning letters earlier this month to prominent firms illegally marketing 7-OH products. Already a number of companies have stopped sales, another is recalling its products, and one company's website disappeared entirely. But a DEA classification and warning letters alone won't solve this problem. We must also educate the public to be vigilant about this threat. Advertisement Americans should know that synthetic, concentrated 7-OH products can be marketed as 7-hydroxymitragynine, 7-OH-mitragynine, 7-OHMG, 7-Hydroxy, 7-HMG or 7 — and all these compounds pose significant health risks. The potency of 7-OH greatly increases the risk of overdose and dependence. A 2025 National Institute on Drug Abuse study found that 7-OH resulted in respiratory depression at a magnitude three times more severe than morphine. Given how 7-OH interacts with the brain, we're hearing more and more stories of severe addiction in young people — and of major withdrawal symptoms, including insomnia, anxiety, body aches and sweats. Advertisement We don't have precise statistics about the use of 7-OH. Because it's unregulated, sales data and adverse-event reporting are close to nonexistent. But instead of waiting for a crisis before we respond, we're reading the signs and acting proactively. Despite the critical differences between natural leaf kratom and synthetic 7-OH, many of these opioid products are marketed as 'kratom extract' or 'enhanced kratom' and sold on the same shelves as kratom. Many 7-OH products do not even state how much of the substance the product contains. And since the vast majority of these products come from uninspected manufacturing facilities in India, users may consume inconsistent doses and unknown contaminants. Perhaps most alarming is that 7-OH products are often disguised as attractive candies, gummies and even ice cream cones that parents might never see as a risk. But let's be clear: No FDA-approved drug, food or supplement product contains 7-OH, and none of the health claims made about these products have been federally substantiated. Advertisement Public safety is a priority for President Trump and his administration. To support the FDA's broader actions on 7-OH, the National Institutes of Health will be initiating studies to better understand the substance's effects. While some 7-OH products claim to provide pain relief, clinicians and people struggling with addiction should not view this synthetic opioid as a safer alternative — and store owners, too, should be aware that 7-OH is not just another harmless product. A special FDA resource page, 'Hiding in Plain Sight,' provides more about the risks of 7-OH and how to avoid them. Historically, the medical establishment has been slow to understand and respond to new products as they come to market. Advertisement From cigarettes to social media, it often takes decades before we recognize pervasive harms. But as with tobacco, we know that public awareness can drive behavior change — and massive public health improvements can follow. Even better than rolling back a public health crisis would be never having one in the first place. Let's not allow 7-OH to drive the next wave of the US opioid epidemic. Dr. Marty Makary is the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.
