Latest news with #WildlifeandCountrysideLink
Gulf Today
5 days ago
- Health
- Gulf Today
Stop playing whac-a-mole with forever chemicals
Lara Williams, Tribune News Service The more you learn about PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — the worse it gets. Though improvements in monitoring and remediation techniques are welcome, what the world needs first and foremost is a universal ban on the chemicals. In fact, we needed it yesterday. There are more than 10,000 PFAS, also known as 'forever chemicals,' and they're used almost everywhere, including in nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, smartphones, packets of microwave popcorn, hair conditioners, fire-fighting foam, pacemakers, pesticides and dental floss. They don't readily degrade; they also don't stay where we put them. As a result, we can now find PFAS in places such as our blood, human breast milk, Antarctica, wild animals and tap water. In the Netherlands, people have been warned not to eat the eggs from their backyard chickens by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment due to high levels of the chemicals. Though it's not yet clear why home-produced eggs have higher amounts of PFAS than commercial ones, one theory is that earthworms now contain such chemicals, and hens like to eat the worms. An analysis by environmental groups Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust found that nearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England exceed proposed safety limits, with 85% containing levels at least five times higher. France has banned tap water in 16 communes due to PFAS contamination, while a piece of investigative journalism called the Forever Pollution Project located 23,000 contaminated sites across Europe and a further 21,500 sites of presumptive contamination. I expect we haven't seen the last of the tap water bans. If the scale and extent of the pollution are hard to get your head around, the health implications are worse. PFAS have been linked to increased risk of various types of cancer, fertility problems, birth complications, delays to puberty and weakened immune systems. They've also been associated with increased cholesterol levels and kidney problems. We're looking at an issue analogous to climate change — right down to lobbying and cover-ups by PFAS manufacturers. Internal documents from 3M Co., one of the original and largest producers, and chemical firm DuPont de Nemours Inc. revealed that the companies knew the substances were accumulating in people and showing signs of toxicity for decades without telling anyone. While 3M still maintains that their PFAS-containing products are 'safe' for their intended uses in everyday life, in December 2022 the company announced it will discontinue the use of PFAS by the end of 2025. Together, the firms have had to pay billions in lawsuit settlements related to their pollution, with more possibly to come as injury cases hit the courts. As with carbon dioxide, the longer we keep emitting PFAS into the environment, the worse the problem gets and the harder it is to clean up with remediation technologies. While the PFAS market globally is worth just over $28 billion, the cost of cleaning up all the related pollution in the UK and Europe could be €100 billion ($116 billion) a year if nothing is done to stem the chemicals' steady flow into the environment. And that doesn't factor in the health-care costs, which the Nordic Council of Ministers estimates is at least €52 billion annually. Though some consumer brands such as outdoor gear retailer Patagonia Inc. and fast-food chain McDonald's Corp. have committed to phasing out PFAS from their products and packaging, others have been dragging their feet. A team of researchers, lawyers and journalists has also exposed a huge lobbying campaign against proposed restrictions in Europe, showing entrenched resistance to change. So we need a ban, but so far, we've only seen piecemeal prohibitions targeting either a specific chemical or, in a couple of leading countries, sectors. The import and sale of PFAS-treated clothing, shoes and waterproofing agents will be barred from July 2026 in Denmark, while the chemicals have been banned in paper and board food packaging since 2020. The country has also recently announced a ban on 23 pesticides that can form a very mobile form of PFAS called trifluoroacetic acid. France, meanwhile, has banned PFAS in several consumer product groups, including textiles, cosmetics and ski wax. Cookware, however, has been excluded from the ban after a campaign led by the French maker of Tefal pans, Groupe SEB. Though it's a start, exempting a sector for which safe alternatives are readily available is, frankly, scandalous. A universal ban may be on its way. In 2023, five European Union member states — Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway — submitted a proposal to the European Chemicals Agency, which two scientific committees are now examining. The ban covers both consumer and industrial applications, with time-limited exemptions expected for some uses where there are no alternatives, such as medical devices. What's most significant about the restriction is that it takes a precautionary approach, regulating all 10,000-plus PFAS as a group rather than individually. According to CHEM Trust, a charity focused on harmful synthetic chemicals, under the current rate of regulation that analyses each chemical individually, it would take more than 40,000 years to get through them all. So the EU ban will be a huge step forward with positive impacts beyond its borders. But we'll be waiting a while for it to come into effect — if everything goes smoothly, we're likely looking at 2028 before sectors transition to new rules. Meanwhile, progress elsewhere is pitiful. The UK government published an interim position on PFAS management in June, but this has been criticized by scientists for opting not to target all chemicals at once and instead creating their own groupings. Not only is this risky, failing to regulate compounds that lack toxicity data, but it lacks urgency. In the US, the Trump administration has pulled nearly $15 million in research into PFAS contamination of farmland, while the Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to rescind drinking water limits for four forever chemicals. Of course, even banning the use of all PFAS tomorrow won't do anything for the substances already in our bodies and drinking water. But we know that restrictions help. Two chemicals — PFOS and PFOA — are already banned in Europe. A 2023 study showed that blood concentrations of the chemicals have declined substantially over time in Denmark. It's time to stop playing Whac-a-Mole with chemicals that we know are bad for us and our environment. If we take action now, we might stand a chance at cleaning up the mess we've made.
Mint
17-07-2025
- Health
- Mint
Stop Playing Whac-a-Mole With Forever Chemicals
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The more you learn about PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — the worse it gets. Though improvements in monitoring and remediation techniques are welcome, what the world needs first and foremost is a universal ban on the chemicals. In fact, we needed it yesterday. There are more than 10,000 PFAS, also known as 'forever chemicals,' and they're used almost everywhere, including in nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, smartphones, packets of microwave popcorn, hair conditioners, fire-fighting foam, pacemakers, pesticides and dental floss. They don't readily degrade; they also don't stay where we put them. As a result, we can now find PFAS in places such as our blood, human breast milk, Antarctica, wild animals and tap water. In the Netherlands, people have been warned not to eat the eggs from their backyard chickens by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment due to high levels of the chemicals. Though it's not yet clear why home-produced eggs have higher amounts of PFAS than commercial ones, one theory is that earthworms now contain such chemicals, and hens like to eat the worms. An analysis by environmental groups Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust found that nearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England exceed proposed safety limits, with 85% containing levels at least five times higher. France has banned tap water in 16 communes due to PFAS contamination, while a piece of investigative journalism called the Forever Pollution Project located 23,000 contaminated sites across Europe and a further 21,500 sites of presumptive contamination. I expect we haven't seen the last of the tap water bans. If the scale and extent of the pollution are hard to get your head around, the health implications are worse. PFAS have been linked to increased risk of various types of cancer, fertility problems, birth complications, delays to puberty and weakened immune systems. They've also been associated with increased cholesterol levels and kidney problems. We're looking at an issue analogous to climate change — right down to lobbying and cover-ups by PFAS manufacturers. Internal documents from 3M Co., one of the original and largest producers, and chemical firm DuPont de Nemours Inc. revealed that the companies knew the substances were accumulating in people and showing signs of toxicity for decades without telling anyone. While 3M still maintains that their PFAS-containing products are 'safe' for their intended uses in everyday life, in December 2022 the company announced it will discontinue the use of PFAS by the end of 2025. Together, the firms have had to pay billions in lawsuit settlements related to their pollution, with more possibly to come as injury cases hit the courts. As with carbon dioxide, the longer we keep emitting PFAS into the environment, the worse the problem gets and the harder it is to clean up with remediation technologies. While the PFAS market globally is worth just over $28 billion, the cost of cleaning up all the related pollution in the UK and Europe could be €100 billion ($116 billion) a year if nothing is done to stem the chemicals' steady flow into the environment. And that doesn't factor in the health-care costs, which the Nordic Council of Ministers estimates is at least €52 billion annually. Though some consumer brands such as outdoor gear retailer Patagonia Inc. and fast-food chain McDonald's Corp. have committed to phasing out PFAS from their products and packaging, others have been dragging their feet. A team of researchers, lawyers and journalists has also exposed a huge lobbying campaign against proposed restrictions in Europe, showing entrenched resistance to change. So we need a ban, but so far, we've only seen piecemeal prohibitions targeting either a specific chemical or, in a couple of leading countries, sectors. The import and sale of PFAS-treated clothing, shoes and waterproofing agents will be barred from July 2026 in Denmark, while the chemicals have been banned in paper and board food packaging since 2020. The country has also recently announced a ban on 23 pesticides that can form a very mobile form of PFAS called trifluoroacetic acid. France, meanwhile, has banned PFAS in several consumer product groups, including textiles, cosmetics and ski wax. Cookware, however, has been excluded from the ban after a campaign led by the French maker of Tefal pans, Groupe SEB. Though it's a start, exempting a sector for which safe alternatives are readily available is, frankly, scandalous. A universal ban may be on its way. In 2023, five European Union member states — Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway — submitted a proposal to the European Chemicals Agency, which two scientific committees are now examining. The ban covers both consumer and industrial applications, with time-limited exemptions expected for some uses where there are no alternatives, such as medical devices. What's most significant about the restriction is that it takes a precautionary approach, regulating all 10,000-plus PFAS as a group rather than individually. According to CHEM Trust, a charity focused on harmful synthetic chemicals, under the current rate of regulation that analyzes each chemical individually, it would take more than 40,000 years to get through them all. So the EU ban will be a huge step forward with positive impacts beyond its borders. But we'll be waiting a while for it to come into effect — if everything goes smoothly, we're likely looking at 2028 before sectors transition to new rules. Meanwhile, progress elsewhere is pitiful. The UK government published an interim position on PFAS management in June, but this has been criticized by scientists for opting not to target all chemicals at once and instead creating their own groupings. Not only is this risky, failing to regulate compounds that lack toxicity data, but it lacks urgency. In the US, the Trump administration has pulled nearly $15 million in research into PFAS contamination of farmland, while the Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to rescind drinking water limits for four forever chemicals. Of course, even banning the use of all PFAS tomorrow won't do anything for the substances already in our bodies and drinking water. But we know that restrictions help. Two chemicals — PFOS and PFOA — are already banned in Europe. A 2023 study showed that blood concentrations of the chemicals have declined substantially over time in Denmark. It's time to stop playing Whac-a-Mole with chemicals that we know are bad for us and our environment. If we take action now, we might stand a chance at cleaning up the mess we've From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change. More stories like this are available on
South Wales Guardian
28-05-2025
- Politics
- South Wales Guardian
Rayner: Government not compromising green protections to build homes faster
The Deputy Prime Minister said that proposals to give a boost to smaller developers, which will ease the requirements for them to pay to boost nature habitats, were 'pragmatism' and that the Government will be able to 'protect nature at the same time'. The Government has set out proposals to cut red tape and for planning decisions to be shifted away from councillors and towards expert officers as part of efforts to meet Labour's pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029-30. Trained planning officers rather than committees of elected councillors will be responsible for deciding on developments of up to nine homes under the plans, as well as most minor and technical applications. The Government is considering 'streamlining' requirements on biodiversity net gain including the option of a full exemption for those minor developments. Sites with 10 to 49 homes would fall in a new category for medium-sized developments with fewer costs, simplified biodiversity net gain rules and an exemption from the building safety levy. The Wildlife and Countryside Link coalition of conservation groups urged the Government not to 'turn back the clock to the days of damaging development' with changes to the biodiversity net gain system. Housing Secretary Ms Rayner rejected that she was compromising green protections to get homes built, telling broadcasters: 'No, we're simplifying the process for houses if there's under 10 houses built, and between 10 and 49. 'So we're going to simplify that process. We're going to put more expert planners on that process as well, but we won't be compromising on nature,' she said during a visit to new housing development visit near Didcot, Oxfordshire. She said small sites are 'very different' to building large developments of hundreds or thousands of homes. 'So this is pragmatism, but we'll be able to protect nature at the same time.' Ms Rayner told the PA news agency she could not confirm how much greenbelt land would be used but said the Government has been clear on the rules about releasing it. 'It's greybelt, as we've designated (it), which is old disused car parks like garages, so it won't be bulldozing over the greenbelt just to reassure people on that.' Labour has reclassified some low-quality areas of greenbelt land which it calls the 'grey' belt. Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: 'Exempting small sites would mean almost three-quarters of developments face no requirement to compensate for nature loss – let alone enhance it. 'These changes could leave the Biodiversity Net Gain system dead in the water and, with it, the Government's main guarantee of nature-positive planning. 'Biodiversity Net Gain is there to ensure that local communities aren't robbed of the green spaces that make places better to live in, and that developers can't take from nature without giving something back. 'This should be the rule, not the exception. Government shouldn't turn back the clock to the days of damaging development, but ensure a level playing field for all developers to contribute to growth and nature restoration.' The Rivers Trust said plans to remove the requirements perpetuate a 'false narrative that protecting nature is delaying housebuilding'. Chief executive Mark Lloyd warned that proposals to water it down 'risk poorer outcomes for people and nature, hampering growth by undermining confidence across sectors'. The organisation said the plans also run counter to recent recommendations from the Office for Environmental Protection urging the Government to reaffirm its commitment to biodiversity net gain. The Government is also seeking to support smaller firms by offering £100 million in accelerator loans. A new National Housing Delivery Fund to be confirmed at the spending review will support long-term finance options – such as revolving credit – for small and medium sized enterprises. And more land will be released exclusively to them by Homes England, the public body that funds new affordable housing. A new consultation on reforming planning committees under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposes delegating most minor and technical applications to planning officers to leave committees free to consider the most complex and controversial developments. Under the plans, applications would be categorised as Tier A, which would go to officers, or Tier B, which would be considered by committees of councillors if deemed necessary. The Government also announced £10 million for councils to fund more specialists to speed up environmental assessments and a £1.2 million PropTech Innovation Fund to support innovation for small sites, for example through using new data tools. The proposals also include a new pilot in Bristol, Sheffield and Lewisham and will unlock small sites that would otherwise not have been developed. The Conservative Party has cast doubt on Labour meeting its housing target and criticised the plans. Kevin Hollinrake, shadow local government secretary, accused Labour of 'stripping councillors of the right to vote on local planning applications, concreting over green belt and withdrawing support for first time buyers'.
ITV News
28-05-2025
- Politics
- ITV News
'We're not killing newts!' Rayner hits back at green groups over housing reform
The housing secretary has insisted the government is protecting wildlife in its charge to build 1.5 million new homes, despite sweeping deregulation allowing some builders to sidestep biodiversity rules. Angela Rayner, who is also the deputy prime minister, told ITV News "nobody's killing wildlife" when the concerns of environmentalists were put to her, while she was visiting a development to announce her reforms. Among the plans is a move to take decision-making powers away from local councillors on small building projects, and hand them to unelected officials, in a bid to cut red tape and speed up the approval process. Trained planning officers, rather than committees of elected councillors, will be responsible for deciding on developments of up to nine homes under the plans, as well as most minor and technical applications. Minor developments will also benefit from eased biodiversity requirements, meaning builders would avoid having to pay to boost local nature habitats. Building projects with 10 to 49 homes would fall in a new category for medium-sized developments, with fewer costs, simplified biodiversity net gain rules and an exemption from the building safety levy. But environmentalists are angry, saying the proposals will give builders a licence to kill wildlife. The boss of the Wildlife and Countryside Link claimed that exempting small sites from biodiversity rules would "mean almost three-quarters of developments face no requirement to compensate for nature loss – let alone enhance it". But Rayner was adamant that "nobody's killing wildlife. What we're doing is we're protecting nature." She added: "We've got a nature recovery fund which will help to preserve nature. But we're also saying, look, we can't have situations where thousands of homes are being blocked because we haven't built the reservoir, because we haven't dealt with issues like nutrient neutrality. "We've solved those problems so we can get on and build the houses, because I want to protect newts, but I want to make sure that kids have got a place to live and I've got 160,000 children in temporary accommodation." Wildlife and Countryside Link CEO Richard Benwell added: 'These changes could leave the Biodiversity Net Gain system dead in the water and, with it, the Government's main guarantee of nature-positive planning. 'Biodiversity Net Gain is there to ensure that local communities aren't robbed of the green spaces that make places better to live in, and that developers can't take from nature without giving something back. 'This should be the rule, not the exception. Government shouldn't turn back the clock to the days of damaging development, but ensure a level playing field for all developers to contribute to growth and nature restoration.' The CEO of the RSPB, Beccy Speight, said: 'It's now clear that the bill in its current form will rip the heart out of environmental protections and risks sending nature further into freefall. 'The fate of our most important places for nature and the laws that protect them are all in the firing line. The wild spaces, ancient woodlands, babbling brooks and the beautiful melody of the dawn chorus – it's these natural wonders that delight people all over the country and support our physical and mental health that are under threat. That cannot be allowed to stand.' Meanwhile, the Conservatives hit out at plans to give unelected officials the decision over small planning applications. 'The reality is that Labour are stripping councillors of the right to vote on local planning applications, concreting over green belt and withdrawing support for first time buyers. Even the OBR say Labour won't meet their housing target," said Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government Kevin Hollinrake MP. His reference to support for first time buyers appears to refer to a temporary relief on stamp duty, introduced during the Covid pandemic which returned to normal levels in April. The party also seemed to claim migrants needing housing in the UK would prevent British people from accessing new houses. "As long as Labour's immigration conveyor belt continues those homes will be of little benefit to the British public," Hollinrake added. Rayner denied that migrants would get priority access to new homes, telling ITV News that people on temporary visas do not have the same rights to buy as British citizens. "It's astonishing that the Tories are putting out that claim when they saw record levels of immigration into the UK," she said. "It's completely bogus. "People that come to this country on work, our student visas do not have access to the housing, and neither do people who have no right to be here. "So that's rubbish. What we're doing is trying to resolve a housing crisis that has been 14 years in the making, because the Tories were too busy cozying up to their mates on their backbenches, as opposed to looking after the people of this country." The housing secretary also insisted the government is on course to achieve its aim of building 1.5 million new homes, despite warnings from local authorities and others who have said the goal is unlikely. After listing other housing reforms, including the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and putting £2.8 billion into the Affordable Homes Programme, she said: "So we're on track. It's a difficult target. We always knew it would be." "But we're putting shoulders to the wheel and we're grinding through it to build those houses that people desperately need." The government is also seeking to support smaller building firms by offering £100 million in accelerator loans. A new National Housing Delivery Fund to be confirmed at the spending review will support long-term finance options – such as revolving credit – for small and medium sized enterprises. And more land will be released exclusively to them by Homes England, the public body that funds new affordable housing. A new consultation on reforming planning committees under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, proposes delegating most minor and technical applications to planning officers in order to leave committees free to consider the most complex and controversial developments. Under the plans, applications would be categorised as Tier A, which would go to officers, or Tier B, which would be considered by committees of councillors if deemed necessary. It is also launching consultations on biodiversity net gain rules for minor, medium and brownfield developments and on planning thresholds for small and medium housing sites.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Rayner: Government not compromising green protections to build homes faster
Angela Rayner has rejected that Labour will be 'bulldozing over the greenbelt' or compromising on protections for nature to build homes faster. The Deputy Prime Minister said that proposals to give a boost to smaller developers, which will ease the requirements for them to pay to boost nature habitats, were 'pragmatism' and that the Government will be able to 'protect nature at the same time'. The Government has set out proposals to cut red tape and for planning decisions to be shifted away from councillors and towards expert officers as part of efforts to meet Labour's pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029-30. Trained planning officers rather than committees of elected councillors will be responsible for deciding on developments of up to nine homes under the plans, as well as most minor and technical applications. The Government is considering 'streamlining' requirements on biodiversity net gain including the option of a full exemption for those minor developments. Sites with 10 to 49 homes would fall in a new category for medium-sized developments with fewer costs, simplified biodiversity net gain rules and an exemption from the building safety levy. The Wildlife and Countryside Link coalition of conservation groups urged the Government not to 'turn back the clock to the days of damaging development' with changes to the biodiversity net gain system. Housing Secretary Ms Rayner rejected that she was compromising green protections to get homes built, telling broadcasters: 'No, we're simplifying the process for houses if there's under 10 houses built, and between 10 and 49. 'So we're going to simplify that process. We're going to put more expert planners on that process as well, but we won't be compromising on nature,' she said during a visit to new housing development visit near Didcot, Oxfordshire. She said small sites are 'very different' to building large developments of hundreds or thousands of homes. 'So this is pragmatism, but we'll be able to protect nature at the same time.' Ms Rayner told the PA news agency she could not confirm how much greenbelt land would be used but said the Government has been clear on the rules about releasing it. 'It's greybelt, as we've designated (it), which is old disused car parks like garages, so it won't be bulldozing over the greenbelt just to reassure people on that.' Labour has reclassified some low-quality areas of greenbelt land which it calls the 'grey' belt. Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: 'Exempting small sites would mean almost three-quarters of developments face no requirement to compensate for nature loss – let alone enhance it. 'These changes could leave the Biodiversity Net Gain system dead in the water and, with it, the Government's main guarantee of nature-positive planning. 'Biodiversity Net Gain is there to ensure that local communities aren't robbed of the green spaces that make places better to live in, and that developers can't take from nature without giving something back. 'This should be the rule, not the exception. Government shouldn't turn back the clock to the days of damaging development, but ensure a level playing field for all developers to contribute to growth and nature restoration.' The Rivers Trust said plans to remove the requirements perpetuate a 'false narrative that protecting nature is delaying housebuilding'. Chief executive Mark Lloyd warned that proposals to water it down 'risk poorer outcomes for people and nature, hampering growth by undermining confidence across sectors'. The organisation said the plans also run counter to recent recommendations from the Office for Environmental Protection urging the Government to reaffirm its commitment to biodiversity net gain. The Government is also seeking to support smaller firms by offering £100 million in accelerator loans. A new National Housing Delivery Fund to be confirmed at the spending review will support long-term finance options – such as revolving credit – for small and medium sized enterprises. And more land will be released exclusively to them by Homes England, the public body that funds new affordable housing. A new consultation on reforming planning committees under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposes delegating most minor and technical applications to planning officers to leave committees free to consider the most complex and controversial developments. Under the plans, applications would be categorised as Tier A, which would go to officers, or Tier B, which would be considered by committees of councillors if deemed necessary. The Government also announced £10 million for councils to fund more specialists to speed up environmental assessments and a £1.2 million PropTech Innovation Fund to support innovation for small sites, for example through using new data tools. The proposals also include a new pilot in Bristol, Sheffield and Lewisham and will unlock small sites that would otherwise not have been developed. The Conservative Party has cast doubt on Labour meeting its housing target and criticised the plans. Kevin Hollinrake, shadow local government secretary, accused Labour of 'stripping councillors of the right to vote on local planning applications, concreting over green belt and withdrawing support for first time buyers'.
