The Environmental Protection Agency under the direction of Scott Pruitt removed a 2012 ban of a harmful pesticide, chlorpyrifos, in 2017, a move that a federal appeals court ruled violated federal law. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has given the government agency 60 days to remove chlorpyrifos from the market. The pesticide is widely used on citrus fruit, apples, corn, wheat, and other crops. It’s been proven harmful to children even in small quantities. The government refused to ban the chemical earlier in March this year, but this split decision ruling demands that the EPA finalize that ban. Appeals Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff wrote in the majority’s opinion,

The panel held that there was no justification for the EPA’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children…”

Children at Risk

Chlorpyrifos is one of the leading pesticides listed in cases of pesticide poisonings. In adults, it impairs the nervous system functions and can lead to convulsions, respiratory paralysis, and, in extreme cases, death. Children are especially at risk, as prenatal exposure can lead to health consequences like low birth weight and delayed motor development. Even tiny amounts of the pesticide can lead to neurological conditions in small children from reduced IQ to loss of working memory and attention deficit disorders. It’s been banned from residential use since 2000, and the science supports banning this chemical.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

The pesticide does have an important backer in its corner, though…the manufacturer of the product, Dow Chemical. In spite of the residential ban and the proven toxicity of the chemical, Dow sells roughly 5 million dollars of chlorpyrifos in the U.S. every year. The company maintains that the science identifying their product as a serious health hazard is flawed and inconclusive. This attitude was echoed by Scott Pruitt when he reversed the Obama administration’s ban of chlorpyrifos use for food crops in March 2017.

Harmful Patterns

Through all of the turmoil that is the Trump Administration, the EPA has developed some distressing patterns of behavior. The first of these is their desire to eliminate many environmentally friendly programs or regulations, particularly those from the Obama era. These withdrawals are often to the detriment of public health, like reversing this ban, withdrawing from the Clean Air Act, and allowing dangerous pesticide use to continue with little oversight.

Related: Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

The agency also has a tendency to consider the needs of businesses before they consider the environment. The EPA has gone on the record in the last year saying that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. A statement hasn’t been released after the landmark judgment against Monsanto this August, but if business continues as usual, glyphosate will remain “not likely” to cause cancer.

And now the EPA is being called out by an Appeals Court for a chemical that at the very least deserves a closer, objective look. It’s sad to say, but even if this pesticide is removed from use, business will find another to replace it. The EPA will approve it, because business comes first.

 Sources:

• EPA violated law by keeping harmful pesticide on the market, court says – PBS
• Chlorpyrifos The toxic pesticide now harming our children and environment – Earth Justice
• Trump’s EPA Says Glyphosate Not Carcinogenic To People – Organic Lifestyle Magazine

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Wednesday that a ban prohibiting individuals with medical marijuana cards from purchasing firearms does not infringe on their second amendment rights. The ruling is a response to a lawsuit filed by a Nevada resident S. Rowan Wilson in 2011 after she was unable to purchase a weapon for self-defense due to a federal ban on the sale of firearms to illegal drug users. Wilson claims she obtained the card as a gesture of support for marijuana legalization. Chaz Rainey her attorney and plans to appeal the decision.

We live in a world where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don’t get a gun, but if you’re on the no fly list your constitutional right is still protected…”

The initial lawsuit was filed in Nevada back in 2011, more than a decade after Nevada decriminalized marijuana and legalized medical marijuana.

The 9th Circuit Court and States Law

This ruling calls to attention some major issues with marijuana regulation in the United States. The court that served this verdict has jurisdiction over the western half of the United States, a region that accounts for roughly 20% of the country’s population. It’s also which contains more than half of the states that allow recreational marijuana. In fact, the only district overseen by the 9th court without any marijuana legalization is Idaho.

Recommended: Trump’s FDA Is Bringing Back Asbestos and Making Russian Company Very Happy

Those laws are in conflict with the federal government’s stance on marijuana, though that attitude might be loosening now that it’s clear marijuana is big business. After all, the FDA approved the first marijuana-based medication earlier this year. Does that mean nationwide medical marijuana is coming? Or do certain businesses get the special treatment?

What’s The Call Here

So what takes precedence here? Should a person using marijuana legally as a medication be prohibited from purchasing a firearm? Do we apply those laws to those on prescription medications? The recent opioid crisis suggests that marijuana may actually be the lesser of two evils. Public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of legalized medical marijuana. What does that look like in America, and when do we get to see it?

Recommended: Monsanto Lost! Ordered to Pay $289 million in California Roundup Cancer Trial

Right now, that looks like a lot of confusion. The likelihood that things will work out for you seems to depend on who you ask and who you are. People of color are unfairly targeted for non-violent drug offenses. Meanwhile, GW Pharmaceuticals has received approval to sell marijuana-based medication while the U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, continues to promise nationwide crackdowns.

Can we get some consistency?

Sources:

• Court Rules That Medical Marijuana Card Holders Can’t Buy Firearms – Fortune
• Legal Recreational Marijuana States and DC – ProCon
• FDA approves first-ever marijuana-based drug in US to help treat epilepsy – The Independent 

The Trump administration continues its efforts to roll back Obama programs, announcing plans to eliminate the fuel economy mandate that requires automakers to reach a fleet average of 54.5 mpg by 2025. In light of the announcement, the fuel efficiency standards will be frozen at approximately 37 mpg, the standard for the year 2020. President Obama brokered the previous agreement with nearly all major auto manufacturers (Volkswagen being the notable exception), United Auto Workers (UAW), and the State of California. According to Andrew Wheeler, the acting head of the Environmental Protection Agency,

We are delivering on President Trump’s promise to the American public that his administration would address and fix the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards…Our proposal aims to strike the right regulatory balance based on the most recent information and create a 50-state solution that will enable more Americans to afford newer, safer vehicles that pollute less.”

A New Twist on States Rights

It’s interesting that Wheeler cites the need for a 50 state solution. The state of California has played an outsized role in determining nationwide emissions standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for setting California’s emission standards, a power the federal government approved as a part of the Clean Air Act in 1970. Other states are free to follow the California standards, and at least 12 states do.

The proposed rollback takes aim at California’s ability to set its own vehicle emissions standards. This is a stark change from the way the EPA previously handled this situation, with the agency frequently consulting with CARB before implementing rule changes.

California Fighting Back

The decision by the Trump administration to move forward with the rollback of emissions standards is bold, especially since they will have a fight on their hands. California, Washington D.C., and 16 other states filed a lawsuit in back May to prevent the rollback from occurring. The state of California, in particular, has been vocal in opposing many Trump policies and regulations and has sued the administration more than 30 times on a variety of topics. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is from CA and released a statement on the decision, calling the rollback a “dangerous assault on clean air and public health in California and across the nation.”

It’s also important to remember that California is not the only state requiring automakers to adhere to the more stringent vehicle emission standards. Those states account for nearly a third of all car purchases in the nation, giving them a quite a bit of buying power. State governments that realize the impact of greener, more environmentally-friendly initiatives will continue to side with CA. According to a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection representative, Lawrence Hajna,

We’ve had the California CARB program in place for a while…I’ve not heard that we have any intent on changing it for any reason; our position has always been that it’s important for us to maintain the standard for overall air quality.”

Shortsighted 

Eliminating the higher standards for vehicle emissions is negligent. Why are car sales and prices more important addressing air pollution and climate issues? The EPA believes the rollback can prevent 1,000 highway fatalities a year. Meanwhile, pollution is linked to 9 million deaths a year worldwide, with 6.5 million of those attributed to air pollution. Then again, this administration isn’t known for thinking ahead.

Sources:

• Trump administration moves to revoke Obama-era fuel economy standards – NBC News
• CARB vs. the EPA: What the New Federal Emissions Standards Could Mean for the Country – DMV.org
• Pollution Linked to Nine Million Deaths A Year Worldwide – Organic Lifestyle Magazine
• California Sues Over Plan to Scrap Car Emission Standards – US News

In his continued effort to make America great again, Donald Trump is bringing back asbestos.

Asbestos is a mineral fiber with a lot of qualities desirable for manufacturing. It’s an excellent heat insulator, it dampens sound, and it is fire-resistant, strong, and inexpensive. It also causes cancer. Many studies have confirmed it.

It also causes cancer. Asbestos exposure is the only known cause of mesothelioma, a deadly form of lung cancer that is known to be extremely painful. Asbestos exposure is also linked to other lung diseases. Many studies have confirmed this. Thousands of lawsuits have been won against asbestos companies. In the last thirty years, seventy billion dollars has been spent on asbestos litigation, and more than seventy companies have been driven into bankruptcy because of said litigation. The Environmental Working Group estimates that 12,000 to 15,000 people die yearly in the U.S. from asbestos exposure, but other studies indicate that asbestos could be responsible for 40,000 deaths per year in the U.S. If you find asbestos in your home the EPA strongly recommends that you hire a professional to remove the asbestos. They come in with hazmat suits and respirators.  More than 60 countries have banned the use of asbestos. In the U.S. Here, the EPA only banned some uses of the material but all uses.

Despite all of this, Trump likes asbestos.

There is no new research disputing the health effects of asbestos, but regardless, Trump’s EPA wants to expand the legal uses for Asbestos. Can you guess why? One hint. Russia.

Uralasbest, a Russian mining firm, placed a seal with Trump’s face on their asbestos products. On their Facebook page, they posted their appreciation:

https://www.facebook.com/Uralasbest/posts/531137150617873

The translation reads:

Donald is on our side!

The combine “Uralasbest” produced an unusual batch of chrysotile: on the packaging of pallets with a mineral there is a stamp

“Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States”. In this unusual way, the workers of the combine’s asbestos-processing plant thanked US President Donald Trump for his words in defense of chrysotile-asbestos.

He supported the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt, who stated that his agency would no longer deal with the negative effects that could potentially result from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported the specialist and called asbestos “100 percent safe after use.”

“We came out with the initiative to support our chrysotile industry in this way and remind that our” mountain flax “is an important mineral for the whole world. The management has approved! “, They told in the factory.

The EPA declined to ban uses of asbestos that have already been abandoned by industry. They also put forth a “significant new use rule,” or SNUR, that requires manufacturers to notify and seek approval from the EPA before resuming asbestos production and uses.

According to environmental advocates, this new rule gives chemical companies the upper hand in creating new uses for such harmful products in the United States. In May, the EPA released a report detailing its new framework for evaluating the risk of its top prioritized substances. The report states that the agency will no longer consider the effect or presence of substances in the air, ground, or water in its risk assessments.” – The Architects Newspaper

The EPA is ignoring specific exposures to asbestos in the safety assessments, which is reportedly in violation of law, and they are disregarding the safety risks from asbestos that still lingers in old schools, homes, and building materials just about everywhere in the U.S.

The EPA has also eliminated many kinds of asbestos from the FDA’s definition of asbestos.

Recommended:

• Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections
• Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones
• Best Supplements To Kill Lyme and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Lyme Disease

The Shiloh Treatment Center, in Texas near Manvel, is one of 32 Texas facilities that is licensed to care for migrant children who have been separated from their parents. The officials there were administering psychotropic prescription drugs to migrant children without consent from the parents. This violates the state’s child welfare laws. Late last month U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles ordered that the Trump administration must stop giving these drugs to migrant children without parental or guardian consent, except in an emergency.

The federal judge also ordered that the government move the children out of that facility except for children that were deemed to pose a “risk of harm.”

Government officials said they only provided the psychotropic on an emergency basis, but the judge didn’t believe it, and pointed to testimony from children who said they were drugged “every morning and every night.” Children testified that U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement staff members would sometimes refuse to tell the children what drugs they were taking or why. Some reported being forcibly injected. Children said they experienced side effects including nausea, dizziness, depression, and weight gain.

One child held at Shiloh identified as Isabella said,

“I witnessed staff members forcefully give medication four times.

. . . Two staff members pinned down the girl . . . and a doctor gave her one or two injections.”

Recommended: In Shocking Development, Chemicals in Food and Packaging are Toxic to Children

Read more: Trump administration must stop giving psychotropic drugs to migrant children without consent, judge rules

BPA was banned from children’s products in 2010. Now the New York Assembly is attempting to ban the chemicals brought in to replace BPA. The newly proposed ban would expand the number of bisphenols prohibited in children’s items from one to seven, now including bisphenol AF (BPAF), bisphenol Z (BPZ), bisphenol S (BPS), bisphenol F (BPF), bisphenol AP (BPAP), and bisphenol B (BPB). Used to harden plastics, these chemicals have been shown in recent studies to exhibit the same or higher levels estrogenic risks as the already eliminated BPA. Michael Antoniou, a researcher at the Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London and senior author of a study on BPA alternatives, says,

Industry is working to replace BPA because of health concerns – but all these alternatives are also estrogenic…The plastics manufacturing industry have turned to alternative bisphenols to produce their ‘BPA-free’ products, often with little toxicology testing…”

Related: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

BPA and Hormones

BPA and its alternatives are frequently found in receipts, the lining of canned foods, and containers for food storage like water bottles. BPA has been linked to inflammatory bowel disease, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, breast and prostate cancer, and asthma, but it is most well-known for disrupting the endocrine system.

These chemicals do this by mimicking estrogen. They promote the growth of breast cancer cells. Researchers found that BFAP, BPB, and BPZ are better at mimicking estrogen than BPA. This leads to an increased activation of cancer genes in cells, especially cancers with a hormonal component to them. The people primarily affected by this proposed bill (young children) are more likely to develop breast, prostate, and testicular cancer later in life. Studies have also found higher levels of BPA to be a risk factor in early puberty and hormonal development.

Related: Microplastics In Tap Water and Beer Around the Great Lakes, and Everywhere Else

Part of You

More than ninety percent of Americans have bisphenols in our bodies. BPA and other endocrine disruptors are very stable and usually stay in the body for long periods of time. This begs the question, how do you get bisphenols out of the body?

You can’t avoid plastics in our modern world, but reducing plastic usage is a step in the right direction. Look for glass, metal, fabric, or other options whenever possible. Canned foods are another frequent source of these chemicals, so read the label on canned goods carefully, and look to see if the company mentions what the liner is made of. If it says specefically that it is BPA free that means it could be using other bisphenols. Invest in reusable, metal versions of items like razors to limit plastic exposure (better for us and the environment). Find a water filter that eliminates bisphenols from your water (we like the Berkey).

These tweaks limit your exposure to bisphenols, but if you live in the modern world you have to detoxify bisphenols from the body with a proper diet. This means eating lots of raw vegetables and having internal organs, especially the gut, in good working order. Check out How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors.

Sources:

• New York State Looks to Expand BPA Ban to Substitution Chemicals – Organic Consumers
• BPA-free? Substitutions mimic hormones in breast cancer cells. – Environmental Health News
• The role of Bisphenol A in shaping the brain, epigenome and behavior – NCBI
• Worldwide Statistics on Breast Cancer – Medical News Today
• Endocrine Disrupting Effects of BPA on Puberty and Estrogen Cycles – Environmental Factor

The factory-farming meat and dairy industries produce more greenhouse gas emissions worldwide than the transportation industry, yet we are producing far more meat and dairy than we can consume.

The US Department of Agriculture also says that our meat producers now have 2.5 billion pounds of meat in cold storage, including chicken, turkey, pork, and beef. We are apparently running out of space to store the excess meat.

The Walls Street Journal reports that newly implemented Chinese and Mexican tariffs are in part to blame, at least for the excess swine. Pork tariffs were set in retaliation for the Trump administration’s tariffs on Mexican and Chinese steel and other goods. We are also producing more beef and poultry due to a reduction in the cost of grain. Meat prices at the grocery store are likely to drop soon.

Thanks to selective breeding, and to a smaller extent, due to Mexican tariffs, the US dairy producers produce more milk than we need. Dairy producers turn excess milk into cheese, which lasts longer in cold storage. Milk and dairy demand drops in the summer. Right now, US dairy producers now have a record of 1.39 billion pounds of cheese in storage, according to the US Department of Agriculture. Vox reports that this equates to enough cheese to give each American citizen 4.6 pounds.

Related: Does Meat Cause Cancer? Yes and no…

Grazing animals could be the answer to climate change. Cows could actually help eliminate desertification. Before we humans took over earth, this planet was covered in grasslands with herds of grazing animals. These animals thinned vegetation and then moved on leaving dung behind. This promotes healthy soil, and in turn, more vegetation.

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections