California Free Press

Societal Cost of 'Forever Chemicals' Estimated at Over $17,000,000,000,000

"Why are we allowing this?" asked one group. "$17.5 TRILLION in societal cost so that industry can make billions."

In healthcare and other societal costs, the use of per- and polyfluorinated substances costs more than $17 trillion per year. (Photo: iStock via Getty Images)

Societal Cost of 'Forever Chemicals' Estimated at Over $17,000,000,000,000

May 12, 2023

 

from Common Dreams

 

An upcoming report by Sweden-based organization ChemSec will detail the costs of the continued use of so-called "forever chemicals" which go overlooked by their manufacturers—the "societal" price that individuals and governments pay as the chemicals remain in the environment long after they are used in a range of products.

Factoring in soil and water remediation, monitoring of pollution, and healthcare costs associated with a number of health problems linked to per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS), the cost to society of using the chemicals totals about $17.5 trillion every year.

ChemSec has worked with investment firms to pressure companies to eliminate the use of PFAS, which have earned the nickname "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally degrade and have been detected in breastmilk, wildlife, and drinking water samples.

Major manufacturers of PFAS include Chemours, Solvay, Daiki, Honeywell, Bayer, and 3M—the last of which announced this year it will discontinue the use of the synthetic compounds.

While manufacturers typically prioritize their profit margins and shareholder rewards over public health and safety, ChemSec found that these companies bring in relatively little money each year from using PFAS, compared to their cost to society.

The use of forever chemicals yields only about $4 billion each year, according toThe Guardian, which reported on ChemSec's findings ahead of the release of the analysis.

"If you compare the profits that they make and the cost to society—it's ridiculous," Peter Pierrou, communications director for ChemSec, told The Guardian.

When accounting for the societal cost of using PFAS to make a range of products heat-, water-, and stain-resistant, the price of the chemicals is more than $20,400 per kilogram rather than the recognized average market price of about $20.75.

"Why are we allowing this? $17.5 TRILLION [in] societal cost so that industry can make billions," said the Environmental Media Association in response to the findings, which will be released with more detail in "a couple of weeks," according to ChemSec.

Health-related social costs of PFAS include treatment for cancers, thyroid disease, kidney dysfunction, birth defects, and autoimmune diseases, all of which have been linked to low levels of exposure.

The drinking water of at least 200 million Americans is believed to be contaminated with forever chemicals, and the compounds have become ubiquitous throughout Europe as well.

ChemSec's analysis will also examine the use of PFAS in "essential" versus "non-essential cases." The European Union in February proposed a ban on the chemicals in products for which manufacturers have identified alternative, non-toxic substitutes that can also repel water, heat, and stains.

The organization has made some progress in appealing to manufacturers to end their use of PFAS by pointing to the chemicals' cost to society. Late last year it organized a letter signed by investment firms which hold $11 trillion in assets in the E.U. warning that companies risk threatening "public health, the environment, and shareholder value" if they continue to use forever chemicals.

"There is particular concern about PFAS, often found in cosmetics, furniture, carpeting, non-stick pans, and waterproof jackets, which accumulate in the environment and cause health impacts for generations," the investment firms warned. "Growing awareness of these risks has triggered a surge in lawsuits, which could cost chemicals companies as much as $30 billion."

 

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

 

Julia Conley

Julia Conley is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

The Promising Cuba/US Cooperation on Cancer

Published on Sunday, April 12, 2020

by Common Dreams

"The wonderful thing about working with our Cuban colleagues is that they really believe, in their heart of hearts, that medical care is a human right."

by César Chelala

 

7 Comments

Cuban doctor Liz Caballero and student Susana Diaz leave El Vedado polyclinic in Havana on March 31, 2020. (Photo: Adalberto Roque/AFP via Getty Images)

In 1991, I headed a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) mission of Latin American physicians to evaluate a national Cuban project involving the use of interferon to treat inoperable lung cancer. At the time, there was a rumor that Fidel Castro had lung cancer was particularly interested in the research about it. Castro showed his interest, in part, when he came to visit us and discussed the findings. At the time, interferon didn’t seem to have a significant effect, but Cuban doctors persisted in their search and, even with limited resources, they have now developed a new treatment for lung cancer that shows promising results.

In September of 2011, the Chinese press agency Xinhua reported that Cuban doctors had produced the first therapeutic vaccine for lung cancer called CIMAvax-EGF. It was the result of a 25-year research project at Havana’s Center for Molecular Immunology. Although the vaccine doesn’t prevent lung cancer from developing in new patients, it turns later-stage lung cancer, specifically non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) into a controllable chronic disease.

The vaccine contains a protein called epidermal growth factor (EGF). This substance stimulates the growth of normal cells. However, when present in excess in tumors, it causes them to multiply and grow without control. The Cuban doctors’ original approach was to pair EGF and a protein from the meningitis bacteria. When they enter the bloodstream of patients, this protein encourages their immune system to produce antibodies against the combined molecule, thus suppressing the effects of excessive EGF in the tumor cells. As a result, the vaccine doesn’t eliminate the tumors but prevents them from growing and spreading to other parts of the body.

The vaccine is given to people who already have lung cancer and where the traditional treatments have proven to be ineffective. For these types of patients, the vaccine could be a life saver. Unlike other immunotherapies, this technique uses the patients’ own antibodies, rather than using manufactured ones, thus having less side effects and being much cheaper to produce.

The vaccine, which is now available in Cuba, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Peru and Paraguay, is relatively cheap to produce and store, and produces only very mild side effects such as nausea, chills, fever, and lack of energy. There are now agreements to test it in the United States, Japan, and some European countries.

 

Initial trials have shown a trend towards longer survival among vaccinated test subjects. Also, a direct correlation has been found between the level of antibodies that a vaccinated patient has produced against EGF and survival. Other trials have shown that those under 60 benefit the most in terms of survival. However, researchers caution that some early positive results to date have been found in relatively few cancer patients who were carefully selected and given special oncology care. They may not represent all the patients who could benefit from this vaccine.

Trials are currently being planned in the United States, Japan, the European Union and Serbia. In late October 2016, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, New York, to conduct a Phase I/II clinical trial of CIMAvax in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. “The chance to evaluate a vaccine like this is a very exciting prospect,” declared Candace Johnson, President and CEO of Roswell Park.

The same epidermal growth factor (EGF) acting on the lungs could play a role also on prostate, breast, colon and pancreatic cancer, thus opening a vast array of practical applications. Kelvin Lee, an immunologist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center indicated that all these organs could be potential targets for this vaccine.

During several trips to Cuba on UN public health-related missions, I have had the opportunity to work with several Cuban physicians and became aware of their high commitment to public health. As Dr. Kelvin Lee has said, “The wonderful thing about working with our Cuban colleagues is that they really believe, in their heart of hearts, that medical care is a human right.”

The collaboration between the Cuban doctors and those at the Roswell Cancer Center is a promising one. But there are still several hurdles to overcome in large part because of the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Researchers at the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center had to wait four years to obtain the government approval for clinical trials of the CIMAvax vaccine. Clearing the path to an effective collaboration may result in one of the most important advances to combat cancer in our time.

Dr. César Chelala is an international public health consultant, co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award and two national journalism awards from Argentina.

Off the Top of My Head

Roundup Weed Killer Increases Probability of Cancer

by John Lawrence, February 21, 2019

According to new research from the University of Washington, Monsanto's Roundup, the active ingredient of which is glyphosate, increases the risk of some cancers by more than 40%. Glyphosate is sprayed on crops like corn, soybeans and oats which have been genetically modified so that they aren't killed by it. Surrounding weeds, however, are killed increasing crop yield. They found that the link between glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma is stronger than previously reported. Glyphosate is banned in some countries in Europe and also many places in the US. Europe uses the precautionary principle which states that a substance cannot be used until it's proven safe. The US is just the opposite saying the a substance can be used until it's proven to be unsafe.

Meanwhile, we are exposing ourselves and our chuildren to a cancer causing substance. The environmental Working Group (EWG) published the following in October 2018:

WASHINGTON – A second round of tests commissioned by the Environmental Working Group found the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer in every sample of popular oat-based cereal and other oat-based food marketed to children. These test results fly in the face of claims by two companies, Quaker and General Mills, which have said there is no reason for concern. This is because, they say, their products meet the legal standards.

Yet almost all of the samples tested by EWG had residues of glyphosate at levels higher than what EWG scientists consider protective of children’s health with an adequate margin of safety. The EWG findings of a chemical identified as probably carcinogenic by the World Health Organization come on the heels of a major study published in JAMA Internal Medicine that found a significant reduction in cancer risk for individuals who ate a lot of organic food.

In short, if you don;'t want your kids exposed to glyphosate, buy organic cereal. The article continues:

Glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as “probably carcinogenic” to people. The IARC has steadfastly defended that decision despite ongoing attacks by Monsanto.

In 2017, glyphosate was also listed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer.

“How many bowls of cereal and oatmeal have American kids eaten that came with a dose of weed killer? That’s a question only General Mills, PepsiCo and other food companies can answer,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “But if those companies would just switch to oats that aren’t sprayed with glyphosate, parents wouldn’t have to wonder if their kids’ breakfasts contained a chemical linked to cancer. Glyphosate and other cancer-causing chemicals simply don’t belong in children’s food, period.”

Why take a chance with your health or your childrens' health? Organic foods by definition cannot contain glyphosate or any other weed killer or foreign substance. Sure, you pay a little more, but you reduce your chances of getting cancer which has been happening in younger and younger age groups. A study by the American Cancer Society has found that there is a sharp rise in colon cancer and rectal cancer rates among young adults. Once age is taken into account, those born in 1990 have double the risk of colon cancer and quadruple the risk of rectal cancer compared to people born around 1950, when risk was lowest. The study was published February 28 [2017] in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Because of growing evidence that colorectal cancer is increasing in people younger than age 55, the study authors propose that screening be considered before age 50.

The use of Monsanto's glyphosate is driven solely by the profit motive. Usage of this product results in higher crop yields, more bushels per acre and, therefore, more profits for the industrial farmer. In this instance the farmer and the chemical company could be said to be in cahoots. If glyphosate were to be banned, Monsanto would lose money and farmers' profits would not be as great. Organic farmers, however, can rest assured that the foods they are growing and selling will not cause cancer. They can sleep better at night even though their profits may not be as great. A growing demand for organic food will surely separate the population into two groups - those who care about their family's health and those who can't afford to buy organic. As always it's the haves vs the have nots so that likely the richer population who can afford organic food and can afford to be screened properly because they have the proper health insurance will live longer.

Off the Top of My Head

Man Awarded $289 million for Cancer Caused by Monsanto's Roundup

by John Lawrence, August11, 2018

A jury awarded a man dying from cancer $289 million. DeWayne Lee Johnson, who had been a school's groundskeeper, had applied the weedkiller, Roundup, for years. It destroyed the weeds but also Johnson's health. Roundup contains glyphosate, a carcinogen, no matter how many times Monsanto denies it. This is the same stuff that is sprayed on the crops you eat. No wonder there is more cancer as years go by. It's not the GMO corn and soybeans that is the culprit. It's the glyphosate that's sprayed on these "Roundup ready" crops. These crops have been genetically modified so that Roundup does not kill them, only the weeds surrounding them. This enhances the farmer's profits as he doesn't have to deal with weeds and makes foods cheaper for the consumer. But is cheap food at the expense of one's health worth it?

The LA Times reported:

The jury deliberated three days before awarding $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 million in punitive damages to groundskeeper DeWayne Lee Johnson, 46. He claimed that years of applying Monsanto’s Roundup and Ranger Pro to school properties in a Bay Area suburb of Benicia caused his incurable non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Activists, who have long battled to ban glyphosate, lauded the decision in the closely watched trial.

“Monsanto made Roundup the OxyContin of pesticides, and now the addiction and damage they caused have come home to roost,” said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group. “This won’t cure DeWayne Lee Johnson’s cancer, but it will send a strong message to a renegade company."

The verdict “signals a turning tide,” said Linda Wells, Midwest organizing director for Pesticide Action Network. “It’s time to get carcinogenic pesticides off the market, and fight for the protective regulations we all deserve,” Wells said.

Nationwide, growers have used an estimated 1.8 million tons of the chemical since it was introduced in the mid-1970s, according to government and industry estimates.

The bulk of glyphosate was sprayed on tens of millions of acres of corn and soy in the Midwest. But California growers also applied it to more than 200 crops across 4 million acres, including 1.5 million acres of almonds, making it their most widely used herbicide, according to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

Having inherited a company long vilified by environmental activists as “Monsatan,” Bayer faces high potential liabilities from hundreds of similar lawsuits, along with a battle over adding a cancer warning label on products sold in California.

A U.S. District Court judge earlier this year temporarily halted moves by California to require a cancer warning label under Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, passed by voters in 1986.

California’s decision to include glyphosate on its list of chemicals linked to cancer followed a 2015 ruling by the Europe-based International Agency for Research on Cancer that the chemical is a “probable” carcinogen.

So what is safe about ingesting poison that will probably not kill you right away? It may take on average 40 years before it kill you. Of course some will die sooner, some later. That's what averages are all about. Mr. Johnson had a huge exposure to glyphosate for many years. Most of us have smaller exposures so it will take longer for cancer to kill us. The only safe recourse is to eat organic foods as much as possible in order to reduce your exposure to this carcinogen. The American food supply today frankly consists of Frankenfoods, genetically modified products that won't be killed by herbicides and pesticides. Organic foods are not sprayed with herbicides and pesticides. That's why they cost more and are not as profitable for agribusiness.

So where do you ingest glyphosate? Fast food restaurants to be sure. They have a ready supply because glyphosate infused foods are the cheapest. Even in high end restaurants, if they don't say specifically that their foods are organic, they are probably not. When you eat at home, you have more control over the foods you eat because you can select organic foods at the supermarket. More and more supermarkets and specialty foods markets are selling them. If you want cheap food, eat foods with a glyphosate infusion. If you want to stay healthy, don't eat at nonorganic restaurants and eat organic foods at home. It's all about the money as a consumer and profits as a farmer. Monsanto's glyphosate has been a huge profit maker for Monsanto. It's the cigarette of the 21st century and not better living through chemistry but worse living through chemistry.

Off the Top of My head

Starbucks to Do Away With Plastic Straws

by John Lawrence, July 11, 2018

Now that the world's consciousness has been raised about plastic, and in particular plastic straws, Starbucks has decided to eliminate them. I guess it was that video of a sea turtle with a plastic straw stuck up its nose that did it. The world is finally waking up to the damage done by chemistry and chemical engineering. They have not only brought plastic into the world but the nerve gas used in World War 1, the Agent Orange used in Vietnam and Monsanto's Gliphosate used ubiquitously on the foods you eat. It is not easy to imagine a more diabolical group of substances. Yet Dupont promoted "Better Living Through Chemistry" starting in 1935 when everyone was starry-eyed about how modern science was going to produce miracle products and labor saving devices.

Now plastic garbage patches are filling the oceans, the detritus of oil is producing climate change, sea turtles are dying. All those things that modern science was supposed to do for us have only screwed up the planet we live on. Pesticides and herbicides were supposed to get rid of pests and weeds. Instead they have shown up in the foods we eat causing cancer. Labor saving devices have only eliminated jobs, produced a sedentary life style and a sick society infatuated with guns. Every so often a gun nut decides to join the fantasy world of movies and television and take out a dozen or more people at a time hoping to set some sort of sick record.

Better Living through Lack of Chemistry should be the motto. Chemists and chemical engineers have only messed the natural order of things and nature itself up producing an artificial world lacking any meaningful jobs, an automated nightmare. While many corporations are addicted to doing things in the most profitable way which means using artificial chemicals in their products, some, like Starbucks, are doing the right thing. Starbucks did another right thing recently when it opened up their rest rooms to public uses regardless of the purchase of one of their products.

 NPR reported:

Starbucks announced on Monday it plans to eliminate plastic straws from its 28,000 stores worldwide by 2020.

The company will broaden the manufacture and use of what some in social media have dubbed the "adult sippy cup." It's a plastic strawless lid that will come to replace single-use plastic straws that now inundate its coffee shops.

The company says the move, when fully implemented, could mean a billion fewer plastic straws across its stores each year. And it's a part of Starbucks' $10 million investment in creating recyclable and compostable cups around the world.

 The strawless lid has already been in use at many of the company's stores for certain kinds of cold drinks like cold foam and "draft nitro," the coffee drink that comes out of a keg, mixed with nitrogen. Unlike straws, the new lid can be recycled, the company said.

"For our partners and customers, this is a significant milestone to achieve our global aspiration of sustainable coffee, served to our customers in more sustainable ways," Kevin Johnson, president and chief executive officer for Starbucks, said in a statement.

Starbucks' headquarters are in Seattle, where a ban on plastic straws just kicked in.

 

L.A. jury hits Johnson & Johnson with $417-million verdict over cancer link to its talc

From the LA Times

August 21, 2017

by Richard Winton

A bottle of Johnson's Baby Powder is displayed in San Francisco. (Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

A Los Angeles jury today issued a $417-million verdict against Johnson & Johnson, finding the company liable for failing to warn a 63-year-old woman diagnosed with terminal ovarian cancer about the risks of using its talcum products.

The verdict marks the largest award yet in a number of suits claiming that the company’s talc powder causes ovarian cancer. More than 300 lawsuits are pending in California and more than 4,500 claims in the rest of the country, alleging that the healthcare giant ignored studies linking its Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products to cancer.

read more ...