The Story of Atrazine Is a Cautionary Tale

Atrazine has been on our radar for years. This lab-made herbicide is one of the most widely used in the United States. Many people have pushed against it over the last several decades—a good thing, given how studies have shown that atrazine poses numerous threats to our health. When a substance holds even a remote chance of a risk to our well-being, we feel it's critical to flag it. Especially one of which more than 70 million pounds are applied to American crops yearly. 

But there's even more to atrazine's story: proof of how far behemoth pesticide manufacturers will go to gaslight the public and the scientists looking out for our best interest.

Atrazine: an Herbicide Takes Flight

Swiss scientists introduced atrazine into the marketplace in the late 1950s. Created in a laboratory via a series of chemical reactions between cyanuric chloride, isopropylamine, and others, atrazine quickly gained the love of farmers, industrial planners, and people in the lawn care industry. They all began using the chemical to kill broadleaf weeds and small grasses that tend to interfere with crops, domestic gardens, city mediums, and green spaces. (On a biochemical level, the atrazine inhibits the targeted plants' photosynthesis capabilities.) Atrazine also has the power to kill bacteria in swimming pools, which is why it was used as a main ingredient in chlorinating swimming pools.

The Switzerland-based pesticide company Syngenta is the leading manufacturer of atrazine and, of course, a massive promoter of its alleged pro-agricultural properties. Like many lab-made chemicals, manufacturers and scientists initially deemed atrazine "safe." It has no scent or color, and scientists back then didn't detect that it caused any harm to people or animals. (We must wonder, though: Did they even study its potential for harm back then?) Of course, Syngenta marketed the heck out of it to farmers seeking to grow their crop yields and yearly capital gain.  

But as its use widened worldwide, mainly to increase the yields of corn, sugarcane, and sorghum, so did its presence in tap water, it leached into waterways, ponds, and other natural areas. As concentrations in water bodies grew, so did concerns—and fiery debates.

Heads Start Turning

Scientists, environmentalists, and activists began taking note of atrazine's consistent presence as it was washing into local ponds and water supplies. The chemical quickly became among the most common contaminants in drinking water sources, particularly in the US and various European countries.

The widespread presence of atrazine led to concern and curiosity, which thankfully resulted in testing, although this took more than a decade after atrazine's emergence. Findings about atrazine's potential harm to animal health began to catch people's attention. Researchers at the University of Sassari in Italy found atrazine to be potentially toxic to the nervous system. Another study found atrazine to disrupt normal immune system function in frogs. Meanwhile, other researchers deemed atrazine an "endocrine disruptor that demasculinizes and feminizes the gonads of male vertebrates."

The growing research findings caused people to take note and speak out. In 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency began expressing concerns about atrazine's effects and thus announced there would be scientific reviews of the chemical. Around the same time, the European Union dug deep and found its contaminated waterways to be a serious threat to the lives of humans, and thus officially banned the use of atrazine in 2003. The United States continued to take notice and implement exposure limits for the chemical, but atrazine remained both legal and in use.

An Iconoclast Proves the Harm

The proof that atrazine is downright bad for health is upsetting enough. But there's one story that adds to the impact: that of biologist Tyronne Hayes. 

As more studies on atrazine’s potential harm were revealed, Syngenta, the leading manufacturer of atrazine, began fielding pressure to look closer at its product. To appear to be doing its due diligence, Syngenta hired Hayes to research the chemical and its impact on animal and human health. Hayes rolled up his sleeves and got to work, and he soon discovered something disturbing: atrazine appeared to be interfering with the sexual development of frogs. He researched this again. And again. His lines of evidence continued to show that atrazine disrupts the reproductive development of the frogs—and that it poses potential great risk to people. He brought this to Syngenta's and others in the field's attention—but Syngenta refused to acknowledge Hayes’s finding. In November of 2000, Hayes and Syngenta went their separate ways. 

Here’s where it gets really weird. Later reports revealed that the behemoth company went to great lengths to harass Hayes, discredit his science, and tarnish his reputation as a lauded researcher. In a 2014 investigative article for The New Yorker, journalist Rachel Aviv outlines many of the attempts made by Syngenta, including how it claimed Hayes's studies could not be replicated, his work lacked statistical details, and his works weren't a clear relationship between the concentration of atrazine and the effect on the frog." Hayes also went on record to say that Syngenta followed him. A feature story in Mother Jones stated that the company paid for Google ads to divert any search results of Dr. Tyrone Hayes to "AgSense, an agribusiness coalition that leads its critique of Hayes by quoting his 'propriety and professionalism' outburst."

Through this wild, weird, and rather scary feud, Hayes stood by his research on the harms of atrazine, and many other scientists continue to today.

Atrazine Today

There is no denying that atrazine is scary and harmful. More than 40 countries see this and have officially banned its use. So why is it still allowed in the US? Regulators and those on the side of Syngenta argue that companies are allowed to only use the chemical under specific concentrations, which they posit are "safe." However, these concentrations still lead to runoff in the waterways. Plus, growing research continues to show that it's not only harmful to animals but to humans. Vanderbilt University Medical Center linked atrazine to a birth defect called gastroschisis. (In fact, a group of women in Kent, England, who all had children born with the same birth defect, believed atrazine to be the culprit.)

Thankfully, copious people are fighting back. In 2012, Syngenta settled for $105 million a lawsuit filed by more than 1,000 water providers in the Midwest who argued about the cost of removing atrazine from drinking water. Advocates in Hawaii have pushed to get the herbicide banned at the state level and have made promising strides. Companies continue to perfect filtering capabilities, including reverse osmosis and activated carbon, that rid the chemical from drinking water.

But still, atrazine is everywhere— in public water reserves, ponds, lakes, and more. It's critical to get informed on your city's levels. Contact your local municipal office to request a water report, stay educated, and take measures to filter your water and protect your health.

PFAS Are Everywhere and a Threat to Our Wellbeing. Here’s What to Know and Do

You may have heard of PFAS—a group of human-made chemicals found in countless products, from cookware to furniture. You also may have heard that PFAS can be bad for our health. Indeed, very bad for our health. But whether you've listened to this, the reasons why these substances get a well-deserved negative reputation are murky. That's because there are so many of them, and their uses are as vast as their reach. 

What Are PFAS?

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, widely known as PFAS, are human-made fluorinated compounds. Manufacturers began incorporating PFAS in the 1940s after discovering the chemistry that created them in the 1930s. By the 1950s, their use had become ubiquitous.

Two main processes create PFAS: electrochemical fluorination, called ECF, and fluorotelomerization, which are chemical processes that produce side-chain fluorinated polymers, perfluoroalkyl acids, and polyfluoroalkyl surfactants. Scientists state that "more than 600 intermediate processes have also been used" further to make certain PFAS and the associated final products, as indicated by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council.

The group of PFAS is enormous and includes thousands—more than 4,700—of chemicals, including Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), commonly found in drinking water. 

What Is the Purpose of PFAS?

When manufacturers discovered PFAS midcentury, they quickly began incorporating them into products. Why? PFAS can bolster materials, elongating their shelf-life, durability, and resistance to grease, oils, fire, and other substances. They have been used to make nonstick cookware, water- and stain-repellent materials, clothing, cosmetics, firefighting foams, furniture, and more.

One of the most significant and well-known uses of PFAS has been in nonstick cookware. American chemist Roy J. Plunkett discovered the chemistry of PFAS by accident when he worked at DuPont Company's Jackson Laboratory in the late 1930s. Plunket was working on aiming to create new refrigerants for Duponte. According to the American Physical Society, in April of 1938, Plunkett and his research assistant, Jack Rebok, discovered a new substance in the tetrafluoroethylene cylinders they'd been using. The gas substance had polymerized—something they had not predicted—into something called polytetrafluoroethylene. "The PTFE proved to have some remarkable properties," APS states. "It was corrosion- and high-heat-resistant, for instance, and had very low surface friction."

Plunkett and other chemists at the Duponte company ultimately saw the potential for these chemicals. Its first use was in the Manhattan Project, a nuclear research program undertaken during World War II, where it was added as a coating on valves and seals to prevent corrosion. Eventually, the company and scientists branded it as Teflon, which then French engineer Marc Gregoire used to make nonstick cookware in 1954. Since then, Teflon and PFAS have been created, multiplied, and used in countless ways.

A few years later, Scotchguard was born when PFOS spilled on a tennis shoe—another accident—and left its coating repellant to dirt, oil, and water.

PFAS: the Health Concerns

So PFAS are everywhere, but what you may be wondering: What is their threat? The truth is that scientists have found these chemicals to be some of the most concerning modern substances for human, animal, and environmental health. Deemed "forever chemicals," these chemicals "build up in our bodies and never break down in the environment," reports the Environmental Working Group. Studies have linked various PFAS to cancer, weakened immunity, thyroid issues, developmental defects, and other health issues.

This is all ironic, given that Roy. J Plunkett was awarded the John Scott Award, which honors people who have contributed to the "comfort, welfare, and happiness of humankind." Yes, these substances may have made it easier for fried eggs to slide off pans and onto toast, but Teflon and PFAS have wreaked havoc on our systems and health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that every American tested has been found to have PFAS chemicals in their blood.

Drinking water is one of the most common sources of exposure to PFAS chemicals. They could contaminate the drinking water of as many as 110 million Americans nationwide. The reason is that these forever chemicals easily leak out of products, migrate into the soil, water, and air, and never break down. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says that because of PFAS's widespread use and persistence in the environment, they are "found in the blood of people and animals all over the world and are present at low levels in various food products and the environment. Some PFAS can build up in people and animals with repeated exposure over time."

A 2022 study identified 57,000 sites contaminated by these chemicals in the United States. Current estimates from the Environmental Working Group show that about 200 million people may be drinking water contaminated with PFAS. The EPA shows that about 60 million people get their water from a system containing PFOA or PFOS, two of the most well-studied PFAS, at maximum levels above the new proposed limits. 

How to Reduce and Avoid PFAS

We've talked about PFAS before, notably in our e-book The Ultimate Guide to a Nontoxic Home, and we will never stop—at least, not until they're eradicated from our homes and lives. Now, this is a tall order, given how PFAS are everywhere. They are small, scary, and lasting. But we can take active measures to reduce them from our lives.

Firstly, some municipal efforts, such as those of Yorba Linda, California, give us hope. In February 2020, the Orange County city took its groundwater wells offline due to new California regulations of PFAS. When officials found PFAS, they partnered with the Orange County Water District to construct a new Ion Exchange treatment plant to remove them.

Now, in our immediate personal lives, here are some steps to take to reduce PFAS exposure:

• Divest from using brands like Scotchgard, Stainmaster, Teflon, and other companies that tout resistance to oil, water, grease, and sticking.

• Steer clear of furniture, carpets, and upholstery with added stain-repellent substances.

• Invest in glass food containers. Many plastic wraps and containers are coated in anti-stick and anti-grease PFAS with zero warning.

• Invest in a water filter that can reduce PFAS chemicals from your tap water. The EWG has an excellent water filter guide that offers tips, products, and steps to remove PFAS from your tap H2O.

• Cook as much as you can at home. Whether eating in our carrying out, restaurants often cook on nonstick pans. Those chemicals can leak into your food.

• Be discerning when purchasing makeup. Only buy from beauty brands that use clean ingredients you can pronounce.

• Purchase our The Ultimate Guide to a Nontoxic Home for more ideas on removing PFAS from your life. If you already have it, gift it to a friend. 

Is Our Clothing Making Us Sick? Here’s What One Journalist Wants Us to Know

"Even the largest, most affordable drugstore brands are now reformulating their beauty and cleaning products to be safer. And you can find organic milk at conventional grocery stores, too. Yet fashion, a $2.5 trillion global industry, has somehow completely evaded the same scrutiny."

These words by journalist and author Alden Wicker in her new book To Dye For: How Toxic Fashion Is Making Us Sick—and How We Can Fight Back hit a grave and critical chord. Clothing manufacturers are lacing the items we put on our bodies with horrendous chemicals. Take formaldehyde, a severe and ubiquitous preservative and fertilizer linked to cancer. A study sampling a variety of dyed garments published in the journal Toxic found formaldehyde in:

• 22 percent of the tested cotton garments

• 14 percent of synthetic material garments

• 47 percent of cotton-synthetic garments 

Unbeknownst to us, chemicals are everywhere in our daily clothes—and it could be harming us. 

This fact underscores Wicker's intention in her book. Chemicals, such as formaldehyde, go totally unregulated in the clothing industry. Manufacturers can spray whatever they choose to up an item’s performance, say to prevent wrinkles or to make them waterproof, without scrutiny. It's bizarre, especially as Wicker points out that we have ingredient lists for our foods and personal care items—much of which continues to contain harmful ingredients—yet there is no transparency labeling for a t-shirt or pair of pants colored with dyes made of fossil fuels.

Wicker, who has covered the topics of sustainability and ethical fashion for years (she's the founder of EcoCult, a site that takes an in-depth look at the fast fashion world), began investigating chemicals in fashion several years ago. Her interest was piqued when Delta flight attendants began complaining they were getting sick after wearing new uniforms provided to them by the company. The attendants reported breaking out in rashes. Some even complained of breathing issues. 

That story led Wicker to investigate the unregulated use of potentially harmful chemicals. She spent more than two years studying clothing chemicals and our health. She interviewed a wide array of people who were impacted by the issue, including consumers and garment factory workers. Her research and reporting revealed just how many of us are unaware of the fact that our clothing has the potential to make us sick. 

In an interview for 'Fresh Air,' Wicker told Tanya Mosley, "This is a conversation I've had over and over and over again over the past few years where people say, I've never heard about this before, and then I start to tell them about some things, and they go, oh, yeah. You know what? You're right. I do get a rash when I wear things like this […]."

Wicker's book is stunning in its breadth of information and it's also a rallying cry. We must continue to investigate what goes in and on our bodies, challenge toxic measures taken by corporate giants, and fight for transparency and truth. 

To learn more about Alden Wicker and to order her book To Dye For, visit aldenwicker.com.

What We All Must Know about Our Drinking Water

The news headlines about our drinking water are horrifying: 

• “Forever chemicals spike” (The Denver Post)

• “Water restrictions drag on” (USA Today)

• “Community members share concerns about possible water pollutants (WEAU TV)

Even more disturbing: These stories revealing the contaminants lurking in our water are the ones making the news. We do not hear about the hundreds upon hundreds of small-town water issues not reported. According to Erin Brockovich, the renowned public health advocate, environmental activist, and author, at least 1500 boil water advisories occur every month across the US. Those circumstances may not make headlines, but they make countless residents sick. 

So why is our drinking water in the US in such dire straits? And what do we need to know? Here are the four biggest concerns:

#1: Old infrastructure

Most water and sewer pipes in the United States date back 45 to 150 years. They’re rusty, old, made of crumbling materials, and rife with issues. This infrastructure is in dire need of replacement because of corrosion, but doing so is extremely expensive. Many municipalities lack the funds in their budgets to invest in updated infrastructure. 

#2: Toxic pipe materials

In 1986, US Congress banned the use of lead in water pipes. Still, many pipes in existence before the ban remain— up to 10 million, according to the EPA. Lead from these pipes leak into the water, which we then consume. Research shows that lead stays in the body, leading to grave health impacts. (Earlier this July, the York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning published their report “No Excuses, NYC: Replace Lead Drinking Water Pipes Now,” revealing that 21 percent of NYC residents may be drinking water from lead pipes. And in California, daycare centers show high amounts of lead consumption linked to water.)

Additionally, plastic is a cause of concern. While non-lead pipes are often made of steel or iron, more municipalities are updating their infrastructure to plastic. This gives us chills. 

#3: Forever chemicals

Common everyday products, from cookware to containers to personal care products, comprise PFAS and PFOA, which are highly toxic fluorinated chemicals. Deemed “forever chemicals,” these chemicals “build up in our bodies and never break down in the environment,” reports the Environmental Working Group. “Very small doses of PFAS have been linked to cancer, reproductive and immune system harm, and other diseases.” PFA are some of the most concerning emerging contaminants impacting our water today. 

#4: Bacteria and microorganisms

Pathogenic bacteria (such as E. coli), microbes, and viruses are commonly present in water, as most of our drinking water comes from surface waters that can be polluted. To thwart these bacteria and viruses' health risks, municipalities add chlorine to the water. The issue is that when chlorine combines with organic materials, such as dirt, it sometimes creates disinfection byproducts, such as Trihalomethanes (THM). These byproducts pose significant health risks when consumed. 

What can we do?

This is a giant concern, and it can be overwhelming. But like any issue, we can do the most good by educating ourselves, talking about it, and taking small action. Here are a few things you can do today to fight for cleaner water:

• Please read about the state of our water system. Let’s educate ourselves as much as possible. Erin Brockovich’s ‘The Brockovich Report’ is an excellent place to start. 

• Talk about this— with your family, friends, and neighbors.

• Communicate with your local government. Attend a city council meeting and ask questions about the state of your town or city’s pipes and the budget for improvements.

• Be mindful of the water you drink. Stay up-to-date on boil water advisories in your area. 

• Filter your water before drinking it. This can help to remove harmful impurities and contaminants. We love Waterdrop and LARQ.