Category: Environment

Merger From Hell Approved By DOJ, Warnings Of Agrichemical Chokehold On Food System

(NaturalBlaze by Andrea Germanos) Watchdog groups sounded alarms on Monday after the Wall Street Journal reported that the proposed mega-merger of Bayer and Monsanto has cleared its final regulatory hurdle in the United States.

The reported approval from the Justice Department came “after the companies pledged to sell off additional assets,” the Journalreported, and despite concerns raised by hundreds of food and farm groups. It also comes weeks after the European Commission gave its thumbs up.

Related: Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods

“The approval of the third supersized seed merger, after ChemChina-Syngenta and Dow-DuPont,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, “leaves farmers vulnerable to price gouging for seeds and other supplies and strengthens the hold a few dominant corporations have over the entire food system.”

“The Justice Department’s rubber stamping of these three seed mega-mergers transforms the already concentrated agrichemical and seed market, effectively reducing the number of competitors from six to three,” she added.

Because it will make it harder for farmers to acquire non-genetically modified seeds to plant, it “makes it harder for agriculture to get off the GMO-chemical treadmill that just keeps increasing in speed,” she said.

With its reported stamp of approval, the pending merger shows that “the federal government is not taking the impact of corporate control of our food supply seriously. It’s time for Congress to establish a moratorium on mega-mergers in the food system,” Hauter argued.

Related: Foods That Are GMO

Jason Davidson, food and technology campaign associate with Friends of the Earth, was equally critical in his reaction to the development.

“The Department of Justice has decided that corporate profits matter more than the interests consumers and farmers. This decision will massively increase the power of major agrichemical companies that already have a stranglehold on our food system,” he declared in a statement.

He went on to lament that “American farmers will see increased seed prices, fewer options, and decreased bargaining power.” Echoing Hauter’s warning, he argued. “This merger from hell will further entrench the failing model of toxic, chemical-intensive agriculture, which is poisoning people and the planet.”

Related: Doctors Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

A recent poll found that nearly 94 percent of farmers expressed concern that a Bayer-Monsanto merger would have a negative impact on independent farmers and their communities. It also found that 89 percent of farmers said they believe the merger would lead to increased pressure for chemically-dependent farming.

How to Avoid Plastics

(OLM) Many manufacturers have stopped using BPA to harden plastics, replacing it with “BPA-free” alternatives like the most common replacement, BPS (Bisphenol S).

Our research showed that low levels of BPS had a similar impact on the embryo as BPA. In the presence of either BPA or BPS, embryonic development was accelerated. Additionally, BPA caused premature birth.” –Nancy Wayne

You probably can’t avoid plastics. Even if you go to another planet plastic is going to take you there and contaminate that ecosystem. But you can limit plastic consumption and keep your body in a homeostasis state that detoxifies itself at all times.  And the good news is that with the right diet and a healthy body, BPA and BPS can be flushed out of your system quickly, some say within 24 hours. A properly working body can process and dispel a lot of toxins. An unhealthy body rids itself of toxins at a slower rate than the toxins are consumed and produced.

Ways to Limit Plastic Contamination & Plastic Use

  1. Keep your home clean, and vacuum regularly
  2. Filter tap water
  3. Always avoid artificial fragrances
  4. Stay away from warm or hot plastics, don’t even breathe near them
  5. Avoid canned foods
  6. Avoid conventional personal care products like shampoos, soaps, moisturizers, makeup
  7. Avoid conventional and big-ag produce (pesticides and herbicides have plastic residues)
  8. Cook your own foods using whole-food ingredients
  9. Stop using plastic straws, even in restaurants
  10. Purchase food, like cereal, pasta, and rice from bulk bins and fill a reusable bag or container
  11. Use paper or your own reusable shopping bags, bulk goods bags, and bring your own mesh produce bags (FYI: I suspect that many paper bags contain BPA and BPS)
  12. No more chewing gum, it’s made of plastic
  13. Buy boxes and glass instead of plastic bottles whenever possible
  14. Use a reusable bottle or mug for your beverages or coffee and soda refills (but you don’t drink that crap, do you?)
  15. Boycott any restaurant that still uses styrofoam – Why is that still a thing?
  16. Use matches or invest in a refillable metal lighter – avoid the plastic disposable ones
  17. Eat real, whole foods – fresh foods equates to less packaging and less previous plastic contact
  18. Don’t use plasticware ever, bring your own if need be
  19. Use cloth diapers – disposable diapers are extremely toxic to the environment and your baby
  20. Make your own cleaning products
  21. Pack your lunch in glass containers and reusable bags.
  22. Use a razor with replaceable blades instead of a disposable razor
  23. Find other disposal products that can be replaced by their non-disposable counterparts
  24. Avoid seafood
  25. Avoid cheap supplements and be wary of sports supplements

Also, Avoid BPA receipts!

Did you know that some receipts contain 250 to 1,000 times the amount of BPA typically found in a can of food?  If that isn’t scary enough, BPA transfers readily from the receipt to skin and cannot be washed off. Different types of receipts contain varying levels of BPA. If you aren’t sure whether or not a merchant uses BPA in their receipts, either ask directly or let them know early in the transaction that you will not need your receipt. Gas station receipts are particularly notorious for containing huge amounts of BPA.” – Home Maker Chic

This article is an excerpt from How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors, original published on OLM.

Surprising Way to Massively Cut Pollution

(Dr. Mercola) Raising cows on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to produce beef is one of the most environmentally destructive practices on the planet. Unfortunately, while far healthier and environmentally friendly grass fed beef has the potential to solve many of the problems that CAFO meats have caused, CAFOs remain the primary method of livestock agriculture in the U.S. Rather than quickly phasing out their use to stave off environmental and public health decline, their use is actually growing.

From 2002 to 2012, the total number of livestock on the largest U.S. factory farms rose by 20 percent, according to data released by advocacy group Food & Water Watch, producing 369 million tons of manure —13 times the amount produced by the entire U.S. population.1 Further, livestock production contributes close to 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions to the environment, which is more than the transportation industry.2

In a revealing investigation by The Guardian, using methodology created by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), it’s noted, “The top 20 meat and dairy companies emitted more greenhouse gases in 2016 than all of Germany, Europe’s biggest climate polluter by far.

If these companies were a country, they would be the world’s seventh largest greenhouse gas emitter.”3 In stark contrast, switching to grass fed beef not only can cut greenhouse gas emissions but also offset them completely by helping to sequester carbon into the soil.

Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) Grazing Is Good for the Environment

By mimicking the natural behavior of migratory herds of wild grazing animals — meaning allowing livestock to graze freely and moving the herd around in specific patterns — farmers can support nature’s efforts to regenerate and thrive. This kind of land management system promotes the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) by sequestering it back into the soil where it can do a lot of good. Once in the earth, the CO2 can be safely stored for hundreds of years and adds to the soil’s fertility.

Adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing is a certain type of rotational grazing that allows cattle to graze in one paddock at a time, while other paddocks have a chance to grow and regenerate at an accelerated pace. It focuses on short periods of grazing in one area, then moving on to the next. According to Standard Soil, which is aiming to reinvent agriculture by growing better soil, “AMP grazing works because it actively regenerates soil by capturing more sunlight”:4

“Adaptive Multi-Paddock (AMP) grazing uses high livestock densities for short durations between long periods of forage rest to catalyze accelerated grass growth. The system is not scheduled or prescriptive, but moves the animals in response to how land and life respond. AMP grazing is thus highly observant and adaptive. The system mimics the natural pattern of dense herds of wild ruminants moved frequently by the forces of predation and food availability.

Scientific studies have documented the potential for AMP grazing methods to capture and hold material volumes of both carbon and water in improved soil, and thus simultaneously improve both quantity and quality of forage. We thus maximize sunlight capture throughout the year in reliable quantities of high quality plant biomass, and then monetize that forage via antibiotic and hormone-free beef raised on eating nothing but grass in open pastures.”

AMP Grazing Cuts Pollution

Grass fed beef produced using AMP grazing show great promise to cut pollution. Researchers from Michigan State University and the Union of Concerned Scientists conducted a life cycle analysis to compare AMP grazing with standard CAFO, or feedlot, systems in the upper Midwest. On-farm beef production and emissions data were combined with a four-year soil carbon analysis to reveal that AMP can sequester large amounts of soil carbon (C).

In fact, after including soil organic carbon and greenhouse gas emission (GHG) footprint estimates, emissions from the AMP system were reduced to a negative amount whereas feedlot emissions increased due to soil erosion. “This indicates that AMP grazing has the potential to offset GHG emissions through soil C sequestration, and therefore the finishing phase could be a net C sink,” the researchers wrote, adding, “Emissions from the grazing system were offset completely by soil C sequestration.”5

It makes perfect sense that Standard Soil states AMP grazing is so effective because it regenerates soil, as soil is an incredibly efficient carbon sink.

Elizabeth Candelario, managing director for Demeter, a global biodynamic farming certification agency, explained a French initiative called the 4 per 1,000 Initiative,6 which found that if we were to increase the carbon (the organic matter) in all agricultural land around the world by a mere 0.4 percent per year, the annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere would be halted, because so much carbon would be drawn from the atmosphere. Sequestering carbon in the soil can help:

Regenerate the soil Limit agricultural water usage with no till and crop covers
Increase crop yields7 Reduce the need for agricultural chemicals and additives, if not eliminate such need entirely in time
Reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels Reduce air and water pollution by lessening the need for herbicides, pesticides and synthetic fertilizers

Why CAFOs Aren’t Necessary to Feed the World

Industrial agriculture is touted as the most efficient way to feed the world’s growing population, but this is a deceptive myth. More than half of the world’s calories (close to 60 percent) come from wheat, rice and corn, which is not only unhealthy but unsustainable.8 As noted by bioGraphic:9

“The Green Revolution of the 1950s and 1960s introduced higher-yielding wheat and rice, hybrid maize, fertilizers and novel pesticides to farmers. The changes brought life-saving jumps in crop productivity, most profoundly in Asia. But globally, they drastically reduced the types of crops being grown.

Hundreds of edible species were marginalized in favor of a few calorie-rich grains. And within a few decades, agriculture had been transformed from a complex, diverse, regional enterprise to evermore simplified, industrial production.”

Unfortunately, as farmers increasingly plant mostly wheat, rice and corn (including for animal feed), more than 75 percent of crop genetic diversity has disappeared since the 1900s, “And that relentless march toward monoculture,” bioGraphic noted, “leaves the homogenous fields more vulnerable to devastation by drought, pests and disease.”10 Philip Lymbery, chief executive of Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), noted that ending the practice of grain-feeding animals could actually feed another 4 billion people.

He pointed to the U.N.’s FAO data, which found the crops harvested in 2014 could have fed more than 15 billion people, calorie-wise, which is double the world’s current population, had it not been largely wasted and funneled into animal feed.11 Writing for The Guardian, Juliette Majot, executive director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), and nonprofit organization Grain researcher Devlin Kuyek further asserted:12

“[T]he world’s largest meat and dairy companies … explain that their production is necessary for world food security, and that they should therefore be let off the hook, or better yet, get incentives for tinkering with their greenhouse gas emissions. This is not true. These companies produce a vast amount of highly subsidized meat and dairy in a handful of countries where these products are already overconsumed.

They then export their surpluses to the rest of the world, undercutting the millions of small farmers who actually do ensure food security and bombarding consumers with unhealthy processed foods …

They will say that the only way to effectively reduce emissions is by squeezing out ever more milk from each dairy cow or by bringing beef cattle to slaughter ever more quickly. Such ‘solutions’ would only compound the industry’s horrific treatment of workers and animals and exacerbate the environmental and health crises caused by the industry.”

Regenerative Practices Provide Economic Benefits for Entire Community

CAFOs are known to destroy communities, polluting waterways, creating toxic air pollution and sickening area residents. Property values plummet when CAFOs are built, as does the local economy. While CAFOs often tout increased tax revenue when trying to venture into new regions, the reality is that they drain resources from the community, while purchasing supplies from outside the area and paying workers low wages, thus providing little to no economic stimulation and, in return, devastating environmental damage.13

In stark contrast to industrial agriculture, organic agriculture benefits local economies, according to research published in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.14 The study found that clusters of counties with high numbers of organic operations (organic hot spots) had a lower county-level poverty rate and a higher median household income compared to general agriculture hotspots.

The findings were so strong the researchers described hotspots of organic production as “local economic development tools” and said policymakers could focus on organic development as a way to promote economic growth in rural areas.

There is hope that change is near, as even restaurant giant McDonald’s is dabbling in regenerative farming, helping to fund a study on the impacts of AMP grazing on U.S. farms and ranches.15 Perhaps favorable findings could significantly alter the way that all of McDonald’s ranchers raise their cattle, which would be a game-changer in the industry.

More Benefits of Grass Fed Farming

Grass fed animal products are not only better for the environment, they’re better for the animals and public health. Levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) increase by two- to threefold when cattle are grass finished as opposed to grain finished, for instance.16

This is a significant benefit, as CLA is associated with a lower risk of cancer and heart disease and optimized cholesterol levels. The ratio of dietary fats is also healthier in grass fed beef. According to Back to Grass: The Market Potential for U.S. Grassfed Beef, a report produced by a collaboration between sustainable agriculture and ecological farming firms:17

“Although the exact physiologic mechanisms behind these benefits are not completely understood, grassfed beef (and dairy) can provide a steady dietary source of CLAs. The optimal ratio of dietary omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids is believed to be between 1-to-1 and 4-to-1. Seven studies that compared the overall fat content of different beef types found that grassfed beef had an average ratio of 1.53, while grain-fed beef had a less healthy average ratio of 7.6.”

Grass fed meat is also higher in antioxidants like vitamins E and A, the report noted, along with the enzymes superoxide dismutase and catalase, which mop up free radicals that could otherwise hasten oxidation and spoilage. Grain feeding cows also encourages the growth of E. coli in the animals’ gut, as it leads to a more acidic environment. Grain-fed cows live in a state of chronic inflammation, which increases their risk of infection and disease, and necessitates low doses of antibiotics in feed for disease-prevention purposes.18

This isn’t the case with grass fed cattle, which stay naturally healthy as they’re allowed access to pasture, sunshine and the outdoors. In a Consumer Reports study of 300 raw ground beef samples, grass fed beef raised without antibiotics was three times less likely to be contaminated with multidrug-resistant bacteria compared to conventional (CAFO) samples.19

The grass fed beef was also less likely to be contaminated with E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus than the CAFO meat. So while giving you more nutrition, you’re also less likely to be exposed to drug-resistant pathogens when eating grass fed food.

How to Find High-Quality Grass Fed Products

The majority of animal foods sold in the U.S. are raised on CAFOs, not grass fed farms. You can make a significant difference in your health and that of the environment and local community by seeking out foods from small farmers using AMP grazing and other regenerative agriculture practices.

Toward that end, I encourage you to look for the American Grassfed Association (AGA) logo on meat and dairy, as it ensures the animals were born and raised on American family farms, fed only grass and forage from weaning until harvest, and raised on pasture without confinement to feedlots.20 By buying grass fed or pastured animal products, including beef, bison, chicken, milk and eggs, it means you are making a solid choice toward protecting, not polluting, the planet.

Air pollution from industrial shutdowns and startups worse than thought

(The Conversation) When Hurricane Harvey struck the Texas coast in August 2017, many industrial facilities had to shut down their operations before the storm arrived and restart once rainfall and flooding had subsided.

These shutdowns and startups, as well as accidents caused by the hurricane, led to a significant release of air pollutants. Over a period of about two weeks, data we compiled from the Texas’ Air Emission Event Report Database indicates these sites released 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds and other pollutants.

These types of emissions that result from startups, shutdowns or malfunctions are often referred to as “excess” or “upset” emissions and are particularly pronounced during times of natural disasters, as was the case with Hurricane Harvey.

Recommended: Scientists Discover a Superbug With Undetectable Antibiotic Resistance

However, as we document in a newly published study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, they also occur regularly during the routine operation of many industrial facilities, sometimes in large quantities. And, even if unintended or unavoidable, the pollutants released during these events are in violation of the U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA).

With the EPA now revisiting the rules regarding these air toxics, our study shows how significant they are to public health – and how historically they have not been systematically tracked across the country or regulated comprehensively.

Excess emissions in Texas

Our study examines the occurrence of excess emissions in industrial facilities in Texas over the period from 2002 to 2016. We focused on Texas because, unlike nearly all other states, it has established comprehensive reporting requirements. The state collects data on so-called hazardous air pollutants that cause harm to people exposed to them, such as benzene, as well as substances called criteria pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides that contribute to the formation of ozone.

As a general rule, states set limits to industrial air emissions based on provisions in their State Implementation Plan (SIP), which is their strategy for meeting CAA requirements. The EPA in turn is responsible for ensuring that each state’s SIP is drafted in accordance with the CAA.

The CAA requires sources of air pollution to achieve continuous emissions reductions, which in essence means companies need to install and maintain equipment to limit the release of pollutants that happen during routine operations.

Excess emissions occur when pollution abatement systems, such as scrubbers, baghouses, or flares that curtail emissions before they are released, fail to fully operate as the result of an unexpected malfunction, startup or shutdown. That is, a facility fails to maintain continuous emissions reductions, thereby exceeding its permit limits.

Recommended: Drinking Bottled Water Means Drinking Microplastics, According To Damning New Study

Although one might assume that such occurrences are rare, we found that excess emissions in Texas are frequent, sometimes large, and likely result in significant health damages for individuals living in communities near where these emissions are released.

Specifically, there are four important takeaways from our study.

First, excess emissions represent a sizeable share of permitted (or routine) emissions. In the case of the natural gas liquids industry, excess emissions amounted to 77 thousand tons over the period 2004-2015, representing 58 percent of the industry’s routine emissions for that pollutant. Refineries emitted 23 thousand tons of excess emissions (10 percent of their routine emissions of SO2) while oil and gas fields released 11 thousand tons (17 percent of their routine emissions of SO2).

Second, the distribution of excess emissions is highly skewed. While thousands of excess emissions events occur every year in Texas, the top 5 percent of events release more pollutants than all the other events combined. In extreme cases, excess emissions events can release vast amounts of pollutants in a very short period of time. In 2003, a Total oil refinery in Port Arthur emitted 1,296 tons of sulfur dioxide within 56 hours, due to a power outage caused by a lighting strike. That was almost twice the amount of the total sulfur dioxide that refinery emitted that year from its routine operations.

Third, several industrial sectors account for a disproportionate amount of excess emissions. Facilities in just five sectors – natural gas liquids, refineries, industrial organic chemicals, electric services and oil and natural gas fields – emit about 80 percent of all excess emissions from industrial facilities in Texas.

Estimated damages from air toxics from excess emissions by county. Reprinted with permission. Copyright (2018) American Chemical Society. Figure compiled by the authors using data from TCEQ, EASIUR, QGIS and Manson et al (2017)., Author provided (No reuse)

Moreover, a few facilities within each sector are responsible for the vast majority of excess emissions. For example, the top six oil refineries are responsible for 70 percent and 77 percent of the excess emissions of sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide, respectively, released from all 30 Texas refineries.

Finally, excess emissions have important health effects. Using a model that links pollution to mortality, we estimate that the health damages attributable to excess emissions in Texas between 2004-2015 averaged US$150 million annually. These estimates are certainly not comprehensive as they only consider damages from premature mortality due to particulate matter (PM) emissions caused by the emission of sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides.

The model does not account for the direct damage from other pollutants or from nonfatal, acute health events such as asthma attacks. As such, our estimate can be considered a lower bound.

Recommended: Trump Tells EPA to Dismantle Clean Water Rules

Beyond Texas

The data we analyzed in our study reveal the magnitude of the problem caused by excess emissions. Yet, it is important to remember that they only capture the situation in Texas. We know very little about excess emissions and their trends over time at the national level. That’s because Texas is one of just a few states (the others being Louisiana and Oklahoma) that systematically track and make public information on these type of pollution releases.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has gone as far as to implement a system that requires facilities to publicly report excess emissions events within 24 hours of their occurrence, information that the TCEQ then makes available on its website.

Although Texas is unique in its reporting requirements, excess emissions events are common elsewhere as the watchdog group the Environmental Integrity Project, has documented in a series of reports.

Excess emissions are underregulated

The EPA, after decades of leaving excess emissions outside of its regulatory focus, made a concerted effort to update its approach during the final years of the Obama Administration.

Prompted by a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club, the EPA issued a State Implementation Plan (SIP) call in 2015, asking states to revisit the way they regulate excess emissions. The agency found that certain SIP provisions in 36 states were “substantially inadequate to meet Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements.”

This means that industrial facilities may have been regularly surpassing the limit of their permitted pollution limits, in part because of these excess emissions. But because of state agency exemption provisions, it could be the case that these facilities would not always be penalized. In other words, the EPA determined that many states had, as a matter of policy, often failed to treat excess emissions as violations and potentially shielded offending companies from paying fines.

The EPA is now revisiting its policy as part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to scale back many of EPA regulations and decisions during the Obama era. Given the frequency, magnitude, and important adverse effects for public health, the EPA’s ultimate decision on how states should treat excess emissions is consequential.

In addition, much is still to be learned about the magnitude of the excess emissions problem across the country. If an effective regulatory framework is to be designed to reduce them, it is imperative that more states begin tracking excess emissions events in a detailed and systematic way, following the example set by Texas.

Drug Companies Responsible for Massive Environmental Pollution

(Dr. Mercola) Environmental pollution is a tremendous concern, and the sources of toxic pollution are many. One source that has managed to skirt below the radar is the drug industry.1,2,3,4 In 2016, the nonprofit foundation Changing Markets issued a report on “Impacts of Pharmaceutical Pollution on Communities and Environment in India,”5 on behalf of Nordea Asset Management, a major investment firm in Sweden.

According to this report, the severe water pollution problem in India can be, to a significant extent, traced back to the generic drug industry. Between 2010 and 2015, the number of contaminated waterways in India more than doubled, and by 2015, more than half of the nation’s rivers were polluted. India’s low cost of manufacturing has lured a number of drug companies to set up shop, congregating in the city of Hyderabad and along the Andhra Pradesh coastline.

Recommended Reading: How to Detoxify From Antibiotics and Other Chemical Antimicrobials

According to a recent economic survey by the Finance Ministry of India, Hyderabad’s drug industry accounts for nearly half of the country’s drug exports.6 “Outsourcing of production to the emerging markets, where labor is cheap, workforces skilled and environmental standards lax, has now become second nature for the pharmaceutical majors, many of which are based in the United States and Europe,” the report noted.

The report also stressed that there’s a disturbing lack of transparency within the drug industry about the origin of active ingredients and the finished drugs, and that while regulators “who could easily demand greater transparency from the drug industry, have so far shied away from taking action.”

New Report Calls Renewed Attention to India’s Pollution Crisis

In a follow-up report,7 the Changing Markets Foundation now calls renewed attention to the pollution crisis in Hyderabad, with a focus on heavy metal and other toxic waste pollution created by the “bulk drug” industry operating in India.

Based on visits to the area, interviews with experts and locals, and analysis of published research and media articles, the report concludes that drug companies in Hyderabad continue to “discharge untreated or inappropriately treated wastewater into the environment and that local and national authorities are failing to get the situation under control.”

In fact, in the two years since the publication of the first report, the situation in Hyderabad has deteriorated further. What’s worse, plans to expand drug production in the city, combined with a lack of regulations to control toxic waste emissions, makes for “a grim future” for local residents in the area, the report warns.

In addition to the release of untreated effluent, local media investigations have revealed the practice of illegal toxic waste dumping, where drug companies are discarding hazardous waste under the cover of night, using unmarked vehicles.8,9 Mass die-offs of fish have also made headlines, and the dead fish were found to contain toxic solvents used during the drug manufacturing process.

Source: Changing Markets Foundation, 

Hyderabad’s Pharmaceutical Pollution CrisisWater sampling near drug factories in the area, collected in September 2017, reveal significant amounts of heavy metals — including lead, mercury, copper, cadmium, vanadium, hexavalent chromium, nickel, zinc and arsenic — as well as toxic industrial solvents, are being released into the city’s waterways.

“In some cases, these were found to be present at extremely high concentrations, orders of magnitude higher than maximum regulatory limits or safe exposure levels, which points to substantial human and ecological risk potential,” the report states, adding “The mere presence of some of these substances is cause for alarm given their extreme toxicity.”

Antibiotic Production Poses Grave Risks

The report also highlights previous studies showing factories manufacturing antibiotics pose a grave risk by fueling antibiotic resistance in the environment. Antibiotic pollution is a problem not only in India, but also in China, Pakistan, Korea, Denmark, Norway and Croatia, and promotes the development of drug-resistant pathogens.

In November 2016, German researchers collected water samples from “the direct environment of bulk drug manufacturing facilities, the vicinity of two sewage treatment plants, the Musi River and habitats in Hyderabad and nearby villages.”10

Twenty-eight sampling sites were surveyed, and the water samples were analyzed for 25 anti-infective pharmaceuticals as well as multidrug-resistant pathogens and certain resistance genes. Disturbingly, all of the samples were contaminated with antimicrobials, including high concentrations of moxifloxacin, voriconazole and fluconazole. Area sewers also contained elevated concentrations of eight other antibiotics.

Some of the water samples contained antimicrobials at levels up to 5,500 times higher than the environmental regulation limit. What’s more, more than 95 percent of the samples also contained multidrug-resistant bacteria and fungi. The researchers called the contamination “unprecedented” and blamed it on “insufficient wastewater management by bulk drug manufacturing facilities, which seems to be associated with the selection and dissemination of carbapenemase-producing pathogens.”

Toxic Antibiotics Pollute India’s Waterways and Farmland

What happens is that during the drug manufacturing process, significant quantities of antibiotics are flushed out into wastewater, which then find its way into rivers, drinking water and farmland. The Patancheru water treatment plant, located near Hyderabad, receives 400,000 gallons of wastewater from 90 drug companies each day. All of this manufacturing effluent is combined with domestic wastewater, less than 25 percent of which actually undergoes treatment.

Swedish researchers, who have studied and published environmental reports about Hyderabad since 2007, have reported that some drug levels found in wastewater are higher than what is found in patients’ blood.11 The worst water contaminant detected was the antibiotic ciprofloxacin, which was found at a concentration high enough to give 44,000 people a full course of treatment.

Cipro is a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, a class of synthetic antibacterial drugs that directly inhibit bacterial DNA synthesis, and has been linked to permanent nerve damage in some patients. Due to their tremendous health risks, fluoroquinolones should be reserved for treating serious bacterial infections that will not respond to any other treatment. The idea that Cipro is being disseminated at those levels into the environment and people’s drinking water is disconcerting, to say the least.

Antibiotic Pollution Promotes Spread of Drug-Resistant Genes

Researchers have also confirmed that this wastewater is toxic to a number of organisms, and promotes drug-resistant genes. DNA samples taken downstream from drug manufacturing facilities reveal nearly 2 percent of the samples contain drug-resistant genes. Aside from direct ingestion, contaminated wastewater also finds its way onto crop fields via irrigation and sludge (biosolids) used as fertilizer.

In this way, drug-resistant genes are spread, shared and multiplied throughout the environment. A 2013 paper12 published in Environmental Health Perspectives addresses management options for reducing antibiotics and drug-resistant genes into the environment — such as safe disposal practices, wastewater and biosolid treatment, limiting agricultural and aquacultural use of antibiotics — and using alternatives to antibiotics whenever possible. But, so far, regulators and the industry itself have done virtually nothing.

Indian Drug Manufacturers May Lose European Supply Contracts

According to Changing Markets, Indian drug manufacturers who fail to clean up their act may soon lose their competitive advantage though. According to the report:13

“European NGOs have recently called for major procurement bodies, including the U.K.’s National Health Service, German health insurance companies, and French hospitals, to blacklist the worst-offending polluters and embed environmental criteria in all the contracts with pharmaceutical suppliers. Several of these organizations are now reviewing the situation. In Sweden, the country’s regions have come together and introduced environmental criteria and audits in their contracts.”

Sasja Beslik, who heads Nordea’s Group Sustainable Finance, also warned that “The pharmaceutical industry has to take action to tackle pollution at Indian factories supplying medicines to the global market,” adding that Nordea is willing to “continue the engagement with the pharma industry in order to find constructive and concrete solutions for these significant challenges that are impacting millions of people and the environment.”14 Changing Markets’ campaign manager Natasha Hurley also stressed that:15

“Multinational pharmaceutical companies which outsource API [active product ingredient] production to India to cut costs and maximize profits have a responsibility to take rapid action to put a stop to pollution in their supply chains.

Given the lack of transparency within the industry and the slow progress the global pharma giants have made on this to date, it is of paramount importance that regulators introduce environmental criteria that guard against such bad practices, both at national and international level.”

Pollution From Drug Manufacturing — A Supply Chain Problem That Must Be Tackled

According to the report, pollution from drug manufacturing has been “clearly exposed as a supply chain problem,” and the answer lies in holding drug companies responsible for their supply chains. While some have started taking steps in the right direction, “the industry and regulators are not moving fast enough to address the threat,” Changing Markets warns, saying that multinational drug companies that outsource production of active ingredients to India must step up and “take rapid action to end pollution within their supply chain.”

Regulatory agencies and medical agencies must also add environmental criteria to the good manufacturing practices standards, to prevent uncontrolled pollution within drug manufacturing. It’s a truly sad irony that millions of people in India are being poisoned by the very industry producing “lifesaving” medication for the rest of the world.

On a personal level, there’s not much you can do about this state of affairs. Governments and the drug industry need to address these problems head on, and hopefully Nordea’s push to hold drug companies accountable will have a marked effect.

Cleaning Up Your Own Household

That said, it’s important to remember that pollution is a global problem, and that pollutants don’t stay in any one area. Toxins and drug-resistant pathogens in India’s waterways spread far and wide. As noted in a 2008 report16 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, multidrug-resistant E.coli bacteria have even been found in the Arctic; brought there by migrating birds!

So, no matter where you live, it would be wise to consider the purity of both your food and water. Also be mindful of not adding to the problem yourself. Never dispose of unused drugs by flushing them down the drain or toilet. It’s also inadvisable to throw them out in your garbage, as then they just end up in a landfill. For guidance on proper drug disposal, see this previous article.

Unfortunately, toxic biosolids may be used even in organic farming, and may be found in USDA 100 percent organic compost, mulch and potting soil for use in your own backyard. These products do not need to disclose the presence of biosolids, but some companies will list “milogranite” on the label, which means it contains toxic biosolids.

Your best alternative is to contact your local nursery and ask them if they use biosolids in their compost. Another alternative is to make your own, using a composting bin or wood chips for example. When it comes to buying organic food, the only way to find out if biosolids were used is to talk to the farmer.

Lastly, consider installing a high-quality water filtration system in your home, as drugs are a commonly occurring contaminant just about everywhere. The reason for this is because water treatment facilities are not equipped to filter these substances out. For more information and guidance on water filtration, see “How to Properly Filter Your Water.”

 Recommended Reading: