22 September
The directive is intended to embed the cost of climate change into all federal agencies. But it is not legally binding and could come with legal and logistical challenges.
- PFAS on our shelves and in our bodies
- Fractured
- Exposed: BPA science
- Agents of Change
- Cutting edge of science
- Climate catastrophe in the South
- Cancer risk in Pittsburgh
- PFAS contamination
- Breathless: Childhood asthma
- Peak Pig: The soul of rural America
- Sacred Water
- Winged Warnings
- Pollution, Poverty, People of Color
Top news in Good News
Good news about our environment and health, written and selected by award-winning journalists and scientists at Environmental Health News.
From The Web
Featured
Subscribe
to Good News
However, one important element of environmental health often gets missed: kids’ relationship with the natural world. This is why early childhood outdoor-based environmental education must play a larger role in the national environmental conversation, and environmental education programs must be significantly expanded and strengthened throughout the U.S.
One of the most important responsibilities that adults have is to connect our children to the natural world. As a lifelong environmentalist and outdoors person, I see few more essential tasks than helping young students acquire a sense of wonder that can infuse their entire life and to feel a connection to nature so strong that they will become the next generation of conservation-minded citizens. This serves both the students — giving them access to the physical, emotional and professional benefits of time outdoors — and society, which needs environmental advocates now more than ever.
Environmental values
Environmental progress starts with peoples’ values, that is, what people consider important, what they want to protect. Some adults have an ecological awakening later in life — maybe they read a story of drying wells or heard gossip about the “forever chemicals” in their municipal water supply. Some of us develop environmental values in college, after peers go vegetarian or our professors introduce us to concepts like environmental injustice. But kids can develop these values much earlier, starting at home and in the classroom.
The idea of showing kids the value of protecting nature before they ever start high school isn’t political indoctrination or aimed at creating the next generation of Greenpeace activists. It’s about building a personal connection with the natural world — and it starts with going outside.
Feel first, teach second
A nature-inspired picture drawn by the author's daughter.
Credit: Aaron Gilbreath.
No matter the curriculum or setting, part of my teaching as an unofficial educator comes from scientist Rachel Carson’s book “The Sense of Wonder.” “A child’s world is fresh and new and beautiful, full of wonder and excitement,” Carson writes. “It is our misfortune that for most of us that clear-eyed vision, that true instinct for what is beautiful and awe-inspiring, is dimmed and even lost before we reach adulthood.”
"One of the most important responsibilities that adults have is to connect our children to the natural world."
How do we help children develop this sense of wonder? Through parents, mentors and educators in programs like the World Salmon Council and Ecology in Classrooms and Outdoors in Oregon, Sierra Nevada Journeys in California and the National Wildlife Federation’s EcoSchools U.S. program, to name a few. Richard Louv’s Children and Nature Network might be the most formalized, vocal advocates trying to green children’s lives. Carson knew it takes just one person to build this bond. “If a child is to keep their inborn sense of wonder,” she wrote, “they need the companionship of at least one adult who can share it, rediscovering with them the joy, excitement, and mystery of the world we live in.”
As the world becomes more urbanized, fewer children have the chance to regularly interact with wildlife and the non-built environment.
Credit: Aaron Gilbreath
Carson’s approach: Take them outdoors. Discover together. Let them see what excites you. Get excited and share those feelings. Focus on the emotional experience first — the wow factor — not what information you have, she writes. Feel first, teach second. Don’t worry if you don’t have nature facts. “Adopt the child’s position,” Carson advises. Instead of being their teacher, she suggests we discover new things and feel awe with them. A single residential block can seem like a universe to a young mind and you can provide this transformative experience in your front yard as easily as you can in a wild stream in a federal wilderness area. Just look up at the clouds. Search bushes for insects. Point to the moon and the birds and literally stop and smell whatever flowers you walk past. “The sharing,” Carson writes, “is based on having fun together rather than on teaching.”
Ever since my daughter was born, I’ve spent a great deal of time showing her the outdoors, from our Portland, Oregon, backyard to the Northwest forests to the Sonoran Desert where I grew up. This summer she held wild spotted toads and giant desert millipedes in Arizona. Last month she held tree frogs while standing in knee-deep water on the banks of the Deschutes River. At age six, she has come to love wildlife so much she kissed a banana slug she found at Hoyt Arboretum and asked how old you have to be to work at the zoo. Green is her favorite color. She rattles off animal facts everywhere she goes and she always makes sure to rescue insects that get trapped in pools or indoors. She is curious, empathetic and always asking questions. Most of all, she is comfortable outdoors.
Not to toot my own horn, but in a qualitative way, her multifaceted worldview is the clear, direct result of my homegrown nature education that combines hands-on experiences, shared excitement and scientific information. It’s all about Carson’s approach: cultivating wonder and curiosity and complementing it with teaching. I believe this perspective will benefit her for her entire life. I only wish her public school had the resources to offer her similar outdoor education as part of the curriculum.
Combatting nature deficit disorder
Nature-inspired art from the author's daughter.
Credit: Aaron Gilbreath
Another reason outdoor-based education is so important is because it fundamentally involves the act of going outdoors. As the world becomes more urbanized, fewer children have the chance to regularly interact with wildlife and the non-built environment. Too many under-resourced American kids never get that chance. The forces driving a wedge between children and the natural world multiply every generation: screens, phones, social media, urbanization, anxiety, concerns about public safety, exhausted working parents. The average American spends 93% of their time indoors.
In 2008, more people lived in cities than outside of them for the first time in history, officially making Homo sapiens an urban species. And the trend is accelerating. “By 2050,” Science reported, “66% of the world’s population is projected to live in cities.” That doesn’t mean city life is good for us. According to sociobiologist E.O. Wilson, human beings’ nervous systems evolved in nature, so we are more used to — and more comfortable in — non-human environments than we are in urban environments. Outdoor education is the crucial bridge that connects us back to our recent evolutionary past.
The physical and emotional effects of what author Richard Louv calls “nature-deficit disorder” are numerous, but the flipside is that time outdoors provides quantifiable benefits.
An increasing body of research shows how time outdoors rejuvenates us, reduces stress, improves creativity, enhances our immune systems and improves our moods.
It’s hard to speak about the value of something as ethereal as wonder, because you can’t provide a value proposition if you don’t have data to support it. Wonder — how do you measure it? But anyone who has improved their own emotional and physical health by spending more time outdoors can recognize the value of providing that experience to America’s increasingly sedentary, domestic youth. If the thought-leaders and activists who work so hard to strengthen our country’s environmental policy want to continue doing the work that benefits the greatest good, we must discuss the role of early childhood environmental education.
"Ever since my daughter was born, I’ve spent a great deal of time showing her the outdoors, from our Portland, Oregon, backyard to the Northwest forests to the Sonoran Desert where I grew up. I believe this perspective will benefit her for her entire life."
Credit: Aaron Gilbreath
The average reduction ranged from 25% to 30% and rose to 43% after the researchers excluded participants who did not perfectly comply with an all-organic diet.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in the weedkiller RoundUp, is the most widely used pesticide in U.S. agriculture. Eighty percent of Americans have detectable levels of the chemical in their urine. Exposure to glyphosate may pose particular risks during pregnancy. Past research has linked the herbicide to premature birth and low birth weights — both of which are associated with higher infant mortality and developing a range of diseases later in life.
“For most people who live far from agricultural fields, consuming an organic diet can significantly and immediately reduce exposure to glyphosate,” study author and director of the Agricultural Health Lab at Boise State University Cynthia Curl told Environmental Health News (EHN).
But there’s a catch. The study was divided into two groups: urban women living far from croplands and rural women living close to them — often as close as across the street. For the rural participants, the spread of glyphosate from sprayed fields drowned out any benefits from the organic diet. “That really surprised me,” Curl said. “There really was no difference in exposure based on diet for the women who lived very close to agricultural fields.”
In a commentary about the new study, Alison Connolly, a pesticide exposure researcher at University College Dublin in Ireland, and Holger Koch, a toxicologist at Germany’s University of Ruhr Bochum, noted that, for the urban woman, their source of exposure during the organic week remains unknown. Participants may have eaten non-organic items, they speculated, or been exposed to glyphosate residues from organic food or outside sources. This, Connolly and Koch said, “suggests that avoiding exposure is challenging, even under the most ideal settings.”
Organic diets for pregnant people
“For most people who live far from agricultural fields, consuming an organic diet can significantly and immediately reduce exposure to glyphosate."
Credit: Unsplash+
For the study, Curl and her collaborators analyzed daily urine samples from 40 pregnant women living in rural and urban parts of Idaho. Each woman ate one week of a conventional diet and one week of an organic diet. This study is part of a larger research project tracking pregnant participants over a year, measuring glyphosate levels before, during and after the spraying season.
Related: Glyphosate, explained
“There were really big data gaps regarding how much an organic diet can reduce overall exposure to those living in rural versus urban areas,” Carly Hyland, a study author and environmental epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley, told EHN. “Previous studies have looked almost exclusively at people living in cities.” On top of this, she said, this study is one of the few that focused on glyphosate exposure in pregnant humans instead of lab animals.
While the sample size was relatively small, Connolly and Koch note that few other glyphosate studies have tested the herbicide’s levels for multiple days in a row, rather than just once — offering more data points than the norm. However, according to their commentary, the results only rose to statistical significance after the researchers excluded participants who reported eating conventional foods during the organic week.
Glyphosate controversy and health risks
Tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed by people claiming that Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides caused their cancer.
Credit: Mike Mozart/flickr
Glyphosate kills plants and microbes by interfering with protein synthesis. The chemical is used to control weeds and to kill and dry out crops such as wheat, beans and oats before harvest.
For years, the weedkiller has been embroiled in controversy, perhaps most notably around its potential to cause cancer in humans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has concluded glyphosate is not linked to cancer, while the World Health Organization has taken the opposite tack, classifying the herbicide as a probable carcinogen. A 2019 analysis found that exposure to glyphosate raises the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by 41%. In 2020, Bayer offered $10.9 billion to settle thousands of Roundup-related cancer lawsuits from agricultural workers, landscapers and gardeners.
This essay is also available in Spanish
“For a chemical that has been used for so long and in such high quantities worldwide, one would expect an abundance of data,” the authors of the commentary noted. “This is contrary to the case.”
While glyphosate came to market in the 1970s, it wasn’t until the widespread adoption of genetically modified, glyphosate-resistant crops in the late 1990s that the herbicide’s popularity exploded, Curl said. “It takes a while to catch up with that.” The chemical also has low acute toxicity, fostering “a perhaps unwarranted feeling of safety.” Rather than lab animals or agricultural workers immediately sickening or dying after high levels of exposure, she said, the potential health effects, such as increased cancer risk, are longer term and more subtle.
Another factor, Curl said, is that glyphosate acts on a chemical pathway found in plants, but not in humans and other animals — leading, again, to a potentially false sense of security. “Glyphosate doesn't stand alone in the idea that a potential mechanism of harm may not be the mechanism of action in pest management,” she said. She gave the example of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, which harms both humans and insects, but in different ways. As for glyphosate, experimental evidence suggests that it triggers oxidative stress in animals, heightening the risk for cancer, DNA damage and reproductive harms.
The benefits of eating organic
Fortunately for both pregnant and non-pregnant people, glyphosate’s presence in the body is short-lived. After a few hours to a few days, most of the chemical is excreted. The problem, however, is that most people are continually exposed to glyphosate via food, lawns and fields that have been sprayed with Roundup, and other avenues.
“If exposure to pesticides is something that you are concerned about,” Curl said, “I think we have enough evidence to suggest that eating an organic diet is an effective way to reduce that exposure.” However, given that organic food is often pricier and harder to access, this is far from a perfect fix, she acknowledges. What’s needed, she said, are regulations to protect everyone’s health, regardless of what food they do eat.
For Hyland, the benefits of an organic diet go beyond protecting the diner’s health. “Even if I can't say with complete certainty that an eating an organic diet is going to provide a health benefit to me,” Hyland said, “we know that farming without pesticides is definitely better for farmworkers … that's really where I try to prioritize organic, and try to encourage others to as well.”
The Shenango Coke Works, located on Pittsburgh’s Neville Island, processed coal into coke, a key ingredient in steelmaking, until its closure in January 2016. Producing coke requires heating coal to extremely high temperatures, which releases a slew of hazardous pollutants.
The study, published in Environmental Health Research and led by researchers at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, looked at pollutants in air monitoring data and at emergency room visits and hospitalizations for heart problems before and after the plant’s closure. The research was prompted in part by previous Environmental Health News (EHN) reporting on the plant closure, in which questions were raised by the Allegheny Health Department about links between air pollution decreases and fewer ER visits for asthma and heart problems.
“Closing this plant and eliminating its pollution really had a dramatic health benefit on the communities living nearby,” George Thurston, one of the study’s coauthors and director of the Program in Exposure Assessment and Human Health Effects at the Department of Environmental Medicine at NYU’s medical school, told EHN.
“We saw a dramatic, immediate decline in emergency room visits and hospitalizations for cardiovascular issues and then over the next several years they kept declining,” Thurston said, noting that these accumulated health benefits are similar to those seen when people quit smoking.
The study found that average weekly hospital visits among residents in neighborhoods surrounding the plant for heart-related problems decreased by 42% immediately after the shutdown. The trend continued over the next three years, with 33 fewer average yearly hospitalizations for heart disease from 2016 through 2018 compared to the three years preceding the plant closure.
The study also found that average daily levels of sulfur dioxide, a byproduct of cokemaking linked to respiratory and heart problems, fell by 90% at government air-monitoring stations near the plant and by 50% at another air-monitoring station about six miles away in Pittsburgh’s Lawrenceville neighborhood. Arsenic in particulate matter, another toxic byproduct emitted from the plant, fell by 66% at the monitors near the plant.
A lethal air pollution combination
Neville Island’s Shenango Coke Works Plant in operation before the plant’s 2016 closing.
Credit: Brian Cohen for The Heinz Endowments
Previous research by the Allegheny County Health Department, which oversees air quality in the region, found that ER visits for asthma dropped 38% and visits for heart problems decreased by 27% the year after the closure of Shenango Coke Works, but local health officials were reluctant to attribute the change to the plant shutdown.
At the time, local health officials told EHN that the changes they’d observed in particulate matter pollution after the plant’s closure weren’t substantial enough to cause such a dramatic drop in emergency room visits for asthma, based on what they’d seen in other studies. But in the last several years, a growing body of research indicates that the source and makeup of particulate matter pollution determine how toxic it is.
“Coal-related particulate matter is more toxic than other types of particulate matter pollution,” Wuyue Yu, the new study’s lead author and a doctoral science student at NYU, told EHN. “So the significant reduction of these types of particles could explain why such a small change in overall particulate matter pollution had such a dramatic effect.”
Thuston pointed to other research showing that these coal-derived pollutants are rich in transition metals and sulfur, which he referred to as a “lethal combination.”
“Sulfur itself isn’t the big problem, but it’s acidic, which makes these transition metals more bioavailable throughout the body,” he explained, pointing to a 2021 study showing that places with higher levels of transition metals and sulfur in their air had higher cardiovascular mortality rates. “Absorbing these particles in our bodies creates oxidative stress, which is linked to all kinds of health problems.”
“It’s imperative for our health that we stop burning fossil fuels”
The Pittsburgh region is still home to the largest coke-making plant in the country, U.S. Steel’s Clairton Coke Works, which is also one of the oldest operational coke plants in the country. In terms of production, the Clairton Coke Works is about ten times as large as the Shenango Coke Works was. The site lacks modern pollution controls, and the company is regularly fined for violating clean air laws at the site, but local activists say the fines are too low to incentivize change, calling it a “pay-to-pollute” model. Residents in Clairton regularly face some of the dirtiest air in the country and children at Clairton elementary school have asthma at nearly double the national rate.
In 2018, the Allegheny County Health Department said they’d observed a decrease in particulate matter pollution at air monitors near the Clairton Coke Works similar to what was seen following the closure of Shenango during the same time period, but hadn’t seen any of the same decrease in ER visits. At the time, they said this pointed to causes other than Shenango’s closure for the reduction in ER visits, so the researchers at NYU compared air pollution at monitors near the Clairton Coke Works with the pollution at monitors near Shenango, and found a significant difference in those “lethal combination” pollutants.
“At the monitors near Shenango, we saw a significant drop in sulfate, arsenic and selenium right after the closure and then consistently over the next three years,” Yu said. “At the monitors near the Clairton plant, we saw both spikes and overall higher levels of sulfate, arsenic and selenium over the same time period.”
The researchers also looked at other health effects in the years before and after the plant’s closure, including childhood asthma. They said they observed similar patterns, but those findings haven’t been published yet. The reduction in airborne arsenic, a potent carcinogen, will likely contribute to a reduction in cancer rates over time, though that data won’t be available for several decades.
“Our study adds to the evidence suggesting that when we just look at overall particulate matter levels without considering the sources and makeup of that pollution, we’re grossly underestimating the health benefits of shutting off fossil fuel pollution,” Thurston said.
“It’s imperative for our health that we stop burning fossil fuels. The climate benefits are important, though they may feel more distant, and our research clearly indicates that the health benefits are immediate and local.”
Editor’s note: This study was funded by the Heinz Endowments, which also provides funding to Environmental Health News.