August 22, 2017, Time: 12:30 PM - 1:30 PM CDT
Webinar
Type: Event
Despite a White House proposal to eliminate $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the House Appropriations Committee voted late Tuesday to fully fund the program through September 2018.
The vote marks an important step toward securing funding for the Great Lakes cleanup program in the federal budget for the next fiscal year.
The funding was part of an Environmental Protection Agency spending bill. Overall, the bill decreases annual funding for the agency by $528 million. President Trump's budget called for a $2.6 billion cut.
Read our series on the impact of the Trump budget plan.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has a history of strong bipartisan support, and has funded projects aiming to improve water quality, decrease harmful algal blooms, and manage invasive species.
The spending bill also includes funds for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to continue fighting invasive species like quagga mussels and Asian carp.
A similar effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay took a hit. The committee approved $60 million for the bay program — $13 million less than the 2017 allocation.
The committee vote means the bill can now move on to the House.
The rule affects a wide range of workers, from painters to warehouse workers. It does not change construction or agricultural standards.
The rule incorporates advances in technology, industry best practices, and national consensus standards to provide effective and cost-efficient worker protection. Specifically, it updates general industry standards addressing slip, trip, and fall hazards (subpart D), and adds requirements for personal fall protection systems (subpart I).
OSHA estimates that these changes will prevent 29 fatalities and 5,842 lost-workday injuries every year.
The rule benefits employers by providing greater flexibility in choosing a fall protection system. For example, it eliminates the existing mandate to use guardrails as a primary fall protection method and allows employers to choose from accepted fall protection systems they believe will work best in a particular situation - an approach that has been successful in the construction industry since 1994. In addition, employers will be able to use non-conventional fall protection in certain situations, such as designated areas on low-slope roofs.
As much as possible, OSHA aligned fall protection requirements for general industry with those for construction, easing compliance for employers who perform both types of activities. For example, the final rule replaces the outdated general industry scaffold standards with a requirement that employers comply with OSHA's construction scaffold standards.
Most of the rule will become effective January 17, 2017, 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, but some provisions have delayed effective dates, including:
 |
OSHA has released a Small Entity Compliance Guide for General Industry and Maritime to help small business employers comply with the agency's Final Rule to Protect Workers from Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica. The guide describes the steps that employers are required to take to protect employees in general industry and maritime from the hazards associated with silica exposure. These requirements include: assessing worker exposures; using engineering and work practice controls to keep exposures below a specified safety threshold; and offering medical exams to certain highly exposed workers. Enforcement of the final rule in general industry and maritime is scheduled to begin June 23, 2018.
On Aug. 1, OSHA will launch a web-based form that will allow employers to electronically submit required injury and illness data from their completed 2016 OSHA Form 300A. The webpage will offer three options for submitting data, and includes information on reporting requirements, a list of frequently asked questions, and a link to request assistance with completing the form.
OSHA published a notice of proposed rulemaking last month to extend the deadline for electronically submitting the data to Dec. 1, 2017. The proposed extension gives those affected sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the electronic reporting system, and provides the new administration an opportunity to review the new electronic reporting requirements prior to their implementation. For more information, read the news release
The immense waste that comes along with one-time-use plastic products is clearly evident, yet despite the growing amount of plastic waste filling up our oceans, coastlines and landfills, their usage continues. The number of plastic bottles alone is staggering, with data obtained by The Guardian suggesting 1 million plastic bottles are purchased every minute worldwide. Worse still, this is expected to increase by 20 percent by 2021 and reach more than half a trillion sold every year by 2020.1
Most of this waste comes from the seemingly insatiable thirst for bottled water, which exists even in areas where access to filtered tap water, which can be brought with you on-the-go via refillable bottles, exists. The Guardian also highlighted increasingly urbanized regions in China and the Asia Pacific regions as adding to the problem, continuing:2
"More than 480bn plastic drinking bottles were sold in 2016 across the world, up from about 300bn a decade ago. If placed end to end, they would extend more than halfway to the sun. By 2021 this will increase to 583.3bn, according to the most up-to-date estimates from Euromonitor International's global packaging trends report."
While most plastic water and soda bottles are made from highly recyclable polyethylene terephthalate (PET), most such bottles end up littering oceans and landfills. The Guardian reported that fewer than half of the plastic bottles purchased in 2016 were recycled, and only 7 percent were made into new bottles.3 In the U.S., one of the top waste-generating countries, littering is a major issue, especially in the form of single-use plastics, like soda bottles, drinking straws and potato chip bags.
According to environmental advocacy group Ocean Conservancy, some plastic products persist for so long, even in salty ocean water, that they'll still be recognizable after 400 years.4 "The amount of unmanaged plastic waste entering the ocean — known as plastic-waste leakage — has reached crisis levels and has caused significant economic and environmental damage," they state.5
More than 80 percent of the plastic debris in the ocean starts off on land. Once in the ocean, it's known that nearly 700 species (and probably many more) are negatively impacted by such debris. Sadly, at least 17 percent of impacted species are listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List as near threatened or worse, and at least 10 percent of the species had ingested microplastics.6
A study published in Marine Policy revealed that ingestion and entanglement from litter poses the biggest threat to marine life, more so than chemical contamination.7 Plastic bags, balloons and utensils were particularly problematic, as seabirds, turtles and marine mammals commonly mistook them for food. That being said, microplastics, which are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in diameter, are also consumed by marine life, with unknown consequences.
If you eat seafood that has been ingesting microbeads, you're at risk of a potentially high dose of environmental toxins as well. One 2014 study even suggested that the average European who eats shellfish may consume 11,000 pieces of microplastic per year.8 Quite literally, the ocean and its inhabitants are teeming with plastic. In the U.K., for instance, one-third of the fish caught were found to contain plastic.9
Plastic bottles have received a lot of negative press, which in turn has spawned an industry of alternatives, including stainless steel and glass water bottles to take with you on the go. The movement to eliminate plastic straws has received less attention, but it's steadily growing as the consequences of their use become apparent.
According to the Be Straw Free campaign, Americans use 500 million straws daily, which doesn't even account for all of the straws that come attached to juice and milk cartons (including those handed out in school cafeterias).10
Straws are also commonly found littering coastlines and beaches (along with plastic bags and bottles), which isn't surprising when you think about how often and widely they're handed out. While some zoos and theme parks (such as Walt Disney World's Animal Kingdom) have banned their use to protect animals, straws are available for free at virtually every U.S. restaurant, movie theater and coffee shop.
Sadly, marine mammals are often found with straws lodged in their stomachs and sea turtles have been found with straws wedged in their nose. Slowly, cities around the U.S. have taken notice, with California's Manhattan Beach enacting a citywide disposable plastic ban. Others, including Berkeley, California; Miami, Florida; and New York City, as well as 1,800 restaurants, are considering bans on straws or at least have pledged to only hand them out if customers request them.11
This latter strategy alone could cut down on significant amounts of waste, as many people use straws as an afterthought, simply because they're there.
Catherine Greener, vice president of sustainability for Xanterra Parks & Resorts, a concessions company that partners with the National Park Service, told The Washington Post, "Humans didn't really evolve around straws. It's not like we have to consume fluids with this appendage. What really, what is this?"12 For those rare times when a straw really is necessary (or if you just like using one), reusable straws made from stainless steel, bamboo and even glass are widely available.
No one's keeping track of how many plastic forks, knives and spoons are tossed out every year, but Mother Jones reported that close to 2 billion takeout orders were placed in the U.S. in 2015. "If at least half those meals involved single-use utensils, that would mean we're tossing out billions of utensils each year," the news outlet reported.13 It's another eye-opening statistic with sobering implications for the Earth.
Plastic utensils and other food and beverage packaging were recently found to make up 67 percent of the litter found in the San Francisco Bay area.14 Like straws, oftentimes plastic utensils are added to carry-out orders even if customers don't request them. "Even just asking customers if they need napkins, straws, and utensils before loading up their takeout bags could make a difference. Many of the straws found on the street by Clean Water Action were still in their wrappers," Fast Company reported.15
Alternatives to plastic utensils are also widely available, with washable metal utensils representing the most obvious choice. It's simple to pack a fork and knife with your lunch, and there are even pocket-sized sets with carrying cases available. Meanwhile, in India one company is making edible cutlery out of rice, wheat and sorghum flour, which it states degrade in the environment within 10 days if they're not eaten first.16
Similarly, in California a company is making compostable forks out of potato starch. Even these seemingly innocuous alternatives come with a downside, however, highlighting the need to simply cut down on waste and use of single-use convenience items. As Mother Jones put it:17
"… [S]uch alternatives, which cost about twice as much as plastic, still require a lot of energy and water to produce, according to Samantha Sommer, who runs a waste-prevention project for Clean Water Action. What's more, not all major cities compost.
And even if biodegradable or compostable utensils make it to a facility, there's a chance they'll end up in a landfill, says Robert Reed, a spokesman for the West Coast recycling and compost plant Recology. Depending on what they're made of, he says, biodegradable utensils might not degrade completely; if they don't, they could be plucked out of the pile and thrown away.
Perhaps diners should take a page from China, where environmental protesters publicized how the roughly 80 billion pairs of disposable wooden chopsticks produced each year eat up 20 million trees in the process.
Greenpeace China launched a BYOC (Bring Your Own Chopsticks) campaign and worked with pop stars to promote reusable chopsticks as a trendy fashion accessory. As a result, disposable chopsticks were banned from use at many venues hosting events at Beijing's 2008 Olympics."
There are some creative alternatives to plastic in the works, like the Ooho!, which is a bubble-like sphere made from seaweed extract that's being touted as a completely edible water bottle.18 Reusable glass or stainless steel bottles are another option, of course, which you can fill up with filtered water yourself.
Having access to clean water whenever you're thirsty is a luxury many Americans are reluctant to give up, but there's no need to use plastic water bottles for this purpose.
Simply carry a reusable water bottle with you instead and fill it up as necessary, then wash and reuse. In the U.S., water bottle filling stations are becoming the new drinking fountains, and you can find these "hydration stations" at certain airports, schools and in other public areas. If you're purchasing bottled water for home use, a better option is to place a water filter on your tap.
Another option, which is less problematic pollution-wise than single-use bottles, are the large, 5-gallon water coolers that are often found in offices or delivered for home use. The most dangerous plastic chemicals are those used to make plastic flexible, so those rigid, reusable 5-gallon bottles not only present less waste but also less of a risk in terms of plastics chemicals leaching into your water.
Ocean Conservancy has called for a collective global response to curb plastics pollution, starting with a plan to reduce plastic-waste leakage in the top five plastic-polluting countries (China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines). They believe their plan, which includes increasing waste-collection rates, closing leakage points and more, could reduce leakage by 65 percent in those five countries and reduce total global leakage by approximately 45 percent by 2025.19
In the U.S., it's also crucial that we rethink our throwaway culture and become more sustainably creative. Ideally, seek to purchase products that are not made from or packaged in plastic. Another important point is to choose reusable over single-use, which is possible in most instances. For instance, opting for the following will help you to inch closer to a minimal-waste lifestyle while keeping your share of plastics pollution out of the oceans:
Use reusable shopping bags for groceries | Take your own leftovers container to restaurants |
Bring your own mug for coffee, and bring drinking water from home in glass water bottles instead of buying bottled water | Request no plastic wrap on your newspaper and dry cleaning |
Store foods in glass containers or mason jars rather than plastic containers and plastic freezer bags | Avoid disposable utensils and straws and buy foods in bulk when you can |
Opt for non-disposable razors, washable feminine hygiene products for women, cloth diapers, handkerchiefs instead of paper tissues, rags in lieu of paper towels, and infant toys made of wood rather than plastic | Avoid processed foods (which are stored in plastic bags with chemicals). Buy fresh produce instead, and forgo the plastic bags |
Researchers at the University of Wisconsin Medical Entomology Laboratory (UWMEL) and health officials from the Department of Health Services (DHS) and Public Health Madison-Dane County (PHMDC) today announced that the Aedes albopictus mosquito has been found in Dane County. This is the first documentation of this species of mosquito in Wisconsin. Aedes albopictus is one type of mosquito that is capable of spreading Zika virus, however there is no evidence of Zika-infected mosquitoes in Wisconsin. The discovery of Aedes albopictus is unlikely to indicate an elevated risk of locally transmitted Zika virus in Wisconsin. Zika virus is primarily spread by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, which survives in warmer climates, and has not been found in Wisconsin or any neighboring states.
Since 2016, UWMEL and DHS have been working closely with local health departments and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to perform active surveillance for Aedes species mosquitoes in Wisconsin. Teams are currently assessing how widespread Aedes albopictus is in Dane County and are looking for the mosquito in other parts of the state. The Aedes albopictus mosquito has previously been detected in neighboring states including Minnesota and Iowa with no populations of this species becoming established and no known cases of locally transmitted Zika virus in the Midwest.
"The detection of the Aedes albopictus mosquito in Wisconsin is not a cause for alarm. We can look to nearby states that also have small numbers of these mosquitoes, where Zika virus has not been locally spread," said State Health Officer Karen McKeown. "However, we want to remind Wisconsin residents to take precautions to prevent mosquito bites. Other serious diseases, including West Nile Virus, are spread by mosquitoes in our state."
Wisconsin residents at risk for Zika virus infection are people who have traveled or had sexual contact with someone who traveled to locations with active Zika virus transmission. The detection of Aedes albopictus in Wisconsin does not change the precautions that DHS recommends (PDF) for people with a possible exposure to Zika virus. Anyone who may have been exposed to Zika should contact their doctor if they experience fever, rash, joint pain, or red eyes within two weeks of possible exposure, and avoid mosquito bites for at least three weeks after they first become ill or after last possible exposure (if there are no symptoms).
To protect yourself from mosquito bites:
JJKELLER-OSHA proposed a rule to delay the compliance date for employers to submit their injury and illness data electronically to the Agency. OSHA's May 12, 2016, final rule titled "Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses" required employers to submit data from their 300-A Summaries electronically to OSHA by July 1st.
The new proposed rule would extend the initial submission deadline for 2016 Form 300-A data to December 1, 2017. OSHA says this will give it time to review the electronic reporting requirements before their implementation and allow affected employers sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the electronic reporting system. The proposed five-month delay will be effective upon publication of a final rule in the Federal Register.
According to OSHA, the web portal for employers to submit their data should available on August 1, 2017.
In addition, OSHA says it plans to issue a separate proposed rule to reconsider, revise, or remove other provisions of the Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses final rule. The Agency will seek comment on those provisions in the separate proposal.
OSHA will accept comments on the current proposed rule to delay the electronic reporting date for 15 days. Submit comments using Docket No. OSHA-2013-0023 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
California's Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced in 2015 that they intended to list glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, as a chemical known to cause cancer under Proposition 65, which requires consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels.
Monsanto filed formal comments with OEHHA saying the plan to list glyphosate as a carcinogen should be withdrawn. When the agency didn't give in, Monsanto took it a step further and filed a lawsuit against OEHHA in January 2016 to stop the glyphosate/cancer classification. OEHHA filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and a Fresno, California, superior court judge ruled on their behalf in February 2017.
California regulators stated that glyphosate will appear on the state's list of cancerous chemicals beginning July 7, 2017,1 which means new labels may be appearing within the next year in California that include a cancer warning on Roundup and other glyphosate-containing weed killers, including Ortho Groundclear, KleenUp, AquaMaster, Sharpshooter, StartUp, Touchdown Total, Traxion, Vector and Vantage Plus Max II, and others.2
The final say on whether Roundup will get a cancer warning label is still up in the air for now, as Monsanto has filed yet another appeal in an attempt to block the labeling. California's decision to add the chemical to its Prop 65 list of cancer-causing chemicals came in response to the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) 2015 determination that glyphosate is a "probable carcinogen."
Monsanto continues to contest the classification, even as it's become clear that they may have worked with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official to stop glyphosate investigations.
Email correspondence showed Jess Rowland, who at the time was the EPA's deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, on Monsanto's behalf.
In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he'd had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, "If I can kill this I should get a medal,"3 referring to the ATSDR investigation, which did not end up occurring.
Meanwhile, more than 800 people with cancer are suing Monsanto over claims the glyphosate-based herbicide made them ill — and Monsanto did little to warn the public, despite knowing cancer risks existed.4,5 Glyphosate is said to work by inhibiting only a single enzyme not found in people or pets to kill unwanted plants, but a team of environmental attorneys including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have accused Monsanto of false advertising in this regard. In addition, Bloomberg reported:6
"The attorneys have spent the last several months poring over hundreds of confidential documents they say show that the company actively worked to downplay the cancer risk for glyphosate. Since March [2017], the lawyers have successfully unsealed a trove of emails, letters and studies intended to inject doubt into the process by which Roundup earned its Environmental Protection Agency approval.
They suggest that Monsanto's scientists ghost-wrote studies that cleared glyphosate of its cancer-causing potential; that the company tried to enlist EPA staff to shut down an investigation into the herbicide; and that officials hired a scientist in 1985 to persuade EPA regulators to change its decision on its cancer classification for glyphosate."
In addition to the glyphosate/cancer lawsuits, plaintiffs from California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin are also suing Monsanto over claims that Roundup disrupts the gut microbiome.7
In regard to the claim that Roundup targets an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets, six consumers from across the U.S. have filed a complaint against Monsanto and Scotts Miracle-Gro (the exclusive marketer of Roundup) alleging that the statement is false and deceptive, as the enzyme is, in fact, found in the gut bacteria of people and pets.
Monsanto has steadfastly claimed that Roundup is harmless to animals and humans because the mechanism of action it uses (which allows it to kill weeds), called the shikimate pathway, is absent in all animals. However, the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria, and that's the key to understanding how it causes such widespread systemic harm in both humans and animals. Beyond Pesticides explained:8
Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/07/11/glyphosate-added-in-cancer-causing-chemicals-list.aspx"Because glyphosate disrupts a crucial pathway for manufacturing aromatic amino acids in plants — but not animals — many have assumed that it does not harm humans. However, many bacteria do use the shikimate pathway, and 90 percent of the cells in a human body are bacteria. The destruction of beneficial microbiota in the human gut (and elsewhere in and on the human body) is, therefore, a cause for concern — and a major contributor to disease."