October, 04 2019, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Pamela Miller +1-907-242-9991 pamela@akaction.org Twitter @ToxicsFree
Sara Brosché, Ph.D. +46-31-7995900 sarabrosche@ipen.org Twitter @ToxicsFree
Emily Marquez, Ph.D. Staff scientist emily@panna.org Twitter @pesticideaction
U.N. Expert Committee Recommends Global Elimination of Toxic Chemical Harming Health of Firefighters: PFHXs, Used as Substitute for Banned PFOS and PFOA, Recommended for Global Ban
A U.N. expert committee decided unanimously to recommend a complete global elimination for another toxic fluorinated "forever chemical." Fluorinated chemicals are widespread pollutants threatening drinking water sources, public health, and the occupational health of firefighters. They do not break down in the environment and accumulate in the bodies of wildlife and people. They are used in a wide variety of products, including firefighting foam, waterproofing of textiles, and food packaging, as well as other industrial and consumer applications.
WASHINGTON
A U.N. expert committee decided unanimously to recommend a complete global elimination for another toxic fluorinated "forever chemical." Fluorinated chemicals are widespread pollutants threatening drinking water sources, public health, and the occupational health of firefighters. They do not break down in the environment and accumulate in the bodies of wildlife and people. They are used in a wide variety of products, including firefighting foam, waterproofing of textiles, and food packaging, as well as other industrial and consumer applications.
The Committee recommended the global elimination of PFHxS and 147 related substances. PFHxS is a toxic chemical that was used by the fluorine industry as a replacement for two other fluorinated compounds, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Fluorinated substances, also known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), are at the center of a current wave of lawsuits since they have been found in high levels in ground- and drinking water near industrial facilities, airports and military bases. The Committee warned against repeating the mistake of using other PFAS, by noting that "a transition to the use of short-chain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) for dispersive applications, such as fire-fighting foams, is not a suitable option from an environmental and human health point of view." In 2009, PFOS was listed under the Stockholm Convention for global elimination and earlier in 2019, the Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention listed PFOA for global elimination.
Before the meeting, IPEN released a comprehensive report featuring eminent, independent experts across the fire engineering and fire safety sectors that presents unequivocal evidence from recent studies that firefighters using aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) have unacceptably elevated blood levels of both PFHxS and PFOS. Earlier IPEN reports describe fluorine-free firefighting foam alternatives that can replace all uses of toxic fluorinated firefighting foams.
"This recommendation will help protect firefighters all around the world from exposure to toxic chemicals that cause cancer. Firefighters have some of the highest rates of cancers and other diseases associated with occupational exposures to toxic chemicals," said Commander Mick Tisbury, Vice President of the United Firefighters Union of Australia, and Commander of the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB).
In September, the U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution "highlighting the global crisis confronting workers exposed to toxic substances" and calling upon governments and industry to meet their obligations under international human rights mechanisms to protect the health and safety of workers.
IPEN partner Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) recently published a report showing widespread contamination of drinking water in communities around Alaska caused by dispersive uses of PFAS-based firefighting foam.
"PFAS contamination of drinking water is threatening the health of people in many of our communities in Alaska and of millions of people around the world. The fluorine industry has denied and deceived the public for decades. It is time that they are held accountable and stop producing these dangerous chemicals," stated Pamela Miller, IPEN Co-Chair and Executive Director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics.
The Committee also highlighted that this large class of chemicals can be dealt with using a grouping approach, which has been found to be an important method to reduce the likelihood of substituting one toxic chemical with another.
"There is increasing evidence for concern about the whole class of fluorinated chemicals, and the industry should stop replacing one bad chemical with another closely related bad chemical. Knowingly pursuing this approach is just cynical self-interest by the industry that damages human health," said Dr. Sara Brosche,
IPEN Science Advisor. "This entire class of fluorinated chemicals is too dangerous to deal with one at a time. Countries should take action to address them as a class and remove all of them." Dirty Dozen Cousins are Substances of Concern The U.N. expert committee determined that Dechlorane plus (DP) fulfills the screening criteria of the Stockholm Convention and should be further evaluated for listing under the Convention. This substance is used primarily as a flame retardant chemical in plastics for computers and televisions, coatings for wires and cables, and polyurethane foam. DP is a slight modification of mirex - one of the original dirty dozen substances listed in the Convention that has been found in human milk, serum, and cord blood. DP has also been found in remote regions including biota of the Arctic and Antarctic. Effects of exposure to DP include neurotoxicity, liver impairment and endocrine disruption. DP has been marketed as a replacement chemical for decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE), another flame retardant that was listed for global elimination under the Stockholm Convention in 2017. The Committee also evaluated the pesticide methoxychlor and found that it too meets the screening criteria because it is highly persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic, and is found in remote regions. Methoxychlor was developed as a replacement for DDT and has been widely used in agriculture, for mosquito control, against bark beetle vectors of Dutch elm disease, and in veterinary applications. It is associated with elevated risk of breast cancer in humans, reproductive harm in animal studies, and is toxic to aquatic life. "The committee made the right decision to move methoxychlor closer to global elimination. The true alternative to agricultural pesticide use is agroecological approaches and safe nonchemical alternatives," said Dr. Emily Marquez, a staff scientist at Pesticide Action Network, About the Stockholm Convention Expert Committee The week-long meeting of the Stockholm Convention's expert committee was held from 1-4 October 2019. The Committee, known as the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC), is an expert committee of scientists that reviews chemicals proposed for listing under the Treaty and makes recommendations to the Conference of the Parties. Members of the POPRC are government-designated experts in chemical assessment or management. IPEN is a public interest NGO network working in more than 120 countries to reduce and eliminate hazardous substances. IPEN has been actively involved in the POPRC process for fifteen years.
PANNA (Pesticide Action Network North America) works to replace pesticide use with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives. As one of five autonomous PAN Regional Centers worldwide, we link local and international consumer, labor, health, environment and agriculture groups into an international citizens' action network. This network challenges the global proliferation of pesticides, defends basic rights to health and environmental quality, and works to ensure the transition to a just and viable society.
LATEST NEWS
Former Mossad Chief Compares West Bank Israeli Settler Violence to That of Nazis During Holocaust
“What I saw today made me feel ashamed to be Jewish," said Tamir Pardo after touring Occupied West Bank.
Apr 28, 2026
Tamir Pardo, the former chief of Israel's powerful Mossad intelligence agency, drew international attention on Monday by saying that what he witnessed during a tour of the Occupied West Bank reminded him of the treatment of the Jewish people during the Holocaust by Nazi Germany in the 1930s ad 40s.
Pardo, who served as Mossad director from 2011 to 2016, expressed sorrow and shame over what he saw, invoking his Jewish family's history.
“My mother was a Holocaust survivor, and what I saw reminded me of the events that happened against Jews in the last century,” Pardo told Channel 13 news. “What I saw today made me feel ashamed to be Jewish.”
Tamir Pardo, former Mossad head, on a tour documenting Jewish settler terror in the West Bank: “My mother is a Holocaust survivor, and what I saw here reminded me of the events of the previous century against the Jews.“ pic.twitter.com/o1eJ9vkhDi
— Etan Nechin (@Etanetan23) April 28, 2026
Observers noted that Pardo's statements—which echo, at least in certain key ways, those of experts and humanitarian advocates who have documented the abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)—would come under harsh rebuke by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) or other pro-Israel hardliners in the United States if spoken by others.
"The former head of the Mossad is comparing the actions of Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank to Nazis in the Holocaust," said journalist Mehdi Hasan. "If someone said that in the West they'd be accused of antisemitism under the IHRA definition."
The IHRA definition refers to how the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance articulates antisemitism, a more sweeping definition—one adopted by the ADL and many Zionist political forces in the United States—that equates criticism of the state of Israel or its policies with animus toward or discrimination of the Jewish people. Critics of the IHRA definition, including Jewish scholars and holocaust experts, have said its deployment undermines efforts to confront the real scourge of antisemitism while also insulating Israel from honest and necessary criticism.
“My mother is a Holocaust survivor. What I saw here today recalled the events that happened in the last century”
Former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, during a tour tracing illegal settler violence in the occupied West Bank, compared the scenes he witnessed to the Holocaust.
Pardo… pic.twitter.com/rrsQx2CvpW
— TRT World (@trtworld) April 28, 2026
Pardo has spoken out previously about what he regards is an apartheid system in the OPT, including in 2023 prior to the October 7 attacks, but his warnings to curb the mistreatment of the Palestinian population were dismissed by the ruling coalition. In the time since, the situation in the West Bank for Palestinians has deteriorated significantly.
Touring the region with other former members of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), Pardo warned that the conditions on the ground, where Palestinians live under armed occupation and the near constant threat of settler violence, is setting the stage for a violent reaction similar to what occurred on October 7, 2023 when Gaza militant factions staged a violent assault on Israel.
“To my great regret, what we are seeing today,” said Pardo, “is the next October 7. It will be in a different format, much more painful, because the region is much more complicated."
While he said that Israeli authorities know full well the extent of the settler violence, they choose to ignore it. "The state has chosen to sow the seeds for the next October 7," he said.
Pardo said that what he witnessed in the OPT on Monday "is the existential threat to the State of Israel,” but warned that confronting settler violence, given the amount of backing the far-right settlers have in the current government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, could tear the country apart.
As the Times of Israel reports on his comments:
“If we want, we can correct this, but the price will be very high,” Pardo said. “It can drag the entire country to a place” like the situation in Lebanon, an apparent reference to the civil and political strife in that country, where the Hezbollah terror group uses its military means to assert authority on the country.
“It is very much worth our while not to get there,” he said.
Pardo recalled the late Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who controversially warned that control over millions of Palestinians in the territories would ultimately corrupt Israeli society.
The former spy chief said he used to think that Leibowitz was misguided in his comments, but after witnessing the actions of settler extremists in recent months, he now believes “there was a lot of truth” to what the Israeli philosopher said.
Human rights group have said the intensified assault on Palestinians by settlers and IDF soldiers in the Occupied West Bank since October of 2023 have unleashed a widespread humanitarian crisis and called on the international community to intervene to halt Israel's continued settlement expansion and the abuses on the ground.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Senators Unveil Plan to Pay for $400 Million White House Ballroom With Taxpayer Funds
"The Republican pitch to voters in an election year dominated by the crushing costs of living in this country should be the urgent need for a new marble and gold ballroom," said one observer.
Apr 28, 2026
With just over seven months to go until the midterm elections, the US-Israeli war on Iran pushing gas prices past $4 per gallon, and the rising cost of living bringing consumer confidence to an all-time low, political observers marveled on Monday at Republican senators' decision to center President Donald Trump's demand for a new $400 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom at the White House as a top legislative goal.
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), and Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) held a press conference late Monday to announce their intention to expedite a bill to the Senate floor to use public funds to pay for the construction of a secure ballroom, joining Trump in insisting that a shooting at the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA) dinner on Saturday proved the project is a national security priority.
Trump has demanded the construction of the ballroom for months, ordering demolition work to begin last year as he insisted the project would be paid for entirely by private donations from companies with government contracts like Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Google—a plan that has raised alarm over significant conflicts of interest.
The construction was halted recently after a federal court ruled the project must be approved by Congress, but an appeals court this month allowed the building to continue while it reviews the ruling.
On Monday evening, the US Department of Justice also filed a motion—which observers noted appeared to be written in the same style the president frequently uses in his social media posts—demanding that US District Judge Richard Leon dissolve his previous injunction blocking the project.
The motion started by claiming the name of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the nonprofit that sued over the ballroom construction, is "FAKE."
"They suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, commonly referred to as TDS," reads the filing.
Graham said Monday that the ballroom should be paid for with $400 million in taxpayer funds collected in the form of national park fees and customs fees, with the private funding Trump secured going to extra costs like fine china.
The senator insisted the American public, whose approval of the president stood at 40% in one monthly survey in March, would support the bill.
"If you don't think $400 million of taxpayer money is a good investment to create a secure facility at the White House, then I disagree. I bet you 90% of Americans would love to have a better facility," said Graham.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal responded: "Nope. Ninety percent of Americans would love to have affordable healthcare, housing, and childcare. Or lower gas prices. Or lower grocery prices. Not a frigging illegally constructed ballroom."
Graham explained that beneath the ballroom there would be "a lot of military stuff" and "infrastructure that is national security-centric," and suggested the construction of the facility would allow Trump and future presidents to stay on the White House grounds instead of leaving for public events.
The WHCA has held its annual dinner at the Washington Hilton for decades, and it's unclear whether it would ever change the venue to the White House in order to hold the event in a "secure" ballroom.
The press conference came two days after a man armed with multiple guns and knives tried to break into the WHCA dinner and exchanged gunfire with Secret Service personnel before being tackled and disarmed. Just hours after being evacuated from the chaotic scene, Trump held a press conference with his top administration officials and declared the incident had proven that "we need the ballroom."
Graham said Monday that the president talks about the ballroom "all the time" in his conversations with Republican senators. He said the White House supports the plan to pay for the project with $400 million in public funds.
"The Republican pitch to voters in an election year dominated by the crushing costs of living in this country should be the urgent need for a new marble and gold ballroom for members of the American ruling class to have safer banquets," said one observer sardonically.
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) told Pablo Manriquez of MeidasTouch that regardless of the GOP's claims about national security, the ballroom is "about what Donald Trump wants and what makes him more money and puts his name on another edifice. That's all the ballroom is, it's nothing the American people asked for."
Rep. Schneider tells PabloReports that the American people need lower costs, not a new ballroom.
Schneider: It’s always about what Trump wants, what makes him more money, or what puts his name on another edifice. That’s all the ballroom is. It’s not what the American people… pic.twitter.com/gvAu4w9knm
— Acyn (@Acyn) April 27, 2026
"It's nothing the American people need at a time where grocery prices continue to rise and are rising faster, gasoline costs are through the sky, and it's harder for everyday Americans to make it through every day," said Schneider. "The president's always focused on himself."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bayer Continues Push to 'Close the Door' on Glyphosate Victims at US Supreme Court
"Bayer is intent on preserving its right to harm at all costs—a pursuit the Trump administration is all too willing to endorse," said a Food and Water Watch campaigner.
Apr 27, 2026
As pesticide critics held a "The People v. Poison" rally outside the US Supreme Court on Monday, the justices heard arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, a case whose conclusion is expected to have sweeping implications for cancer patients trying to take on the Roundup maker—now owned by Bayer—in the country's legal system.
The case stems from John Durnell's 2019 lawsuit against Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging that exposure to the herbicide Roundup—whose active ingredient is glyphosate—caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. A jury found that the company failed to warn users of the risks associated with the weedkiller, and awarded Durnell $1.25 million in damages.
Bayer argued before the Supreme Court on Monday that Durnell—and others like him—should not be able to bring such a suit because the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts state rules for labeling pesticides when the Environmental Protection Agency doesn't require a cancer warning. Bayer and the EPA continue to insist that glyphosate is safe, despite the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classifying it as probably carcinogenic to humans over a decade ago.
As The Associated Press and Reuters reported, the justices appeared "divided" on Monday, with the AP noting that several "seemed sympathetic to the company's argument that it can't be sued under state law because federal regulators have found Roundup likely doesn't cause cancer. Others, though, grilled attorneys about whether that wrongly stops states from responding to changing research."
Patti Goldman, senior attorney at Earthjustice—which filed an amicus brief in this case on behalf of farmworker organizations—said in a statement that "questions from the justices recognized that the Environmental Protection Agency approves pesticide labels based on the evidence before the agency at a single moment in time, but that evidence can become outdated as real-world exposure grows and scientific studies document resulting harms."
"Federal law requires the manufacturers to update their labels to provide sufficient warnings and directions to protect the public," Goldman stressed, "and state failure-to-warn claims reinforce that obligation—while ensuring children, families, and workers have a path to seek remedies for the harm they suffer."
Other groups that have submitted amicus briefs include Environmental Protection Network—which is made up of former EPA staffers—and the Center for Food Safety, one of the advocacy organizations that joined the rally outside the court. The event was also attended by members of Congress from both major political parties.
"This isn't left v. right—it's right v. wrong," said US Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). "Big corporations and their lobbyists have captured both parties, putting profits over our families' health. I've fought Monsanto and Bayer for years, and just filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to protect our right to sue them for illnesses caused by their products."
Despite President Donald Trump's campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," the Republican recently issued an executive order mandating the production of glyphosate, and the US Department of Justice has sided with Bayer in this case—part of a broader trend of his administration serving the pesticide industry's interests.
"Monsanto Company v. Durnell will have enormous consequences for environmental health litigation," Food and Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen said Monday. "Bayer is intent on preserving its right to harm at all costs—a pursuit the Trump administration is all too willing to endorse. This case threatens to close the courthouse doors to the many Americans harmed by pesticides."
Heinzen argued that "should the Supreme Court hold that the Environmental Protection Agency's failed pesticide regulatory scheme preempts state failure to warn lawsuits, leaving tens of thousands of sick Americans without legal recourse, Trump and his industry-dominated EPA will be to blame."
"This high stakes case should be a wake-up call for Congress to act," the campaigner added. "Industrial agriculture's pesticide addiction is poisoning America. Congress must pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to safeguard access to justice for all harmed by toxic pesticides."
As The American Prospect noted Monday in its "three-part series on Bayer's crusade for immunity from Roundup-related cancer claims," the company "is now aggressively lobbying Congress to permanently close the door" on the weedkiller's victims, and managed to get an immunity provision included in the 2026 Farm Bill that advanced out of the US House Agriculture Committee last month.
After joining the rally at the Supreme Court on Monday, Friends of the Earth (FOE) US led a protest outside Bayer's headquarters in downtown Washington, DC, delivering hundreds of thousands of petition signatures are calling on the company to phase out the production of toxic pesticides, including glyphosate and neonicotinoids.
"People are sick and tired of being exposed to toxic pesticides while pesticide corporations shirk responsibility," said FOE senior campaigner Sarah Starman, who spoke at the rally. "Bayer and other pesticide companies should not be allowed to profit from chemicals that threaten our health, harm our environment, and undermine the future of our food system. The hundreds of people who rallied outside the Supreme Court and the 200,000 people who signed comments to Bayer are demanding change."
In the leadup to the arguments before the nation's top court, the Environmental Working Group last week sued the Trump administration at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, accusing the EPA of unlawfully delaying its response to an EWG petition seeking stronger restrictions on glyphosate.
"The EPA's silence leaves families in the dark and falls far short of its responsibility to protect public health," declared EWG president and co-founder Ken Cook. "It's time for the agency to stop stalling and do its job."Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular