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
'Killing Is Normalized': IDF Soldier Speaks Out About Orders to Shoot Civilians in Gaza
The commands are: everyone that comes inside needs to die," the soldier said. "If they're inside, they're dangerous, you need to kill them. No matter who it is."
Jul 07, 2025
Another Israel Defense Forces soldier has spoken out publicly against the IDF's brutalization of civilians in Gaza.
In an interview with the British Sky News Monday, a reservist who has served three tours of duty in Gaza spoke candidly about orders he and other soldiers received to shoot any person arbitrarily who entered defined "no-go zones," regardless of whether they posed a threat.
The soldier gave his testimony anonymously for fear of being labeled a "traitor." However, he identified himself as a reservist from the 252nd Division who was stationed at the Netzarim Corridor, a road which divides North and South Gaza.
The area has been one of the most critical strategic points for Israel's occupation of Gaza, allowing control over the flow of aid and people.
The soldiers, stationed on the edge of a civilian neighborhood in the homes of displaced Palestinians, were ordered by their commanders to kill anyone who passed an "imaginary line" that marked the beginning of the military stronghold, the soldier said.
"We have a territory that we are in, and the commands are: everyone that comes inside needs to die," the soldier said. "If they're inside, they're dangerous, you need to kill them. No matter who it is."
"It was like pretty much everyone that comes into the territory, and it might be like a teenager riding his bicycle," he said.
The soldier said that the prevailing attitude among the troops was that all Palestinians were "terrorists," and that this attitude was reinforced by commanders.
"They say if someone comes here, it means that he knows he shouldn't be there, and if he still comes, it means he's a terrorist," he said. "This is what they tell you. But I don't really think it's true. It's just poor people, civilians, that don't really have too many choices."
He said that when soldiers in the corridor kill civilians, a lot of them "think that they did something good."
That sense of impunity, he said, comes from the higher-ups.
"Some commanders can really decide to do war crimes and bad things and don't face the consequences of that," he said.
"You can't be in this scenario for so long and not normalize it," he said. "Killing is normalized, and you don't see the problem."
This anonymous soldier is the latest of many who have decided to speak out against atrocities their military has committed.
His testimony comes on the heels of a harrowing Haaretz expose, in which several other Israeli soldiers described being ordered to shoot Palestinian aid-seekers, turning the U.S.-Israeli administered Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) sites into "killing fields." Others provided The Associated Press with video of soldiers bombarding civilians in an aid site with pepper spray and stun grenades.
Others have spoken out against the attacks on civilians near the Israeli stronghold at Netzarim.
In April, a report by the Israeli veterans group Breaking the Silence detailed many more accounts of brutality over the first year-and-a-half of the war. It included accounts of Israeli soldiers razing agricultural land, bulldozing entire city blocks, and designating "large swathes of the land" that "were turned into massive kill zones."
"All of them were wiped off the face of the Earth. Annihilation, expropriation, and expulsion are immoral and must never be normalized or legitimized," the report said.
The soldier who spoke to Sky News said his deployment left a similar stain on his conscience.
"I kind of feel like I took part in something bad, and I need to counter it with something good that I do, by speaking out, because I am very troubled about what I took and still am taking part of, as a soldier and citizen in this country," he said. "I think the war is... a very bad thing that is happening to us, and to the Palestinians, and I think it needs to be over."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Oxfam Says Russian Use of Chemical Weapons in Ukraine Would Be 'Egregious Violation of International law'
"The increasing erosion of the rule of law is deeply concerning," said an Oxfam campaigns manager.
Jul 07, 2025
Anti-poverty organization Oxfam on Monday expressed grave concern over reports that Russia has been increasingly deploying chemical weapons in Ukraine.
The Associated Press reported late last week that two Dutch intelligence agencies are claiming that Russia has been ramping up its use of chemical weapons in its war against Ukraine. Among the chemical weapons allegedly being deployed by Russia are chloropicrin, a banned poison gas that was used by European powers during World War I, and CS gas, which is typically used as a riot control agent.
Sarah Redd, Oxfam's advocacy and campaigns manager in Ukraine, called reports of banned chemical weapons use deeply troubling and called for a full investigation into the matter.
"Oxfam is appalled at the recent intensification of violence against civilians in Ukraine, especially the reports of Russia's use of chemical weapons, which would be an egregious violation of international law," she said. "The increasing erosion of the rule of law is deeply concerning. Such laws were put in place to prevent humanity from sliding back into a darker chapter of history. Oxfam calls for an immediate and independent international investigation into these allegations and to hold those responsible to account."
Russia is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty first drafted and enacted in the 1990s that bars the use of both chloropicrin and CS gas in war. This makes Russia subject to potential investigations carried out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, although such an investigation can only take place if requested by member states.
Ukraine has claimed that Russia has carried out more than 9,000 chemical weapons attacks ever since it launched its invasion of the country more than three years ago. During the 2024 election campaign, President Donald Trump claimed that he could bring an end to the Ukraine-Russia war within a single day although so far fighting between the two nations has only intensified.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Indefensible': Trump Budget Law Subsidizes Private Jet Owners While Taking Healthcare From Millions
A provision of the budget law that President Donald Trump signed last week will leave taxpayers to "pick up the tab for the private jet industry and billionaire high flyers."
Jul 07, 2025
The Republican budget measure that U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law late last week contains a provision that analysts say will allow private jet owners to write off the full cost of their aircraft in the first year of purchase, a boon to the ultra-rich that comes as millions of people are set to lose healthcare under the same legislation.
FlyUSA, a private aviation provider, gushed in a blog post that with final passage of the unpopular budget reconciliation package, "business jet ownership has never looked more fiscally attractive or more fun to explain to your accountant."
The law, crafted by congressional Republicans and approved with only GOP support, permanently restores a major corporate tax break known as 100% bonus depreciation, which allows businesses to deduct the costs of certain assets in the first year of purchase rather than writing them off over time.
Forbes noted that the bonus depreciation policy "applies to a slew of qualified, physical business expenses which depreciate over time, such as machinery and company cars, but the policy is often associated with big-ticket luxury items, such as private aircraft, and its institution last decade led to a boom in jet sales."
"Trump and congressional Republicans have certainly delivered for the billionaire class."
Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality at the Institute for Policy Studies, called bonus depreciation "a massive tax break for billionaires and centi-millionaires that use the most polluting form of transportation on the planet."
"A corporation purchasing a $50 million private jet could potentially deduct the entire $50 million from their taxes in the year of the purchase, rather than spreading the deduction over many years," Collins wrote. "This amounts to a massive taxpayer subsidy, as ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab for the private jet industry and billionaire high flyers."
"Subsidizing more private jets on a warming planet is reckless and indefensible," he added.
The National Business Aviation Association, a lobbying group for the private aviation industry, celebrated passage of the Republican legislation, specifically welcoming the bonus depreciation policy as "effective for incentivizing aircraft purchase." (The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy argues that "depreciation tax breaks have never been shown to encourage more capital investment.")
Meanwhile, communities across the United States are bracing for the law's deep cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance, which are expected to impose damaging strains on state budgets and strip food benefits and health coverage from millions of low-income Americans.
"Trump and congressional Republicans have certainly delivered for the billionaire class," said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. "This is certainly one of the cruelest bills in American history, backtracking on the country's painfully slow history of expanding healthcare coverage and, equally remarkably, taking food away from the hungry."
"That's a lot of needless suffering just to make the richest Americans richer," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular