To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
As corporate influence grows, independent journalism is more important than ever. If you value reporting that puts people and the planet first, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday. We couldn't do it without you—thank you for keeping independent journalism alive.
When there is a suspected risk of harm—and scientific certainty is not yet established—the burden of proof should not fall on the people who may be harmed by it.
We live in a time that celebrates innovation—but too often, it’s innovation without accountability. Pesticides are sprayed where children play. Harmful chemicals are embedded in everyday products. Communities are exposed to toxic risks without warning.
The pattern is clear: Dangerous substances are allowed into our lives before their safety is truly understood. Industry profits from speed, while public protections are stuck in delay. The default approach often favors inaction until overwhelming evidence of danger is undeniable. But by then, the damage is already done. From asbestos to lead paint to Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) “forever chemicals,” history offers a grim catalog of missed opportunities to prevent harm. Each case is a reminder that early warnings were ignored, risks were downplayed, and the public was left unprotected.
That’s why we must fully embrace the Precautionary Principle and defend the Right to Know as the foundation of public health, environmental justice, and informed consent.
At its core, the Precautionary Principle is straightforward and rooted in common sense: When there is a suspected risk of harm—and scientific certainty is not yet established—the burden of proof should not fall on the people who may be harmed by it. These aren’t bureaucratic ideals—they’re essential safeguards in a world where the cost of delay is measured in illness, inequity, and lost public trust.
It’s not radical to ask what’s in our air, water, or soil. What’s radical is expecting families to live with uncertainty, secrecy, or delayed action.
When I founded California Safe Schools, it was because of one disturbing reality: Parents had no idea when or where pesticides were being used on school campuses. There was no warning, no notice, and no choice. Children and school staff were being exposed—without their knowledge or consent.
Through years of community organizing, scientific research, and policy advocacy, we helped secure a major shift in how public schools approach pesticide use. In 1999, the Los Angeles Unified School District—the second-largest in the country—adopted a groundbreaking Integrated Pest Management Policy grounded in the Precautionary Principle and the Right to Know. It required written notification of pesticide use, prioritized least-toxic alternatives, and banned broadcast spraying.
This became a model for statewide reform. In 2000, California passed the Healthy Schools Act, ensuring that all public schools would follow similar transparency and notification requirements. And in 2005, AB 405, sponsored by California Safe Schools, made California the first state in the nation to ban the use of experimental, conditional, or phased-out pesticides on school grounds.
These victories weren’t just legislative—they were lifesaving. They proved what’s possible when grassroots voices, science, and public values come together. They also reaffirmed a fundamental truth: People have a right to know what they’re being exposed to and the right to act on that knowledge.
Still, these principles continue to face resistance. The Right to Know is sometimes viewed with hesitation—treated not as a basic public good, but as a burden or threat. Communities are routinely left in the dark about nearby industrial emissions, pesticide use near schools, or the presence of toxic substances in drinking water. In Flint, Michigan residents were told their water was safe long after it had been poisoned with lead. If we’re serious about protecting public health—especially for the most vulnerable—then transparency and prevention must be the norm, not the exception. It’s not radical to ask what’s in our air, water, or soil. What’s radical is expecting families to live with uncertainty, secrecy, or delayed action.
The Precautionary Principle and the Right to Know are practical tools that remind us that safety should never be an afterthought—and that acting early, openly, and ethically is not just the right thing to do; it’s essential.
We don’t need to wait for more evidence to take meaningful steps forward. What we need is the collective courage to revisit outdated systems, to consistently put human well-being first, and to ensure that those most vulnerable are fully protected.
The good news is that each of us can play a role in advancing this work. Real change begins with awareness—and is sustained through action. Learn what chemicals are being used in your schools, parks, and neighborhoods. Ask questions. Show up to school board meetings and local government hearings. Speak out for policies that reflect transparency, precaution, and the use of least-toxic alternatives. Organize with neighbors. Support legislation that puts health before profit. And perhaps most importantly, share what you learn—because awareness leads to advocacy, and advocacy leads to change.
Every voice counts. Every action matters. Together, we can protect the places where our families live, learn, and grow—and build a future that prioritizes health, safety, and transparency.
While welcoming the "long-overdue meaningful action" on drinking water safety, one campaigner argued that "much more must be done—much faster—at no cost to impacted households."
The Biden administration's proposal to better protect drinking water nationwide was met with sweeping applause on Thursday, but at least one consumer advocacy group stressed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy is "still not enough."
With its proposed changes to the Lead and Copper Rule, the administration aims to replace all lead water service lines in the United States within a decade, according to the EPA. There are also provisions intended to locate legacy lead pipes, improve tap sampling, lower the lead action level, and strengthen protections to reduce exposure.
Food & Water Watch Public Water for All director Mary Grant said that "the federal government has already waited far too long to require the elimination of these toxic lead water pipes, which poisoned the water in communities across the country," from Flint, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi to Newark, New Jersey and Washington, D.C.
"The Biden administration has proposed long-overdue meaningful action toward the goal of eliminating lead from drinking water, but to ensure that every community has safe, lead-free water, much more must be done—much faster—at no cost to impacted households," she asserted.
Grant praised "agitators who emerged from... water contamination fights" and called on Congress to "step up to provide funding to replace the entire service line at no cost to impacted households, prioritizing low-income and environmental justice communities."
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed by President Joe Biden two years ago, "provided a $15 billion downpayment on this overhaul, but the total cost could exceed $60 billion," she pointed out, urging Congress to pass the Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity, and Reliability (WATER) Act.
"In a moment when many of us feel overwhelmed by bad news, the EPA's lead rule provides a ray of hope."
While additional steps are clearly needed, impacted communities and other campaigners still welcomed the progress on Thursday.
"Communities like ours... have grappled with the repercussions of lead contamination for too long," said Deborah Brown, a steering committee member of Newburgh Clean Water Project in New York. "The proposed improvements, especially the replacement of all lead service lines, signify a significant stride to safe and clean drinking water for our families and future generations. It's a step in the right direction."
Earthjustice attorney Suzanne Novak—whose legal group has represented the Newburgh Clean Water Project—said that "the EPA's proposed improvements to the Lead and Copper Rule are a much-needed response to a dire public health crisis that's been ongoing for more than a century."
"The administration's proposal takes important steps towards fulfilling the Safe Drinking Water Act's purpose of protecting human health to the extent feasible," Novak continued. "EPA has recognized that quick removal of all lead service lines is imperative, and that swift action is needed when a community has persistent high levels of lead in its water."
"Because the public health burden of lead exposure falls disproportionately on environmental justice communities," she emphasized, "we need to make sure that the final rule is equitable in how it achieves reduction of lead in drinking water across the country."
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted "apparent weaknesses" of the proposal, including that "water systems are not required to pay for the lead service line replacement," utilities could get extensions beyond the 10-year deadline, and the action level reduction from 15 parts per billion to 10 ppb "is less strict than the 5 ppb standards recommended by health experts and the governments in Canada and Europe."
Still, Erik Olson, senior strategic director for health at NRDC, said that "in a moment when many of us feel overwhelmed by bad news, the EPA's lead rule provides a ray of hope that we are approaching the day when every family can trust that the water from their kitchen tap is safe, regardless of how much money they have or their ZIP code."
Environmental Working Group senior vice president for government affairs Scott Faber also praised the progress, saying that "once again, President Biden's EPA is putting our families first and honoring his commitments to the American people."
The campaigner also highlighted the need to better protect communities whose drinking water is contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), chemicals used in various products that persist in the environment and human body and are connected to health problems including cancers.
Biden's EPA proposed the first-ever national drinking water standard for PFAS in March. Faber said Thursday that "we're confident he will also make good on his commitment to finalize a drinking water standard for the toxic 'forever chemicals.'"
"This case shows how the state permitting process fails to protect communities, and that's why federal action is needed," said one attorney working with local activists.
Environmental justice advocates in Flint, Michigan called for federal action after a circuit court on Tuesday upheld a state permit allowing for a toxic asphalt plant to be built and operated on the outskirts of the beleaguered city despite sustained opposition from residents.
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) gave Ajax Materials Corporation permission to construct a new hot-mix asphalt manufacturing facility in Genesee Township—less than 1,600 feet from public housing in a low-income, predominantly Black neighborhood of Flint—in November 2021, just days after a federal judge approved a $626 million settlement for thousands of lead poisoning victims in the city.
Multiple lawsuits were filed challenging the permit. Ajax claimed that EGLE's requirements were too restrictive while the city of Flint argued that regulators' decision-making reflected a failure to adhere to legal requirements associated with environmental justice. In addition, five community groups—St. Francis Prayer Center, Flint Rising, Environmental Transformation Movement of Flint, Michigan United, and CAUTION—accused EGLE of using incomplete emissions data to evaluate the proposed asphalt plant's health consequences in violation of the federal Clean Air Act and Michigan's air quality rules.
As Earthjustice explained in a Wednesday statement, "The court ultimately sided with EGLE, which argued that the issued permit—amended only after public outcry forced the agency to extend its deadline for public comments three times—was sufficient."
In response, Mona Munroe-Younis, executive director of the Environmental Transformation Movement of Flint, said: "We are heartbroken by the court's decision not to protect a wonderful and vulnerable community from yet more air contaminants. But it's a relief that the plant will be forced to operate under stricter pollution controls than what Ajax sought and what EGLE would have permitted, had residents not pushed back."
St. Francis Prayer Center director Debra Hawley echoed Munroe-Younis.
"Community members had to drag EGLE kicking and screaming to issue a stricter permit for this toxic asphalt plant," said Hawley. "I'm proud that we succeeded in securing better monitoring and enforcement of this plant's emissions. This case shows just how crucial it is for the public to have a voice in environmental permitting, especially given the history of environmental racism in Michigan."
Flint, where the poverty rate exceeds 35%, has been hit particularly hard by environmental injustices that are inseparable from deregulation and austerity. Nearly a decade ago, a contaminated water crisis began when an unelected "emergency manager" appointed by then-Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) made the cost-cutting decision to switch the city's tap water source from Detroit's municipal supply to the Flint River, whose highly corrosive water caused aging pipes to leak lead into thousands of homes.
"The fact that EGLE has acknowledged environmental justice concerns with this asphalt plant and decided to go ahead and permit it anyway reflects a much larger problem."
Now, with a stamp of approval from Michigan's regulators and 7th Judicial Circuit Court, Ajax is on the verge of bringing another highly polluting facility to a community that is already overwhelmed by particulate matter stemming from the Genesee Power Station, Universal Coating Inc., Ace-Saginaw Paving Company, Buckeye Terminals, Superior Metals, RJ Industrial Recycling, and other nearby entities.
This concentration of industrial activity has left inhabitants with high rates of cancer, asthma, and other respiratory illnesses, prompting them to demand an assessment of the cumulative impacts of the projected emissions from the proposed asphalt plant along with the pollution emanating from other toxic facilities in the area.
"EGLE has the power to go much further to protect communities of color who are disproportionately impacted by dirty air and water, and they consistently choose not to," said Nayyirah Shariff, director of Flint Rising. "That pattern smacks of racism, and it needs to change."
In addition to challenging the permit in court, the community groups have filed separate Title VI civil rights complaints with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, requesting an investigation into EGLE's alleged racism in this permitting process and a comprehensive review of the agency's compliance with civil rights laws more broadly. The groups are represented by Earthjustice, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, and the National Housing Law Project.
"By filing these civil rights complaints, we hope to secure stronger protections for communities of color surrounding the Ajax plant, and throughout Michigan," said Nick Leonard, executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center.
As Earthjustice associate attorney John Petoskey put it: "The fact that EGLE has acknowledged environmental justice concerns with this asphalt plant and decided to go ahead and permit it anyway reflects a much larger problem. This case shows how the state permitting process fails to protect communities, and that's why federal action is needed.”
In Tuesday's decision, Judge David Newblatt pointed to the need for site-specific analyses in future permitting. This means that regulators would be expected to consider the multiple ways in which communities are already exposed to harmful pollutants—and the cumulative effects of those exposures—when issuing permits for new facilities.
In response, Rev. Monica Villarreal, an environmental justice organizer at Michigan United, said that "polluting industries should be on notice: Your choice to locate that new facility in an environmental justice community will mean a much higher barrier to get a permit, and those of us who live nearby will not stop fighting for our right to live and breathe clean air."