In this podcast episode, EWG President and co-Founder Ken Cook talks with two colleagues about EWG’s successes in 2024, a look back at the Biden administration and what to expect from the Trump administration on food chemicals, pesticides and more.
Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs, talks about crucial issues, including the Biden Environmental Protection Agency finalizing landmark limits on the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in drinking water and potential Trump policy actions.
He’s followed by Jocelyn Lyle, executive vice president of mission and partnerships, who shares EWG’s achievements with expanding the EWG Verified® program, as well as efforts to reach even more Americans who want to learn about living a healthy life in a healthy environment.
Disclaimer: This transcript was compiled using software and may include typographical errors.
Ken: Hi there, it's Ken Cook, and I'm having another episode on this New Year's Eve of 2024. I wanted to take some time to highlight what EWG has accomplished this past year, what's right on the edge of being accomplished as the Biden administration winds down, and what we're anticipating and planning with the incoming Trump administration.
Today, I'm speaking with my longtime friend and colleague, Scott Faber, to get his perspectives on the past year and what's on the radar for 2025. Scott is EWG senior vice president for government affairs, and he's the best lobbyist I've ever had the pleasure to work with. He's a lawyer and a journalist by trade, and when he's not at EWG, he's teaching the next generation of lawyers at Georgetown University Law Center.
Scott, I asked you here as you are able to speak to the policy angles that EWG has been working on. And our listeners may not necessarily know EWG as a policy shop. They know us from the Shopper's Guide, the Dirty Dozen, Skin Deep, and so forth. Those are all super important. But the average EWG follower may not know about.
The also incredibly important work we do in the policy realm. So let's dive into my discussion with Scott Faber in our DC studio.
Scott: Thanks for joining Scott. Yeah, so great to be with you. And in fact, the reason Uh, the two reasons I chose to join EWG was the chance to work with you Ken, because we'd worked together in other roles on farm subsidy reform and making sure our food's safe. But the other was because EWG does reach this different audience than most environmental groups. So…
Ken: So yeah.
Scott: Yeah.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. We like to think we're, you know, if, if Breitbart's right. and politics is downstream from culture. We, we work the culture piece pretty hard in terms of changing how people think about what they eat, what they're exposed to in their home, what they can do to protect their families on their own.
But we also have this big policy presence, an outsized presence given our size. Uh, we're routinely recognized as really key player on Capitol Hill. So let's, let's talk about, start with the, the federal situation. So we've had a big year in terms of long time agenda items where we've made progress. And at the top for me is the big changes that came this year with forever chemicals, the PFAS chemicals.
Say a little bit about what, what's happened.
Scott: Yeah, no, it's, it's. Probably the biggest drinking water win in half a century, where the EPA, the federal government decided to set standards for how much PFAS can be in your drinking water, how much utilities would have to take out before they could send it to you through the tap.
And as a result of this federal standard, a hundred million people, a hundred million people, that's a lot of people. will now have cleaner water. It's, it's a remarkable, remarkable win for drinking water consumers. And it's not just PFAS, these six PFAS, these toxic forever chemicals that will be removed.
Adopting the technology that takes PFAS out of our tap water also takes all sorts of other contaminants out of our tap water. The co contaminants. The co contaminants, that's right. And so one of the big wins isn't just that fewer people will get kidney cancer or liver cancer because of the PFAS. lack of less PFAS in their water, but fewer people will get bladder cancer because there's less nitrate in their tap water.
So a huge win, historic win, would not have happened, but for the work that EWG and you and EWG led now six years ago, where we started to tell people, Hey, there's this toxic forever chemical in your drinking water and a lot more of you have it in your drinking water than you previously knew.
Ken: Yeah. No, I, I think I sent the first note to staff to get ready to work on PFAS in August of 2000.
Jane Houlihan sent it to me. And you know, one of the first things. We tried to figure out was whether PFAS was in water. And at the time I kicked myself, uh, looking back that we didn't try harder to find out if it was in water. Rob a lot has since convinced me that I couldn't have looked. We could have, could have tried, but wouldn't have found it.
But, you know, this has been a long time struggle on two fronts. One, dealing with PFAS, and the other is getting the Safe Drinking Water Act to work.
Scott: Right.
Ken: Because, what is it, uh, 20 plus years since they've set a new standard?
Scott: Uh, 28 years.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So they find a contaminant and then, Um, maybe they do studies that show it's a problem and they set a goal for doing something.
Maybe sometimes they don't even set the goal, but then they don't set the standard. Like for Aaron Brockovich's chemical hexavalent chromium, right? We still don't have a federal standard. That's right. Incredible.
Scott: I mean, the, the breakthrough moment was not just that the EPA, the federal government said, Hey, water utilities, you've got to start testing for PFAS.
The breakthrough moment was when you and the rest of the EWG team took that testing results, which no one really ever looks at, put it on a map. Yeah. So everyone, that map, that PFAS map that everybody now knows EWG for. And people could see all those blue dots that told them that PFAS was in their tap water.
And it wasn't just ordinary drinking water consumers who saw it. It was people like Joe Biden who saw it. Yeah. And who then promised. And campaigned. And promised when he was running for president. Yeah. That he was going to do something about
Ken: it. But Republicans aren't exposed, right? It's only, this only occurs in Democratic drinking water.
Scott: That's right, they're immune. It's something biological. I don't know how it works.
Ken: So Republicans have gotten on the bandwagon too and have said, we need to do something about it.
Scott: No, it's, it's actually one of the, uh, truly nonpartisan. It should be right. Everyone should have clean drinking water. But in this case, we've consistently had Republicans voting with us many times, including the incoming EPA administrator.
Sure. To say there's a toxic forever chemical in my drinking water. We ought to set a deadline for the government to set a limit on how much can be there. And, and that was actually another breakthrough moment was it just, it hasn't just been a priority for Joe Biden. It's been a priority for. Republicans, especially in places like North Carolina and other communities where that are conservative, they vote for Republicans, but are really disproportionately exposed to PFAS.
Ken: Yeah, yeah. No, so this was a big moment. I got to go down to North Carolina and you did too. We were both there when it was, when it was announced.
Scott: Nobody remembers that I was there. What's up with that?
Ken: I, I, I think it was just you weren't on camera. That's the tragedy. Yeah. Um, everyone's wondering. Michael Regan, uh, hats off to you, my friend.
Uh, you know, this was a big fight. A lot of companies didn't want this standard to happen. A lot of drinking water utilities, some of them are suing the companies that caused the pollution and getting money in settlements. And some of them are opposing this new standard. They want to slow it down.
Probably some doing both. Um, so it's super controversial. And that's one reason why drinking water standards are so hard to set. You have big city mayors who don't want to spend the money and charge their rate payers. You have private companies that are concerned about liability. All these decisions are You know hard to make and Michael Regan.
I'm looking at you brother. You did a great job Uh, thank you for standing up and your drinking water program standing up to Mihal Friedhoff who did all the analysis looking at the toxicity of this chemical this family Super big victory. So now we're doing other there's other things in the works too some that happened already that are in regulation that affect these forever chemicals that are really important too, right?
Scott: Yeah. So one thing that doesn't get a lot of attention is we now know who's releasing these chemicals into the environment. There's something called the toxic release inventory. You can go visit it right now and see who's releasing not just PFAS, but lots of other toxic chemicals into the air and water near your home Congress in a bipartisan way.
passed a law saying we need to add more of these PFAS chemicals to the TRI. Yeah. So all of us will know if our upstream or upwind polluter is sending PFAS into our homes and businesses. And so that, that was a big win. Um, we're, we may yet get a win this year before the Biden administration wraps up where they may yet propose a rule that says, Hey, if you're a chemical company, 3M or Chemours, you can't just keep dumping PFAS into the river.
And I'm sorry to say in 2024, that is, that is the state of the, of the situation where people can kind of just dump PFAS waste into the river. But, um, that could be about to change as well. And then the other last thing is just a really historic decision Transcribed By this administration to hold PFAS polluters accountable under our superfund law.
So if, if a site is so contaminated that it needs to be cleaned up and it's been abandoned and it's been, yeah, it's been abandoned, it's finally the case that the polluters will have to help share the cost of cleaning up that site
Ken: because they made a decision to. declared a hazardous substance
Scott: under CERCLA, under our Superfund law.
So a huge win. All of these things are going to be under attack, especially in the next Congress and especially by the next administration. And it will be a real test for some of the Republicans who represent states that don't have their own drinking water standards, who will have to stand up to this president and say, wait a minute, if you reverse this PFAS drinking water standard, Then my drinking water consumers in North Carolina or Ohio or other states, 40 states will be unprotected.
And so that'll be a big fight for us next year.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. No, that's no question about that. And we know that the industry, the water utility trade associations, they both sued EPA to sort of disrupt this regulatory process from moving forward. I mean, it
Scott: still blows my mind that the people who we pay to sell us safe water. I want to make sure I'm getting this right. The people we pay every, every month in our water bill to sell us safe water are taking the money we give them. Yes. And then lobbying to sell us polluted water.
Ken: Yeah. Did I get that right? No, you do have it right. And, and so we will be talking to the, uh, the public about these water utilities, utility by utility in the coming year, because we want to let them know that this is the dynamic you're, you're paying your water bill.
Where I live in, uh, Northern California, uh, and lots of other parts of the country, the water bills are going way up because water's getting more scarce. And on top of that, they're using some of our rate payer money to sue, you know, EPA to stop the regulation of forever chemicals. So not okay. No. Not okay.
You kind of expect it of chemical companies, but water utilities. Yeah. And
Scott: I was also surprised to see that some of our favorite retailers through their trade association. Are arguing that the Trump team should reverse the drinking water standard. Some of our favorite cleaning product companies, you know, through their trade association.
So, so there, there, there are lots of folks who don't have clean hands when it comes to protecting us from these toxic forever chemicals. They'll tell you, Oh, we took it out of our stuff. But then they're asking the Trump team to make it easier to send it to you in your tap water.
Ken: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, we'll be talking about that a lot in the coming year for sure.
And then there are some other things we've been doing, not just this year, and I think that's still in the works with the Defense Authorization Act, the defense spending bill. Um, and this has been something we, we talk about, we write about it on our website, we send information out to people, but it doesn't really maybe stick that there are ways in which By trying to affect this legislation that no one thinks of rightly as an environmental bill, but by inserting some ideas into it and having support from Republicans and Democrats, we've gotten some good things done on PFAS.
So say a little bit about that.
Scott: Yeah no. And, and, and folks who are service members or dependents or live in defense communities may know about this, but probably most people do not. These defense sites, because of the use of firefighting foam. made with PFAS are some of the most contaminated sites, literally in the world where, as you know, Ken, the safe level for your tap water is now, you know, four parts per trillion.
We find bases where the groundwater has PFAS. above 1 million parts per trillion or even more than 10 million parts per trillion. And many people were drinking that groundwater as well water for decades.
Ken: Yeah. So we send you off to fight wars for us, defend our nation. Now, when you come home, Where maybe your family is also living on a base, you get this dose of toxic water and that is really, water that's free of toxic chemicals is kind of one of the things we should be fighting for.
I think so. Yeah,
Scott: I think, and I, and I've had so many service members tell me while they were off fighting to defend us in Iraq and Afghanistan, they never imagined in a million years that it was their family members. who were at greater risk because there were so much PFAS in their tap water. So that's the really bad news, really bad news.
The good news is because of our advocacy, We finally know just how contaminated these bases are. So we've required the government, the Congress has required the DOD to go out and test the groundwater just to figure out how big a problem is this. And it turns out it's a really big problem. We've provided more money, although not nearly enough money to begin to clean up these sites.
But probably the most significant change is Congress said to the DOD, you simply cannot use firefighting foam made with PFAS. So they passed a law. And at the time, the firefighting foam companies and the industry folks said, can't be done. We can't put out these jet fuel fires without PFAS.
Ken: It's mostly at air bases, right?
Yeah, mostly at air bases, but some army bases too, where there
Scott: are helicopters and so on. And they say, Oh, you know, people are going to die because we can't put out these fires fast enough. Within three years of the law passing, the DOD had found a safer alternative that works just as well.
Ken: And so important lesson here across environmental regulation of toxic substances from pesticides to industrial chemicals.
The argument from industry is always it can't be done. It's like, on the one hand, they brag about their technological prowess and how they're constantly improving. On the other hand, they say we can't possibly do it any differently. But when the pressure is applied, the regulations come down, it does force invention and creativity.
It creates new markets for sometimes upstart companies that. Are doing things differently. And before you know it, we do have alternatives. Look how the economy has evolved with respect to just consumer offerings. So. Once again, by pushing back, we're not assuming that we're going to let fires burn or we're going to let people be, you know, endangered.
We're basically saying, look, the way we started doing it decades ago, we now know is patently unsafe, very unsafe, affecting people that had no idea they were being affected by, because they're drinking stuff that got in water. And now we are going to press for change, and within a few years, it's not always this fast, but. change happens and we invent a new way to put out fires with jet fuel and without the contamination.
Scott: And we still have the problem of what to do with all the PFAS that's already been sprayed on the ground in this firefighting foam, seeped into the groundwater, contaminated wells all around the country, but we're not making the problem any worse.
And that's a big win. And then the other big change, all bipartisan, like all of these wins have been truly Republicans and Democrats working together. was the DOD will be the first institution to ban the use of PFAS in firefighting gear as well. And so no surprise if firefighters are spraying PFAS foam on the ground and wearing turnout gear or firefighter gear made with PFAS, they have some of the highest PFAS levels in their blood of anyone in the country.
So the DOD will now have to get out of the business of buying gear also made with PFAS. So really huge win and it will transform the market.
Ken: Yeah.
Scott: Not just for military firefighters, but for civilian firefighters.
Ken: Yeah. I mean, we always recognize that sometimes, uh, defense department or space programs do that experimental stuff that's on the cutting edge.
And before you know it, that bleeds into the rest of the, of the economy. Um, and the defense department often fights back against these efforts to clean up water or even document where the contamination has happened. Uh, we have heard from many service members that they're grateful that we're. standing up and helping them fight, make their case.
Um, and I think of our good friend, Jerry Ensminger, uh, in North Carolina, lost his daughter to another, uh, contaminant. And he has stood up beside us. We've, he's been our leader really on this for, for decades. And he also weighed in on PFAS and helped us a lot with that.
Scott: Yeah, no, I, I, you know, one of the, The real honors of working for EWG is the chance to work with the people who are really directly impacted by these chemicals, especially folks like Jerry who lost his daughter, Janie, because of TCE contamination.
Another good example of, of where the Biden EPA has taken steps to protect all of us by banning most uses of TCE, especially in, in consumer products. And honestly, I was just talking to a friend about this. When you look at all the things that the Biden EPA did, the PFAS drinking water standard, holding PFAS polluters accountable, banning asbestos, banning methylene chloride, banning TCE.
This has been the most successful administration when it comes to attacking this question of toxic chemicals than any administration we've ever seen.
Ken: Yeah, no, there's no question about that. And it didn't get talked about during the campaign in part, the transition to Vice president Harris, but she's been part of this too as part of the administration.
She's been a you know Lending her support to all this work and it it didn't break through in the campaign, unfortunately but uh lots of accomplishments on toxic chemicals and health that are you know, We can we can be grateful to joe biden and every the whole team at epa and council and environmental quality brenda mallory Just an amazing team and they paid attention to what was A lot of us were saying on toxic chemicals.
It wasn't just, it wasn't just a climate change, a focus in this administration. They looked They looked much more broadly, and sometimes these are the issues you would think would get a lot of attention, but they don't always, and they were all very successful.
Scott: Well, you know who is paying attention?
Ordinary consumers. Yeah. So I think ordinary people are much more worried about what they're gonna eat today than what might happen to the planet 20, 30, 40 years from now. Makes sense. And And, and yet I don't think they know that, uh, this EPA banned many toxic pesticides or many other toxic chemicals or understand sort of what is at risk next year and how that some of those gains may be reversed.
Ken: Yeah, no, we're very worried about that. We'll talk about that in a minute because I want to move to another strategy that we have followed. And we have lots of colleagues in the public interest community who are leaders in this space, which is activity at the state level. So we've had a. Uh, presence in California, working on legislation for many years, Bill Alliot, who's finally retiring, uh, because he's, uh, been wanting to do it for a while and I, I refused to meet with him to talk about it for several years.
And so that kept him on the staff and, uh, Susan Little, uh, his colleague who also has taken on a new role. The two of them have done a great job, but you and your team, and then our science team, we've focused on state action. And one reason is that even though during this administration, we made a lot of progress, there are areas where by making something happen at the state level, not only can we have a big impact for the citizens, residents of that state, but it also begins to spread. The impact can spread to other states. And a great example of that is the work we did this year on, on food chemicals in the year before. Yeah. Say a little bit about that.
Scott: No, it's been, it's not surprising given how personal food is, but we were able by working with a great assembly member in California, Jesse Gabriel to ban, first ban four chemicals in the entire state economy.
Of California, including red three, which is getting a lot of attention right now.
Ken: Already banned in California,
Scott: California, and because California is the fifth largest economy in the world, that's right. You're from California. Some, some say fourth, some
Ken: say fourth. Yeah. In Northern California, we say fourth,
Scott: but Southern California, I don't, I can't speak to it.
Well, let's not, I don't want to get in the middle of that fight. Uh, so, um, but because California is such an important market. We're not just reformulating thousands of foods for the California market, we're reformulating foods all across the country to ban Red 3, Propyl Paraben, Potassium Bromate, and BVO.
All chemicals, by the way, that have already been banned in the EU, all linked to serious health harms, all of which have either never been reviewed by the FDA. Or if they were reviewed by the FDA, hadn't been reviewed in literally 50 years. I mean, like things have changed a little bit, especially in toxicology since the FDA looked at some of these chemicals.
So Jesse Gabriel and, uh, and that was in 2023, 2023, that's right. Jesse Gabriel led efforts to ban these four chemicals. Unbelievably, our friends in the food industry said, FDA is doing a great job. Even though 99 percent of the food chemicals are actually reviewed by the chemical companies, not the FDA.
And even though the chemicals that are reviewed by FDA, oftentimes haven't been reviewed for longer than I've been walking on the planet. So. But self regulation is fun, right?
Ken: It's great sport.
Scott: I think that, uh, I checked myself and I'm, I'm doing fine. Apparently the chemical companies. never found any of these chemicals to be unsafe.
I just, as luck would have it. Yes. Just good luck. God bless them. Yeah. Bless your heart. As we say in North Carolina, that's exactly how, uh, what a lot of the lobbyists said to the state legislators in California. And, and guess what? They don't like being told bless your heart or you shouldn't be making emotional decisions about things like food science.
Yeah. But again, Republicans and Democrats in California really kind of saw right through that argument, and they decided first to ban these four chemicals, and then this year, 2024, to ban six toxic food colors from school foods. And there's now just a library of evidence showing that some kids, not all kids, but some kids, are harmed by these food chemicals.
They become inattentive, restless. They show all the the hallmarks of hyperactivity when they eat these synthetic colors. They're not there to make your food safer, last longer, taste better. They're just there to make the food even more attractive.
Ken: Now, speaking of, this has not been open. I want the record to show these are the, these are Canadian Froot Loops.
So what's the significance of this, Scott, in this whole debate?
Scott: So first of all, uh, there's real fruit on the front. That's not true for American Froot Loops, but more importantly, Canadian Froot Loops are made without these synthetic colors. They're made with natural colors, with natural ingredients, as are All of the Froot Loops and most foods in the European Union, the UK, many other parts of the world.
We don't need to have synthetic colors made from petroleum in our food to make them look good, taste good, last a long time. Yeah, that's right. And especially true for school kids.
Ken: Yeah. Shout out to Vani Hari, our buddy who um, has been fighting. Kellogg's to get some progress on this, on this fight. And we may yet to speaking of food additives, we may yet, uh, have some progress of one more step here in Washington because of petition that EWG among other groups filed with the Food and Drug Administration to read number three out of our food.
It's already out of cosmetics and other things, but it's, we're still eating it.
Scott: Yeah. So 1991 FDA says, I was in high school. I don't remember much, but go on, yeah. 1991, FDA says, we're going to ban red 3 from cosmetics because it's linked to cancer. And at the time they say, and we're going to make a decision about food too.
And apparently they just, they lost the memo. Eventually, yeah. They, you know, it was on a Friday and people left early. So. Whatever happened, happened. And here we are in 2024, it's still allowed in food, even though it's linked to cancer. And the law here, 1958 law, is very clear that food chemicals linked to cancer can't be in food.
Congress actually got that one right. So we're hopeful that sometime in the next few weeks that they'll be, um, that they'll say it's time to go. The backstop, of course, is California has banned Red 3. So we've already seen through Food Scores, our amazing app, that the number of companies that have read three in the food is going down.
Companies are rapidly reformulating.
Ken: January 27, I think, is the deadline.
Scott: That's right. That's exactly right. So,
Ken: so they're already reformulating. Not, they don't want to wait until the last minute and have, you know, You don't want
Scott: to be the last company to be selling a cancer causing chemical to children, I think.
I learned that somewhere. I want to get out of that. Maybe you told me that. Quickly. Yeah. Yeah.
Ken: It's just, uh, there's a certain amount of common sense there. So what else have we been working on in California, uh, on the top of your head? Well,
Scott: so the big things, uh, I mean, so going back maybe a few years, but you have so much of the progress.
That is being made on behalf of consumers who are worried about toxic chemicals in their everyday stuff is being made in California and other states. For example, Susan Little, you mentioned our, our, our former advocate in Sacramento has succeeded in getting more than 50 of the worst chemicals banned from personal care products.
Many more states have also acted to ban these toxic chemicals from cosmetics. And so we are. Because of the role of states like California, not because of anything the FDA has done, we are getting the worst chemicals out of personal care, which is great. Which is great news. States like California, thanks to Bill's leadership, have also banned PFAS and all sorts of things.
Food packaging, cosmetics, cleaning products, carpets, dental floss, ski wax. I mean, And so many states have acted to protect us from PFAS in the things we bring into our homes. Not every state. Is going to be able to set a drinking water standard. California doesn't yet have a drinking water standard, for example.
Um, that's why we need the EPA to have a strong federal drinking water standard, but the federal government isn't going to take action anytime soon to protect us from the PFAS in the things we buy.
Ken: Yeah,
Scott: and that's why what's happened in California is so important.
Ken: Yeah, and other states, you know, I mean we're and again There's a whole community of organizations that work at the state level way too numerous to name at some point we'll We'll put them in the show notes because some of these groups have been doing amazing work in state capitals.
For decades on toxic chemicals and, and our health, and we're proud to have participated in California. Plus, we had other organizations that helped us in California with these bills, our sister organizations. Oh yeah. We should met. Yeah.
Scott: No, so many. So, uh, breast cancer for prevention partners was in a critical ally on all of our work on cosmetics.
Consumer reports has been our critical ally as has center for science and the public interest on, Banning toxic food chemicals from all foods in California and in the case of synthetic colors from school foods, so But there are so many groups, Toxic Free Future, Safer States, NRDC, too many in a name, but we don't win any of these fights by ourselves.
And part of that is getting other groups involved. Part of it is getting ordinary people to speak up. And so much of our advocacy has been bringing ordinary folks who've been harmed or have deep expertise for one reason or another to the California legislature to share their stories.
Ken: Yeah. Once again, the culture changes first in many cases before the politics can change and the politics have to change before the policy can change. So there's a sequence here that we participate in proudly and part of it has to do with just, just letting people know this stuff is in your water. This stuff is in your, the upholstery in your couch, it's in your food, wherever it might be.
And that builds a sense of support that You know, state lawmakers in particular feel, but I think also federal lawmakers feel at some point too, where they just get the impression that it's kind of in the air. It's a cultural thing. We need to get rid of these forever chemicals. We need to clean up the pesticides in our food, and some of that has managed to, obviously has bled through, and now we're talking about it.
Uh, in some corners of the Trump administration, other corners, we might be worried we'd be facing setbacks. One of the big things we talk about all the time, internally, is the threat. of, uh, federal preemption efforts to preempt the state because industry has noticed the success people have had were among them, EWG among them at the state level.
And they've also noticed litigation in some cases for some of these toxic chemicals like Roundup. And so let's talk about this whole preemption. strategy that we see come out from industry from time to time. They tried it on asbestos, they've tried it on other things. We've defeated most of them, but it's still a threat.
So what is, when someone says preemption, what are they talking about?
Scott: Yeah, they're talking about. The Congress passing a law that or
Ken: a state legislature passing or state ledger passing along. Yeah,
Scott: but the Congress saying you states can no longer legislate in this space. We're going to have supremacy.
It's called the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. We're going to put the federal government in charge of deciding Whether toxic chemicals can be in these products or not, whether the federal government is even actually doing something or not. So, so Congress could go back in and amend federal law and simply say these now more than 400 laws that have been enacted just in the last decade to get, toxic food chemicals out of our food to get toxic chemicals out of cosmetics to ban toxic pesticides and so on.
All of those state laws are now blocked. They're erased from, they're erased from the state books. Uh, they don't take effect. They don't take effect. They no longer have effect. And, and in all likelihood, they aren't replaced by any regulatory action. At the federal level, typically when, when Congress sort of great solution for industry, great solution for industry, it's called preemption, but that's kind of a 5 word.
So, so we just say, look, these state powers are really important. They are the primary way that we've been protected from toxic chemicals, especially in the last decade. It's how we've gotten toxic chemicals out of our food, our cosmetics, our clothing, our carpets are, you know, just about everything we bring into our homes.
And they could all be wiped out if the Republican Congress that's coming in, uh, in January decides to pass laws saying, Nope, no more state power
Ken: and a Republican White House too. So you, you could overturn the right of states to act on their own or lower levels of government. I suppose they could make the preemption, you know,
Scott: they could, they could apply to local government too.
They could also decide to limit the ability of people to seek justice. So sure. It's great. that states are taking action to get toxic chemicals out of these everyday products, but there are people who have been harmed and they ought to be able to seek justice in the courts. Congress could also prevent them from doing that as well.
Which they've tried to do on
Ken: a number of occasions. A perfect example now. There's a lot of pushback against the judgments that have been levied against the manufacturer of glyphosate, Roundup. One of our cabinet nominees, I think was involved in one of those cases, RFK Jr. And there's an effort underway now in Congress as part of the farm bill, right?
They want to attach it to the farm bill where they would go in and they would say, you know, you used to be able to. Take Bayer slash Monsanto to court for giving you cancer But we're gonna pass a federal law that prevents that from
Scott: happening, right? That's right And the the simple version of this is some states not just California have required additional information to be provided to farm workers and pesticide applicators and to warn them that pesticides like glyphosate may be linked to certain kinds of health harms.
What some members of Congress, led by, in particular, a South Dakota Republican, in a bipartisan way in this case, where some Democrats, Jim Costa of the state of California is the Democrat on this issue, are fighting to prevent, states from requiring these additional warnings. And one of the arguments for why we should provide these warnings is it's good news that pesticides are reviewed every 15 or so years, but you shouldn't have to wait 15 years if you learn something new.
Yeah. To let people know, you know, we discovered this, this pesticide is linked to infertility or some other problem. We want to let. Our farm workers or pesticide applicators or farmers know Jim Costa and this other Congressman Dusty Johnson in South Dakota have been fighting on Bears behalf to try to block those state laws to preempt those state laws.
Yeah,
Ken: we'll be at the barricades making sure that that rollback doesn't happen. We want the states to continue to have the power to protect their people. We want people who've been harmed to still have the right to go to court. And in front of a jury of their peers make their case and Bayer doesn't like the outcome of many of these cases.
So they're playing dirty. They're trying to change the rules so that you can't go to court. So if you're a farmer who's been harmed, a groundskeeper who's been harmed, a homeowner who sprayed this stuff for years around your property, they would like to take away your right to go to a jury and get justice.Right. So yeah.
Scott: No, I can't imagine something more un-American than denying people access to the courts, but that's among the fights we're facing now, and that will only get worse next year.
Ken: So let's talk a little bit about what we see coming with the Trump administration. We don't know a lot yet, obviously, and this is something I've written and talked about a fair amount, and we'll talk about more, which is, you know, what it means to have RFK Jr.,
what it might mean if he gets confirmed at HHS. But overall, it's a worrisome prospect, uh, when we look at the players who are coming in to lead these major federal agencies, EPA, Department of Interior, the Energy Department, um, and obviously there are serious concerns, uh, about RFK Jr. He happens to come down on our side when it comes to food additives.
But a lot of the other things he promised he'd be able to do to his followers during the campaign, he won't be able to do for the simple reason he doesn't have jurisdiction. HHS, his department, doesn't control the farm subsidy programs that he promised everyone he was going to change. It doesn't deal with pesticide.
contamination in our food just, you know, they, they have some authority to monitor what's in our food, but decision to allow a chemical on food and how much to allow that, that rests with the EPA. Even some things like the dietary guidelines to help eat healthier. That's usually a, that's a shared responsibility with HHS and USDA.
And then when it comes to school lunch, that's USDA. So they get to determine. How healthy the school lunch is. And we saw in the last Trump administration, multiple attempts to roll back what Michelle Obama had done to, you know, restrict salt and, and added sugars and make sure kids were eating whole grains and more, more fruit in, uh, in all of the, uh, school meals, breakfast and lunch.
So as we look at the incoming administration, what are some of the things that have. Yeah. I've gotten your attention, Scott, that we're looking at when Democrats do the wrong thing, we call them out. We've done that many times for, uh, over the years and we, we don't show favor. We are here to protect you, not Democrats or Republicans.
That said, we are concerned with the way the Trump administration is shaping up because there's so much emphasis on deregulation, attacking the regulatory state by defunding agencies. Thank you. Going after climate change because president elect doesn't apparently believe in climate change We're not sure where some of his advisors are It's a really worrisome time in our community the public interest community and we think people should be aware of just how worrisome and how bad it could get.
What, what are some of your main concerns?
Scott: Yeah. Well, first thing I'm most worried about is this historic drinking water standard for PFAS. And did I mention a hundred million people will have clean water? Did I mention that? Yeah. So reversing that decision will leave tens of millions of people with water that's filled with PFAS that will increase their risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease.
If you live in a state like New York or New Jersey. There's a state standard. So you'll, you'll be protected. There's a backup. But if you live in California, there is no backup right now. And there might be because it's California, but if you live in North Carolina or Florida or Ohio, or some of these states with Republican governors and legislatures, There's probably not much of a chance that you'll have a drinking water standard and, and that, that's just tragic, right?
It would be a tragic public health loss.
Ken: This is something that we, you know, it gets a little nerdy, but it's not the easiest thing to undo a final regulation like that. What does it take?
Scott: As you mentioned, Ken, the, the water utilities, not the chemical companies, although they've joined the lawsuit, the water utilities, the people we pay to keep us safe.
have sued the EPA to, uh, weaken and ultimately potentially reverse the drinking water standard. And so say it's too expensive because they say it's too expensive. They, but they're also because they're saying the science doesn't support the EPA's decision. The Trump EPA and the Trump justice department could settle in a way with those plaintiffs and that, uh, reverses or delays or weakens the drinking water standard. And, and, and in this case, delay could be the deadliest form of denial.
Ken: Yeah.
Scott: So that's the thing, you know, there are many ways that they could. Then our team,
Ken: our side would come in and litigate the other way. So it ends up being.
Scott: And it ends up being kind of going, we're just going back and forth in the courts for Lord knows how long, while people are getting sick.
Yeah. That's, that's a terrible outcome.
Ken: Yeah.
Scott: The ray of light I'll say is, You know, this new guy, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, when he was congressman, Lee Zeldin did vote with us. That's right. And he's from a part of the country where PFAS contamination is a big problem from New York and from Long Island, where there's been a really big PFAS contamination crisis.
And presumably he wants to have a political future in New York. He ran for governor. He ran for governor. And so hopefully he will say, gosh, you know what? Uh, making people's water more polluted, adding more toxic forever chemicals. That might be bad for me. Yeah. If not bad for the a hundred million people who are just got cleaner water.
So, so I'm hopeful that Republicans will help us convince him that's at the top of the wishlist. It's on the literal wishlist that got sent just this week from all of the manufacturing industries, including the chemical companies. To the Trump team.
Ken: Yeah, they're literal to do list
Scott: after they eviscerate our climate protections.
They go down to I believe it's page 12 It's a long ladder of you know, roll back the drinking water standard So that that's at the top of the list the other, you know, the other big thing that won't get as much attention is Removing any accountability for polluters So and they could do that in a couple of ways the Trump EPA could do that in a couple ways one is Simply rolling back or weakening the hazardous substance designation.
This is the requirement that polluters pay their fair share of superfund cleanups.
Ken: If this stuff is at the site. Yeah,
Scott: that's important because, you know, look, they should pay their fair share, but also because of the signal it sends. Like, if you know you might be on the hook, you're going to exercise more care when you handle your PFAS wastes.
They may also refuse to set limits on those discharges we talked about. They're about 30, 000 companies. That are right now, today, polluting PFAS into the air and water.
Ken: Yeah.
Scott: And then they might, uh, make it easier for PFAS polluters to just, you know, dump their PFAS wastes in landfills or incinerate them or allow more sludging of, of sludge with PFAS contamination.
So, so we have a big PFAS waste disposal problem that the Trump team could make even worse.
Ken: Yeah. Well, as Erin Brockovich and I said on our first episode, it's PFAS, it's PFOA, it's PFOS, we're PFUCKED. And, um, and this is just another example of how widespread this problem is. It has so many health effects, it's so ubiquitous.
In our everyday lives from our water to, you know, it was in dental floss. I guess it still is. I don't know. I've lost track. You can avoid it.
Scott: There's contact lenses that we have a solution for.
Ken: We always give people consumer choices when we can. And, um, this is the concern I think in general that we have that if the campaign posture is carried through on to deregulate, and we just heard president elect say, Uh, any company that comes in with a billion dollar investment is going to get expedited environmental reviews.
What does that mean? Um, and um, it probably doesn't mean something good in terms of Air water and land and products and so a lot of what we're worried about here We will know a lot more about and we'll have you coming on all the time scott and your team to talk about We're not trying to prejudge, but we are trying to raise concern that some bad things could happen.
Uh, we know the, the incoming, uh, head of the department of energy, you know, is not, uh, reliably concerned about climate as a problem. So that's going to be a big issue. Same at the interior department. Uh, the former governor of North Dakota, Burgum, is, uh, also, uh, in the Drill Baby Drill camp. We're officially worried about the environment and public health on many fronts.
Thank you for spending some time talking to me about what we've accomplished this year at EWG. We're super proud of it. We're at the barricades going forward in 2025 and beyond. We're never gonna give up the fight for these things and, uh, your team in, in government affairs has been instrumental. So, no, it's always more to come,
Scott: always an honor to work for EWG and with you, Ken.
Ken: So, yeah, that's a privilege to do the work. And thank you all for supporting us. Thank you so much, Scott. Next. I want to take some time to highlight another leader from the EWG team. Everything we do here at EWG is truly a labor of love, and no one puts in that labor quite like the EWG staff. You'll be hearing from Jocelyn Lyle, our executive vice president of mission and partnerships, as she reflects on 2024 and tells us what's on her radar for 2025.
Jocelyn: Thank you, Ken, and hello, listeners. I am Jocelyn Lyle, and I have the privilege of leading EWG's partnerships work. My job is to help more people learn about EWGs so we can empower consumers to live healthier lives and healthier environments. At EWG, we believe everyone, everywhere should have access to safe products, clean drinking water, and healthy food and clean air.
So I'm excited to share with you the impact EWG has had this year in 2024, And what's next in 2025. And because we're all about the data, I don't want to get these numbers wrong. So I'm going to read a little bit of them because it's just so important for you to know the impact that we've had. Almost 30 million people connect with EWG each year.
And this year was no different. Through our online tools, apps, email community, and social media channels, we reach millions more. Nearly 1000 products applied to our EWG verified certification. What does this mean? This shows that brands are stepping up to meet consumer demand for safer, healthier products.
That don't contain harmful chemicals. This year, EWG has been mentioned more than 30, 000 times in the media, including print, online TV and radio outlets, and some big names include 15 times in the New York times, six wall street journal stories. Eight Washington Post stories, 16 LA Times stories, 33 CNN stories, and seven national public radio stories, as well as other national news outlets.
That's a lot. I hope you heard some of those. We launched an EWG verified Instagram channel, go follow us, in March, and we already have over 50, 000 followers. All of these people care about health, wellness, and the science behind it. We have never been more culturally relevant. We were influencing consumers before being an influencer was a job.
And here are just some of the campaigns that we've led over the years that you've probably heard about. Red dye three, pesticides and produce. How about PFAS in your drinking water or paraben free products. Yep. EWG was behind all of those and there's more to come. So this is what we're predicting in 2025.
Heard it here first. Food chemicals, ultra processed food and disease and food safety issues will continue to make headlines. People are concerned about their health and how our food impacts it. Consumers are going to continue to want more personalized advice to help them make important decisions to avoid toxic exposures.
And consumers will continue to ask for transparency from brands trusting but verifying what those brands are saying to them as more and more people talk about health, wellness, toxic chemicals, pesticides, endocrine disruptors, drinking water quality, you name it. EWG will stay at the forefront, empowering people with our science, information and tools.
Back to you, Ken.
Ken: Scott Faber and Jocelyn Lyle, thank you for joining us on the show today, and thank you for all the amazing work you do at EWG. I also want to thank you out there for listening. If you'd like to learn more, Be sure to check out our show notes for additional links for a deeper dive into today's topic make sure to follow our show on instagram at ken cooks podcast and If you're interested in learning more about ewg Head on over to ewg.org or check out ewg's instagram account at environmental working group Now if you like this episode send it to a friend who you think might like it, too Environmentalism is all about meeting people where they're at And if you're listening to this, you probably know someone who might be interested in today's episode.
They just don't know it yet. My ask is that you send it to that person or to as many people as you see fit. Today's episode was produced by the extraordinary Beth Rowe and Mary Kelly. Our show's theme music, Thank You, Moby, is by Moby. And thanks again for listening.
