Search Climate Insights Directory

The European Court of Human Rights ruled in Cordella and Others v. Italy that the Italian government violated the rights of residents in Taranto by failing to address toxic emissions from the Ilva steel plant and failing to provide an effective legal remedy for environmental decontamination.

The report details how plastic poses distinct health risks at every stage of its supply chain. It highlights toxic emissions during extraction and refining, the leaching of endocrine disruptors and carcinogens during consumer use, and the release of heavy metals and dioxins during waste incineration. The document emphasizes that microplastics and associated chemicals contaminate the global food chain, water supplies, and human tissues, while noting significant knowledge gaps and a lack of industry transparency regarding chemical compositions.

The Grand River Environmental Network, the Ontario Headwaters Institute, and 24 other organizations are calling for the withdrawal of Schedule 10 of Bill 66. They argue that the legislation violates campaign promises to protect the Greenbelt and creates unnecessary municipal powers to identify employment lands despite a lack of shortage. The signatories claim the bill is "corrosive to environmental and public health" by exempting land from the Provincial Policy Statement and the Clean Water Act, potentially risking water safety and biodiversity. Furthermore, they assert that the bill "subverts democracy" by allowing municipalities to bypass official plans and deny public consultation and appeal rights.

CAPE submits that Calgary's current Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan is insufficient to protect residents from the health risks of toxic pesticides. The organization highlights specific vulnerabilities of children and adults, criticizes the federal PMRA regulatory process, and recommends a corporate ban on routine toxic pesticide use alongside a municipal bylaw for private properties.

ClientEarth calls on the European Commission to remedy backlogs in chemical authorisations and restrictions under REACH, arguing that delays prolong exposure to dangerous chemicals and undermine the development of safer alternatives. The document criticises the Commission for allegedly prioritising companies that missed application deadlines over health and environmental protections and demands greater transparency regarding the decision-making process and the reasons for delays.

The document is an open letter from 41 NGOs supporting the creation of an ECHA database for substances of very high concern (SVHCs) in products, as mandated by Article 9 of the revised Waste Framework Directive. The NGOs argue that this database is essential for a non-toxic circular economy, human health, and environmental protection, countering a position paper from 12 industry groups that sought to replace the database with alternative research and technology investments. The NGOs assert that industry already has a legal obligation under REACH to possess this information and that transparency is necessary for citizens' right to know, market surveillance, and the safety of waste handlers.

The document details allegations that Monsanto engaged in ghostwriting scientific papers and coordinating with regulatory bodies to counter the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) 2015 designation of glyphosate as 'probably carcinogenic to humans'. It highlights specific instances where Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) relied on studies that were allegedly edited or co-written by Monsanto scientists without proper credit. Consequently, several environmental and health organizations have requested an independent review of the PMRA's 2017 decision to authorize the continued use of glyphosate in Canada.

CIEL welcomes the release of three UNEP reports detailing worldwide initiatives to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), scientific knowledge of their effects, and existing regulatory frameworks. The statement notes that EDCs are found in a wide range of daily products and that there is a significant lack of explicit regulatory frameworks to address them, particularly in developing countries.

ClientEarth criticizes the European Commission's claim that the existing EU regulatory framework for endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is 'comprehensive', highlighting significant gaps in the identification and prevention of adverse effects. The organization argues that EDCs should be established as an independent regulatory class, similar to carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic (CMR) substances, to ensure systematic risk management across all sectors, including toys and cosmetics. ClientEarth further notes that the current substance-by-substance approach leads to problematic substitutions, such as replacing Bisphenol A with Bisphenol S, and calls for a grouping approach to regulation.

ClientEarth alleges that the European Commission is systematically delaying the adoption of authorisations and restrictions for hazardous chemicals under the REACH regulation, which increases public and environmental exposure to risks. The organization claims that 96% of authorisations and 89% of restrictions were decided in an 'unreasonable time', often exceeding a year after scientific opinions were issued. ClientEarth further asserts a lack of transparency regarding how the Commission prioritises these files, suggesting that cases impacting business interests are processed faster than those impacting human health. The document calls for the Commission to publish prospective timelines, clarify prioritisation criteria, and accelerate decision-making to avoid a formal complaint for maladministration to the European Ombudsman.

The document expresses concern that ECHA is favouring industry interests over scientific evidence of environmental and health risks in its approach to restricting microplastics. The authors argue that ECHA's call for evidence discouraged the submission of risk data and erroneously suggested that a lack of demonstrated risk or a lack of alternatives automatically justifies derogations from restrictions.

CAPE advocates for the continuation of Manitoba's ban on cosmetic pesticides, citing significant health risks to children and criticizing the federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency's evaluation process as inadequate.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and a coalition of organizations argue that voluntary measures to reduce lead in ammunition and fishing gear are ineffective. They cite scientific evidence that no safe level of lead exposure exists, posing severe risks to children and wildlife. The document highlights the particular vulnerability of Indigenous communities in Nunavik and James Bay and urges the government to phase out lead products, update Health Canada's blood lead guidelines, and provide financial assistance for Indigenous communities to transition to non-lead alternatives.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) supports the City of Edmonton's plan to update its Integrated Pest Management policy to improve clarity on pesticide use and justification. CAPE urges the city to consult health-related groups and incorporate health evidence into its decisions, citing epidemiological studies that link pesticide exposure to adverse reproductive, neurological, and developmental outcomes, especially in children and pregnant women. The organization also highlights flaws in the federal pesticide approval process managed by Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, arguing for a precautionary approach to protect public health.

The document outlines opposition to a Draft Screening Assessment regarding hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sodium bisulfide (Na(SH)), and sodium sulfide (Na2S). The authors argue that H2S poses significant risks to human health, particularly for communities near oil and gas operations, and that the government's assessment fails to apply a precautionary approach or account for olfactory nuisance as an adverse effect.

The brief, submitted by Earthjustice on behalf of community members, contends that medical monitoring is essential for detecting and treating health effects linked to PFC exposure, such as various cancers and autoimmune issues. It argues that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) does not bar private state-law claims for medical monitoring against potentially responsible parties, even while a federal clean-up is ongoing. The document highlights the severe health impacts suffered by residents near the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove and the Naval Air Warfare Center Warminster, and asserts that the District Court erred in applying CERCLA's 'Timing of Review' provision to block these health-related claims.

The document critiques a proposed 'de-identification exemption' in the European Commission's criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors in plant protection products. It argues that by exempting substances that target the endocrine systems of non-vertebrates, the Commission is unilaterally modifying approval conditions—an 'essential' element of Regulation 1107/2009 that requires ordinary legislative procedure rather than simple implementing powers. Furthermore, the author contends this exemption contradicts the Pesticides Regulation's mandate to ensure a 'high level of protection' for animal health and the environment.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and other partners advocate for updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) to better address pollution and toxic chemical exposure. They highlight the severe health impacts of pollution, including 7,700 premature deaths annually from poor air quality, and emphasize the disproportionate burden on vulnerable populations such as children and Indigenous communities. The statement supports legislative changes to recognize the right to a healthy environment, implement binding air and water quality standards, and increase transparency in product labelling.

ClientEarth opposes a proposed derogation that would allow recycled PVC to contain up to 1% lead compounds, arguing that it underestimates environmental risks, creates enforcement loopholes, and undermines the circular economy by associating recycled materials with substances of very high concern.

The document synthesizes findings from the Ontario College of Family Physicians (2007, 2012) and the Prince Edward Island Chief Public Health Office (2015) regarding the health risks of pesticides. It identifies significant associations between pesticide exposure and various cancers, reproductive issues, neurological disorders, and respiratory problems, with a particular emphasis on the vulnerability of pregnant women and children. The authors advocate for the precautionary principle and the banning of non-essential cosmetic pesticide use.