Microplastics: Why you should worry about in our food supply?


Dr. Ovadia says microplastics may have negative effects on testosterone in men and estrogen and progesterone in women. This could mean reduced muscle mass and libido for men.

A turtle sits on a pile of trash on the beach
Photo: Pete Linforth from Pixabay

A turtle makes his way over a mound of decaying plastic bottles on a beach. The byproduct from the decay are called microplastics or nanoplastics, which are incredibly small pieces of plastic that can get into our body. Scientists don’t fully understand microplastics’ impact on the human body. A lot of research is needed to determine the negative impact on our health.

by Tim Ditman
OSF Healthcare

URBANA - From news reports to social media blurbs to medical studies, they’ve been in the public eye a lot lately. And experts say that likely won’t change.

We’re talking about microplastics or nanoplastics, incredibly small pieces of plastic that can get into our body.

OSF Cardiothoracic surgeon Dr. Philip Ovadia
Photo provided

Philip Ovadia, MD

So, how concerned should we be? Philip Ovadia, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon at OSF HealthCare, says this issue will continue to be studied for years. But there are things you can do now to optimize your health and reduce your risk of problems.

“We’re increasing our understanding of the toxins in our environment. Our environment has become more toxic, and that’s a challenge to our health,” Dr. Ovadia says. “The best thing for people to do is to control what you can control. What are you eating? What are you using on your body? What is your lifestyle like? How active are you?”

Where do microplastics come from? What harm can they do?

Dr. Ovadia says microplastics can be purposefully manufactured as part of a product. Toothpaste and skin exfoliants are examples. Or, microplastics can occur when larger plastic products, like water bottles, break down. The microplastics can then get into our environment, such as ocean water or our foods and drinks.

“There’s even some evidence that these things can spread in the air, and we can breathe them in,” Dr. Ovadia adds.

Dr. Ovadia points to three areas where ingesting microplastics could be cause for concern.

  • Intestines: Dr. Ovadia says microplastics can irritate our intestines, leading to inflammation of tissue and a condition called leaky gut.

    “That’s when we get a breakdown of the barrier that lines our intestines. That allows some things in our food that aren’t supposed to get across into our bloodstream to get into the bloodstream. Many of these things set off inflammation in the body,” Dr. Ovadia says.

  • Endocrine system: Dr. Ovadia says microplastics may have negative effects on testosterone in men and estrogen and progesterone in women. This could mean reduced muscle mass and libido for men. For women, it could mean changes in the menstrual cycle, an increased infertility risk and, for young women, earlier start of puberty.
  • Blood vessels: Dr. Ovadia points to a 2024 study where experts looked at plaque removed from the carotid artery (located in the neck) of study participants.

    “For over half of the people, there was evidence of microplastics in those plaques. Furthermore for the people who had those microplastics, over the next three years they had a four-and-a-half times increased risk for a heart attack, a stroke or dying,” Dr. Ovadia says.

    “It doesn’t prove that the plastics are causing the problems,” Dr. Ovadia adds. “But it’s certainly concerning data. And I, as a heart surgeon, start to worry. If we see these in plaques in arteries in the neck, are they also in the plaques in arteries of the heart patients I operate on?”


Warming up food in a microwave
Photo: Sentinel/Clark Brooks

Heating food in certain types of plastic containers can be harmful due to the leaching of chemicals into the food. Microwaving food in plastic, especially those not specifically labeled as microwave-safe, can cause chemicals from the plastic to transfer to the food

What should I do?

So, do we need to panic about microplastics? Should the health concerns be akin to smoking?

Not now, Dr. Ovadia says. He reiterates that studies on this topic are in the early stages, and experts don’t fully understand microplastics’ impact on our health.

“It’s an unknown risk at this point,” he says.

But, there are small, everyday steps you can take to reduce the risk of microplastics entering your body.

  • Drink from a glass or stainless steel bottle, not a plastic bottle.
  • Use a good water filtration system. That could be built into your home’s water supply, or you could purchase a filter to attach to your faucet or water bottle.
  • Make food choices that minimize your exposure to plastic wraps and containers. Think the to-go boxes you get at a restaurant. Instead, eat more fresh, non-packaged food. Find these in the outer aisles of the grocery store.
  • “Eat the things that grow in the ground, and eat the things that eat the things that grow in the ground,” Dr. Ovadia says with a smile. “That’s how I always explain it to people. Try eating more whole, real food. That will minimize your exposure to microplastics.”
  • Look into the cosmetics and toiletries you use. Dr. Ovadia admits the jargon on a label can be difficult to understand. Instead, research the brands themselves. If, for example, a toothpaste brand is pledging to reduce microplastics in their products, it’s a green flag.


Other articles you might like:


Book Review |
I Fuel, How Energy Powers Our Busy World


I Fuel is a breath of fresh air in the category of children’s books on energy sustainability.


by Esther Aardsma


"As dinosaurs thump about, my life begins," opens I Fuel, Kelly Rice Schmitt’s attempt to explain to children the complex web of energy topics.

Where do gasoline and jet fuel come from? How do our lights turn on? Why do we seek alternative energy sources? These questions are answered at a young child’s level in this 2024 picture book. Schmitt starts by describing the formation of crude oil, then delves into the harvesting, refining, and delivery processes, and finally explores alternative energy sources, hinting at possibilities for the future. Several pages of notes at the end of the book provide additional resources for older kids and adults interested in facts about different types of fossil fuels and descriptions of various careers in the energy industry.


Subscribe
The text of I Fuel is pleasant, almost poetic; the illustrations are colorful and simple, perhaps slightly reminiscent of a less fanciful Eric Carle. The book is devoid of foul language or romantic content. Graphic content is limited to cartoon-like illustrations: a man with a pacemaker in his heart (we see inside his body as a doctor listens to his heart); a boy with a bionic leg; rescue workers cleaning up an oil spill and rescuing oil-logged wildlife; and an overheated, dirty, reddened-sky scene intended to evoke sadness.

I Fuel is a breath of fresh air in the category of children’s books on energy sustainability. Schmitt’s book aims to present a balanced viewpoint on the topic, focusing more on teaching facts than on indoctrination into specific beliefs or actions. The negatives of careless fossil fuel usage are recognized and discussed, but Schmitt also creates space to celebrate the achievements recent generations have made through the use of fossil fuels.

"One day [people] may not need me [crude oil/fossil fuel] at all," Schmitt concludes, "but until then…I fuel!"


Ester Aardsma
Esther Aardsma, a Champaign County native, currently resides in Thomasboro with her busy family. When she can, she pursues her passion for creativity, especially with words--and shares that love through editing, coaching one-on-one, and teaching classes.
Tagged: children's book about energy, teaching kids about fossil fuels, energy sustainability for kids, Kelly Rice Schmitt I Fuel review

Read our latest health and medical news

Book Review |
Secrets of the Ocean: 15 Bedtime Stories Inspired by Nature


Dive into a book that turns bedtime into a learning moment. The stories are soft and soothing, yet they carry subtle messages about nature, conservation, and family—all delivered in a kid-friendly way.


by Esther Aardsma


Did you know an albatross can fly five million miles in its lifetime? Did you know a mimic octopus can copy as many as fifteen different other marine creatures? Did you know that when sea otters flip and twirl in the water, they are not just doing it for fun, but also to trap water bubbles in their fur for insulation against the sea’s cold?

In Secrets of the Ocean: 15 Bedtime Stories Inspired by Nature (2024), Alicia Klepeis presents fifteen gentle stories from sea life, each portraying a different microcosm of life in the ocean. The book is aimed toward the younger crowd and is probably most applicable for children aged ten and under, although some older children might find it interesting as well. Each story, most of which follows a family through its journey, is followed by several pages explaining the factual basis behind the story. Kaja Kajfež’s cozy illustrations lend a warm, soothing tone to the book—and the heavy-duty cover, with its embossed gold accents, is simply gorgeous.

Secrets of the Ocean lightly touches on topics of global warming, climate change, and pollution (especially plastics). One story includes what could potentially be a traumatic account of a turtle eating a plastic bag—although the story does not specify what happens to the turtle afterward, a child would naturally be agitated over it. The section of scientific facts included after that story does spell out that when animals eat plastic it does indeed “make them very ill or even kill them.”

A story focusing on a pod of orcas includes an illustration of a pair of orcas biting into a skate (which looks like a manta ray). The illustration is bloodless, but the skate looks like something that could be featured as the main character in a different anecdote. Mentions of mating, egg-laying, pregnancy, calving, etc., are frequent, although present in low-key terms, images, and details. The most confusing statement along those lines is “Seahorses are some of the only animals on Earth in which the males become pregnant and have babies.”

For land-locked Midwestern children, the ocean can be a nebulous, mysterious idea—it’s a completely different world than the day-to-day corn and soybeans, deer and squirrels. Secrets of the Ocean lovingly promises a glimpse into just that—the hidden treasures of the sea.


Ester Aardsma
Esther Aardsma, a Champaign County native, currently resides in Thomasboro with her busy family. When she can, she pursues her passion for creativity, especially with words--and shares that love through editing, coaching one-on-one, and teaching classes.

Consumer advocates tell regulators to slash rate hike requests from Ameren, Nicor


Ameren Illinois, which has about 800,000 downstate customers, requested an increase that translates to between $8 to $10 higher monthly bills for a typical residential customer.


by Andrew Adams
Capitol News Illinois

SPRINGFIELD - Natural gas customers in the Chicago suburbs and downstate Illinois are likely to see an increase in their monthly bills next year, but it's up to state regulators to decide how big a hike, if any, to approve.

Nicor Gas, which serves 2.3 million customers in northern and western Illinois, requested the largest gas rate plan in state history — roughly equivalent to $7.50 per month for the average residential customer. Ameren Illinois, which has about 800,000 downstate customers, requested an increase that translates to between $8 to $10 higher monthly bills for a typical residential customer.

Regulators at the Illinois Commerce Commission are expected to announce a decision as to whether to approve or alter the hikes in November. The new rates would go into effect at the start of 2026.

In the meantime, consumer watchdogs and environmental advocates are railing against both utilities for their requests, which they argue should be slashed drastically.

Critiques from consumer groups

The Citizens Utility Board, a consumer watchdog group, filed written testimony this month in both cases arguing that the requests should be cut — Nicor's by about 36% and Ameren's by about 42%. Other groups, like the Illinois attorney general’s office, the Environmental Defense Fund and others argued for additional cuts in their own filings.

Abe Scarr, director of the consumer advocacy group Illinois PIRG, said the companies are requesting “long-term commitments” in paying for gas system infrastructure, despite the potential for decreasing demand for fossil fuels.


For Ameren, much of the contention comes from the company’s plan to upgrade its natural gas system.

“The more expensive their infrastructure investments, the more opportunity they have to profit,” Scarr said. Because utility profits are regulated by agencies like the ICC, there is a financial incentive to invest in infrastructure so that more funds can be “recovered” from customers — a portion of which then go to shareholders.

That rate of return is one of the things being litigated in these rate cases. Both companies requested a bump in their allowed “return on equity,” which translates to the amount paid to shareholders. In recent years, the ICC has consistently rejected utilities’ requests for higher return rates, although they have approved some modest increases.

“You’re asking us to predict what those shares are worth next year? Next month is gonna be hard,” CUB’s general counsel Eric DeBellis said.

DeBellis said the companies overstepped in other areas of their requests as well, including costs associated with rate cases and post-employment benefits as well as an accounting irregularity worth millions of dollars that Ameren has already admitted was erroneous.

He noted that Nicor included tens of millions of dollars of projects that were rejected by the ICC in the company’s rate request two years ago, a move that DeBellis called “galling.”

Environmentalists question future of gas

The companies drew criticism from some environmentalists, who argued in testimony this month that investing in natural gas infrastructure as the state — and country — move away from fossil fuels could leave customers on the hook for the bill for decades.

Curt Stokes, a senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund, said he's concerned that gas companies are building out new gas infrastructure in a way that “locks us in and keeps us hooked on fossil fuels for our energy needs.”

For Ameren, much of the contention comes from the company’s plan to upgrade its natural gas system, a plan that company officials say is required by federal safety rules. But critics point out that Ameren frequently chooses to totally replace pipes — the most expensive and most profitable option — instead of cheaper alternatives like testing them for safety. But Ameren officials defend the choice as being the only option to ensure compliance with federal rules.


They certainly have not demonstrated, and there’s lots of — lots of — reasons to be skeptical, that there’s any environmental benefit.

“The investments we have proposed in our reliability plan will enable us to meet strict federal pipeline safety requirements, reduce leaks, and provide reliable and affordable natural gas service for our residential and business customers,” Brad Kloeppel, Ameren’s senior director of gas operations, said in a statement. “We evaluate all methods available for each segment of pipe subject to compliance based on cost and operational feasibility."

Meanwhile, advocates have criticized Nicor’s efforts at lessening greenhouse gas emissions.

The utility requested to make permanent a pilot program called “TotalGreen,” a voluntary effort that allows customers to pay to offset their carbon footprint through a mix of “renewable natural gas” and investments in methane capture and forest conservation.

“They certainly have not demonstrated, and there’s lots of — lots of — reasons to be skeptical, that there’s any environmental benefit,” Scarr said.

The EDF, Illinois PIRG and the Environmental Law and Policy Center argued in a joint filing that the “TotalGreen” program fails to live up to the state’s clean energy goals.

Among other reasons, the groups’ testimony said it costs more than $2,400 per person and has only offset the equivalent of 0.0031% of the company’s yearly carbon footprint.

Jennifer Golz, a Nicor spokesperson, said the program “supports the state’s broader environmental objectives on the path to a sustainable future.”

“Nicor Gas supports our parent company, Southern Company Gas, in its goal to achieve net zero direct greenhouse gas emissions from its operations by 2050,” Golz said in an email. “We also support reducing emissions across the natural gas value chain, from gas production to transmission to end uses.”

TotalGreen is one of several projects outlined in the two rate cases which use “renewable natural gas,” a term for methane that is captured from landfills, wastewater treatment plants and farms that would have otherwise been released into the atmosphere.

Stokes said there were “too many open questions” about renewable natural gas programs for the EDF to support the initiatives, but he was optimistic about some of the companies’ other proposals.

“There are good signs in these cases that Nicor and Ameren are looking to be more innovative,” Stokes said.

He pointed specifically to Nicor’s energy efficiency programs and a proposal for a pilot program at Ameren which would allow communities to transition from natural gas to electric all at once as pipes need to be replaced or retired.


Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.


League of Women Voters speak out on concerns at Illinois state capitol


The League of Women Voters of Illinois meets with lawmakers on Lobby Day to address key social and environmental issues.


League of Women Voters of Illinois members in Springfield

Photo courtesy League of Women Voters of Illinois

League of Women Voters of Illinois members gather in Springfield for their annual Lobby Day on Wednesday. Experienced League members and members of the new Volunteer Lobby Corps met face-to-face with state legislators.

SPRINGFIELD - The League of Women Voters of Illinois (LWVIL) returned to the Illinois State Capitol on Wednesday, May 8, for its annual Lobby Day, engaging with lawmakers across the political spectrum to advocate for a range of policy issues.

This year’s event marked the debut of the organization’s newly established Volunteer Lobby Corps, a group of trained advocates who joined experienced League members in meeting face-to-face with legislators. Prior to their Capitol meetings, the volunteers underwent orientation led by seasoned members to prepare for discussions with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan group, bases its advocacy on positions it has thoroughly studied and reached consensus on. According to LWVIL President Becky Simon, the group continues to press for voting rights protections and initiatives aimed at building a more equitable democratic system.

“LWVIL advocates to protect voting rights and advance a more equitable democracy,” Simon stated. “The League stands up for social justice issues because systemic inequities prohibit people from participating equally in our democracy.”

This year’s lobbying priorities included the defense of Constitutional rights and efforts to ensure equity in both education and housing. Local chapters of the League were also encouraged to raise district-specific issues with their representatives. These included managing environmental waste and safeguarding aquifers from potential contaminants.

The organization’s Capitol visit is part of a broader effort to maintain a visible presence in public policy discussions and to empower volunteers to take active roles in civic engagement.



Commentary |
The path forward for real environmentalism


At its core, environmentalism is about preserving the planet for future generations, safeguarding ecosystems, and ensuring that the constant stream of human progress doesn't come at the detrimental cost of environmental destruction.


by Sam Holmes
     Guest Commentator


As the country and world grapple with an ongoing pollution crisis and demands for cleaner energy, the discourse on combating the negative environmental consequences of human civilization almost universally revolves around renewable energy and “sustainable living.” Yet, there is one crucial tool that is almost universally overlooked in this conversation, and that is the use of nuclear energy.

Despite its clear potential andproven track record of powering the lives of millions around the world with minimal environmental damage, the use of nuclear energy remains an issue that is very divisive. It’s time for us to embrace nuclear power as a cornerstone of what real environmentalism looks like, a cornerstone that prioritizes both sustainability and human prosperity.

At its core, environmentalism is about preserving the planet for future generations, safeguarding ecosystems, and ensuring that the constant stream of human progress doesn't come at the detrimental cost of environmental destruction. Yet, the universal consensus on how we should do so seems to be entirely focused on wind, solar, bioenergy, and carbon capture. While some of those efforts can be useful in certain circumstances, they are not without severe limitations.

For example, solar and wind energy are intermittent, relying on favorable weather conditions. They require vast amounts of land to even produce the same energy output as traditional sources such as oil or natural gas. Whereas in contrast, nuclear energy offers a much more stable, reliable, and highly efficient source of energy. In fact, nuclear power plants are built to withstand severe natural disasters of all kinds. Wind and solar, on the other hand, are often damaged beyond repair by mild tropical storms or even the occasional hail event.

Nuclear materials are by far the most efficient source of energy on the planet. A single uranium fuel pellet, which is roughly the size of a fingertip, contains as much energy as 1,780 pounds of coal, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.

This high density of energy means that nuclear plants require less resources compared to their “renewable” counterparts. In addition, nuclear power plants on average only take up a measly one third of an acre of land, while the average wind farm spans a grotesque 2-40 acres per megawatts produced. Given that a nuclear plant produces on average 1,000 megawatts, at minimum, any given wind farm would require 2,000 acres of land to compete with nuclear energy’s output, as according to the U.S Department Of Energy.

Despite these advantages, the use of nuclear energy remains mired in public skepticism, often due to safety concerns and historical accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. These events are undeniably tragic with lasting environmental damage, but the media and academia have disingenuously shaped public perception, making nuclear energy appear far worse than its actual track record. Nuclear energy remains among the safest forms of energy ever invented, especially when contrasted to fossil fuels, coal burning, and “renewable” energy sources. While nuclear accidents can have severe consequences, nuclear plants are among the safest and most secure facilities on the face of the planet as a result of past incidents.

As citizens who truly care about the world around us and its longevity, we must call upon our state and federal governments to directly incentivize nuclear technology through tax incentives, joint public-private projects, and academic or federal grants to ensure maximum fluidity.

In summary, the path forward for real environmentalism requires a pragmatic approach that embraces all available tools. While solar and wind energy can be useful in certain circumstances like powering a home or providing energy in remote locations, they cannot even come close to powering the American grid let alone the world for that matter. Which is why nuclear energy, with its reliability, efficiency, and minimal presence, must be recognized as a cornerstone of our future global effort to conserve our beautiful planet.

It’s time to move beyond fear and misconceptions and embrace nuclear energy as the most powerful ally in our admirable fight to safeguard our home for future generations.


About the author:
Sam Holmes is a freshman at the University of Illinois. When he is not studying, he is constantly stimulating his mind and body, whether that be from doing wordles daily or going to the gym and lifting weights. He believes mankind's greatest truth is in embracing our fragility, finding the strength to live authentically and ethically within the mystery of existence.


Chemical contaminates found in Illinois rivers threaten food chain

SNS - Scientists tested nine fish species from four northern Illinois rivers for contamination with per- or polyfluoroalkyl substances, synthetic chemicals found in numerous industrial and commercial products and known to be harmful to human health. They found fish contaminated with PFAS in every one of their 15 test sites. Elevated levels of PFOS, one type of PFAS compound, were found in nearly all fish tested.


Study found that there were high levels of PFASs contamination levels in channel catfish found in Illinois waterways.
G.C./Pixabay

The qualities that make PFAS desirable for industrial uses — their durability and stability under stresses such as high heat or exposure to water, for example — also make these chemicals particularly problematic in the environment and hazardous to human and animal health, said Joseph Irudayaraj, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who led the new study.

The findings are reported in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

Short-chain PFASs (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are widely used as alternatives to long-chain PFASs. Long-chain PFASs become gradually regulated under REACH (EC No. 1907/2006) and other international regulations, due to having persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic properties and/or being toxic for reproduction. The increasingly used short-chain PFASs are assumed to have a lower bioaccumulation potential.

“PFAS contain multiple carbon-fluorine bonds, one of the strongest bonds in organic chemistry,” Irudayaraj said, who is also a professor in the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology and an affiliate of the Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology and the Carle Illinois College of Medicine at the U. of I. “Because of this, they are also very hard to break down. They persist for a long time because they are very, very stable.”


Considering such permanent exposure, it is very difficult to estimate long-term adverse effects in organisms. Enriched in edible parts of plants, the accumulation in food chains is unknown.

There are nearly 15,000 PFAS chemicals, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These are classified either as short-chain PFAS, which have less than six carbon-fluorine bonds, and long-chain PFAS, with six or more of these bonds, Irudayaraj said.

Long-chain PFAS were widely used before awareness grew about the hazards of these chemicals. More recently, many industries switched to using short-chain PFAS.

“It was thought that the short-chain PFAS were less toxic, and that they could more easily degrade,” he said. “But surprisingly, that was not the case.”

Now, both types of PFAS are found in groundwater, soil and human tissues.

Short-chain PFASs have a high mobility in soil and water, and final degradation products are extremely persistent. This results in a fast distribution to water resources, and consequently, also to a contamination of drinking water resources. Once emitted, short-chain PFASs remain in the environment. A lack of appropriate water treatment technologies results in everlasting background concentrations in the environment, and thus, organisms are permanently and poorly reversibly exposed. Considering such permanent exposure, it is very difficult to estimate long-term adverse effects in organisms. Enriched in edible parts of plants, the accumulation in food chains is unknown.

“About 99% of people living in the U.S. have PFAS in their system,” Irudayaraj said.

Studies on animals have shown that short-chain PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are almost completely absorbed when ingested or inhaled but not much through the skin. Both short- and long-chain PFAS don't break down easily in the body due to their strong chemical bonds. Even if these chemicals start off in different forms, they eventually turn into acids through several steps, which can be more toxic than the original chemicals. One such toxic substance, perfluorohexyl ethanoic acid (FHEA), has been found in various tissues from deceased people, according to research published by The Danish Environmental Protection Agency in 2015.

The time it takes for these acids to leave the blood varies depending on the specific chemical, the species, and even the sex of the animal. In general, sulfonates (a type of PFAS) take longer to be eliminated than carboxylates (another type), and longer chains take longer to leave the body than shorter ones. In animals, the time is often shorter for females due to differences in how their bodies process these chemicals. The time these substances stay in the blood can range from a few hours to days in rodents, a bit longer in monkeys, and much longer in humans, sometimes lasting years. However, shorter-chain PFAS tend to leave the body faster, except for PFHxS (a six-carbon chain PFAS), which has a longer half-life in humans than some other PFAS like PFOA and PFOS.

Despite a voluntary phasing out of some PFAS in industry in the U.S. and efforts to reduce PFAS pollution, these chemicals are still found in drinking water, household products, food packaging and agricultural products, he said.


Fish from the Rock River had the highest concentrations of PFAS in their tissues.

The manufacturers of chemical products using PFAS argue that the newer short-chain PFAS is safer than the widely known long-chain contaminants. Despite this assertion, the Auburn study's significant findings challenge these statements. The research indicates that short-chain chemicals are frequently present in drinking water systems and could potentially endanger human and environmental well-being. Additionally, current removal methods are relatively less efficient when it comes to eliminating short-chain PFAS in comparison to long-chain PFAS.

The Auburn study analyzed over 200 individual studies on PFAS finding that the short-chain contaminants may be just as harmful as the long-chain versions, if not more. The short-chain PFAS have been linked to hormonal and reproductive system harm.

The researchers in the U of I study focused on fish in northern Illinois rivers because they are close to urban and industrial areas. Industrial emissions and urban rainwater runoff may further contaminate local waterways with PFAS. Sport fishing is also popular across the state, including in areas inside and near Chicago. More than 666,000 fishing licenses were issued across the state of Illinois in 2020.

The researchers narrowed their research down to the fish in the Pecatonica River, Rock River, Sugar River and Yellow Creek from 2021-22. The team collected dozens of samples from nine species of fish, including bluegill, channel catfish, common carp, northern pike, smallmouth bass and walleye. The fish represented different levels of the food chain, from those that feed only on plants, like bluegill, to those eating other fish, such as channel catfish and northern pike.

Back in the lab, the scientists analyzed fish tissues for 17 PFAS chemicals. They found PFAS-contaminated fish in every river they tested and in every one of their 15 sampling sites. Fish from the Rock River had the highest concentrations of PFAS in their tissues. Contamination levels were highest in channel catfish, at the top of the food chain, and lowest in the plant eaters.



Commentary |
Hey Taylor; love the music, but please park that private jet

Photo:Omid Armin/Unsplash

I spent a decade, like many parents, chauffeuring pre-teen and teenage girls around to a Taylor Swift soundtrack. I learned every Swift song as it was released and sang along to the chorus in the car. I even went to one of her first stadium concerts with my young Swifties.

Congrats, Taylor, for your talent and decades of consistently great songwriting. You deserve all the accolades and rewards. Here’s my one request: Give up your private jet.

Those young fans of yours that I used to shuttle around are now campaigning against climate change. They understand this is the critical decade to shift our trajectory away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy.

And they need you, once again, to sing a new song.

Chuck Collins
I know you’re dealing with a lot of crazy conspiracy theories in right-wing media. In their zeal to denounce you, you even succeeded in getting Fox News to admit that private jet travel contributes to climate change, which is no small feat!

They’ve said a lot of nonsense about you, but that part is true. Private jets emit 10 to 20 times more pollutants per passenger than commercial jets. You know it’s wrong — that’s why you cover your face with an umbrella when you’re disembarking.

Maybe it’s even why you’ve decided to sell one of your jets. Why not the other?

We all have that experience of wishing we could be two places at once. I’ve been on a work trip and wished I could zip home for my daughter’s soccer game. But your private flight from your tour in Tokyo to the Super Bowl burned more carbon than six entire average U.S. households will all year.

Like so many challenges in our country, private jet pollution is increasing alongside inequality. According to a report I co-authored for the Institute for Policy Studies, High Flyers 2023, the number of private jets has grown 133 percent over the last two decades. And just 1 percent of flyers now contribute half of all carbon emissions from aviation.

Should we set off a carbon bomb so the ultra-rich can fly to their vacation destinations? More and more Americans are answering no. In Massachusetts, a grassroots coalition called Stop Private Jet Expansion at Hanscom and Everywhere is calling on the governor to reject an airport expansion that would serve private jets. It could inspire similar fights nationally.

Banning or restricting private jet travel would be one of the easiest paths to reducing emissions if it weren’t a luxury consumed by the most wealthy and powerful people on the planet. But climate advocates are still working to find a way. In Congress, Senator Ed Markey and Rep. Nydia Velazquez have proposed hiking the tax on private jet fuel to make sure private jet users pay the real financial and ecological costs of their luxury travel.

There’s good news, Taylor: A generation of music stars toured without jets, taking the proverbial tour bus. And it sparked a lot of great songs about this amazing land.

Taylor, if you want to be green, stay on the ground. Your fans will love you and the future generations will thank you.

I believe there’s a song there.


About the author
Chuck Collins directs the Program on Inequality and co-edits the Inequality.org website at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was adapted from an earlier version at CommonDreams.org and distributed for syndication by OtherWords.org.


Farm group wants improved safety measures for pipelines running through Illinois

by Terri Dee
Illinois News Connection

A pipeline project to transport carbon dioxide captured from ethanol and fertilizer production to a permanent storage site in Illinois is raising concerns about safety and potential damage to surrounding land.

Last month, members of the Illinois Farm Bureau adopted policies supporting a temporary moratorium on the project until the Hazardous Materials Safety Administration can update its safety regulations. They include automatic notifications for pipeline leaks and training for emergency first responders.

Bill Bodine, the Farm Bureau's director of business and regulatory affairs, said his group opposes another condition.

"They expressed concerns about the use of eminent domain for these projects and do not support the use of eminent domain," he said, "and then want to see the developers reaching willing agreements, making some progress in reaching those willing agreements before the pipeline portions of those projects are approved."

Landowners are not willing to give up their land so easily. In 2006, the Illinois General Assembly passed a bill to limit the takeover of private property for private development. However, critics of the legislation have claimed it included exceptions that undermine any benefits to property owners.

Two more pipeline proposals to connect Iowa and Illinois are also being reviewed by the Illinois Commerce Commission, the agency that oversees these projects.

The Hazardous Materials Safety Administration hopes to have its safety revisions completed this year. If this happens, Bodine said, the Farm Bureau would lift its support of a temporary moratorium. But he isn't sure whether these other pipeline projects are on state lawmakers' minds.

"Our legislative session in the state of Illinois begins again in January and usually runs through the end of May," he said. "So, we may see some action during that timeline associated with some of these issues."

Developers say any future pipelines would help farmers by boosting the ethanol industry. The state Agriculture Department has said Illinois uses 274 million bushels of corn to produce more ethanol than any other state.


Read our latest health and medical news


More Sentinel Stories