1 . The problem of food borne metal contamination (污染) has taken on new urgency, thanks in part to a 2021 US Congressional Report detailing high levels of metals found in baby food pulled off grocery shelves. More recently, high levels of lead (铅) were discovered in children’s fruit puree pouches. Now, two new studies provide information on the correlation between exposure to heavy metals in food and the risk of cancers and other serious health risks.

Food crops can absorb heavy metals from contaminated soil, air, and water. As a result, traces of dangerous heavy metals — lead, arsenic (砷) and cadmium (镉) — are found in common foods from rice and cereals to nuts and vegetables. Felicia Wu, Michigan State University food scientist, is leading several investigations to gain a better understanding of the health risks of heavy metal exposure.

In the studies, Wu and her colleague, gathered data on the dietary intake of each metal from various sources such as food and water samples and existing studies and reports. There searchers analysand the data to determine the strength of the association between dietary exposure and bad health effects. Both cancer and non-cancer health effects were considered.

Lead is a poisonous metal commonly found in old paint, water pipes, and contaminated soil. Food sources of lead include root vegetables like beets. In the study, lead showed moderate (中度的) to high risk scores for causing lung, kidney, bladder, stomach, and brain cancers. It also showed moderate to high scores for non-cancer risks.

Their initial estimates suggest that every year, more than 6, 000 additional cases of bladder and lung cancers and over 7, 000 cases of skin cancers can be attributed (归因于) to the consumption of inorganic arsenic in the United States. The researchers also found that certain food products can be associated with higher cancer risk than others. These include rice, wheat, and leafy green vegetables.

6 . Southern California’s Catalina Island is a popular destination for nature lovers. It is reachable by boat from Los Angeles and San Diego. Most of the small island is a government-protected wild area. But, a report last October in the Los Angeles Times newspaper raised public concern about the water surrounding Catalina. The newspaper discovered that industrial companies for years had been dumping (倾倒) the insect poison DDT into the ocean near Catalina. The practice began in the 1940s and ended in the 1970s.

The newspaper report led to a search and study of the area by scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California San Diego (UCSD). The research team discovered about 25,000 large containers, below the surface of the Pacific Ocean. The scientists suspected the containers held DDT, and other chemicals used to make the poison.

Eric Terrill, who led the Scripps program that worked on the project, said the finding was a surprise as the containers were spread over a very large area. The Scripps examination also showed the companies responsible for the chemical dump disobeyed rules about where to place the containers.

The researchers mapped about 15,000 hectares of ocean floor where past studies had shown evidence of poisonous chemicals. The area lies between coastal Los Angeles and Catalina. “The long-term effect on ocean life and humans is still unknown, and needs extensive study,” said Lihini Aluwihare, a member of the Scripps program. But, in 2015,she co-wrote another study that found high amounts of DDT and other chemicals in the fat of bottle nose dolphins. Aluwihare said some studies among small groups showed that DDT-linked health problems have been passed from parents to children.

7 . Last year, more than 130 million tons of single-use plastics were thrown away. Now, a new report finds that just 20 companies produced more than half of all single-use plastic waste worldwide.

The report, published Tuesday by Australia’s Mindoro Foundation, offers one of the fullest accounting of the companies behind the production of single-use plastics that researchers believe could account for as much as 10% of global greenhouse emissions by 2050. The study has further identified 20 companies as the source of 55% of the world’s single-use plastic waste in 2020, while the top 100 companies account for more than 90%.

The report also has studied the money invested (投资) in the production of single-use plastics. It finds that 20 biggest investors hold shares worth close to $ 300 billion in the single-use plastic producers. The top three investors are US-based Vanguard Group, Black Rock and Capital Group, which according to the report have an estimated $ 6 billion invested in the production of single-use plastics.

Since most plastic is made from oil and gas, the production and consumption of plastic is becoming a significant driver of the climate crisis. The report warns that in the next five years, the global capacity to produce the materials needed for single-use plastics could grow by more than 30%. And much of the resulting single-use plastic waste will end up as pollution in developing countries with poor plastic waste management systems, according to the report.

Solving the issue will require serious changes from producers, investors and banks, the authors write. The report says that producers of polymers—known as the building blocks of plastics—should begin disclosing their single-use plastic waste “footprint”, while banks and investors should entirely stop their financing, in stages, that goes toward the production of single-use plastics. In addition, search for more environment-friendly materials should be encouraged.

9 . The essence (本质) of fast fashion is to make clothes inexpensively and quickly, to get new trends and styles into stores and online as soon as possible, and it comes at a high social and environmental cost. Keeping production costs low means they can make their clothes cheap, using cheap labour in unsafe working conditions, and in countries with bad environmental regulations.

Throw-away culture is deeply rooted in our society; three in five of our clothing pieces are thrown out within a year. Fast fashion brands keep the consumers hungry and feeling like they need more by attracting them with newness and convincing the consumers that they need what they’re selling. This only results in increasing textile waste as people no longer want but throw it away.

Criticisms of the fast fashion industry include its negative environmental impact: water pollution, the use of toxic (有毒的) chemicals and increasing levels of textile waste. Textile dyeing is the second largest polluter of clean water globally, after agriculture. Fast fashion companies rely on their products being made cheaply and quickly, so they avoid talking when it comes to being aware of their impact on the environment. Greenpeace’s recent Detox Campaign showed that many brands use toxic and dangerous chemicals in their supply chains, and many of the chemicals are either banned or strictly controlled in lots of countries.

In conclusion, the fast fashion industry has a bad effect on our environment through fast fashion brands’ ecological practices and only continues to make the problem last for a long time in the future through extreme consumerist culture. In order for change to happen, the common people need to open their eyes and take measures to prevent the fast fashion from growing.

10 . The coronavirus pandemic (新冠疫情) has brought with it the rise of a new kind of single-use plastic in the form of personal protective equipment (PPE), like face masks and gloves. Experts warned that these sharply increasing single-use items could cause a new wave of plastic pollution and kill wildlife.

The charity Ocean Conservancy reported that volunteers had collected more than 100,000 PPE items from coasts and waterways during the last six months of 2020. They sent out a survey to more than 200 International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) coordinators and volunteers asking about their experience with PPE. The results show that it is a real problem. Volunteers collected 107,219 pieces of PPE in 70 of 115 participating countries. Of those surveyed, 94% reported seeing PPE at a clean-up, and 40% found five items or more. Further, 37% found the items had already sunk into the water.

“During one of our clean-ups in the canals of Leiden, our volunteers found a latex (乳胶) glove with a dead fish trapped in the thumb,” said Auke-Florian Hiemstra, a study coauthor from Leiden University. “Also, in the Dutch canals, we observed that a water bird was using face masks and gloves in its nests.” Other animals that have gotten trapped in face masks include a fox in the UK, a pufferfish in Florida, and two crabs in France. Numerous dogs and cats have been observed eating PPE as well.

The danger posed by PPE goes deeper than what the eye can see. Luckily, there are ways that all of us can be part of the solution to the problem of PPE pollution. Hiemstra suggested using reusable PPE instead of single-use products. In that case, we should deal with them properly by cutting the ear loops to prevent animal entanglements (缠绕物) and throwing them away in a bin that is not overstuffed. “We definitely think it is important for citizens to understand how much PPE is ending up in the environment and impacting animals,” Hiemstra said.