Leading American medical journal continues to omit Black research, reinforcing a legacy of racism in medical knowledge

Cherice Escobar Jones, PhD Candidate, Northeastern University, 

Gwendolynne Reid, Assistant Professor of English, Emory University, 

Mya Poe, Associate Professor of English, Northeastern University

THE CONVERSATION
Tue, March 7, 2023 

Medical research is one of the keys in providing health care. SJ Objio for Unsplash, CC BY-SA

The leading U.S. medical journal, read regularly by doctors of all specialties, systematically ignores an equally reputable and rigorous body of medical research that focuses on Black Americans’ health.

The American Medical Association created a segregated “whites only” environment more than 100 years ago to prohibit Black physicians from joining their ranks. This exclusionary and racist policy prompted the creation in 1895 of the National Medical Association, a professional membership group that supported African American physicians and the patients they served. Today, the NMA represents more than 30,000 medical professionals.

In 2008, the AMA publicly apologized and pledged to right the wrongs that were done through decades of racism within its organization. Yet our research shows that despite that public reckoning 15 years ago, the opinion column of the AMA’s leading medical journal does not reflect the research and editorial contributions by NMA members.

Invisibility in the opinion column of one of the most prominent medical journals in the U.S. is another form of subtle racism that continues to lessen the importance of equitable medical care and health issues for Black and underserved communities.

As rhetoricians and researchers who study scientific communication, we look at the ways scientific writing perpetuates or addresses racial inequity. Our recent study traced how research is referenced by medical professionals and colleagues, known as citations, of flagship journals of the NMA and AMA: the Journal of the National American Association and the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Invisible research

Our research began with a question: Has the AMA’s 2008 apology had any effect on the frequency with which JAMA opinion writers draw on insights and research of JNMA scholars and authors?

We studied opinion columns, also referred to as editorials, precisely because they are useful indicators of current and future research as well as priorities and agendas. The purpose of editorials is to critically analyze and sift through various opinions and evidence. Effective editorials in scientific journals are especially rich forums for debate within the medical community.

Medical publications like JNMA and JAMA do not simply convey knowledge. They also establish professional community values through the topics that are studied and who is credited for ideas related to research. When writers choose to reference or cite another scholar, they are acknowledging and highlighting that expertise.

Influential medical journals serve to inform and shape health care. Harlie Raethel for Unsplash

As such, citations play an important role in the visibility of research. Articles and authors with more citations are more likely to have a greater effect on the scientific community and patient care. Opinion pieces can shape the broader conversation among medical professionals, and citations can widen that circle of communication.

Invisible racism

We traced how frequently JAMA and JNMA opinion writers referenced one another from 2008 to 2021 by reviewing the 117 opinion pieces published in JNMA and 1,425 published in JAMA during this 13-year period. We found that JAMA opinion columns have continued to, in effect, uphold racial bias and segregation by ignoring JNMA findings.

The work of Black medical proessionals is being overlooked in national medical journals. 

Piron Guillaume for Unsplash, CC BY-ND

Even when focusing on race, racism and health disparities, topics that JNMA has explored in great detail, JAMA opinion columns did not reference JNMA colleagues or research. Only two JNMA articles were credited and referenced in the 1,425 JAMA opinion pieces that we reviewed.

Editors at JAMA did not respond to our requests for their comments on our analysis.

Racial equity in medicine

The story of the AMA and NMA is not only a reminder of the racist history of medicine. It demonstrates how the expertise of Black professionals and researchers continues to be ignored today. The lack of JNMA citations in JAMA research undercuts the AMA’s own work on racial equity and potentially compromises the quality of medical knowledge published in its journals.

For example, a recent study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that scientists from underrepresented groups innovate, or contribute novel scientific findings, at a higher rate than those from majority groups.

An article published in the weekly medical journal of the Public Library of Science noted that diverse research teams are often more successful in developing new knowledge to help treat women and underrepresented patients with greater precision.

Dissolving systemic bias

One way to intentionally tackle racial bias and segregation in medical knowledge is by deliberately referencing Black researchers and their work. To change this dynamic of racial bias, medical journals must pay attention to how much and how often the Black medical establishment is referenced. Health issues in underserved communities would likely become more visible and achieve greater quality of care in keeping with the AMA’s commitment to social justice.

Journal editors could tell writers and editorial staff to prioritize citation practices. Individual authors might conduct research and evaluate their reading habits to intentionally include research from the Black medical community.

However, this work must go beyond individuals. Undoing decades of collective habits and embedded racism requires collaborations that work across systems, institutions and disciplines.

Racial disparities in health care often result in lower-quality medical treatment and worse health care outcomes for Black Americans.

Towfiqu Barbhuiya for Unsplash, CC BY-ND

For example, libraries, databases, and search engines that help researchers find and evaluate medical publications might review today’s research tools. It is hard to contribute to a research conversation if your work is invisible or can’t be found.

Many tools, like impact factors, rank research according to how influential it is. If research begins in a category of less importance, it can be harder for the technology to rank it equitably. JNMA’s work was already marginalized when the tools that rank research were developed.

Thus, search results can hinder efforts of individual authors to work toward equitable citation practices. Black researchers and their research of Black health were excluded from the beginning, and existing systems of sharing knowledge and drawing attention to important studies incorporate that structural racism.

The AMA apology in 2008 and its recent progress on addressing racism in its publication process are promising steps. Influential medical journals serve to inform and shape health care. Who is referenced in these journals matters to the medical establishment, research funders and, ultimately, to the patients that are served by innovations in medicine.

Attention to citation can help reduce systemic bias in medical knowledge to achieve greater fairness in health care and, in the long run, help increase attention and resources that will help solve health issues in underserved communities.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

It was written by: Cherice Escobar Jones, Northeastern University; Gwendolynne Reid, Emory University, and Mya Poe, Northeastern University.

Read more:

Republicans are trying to build a multiracial right – will it work?

Declaring racism a public health crisis brings more attention to solving long-ignored racial gaps in health

UN 'alarmed' at West Bank violence day after Israeli raid

Wed, March 8, 2023 


The UN Middle East peace envoy urged Israel and the Palestinians Wednesday to calm surging violence in the occupied West Bank, a day after the latest Israeli raid killed six people.

"We are in the midst of a cycle of violence that must be stopped immediately," Tor Wennesland said in a statement.

"The Security Council has spoken with one voice, calling on the parties to observe calm and restraint, and to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric."

The call came a day after intense fighting during an Israeli raid in the flashpoint northern West Bank city of Jenin, in which the soldiers killed six Palestinians, including a member of Hamas accused of killing two Israeli settlers last month.

Wennesland said he was "alarmed" at the violence, which the army said included soldiers launching shoulder-fired rockets amid ferocious gunfire.

Nabil Abu Rudeina, spokesman for Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, called the use of rockets in Jenin refugee camp on Tuesday an act of "all-out war", Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.

The Jenin raid was the latest in a string of deadly military operations in the Palestinian territory, which Israel has occupied since the Six-Day War of 1967.

Among the six killed was Abdel Fatah Hussein Khroushah, 49. The Israeli army said he was a "terrorist operative" suspected of killing two Israeli settlers in the Palestinian town of Huwara on February 26.

The killing of the two settlers, which came just hours after Israeli and Palestinian officials pledged in Jordan to "prevent further violence", sparked fury among Israeli settlers, with hundreds later torching Palestinian homes and cars in the West Bank town.

"I am deeply disturbed by the continuing violence," Wennesland said, condemning both Israeli settler violence against Palestinians and Palestinian attacks against Israelis.

"Israel, as the occupying power, must ensure that the civilian population is protected and perpetrators are held to account," he said.

Overnight, a rocket was fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip but fell short and exploded inside the coastal enclave, the Israeli military said.

Commitments made by the two sides in Jordan last month, when they agreed to "commit to de-escalation", must be implemented if "we are to find a way forward", Wennesland said.

"The parties must refrain from further steps that would lead us to more violence," he added.

pjm/kir

Opinion: Right now, to love Israel is to denounce it

Nadav Ziv
Wed, March 8, 2023 

Protesters clash with Israeli security forces at the entrance to the Palestinan village of Hawara on March 3. (Xinhua News Agency via Getty Images)

When my maternal grandmother was around 7 years old, she was nearly the victim of a pogrom. It was the late 1930s. Europe was a stretched rubber band, soon to snap. My grandma was visiting family in a small Polish town. One day, the non-Jewish inhabitants wielded knives and sticks as they pursued Jews. My grandma ran, closed the blinds, hid and waited.

I’ve heard this story of the pogrom in two related contexts. First, as proof of antisemitism — even absent Nazi compulsion. Second, as part of the need for a state where Jews can be safe.

Last week, Jewish settlers conducted a pogrom of a Palestinian village named Hawara. They set fire to houses and cars. They threw stones. In one sickening video, the settlers pray with the village smoking in the background, as if their violence honors God rather than desecrating holy commandments and the rule of law alike.

I have never felt so ashamed to be Israeli. I have never felt as angry as I did watching these settlers pervert past Jewish victimhood into a right to harm innocent people, contorting Jewish practice into their colonial ambitions to create a carte blanche for abuses.

While the settlers’ actions were extreme, they cannot be categorized as fringe. Not when Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said afterward that Hawara should be “wiped out” by the state of Israel. Not when National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir legitimizes illegal settlements and speaks of crushing enemies “one by one.” Like the Trump years in the United States, government actions and statements, no matter how unrepresentative of popular will, still carry the weight of institutional endorsement.

My grandma just celebrated her 92nd birthday. She resides in Haifa at an assisted living facility. When I speak with her, she is despondent at the state of the country — settler pogroms, racist government officials and a judicial coup being led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Yet she is insistent that Jews must still have a country.

The antisemitism my grandma experienced in her youth has not gone away. Globally and in the United States, hatred of Jews is rising, seen recently in antisemitic fliers in Maryland, Montana and Ohio and a plot to kill Jewish elected officials in Michigan. Anti-Jewish hate crimes in California are at a record high.

This is only part of the heartbreak. At a time when Jews feel less safe in our communities, Israel no longer feels like a safe option. As countries around the world trend toward autocracy, Israel is part of the data set rather than an exception. But most of all: seeing that some members of a group that has experienced so much persecution can brazenly inflict pain on others.

In a lecture he gave at Stanford in January 2007, the late Israeli author Amos Oz spoke about the nature of dreams.

Israel, he said, is “a fulfillment of a dream, perhaps it is a fulfillment of many dreams. As such it is flawed by definition and has the sour taste of a disappointment.” Oz said this isn’t about the nature of the state of Israel, but about the nature of dreams.

I disagree. Because national dreams, like personal choices, are not projectiles whose trajectories are set at the moment of release. They are hulking tankers, whose weight leaves them vulnerable to inertia but can nevertheless be steered. Israel will always be flawed in some ways. But it does not have to be flawed the way it is today.

Hundreds of thousands of Israelis are protesting against autocracy and racism, and for democracy, equal rights and common dignity — for a better Israel. “Where were you in Hawara?” they chant to the security forces. They hold up banners depicting Netanyahu as “Crime Minister.”

They understand that right now, to love Israel is to denounce it. That external threats such as Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah cannot destroy Israel the way that Jews can internally. American Jewish leaders, some of whom have been historically reticent to publicly criticize Israel, should fight for an Israel they can be proud of, not just the one that exists now.

My late grandfather from my father’s side escaped near-certain death as a teenager when he was deported to Siberia by the Soviets. Soon after, the Nazis murdered 90% of the Jews in his native Lithuania. He eventually escaped the gulag, spent a few years in postwar Germany and moved to Israel in 1949.

In the weeks before he died, my dad asked him what Israel meant to him for one of my class writing projects:

“In one word … mine.”

“And in two words?” my dad asked.

“That I feel like my fate is in my own hands, that I’m not a foreigner.”

My grandfather found a new home in Israel. He felt a sense of personal self-determination — a freedom from the historical forces that yanked him from Lithuania to the gulag — made possible by the collective self-determination of a nation.

His wife, my other grandmother, recently celebrated her 90th birthday. She’s gone to the recent protests with other family members. Because right now, Israel is betraying my late grandfather. It is betraying the memory of past Jews and the prospects of future ones. And it is betraying Jews in Israel and Jews abroad.

So, shame on the settlers, on Netanyahu, on Ben-Gvir, on Smotrich, on their hundreds of thousands of supporters and the seething hatred they espouse. To deal with these racists and autocrats, we must learn from our experience with antisemites and show no compromise, tolerance or legitimization of their policies and actions. We must fight and shame them, for as long as it takes.

Nadav Ziv is a writer whose work includes essays about Judaism, antisemitism and Israel. @nadavsziv

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Israeli military caught up in divide over Netanyahu's plan





Israeli army Chief of Staff Dan Halutz arrives to attend the Israeli weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem Sunday Aug. 13, 2006. A contentious judicial overhaul that is dividing Israel is tearing at the country's main unifying force: the military. Halutz has said he wouldn't show up for duty after the overhaul if Israel was at war. He said soldiers won't agree to become "mercenaries for a dictator."

 (AP Photo/Ronen Zvulun, Pool, File)

TIA GOLDENBERG
Mon, March 6, 2023

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Shraga Tichover is hanging up his fatigues. After more than three decades as a reservist in the Israeli military, the paratrooper says he will no longer put his life on the line for a country slipping toward autocracy.

Tichover is part of a wave of unprecedented opposition from within the ranks of the Israeli military to a contentious government plan to overhaul the judiciary. Like Tichover, some reservists are refusing to show up for duty and former commanders are defending their actions as a natural response to the impending change.

“The values of this country are going to change. I am not able to serve the military of a state that is not a democracy,” said Tichover, a 53-year-old volunteer reservist who has served in southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The typically taboo talk of defying military orders underlines how deeply the overhaul has divided Israel and is now tearing at what Israeli Jews see as their most respected institution, the military. Concerns are growing that the protest could trickle down to young conscripts as well.

In a declaration that has sent shock waves through the country, three dozen reservist fighter pilots said they wouldn't show up for training on Wednesday in protest. The airmen are seen as the cream of the military's personnel and irreplaceable elements of many of Israel’s battle plans.

After appeals from top officials, the pilots announced they would show up to their base — but only for a dialogue with their commanders, Israeli media reported. “We have full confidence in our commanders,” the reports quoted the pilots as saying in a letter.

The military’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Herzl Halevi, reportedly warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week that the reservists’ protest risks harming the military’s capabilities. Halevi and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant met late Tuesday with a group of senior reservists to discuss the crisis.

“The army cannot operate without the reservists,” Halevi told them. But, he said, “insubordination is a red line.”

For Israel's Jewish majority, most of whom must serve in the military, the army is a source of unity and a rite of passage. Military service is an important launching pad into civilian life and the workforce.

After completing three years of mandatory service, many men continue in the reserves until their 40s, when service becomes voluntary. Most of those threatening to halt their service are volunteers, protecting them from potential punishment.

Recognizing the threat to its stability, the military has pleaded to be kept out of the heated public discourse. But it’s become central to the debate over what kind of Israel will emerge after the overhaul.

Netanyahu, a former soldier in an elite unit, and his government are pushing forward on a plan to weaken the Supreme Court and limit the independence of the judiciary. His allies say the changes are meant to streamline governance, while critics say the plan will upend Israel's system of checks and balances and slide the country toward authoritarianism. They also say Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption, is motivated by a personal grudge and has a conflict of interest.

The overhaul, which is moving ahead in parliament, has sparked an outcry from business leaders and legal officials. Tens of thousands of protesters have been taking to the streets each week.

Not everyone identifies with the soldiers. Critics say the military, as the enforcer of Israel's rule over millions of Palestinians in an open-ended occupation, has subjugated another people and eroded the country's democratic ideals. The reserve units now protesting, including pilots and intelligence units, have been behind deadly strikes or surveillance against Palestinians.

Israel's own Palestinian minority has largely stayed on the sidelines of the anti-government protests, in part because of Israel's treatment of their Palestinian brethren in the occupied West Bank and Gaza.

But Jewish Israelis see the military as a pillar of security in the face of myriad threats. Israel is mired in a bloody round of violence with Palestinians and archenemy Iran is blazing ahead with its nuclear program. Israel says Iran is developing a nuclear bomb — a charge that Tehran denies.

Those developments have not stopped the creeping challenge within the military. Israel's pool of reservists are the backbone of the force when security crises erupt.

Ehud Barak, a former military chief of staff, defense minister and prime minister, has said it would be acceptable to defy orders from what he calls a dictatorial regime. Dan Halutz, another former military chief, said soldiers won't agree to become “mercenaries for a dictator.”

In addition to the protesting pilots, hundreds of reservists have signed letters promising not to serve if the overhaul passes.

“Hit the emergency brake now," reservists from the 8200 intelligence unit warned the government in a letter last week. Many 8200 graduates join the country's booming tech sector, also a fierce opponent of the overhaul.

A mass protest movement demonstrating against the overhaul has its own reservist contingent. A new group, “Do it Yourself,” is calling on secular families to refuse to allow their children to serve in the occupied West Bank. A group of soldiers has asked permission to join the mass protests.

Activists warn that the overhaul is threatening to hurt future morale.

“The generations after us will not follow us,” said Eyal Naveh, 47, a reservist from an elite unit and protest leader. “What will a person who halted his reserve duty tell his son? To go to the army or not?”

Naveh said reservists are also concerned the changes will leave soldiers exposed to war crimes charges at international courts. One of Israel's defenses against war crimes accusations is that it has an independent legal system capable of investigating any potential wrongdoing.

Debate has emerged in the past over whether soldiers ideologically opposed to an order should refuse to carry it out, particularly over the evacuation of Jews from settlements. But the mere suggestion of insubordination is rare.

Tichover, the volunteer reservist, said he struggled during his service with what he called “irrational” orders that harmed Palestinians, like being told to damage Palestinian cars. He said he found ways to skirt around such orders but never overtly defied them.

Late on Monday, Netanyahu met with members of the paramilitary border police force at a base in the occupied West Bank, telling them there was no room for politics in the military.

“There is no place for refusal now, and there won't be a place in the future,” he said.

Reflecting the military's public standing, opposition leaders have also spoken out against the calls to defy orders.

“Do not lend a hand to insubordination,” said Benny Gantz, an opposition leader and former military chief.

The looming threat to the military isn't the reservists' protest, said Idit Shafran Gittleman, an expert on the military at the Institute for National Security Studies, a Tel Aviv think tank. She says the overhaul could lead to a constitutional crisis over who is in charge.

“There will be chaos," she said. “The military won’t know who it must take orders from.”

Philippines' lower house opens door to amending charter


Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. delivers first State of the Nation Address

Mon, March 6, 2023

MANILA (Reuters) - The Philippines inched closer to rewriting its constitution, a step that supporters said is aimed at easing investment restrictions, amid fears the move could pave the way for removal of public office term limits, including for the president.

House Speaker Martin Romualdez said on Monday the lower house, voting 301-6, approved a resolution calling for a constitutional convention, whose members will be elected by the public, that will draft the changes to the 1987 charter.

Romualdez, a cousin of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, said in a statement that changes to the constitution would be limited to "restrictive" provisions that make it difficult for foreign businesses to invest in the Philippines.

He did not specify which provisions but foreign chambers of commerce have been pushing for changes to lift current limits to foreign investment, including the so-called 60-40 rule, which caps foreign ownership of local firms at 40 percent.

"We need additional investments that would create more jobs and income opportunities for people," Romualdez said.

But opposition lawmakers have questioned the need for the amendments and raised suspicions over the motivations behind them.

Edcel Lagman, one of the six who voted against the move, feared the entire charter, including provisions on term limits, would be opened up to revisions "which could be the furtive agenda" for calling for charter change.

The 1987 constitution limits Marcos to a single six-year term. The restriction was born of the country's experience of martial law under his namesake father, the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the country for more than two decades.

Marcos said last month changing the constitution was not on his list of priorities. He said the country could entice investments without revising the charter.

(Reporting by Karen Lema; Editing by Kanupriya Kapoor)

As bourbon booms, thirst for rare brands breeds skullduggery















1 / 15
Bourbon Craze

A collection of bottles of Pappy Van Winkle bourbons are seen on the top shelf right, among other fine whiskies at the "Far Bar," located in the historic Far East Building in the heart of Little Tokyo in Los Angeles on Saturday, March 4, 2023. Buttery, smooth, oaky. These are characteristics of the best bourbons, and a growing cult of aficionados is willing to pay an astonishing amount of money for these increasingly scarce premium spirits — and even bend or break laws. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

ANDREW SELSKY and DAMIAN DOVARGANES
Tue, March 7, 2023 

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Buttery, smooth, oaky. These are characteristics of the best bourbons, and a growing cult of aficionados is willing to pay an astonishing amount of money for these increasingly scarce premium American spirits — and even bend or break laws.

Premium spirits have always been expensive and sought-after. But a surge in interest in high-end bourbon has made finding that elusive bottle even more difficult. Distillers have upped production to try to meet increased demand, but before the whiskey reaches stores and bars, it must age for years and even decades. Scarcity has changed what some fans are willing to do to obtain the most sought-after bourbon.

In Oregon, a criminal investigation is under way after an internal probe concluded several state liquor officials used their clout to obtain scarce bourbons, including the holy grail for bourbon fanatics: Pappy Van Winkle 23-year-old, which can sell for tens of thousands of dollars on resale markets. That brand is so popular that it found itself at the center of criminal investigations in at least three other states, from Virginia to Pennsylvania to Kentucky.


The cases underscore how demand has reached a fever pitch. A limited number of Pappy Van Winkle 23-year, produced by Old Rip Van Winkle Distillery of Frankfort, Kentucky, goes to each state. In 2022, Oregon received just 33 bottles.

“The average person cannot get good bottles," said Cody Walding, a bourbon aficionado from Houston who has been on the hunt for Buffalo Trace Distillery's five-bottle Antique Collection. He hasn't been able to find any despite making connections with liquor store managers. He believes he's years away from success.

“Like, to be able to get Pappy Van Winkle or Buffalo Trace Antique Collection, unless you’re basically best friends with a store manager, I don’t even think it’s possible to get those, " he said.

In a Los Angeles bar that Walding visited last week, one shot of Pappy 23-year cost $200.

Supplier sales for American whiskey — which includes bourbon, Tennessee whiskey and rye — rose 10.5% last year, reaching $5.1 billion, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. Revenues for makers of super-premium American whiskey grew 141% over the past five years.

In Oregon, the price of a bottle of Pappy 23-year-old bourbon is set by the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission at $329.95. But finding Pappy 23-year-old on a store shelf would be almost as hard as finding a mythical Sasquatch in Oregon’s forests.

The commission says that of last year's allocation of Pappy 23-year-old, 25 bottles went to bars, restaurants and/or liquor stores, three were reserved as safety stock to replace any damaged product and five went to “chance to purchase,” a lottery started in 2018. The odds of winning Pappy 23-year-old were 1 in 4,150.

Utah and Pennsylvania are among other states that also use lotteries for coveted liquor. Two men in Pennsylvania each bought a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle after winning the liquor lottery in different years. They tried to sell their bottles on Craigslist, but undercover officers posing as buyers nailed them for selling liquor without a license.

In Virginia, an employee of the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority downloaded confidential information about which state-run liquor shops would be receiving Pappy Van Winkle and other rare bourbons. An accomplice then sold the intel to Facebook groups of bourbon fans. In September, the now-former employee pleaded guilty to felony computer trespass, received a suspended prison sentence and a fine, and was banned from all Virginia liquor stores.

In Kentucky, an employee of Buffalo Trace Distillery was arrested in 2015 for stealing bourbon, including Pappy, over several years and selling it. The caper became part of “Heist,” a Netflix miniseries, in 2021.

Bourbon, in particular, has a rich American heritage. It's been around since before Kentucky became a state in 1792 and is where the vast majority of bourbon comes from. In 1964, Congress declared bourbon “a distinctive product of the United States,” barring whiskey produced in other countries from being labeled as bourbon. Today, some of the best-known Kentucky bourbon distilleries are foreign-owned.

In the 1960s and '70s, bourbon had a reputation as a cheap drink. Then came a change: Targeting Japan, Kentucky distillers developed single-barrel and small batch versions in the 1980s and 1990s, which later blossomed in the United States, said Fred Minnick, who has written books on bourbon and judges world whiskey competitions.

“The distillers were starting to wake up — there was an interest in the whiskey, because the culture itself was beginning to change," Minnick said. “We were going from a steak-and-potatoes nation to foie gras and wagyu.”

Minnick lovingly describes what it’s like to sip a great bourbon, which obtains sweetness by absorbing natural wood sugars from charred oak barrels.

“It begins at the front of your tongue, walks itself back, will drip a little bit down your jawline, a little bit like butter, very velvety,” Minnick said. “Caramel is one of the quintessential notes, followed by a little touch of vanilla."

Some of the world’s top beverage companies that own major brands include Kirin (which owns Four Roses), Beam Suntory (Maker’s Mark, Jim Beam, Knob Creek, Basil Hayden), Diageo (Bulleit, I.W. Harper), Sazerac (Buffalo Trace, Van Winkle, Blanton’s) and Campari Group (Wild Turkey).

They boosted bourbon production with multimillion-dollar expansions and renovations, but there's still not enough of the best stuff to go around.

In Oregon, that scarcity led to the headline-grabbing scandal that drew attention to the state's system for distributing rare spirits.

Six Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission officials, including Executive Director Steve Marks, acknowledged they had Pappy or another hard-to-get bourbon, Elmer T. Lee Single Barrel, routed to liquor stores for their own purchase. All six denied they resold the bourbons.

The internal investigation determined they had violated an Oregon statute prohibiting public officials from using confidential information for personal gain. Gov. Tina Kotek sought Marks’ resignation in February, and he quit. The other five are on paid temporary leave. An investigation by the state Department of Justice’s Criminal Division continues.

In his responses to the commission investigator, Marks denied that he had violated Oregon ethics laws and state policy. However, he acknowledged that he had received preferential treatment “to some extent” in obtaining the whiskey as a commission employee.

Old Rip Van Winkle Distillery's suggested retail price of Pappy 23-year-old is $299.99. Because of its extreme scarcity, it can go for a lot more on the resale market.

In December, a single bottle of Pappy 23-year-old sold at Sotheby’s for a record $52,500. Two other bottles auctioned for $47,500 apiece. All three were originally released in 2008.

Despite Pappy 23-year-old’s red-hot popularity, Minnick is not a big fan.

“Right or wrong, the Pappy Van Winkle 23-year-old is absolutely the most sought-after modern whiskey, year in, year out,” Minnick said. “I personally think that the 23-year is hit-and-miss. It’s typically over-oaked for me.”

___ Dovarganes reported from Los Angeles.

Why Tennessee's law limiting drag performances likely violates the First Amendment

Mark Satta, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Wayne State University
Mon, March 6, 2023 

Protesters against a bill restricting drag shows march from a rally outside of the Tennessee Capitol in Nashville on Feb. 14, 2023. AP Photo/Jonathan Mattise

On March 2, 2023, Tennessee became the first state to enact a law restricting drag performances.

This law is part of a larger push by Republican lawmakers in numerous states to restrict or eliminate events like drag shows and drag story hours.

These legislative efforts have been accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric – not grounded in fact – about the need to protect children from “grooming” and sexually explicit performances.

Such rhetoric reveals that those seeking to restrict drag performances sometimes don’t understand what drag is or seeks to do.

Drag is an art form in which performers play with gender norms. Drag shows often include dancing, singing, lip-synching or comedy. Some common forms of drag include cisgender male and transgender female performers dressed in stereotypically feminine ways and cigender female and transgender male performers dressed in stereotypically masculine ways.

Drag artists also participate in many other kinds of events. For example, drag queens host family-friendly story hours at local libraries where they read age-appropriate books to children.

Current Supreme Court decisions suggest that laws like the one just passed in Tennessee probably violate the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. This is, in part, because many drag performances are protected by the First Amendment, which safeguards not only spoken, written, and signed speech but also many other actions meant to convey messages.

Republican legislators appear to have written the law to try to avoid running afoul of the First Amendment by treating drag shows as if they meet the legal definition of obscenity. Speech, including expressive conduct, that meets the Supreme Court’s criteria for obscenity is not covered by First Amendment protection.

I’m a scholar who studies U.S. free speech law. Looking at the text of Tennessee’s new law, I see several ways in which this anti-drag law appears susceptible to significant First Amendment challenges.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed the drag show restrictions into law. AP Photo/Mark Zaleski
Tennessee’s new law

The law amends what Tennessee considers “adult cabaret entertainment” and bans “male or female impersonators” from performing on public property or in any other location where the performance “could be viewed by a person who is not an adult,” when such performances are “harmful to minors” as that phrase is defined by Tennessee law.

This law thus regulates not only public spaces but also privately owned locations like bars and performance venues. A first violation is a misdemeanor. Subsequent violations are felonies.

Because the law is limited to drag performances that are “harmful to minors,” in theory, most drag shows should be unaffected.

But various Republican legislators in Tennessee have recently fought to prevent even vetted family-friendly drag shows with no lewd or sexual content from being held in public.

Given this, drag performers and other artists have reasonable grounds for suspecting that Tennessee officials may seek to interpret the new law broadly to include many kinds of drag performances and other shows that play with gender norms.

Given the popularity of drag shows, this new law could stifle a lot of expression and damage the ability of full-time drag performers to make their living.

But even if Tennessee officials interpret the new law narrowly, the law still appears likely to run afoul of the First Amendment.

Drag is protected ‘expressive conduct’

The First Amendment protects more than just written, oral or signed speech. It also protects many other actions designed to convey ideas. The legal terms for these actions are “expressive conduct” or “symbolic speech.”

Some activities courts have recognized as expressive conduct include making and displaying art and music, picketing, marching in parades, desecrating a U.S. flag, burning a draft card, dancing and other forms of live entertainment.

Drag shows typically consist of various forms of protected speech – such as telling jokes and introducing performers – and protected expressive conduct such as lip-synching and dancing. Thus, drag shows are usually covered by the First Amendment.

But Tennessee’s new law insinuates that drag performances might be part of a category of speech exempt from the First Amendment protection: legally defined obscenity. If this were so, then Tennessee’s law likely would pass constitutional muster. But the law seems to target more than merely legally obscene material.

However, Tennessee lawmakers have not provided viable examples of obscene drag performances in Tennessee. And current Supreme Court precedent makes it highly unlikely that all the expressive conduct Tennessee seeks to regulate falls into the narrow legal category of obscenity.

Defining obscenity

In considering whether something is legally obscene, the Supreme Court requires courts to consider whether (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest; (2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law, and (3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

In the relevant part of its criminal code, Tennessee law states that:

“Harmful to minors means that quality of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence or sadomasochistic abuse when the matter or performance (a) Would be found by the average person applying contemporary community standards to appeal predominantly to the prurient, shameful or morbid interests of minors; (b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and (c) Taken as whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific values for minors.”

Given the similarities between Tennessee’s description of “harmful to minors” and the Supreme Court’s definition of “obscenity,” Tennessee appears to be trying to avoid First Amendment scrutiny for its new law.

But there are some important differences between Tennessee law and the Supreme Court’s description of obscenity.

Perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court limits obscenity to speech that lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value full stop; not just work that lacks such serious value specifically for minors.

As is widely recognized, drag is artistic and political. Drag performers use drag to push artistic boundaries and to discuss pressing political issues.

There is no First Amendment requirement to determine when or whether the value of speech applies “for minors.” Adults living in a democratic society need to be able to discuss a wide range of issues, not all of which will have value for children. Supreme Court free speech precedent recognizes this.

Thus, Tennessee probably cannot rely on a claim that it is criminalizing only legally obscene expressive conduct. Instead, it must regulate drag performances in accordance with the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
Discriminatory and overly broad

Freedom of speech, like all rights, is not absolute.

The Supreme Court has allowed states to put some limits on protected speech. For example, states may impose restrictions on the time, place and manner in which speech occurs, so long as such limitations are content-neutral.

Examples include requiring permits to hold parades on city streets and not allowing loud music between midnight and 6 a.m. on public sidewalks.

However, Tennessee’s law goes far beyond these kinds of limited regulations of protected speech in at least two ways.

First, it legislates more than mere time, place and manner restrictions. Instead, the law bars, at all times, “male or female impersonation” that it deems “harmful to children” from any public property and from many private venues, too. This is a wholesale ban on such speech in all public forums and in many private spaces. Courts will likely find this too broad.

Second, by singling out “male and female impersonators,” Tennessee’s law fails to be content-neutral. It instead discriminates on the basis of the expressive conduct’s content.

Tennessee’s new law bolsters the case that anti-drag laws are antidemocratic, discriminatory and unconstitutional.

This story has been corrected to describe the amended version of Tennessee’s SB3, which was signed into law on March 2, 2023, and to remove reference to a Kentucky state legislator.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. 

It was written by: Mark Satta, Wayne State University.

Read more:

Supreme Court signals sympathy with web designer opposed to same-sex marriage in free speech case

Putin’s brazen manipulation of language is a perfect example of Orwellian doublespeak

OKLAHOMA

After transgender protest incident, state House censures OKC lawmaker Mauree Turner

Dale Denwalt, Oklahoman
Wed, March 8, 2023 

State Rep. Mauree Turner, D-Oklahoma City, speaks to a transgender rights rally inside the state Capitol in early February.

The Oklahoma House of Representatives censured Oklahoma City state Rep. Mauree Turner on Tuesday, a week after a transgender rights protester sought refuge in Turner's Capitol office following an altercation with state troopers.

According to statements made on the House floor and media reports about the incident last week, a protester threw water on Tahlequah Republican state Rep. Bob Ed Culver after the House passed legislation that would ban insurance coverage of trans health care and prohibit gender-affirming care for minors.

That individual was arrested on suspicion of assault, and troopers with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol tried to locate another person who allegedly interfered with the arrest. Troopers discovered the second person had gone into Turner's office, said state Rep. Anthony Moore, R-Clinton.

Moore, who presented the censure motion, said that Turner refused to let the troopers see their suspect. Only after House leadership intervened did Turner unlock the door and let the troopers inside the office.

"The actions willfully taken by Rep. Turner, without question, rise to the level of criminal. We are not made better by protecting those that assault our troopers," Moore said, drawing immediate rebuke from Turner's Democratic colleagues.

House Speaker Charles McCall also indicated in a news release issued immediately after the party-line vote that Turner may have committed a crime.

"This member knowingly, and willfully, impeded a law enforcement investigation, harboring a fugitive and repeatedly lying to officers, and used their official office and position to thwart attempts by law enforcement to make contact with a suspect of the investigation," McCall wrote in the news release.

State Rep. Mauree Turner, D-Oklahoma City, speaks to a transgender rights rally inside the state Capitol in early February.

Turner, however, has not been charged with a crime. Trooper Eric Foster, a spokesman for the highway patrol, said the agency hasn't recommended charges to the district attorney and only sent information about the incident to the district attorney.

Turner and members of the House Democratic Caucus said Tuesday's censure motion came as a surprise, since no one, not even law enforcement, had followed up with Turner about the incident.

"What happened last week in my office was the same thing that happens all the time," Turner said during debate on the censure motion. "People do not feel represented or protected by the people in this (Legislature). They come to find refuge in my office. They come to decompress from the most stressful times."

State Rep. Mauree Turner, D-Oklahoma City, speaks with an assistant inside her office in this 2021 file photo.

Along with being publicly reprimanded with a censure, Turner will be stripped of all committee assignments unless they apologize.

"For me personally, I think an apology for loving the people of Oklahoma is something that I cannot do. It's something I actively refuse to do," Turner said at a news conference after the censure vote. "I'll never apologize for showing up fully and freely as myself. I will never apologize for allowing the people of Oklahoma to show up fully and freely as themselves. Because that is the work that they elected me to do."

Turner has served as a state representative in House District 88 since 2021. The district encompasses part of northwest Oklahoma City west of the state Capitol building. As the Oklahoma Legislature's first openly nonbinary member, Turner has been an outspoken voice for the LGBTQ+ community.

This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: After transgender protest incident, state House censures OKC lawmaker

What are PFAS, and why is the EPA warning about them in drinking water? An environmental health scientist explains

Kathryn Crawford, Assistant Professor of Environmental Health, Middlebury

 The Conversation
Tue, March 7, 2023 

PFAS, often used in water-resistant gear, also find their way into drinking water and human bodies. CasarsaGuru via Getty Images

You’ve probably been hearing the term PFAS in the news lately as states and the U.S. government consider rules and guidelines for managing these “forever chemicals.”

Even if the term is new to you, chances are good that you’re familiar with what PFAS do. That’s because they’re found in everything from nonstick cookware to carpets to ski wax.

PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, which are a large group of human-made chemicals – currently estimated to be around 9,000 individual chemical compounds – that are used widely in consumer products and industry. They can make products resistant to water, grease and stains and protect against fire.

Waterproof outdoor apparel and cosmetics, stain-resistant upholstery and carpets, food packaging that is designed to prevent liquid or grease from leaking through, and certain firefighting equipment often contain PFAS. In fact, one recent study found that most products labeled stain- or water-resistant contained PFAS, and another study found that this is even true among products labeled as “nontoxic” or “green.” PFAS are also found in unexpected places like high-performance ski and snowboard waxes, floor waxes and medical devices.

At first glance, PFAS sound pretty useful, so you might be wondering “what’s the big deal?”

The short answer is that PFAS are harmful to human health and the environment.

Some of the very same chemical properties that make PFAS attractive in products also mean these chemicals will persist in the environment for generations. Because of the widespread use of PFAS, these chemicals are now present in water, soil and living organisms and can be found across almost every part of the planet, including Arctic glaciers, marine mammals, remote communities living on subsistence diets, and in 98% of the American public.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued new warnings about their risk in drinking water even at very low levels.

Health risks from PFAS exposure

Once people are exposed to PFAS, the chemicals remain in their bodies for a long time – months to years, depending on the specific compound – and they can accumulate over time.

Research consistently demonstrates that PFAS are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. A recent review by a panel of experts looking at research on PFAS toxicity concluded with a high degree of certainty that PFAS contribute to thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, liver damage and kidney and testicular cancer.

Stain-resistant fabrics and carpets often contain PFAS. Deagreez via Getty Images

Further, they concluded with a high degree of certainty that PFAS also affect babies exposed in utero by increasing their likelihood of being born at a lower birth weight and responding less effectively to vaccines, while impairing women’s mammary gland development, which may adversely impact a mom’s ability to breastfeed.

The review also found evidence that PFAS may contribute to a number of other disorders, though further research is needed to confirm existing findings: inflammatory bowel disease, reduced fertility, breast cancer and an increased likelihood of miscarriage and developing high blood pressure and preeclampsia during pregnancy. Additionally, current research suggests that babies exposed prenatally are at higher risk of experiencing obesity, early-onset puberty and reduced fertility later in life.

Collectively, this is a formidable list of diseases and disorders.

Who’s regulating PFAS?

PFAS chemicals have been around since the late 1930s, when a DuPont scientist created one by accident during a lab experiment. DuPont called it Teflon, which eventually became a household name for its use on nonstick pans.

Decades later, in 1998, Scotchgard maker 3M notified the Environmental Protection Agency that a PFAS chemical was showing up in human blood samples. At the time, 3M said low levels of the manufactured chemical had been detected in people’s blood as early as the 1970s.

Despite the lengthy list of serious health risks linked to PFAS and a tremendous amount of federal investment in PFAS-related research in recent years, PFAS haven’t been regulated at the federal level in the United States.

The EPA has issued advisories and health-based guidelines for two PFAS compounds – PFOA and PFOS – in drinking water, though these guidelines are not legally enforceable standards. And the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has a toxicological profile for PFAS.

Federal rules could be coming. Congress is considering legislation to ban PFAS in some food packaging. The EPA has a road map for PFAS regulations it is considering, including regulations involving drinking water. The Biden administration has said it also expects to list PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, a move that worries utilities and businesses that use PFAS-containing products or processes because of the expense of cleanup.

States, meanwhile, have been taking their own actions to protect residents against the risk of PFAS exposure.

At least 23 states have laws targeting PFAS in various uses, such as in food packaging and carpets. But relying on state laws places burdens on state agencies responsible for enforcing them and creates a patchwork of regulations which, in turn, place burdens on business and consumers to navigate regulatory nuances across state lines.

So, what can you do about PFAS?

Based on current scientific understanding, most people are exposed to PFAS primarily through their diet, though drinking water and airborne exposures may be significant among some people, especially if they live near known PFAS-related industries or contamination.

The best ways to protect yourself and your family from risks associated with PFAS are to educate yourself about potential sources of exposures.

Products labeled as water- or stain-resistant have a good chance of containing PFAS. Check the ingredients on products you buy and watch for chemical names containing “fluor-.” Specific trade names, such as Teflon and Gore-Tex, are also likely to contain PFAS.

Check whether there are sources of contamination near you, such as in drinking water or PFAS-related industries in the area. Some states don’t test or report PFAS contamination, so the absence of readily available information does not necessarily mean the region is free of PFAS problems.

For additional information about PFAS, check out the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, EPA and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention websites or contact your state or local public health department.

If you believe you have been exposed to PFAS and are concerned about your health, contact your health care provider. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has a succinct report to help health care professionals understand the clinical implications of PFAS exposure.

This article was updated July 8, 2022, with new legislation signed in Rhode Island and Hawaii.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts.

It was written by: Kathryn Crawford, Middlebury.

Read more:

PFAS are showing up in children’s stain- and water-resistant products – including those labeled ‘nontoxic’ and ‘green’

PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ are widespread and threaten human health – here’s a strategy for protecting the public

Restoring the Great Lakes: After 50 years of US-Canada joint efforts, some success and lots of unfinished business

Kathryn Crawford has received funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences.

Regulating 'forever chemicals': 3 essential reads on PFAS

The Conversation
Tue, March 7, 2023 

A new federal regulation will set national limits on two 'forever chemicals' widely found in drinking water. Thanasis Zovoilis/moment via Getty Images

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to release a draft regulation limiting two fluorinated chemicals, known by the abbreviations PFOA and PFOS, in drinking water. These chemicals are two types of PFAS, a broad class of substances often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they are very persistent in the environment.

PFAS are widely used in hundreds of products, from nonstick cookware coatings to food packaging, stain- and water-resistant clothing and firefighting foams. Studies show that high levels of PFAS exposure may lead to health effects that include reduced immune system function, increased cholesterol levels and elevated risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

Population-based screenings over the past 20 years show that most Americans have been exposed to PFAS and have detectable levels in their blood. The new regulation is designed to protect public health by setting an enforceable maximum standard limiting how much of the two target chemicals can be present in drinking water – one of the main human exposure pathways.

These three articles from The Conversation’s archives explain growing concerns about the health effects of exposure to PFAS and why many experts support national regulation of these chemicals.

1. Ubiquitous and persistent

PFAS are useful in many types of products because they provide resistance to water, grease and stains, and protect against fire. Studies have found that most products labeled stain- or water-resistant contained PFAS – even if those products are labeled as “nontoxic” or “green.”

“Once people are exposed to PFAS, the chemicals remain in their bodies for a long time – months to years, depending on the specific compound – and they can accumulate over time,” wrote Middlebury College environmental health scholar Kathryn Crawford. A 2021 review of PFAS toxicity studies in humans “concluded with a high degree of certainty that PFAS contribute to thyroid disease, elevated cholesterol, liver damage and kidney and testicular cancer.”

The review also found strong evidence that in utero PFAS exposure increases the chances that babies will be born at low birth weights and have reduced immune responses to vaccines. Other possible effects yet to be confirmed include “inflammatory bowel disease, reduced fertility, breast cancer and an increased likelihood of miscarriage and developing high blood pressure and preeclampsia during pregnancy.”

“Collectively, this is a formidable list of diseases and disorders,” Crawford observed.

Read more: What are PFAS, and why is the EPA warning about them in drinking water? An environmental health scientist explains

2. Why national regulations are needed

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to set enforceable national regulations for drinking water contaminants. It also can require state, local and tribal governments, which manage drinking water supplies, to monitor public water systems for the presence of contaminants.

Until now, however, the agency has not set binding standards limiting PFAS exposure, although it has issued nonbinding advisory guidelines. In 2009 the agency established a health advisory level for PFOA in drinking water of 400 parts per trillion. In 2016, it lowered this recommendation to 70 parts per trillion, and in 2022 it reduced this threshold to near-zero.

But many scientists have found fault with this approach. EPA’s one-at-a-time approach to assessing potentially harmful chemicals “isn’t working for PFAS, given the sheer number of them and the fact that manufacturers commonly replace toxic substances with ‘regrettable substitutes – similar, lesser-known chemicals that also threaten human health and the environment,” wrote North Carolina State University biologist Carol Kwiatkowski.

In 2020 Kwiatkowski and other scientists urged the EPA to manage the entire class of PFAS chemicals as a group, instead of one by one. “We also support an 'essential uses’ approach that would restrict their production and use only to products that are critical for health and proper functioning of society, such as medical devices and safety equipment. And we have recommended developing safer non-PFAS alternatives,” she wrote.

Read more: PFAS 'forever chemicals' are widespread and threaten human health – here's a strategy for protecting the public

Medical assistant Jennifer Martinez draws blood from Joshua Smith in Newburgh, N.Y., Nov. 3, 2016, to test for PFOS levels. PFOS had been used for years in firefighting foam at the nearby military air base, and was found in the city’s drinking water reservoir at levels exceeding federal guidelines. AP Photo/Mike Groll

3. Breaking down PFAS

PFAS chemicals are widely present in water, air, soil and fish around the world. Unlike with some other types of pollutants, there is no natural process that breaks down PFAS once they get into water or soil. Many scientists are working to develop ways of capturing these chemicals from the environment and breaking them down into harmless components.

There are ways to filter PFAS out of water, but that’s just the start. “Once PFAS is captured, then you have to dispose of PFAS-loaded activated carbons, and PFAS still moves around. If you bury contaminated materials in a landfill or elsewhere, PFAS will eventually leach out. That’s why finding ways to destroy it are essential,” wrote Michigan State University chemists A. Daniel Jones and Hui Li.

Incineration is the most common technique, they explained, but that typically requires heating the materials to around 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,730 degrees Fahrenheit), which is expensive and requires special incinerators. Various chemical processes offer alternatives, but the approaches that have been developed so far are hard to scale up. And converting PFAS into toxic byproducts is a significant concern.

“If there’s a lesson to be learned, it’s that we need to think through the full life cycle of products. How long do we really need chemicals to last?” Jones and Li wrote.

Read more: How to destroy a 'forever chemical' – scientists are discovering ways to eliminate PFAS, but this growing global health problem isn't going away soon

Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. 

It was written by: Jennifer Weeks, The Conversation.

Read more:

Flood maps show US vastly underestimates contamination risk at old industrial sites

Is your drinking water safe? Here’s how you can find out

North Carolina’s economic boom is wreaking havoc on rivers, creeks and streams near you | Opinion

Stephen J. McConnell
Wed, March 8, 2023

Walk along a stream that slips through North Carolina’s cities, towns and rural communities and you may witness filthy water and suspicious colors and smells.

Vital contributors to public water systems, our rivers are under assault.

In 2022, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality released its bi-annual impaired and threatened waters list, a catalog that reveals hundreds of waterways statewide that are violating water quality standards, including for fecal coliform, turbidity, mercury and arsenic.

From the Appalachians to the rolling hills of the Piedmont to the Coastal Plain, numerous rivers, streams and creeks have made the list, such as the Neuse in the Triangle, several waterways in the Catawba River Basin enveloping the Charlotte area, and many other smaller, less conspicuous creeks that quietly wind through our communities.

The catalog bulges in size, offering a blaring and sad warning sign of our sick rivers.

Stephen McConnell

Substantial population growth is straining antiquated sewer treatment plants that discharge into our waterways. Adding to the problem, haphazard development continues to mow down protective forests and vegetation, natural barriers that help prevent a cocktail of pollutants from reaching rivers.

For years, environmental groups, researchers and media outlets have sounded the alarm on our ever increasingly tainted waterways. Watchdogs have published many reports detailing how a wicked storm of harmful chemicals, animal waste, excessive dirt, and other human disturbances are purged into rivers daily.

According to a recent analysis by Environment America, North Carolina’s industries earned the dubious distinction of releasing the most developmental toxins — chemicals that interfere with childhood development — into our waterways in the nation, with 602,927 pounds discharged in 2020 alone.

North Carolina is also among the top 10 states in the level of cancer-causing substances flushed into rivers and streams, according to the report. Other reports reveal further problems, including dozens of sanitary sewer overflows into the Catawba River, a source of drinking water for more than 2 million people in southwest North Carolina.

A troublesome environmental and public health problem is brewing. Rivers and streams feed reservoirs and lakes that are drawn from to provide drinking water to millions of homes and businesses. Waterways also serve as sources of food for people and animals, and rivers provide a plethora of recreational opportunities.

State legislators and policymakers are likely, and rightly, enjoying the economic growth they have sown, but that tight-laced paradigm quickly reveals its shortcomings when it wreaks havoc on our environment.

To restore our rivers, the state needs to significantly increase investment in environmental protection, including fully addressing the backlog of upgrades to the strained wastewater treatment plants that the state’s own analysis says must be fixed. Recent efforts are laudable, but admittedly advanced by lucky injections of federal money.

A rendering of the River District, a 1,400-acre development expected to transform a largely vacant tract along the Catawba River about 8 miles from uptown Charlotte. Work has already begun on infrastructure like roads, water and sewer.

State and local governments must also better manage residential and commercial development and ensure that economic objectives are fully aligned with environmental protection, a paradigm that fosters smart growth for the benefit of all, including our rivers and health.

The state must also bolster water quality monitoring and enforcement efforts. We need only remember the lessons from the years-long discharges of cancerous “forever chemicals” into our waters and playing the risk-laden catch-up game there.

We must be stewards of our home and think holistically. Otherwise, wins and ribbon-cuttings will be undercut by consequences with a life-threatening price that is absolutely not an indicator of success.

Stephen J. McConnell was an investigative reporter for several newspapers in the U.S. He currently teaches writing at New York University and lives in Durham.