 |
|
|
|||||
In Texas, a Republican senator just introduced a bill that would require wastewater treatment facilities to do some extra testingessentially making guidelines more stringent than those currently federally mandated. While that might sound like an uncharacteristically environmentally forward cause for a Texas Republican, what the senator wants to test for may give you even greater pause: Its the abortion medication mifepristone. On Monday, Senator Bryan Hughes of Texass first district introduced bill SB1976, which would require testing for a number of “urinary metabolites in the form of gluconates,” including hormones like testosterone; ethinyl estradiol (which is common in birth control pills); and mifepristone, aka the abortion pill. While introducing the bill, Hughes told committee members that there is a particular concern around “endocrine-disrupting chemicals, such as those found in birth control,” not being removed during treatment that may reenter the water supply. He pointed to “abnormalities in pregnant women and children” as a result of those contaminants and said “a lot of research has been done on this. The interest in chemicals in wastewater makes sense. Experts agree that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are concerning for humans and wildlife for a number of reasons. They may cause certain cancers or metabolic disorders, and last year, research from the Endocrine Society pointed to the possibility that girls may be starting puberty earlier due to EDCs. And, worse, they’re essentially everywhere. They show up in personal care products, plastic, pesticides, industrial waste, and therefore, wastewater. Medications are excreted from humans into wastewater, not to mention from patients flushing leftover pills down the toilet. Some compounds are exceptionally tough to break down, too. Per the EPAs 2009 Health Services Industry study, synthetic compounds, such as pharmaceuticals, are often manufactured to be resistant to metabolic transformation. As a result, some pharmaceutical compounds that are present in the influent to POTWs (treatment facilities) may pass through treatment systems at conventional POTWs and discharge to receiving waters. But if endocrine-disrupting chemicals are everywhere, where does the interest in mifepristone come from? Fast Company reached out to Senator Hughes to find out what evidence has been found to indicate that public safety depends on testing for mifepristone, or the chemical in birth control, but did not hear back by the time of publication. However, environmental experts are not convinced that bills like this make sense. Dr. Kimberly Garrett, PhD, MHP, an environmental toxicologist and postdoctoral researcher with Northeastern Universitys Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute PFAS Project Lab, reviewed bill SB1976 and told Fast Company in a statement that it is “unscientific” and even called it “a form of weaponized environmentalism.” Garrett explained that while it may make sense to test for industrial chemicalsgiven that the main source of EDC pollution is from industrial and agricultural emissionsshe doesn’t believe that is the bill’s goal. “Texas legislature is misappropriating environmental concerns about endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) to limit the reproductive health and choices of its residents,” she said.Further, Garrett explained that the method proposed in the bill won’t address the problem of EDCs in wastewater. “Notably, the bill targets urinary metabolites rather than the chemicals themselves. Urinary metabolites are waste products excreted after chemicals (including endogenous hormones) travel through the liver. Effectively, metabolite monitoring as proposed in this bill targets only an individual and their liver as an indicator of personal behavior.” Abortion-rights advocates raise concerns While it’s unclear what the real environmental goal for the bill is, there is another group with a specific interest in mifepristone and birth control chemicals in wastewater, which may have spurred the recent political interest. Students for Life, an anti-abortion group that advocates staunchly against the use of mifepristone, has been fighting for bills that target the drug. The group has long attacked the drug, alleging that it is unsafe and harmful to women, but the environmental argument is fairly new. In 2024, Students for Life sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calling on the organization to begin tracking mifepristone in addition to PFAS in wastewater on the basis that it presents a public health concern. The group has been succeeding in its efforts, too. According to Jessica Valenti, an abortion reporter who writes the Abortion, Every Day newsletter, in addition to the new Texas bill, legislation that calls for testing wastewater for mifepristone has been introduced in Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, Maine, Idaho, and West Virginia. Valenti asserts that Students for Life has clear motives that have to do more with painting abortion medication as “toxic” rather than out of any real concern for the environment. “SFL has been lobbying the FDA to force women to bag up their blood and return it to a doctor as medical waste,” Valenti wrote. “One of the reasons conservatives hate abortion medication so much is that it robs them of the ability to harass patients outside of clinics. Fast Company reached out to Students for Life for comment. Valenti also pressed that the bill may seek to target gender-affirming care, too, given that the list of hormones it wants to test for includes testosterone and estrone. “These are naturally occurring hormones, but conservatives could argue that an increase in either is proof that more people are getting gender-affirming treatmentor that the hormones are harming the environment,” Valenti wrote. During the Texas Senate committee’s meeting on Monday, the bill appeared to have some support, though Senator Nathan Johnson, a democrat, spoke out against it. After questioning experts about the scientific reasoning for the bill, Johnson gave a one-liner that mimicked both Valenti’s and Garrett’s concerns. He said that the legislation is more about “hunting for women who are using mifepristone,” rather than public health.
Category:
E-Commerce
Most companies operate like one-sided cubeswhat the world sees is curated and polished, but the rest remains hidden, even to the people inside. Strategy becomes surface-level. Teams chase goals without grounding. Leaders lead without alignment. In a world growing more complex and emotionally disoriented, thats not just unsustainableits dangerous. Its time for a Strategy Renaissance. We need to move beyond sterile planning cycles and rediscover the human heart of strategy. In this new era of work, meaning isnt a bonus featureits your sharpest edge. The Great Divide Between Strategy and Meaning We have long treated strategy as the realm of numbers and logic, while purpose was relegated to the marketing department or buried in mission statements no one remembers. This divide has created companies that appear aligned on paper, but feel disjointed in practice. Metrics without meaning drive burnout. Planning without purpose breeds disengagement. And when disruption inevitably hits, strategies built only on spreadsheets crumble. What endures? Shared purpose, collective clarity, and meaningful momentum. Illuminate the Whole Strategy Cube Imagine your organization as a cube. Each face represents a facet of identity: values, operations, leadership, culture, customers, and employees. Most companies only illuminate one or two sidesthe brand and the performance dashboard. The rest remains in the shadows. And when strategy reflects only the visible parts, it becomes hollow. The companies that are thriving today are the ones brave enough to illuminate the whole cube. That means surfacing the hidden brilliance within teams, reclaiming the narratives that shape culture, and embracing the messy, multidimensional nature of real human work. I advised a global biotech company whose strategy had become siloed, driven by financial targets but disconnected from employee experience. Through facilitated dialogue sessions, we helped the executive team rediscover their collective purpose. Within months, they restructured their planning process around a set of guiding principles, resulting in a 22% improvement in employee engagement scores and a renewed sense of cohesion across departments. When you bring every side of the cube into the light, strategy becomes not just alignedbut alive. Dialogue Before Direction: The Campfire as a Strategic Tool Strategy doesnt start with a spreadsheet. It begins with a story. Before defining your next bold move, gather your people around a campfirenot a literal fire (though that helps), but a space of intentional dialogue where people can share pivotal moments, hopes, fears, and what really matters. When I run campfire sessions with leadership teams, something powerful happens: People stop performing and start connecting. The surface melts, and what emerges is a collective clarity that no off-site whiteboard session can replicate. Great strategy isnt declaredits cocreated. It emerges from shared stories and is strengthened by mutual meaning. Meaning Is Your Talent Magnet Todays workforce isnt just looking for a paycheck. Theyre looking for alignmentespecially Gen Z and millennial talent. They want to know what you stand for, how decisions are made, and whether your values are actually lived. A McKinsey study found that 70% of employees believe their sense of purpose is defined by their work; however, only 15% feel their companys purpose is well-activated in their day-to-day roles. That gap isnt just culturalits costly. Meaning is no longer a perk. Its your recruitment strategy. Your innovation strategy. Your long-game success strategy. The Rise of the Multidimensional Strategist This Strategy Renaissance demands a new kind of thinking, which I call multidimensional strategy. In a world that rewards specialization, its time to embrace integration: blending creativity with analysis, intuition with logic, and personal story with business direction. We need leaders who dont just see the road aheadthey see the people walking it. They know that strategy isnt just about what to do next. Its about who we are, why it matters, and how we move forwardtogether. How to Begin Your Strategy Renaissance If you want to move from hollow plans to meaningful progress, heres a simple framework to LIGHT your wayfive ways to reclaim strategy as a human-centered practice: L Listen Beneath the Metrics. Before examining KPIs, ask: What isn’t being said? Whos feeling unseen or unheard? Strategy begins by tuning into the underlying current. I Illuminate the Whole Cube. Map the six sides: customers, employees, culture, operations, values, and leadership. Which sides are well-lit? Which are neglected? Make the invisible visible. G Gather Around the Campfire. Create regular spaces for storytelling and reflectionnot just reporting. Ask: What has challenged us? What has changed us? Connection breeds clarity. H Harness Your Hidden Brilliance. Invite diverse voices into strategic conversations, especially those of outliers, creatives, and skeptics. Often, the perspective you most need is the one least consulted. T Translate Purpose Into Practice. Move from statements to systems. How is your purpose reflected in hiring, decision-making, and how people spend their time? Dont think of this as a checklist; think of it as a shift in perspective, from a performative strategy to a purposeful design. The Renaissance was a reawakening of human potential. What we need now is no different. Let this be the moment your organization stops performing purposeand starts living it. Allow this to be the season when strategy becomes more than a plan. Let it become a story that your people want to tella movement they want to lead. When you illuminate the full spectrum of who you are as an organization, strategy becomes not just compelling but unforgettable.
Category:
E-Commerce
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg once considered separating Instagram from its parent company due to worries about antitrust litigation, according to an email shown Tuesday on the second day of an antitrust trial alleging Meta illegally monopolized the social media market. In the 2018 email, Zuckerberg wrote that he was beginning to wonder if spinning Instagram out would be the only way to accomplish important goals, as big-tech companies grow. He also noted there is a non-trivial chance Meta could be forced to spin out Instagram and perhaps WhatsApp in five to 10 years anyway. He wrote that while most companies resist breakups, the corporate history is that most companies actually perform better after they’ve been split up. Asked Tuesday by attorney Daniel Matheson, who is leading the antitrust case for the Federal Trade Commission, which incidence in corporate history he had in mind, Zuckerberg responded: I’m not sure what I had in mind then. Zuckerberg, who was the first witness, testified for more than seven hours over two days in the trial that could force Meta to break off Instagram and WhatsApp, startups the tech giant bought more than a decade ago that have since grown into social media powerhouses. While questioning Zuckerberg on Tuesday morning, Matheson noted that he had referred to Instagram as being a rapidly growing, threatening, network. The attorney also pointed out Zuckerberg’s referring to trying to neutralize a competitor by buying the company. But Zuckerberg said while Matheson was able to show documents in court that indicated his concern about Instagram’s growth, he also had many conversations about how excited his company was to acquire Instagram to make a better product. Zuckerberg also said Facebook was in the process of building a camera app for sharing on mobile phones, and he thought Instagram was better at that, so I wanted to buy them. Zuckerberg also pushed back against Matheson’s contention that the reason for buying the company was to neutralize a threat. I think that that mischaracterizes what the email was,” Zuckerberg said. In his questioning of Zuckerberg, Matheson repeatedly brought up emailsmany of them more than a decade oldwritten by Zuckerberg and his associates before and after the acquisition of Instagram. While acknowledging the documents, Zuckerberg has often sought to downplay the contents, saying he wrote them in the early stages of considering the acquisition and that what he wrote at the time didn’t capture the full scope of his interest in the company. Matheson also brought up a February 2012 message in which Zuckerberg wrote to the former chief financial officer of Facebook that Instagram and Path, a social networking app, already had created meaningful networks that could be very disruptive to us. Zuckerberg testified that the message was written in the context of a broad discussion about whether they should buy companies to accelerate their own developments. Zuckerberg also testified that buying the company, taking it off the market, and building their own version of it was a reasonable thing to do. Later Tuesday, Mark Hansen, an attorney for Meta, began his questioning of Zuckerberg. Hansen, in his opening statements Monday, emphasized that Meta’s services are free and that the company, far from holding a monopoly, actually has a lot of competition. He made a point of bringing up those issues in just over an hour of questioning Zuckerberg, with more expected to come Wednesday. It’s very competitive, Zuckerberg said, noting that charging for using services like Facebook would likely drive users away, since similar services are widely available elsewhere. The trial is one of the first big tests of President Donald Trumps FTCs ability to challenge Big Tech. The lawsuit was filed against Metathen called Facebookin 2020, during Trumps first term. It claims the company bought Instagram and WhatsApp to squash competition and establish an illegal monopoly in the social media market. Facebook bought Instagramwhich was a photo-sharing app with no adsfor $1 billion in 2012. Instagram was the first company Facebook bought and kept running as a separate app. Until then, Facebook was known for smaller acqui-hiresa popular Silicon Valley deal in which a company purchases a startup as a way to hire its talented workers, then shuts the acquired company down. Two years later, it did it again with the messaging app WhatsApp, which it purchased for $22 billion. WhatsApp and Instagram helped Facebook move its business from desktop computers to mobile devices, and to remain popular with younger generations as rivals like Snapchat (which it also tried, but failed, to buy) and TikTok emerged. However, the FTC has a narrow definition of Metas competitive market, excluding companies like TikTok, YouTube, and Apples messaging service from being considered rivals to Instagram and WhatsApp. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg is presiding over the case. Late last year, he denied Metas request for a summary judgment and ruled that the case must go to trial. Brian Witte, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||