Environmental Working Group

What California’s paraquat phaseout means for your state Anthony Lacey September 21, 2026

When California regulators asked the pesticide industry for more information about the toxic chemical paraquat, the companies abandoned the state instead of providing the data.

It’s a telling sign that every state should heed – not just because California is the second state to phase out paraquat but because of what the industry’s behavior revealed.

California regulators sought data to determine whether the health and safety risks of paraquat were fully understood and whether they could be controlled after new studies linked exposure to paraquat to thyroid damage and birth defects.

If the paraquat companies had proof the chemical was safe to use, submitting that information might have kept them in the largest paraquat market in the country. 

Instead, they walked away from California entirely. 

That’s the clearest signal a company can send that no fix exists. When managing health and environmental risks from pesticides is possible, California regulators tend to allow the industry to propose mitigation plans because it’s the cheaper, more profitable and politically palatable path. 

When industry chooses to ditch an entire market instead, that’s a strong indication the risk sits beyond what regulators assume they can address by merely restricting how it’s used.

Failing to turn over safety data

A 2024 California law required the state’s pesticide regulators to reevaluate paraquat’s risks to public health and the environment. As questions arose, regulators called on the paraquat companies for missing safety data. 

California’s regulators sought additional data from industry after their own scientists publicly reviewed studies linking paraquat to preterm birth, congenital heart and limb defects, low birth weight, hypothyroidism and lower thyroid hormone levels.

The state also requested a study on field volatility. Field volatility studies monitor how far a pesticide travels through the air after it's applied, which regulators use to estimate exposure risks to nearby workers and communities. 

That request followed new data submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Syngenta, the world’s largest paraquat distributor at the time. The data indicated that paraquat vapor may travel more than 2.7 miles from the field where it's applied, based on early estimates from computer models. 

When regulators ask for this information, what they really want to see is if they can keep the product on the market, not pull it. If the answer had been, “it travels a manageable distance, and here's how buffer zones or application changes address the risks,” paraquat might have been allowed to stay in use in California under new restrictions.

The companies shared some data, but ultimately decided to pull their products from California rather than provide the requested data about birth defects, thyroid damage and field volatility. 

Instead of complying with the state’s request, all seven paraquat manufacturers chose to walk away from their largest market. And it wasn’t just one or two major companies who could afford to take the hit. Every company had the chance to provide data when the regulators began their process, but all  chose to back out. 

Their decision triggered a so-called “voluntary” end to the sale of paraquat in California, which the state’s pesticide regulatory program announced in August. 

The word “voluntary” is somewhat misleading. The inability or unwillingness to prove that the ongoing use of paraquat is safe belies the industry’s “voluntary” action.  

Why 2.7 miles is a mitigation problem, not just a statistic

The paraquat regulations currently in place in California and across the country were implemented under the assumption that only people working directly with the chemical  were at risk of breathing it in. 

The new 2.7-mile estimate from the Syngenta data means that people living around areas where it’s used are not protected by those regulations. 

That distance matters because it falls largely outside what standard regulatory tools can fix. That is why both California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation and the EPA asked pesticide companies to monitor how far paraquat actually moves in the air away from the application site. 

Industry left California, rather than submit that data to DPR.

Regulators often use buffer zones to protect nearby workers and communities when they believe a risk is contained to a few hundred feet. Application timing restrictions are implemented when the danger is tied to specific conditions, like wind speed on the day of applying. But a vapor that can potentially travel multiple miles after application isn't something a buffer zone or a limited application schedule can reliably contain. 

There are no obvious restrictions that manage a risk of that magnitude for paraquat, which may be exactly why the companies were unable to successfully propose one. 

Paraquat health risks

Paraquat is one of a small number of chemicals with a clear link to Parkinson's disease. Chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing the disease by reducing the number of neurons in dopamine-producing parts of the brain. 

Exposure to the chemical is also linked to thyroid cancer, childhood leukemia, kidney cancer, lung damage and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 

More than 70 countries have already banned it, along with the state of Vermont.

The risk isn't abstract. In March, a truck spilled 60 gallons of paraquat on a highway in Dorris, a small town in Northern California, forcing roughly 600 residents, including students at a nearby elementary and high school, to shelter in place. Ten people were hospitalized.

The companies had every reason to address the problems and didn't.

Despite the risks, paraquat manufacturers had a straightforward business incentive to keep selling in California: it was their biggest U.S. customer base. Over the past 10 years, paraquat use peaked in the state at around 11 million pounds in 2018. It has since declined to roughly 370,000 pounds in the most recently available year of data (2023). 

That decline suggests farmers have effective alternatives. But that’s still a massive amount of paraquat. 

If mitigating these risks had been possible, proposing a plan would have cost far less than walking away from the nation’s biggest market entirely. 

The pesticide companies didn't contest DPR's initial concerns about potential health effects, nor did they  propose ways to mitigate the human safety risks. They simply left, and DPR canceled every paraquat product registered in the state, a step so rare in California that it almost never happens.

Why this matters regardless of your state’s regulatory tools 

Not every state has California’s regulatory authority to reevaluate and cancel a pesticide's registration. 

But what happened in the state makes one thing clear: when given the chance to demonstrate that paraquat's risks could be managed, the industry that profits most from paraquat could not do it. 

States like Michigan and Maine have utilized their pesticide regulatory authority to cancel the registration of dacthal and ban chlorpyrifos, respectively. 

Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, and several other states have restricted other high-risk pesticides through legislation, without needing California's specific reevaluation process. Other states have recently attempted to ban or restrict the use of paraquat through legislation. 

California's story strengthens the case for state action, regardless of the route a state must take. In the face of unknown exposure and health risks that cannot be controlled or mitigated, the only answer is to cancel paraquat. 

What you can do

• Contact your state lawmakers to urge them to ban paraquat 

• Contact your state's pesticide regulators and ask them to take action on paraquat

• Find and support farmers in your community who don’t use paraquat at your local farmers market

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Family Health Paraquat California The decision highlights safety risks that regulations can’t address Authors Emily Bryson, MPH September 21, 2026

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: Aspartame rcoleman September 17, 2026 Dayna de Montagnac, MPH Sydney Evans, MPH Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. Jump to: What is aspartame and why is it added to food? Where is aspartame found in foods? What is the regulatory status of aspartame? Are foods containing aspartame ultra-processed? Is aspartame allowed in organic foods? What are the potential health harms associated with aspartame? Uncertainties/where more research is needed Cited resources September 17, 2026 EWG’s recommendation

Aspartame is an ingredient of concern, and EWG suggests limiting consumption of foods containing this ingredient. 

Aspartame poses specific risks to vulnerable populations, such as individuals with phenylketonuria. 

While scientific consensus remains limited, some research in animals and humans has suggested associations between aspartame consumption and certain cancers. Oxidative stress, which aspartame can produce, has been proposed to play a role in carcinogenesis. Based on limited evidence, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies aspartame as Group 2B (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”). 

The World Health Organization (WHO) advised against using non-sugar sweeteners (like aspartame) for weight control. Their review concluded that long-term use does not help with reducing body fat in the long run and is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. 

Science analysis

What is aspartame and why is it added to food?

Aspartame is a low-calorie sweetener about 200 times sweeter than sugar. It is commonly used as a dietary sugar substitute.

Where is aspartame found in foods?

Aspartame is typically added to diet beverages, powdered drinks and sugar-free chewing gums. 

Aspartame is used in 919 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

The 15 food categories with the most products containing aspartame (by supermarket shelf): 

Image

Source: EWG’s Food Scores. Label created between 2023-01-01 and 2025-10-22.

What is the regulatory status of aspartame?

As of February 2026, the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, was re-evaluating the safety of the mixture aspartame and acesulfame, a sweetener commonly used with aspartame. In the last EFSA evaluation, in 2013, it concluded aspartame was not a safety concern at its acceptable daily intake, or ADI, of 40 mg/kg per body weight per day.

In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration requires food containing aspartame to state the additive is not for use as a sugar substitute in cooking or baking because it is not heat stable.  

The FDA also requires any food containing aspartame to have the label: “Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine.”

Are foods containing aspartame ultra-processed?

Aspartame and other synthetic sweeteners are common ingredients in ultra-processed foods, or UPF. As an industrially synthesized ingredient and artificial sweetener, it falls into the NOVA framework as a UPF ingredient (Monteiro et al., 2019). 

Under a recent California law defining UPF, food served in schools containing aspartame is considered UPF because of aspartame’s property as a non-nutritive sweetener and flavor enhancer (Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, 2025). 

Is aspartame allowed in organic foods?

Under Department of Agriculture organic standards, synthetic substances such as aspartame are prohibited in certified organic foods. 

What are the potential health harms associated with aspartame?

In 2023, the IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on limited evidence in humans of hepatocellular carcinoma, a type of liver cancer.

A 2026 meta-analysis found that dietary sources of each common non-nutritive sweetener (NNS), including aspartame, and total NNS were associated with higher risk of type 2 diabetes and that total NNS and certain types were associated with some cardiovascular disease outcomes (Wang et al. 2026). Using computer modeling, Yang et al. (2025) showed that aspartame can bind to key proteins in the body, potentially triggering the chronic inflammation and cell damage that could lead to heart disease. Zhang et al (2025) found that aspartame might worsen ischemic stroke by latching onto core targets in the body that control blood flow, clotting, and neuroinflammation. Using animal models, Wu et al (2025) found that aspartame can trigger an insulin spike that causes a specific protein to trap passing immune cells on blood vessel walls, accelerating the arterial plaque buildup that leads to heart disease.

A large population-based cohort study conducted in France found an association between cancer risk, specifically breast and obesity-related cancers, and aspartame and acesulfame-K (Debras et al 2022). Some studies have also observed carcinogenesis in animal models (Landrigan & Straif 2021). But comprehensive safety reviews did not find this link (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources 2014; National Toxicology Program, 2005). 

A 2025 systematic review of studies of human consumption of aspartame observed an increased incidence of clinical depression, high irritability and spatial orientation impairment at levels below the ADI (Fogel et al 2025). This review also found that those with preexisting neurocognitive deficits or metabolic disorders were more vulnerable to the neurocognitive effects of aspartame (Amin, Hassan & Rashed 2018; Ediga et al., 2023). 

Parallel rodent studies monitoring subchronic doses at or below the ADI reported alterations in brain function, such as changes in neurotransmitter activity (Onaolapo et al 2017), as well as decreases in learning and memory deficits (Iyaswamy et al., 2018). 

Aspartame breaks down in the body into phenylalanine, aspartic acid and trace amounts of methanol. The re-evaluation of aspartame by the EFSA, in 2013, determined that aspartame can pose risks to people with phenylketonuria (PKU), or high levels of phenylalanine in the blood. Therefore, the ADI does not apply to these individuals. 

Phenylalanine can become neurotoxic at elevated concentrations, such as those observed in those with PKU, where it competes with other large neutral amino acids for transport across the blood-brain barrier and may disrupt neurotransmitter precursor availability. Dar et al. (2024) proposed that aspartame-derived phenylalanine could contribute to altered neurotransmitter balance; however, whether this mechanism occurs at typical dietary exposure levels remains uncertain (Dar, 2024). 

Aspartic acid, a metabolite of aspartame, can overstimulate nerve cells at high concentrations (Dar, 2024).  Excessive stimulation of nerve receptors can contribute to neuronal injury, although the relevance of this mechanism to typical aspartame exposure is uncertain (Zhao & Danbolt, 2014). 

This mechanism may also affect microglia, or immune cells within the brain, which can contribute to inflammation. Neuroinflammation is associated with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease (Bonte et al., 2021).

An acute rodent study observed rats that were given a dose of aspartame 1.5 times higher than the allowable daily intake led to detectable levels of blood methanol for 24 hours and increased lipid peroxidation level in multiple brain regions (Ashok et al., 2015). Methanol breaks down further into other toxic byproducts, such as formate and formaldehyde, a probable carcinogen. 

One rodent study found alterations in the structure, growth and function of the placenta of pregnant mice that consumed aspartame (Huang et al., 2023).

Uncertainties/where more research is needed

Because of its flavor profile, aspartame is rarely used in isolation. In commercial products it is frequently paired with other non-nutritive sweeteners like acesulfame-K or sucralose (Basson et al., 2021). More high-quality human research is needed that accurately isolates the long-term health outcomes of independent aspartame exposure from these broader sweetener mixtures (Choudhary & Singh, 2025). Further study on multiple appetite-regulating hormones is also needed (Boxall et al 2025).

Findings in cancer studies remain inconsistent. While some rodent studies show dose-related increases in tumors, epidemiological studies in humans have yet to establish a definitive link (Shaher et al., 2023; Doueihy et al., 2025).

The exact mechanisms by which aspartame causes disease are still largely theoretical (Dar 2024). More empirical evidence in humans is needed to establish a causal link. 

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

• EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food (ANS). Scientific Opinion on the Re-Evaluation of Aspartame (E 951) as a Food Additive. EFSA J. 2013, 11, 3496.
• National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP Report on the Toxicology Studies of Aspartame in Genetically Modified Mice; Department of Health and Human Services: Research Triangle Park, N.C., USA, 2005.
• World Health Organization. (2023). Summary of findings of the evaluation of aspartame at the international agency for research on cancer (IARC) monographs programme’s 134th meeting, and the joint FAO/WHO Expert committee on food additives (JECFA) 96th meeting. Geneva: World Health Organization. 
• World Health Organization. (2023). Use of non-sugar sweeteners: WHO guideline. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073616 

Comprehensive reviews and frameworks

• Amin, S.N., Hassan, S.S., & Rashed, L.A. (2017). Effects of chronic aspartame consumption on MPTP-induced Parkinsonism in male and female mice. Archives of Physiology and Biochemistry, 124(4), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/13813455.2017.1396348. 
• Basson, A.R., Rodriguez-Palacios, A., & Cominelli, F. (2021). Artificial Sweeteners: History and New Concepts on Inflammation. Frontiers in Nutrition, 8, 746247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.746247. 
• Bonte, M., Idrissi, F. E., Gressier, B., Devos, D., & Belarbi, K. (2021). Protein network exploration prioritizes targets for modulating neuroinflammation in Parkinson’s disease. International Immunopharmacology, 95, 107526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107526. 
• Boxall, L.R., Eskandari, F., Wallis, J., Bielat, A.D., & Appleton, K. M. (2025). The Effects of aspartame on glucose, insulin, and Appetite-Regulating hormone responses in Humans: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. Advances in Nutrition, 16(7), 100449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100449. 
• Choudhary, A.K., & Singh, N. (2026). Neurotoxic and metabolic effects of chronic aspartame consumption in rodent models: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376516.2026.2662931. 
• Dar, W. (2024). Aspartame-induced cognitive dysfunction: Unveiling role of microglia-mediated neuroinflammation and molecular remediation. International Immunopharmacology, 135, 112295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2024.112295.
• Doueihy, N.E., Ghaleb, J., Kfoury, K., Khouzami, K.K., Nassif, N., Attieh, P., Ghadieh, H.E., Azar, S., Kanaan, A., & Harb, F. (2025). Aspartame and Human Health: A Mini-Review of Carcinogenic and Systemic Effects. Journal of Xenobiotics, 15(4), 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/jox15040114. 
• Fogel, M.N., Khalil, A., Khaled, S.F., Rodriguez, E.M., Payne, K.M., Blount, J.R., Petschke, M., Nizamuddin, R.A., Jeidel, F., Riven, V., & Petrosky, S. (2025). Aspartame and its potential neurocognitive effects in humans. Nutrition Reviews, 84(5), 1026-1038. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf103. 
• Monteiro, C.A., Cannon, G., Levy, R.B., Moubarac, J., Louzada, M.L., Rauber, F., Khandpur, N., Cediel, G., Neri, D., Martinez-Steele, E., Baraldi, L.G., & Jaime, P.C. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: What they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980018003762. 
• Nam, T. (2011). Lipid peroxidation and its toxicological implications. Toxicological Research, 27(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.5487/tr.2011.27.1.001. 
• Shaher, S. A.A., Mihailescu, D.F., & Amuzescu, B. (2023). Aspartame Safety as a Food Sweetener and Related Health Hazards. Nutrients, 15(16), 3627. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15163627.         
• Wang, M., Wu, O. Y., Wallen, O. G., & Mozaffarian, D. (2026). Artificial and other non-nutritive sweeteners, the microbiome, and cardiometabolic health. Current Atherosclerosis Reports. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-026-01429-9   
• Xiao L., Xian M., Zhang C., Guo Q. and Yi Q. (2024) Lipid peroxidation of immune cells in cancer. Front. Immunol. 14:1322746. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1322746 
• Zhou, Y., & Danbolt, N. C. (2014). Glutamate as a neurotransmitter in the healthy brain. Journal of Neural Transmission, 121(8), 799-817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-014-1180-8. 

Legislation

• 21 CFR 172.804 – Aspartame. (n.d.). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-172/subpart-I/section-172.804. 
• Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, Assemb. Bill 1264, Chapter 467 (Cal. 2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264. 

Health impact studies

• Ashok I, Sheeladevi R, Wankhar D. Acute effect of aspartame-induced oxidative stress in Wistar albino rat brain. J Biomed Res. 2015 Sep;29(5):390-6. doi: 10.7555/JBR.28.20120118. Epub 2014 Jan 12. PMID: 26445572; PMCID: PMC4585433. 
• Debras, C., Chazelas, E., Srour, B., Druesne-Pecollo, N., Esseddik, Y., De Edelenyi, F. S., Agaësse, C., De Sa, A., Lutchia, R., Gigandet, S., Huybrechts, I., Julia, C., Kesse-Guyot, E., Allès, B., Andreeva, V. A., Galan, P., Hercberg, S., Deschasaux-Tanguy, M., & Touvier, M. (2022). Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk: Results from the NutriNet-Santé population-based cohort study. PLoS Medicine, 19(3), e1003950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003950.
• Ediga, M. G., Annapureddy, S., Salikineedy, K., & Nimgampalle, M. (2023). Aspartame consumption causes cognitive impairment in streptozotocin-induced diabetic Wistar rats. Biologia, 78(9), 2393–2407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-023-01363-0.
• Huang, S. Y., Sun, R., Chen, Y. C., Kang, L., Wang, C. T., Chiu, C. F., & Wu, H. T. (2023). Aspartame consumption during pregnancy impairs placenta growth in mice through sweet taste receptor-reactive oxygen species-dependent pathway. The Journal of nutritional biochemistry, 113, 109228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutbio.2022.109228. 
• Iyaswamy, A., Kammella, A. K., Thavasimuthu, C., Wankupar, W., Dapkupar, W., Shanmugam, S., Rajan, R., & Rathinasamy, S. (2017). Oxidative stress evoked damages leading to attenuated memory and inhibition of NMDAR–CaMKII–ERK/CREB signalling on consumption of aspartame in rat model. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis, 26(2), 903–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2017.11.001. 
• Landrigan, P. J., & Straif, K. (2021). Aspartame and cancer - new evidence for causation. Environmental health : a global access science source, 20(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00725-y. 
• Onaolapo, A. Y., Onaolapo, O. J., & Nwoha, P. U. (2017). Aspartame and the hippocampus: Revealing a bi-directional, dose/time-dependent behavioural and morphological shift in mice. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 139, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2016.12.021.
• Wu, W., Sui, W., Chen, S., et al. (2025). Sweetener aspartame aggravates atherosclerosis through insulin-triggered inflammation. Cell Metabolism, 41(x). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2025.01.006 
• Yang, T., Luo, J. Z., Zhang, L., Li, H., & Wang, J. (2025). Aspartame and cardiovascular disease: Unraveling potential molecular mechanisms through integrative network toxicology, molecular docking, and dynamics simulation. Medicine, 104(47), e46012. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000046012 
• Zhang, T., Wang, T., Yu, K., Huang, C., & Bao, K. (2025). Aspartame and ischemic stroke: Unraveling the molecular link through network toxicology and molecular docking analysis. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 23871. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08898-z 

Betraying MAHA, Senate GOP farm bill would erase progress on regenerative agriculture Anthony Lacey September 17, 2026 Anne Schechinger, M.S. September 17, 2026 Overview

• Regenerative agriculture is part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda that top Trump administration officials often tout.
• Conservation funding for regenerative practices from one program decreased by over $400 million in 2025.
• House and Senate Republicans are trying to cut conservation funding in the farm bill, which would lead to even less money for regenerative agriculture.

Leaders in the Make America Healthy Again movement like to tout their support for regenerative agriculture as a way to cut farm pollution and pesticide use, among other benefits. 

But Senate Republicans’ farm bill includes drastic funding cuts that would stall progress made by farmers adopting regenerative agriculture practices, undermining MAHA’s goal.

The practices include cover crops and riparian buffers. These efforts can help decrease air pollution, including nitrous oxide emissions, and increase farm resilience and profitability, while also improving the environment. Although they need reform, these programs help reduce agriculture’s climate emissions and water pollution, add to farm resilience and improve food safety.

Considerable progress had been made in farmers adopting regenerative agriculture practices, thanks to increased funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA. But that progress had already started to slide backward when conservation funding for regenerative practices from just one program decreased by over $400 million between 2024 and 2025. 

The Senate bill would make a bad situation even worse. The bill cuts over $2 billion from two of the nation’s most widely used conservation programs – the Agriculture Department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, and the Conservation Stewardship Program, or CSP. The programs give farmers and ranchers incentives to implement conservation practices on their land, including regenerative practices.

Last year, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., leader of the MAHA movement, announced the administration’s MAHA plan, which laid out a clear vision for EQIP and CSP. The plan pointed to efforts aimed at “empowering farmers and keeping solutions voluntary by expanding programs like” the two conservation programs. 

Kennedy continues to highlight the benefits of regenerative agriculture and why these conservation programs are successful.

Instead, Senate Republicans’ farm bill joins the House counterpart in committing to cuts in funding for these programs – despite their growing popularity.

If the cuts became law, there would be considerably fewer regenerative practices on farms and fewer environmental and climate benefits – and thousands of farmers would be turned away from conservation funding. 

Progress is being undone

Much more funding went to farmers for regenerative practices in 2023 and 2024, thanks to the IRA. But that decreased substantially in 2025, during the Trump administration, and will continue to go down if the farm bill cuts are adopted. 

The 2022 IRA established almost $20 billion in new funding for farmers through multiple conservation programs. This conservation funding was required to go to farmers for regenerative agriculture. Because of the additional funding, total EQIP obligations to farmers went up, from $1.1 billion in 2022 to $1.5 billion in 2023, and then even higher, to $2.5 billion in 2024. 

Many of the climate-smart practices that farmers received IRA funding for in 2023 and 2024 were regenerative agriculture practices like cover crops, reduced or no tillage, and nutrient management. 

EWG has identified a list of 43 regenerative agriculture EQIP practices that lessen climate emissions from farming and help farmers become more resilient to extreme weather. 

In the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, congressional Republicans retained the extra conservation funding from the IRA, but removed the requirement that it be spent on regenerative practices. Now lawmakers are going back on this promise and attempting to cut conservation funding. 

EQIP obligations for regenerative practices on EWG’s list went up in 2023 and 2024 but then dropped in 2025. The USDA under the Trump administration designated significantly less total EQIP money in 2025 at $1.8 billion. 

Obligations for regenerative practices went from $415.9 million in 2022 to $546.0 million in 2023 then all the way to $1.18 billion in 2024, before decreasing to $773.6 million in 2025. That means regenerative funding fell over $400 million between 2024 and 2025. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. EQIP funding for regenerative practices went up in 2023 and 2024 before decreasing in 2025. 

Image

Source: EWG, from USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, Financial Assistance Program Data

Additionally, the number of regenerative practices that were among the top 10 that received the most money went up in 2023 and 2024 but down in 2025. Four of the top 10 practices were regenerative in 2023, while five were regenerative in 2024, and only four were regenerative in 2025. 

Farmers received more funding in 2023 than they did in 2022 for 29 of the regenerative practices on EWG’s list. Then in 2024, farmers received more money for 33 practices than they had in 2023. But that dropped in 2025 – farmers only collected more money for 16 of the practices in 2025 than in 2024, meaning that 60% of the regenerative practices lost money in 2025 compared to 2024. 

Funding for some of the regenerative practices declined steeply in 2025. Cover crops were the top paid EQIP practice every year from 2022 through 2025. But spending for cover crops went down by half, from $352.7 million in 2024 to $176.3 million in 2025. 

There were also three regenerative practices that didn’t get any funding at all in 2025: strip cropping, contour buffer strips, and herbaceous wind barriers. And four other practices got less than $100,000 each nationally: contour orchard and other perennial crops, filter strips, riparian herbaceous cover, and salinity and sodic soil management. 

As EWG has found, among all conservation practices, some of these unfunded and low-funded practices have the biggest potential for reducing climate emissions. 

The majority of states also lost money for regenerative EQIP practices in 2025. There were 54 states and territories that got payments for regenerative practices in 2025, but of those, 43 had less funding for regenerative practices in 2025 than in 2024. Only 11 states had more money in 2025 than in 2024. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2. The 10 states with the biggest losses in regenerative EQIP funding between 2024 and 2025.

Image

Source: EWG, from USDA, NRCS Financial Assistance Program Data

MAHA’s pilot program won’t have much of an impact

While the Trump administration claims to care about regenerative agriculture, this analysis shows that funding for regenerative practices actually went down during the first year of the administration. 

The administration’s only real action to support regenerative agriculture was establishing the Regenerative Pilot Program, or RPP. But the program prioritizes a small amount of conservation funding to regenerative practices, without providing any new funding for them. 

The RPP prioritizes EQIP and CSP funding for regenerative practices, with $400 million going to regenerative practices through EQIP and $300 million through CSP. However, RPP only includes 15 primary regenerative practices funded through EQIP, which is much fewer than the 43 practices on EWG’s regenerative list.  

And $400 million for regenerative practices may not actually change how any of the EQIP funding is spent. Over $400 million already went to farmers for these practices in previous years: $775.9 million for the 15 primary RPP practices in 2024, and $470.8 million for those practices in 2025. 

Assigning $400 million to a list of practices that were already receiving over $400 million a year means the program won’t increase funding for these practices at all. 

The House and Senate Republican farm bills even block the implementation of the RPP as it was designed by prohibiting funding from going to testing soil health or whole-farm planning. Farmers and ranchers looking to access the regenerative market would have to pay for their own testing, rather than get help from the federal government.

USDA conservation funding must be protected

When federal conservation programs have adequate funding, more farmers sign up and put the money toward the most environmentally beneficial and cost-effective regenerative agriculture practices. But the House and Senate Republican farm bill proposals would further reduce funding for the EQIP and CSP.

The Senate Republican farm bill, which recently passed out of the Agriculture Committee along party lines, would leave more than 56,500 valid farmer applications unfunded by EQIP over the next few fiscal years. Many of those unfunded applications would be for regenerative practices. 

The bill would undermine efforts to advance regenerative agriculture, running counter to the MAHA agenda.

The farm bill instead must maintain conservation funding, especially for regenerative practices. Farmers and ranchers have been promised this money – Congress shouldn’t take it away. 

Restoring funding for EQIP and CSP would not only reduce agriculture’s environmental and climate impact. It would also provide reliable support to tens of thousands of farmers and potentially reduce the costs of ad hoc disaster assistance and crop insurance payouts covered by American taxpayers. 

Big tobacco made Lunchables to hook kids on highly processed food Anthony Lacey September 16, 2026

Lunchables have been popular since the 1980s, giving kids a quick meal on the go. 

But most parents don’t know who had a hand in creating them and getting kids hooked: Big Tobacco. The make-your-own lunch kits were developed by Kraft General Foods, then owned by Philip Morris. And Philip Morris brought more than money to the table. 

The tobacco giant also brought the insight and strategies it had used to sell cigarettes, according to recent research. And it applied the marketing tools and formulation savvy it had developed over decades to making food more enticing.

Tobacco expands into the food industry

The tobacco industry consolidated in the 1980s through a series of strategic mergers and acquisitions of huge food companies. 

In 1985, Philip Morris purchased General Foods. Three years later, it acquired Kraft. And in 1989, the two companies were merged into Kraft General Foods. Around the same time, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company acquired Nabisco.

In a recent study in the American Journal of Public Health, previously undisclosed internal Philip Morris documents revealed the purpose of the company’s food acquisitions: to create new ways to profit in the food business using classic tobacco industry tactics.

Creating products with pleasure and appeal

According to researchers, Philip Morris focused on two specific ideas.

The first was prioritizing products for consumer pleasure and appeal. The company called this “consumer-driven product development.” 

To sell cigarettes, the company used consumer research to refine their taste, sensation and delivery – and make them so enjoyable people would want to buy them again and again. 

When it came to selling food, the brand’s product developers started by asking what consumers wanted most. Focus groups found that kids wanted “control over their lunch” and “permission to play with their food,” while busy parents wanted a “last-minute lunch” that was “better than junk food.” Lunchables checked all the boxes. 

Over time, new product lines like “Lunchables with Pizza” were engineered to maximize pleasure, novelty and overall appeal. 

Providing options for health-conscious consumers

Philip Morris’ second idea was what study authors described as a “better for you” strategy.

In 1964, cigarette sales dropped after the surgeon general linked smoking to lung cancer, chronic bronchitis and emphysema. 

In response, Philip Morris introduced filtered and lower-tar cigarettes. The goal was to regain public trust by providing a product that spoke to consumer concerns about health and made some cigarettes seem safer than they actually were.

The company later applied the same playbook to Lunchables. In 1995, the company introduced Low-Fat Lunchables and marketed them as a “healthier” choice to consumers who were concerned about childhood obesity. Parents who may have said no to regular Lunchables suddenly had fewer reasons to turn them down.

But making Low-Fat Lunchables wasn’t as simple as removing fat. To preserve the flavor kids expected, Philip Morris added artificial chemicals – and an “all natural” label to ease any concerns. 

The company also enlisted tobacco scientists with expertise in flavor and consumer research and used sophisticated brain-wave testing, called electroencephalography, to study how people responded to different foods. 

As one researcher put it, Philip Morris used “cigarette science” to design its foods. 

Same playbook, different industry

Eventually, Big Tobacco faced lawsuits and public scrutiny over the harms caused by cigarettes. But by then, researchers say, its product development and marketing strategies had already helped shape today’s ultra-processed food, or UPF, landscape.  

Today, evidence linking UPF to poor health continues to grow. Studies have linked diets high in these foods to conditions including Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer and even dementia. 

With UPF making up an estimated 73% of the food supply, they are not easy to avoid. And the food industry has only become more advanced in creating and marketing products with appeal. Research shows that some UPF even have addictive properties. 

This puts parents in a tough spot at the grocery store – especially when they’re tempted to reach for convenient options they know their kids will actually eat.

Policies are needed to protect public health

Public attitudes toward UPF have begun to shift, much as attitudes toward cigarettes did decades ago.

Yet the Food and Drug Administration continues to delay releasing its definition of UPF, due in part to industry pressure. A legal definition would open the door for policies like front-of-package labels or school nutrition standards that could help people eat healthier.

In the absence of federal action, states are stepping up.

Last year, California enacted a landmark law removing the most harmful UPF from school meals. Now a bill awaits the governor’s signature that would create a non-ultra-processed-certified seal to help shoppers spot less-processed foods at the grocery store.

What you can do now

Avoiding UPF altogether isn’t realistic for most people – the food industry has made sure of that. But it can help to understand what’s behind the marketing so you can make informed choices for your family.

Labels like “low-fat” or “all natural” don't always tell the full story. Check ingredient lists and nutrition facts, usually found on the back of food packages. Look for more whole foods and avoid longer lists of additives and chemicals you probably wouldn’t find in a home kitchen.

EWG’s Food Scores can help make that easier. The database lets you compare more than 150,000 foods and beverages using ratings based on nutrition, ingredient concerns and degree of processing. If you’re on the go, you can use EWG’s Healthy Living™ App.

Nicole Pajer is a freelance journalist.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Children’s Health Food Chemicals Guest Authors Nicole Pager (for EWG) September 17, 2026

EWG statement on EPA rollback of PFAS water permit discharge guidance Monica Amarelo September 16, 2026

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency has rescinded critical guidance that helped states use the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, to monitor and limit toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” discharges into wastewater.

The move undermines an important tool for preventing PFAS pollution from reaching the nation’s waterways, where it can persist for decades and become a costly, long-term contamination problem.

For wastewater treatment plants, industrial facilities and state permitting authorities, the change raises questions about whether and how PFAS monitoring and discharge limits will be maintained in NPDES permits.

The agency claims its rollback is an effort to address “confusion” and “inconsistent application” across states. But it creates a glaring contradiction in federal policy: If the EPA continues to defend PFAS monitoring requirements in individual permits, including in a recent settlement involving a Massachusetts wastewater treatment plant, why is it withdrawing guidance that helped states implement those protections?

That question matters because PFAS are exceptionally persistent and difficult to remove once they enter the environment. PFAS have been linked to kidney, liver, pancreatic and testicular cancers; as well as immune system suppression, thyroid disease, reduced vaccine efficacy, reproductive and developmental harm, low birth weight, increased cholesterol, weight gain in children and dieting adults, and a growing list of serious health effects.

Preventing these chemicals from entering waterways in the first place is critical to reducing exposure and avoiding the long-term costs of contamination and cleanup.

The following is a statement from Melanie Benesh, Environmental Working Group vice president for government affairs.

Let’s call this what it is: The EPA is doing corporate polluters’ dirty work at the expense of public health.

The EPA has abandoned its mission, choosing to protect industrial polluters rather than the families forced to drink companies’ toxic runoff.

By stripping away Clean Water Act guidance for PFAS discharges, the agency is deliberately blinding state regulators and giving chemical manufacturers permission to pollute without fear of oversight. The EPA is actively tearing down the guardrails that keep PFAS out of our drinking water.

Hiding behind bureaucratic excuses about “process” and “confusion” is insultingly weak. If the EPA was genuinely concerned about procedure, they would finalize binding, enforceable standards today, not erase the only thin line of defense that communities have left.

Families living downstream don’t get a polite administrative memo when cancer-causing chemicals poison their drinking water. They just get the contamination, the medical bills and decades of forever chemicals in their blood.

At a moment when the science on PFAS harm has never been clearer, the EPA is signaling loud and clear to industry that corporate convenience matters more than clean water.

That’s not regulatory housekeeping. That’s putting industry profits over public health.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Water Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy PFAS Chemicals Agency removes critical tool for limiting ‘forever chemicals’ pollution Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 September 16, 2026

EWG opposes rewrite of proposed ASTM standard that could still classify hazardous amphibole particles as non-asbestos Anthony Lacey September 15, 2026 Attached are EWG’s comments to ASTM International opposing a second proposed standard for classifying elongate amphibole particles. EWG remains concerned that the method’s binary classifications may obscure health-relevant particle characteristics, exclude particles counted by established methods and produce results inconsistent with existing asbestos-counting approaches. File Download Document astm-comments2.pdf Areas of Focus Asbestos Authors Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. September 10, 2026

EWG statement on UN confirming PFAS contamination is a global human rights crisis Monica Amarelo September 14, 2026

WASHINGTON – The United Nations Human Rights Council today presented a landmark report saying the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS are found in the blood of nearly every person on the planet, posing health threats that justify phasing out non-essential uses of PFAS.

The report, presented at the council’s ongoing 63rd session, in Geneva, also calls for a legally binding global strategy to ultimately stop using the entire chemical class of PFAS. It also says governments should adopt stronger domestic protections and advocates for urgent medical monitoring and remedies for frontline communities living in “PFAS sacrifice zones.” 

The report is unambiguous that PFAS contamination prevention, not cleanup, has to be the goal.

The Environmental Working Group stands with North Carolina’s Clean Cape Fear, the National PFAS Contamination Coalition, and communities across the U.S. and around the world in urging governments to act on the report’s findings without delay.

But rather than strengthening protections, the Environmental Protection Agency is rolling back drinking water limits for several PFAS. At the same time, the agency is fast-tracking approval of new PFAS pesticides, with the current administration greenlighting five in less than two years. That’s despite EPA data showing serious, unresolved questions about the pesticides’ health and environmental risks.

The following is a statement from Melanie Benesh, EWG’s vice president for government affairs:

The United Nations report confirms what frontline advocates and scientists have known for decades: Toxic PFAS contamination is a global human rights crisis.

PFAS are everywhere, because that’s exactly how the industry designed them. These forever chemicals were engineered never to break down, and they spread across water, soil, food and the bodies of virtually every person alive today.

The science on the harm they cause is clear: PFAS have been linked to kidney, liver, pancreatic and testicular cancers; as well as immune system suppression, thyroid disease, reduced vaccine efficacy, reproductive and developmental harm, low birth weight, increased cholesterol, weight gain in children and dieting adults, and a growing list of serious health effects.

PFAS pollution crosses borders. For decades, U.S. regulators have let industry set the pace on PFAS. Communities pay the price, like in North Carolina, where Emily Donovan’s group Clean Cape Fear is leading the fight to make polluters pay.

The United States helped create this crisis. It has a responsibility to help end it.

The world cannot filter its way out of the forever chemicals crisis. Drinking water treatment helps, but it puts the burden of a problem industry created onto the communities and utilities left to clean it up. 

Real accountability means stopping non-essential PFAS production at the source. That requires the international community to finally treat this chemical class the way the evidence has demanded for years: as a single, urgent problem, not a chemical-by-chemical negotiation industry can slow-walk for another generation.

The world’s governments now have a UN report telling them exactly what needs to happen. The only question left is whether they’ll act on it. We must stop making the problem worse and ensure that polluters – not contaminated communities – pay for the damage.

### 

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Water Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy PFAS Chemicals North Carolina New report says ‘forever chemicals’ in almost everyone’s blood, calls to phase out PFAS uses Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 September 14, 2026

It’s all food safety delays at the FDA JR Culpepper September 11, 2026

The Food and Drug Administration has delayed a long list of food chemicals and food safety actions, both promised and legally required. In some cases, these actions have been overdue for more than 30 years.

The chemicals the FDA has ignored have been linked to serious health harms, including cancer and hormone disruption.

The FDA’s record speaks for itself. 

Where the federal government is failing, states are stepping in to protect public health. Some chemicals with long overdue pending actions, including butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA, and potassium bromate, have already been banned by individual states – which have a far better track record than the FDA when it comes to food chemicals. 

But a draft bill newly proposed in Congress, the FRESH and Affordable Foods Act, could cancel those state laws.

To shine a light on these failures, EWG created a report card showing the cases in which the FDA has missed its own deadlines for oversight of serious food safety issues. 

+ CLOSED -> + TO ADD A ROW: copy one ... block and change the text. ===================================================================== --> .dn { display: none !important; } .flipped-vert { transform: rotateX(180deg); } .table-wrapper { margin-bottom: 10px; } .table-cat { border-bottom: 1px solid #000; border-top: 1px solid #000; cursor: pointer; display: flex; font-family: niveau-grotesk, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; justify-content: space-between; padding: 20px 0; } .toggle-wrapper { align-items: center; display: flex; } .toggle { width: 20px; } .table-wrapper table { display: table; width: 100%; } table thead tr { border-top: none; border-bottom: 1px solid #565450; } th, td { text-align: left; vertical-align: top; } .row-title { line-height: 1.4; max-width: 444px; } .row-desc { color: #565450; line-height: 1.4; margin-top: 8px; max-width: 444px; } Regulations and guidance ActionKey dates and deadlinesStatusFinalize industry guidance on arsenic in apple juiceProvide information to manufacturers on the action level for inorganic arsenic in apple juice that the FDA considers protective of human health and achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices.The FDA proposed draft guidance in 2013.

In 2018, the FDA announced that a draft level would be finalized by year end. The FDA finalized the guidance in 2023.Finalized after a five-year delay.Finalize produce safety ruleEstablish science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing and storage of fruits and vegetables grown for human consumption.The Food Safety Modernization Act was signed into law in 2011.

The FDA originally proposed a produce safety rule in 2013. The proposed rule was modified in 2014.

The final rule was issued in 2015, and a revised final rule addressing contamination from agricultural water was proposed in 2022. The revised rule was finalized in 2024.Finalized after delay.Petitions ActionKey dates and deadlinesStatusRespond to carcinogenic flavors food additive petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2016.

In 2018 it granted the petition after the organizations involved, including EWG and others, filed a lawsuit.Approved after a two-year delay.Respond to butylated hydroxyanisole food and color additive petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 1990.Delayed more than 36 years. BHA is under post-market review. The FDA issued a request for information in February but the petition is still pending.Respond to potassium bromate citizen petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2000.Delayed more than 26 years.Respond to caramel coloring citizen petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2011.Delayed more than 15 years.Respond to bioaccumulating PFAS in food contact materials citizen petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2021.Delayed more than five years.Respond to bisphenol A food additive petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2022.Delayed more than four years.Respond to titanium dioxide color additive petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2024.Delayed more than three years.Respond to fluorinated polyethylene petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2025.Delayed more than one year.Respond to lead in baby food petition for reconsiderationThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2025.Delayed more than a year.Respond to lead as a food additive petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2020.Delayed nearly six years.Respond to carcinogenic solvents petitionThe deadline for the FDA to respond to the petition was in 2024.Delayed nearly two years. document.querySelectorAll('.table-cat').forEach(item => { var toggle = item.querySelector('.toggle'); item.addEventListener('click', event => { toggle.classList.toggle('flipped-vert'); item.nextElementSibling.classList.toggle('dn'); }); }); Authors Iris Myers September 14, 2026

Hilary Swank letter urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign diaper ingredients disclosure bill Anthony Lacey September 11, 2026

Attached is actor and children’s health advocate Hilary Swank’s letter urging California Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign AB 1901, a diaper ingredients disclosure bill.

File Download Document hilary-swank-letter-to-gov-newsom-ab-1901.pdf Areas of Focus Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals California Guest Authors Hilary Swank September 11, 2026

Safer choices: What to know about eyelash serums JR Culpepper September 8, 2026

.has--background.block-content--type-curated-block-list { padding-top: 3rem; padding-bottom: 3rem; }

Growing demand for the  “clean girl aesthetic” and lightweight, minimalist makeup, has influencers and everyday buyers reaching for eyelash serums.

These lash serums range from prescription, prostaglandin-based medications that grow your lashes to cosmetics with hydrating ingredients that may give your lashes a fuller look.

All that goodness can come with a cost, though: potential exposure to toxic chemicals that could lurk in some products, making it tougher than usual to choose which is best for you.

EWG has done the work for you by finding safer lash serum alternatives that avoid harmful ingredients.

Prostaglandin-based eyelash serums

Prostaglandins are lipids that, similar to hormones, can act like messengers to manage your body’s everyday processes. They are sometimes referred to as “hormone like” chemicals. Some eyelash serums use these chemicals to lengthen lashes’ growth phase. 

One Food and Drug Administration–approved medication for eyelash growth, bimatoprost,  is a prostaglandin derivative. It was originally studied for lowering eye pressure. But scientists noticed patients using the eyedrops were growing longer, thicker eyelashes. After more tests, the FDA approved bimatoprost as an eyelash growth serum, in 2008.

Today you can find cosmetic serums with prostaglandin-like chemicals that are not FDA-approved. These blur the line between drugs and cosmetics because, although sold as personal care products, they may have drug-like effects. 

Eyelids are more sensitive than other parts of your skin, so they’re easily irritated.

Prostaglandin-like chemicals have many adverse side effects, such as darkening of your iris or eyelid, eye irritation and fat loss around your eyes. 

To avoid these ingredients in cosmetics, check lash serum labels for ingredients that end in “-prost” or “-prostone.” If you struggle with lash growth and are looking for clinical results, consult your dermatologist about FDA-approved options before reaching for prostaglandin-based cosmetic products.

Non-prostaglandin eyelash serums

Lash conditioning serums without prostaglandin can also help make lashes look fuller without hormone–like ingredients, though they do not generally grow your lashes. 

Eyelash conditioning serums and even some types of mascara use moisturizing ingredients, vitamins and more to promote lash health. 

Emollients like castor oil are low hazard and can help hydrate or condition lashes. Amino acids like glutamic acid or alanine are also low-hazard serum ingredients that may help strengthen and protect lash structure. 

Still, the eye and the surrounding area are sensitive, so EWG recommends trying a product on a different part of skin first, then applying it only to your lashes. Always avoid getting products in your eye.

We’ve curated a list of EWG Verified® and low-hazard lash serums rated a 1 or 2 – meaning low hazard –  in Skin Deep®, EWG’s free, searchable database of personal care products. Products that bear the EWG Verified® have been evaluated by our scientists and meet our strictest standards of safety and transparency. 

You can find these products in store or online on sites such as Amazon, CVS and Walmart. Scan products for details on the go with our Healthy Living™ app.

EWG Verified® Kleem Organics Eyelash & Eyebrow Enhancing Serum

Available for $29.99.

PURCHASE HERE

View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Mascara + Serum

Available for $27.99 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Cliganic Castor Oil

Available at Target, Walmart and on Amazon for $18.89 .

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details FLORISAN Organic Castor Oil

Available for $27.99 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Cimouy Organic Castor Oil

Available on Amazon for $22.98.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details DIME Eyelash Boost Serum Rating

Available on Amazon for $48.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Rated 1 in Skin Deep Essynaturals Eyelash & Brow Enhancing Serum

Available for $18.95 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Sea-el Skincare, Castor Lash & Brow Serum

Available for $17.49 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Rated 2 in Skin Deep Milani Highly Rated Lash & Brow Serum

Available for $12.99 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Neutrogena Lash + Brow Enhancer Serum

Available at Walmart and on Amazon for $12.97.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Grande Cosmetics GrandeDRAMA Intense Thickening Mascara, Black

Available for $25.99 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Guest Authors Chimdi Ikpe, Science intern September 9, 2026

5 healthier school lunches you can pack in minutes Anthony Lacey September 8, 2026

Food companies sell a lot of pre-packaged lunches wrapped in bright colors, new flavors or other ways to get kids’ attention. In fact, the company behind Lunchables used some of the same research and marketing strategies that boosted tobacco companies’ sales of cigarettes.

The food companies’ goal is keeping kids hooked on their products – not keeping them healthy.

While they’re appealing to parents stretched for time, these pre-packaged lunches are often highly processed. They can contain dozens of ingredients, including food chemicals with potential health harms, and don’t necessarily provide the nutrition kids need.

The good news: You don’t need much extra time in your morning routine to pack something better.

What does a less-processed school lunch actually look like?

Here are five less-processed lunches that you or your kids can build in minutes. 

Image

Crackers and cheese (2 minutes)

• Whole grain crackers like Triscuits
• Cheese
• Roasted seeds (sunflower, pumpkin)
• Clementine
• Cucumber

Image

Hummus and pita (2 minutes)

• Hummus
• Whole grain pita
• Cheese
• Carrots
• Apple

Image

Peanut butter pita (3 minutes)

• Whole grain pita
• Nut butter (sunflower, peanut*)
• Banana
• Popcorn
• Cucumber

* Make sure to check your school’s nut policy.

Image

Tuna plate (4 minutes)

• Whole grain cracker such as Triscuits
• Canned tuna
• Cheese
• Carrots
• Applesauce

Image

Chips and salsa (4 minutes)

• Whole grain chips
• Salsa
• Black beans
• Cheese
• Pear

These combinations are all flexible. Swap in whatever fruits, vegetables or sides – like popcorn, nuts or seeds – you already have on hand. Add a dip or sauce if that encourages your kid to eat healthier food.

And remember that not every single meal has to be perfectly balanced. What matters most is what your kid eats over the course of the day or week, not a single lunchbox.

Other ideas to try

Beans can be a major value-add. They’re affordable, high in protein and fiber, and ready to use straight from the can. Add some chickpeas to a hummus and pita plate, or black beans to chips and salsa, for a nutrition boost.

If your kid likes leftovers, you can also keep things simple and cook one batch of whole grain pasta or rice for the week. Add your choice of vegetables and protein – like cherry tomatoes and cheese cubes in a pasta salad, or frozen edamame in brown rice – to make it a meal. This is also a great place to add some chicken or other meat from last night’s dinner.

If lunch doesn’t feel complete without something sweet, a piece of dried fruit or a handful of chocolate chips makes an affordable treat with far fewer additives than most packaged candy or fruit snacks.

When in doubt, check EWG’s Food Scores for more information on food ingredients, processing and nutrition. Use EWG’s Healthy Living™ app to scan products right on grocery store shelves.

A few foods worth skipping – try these instead

Here are some old favorites that don’t stack up when it comes to nutrition – and what to consider as alternatives.

Processed meat. There’s a reason deli sandwiches didn’t make the cut for less-processed lunches. Despite their popularity, particularly for lunches, processed deli meats like turkey, ham, salami and roast beef have been strongly linked to cancer. 

Cheese, beans, hard boiled eggs, plain yogurt, nuts and seeds all deliver protein without that potential health risk.

Enriched bread. Many kids and adults alike eat a lot of bread, crackers and snacks made with enriched flour, which don’t offer much in the way of real nutrition. It can be hard to find a whole-grain bread without all the additives, despite how many options seem to be available. 

Whole grain pitas and woven wheat crackers tend to be easier to track down and contain some healthy fiber.

Less-processed pantry staples

Keeping a few of these foods on hand can help you pack school lunches and snacks in a pinch.

Produce

• Apples
• Bananas
• Carrots
• Cucumbers
• Pears

Dairy, eggs and refrigerated

• Cheese. Avoid orange powders, sprays and spreads; sticks and bricks are better choices
• Eggs. Use EWG’s meat and dairy label decoder to see what the certifications actually mean
• Hummus. Look for these five ingredients – chickpeas, tahini, salt, oil and lemon juice – plus seasonings like garlic.
• Yogurt. Choose yogurt free of added colors, flavors and sweeteners (including added sugar and artificial sweeteners)

Canned goods

• Black beans. The label should list beans only, or can include some salt
• Chickpeas. The label should say chickpeas (or garbanzo beans) only, and may include some salt
• Salsa. Look for just vegetables, herbs and spices you might use at home

Snacks and pantry

• Applesauce. Skip any added colors, flavors, and sweeteners (including added sugar and artificial sweeteners)
• Chocolate chips. For a sweet treat, look for cocoa butter and five or fewer ingredients total
• Dried fruit. For a sweet treat, stick to just the fruit without added sugar
• Nut butter. Just nuts or seeds with salt – avoid added sugar and hydrogenated oils
• Popcorn. A short ingredient list is the goal: popcorn, and maybe a little oil and salt
• Roasted nuts or seeds. Nuts or seeds and a little salt is all you need
• Whole grain crackers. Look for woven wheat: whole grains and salt, nothing more
• Whole grain chips. Like whole grain corn with some oil and salt, the shorter the ingredient list, the better

Breads and bakery

• Whole grain pita. Look for whole grains and five or fewer ingredients total

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Women's Health Children’s Health Food Chemicals Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN September 8, 2026

Most fast food chains have concerning chemicals on the menu Iris Myers September 3, 2026

When you’re trying to decide what to get at your favorite fast food spot, it can be hard to know exactly what you’re eating – including whether it’s made with potentially harmful ingredients. 

That’s because restaurants aren’t required to make their ingredients public. And due to a decades-long legal loophole called “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, many of the chemicals used in our food haven’t actually been reviewed for health or safety. Food companies, not the Food and Drug Administration, are deciding what’s safe to put in what you eat.

We took a closer look at menus from 12 of the top fast food chains in the U.S. to find out which were still using food chemicals with potential health and safety risks:

• Arby’s
• Burger King
• Chick-fil-A
• Chipotle
• Domino’s
• KFC
• McDonald’s
• Panera
• Pizza Hut
• Subway
• Taco Bell
• Wendy’s

Beyond the ingredient lists, our findings reveal a bigger picture: U.S. food policies are falling short of helping people eat healthy.

Food chemicals appear on most fast food menus

We looked at how many popular chains used chemicals from EWG’s Dirty Dozen™ Guide to Food Chemicals. This guide spotlights some of the top food chemicals that experts recommend avoiding because of their potential health harms.

Because fast food chains don’t have to make ingredient lists public, EWG’s review of menu items was limited to the most recent information available online. It isn’t a comprehensive look at all fast food, but it does reveal some clues about how chemicals of concern are used in the places we eat.

At least one Dirty Dozen chemical appeared on almost every menu we reviewed, with the exception of Chipotle. 

Subway and Panera also appeared to use fewer chemicals of concern in their food, while McDonald’s used most of EWG’s top chemicals of concern somewhere on its menu.

Artificial dyes and other common additives

The most common additive on fast food menus was artificial dyes, which appeared on all menus except for Chipotle’s and Subway’s. Dyes were mostly used in artificially flavored beverages like sodas, lemonade and milkshakes, though not every chain posted drink ingredients.

Sodium nitrite, a meat preservative linked to cancer, appeared on more than half of the menus reviewed. Used in processed meats like sausage, ham and pepperoni, sodium nitrite was frequently found in foods from Pizza Hut, Subway, Domino's, McDonald’s and Wendy’s. 

Titanium dioxide, an additive European regulators say is no longer safe in food, was listed in about half of the menus – mostly in dressings. It also appeared in Taco Bell’s vanilla creamer, which is used in  some of its dirty sodas, Refrescas and coffee drinks.

Artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose showed up often in “zero sugar” beverages.

TBHQ, a preservative with potential toxicity, was used at pizza chains like Domino’s and Pizza Hut. Most Pizza Hut crusts were made with TBHQ, as were its chicken wings and breadsticks.

What should families in a fast food world eat?

It’s not practical to expect people to become experts on every food chemical. That’s why EWG advocates for policies that make healthy eating easier for everyone.

The FDA recently proposed to narrow the GRAS loophole, but far more is needed to make sure the food supply is safe.

In the meantime, you can scan nutrition facts and ingredient lists when they’re available, and try to avoid long lists of ingredients you wouldn’t find in your home kitchen.

If you’re grocery shopping, check EWG's Food Scores, which rates more than 150,000 products on nutrition, ingredients and processing and flags ultra-processed foods for you. Shoppers on the go can also use EWG’s Healthy Living app.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN Guest Authors Adam Levin, EWG communications intern September 3, 2026

Adding folic acid to food can save newborn babies. A misleading food 'safety' bill could block that Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026

• The “FRESH” Act would block states from regulating chemicals in food or requiring folic acid fortification, proven to reduce birth defects
• The food industry group Americans for Ingredient Transparency is pushing the bill that could gut states’ food safety authority
• Congress should reject the FRESH Act. EWG is rallying against it in Washington, D.C., on September 15 with partners and supporters.

Food companies are pushing a bill in Congress, the FRESH Act, as a food safety measure. It isn’t.

The bill, if enacted, would block state laws regulating chemicals in food, known as preemption. And its preemption provisions are so broad it could harm public health far beyond the chemicals the measure would allow in food, according to a new Harvard Law School analysis. 

The FRESH Act would make the Food and Drug Administration the sole regulator of food additives, stripping states of the authority to pass or enforce their own food chemical laws. 

In practice, Harvard’s analysis finds the bill’s preemption language covers almost anything that could become a “component” of food. That means the FRESH Act’s threats to the food supply are twofold: It would erase state bans on harmful food chemicals – and might roll back a range of other public health protections with it.

One consequence of the bill would be blocking state laws that require folic acid to be added to certain foods – a practice the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called one of the greatest public health achievements in recent decades.

Benefits of folic acid fortification

The addition of folic acid to food – also known as folic acid fortification – is a public health measure designed to prevent neural tube defects in infants. Conditions like spina bifida can develop in the first weeks of pregnancy, often before someone even knows they’re pregnant.

The U.S. has required folic acid fortification in enriched grain products like bread and cereal since 1998. This policy may have helped to reduce the rate of neural tube defects by between 25% and 50%.

Many Latino communities benefit less from the federal fortification mandate, because they eat more tortillas and tamales – foods not captured in national fortification requirements. So some states, including Alabama and California, have extended that mandate to include corn masa flour. Florida introduced a similar bill to address health disparities, though it failed in committee.

The FRESH Act would wipe away those existing state laws and prevent any other state from pursuing future similar measures. 

Harvard’s analysis warns that the FRESH Act’s preemption language is broad enough to block new folic acid fortification laws from ever taking effect, and to erase the ones already on the books in Alabama and California.

Despite its industry backers calling the bill a way to ensure consistent food safety nationwide, it could also frustrate other public health measures. For example, it would likely block state allergen labeling requirements and lead and arsenic limits in baby food.

Stopping state food chemical laws

A group called Americans for Ingredient Transparency, which is backed by major multinational food corporations, is pushing the bill.

Their goal is simple: make the FDA the only regulator that matters when it comes to food additives, effectively shutting state efforts down.

But the FDA’s system for evaluating food chemical safety is effectively broken.

Under current law, food companies can add chemicals to food through a provision called GRAS, or “generally recognized as safe.” It is a regulatory loophole that has allowed thousands of chemicals into our food supply – some of which the chemical companies never even notified the FDA about. 

And a recent GRAS “reform” proposal from the FDA fails to fix the broken system. Although it would require companies to tell the FDA about new chemicals, it sets no deadlines for notification, allows companies to use new chemicals before the FDA has reviewed them, and fails to guarantee those chemicals are safe. 

It also permits existing GRAS chemicals to stay on the market without submitting any safety data to the FDA. 

The absence of federal leadership on food safety prompted many states to step up. In many cases, states are the sole line of defense against food chemicals that may harm our health. In 2025 alone, more than 30 states introduced nearly 120 bills addressing food chemical safety.

What needs to change – and what you can do now

Congress should reject the FRESH Act – and in the meantime, states should continue passing and defending their own food safety laws.

Join EWG in Washington, D.C., on September 15 for our Toxics Off the Table! rally to fight the FRESH Act and protect state food safety laws. Visit our website for more information.

Until there are enough policies in place to protect public health, EWG’s tools can help you navigate the food supply.

EWG’s Dirty Dozen™ Guide to Food Chemicals breaks down the most concerning additives currently allowed in our food. 

And our Food Scores database lets you search for more than 150,000 products rated on nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns. Use EWG’s Healthy Living™ App on the go.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Food Chemicals Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN September 2, 2026

EWG letter objecting to the EPA's chlormequat tolerances Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026

Attached are EWG’s objections to the Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule setting chlormequat tolerances. EWG urges the agency to retain the tenfold children’s safety factor required by law.

File Download Document ewg-objections_to_chlormequat_tolerances_epa-ha-opp-2021-0290.pdf Areas of Focus Pesticides Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. August 31, 2026

EWG comments on EPA's proposed sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments to the Environmental Protection Agency on its proposed sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.

File Download Document ewg_ucmr6comments.pdf Areas of Focus Water Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Authors Varun Subramaniam, M.S. Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. David Andrews, Ph.D. August 31, 2026

Agriculture’s climate emissions are rising but fully funding conservation can slow them Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026 Anne Schechinger, M.S. September 2, 2026 Overview

• Agriculture produces around 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the sector’s emissions are rising.
• Under current policies, that 10% could jump to between 18% and 41% by 2050.
• The next farm bill should prioritize and fully fund regenerative agriculture practices to stop the sector from becoming the largest source of emissions.

Agriculture could become the nation’s leading producer of greenhouse gases by 2050.

Most other sectors of the economy, especially transportation and electricity, are expected to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions dramatically in the coming decades. That decline is mostly due to voluntary industry efforts and changing technology.

Agriculture’s climate pollution is driven overwhelmingly by nitrous oxide and methane. Nitrous oxide accounts for 52% of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, while methane accounts for another 46%. And the sector’s emissions keep rising – they’re projected to go up a quarter of a percent every year through mid-century.

That should be a wake-up call for Congress. 

Agricultural conservation practices – like riparian forest buffers, tree establishment, diversified crop rotations and nutrient management – can help reduce climate emissions or store carbon, so agriculture doesn’t become the biggest source of emissions. 

These practices also have other benefits, such as reducing air pollution and protecting waterways. 

But the billions of dollars both the House and Senate farm bills propose to cut from federal conservation programs would make it harder for farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Congress, through the farm bill, should maintain conservation program funding, and prioritize the money for regenerative practices, instead of continuing to send so much money to structural practices that bring little, if any, climate emissions reductions. 

Agriculture’s growing share of emissions

Agriculture is responsible for at least 10% of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. When combined with emissions from fertilizer production, the sector’s share is even higher.

Climate models show that if the sector’s emissions increase slightly while emissions from other sectors fall, as projected, agriculture’s share of U.S. emissions will grow.

Agriculture ranks fourth among U.S. economic sectors for greenhouse gas emissions, behind transportation, industry and electricity and ahead of buildings and “other” sources.

But that ranking is unlikely to last.

Under policies in place today, agriculture’s share of emissions is expected to almost double by 2050, from 10% to 18%. Agriculture would move up to being the third largest greenhouse-gas-producing sector, after industry and transportation.

But the U.S. has previously made international climate commitments, including through the Paris Agreement, that have led to federal rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gases from most other sectors, including industry and transportation. 

Even though the Trump administration – in both the first and second terms – withdrew from the Paris climate pact, the industry and transportation sectors are still rapidly reducing their emissions.

There are no broad federal greenhouse gas rules in place to force cuts in agriculture’s emissions. As industry, transportation and other sectors lower their overall emissions, agriculture’s share rises – unless the sector also acts to cut emissions. 

Under the scenario in which the U.S. reduces total emissions to levels agreed on in the Paris Agreement, the agriculture sector would make up 41% of total U.S. emissions in 2050. In this scenario, agriculture would be the economic sector producing the most greenhouse gas emissions, because the other sectors would severely cut their emissions. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. U.S. emissions by economic sector in 2026, and predicted emissions in 2050 under two scenarios

Image

Source: EWG, using data from Energy Innovation’s Energy Policy Simulator.

Agriculture must reduce its emissions to avoid becoming the No. 1 source of U.S. climate emissions. (See Figure 2.) Scientists warn that if emissions from agriculture don’t go down, the worst impacts of the climate crisis will be inescapable.

Figure 2. If the U.S. follows its international commitments in other sectors, agriculture could top 40% of emissions by 2050

Image

Source: EWG, using data from Energy Innovation’s Energy Policy Simulator.

Nitrous oxide and methane are agriculture’s main climate emissions

Agricultural soil management is the main driver of the sector’s nitrous oxide emissions, particularly the widespread use of fertilizer on crops like corn. Microbes in soil turn nitrogen from fertilizer and manure into nitrous oxide.

Even though nitrous oxide makes up a small share of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, it is a potent greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for over 100 years and has a global warming potential 273 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Global nitrous oxide emissions grew by 40% between 1980 and 2020, and they are expected to increase another 30% between 2020 and 2050. Corn production makes up over half of all nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture.

Nitrous oxide does not just contribute to climate change; it also depletes the ozone layer. And ammonia nitrous oxides can form with other compounds to create particulate matter, with exposure leading to premature deaths. 

Methane makes up the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. agriculture. Most agricultural methane emissions come from livestock. Enteric fermentation from beef and dairy cattle – their natural digestion process – accounts for about 25% of total U.S. methane emissions. 

Manure management also contributes to both methane and nitrous oxide emissions, making up 9% of total U.S. methane emissions and 4% of total nitrous oxide emissions. 

Methane does not stay in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide, but it has a global warming potential 28 times that of carbon dioxide over 100 years. 

Regenerative agriculture practices can reduce emissions

Conservation practices implemented on farm fields can help to lower agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.

A 2022 report from the Boston Consulting Group and the Walton Family Foundation found that practice changes could slash greenhouse gas emissions from farming by almost 22%. 

The report showed emissions could go down as a result of changes in fertilizer applications, tillage practices, grazing management, the use of cover crops, livestock feed additives, soil amendments and the targeted use of trees, among other practices. 

EWG found in a 2025 analysis that many conservation practices can reduce farming’s greenhouse gas emissions. Even if they are adopted on only a small number of acres, they can have a big climate impact. 

The conservation practices applied to Midwest corn acres that would most lower climate emissions are riparian forest buffers, tree or shrub establishment, hedgerow planting and windbreak establishment.

Other practices, including no-tillage, cover crops, and diversifying crops so there is a conservation crop rotation, would also reduce climate emissions. 

But federal conservation program funding needs to be prioritized for practices that help farmers reduce climate emissions and adapt to extreme weather conditions tied to intensifying climate change. 

EWG has identified a list of regenerative agriculture practices that decrease a farm’s greenhouse gas emissions and increase climate resilience. 

Farmers can receive funding to implement these regenerative practices from the Agriculture Department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, one of the largest federal conservation programs. 

But EQIP spending must be reformed. In 2025, only $660.9 million from EQIP, or 39% of all payments from the program, went to farmers for practices on EWG’s regenerative practice list. Only four of the top 10 paid practices were regenerative: cover crops, brush management, forest stand improvement, and pasture and hay planting. 

Prioritizing funding

Six of the 10 most funded practices that were not regenerative were structural, building or equipment practices, which together received $427.1 million. These are practices like irrigation pipelines and animal waste storage facilities, which rarely benefit the climate.

Farmers collected hardly any money for some of the conservation practices that are the best at reducing emissions. Two practices that would generate substantial emissions reductions on Midwest corn acres – riparian forest buffer and hedgerow planting – received only $423,000 and $735,000 from EQIP nationally in 2025, respectively. 

More conservation funding must be prioritized for regenerative practices that have climate benefits. Adoption of more of these practices could slow the growth of agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions so the sector does not produce the largest share of U.S. emissions by 2050.

The versions of the farm bill proposed by the House and Senate cut conservation spending by billions of dollars, including reducing funding for EQIP. 

If these cuts were to go into effect, they would hurt farmers and the climate. 

California bill to require full disclosure of diaper chemicals heads to Gov. Newsom for signature Monica Amarelo August 26, 2026

SACRAMENTO – California’s Legislature today passed a bill that would, if enacted, require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in the state to fully disclose their ingredients on the product’s packaging and online. 

Assembly Bill 1901, by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature. The Environmental Working Group, Consumer Reports, Children Now and the Center for Environmental Health are co-sponsoring the bill.

“As a new dad, I have a new appreciation for how important it is for parents to make informed decisions when it comes to the health and wellness of their children,” said Berman.

“We all want the best for our children, but the lack of transparency around diaper ingredients prevents us from knowing what ‘the best’ is when buying the one thing that is touching our baby’s skin every minute of their lives for years,” he said. 

“I’m proud to author AB 1901 to give parents greater transparency about the chemicals in their children’s diapers so that they can make the right choice for their family,” Berman added.

Newborns and toddlers especially vulnerable

Babies spend much of their first two to three years of life in diapers. Yet the federal government does not require disposable diapers to carry ingredient labels of any kind. 

Manufacturers are not required to inform regulators about the chemicals used to make them. Instead, they can hide dozens of chemicals behind umbrella terms like “fragrance” or “colors” – potentially toxic mystery cocktails. This situation leaves parents with no way of knowing what chemicals sit against their baby’s skin day after day.

“A newborn’s skin is thinner, more permeable and still developing, which means it absorbs chemicals more readily than an adult’s does, and diapers are in constant contact with that skin, around the clock, for years,” said Sydney Swanson, a senior science analyst at EWG.

“Right now, parents have no way of knowing what their baby is being exposed to. Every hour of every day, an infant’s skin is absorbing whatever industry decided not to tell us about. Parents can read a nutrition label or a shampoo label but not this,” she added. 

“AB 1901 isn’t asking for anything radical. It’s asking for diapers to contain ingredient labels that are similar to labels required of other baby products,” Swanson said.

Chemicals found in diapers

Recent tests have found diapers may contain volatile organic compounds and phthalates, linked to hormone disruption and reproductive and developmental harm.

Tests have also found diapers containing quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, used in wetness indicators and linked to reproductive effects, skin irritation and asthma, as well as dyes and bleaching agents that can cause allergic reactions or skin and respiratory irritation. 

Because babies’ skin is thinner, more permeable and still developing, they are especially vulnerable to potential harms from these chemical exposures. 

Many children with special needs rely on diapers for years, prolonging the exposure risk. When manufacturers hide their ingredients, caregivers may feel fearful and sidelined. 

“Transparency isn’t about causing fear but about replacing uncertainty with the facts parents need to protect their children,” said Susan Little, California legislative director. 

“And because an infant’s thin skin absorbs chemicals more easily, hidden ingredients like phthalates can trigger a lifetime of health challenges.” 

“California parents shouldn’t need a chemistry degree to buy a diaper. They deserve to know exactly what is touching their child’s skin. Caregivers want this information,” said Little.

Making baby products safer

California has already shown that more transparency about what’s in baby products can help spur changes that reduce hazardous ingredients and their health threats. After the state required public disclosure of results of heavy metal tests of baby food, in January 2025, manufacturers responded by reducing heavy metal contamination levels in many product categories. 

AB 1901 applies that same principle to diapers while giving parents and caregivers more informed choices. If enacted, it would be a first-in-the-nation law requiring such full diaper ingredient transparency. The bill would require online disclosure to begin on January 1, 2029, and disclosure on the package to begin July 1, 2029. 

“Stronger regulation and full disclosure are needed, and that’s why this bill is so important to protect children's health,” said Little. 

And AB 1901 is something manufacturers can comply with – a 2023 New York law that requires on-label disclosure of diaper ingredients shows that greater transparency is achievable.

EWG has created a Guide to Safer Diapers to help parents navigate the market in the meantime, and diapers earning the EWG Verified® mark meet our strict standards for ingredient transparency and health.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports has a mission to create a fair and just marketplace for all. Widely known for our rigorous research and testing of products and services, we also survey millions of consumers each year, report extensively on marketplace issues, and advocate for consumer rights and protections around safety as well as digital rights, financial fairness, and sustainability. CR is independent and nonprofit.

The Center for Environmental Health believes everything people consume, from the water they drink to the toys their children handle, should put health first. We insist on laws and policies that protect the public from harm, work to make communities more aware of risks, and push to transform corporate behavior. CEH advances environmental health and justice for the greater good, from the courtroom to the boardroom.

Children Now harnesses collective power to achieve transformational and systemic results for California’s kids as one of the country’s most impactful kids’ nonprofits. Led by experienced policy and government relations teams spanning health, education, early childhood, child welfare, and a range of other areas, Children Now learns from kids and families where they need support and lift up solutions to policymakers with the power to act. 

Areas of Focus Household & Consumer Products Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy California Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 August 27, 2026

Landmark California bill that would track and disclose PFAS pesticide use heads to Newsom’s desk Monica Amarelo August 26, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Groundbreaking legislation that would address the widespread use of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” pesticides on California produce today passed the state Legislature. 

It now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature.

If enacted, Assembly Bill 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would require the state to monitor and disclose PFAS pesticide use. State agencies were not tracking the concerning use of toxic PFAS on crops until the Environmental Working Group raised concerns.

More than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to Golden State crops each year, contaminating produce sold in the state and throughout the U.S., in addition to soil and water. 

EWG research found PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of non-organic peaches, nectarines and plums tested by the state, as well as in local waterways.

“As a father, I don’t want my kids eating strawberries contaminated with chemicals that will stay in their bodies for decades,” said Schultz. 

“AB 1603 is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation, not by the accumulation of toxic PFAS in our soil and water,” he added. 

“We need to help our farmers transition away from these persistent chemicals so California can be a global leader in food safety,” Schultz said.

“The state cannot act on this newly revealed PFAS problem if it ignores the issue and pretends it doesn’t exist,” said Susan Little, EWG California legislative director. 

“Right now, the state has no comprehensive picture of where these chemicals are being sprayed or in what quantities,” she added.

The bill would also establish a class-based definition of PFAS pesticides, consistent with other California laws and regulations already addressing these chemicals. That definition matters: It ensures tracking and disclosure requirements can’t be sidestepped with chemical-by-chemical loopholes. 

The definition would also lay the groundwork for action that avoids “regrettable substitutions” – PFAS replacements that can also have health concerns.

Though thousands of PFAS are used today, comprehensive toxicity data is available about very few. But what is known is alarming: The health harms linked to the most well-studied PFAS, including cancer, suppression of the immune system and reproductive and developmental harm, show up at doses far lower than regulators once considered safe.

Other AB 1603 sponsors include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

Why tracking and monitoring matter

If enacted, AB 1603 will require the Department of Pesticide Regulation to begin systematically tracking and publicly disclosing PFAS pesticide use across the state, marking the first time California has required this level of visibility about where the chemicals are applied.

“Because of their chemical structures, all PFAS share the core characteristics of extreme environmental persistence and potential harm to immune and reproductive systems,” said Varun Subramaniam, EWG science analyst. “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using PFAS pesticides on food crops.”

“We need to stop spraying our produce with toxic ‘forever chemicals.’ With this bill, we are telling it like it is, so farmers and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this hidden PFAS use,” said Subramaniam. 

Collecting reliable, ongoing tracking data will end the long-running gap in data about PFAS pesticide use in the state. Access to this data will help build a foundation for action that could include use restrictions, farmer transition support, water monitoring and more.

“The United States depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now that produce is  being seasoned with chemicals that never break down,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.

“We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops,” she said.

States leading on regulation

The federal Environmental Protection Agency regulates and approves pesticides for national use, but states aren’t required to follow suit. 

California operates its own approval system: Its Department of Pesticide Regulation must independently evaluate and authorize each chemical before farmers can use it. That gives the state the authority to protect its residents – power it has largely chosen not to use when it comes to PFAS pesticides.

That authority matters more than ever because of what is happening at the federal level. The EPA has continued to approve new PFAS pesticides at an accelerating pace, greenlighting three more in July. 

With the EPA fast-tracking approvals, California taking the lead in informing the public and local officials about the pesticides that do contain PFAS, while monitoring the pesticides’ use, is necessary.

Banning PFAS pesticides

While California remains one of the world’s largest users of PFAS pesticides, other jurisdictions have moved to restrict or ban them. In 2023, Maine enacted the nation’s first ban on PFAS pesticides, starting in 2030. In the same year, Minnesota banned nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, phasing them out by 2032.

Other countries are also acting. The European Union has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides heavily used in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet.

AB 1603, if enacted, will put California in line with these other states and jurisdictions, laying the groundwork for the nation’s salad bowl to once again be a public health leader. 

“California has been a public health bellwether for decades, from car emissions to chemical safety,” said Del Chiaro. “But we’ve been silent on PFAS pesticides, even though we are one of the biggest users.

“AB 1603 can begin to change that. This is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food,” she added.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) is a diverse, statewide coalition of 200+ member groups working to strengthen pesticide policies in California to protect public health and the environment. Member groups include public and children’s health advocates, clean air and water groups, health practitioners, environmental justice groups, labor, education, farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates from across the state.

The Center for Environmental Health believes everything people consume, from the water they drink to the toys their children handle, should put health first. We insist on laws and policies that protect the public from harm, work to make communities more aware of risks, and push to transform corporate behavior. CEH advances environmental health and justice for the greater good, from the courtroom to the boardroom.

Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN) North America, is the North America Regional Center for the international PAN network. We work with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem and reclaim the future of food and farming from the pesticide and biotech corporations that have, for far too long, dictated how we grow food, placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities.

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California Transparency legislation would reveal ‘forever chemicals’ sprayed on the state’s produce Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 August 26, 2026

California lawmakers pass bill to create landmark ‘non-ultra-processed’ food label Iris Myers August 26, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Today the California Legislature took a major step toward protecting public health by passing a first-of-its-kind bill to create a certified “non-ultra-processed” food label intended to make it easier for consumers to choose less-processed foods in the grocery store.

Assembly Bill 2244, authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would develop a state certification program for products that are not ultra-processed, or UPF. If enacted, it would create a new standardized and government-backed seal for non-UPF foods.

It would also require some of the largest grocery stores to highlight these products in store so they’re easier for shoppers to identify. 

The Environmental Working Group is cosponsoring the bill, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature.

“Parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids,” said Gabriel. 

“AB 2244 will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. This new seal doesn’t limit consumer choice, it just makes informed choice possible,” he added.

A new standard for healthier food

Under AB 2244, the state would create a standardized label bearing the phrase “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.” Products would not be permitted to carry the new label if they are classified as UPF under state law. 

Some types of food, such as substances or additives used to manipulate taste and quality, would not qualify for the new label. These food chemicals, such as dyes, flavor enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners and processing aids, are used to make food hyperpalatable and irresistible. 

AB 2244 builds on a precedent-setting earlier law by Gabriel. AB 1264 set the first U.S. legal definition of UPF and banned the worst UPF from K-12 public schools. 

If Newson signs AB 2244, the California Department of Public Health would oversee approved agents’ independent certification of products that meet the state’s non-UPF standard and qualify to use the label. 

AB 2244 would direct the department to accredit these third-party agents no later than June 1, 2029. It would also require product recertification at least every three years.

“This is about setting a higher bar for what we consider healthy food and helping consumers make wise choices,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. 

“Consumers deserve labels they can trust. And families deserve a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory.”

“If enacted, the bill would establish a state-verified seal for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that have come to define the modern American diet,” she added.

Transparency and accountability

The bill includes these strong oversight and transparency measures:

• Certification agents must register with the state and disclose all certified products
• The state can audit certification records at any time
• The state would maintain a public, online list of certified products 
• Misuse of the label would be illegal and subject to enforcement

These provisions are designed to ensure the label’s credibility.

Making healthier choices easier

In addition to creating the label, the bill would require large food retailers to display certified products carrying the label in a way that’s easy for consumers to identify, such as through special signage or physical separation within the store.

This requirement would apply to any grocery store that sells more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified product types and brings in more than $10 million in annual sales. 

Addressing the rise of UPF

UPF are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products often made with harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and shelf life. 

In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet.

Experts say ultra-processed food and drinks, particularly soda, are engineered to trick people into consuming more than they want.

Scientific research has linked diets high in UPF to serious health harms, including cancer, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease, and mental health issues.

Obesity is chief among the health problems linked to UPF. Rates of obesity in the U.S. and globally have skyrocketed in tandem with the rising UPF consumption.

Help for consumers

Despite these concerns, consumers have no clear, standard labeling system to help them identify UPF.

With federal regulators slow to update oversight of food additives and processing, states are increasingly taking action to protect public health.

AB 2244 builds on California’s leadership in addressing harmful food chemicals and improving transparency for consumers. 

“Because companies are not required to disclose an ingredient’s purpose, it can be really difficult even for experts, even for people like me who have a doctoral degree in nutrition, to look at a food package and determine whether a food is ultra-processed or not,” said Alyssa Moran, ScD, MPH. 

Moran is deputy director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

“And from a behavioral science perspective, we also know people seldom use information on the back of food packages to make food decisions. So that is exactly why clear, science-backed labels on the front of food packages can be so influential in helping people to make better choices,” Moran said.

“If we want to meaningfully curb disease, we need a suite of complementary policies that limit the availability of ultra-processed foods, while promoting non-ultra-processed alternatives. I firmly believe this is the only way we’ll make progress,” she added.

Consumers can consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products that are less processed. Food Scores also flags unhealthy ultra-processed food and drinks and can help identify alternatives.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals California UPF labeling legislation now heads to Gov. Newsom’s desk Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 August 28, 2026

California Legislature approves bill easing access to clean, affordable ‘balcony solar’ Anthony Lacey August 25, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today applauds the California Legislature for passing a bill that will help Californians invest in clean energy while also tackling sky-high energy bills by making it easier to install small, affordable “balcony solar” systems.

Senate Bill 868, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, would eliminate red tape that has kept these systems from being placed in apartments, condos and single-family homes. The legislation would also ensure the systems comply with strict safety standards.

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network. SB 868 heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature.

“This is the most exciting clean energy idea around,”  said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “With this bill, California is poised to fling its doors wide open to a real, tangible affordability solution for everyday consumers.

“Solar energy is a no-brainer for California and we applaud Sen. Wiener and his legislative colleagues for their hard work to put this critical clean energy solution on the governor’s desk,” she added. 

Balcony solar is thriving in Europe – in Germany more than 4 million systems have been installed. Efforts to ease their deployment are gathering steam in other countries.

But in the U.S., regulatory barriers keep this technology out of reach for many. If enacted, SB 868 would remove those barriers while ensuring the systems meet safety standards. 

Homeowners and renters could then buy portable balcony solar panels from retailers and plug them in without first having to get an interconnection agreement from their utility. The cost and time involved with getting that agreement has been a barrier to greater deployment of these systems. 

The Assembly amended the bill with a provision sunsetting the interconnection exemption on Jan. 1, 2030 – language sought by the utilities – but SB 868 gives the market four years to take off and the Legislature has the opportunity to remove the sunset in the future. 

Solving an urgent public health problem 

EWG this month released a report showing that California is experiencing more frequent and dangerous heat days, with extreme heat events up 55% statewide threatening public health and safety without access to cooling. But soaring utility bills mean millions of people can’t afford the air conditioning that could keep them safe. 

Balcony solar is one solution, helping lower electricity costs and making it cheaper to run vital cooling. With 2027 shaping up to be the hottest year on record, it can’t come soon enough. 

That’s why EWG is calling on policy makers to prioritize solutions like customer-sited solar energy that can drastically lower or eliminate annual utility costs for air conditioning.  If it becomes law, SB 868 would help millions of families tackle air conditioning costs.

“These small, easy-to-use solar panels will give everyone, including renters, the relief they desperately need on our outrageous energy bills,” said Wiener. “Electricity costs have reached ridiculous levels here in California and the Plug and Play Solar Act provides a much-needed tool to provide relief. It’s time to put money back in the pockets of Californians.”

A single 400-watt balcony solar system can cover roughly 14% of the average apartment’s electricity usage, providing savings of about $250 per year. While the cost of balcony solar starts around $500 today, with broader adoption enabled by SB 868, EWG expects costs to fall, making solar even more accessible to renters and low-income households.

California electricity rates have nearly doubled over the past decade, leaving the state with the nation’s second-highest energy prices. SB 868 provides consumers with a straightforward way to take control of their energy bills.

And the systems are easy to use. “Installing balcony solar is as simple as plugging an appliance like a toaster into a standard wall outlet,” said Del Chiaro. 

“At a time when many struggle to pay their energy bills, balcony solar is a powerful cost-cutting tool that also helps the state meet its clean energy goals,” she added.

SB 868 would also ensure these plug-and-play systems meet strict safety standards. All systems must be certified by UL, or Underwriters Laboratories, the global independent safety science company, or an equivalent national testing lab. To protect utility workers and prevent electrical hazards, systems must automatically shut off within seconds if the grid goes down. 

System size is capped at 1,200 watts, enough to power everyday appliances such as fridges, lights, Wi-Fi routers and AC units.

California is not the first state to remove barriers to balcony solar. Utah became the first in 2025, and so far, eight other states have enacted laws to do the same. 

With today’s vote, California joins New York as another state with a balcony solar bill sitting on the governor’s desk. Newsom has 30 days to take action on SB 868. The California Assembly and Senate both gave the bill strong bipartisan support, with over 90% approval in both chambers.

“California may not be the first out of the gates but we are the biggest prize,” said Del Chiaro. “If Gov. Newsom signs this bill into law, the size of our market will radically transform and accelerate the adoption of this brilliant new way to tackle both climate change and energy affordability.” 

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Energy Renewable Energy California SB 868 would end red tape blocking millions from utility bill savings Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 August 25, 2026