News Feeds

Lightsource bp hails "new phase" in global power sector after announcing the start of construction of major new solar and battery project to help power smelter.

The post Power sector enters “new phase” as huge solar-battery project that will supply giant smelter starts construction appeared first on Renew Economy.

In an exclusive interview, Tesla Energy’s Asia Pacific boss Josef Tadich discusses energy abundance (read solar), the role of batteries big and small, hybrids, the EV surge and the arrival of V2G.

The post Tesla Energy boss on energy abundance, EVs, V2G and big and small batteries | Energy Insiders appeared first on Renew Economy.

A new technique based on weather data is the first to successfully predict caseloads.

An international team of researchers including our Department of Geography has discovered a vast geological structure hidden beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

The body can notice stress before the conscious brain — and that’s no lie.

Dan Gillikin surveyed the view from his front window and didn’t like what he saw.

For Immediate Release:

June 4, 2026

Contact:
Ashley Castaneda, ashley@restorethedelta.org

SACRAMENTO – Tribes, environmental justice organizations, fishing groups, and environmental advocates joined forces yesterday in a Day of Advocacy for the Delta, engaging with legislators on water policy issues impacting Delta communities, environment and economy. The Day of Advocacy, organized by the Bay-Delta coalition, focused on:

• Support for the California Water Renaissance Plan which proposes a shift towards a sustainable local water supply and away from expensive, unreliable water imports
• Support for AB 2218 which would establish a statewide policy directive to remedy historical water inequities with California Tribes
• Support for SB 872 which invests proactively in Delta levees and subsided state conveyance infrastructure to ensure long term protection for communities and water supply 
• Opposition to AB 2026 which deepens water system inequities, minimal protections for the Delta and extends unpermitted diversions
• Opposition to AB 2215 which fast tracks permitting of the controversial Delta Conveyance Project and bypasses review for environmental impacts

The Advocacy Day brought together 45 volunteers, who organized into 11 teams and held more than 60 meetings with legislative offices. Participants had productive conversations with decisionmakers, voicing broad community support for common sense water solutions desperately needed in the state. 

STATEMENTS FROM COALITION MEMBERS:

Gary Bobker, Program Director, Friends of the River:

“CA Bay-Delta Flows Advocacy Day is a chance for citizen activists to provide a counter-narrative to the official state ‘party line ‘ that in order to address the impacts of climate change, California must divert and dam every drop of water and build incredibly expensive and inefficient projects to move and store that water. Instead, people from diverse communities and regions come together to talk to legislators about how the biggest new source of water for our cities is from reusing and recycling water and capturing storm runoff; how recharging our depleted groundwater aquifers can be done without robbing our rivers and lakes of the water they need to survive, provide clean water and support healthy ecosystems; and how expensive and unnecessary boondoggles like the Delta Tunnel can only be made to seem feasible when the rules are relaxed to ignore legal, environmental and financial realities – steps that the legislature cannot and should not sanction. These citizen voices are vital to helping lawmakers make the right decisions that promote a sustainable water future for all Californians.”

Bruce Reznik, Executive Director, Los Angeles Waterkeeper:

“Agencies throughout the Los Angeles region have established aggressive local water supply goals, aiming to move from 40% local water to 80% countywide by 2045, and they are already moving ahead on major wastewater recycling, stormwater capture and groundwater remediation projects. These efforts will not only make the region more water secure in the face of increasingly less reliable sources of imported water due to our changing climate; they will also help reduce water pollution as well as our carbon footprint, create greener and healthier communities, and provide a tremendous number of local jobs and economic activity for the region. We now need the LA delegation to the state legislature to get behind this agenda if we are going to successfully bring all these critical projects to fruition.”

Cintia Cortez, Policy Manager, Restore the Delta:

“California faces a critical choice in its water planning: legislators can either invest in a resilient and affordable water future for all Californians, or waste billions on the destructive Delta Tunnel, a project that would fail to deliver reliable water supplies for future generations. Over 40 volunteers joined the Delta Flows Coalition to advocate for the Water Renaissance Plan, which would protect the Delta’s annual $7 billion economy, enhance the Delta ecosystem so local communities can reconnect with their waterways, and support local investments in Southern California.”

Christie Ralson, Associate Attorney, San Francisco Baykeeper:

“The San Francisco Bay Estuary ecosystem is in crisis. Through conversations with over 60 legislative offices, San Francisco Baykeeper and our colleagues educated decision makers on the direct threats to the continued survival of this unique ecosystem and the communities that rely on it and shared our vision for the future of water in California.”

###

FoodCorps and Teachers College, Columbia University recently announced a new microcredential designed to help K-5 teachers integrate food education into everyday classroom learning. The six-week program, Food Education in the Classroom (Food-E), combines nutrition science and experiential learning to help educators foster students’ knowledge, curiosity, and confidence around food.

Food-E is launching on the 80th anniversary of the National School Lunch Program, which feeds nearly 30 million students every school day and is an important source of fruits and vegetables for many children, Rachel Willis, President of FoodCorps, tells Food Tank.

But access alone is not enough, according to FoodCorps. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that 60 percent of U.S. children fall short of fruit intake recommendations and 93 percent do not consume enough vegetables.

The launch comes eight months after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act cuts eliminated SNAP-Ed, a federal nutrition education program that served roughly 90 million Americans, including 35 million children. One consequence of those cuts, Willis says, was the loss of nutrition educators in schools and communities. Food-E is designed to help address that gap by preparing K-5 teachers to integrate food education throughout the school day.

The course integrates biology, ecology, environmental science, sociology, and history, allowing educators to connect food lessons to existing learning standards rather than treating food education as a separate subject. Willis says conversations with Pamela Koch, Associate Professor of Nutrition and Education at Teachers College and head of the Food-E program, helped shape this approach.

Koch’s work with educators reveals a common challenge: many teachers recognize the value of food education but struggle to fit it into already packed curricula. Food-E addresses that challenge by helping educators identify opportunities within lessons they already teach. A geometry lesson, for example, might incorporate food through concepts such as measurement, shapes, or fractions.

The course also encourages teachers to make use of “micromoments”—brief periods before an assembly, during transitions, or at the end of the school day—to spark conversations and curiosity about food. Rather than adding another responsibility to educators’ workloads, Willis says the goal is to make food education a natural part of students’ daily learning experiences.

Food-E pairs nutrition science with experiential learning, helping educators help students engage with food through hands-on activities. According to FoodCorps, an average of 60 percent of students who participate in its food education programs report greater preference for fruits and vegetables. Students who participate in more hands-on activities, such as cooking and gardening, consume up to three times as many fruits and vegetables.

Willis says Food-E is designed to help more educators bring these experiences into the classroom through activities ranging from cooking and gardening to science experiments, taste tests and food-related storytelling, helping students build curiosity, confidence, and agency around food from an early age.

In addition to nutrition science and classroom activities, Food-E challenges participants to think critically about their own experiences with food. Early modules ask participants to reflect on their memories of school meals, the messages they received about food growing up, and the experiences that shaped their attitudes toward eating. The course also explores how those experiences can influence classroom conversations and shape students’ perceptions of food.

Willis says this work is important because educators have an opportunity to help children develop curiosity and confidence around food rather than judgment or anxiety. Reflecting on her own experience, Willis says her work in food education has led her to reconsider some of her own assumptions about food. Food-E, she explains, creates space for educators to do the same while ensuring that students have the opportunity to develop their own relationships with food.

Making Food-E broadly accessible was essential to FoodCorps’ vision for the program. Willis says the organization wanted to create a resource that could support nutrition educators, classroom teachers across disciplines, and individuals with little or no prior experience in food education. That approach extends to the program’s cost. FoodCorps set the enrollment fee at US$295 in an effort to reduce barriers to participation and make it easier for both schools and individual educators to enroll.

FoodCorps envisions a future in which all 50 million public school students have access to food education and nourishing meals at school. Willis says Food-E is a critical tool for scaling that impact. By equipping more educators with food education tools, Willis believes the program can help build support for policies and practices that expand children’s access to nourishing school food.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

The post FoodCorps and Teachers College Launch Food Education Microcredential appeared first on Food Tank.

Last Friday, after most people left work, President Trump announced the repeal of two executive orders (11644 and 11989) that govern off-road vehicle (ORV) use on public lands nationwide. He also directed federal land management agencies to rescind or revise their regulations implementing these orders, setting the stage for chaos and confusion across the country.  

For a bit of background, Presidents Nixon and Carter issued those executive orders in response to an explosive increase in ORV use in the 1960s and 70s across public lands and the corresponding environmental damage and conflict. Together, the orders directed federal land management agencies to develop regulations to address that increasing ORV use by “minimizing” the resultant impacts. This included locating ORV areas and trails to minimize damage to public land resources and wildlife as well as conflicts between different recreationists. The orders also empowered agencies to act swiftly to close areas to ORVs when they are causing or will cause considerable damage to natural and cultural resources.  

For roughly 50 years, these orders have helped protect streams, wildlife and their habitats, and opportunities for safe recreation by providing clear and consistent guidance for motorized and nonmotorized users on Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service lands. And each of those agencies subsequently issued regulations to implement the Nixon and Carter orders.  

Trump’s latest action marks a significant shift in public lands management, one that prioritizes ORV use over all other activities and at the expense of clean water, wildlife habitat, cultural sites, and the experience of motorized and non-motorized recreationists alike. 

Off-road vehicle tracks in the Factory Butte area. © Ray Bloxham/SUWA

SUWA is no stranger to the problem of excessive ORV use. BLM lands and redrock country have been at the center of ORV issues for decades, and SUWA has been on the front lines of this issue the entire time. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, we challenged extensive cross-country ORV use in wilderness study areas and BLM’s hands off approach to ORV use across the state. More recently, SUWA successfully challenged unbalanced travel management plans that prioritized ORVs to the detriment of cultural sites, wildlife habitat, desert waterways and those seeking quiet and solitude in redrock country. And we are not going to stop now. 

While motorized groups and the Trump administration like to throw around words like “access,” what they really mean is they want ORV use anywhere and everywhere regardless of the impact to natural and cultural resources or other public land visitors. Simply put, “access” does not only mean motorized access. In Utah alone, right now there are tens of thousands of miles of dirt routes and trails open to ORV use in addition to more than 130,000 acres open to cross-country ORV use (meaning vehicles can literally drive anywhere within those designated areas). 

Trump’s actions won’t make public lands more accessible but will make the public land experience worse for everyone. It will create confusing and unsafe conditions, while at the same time damaging wildlife habitat and cultural resources.  Hikers, hunters, bikers, equestrians, and those seeking quiet time with friends and family in the outdoors will end up being overwhelmed by the dust, noise, and damage caused by unregulated ORV use.  

For now, regulations implementing the two executive orders—requiring local land managers to minimize damage from ORVs and conflicts between different public land users—remain in place, as do existing travel management plans. We expect, however, that the Trump administration will work quickly to weaken if not outright eliminate both the regulations and individual plans. SUWA will be there every step of the way, fighting to protect Utah’s incredible wild places. 

If you haven’t already, please submit comments via our San Rafael Swell and San Rafael Desert advocacy actions; proposals for these areas would add new routes or re-open previously closed routes to ORVs. The comment period closes on Monday, June 8. 

The post Trump Administration Takes Aim at Public Lands . . . Again appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Glade Park, Colo. (June 4, 2026) — The National Audubon Society recognizes Mountain Island Ranch as the newest recipient of the Audubon Certified Bird-Friendly Land certification. Awarded through...

Glade Park, Colo. (June 4, 2026) — The National Audubon Society recognizes Mountain Island Ranch as the newest recipient of the Audubon Certified Bird-Friendly Land certification. Awarded through...

Hammonasset Beach State Park is a 936-acre ecological and recreational treasure located along the coast in Madison. With more than three million visitors each year, it is the most-visited park in the...

Update: Contra Costa voters sent a clear message this past election by voting to protect the county’s Urban Limit Line (ULL). As of June 3,  68% of voters said a resounding YES to Measure A, marking an incredible win!

Once again, the voters endorsed the renewal of the ULL, which was set to expire by the end of the year, for another 25 years. This effective land-use tool has been in place for over three decades. In that time, the line has been adjusted only six times, and voters renewed it in 2006 with 64% support. The landscapes that define Contra Costa exist in part because that commitment has been kept.

We thank all the voters who endorsed Measure A and our partner Save Mount Diablo who advocated for its passage!

Contra Costa voters just sent a clear message that the farms, the hills, and the open spaces that make this county worth living in are worth protecting. This is smart growth done right, directing development where infrastructure exists, keeping sprawl out of fire-prone hillsides and climate-vulnerable shorelines, and making sure future generations inherit a county they’ll actually want to call home. Greenbelt Alliance is proud to have stood with Contra Costa voters on this one."

Zoe Siegel, Senior Director of Climate Resilience at Greenbelt Alliance Why the Urban Limit Line Matters

When Contra Costa voters approved the Urban Limit Line (ULL) in 1990, they made a decision about what kind of county this would be. They drew a boundary beyond which urban development couldn’t go – protecting the farms in the Tassajara Valley, the open hillsides above Walnut Creek, and the wetlands along the shoreline—and they asked future generations to keep it in place.

The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors has referred the measure to voters, with updates to the boundary to better reflect current conditions on the ground. 

The ULL isn’t about stopping growth. It’s about making sure growth happens in the right places: in existing communities where infrastructure already exists, where people can get around without a car, where new housing and new neighbors strengthen what’s already there. By establishing a clear line beyond which no new urban land uses can be designated, the ULL has protected the county’s agricultural lands, open hillsides, and natural landscapes for more than three decades.

Protected open space and farmland are not optional extras — they are foundational to the health, climate resilience, and livability of Contra Costa communities. Clean water, cooler temperatures, local food, open land that absorbs carbon, and buffers communities from wildfire and flood. The ULL supports all of that by directing growth where it belongs and keeping natural lands open.

Why Greenbelt Alliance Endorsed Measure A

Greenbelt Alliance has worked to protect the Bay Area’s open spaces and farmland for nearly 70 years, and the Contra Costa Urban Limit Line is central to that work. By keeping growth focused within existing communities and away from natural landscapes, the ULL directly supports our mission to protect the greenbelt and help Bay Area cities thrive. 

Measure A is also a critical climate tool. Compact infill development reduces the vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions that drive the climate crisis, while preserving open lands sequester carbon, filter water, and buffer communities against extreme heat, flooding, and wildfire. At a time when federal rollbacks are threatening environmental protections across the board, locally-driven policies like this one matter more than ever.

Passing Measure A advances priorities that matter deeply to residents across the county, including:

• Protecting agricultural lands and open space from conversion to sprawl development.
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and traffic by directing new housing and jobs to infill locations.
• Maintaining the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, which ensures that at least 65% of the county’s land remains non-urban.
• Restricting new development in fire hazard severity zones and on steep slopes, reducing wildfire risk.
• Supporting successful implementation of the county’s newly adopted 2045 General Plan.

By approving Measure A, Contra Costa County is able to maintain approximately $2 million annually in local street maintenance funding from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, which required the permanence of the ULL for the funding.

There Is Room to Grow Inside the Line

Opponents of urban growth boundaries sometimes argue that such limits constrain housing production. The Contra Costa ULL tells a different story. The county’s 2045 General Plan process confirmed that vacant and underutilized land inside the existing ULL can accommodate 23,200 new housing units, 1.2 million square feet of new commercial development, and 5 million square feet of new industrial space. There is no need to expand into open space and farmland to meet the county’s growth needs — and there never has been.

Measure A also includes targeted adjustments to the ULL map that would make it more accurate and functional: removing areas with major development constraints or protected status, aligning the county line with city boundaries where cities have adopted their own urban growth boundaries, and cleaning up inconsistencies like so-called ULL “islands.” These changes reflect reality on the ground without opening the door to sprawl.

The post WIN: Contra Costa Voters Say Resounding YES to Renewing Urban Limit Lines appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

The deserts of the American Southwest are a hotspot for a diversity of birds found nowhere else in the United States. Gambel’s Quail, Gila Woodpecker, and many more rely on habitats that most think...

Planning minister who has stopped a number of renewable and storage projects given special powers to over-rule other authorities and fast track petroleum projects.

The post “Sea of oil:” Planning minister who stopped wind projects gets special powers to fast track petroleum appeared first on Renew Economy.

Food to Power is working to expand food access, food and education, and food production to create a more equitable food and agriculture system in the greater Colorado Springs region.

What started as a food recovery organization in 2013 has evolved into much more. The nonprofit operates a no-cost grocery program, runs a quarter-acre farm to grow produce that they sell at a local farmers market, and organizes a youth internship program. They also engage in policy advocacy to advance legislation that builds healthier and more equitable food and agriculture systems and they collect food scraps to turn into compost. 

The goal is to create a healthier food ecosystem, Patience Kabwasa, the organization’s Executive Director explains. “We’re really taking food and transforming it, regenerating it into power through everything that we do.”  

A key part of this work is reclaiming land stewardship practices. Their Hillside Hub sits in a historically Black neighborhood in the southeastern part of Colorado Springs, where residents may have become disconnected from agricultural roots. 

“Being able to have a space where you’re able to learn and produce in a way that benefits yourself and your community is really important to us as an organization,” Kabwasa tells Food Tank. 

Food to Power, like many nonprofits in the United States, have experienced challenges in the face of recent funding cuts and canceled grants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had awarded them a US$350,000 regional environmental justice grant—but last year they learned the funds were no longer available. 

“We had to absorb that, which was a huge blow,” Kabwasa says. “So we really had to think about what our core programs and how we get food to people.” 

The news also pushed Food to Power to think differently about expansion strategies and diversifying their budget to become less grant-dependent. “We need to be able to navigate this time for the foreseeable future,” Kabwasa says. 

New partnerships offer one way forward as they scale their composting work, a source of income for the organization. And even with limited resources, Food to Power’s program reached 44,000 households last year—a 34 percent increase from the year before. 

“We’re moving through and we are being generative in this time of difficulty,” Kabwasa tells Food Tank, “and really taking it as an opportunity to just root down even deeper and build across the region.” 

Listen to or watch the full conversation with Patience Kabwasa on Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg to hear more about how Food to Power is co-creating solutions with their neighbors, Kabwasa’s journey into food justice work, and the policy wins that the organization helped make happen. 

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Food to Power

The post In Colorado Springs, Food to Power Builds Resilience from the Ground Up appeared first on Food Tank.

Dirty Dozen Food Chemicals: BHA rcoleman June 4, 2026 EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing BHA.

BHA has been classified as a possible carcinogen, or cancer-causing chemical. Studies have shown BHA to produce oxidative stress, which occurs when highly reactive molecules build up and damage cells in the body. This can disrupt cellular function, damage DNA and interfere with the body’s hormonal system.

What is BHA?

BHA, or butylated hydroxyanisole, is a preservative that prevents oxidation, extending the shelf life of fats and oils in packaged foods. BHA is also added to cosmetic products as a preservative.

Which foods contain BHA?

BHA is commonly added to frozen pizza and other frozen meals and appetizers. It is also found in processed meat, including deli meat, bacon, hot dogs and sausage and packaged snacks containing oil, such as cookies and biscuits.

Look for BHA in product ingredient lists, usually below or next to the nutrition facts panel, on the back of the package. It may also appear as “butylated hydroxyanisole.” BHA may also be added to food packaging, which companies are not required to disclose. 

How is BHA regulated?

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing food additives and other ingredients. BHA was generally recognized as safe in 1958 and approved for use in food by the FDA in 1961.

In early 2026 the FDA identified BHA as a top priority for review of chemicals already in the food supply and requested public feedback on BHA’s use and safety. 

In response, EWG described the FDA move as a plan to plan rather than the agency taking decisive action. EWG in its  public comment letter on the plan pointed the agency  to the abundance of evidence of BHA risks accumulated over decades.

BHA is classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. The National Toxicology Program concluded BHA was “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

It is also on California’s Proposition 65 list of substances known to cause cancer. 

In 2025, West Virginia banned BHA from all food sold in the state, beginning in 2028.

What does the science say about BHA?

When BHA breaks down in the  body it can cause an imbalance between unstable molecules and protective molecules, a process called oxidative stress. 

Oxidative stress can lead to damaged cells and result in structural damage to DNA and cellular proteins, which is associated with cancer and other diseases in humans. Animal studies have observed DNA damage in tissues like the colon and glandular stomach, organs that are found in the human body.

A study of breast cancer cells has also linked BHA to endocrine disruption, or interference with the body’s hormones. Prolonged exposure to BHA in one rodent study reduced testicular function in mice.

BHA can also interact with other food chemicals of concern, like propyl gallate, to cause hormone disruption, producing both estrogenic and anti-estrogenic effects.

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to BHA – and the full EWG Dirty Dozen list of food chemicals – on EWG’s research page.

EWG’s Food Scores provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing concerns, and flags unhealthy ultra-processed foods to help you identify alternatives.

BHA is also added to cosmetic products as a preservative. EWG’s Skin Deep® cosmetic database helps to identify harmful chemicals in personal care and beauty products. EWG Verified® products meet the strictest criteria for transparency and health.

And the Healthy Living app lets you take these tools with you on the go.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN June 4, 2026

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: BHA rcoleman June 4, 2026 David Andrews, Ph.D. Sydney Evans, MPH Dayna de Montagnac, MPH Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN Jump to: What is BHA and why is it added to foods? Where is BHA found in foods? What is the regulatory status of BHA? Are foods containing BHA ultra-processed? Is BHA allowed in organic foods? What are the potential health harms associated with BHA? Uncertainties and need for more research Other product use categories Cited resources June 5, 2026 EWG’s recommendation

BHA is an ingredient of concern. EWG suggests limiting consumption of foods with this ingredient.

The National Toxicology Program in 1991 classified BHA as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” It has been listed as a known carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65 since 1990. 

BHA is also shown to produce oxidative stress, which can disrupt cellular function and damage DNA and cells (Esazadeh et al. 2024; Ousji & Sleno, 2020; Sasaki et al 2002). These mechanisms are associated with cancer development. 

Multiple animal studies have identified BHA as an endocrine-disrupting chemical, affecting reproductive health through estrogenic and androgenic activity (Pop et al 2018; Ham et al 2020).

Science analysis

What is BHA and why is it added to foods?

BHA, or butylated hydroxyanisole, is a preservative that prevents oxidation, extending the shelf life of fats and oils in processed foods. 

Where is BHA found in foods?

BHA is typically added to packaged and frozen foods like frozen pizza, meats, biscuits and other processed goods that contain oil. 

BHA is used in 1,726 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

Top 15 food categories with the most products containing BHA (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 BHA?

The Food and Drug Administration classified BHA as GRAS in 1958 and approved it for use in food in 1961. 

It is commonly added to food as an antioxidant, with the limitation that the total antioxidant content not exceed 0.02% of the total fat or oil content of the food.

In early 2026, the FDA identified BHA as a top priority for review of chemicals currently in the food supply and issued a request for information on its use and safety. EWG has also issued a statement and comment letter in response to this request.

BHA was first evaluated for use in food in the European Union in 1989, following the international safety benchmark established that same year by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Both that committee and the EU Scientific Committee for Food set an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.5 mg/kg body/day. 

In 2011, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) re-evaluated BHA and established an ADI of 1.0 mg/kg bw/day. This change occurred because the safety authority concluded that the forestomach tumors observed in rodent studies were not relevant to human risk assessment, since humans do not possess a forestomach. 

However, EFSA noted data gaps, including questions about BHA’s potential for endocrine effects. 

Recent research shows that BHA’s risks extend beyond the forestomach. Studies have shown DNA damage in human-relevant organs like the glandular stomach and significant endocrine-disrupting effects on reproductive health (Sasaki et al., 2002; Pop et al., 2018).

BHA is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 2B carcinogen, and the National Toxicology Program concluded it was “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

BHA is also on the state of California’s Proposition 65 list of substances known to cause cancer. 

In 2025, West Virginia banned BHA from all food sold in the state beginning in 2028.

Are foods containing BHA ultra-processed?

BHA and other synthetic preservatives are common ingredients in ultra-processed food, or UPF. As an ingredient synthesized in a laboratory, it falls into the NOVA framework as a UPF ingredient. (Monteiro et al 2019). 

Under a recent California law defining UPF, BHA would qualify as a UPF based on its property as a flavor enhancer. (California Assembly Bill 1264). 

Is BHA allowed in organic foods?

Under Department of Agriculture organic standards, synthetic substances like BHA are prohibited in certified organic foods. 

What are the potential health harms associated with BHA?

As an antioxidant, BHA protects food from spoilage. But its breakdown in the body into metabolites can trigger production of reactive oxygen species, which causes oxidative stress and subsequent cell damage. Oxidative stress is associated with cancer and numerous other diseases.

Research also stresses the potential of BHA to cause genotoxicity at high concentrations, resulting in structural damage to DNA and cellular proteins (Xu et al 2021; Zhang et al 2023). 

DNA damage was observed in vivo within animal tissues, the colon and glandular stomach, which are shared by humans, whereas the forestomach (the site of BHA-induced tumors in earlier rodent studies) is not (Sasaki et al 2002).

Furthermore, a study in breast cancer cells has linked BHA to endocrine disruption, exhibiting both estrogenic and androgenic activities (Pop et al 2018). Prolonged exposure to BHA in one rodent study reduced testicular function in mice (Ham et al 2020).

There is potential for BHA to work additively with other food chemicals of concern, like propyl gallate, to induce anti‐estrogenic activity (Pop et al 2018).  

Uncertainties and need for more research

BHA can metabolize into TBHQ, another EWG Dirty Dozen food additive (Ousji & Sleno, 2020).

Biomonitoring studies of TBHQ and examination of exposure through consumption of foods containing BHA are needed to see whether  typical intake is higher than the acceptable daily intake.

BHA has been detected in human breast milk (Zhang et al 2020), the placenta (Du et al 2019), and adipose tissue (Conacher et al 1986), indicating a need for improved safety assessments of BHA. 

Older studies observed the development of cancer cells in the forestomachs of rats exposed to BHA (Ito et al 1983; Ito et al 1986; Hirose et al 1987). But research on humans has been limited. (Zhang et al 2023; Botterweck 2000; Hasenböhler 2026). 

More studies are needed on the cumulative effects of BHA and similar antioxidant preservatives, such as BHT and TBHQ (Hasenböhler 2026).

Other product use categories

BHA is also used as a preservative in cosmetic products. The ingredient scores a 7 in EWG’s Skin Deep® database and is not allowed in EWG Verified® products.

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

• Office of the Commissioner. (2026, February 10). FDA launches assessment of BHA, a common food chemical preservative. U.S. Food And Drug Administration. FDA Launches Assessment of BHA, a Common Food Chemical Preservative. 
• The National List | Agricultural Marketing Service. (n.d.). The National List | Agricultural Marketing Service.
• National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Fifteenth Edition. In National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services [Report]. Report on Carcinogens, Fifteenth Edition - Butylated Hydroxyanisole.  
• Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. (1989). Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants: thirty-third report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. WHO Technical Report Series, (776), 1-64. https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/c4ccf354-a21d-428e-87fe-4b0fa9f810df/content.
• EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS). (2011). Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) (E 320) as a food additive. EFSA Journal, 9(10), 2392 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2392. 

Legislation

• 21 CFR 182.3169 – Butylated hydroxyanisole. (n.d.). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-182/subpart-D/section-182.3169. 
• Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, A.B. 1264, Chapter 467, Cal. Stat. (2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264. 
• Banning certain products from food in West Virginia, House Bill 2354, (2025). https://legiscan.com/WV/text/HB2354/id/3177443. 

Comprehensive review and frameworks

• 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. 
• Xu, X., Liu, A., Hu, S., Ares, I., Martínez-Larrañaga, M., Wang, X., Martínez, M., Anadón, A., & Martínez, M. (2021). Synthetic phenolic antioxidants: Metabolism, hazards and mechanism of action. Food Chemistry, 353, 129488. Synthetic phenolic antioxidants: Metabolism, hazards and mechanism of action - ScienceDirect. 
• Zhang, X., Diao, M., & Zhang, Y. (2023b). A review of the occurrence, metabolites and health risks of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 103(13), 6150–6166. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.12676 
• Pop, A., Kiss, B., & Loghin, F. (2013). Endocrine disrupting effects of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA - E320). Clujul Medical, 86(1), 16–20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26527908/.
• Esazadeh, K., Dolatabadi, J. E. N., Andishmand, H., Mohammadzadeh‐Aghdash, H., Mahmoudpour, M., Kermanshahi, M. N., & Roosta, Y. (2024). Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of tert‐butylhydroquinone, butylated hydroxyanisole and propyl gallate as synthetic food antioxidants. Food Science & Nutrition, 12(10), 7004–7016. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.4373. 
• Ousji, O., & Sleno, L. (2020). Identification of in vitro metabolites of synthetic phenolic antioxidants BHT, BHA, and TBHQ by LC-HRMS/MS. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(24), 9525. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21249525. 

Health-impact studies

• Ham, J., Lim, W., You, S., & Song, G. (2019). Butylated hydroxyanisole induces testicular dysfunction in mouse testis cells by dysregulating calcium homeostasis and stimulating endoplasmic reticulum stress. The Science of the Total Environment, 702, 134775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134775. 
• Pop, A., Drugan, T., Gutleb, A. C., Lupu, D., Cherfan, J., Loghin, F., & Kiss, B. (2018). Estrogenic and anti‐estrogenic activity of butylparaben, butylated hydroxyanisole, butylated hydroxytoluene and propyl gallate and their binary mixtures on two estrogen responsive cell lines (T47D‐Kbluc, MCF‐7). Journal of Applied Toxicology, 38(7), 944–957. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3601. 
• Sasaki, Y. F., Kawaguchi, S., Kamaya, A., Ohshita, M., Kabasawa, K., Iwama, K., Taniguchi, K., & Tsuda, S. (2002). The comet assay with 8 mouse organs: results with 39 currently used food additives. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 519(1-2), 103-119.  
• Ito, N., Fukushima, S., Hagiwara, A., Shibata, M., & Ogiso, T. (1983). Carcinogenicity of butylated hydroxyanisole in F344 rats. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 70(2), 343-352. 
• Ito, N., Fukushima, S., Tamano, S., Hirose, M., & Hagiwara, A. (1986). Dose response in butylated hydroxyanisole induction of forestomach carcinogenesis in F344 rats. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 77(6), 1261–1265. 
• Hirose, M., Masuda, A., Tsuda, H., Uwagawa, S., & Ito, N. (1987). Enhancement of BHA-induced proliferative rat forestomach lesion development by simultaneous treatment with other antioxidants. Carcinogenesis, 8(11), 1731–1735. https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/8.11.1731. 
• Botterweck, A. A. M., Verhagen, H., Goldbohm, R. A., Kleinjans, J., & van den Brandt, P. A. (2000). Intake of butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene and stomach cancer risk: results from analyses in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 38(7), 599-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-6915(00)00042-9. 
• Hasenböhler, A., Javaux, G., Payen de la Garanderie, M., Szabo de Edelenyi, F., Yvroud-Hoyos, P., Agaësse, C., De Sa, A., Huybrechts, I., Pierre, F., Audebert, M., Coumoul, X., Julia, C., Kesse-Guyot, E., Allès, B., Deschamps, V., Hercberg, S., Chassaing, B., Srour, B., Deschasaux-Tanguy, M., & Touvier, M. (2026). Intake of food additive preservatives and incidence of cancer: results from the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. The BMJ, 392, bmj-2025-084917. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-084917.

Biomonitoring Studies

• Zhang, Y., Du, B., Ge, J., Liu, L., Zhu, M., Li, J., & Zeng, L. (2020). Co-occurrence of and infant exposure to multiple common and unusual phenolic antioxidants in human breast milk. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 7(3), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00104 
• Conacher, H. B., Iverson, F., Lau, P. Y., & Page, B. D. (1986). Levels of BHA and BHT in human and animal adipose tissue: interspecies extrapolation. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association, 24(10-11), 1159–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-6915(86)90302-9 
• Du, B., Zhang, Y., Lam, J. C. W., Pan, S., Huang, Y., Chen, B., Lan, S., Li, J., Luo, D., & Zeng, L. (2019). Prevalence, Biotransformation, and Maternal Transfer of Synthetic Phenolic Antioxidants in Pregnant Women from South China. Environmental science & technology, 53(23), 13959–13969. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04709 

New deal to roll out a series of sub-5 MW solar and battery projects highlights growing investor interest developing assets on the distributed energy grid.

The post Taiwan energy company enters Australia with deal to roll out 10 small solar and battery projects appeared first on Renew Economy.

Human handlers still need to be on site but the robots from one US company can now talk to each other and be controlled from anywhere.

The post Remote control robots that talk to each other are building solar farms in Australia appeared first on Renew Economy.