Environmental Working Group

Vermont passes first-in-the-nation bill to ban toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease Anthony Lacey May 13, 2026

In a historic show of bipartisan leadership, Vermont lawmakers today approved a bill to ban the highly toxic herbicide paraquat. It’s the first time a state legislature has passed legislation to phaseout paraquat, a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease.

House Bill 739 would, if enacted, end Vermonters’ exposure to one of the most dangerous pesticides still in use. 

The Environmental Working Group is urging Gov. Phil Scott to sign the legislation and set a first-in-the-nation precedent for banning paraquat. The vote also comes as 12 other states have introduced bills to ban or restrict the chemical and California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation is re-reviewing paraquat.

Paraquat has been linked not only to Parkinson’s disease but also to other serious health harms, including cancer. More than 70 countries have banned paraquat due to these health concerns, yet it remains used in the U.S.

“With today’s vote, Vermont is making history and putting the health of its residents first,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at EWG. “This is the first time any legislative body in the country has passed a bill to fully ban paraquat, sending a powerful signal that the days of tolerating this dangerous chemical are numbered. 

“Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike have made clear that safeguarding farmers, rural communities and children must take precedence over continued use of one of the most hazardous pesticides still on the market.” he added. “Now that the House has passed this landmark bill, we urge Gov. Scott to sign it.”

State Rep. Esme Cole (D-Windsor) and state Sen. Martine Gulick (D-Chittenden-Central District) championed their chambers’ versions of the bills. 

In addition to EWG, groups supporting the paraquat ban bill include the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, The Michael J. Fox Foundation, Parkinson’s Foundation, the American Parkinson Disease Association, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and others.

“No one, including farmers, farmworkers, families or children, should be exposed to a chemical with such well-documented risks,” added Horsfield.

Once Scott signs the legislation, it would mark a major milestone in the fight to eliminate paraquat use in the U.S. and could accelerate efforts in other states. 

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and education, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 13, 2026

Food industry claims state chemical laws will spike grocery bills, but that doesn’t add up Ketura Persellin May 13, 2026

In a page straight out of the industry playbook, a powerful group of U.S. food companies has funded a “study” claiming consumers will pay more if harmful chemicals are labeled or banned.

The industry front group, which represents food giants Nestlé and General Mills, among many others, is also backing other efforts to quash states’ ability to enact stricter food chemical laws.

The Policy Navigation Group, a lobbying and consulting firm whose clients include Dow Chemical and Snack International, published the so-called study. It says food chemical laws in Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia would increase household grocery spending by 12%, or $860, per year. 

Louisiana and Texas enacted laws requiring a simple label or QR code be added to a food products packaging if it includes select ingredients of concern, such as certain artificial dyes and preservatives. West Virginia’s law bans food products containing potentially harmful ingredients like propylparaben, Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40 and Yellow Dye No. 5 from being sold in the state.

Federal regulatory failures have driven dozens of states to introduce similar laws targeting dyes, additives and other ingredients of concern.

But the study has serious flaws. From faulty data to bad math and poor logic, scrutinizing the claims makes clear they don’t add up.

Flawed grocery price analysis

The study uses highly selective examples, false assumptions and outdated models to drive up the cost estimates.

The study’s central assumption is that consumers who see a warning label on food will waste valuable time searching for an alternative that is more expensive. That’s because the study’s authors looked at only a handful of selected retailers who possibly charge more for products with fewer ingredients of concern. 

But that’s not how most Americans actually shop.

Many major grocery chains, including Kroger, Publix, ShopRite and Wegmans, already offer affordable store-brand products that are free of many of the chemicals states are targeting with new food safety laws. 

ShopRite, for instance, designed its Wholesome Pantry store brand to be free of artificial additives at competitive prices.

The study largely fails to account for these affordable, available alternatives – a limitation the researchers themselves acknowledge, noting that their focus on particular retailers likely led them to overlook some products and introduce bias in their results.

Texas, where H-E-B dominates the grocery business, is a heavy focus of the study. Under market pressure, H-E-B has already removed more than 175 synthetic ingredients from its store-brand line. That’s most of the ingredients targeted by Texas’ food chemical labeling law. 

The study didn’t disclose the products and brands it analyzed. But its retailer of choice, Amazon, also owns Whole Foods, so it’s possible many of the pricier alternatives the study identified were Whole Foods products, not the kind of everyday substitutes most shoppers reach for.  

According to a separate food industry report from February, two-thirds of all grocery retailers are reformulating brands to meet consumers’ desire for cleaner products. This includes removing artificial dyes and additives while maintaining affordability.

Faulty math skews study's outcomes

The study’s flaws don’t stop there. 

Most significantly, it claims to be a cost-benefit analysis yet it fails to include the benefits of food chemical labels. This is not a minor methodological oversight but a fundamental failure.

Lower consumer exposure to chemicals of concern would benefit public health, yielding significant healthcare savings. Increased consumption of ultra-processed food, or UPF, is linked to higher rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes, dementia and reproductive harm. 

And the study’s calculations included the 14% of consumers who said they would ignore warning labels. This inflates estimates in consumer spending by assuming cost increases among consumers whose behavior would not actually change. 

It also relied on consumer behavior data that is more than 16 years old, a limitation the researchers themselves flagged as a source of unknown bias. 

Rather than use the lowest available prices for label-free alternatives, as a budget-conscious shopper would likely do, the study used average prices, further overstating the real cost to consumers.

Further, industry representatives and lawmakers sympathetic to them have misused the results to claim that labeling laws would increase by 12% the prices we see on store shelves. The study doesn’t predict that individual grocery items will get more expensive. It actually – and inaccurately – predicts some people will choose to buy more expensive groceries to avoid ingredients of concern. Those are not the same thing.

Helping shoppers make more informed choices is a public health benefit, not a burden. But the study frames labeling requirements as financial harm only.  

Real-world effects of changing food labels

Faulty studies and overinflated price claims are tired industry responses to requests for greater food ingredient transparency. 

In 2022, a federal rule took effect requiring labels on products made with genetically modified ingredients. Industry-funded studies predicted major price increases when products made with GMO ingredients were required to bear labels. 

But the new labels didn’t drive prices up. Many brands simply chose to include the new symbol on their existing labels while other household staples like Cheerios and Grape Nuts were reformulated at no extra cost to consumers.

Consumer Reports found similar industry-funded studies overstated the costs of GMO labeling by nearly a factor of 10. The most realistic industry estimate was around $66 per family of four per year, compared to the original estimate of nearly $500, and even that lower figure was likely inflated. 

Food companies update their labels regularly for seasonal promotions and rebranding, without consumers switching to pricier products. Ingredient disclosure labels would be no different.

A label change would cost a company as little as $205, an amount too small to show up on store shelves, according to the Agriculture Department in 2024.

Clearer labels mean more confident consumers

The study’s authors are correct about one thing: Shoppers’ time is valuable.

Right now, consumers who want to make better food purchases have to read fine-print ingredient lists on every product. Clear labels designed to identify chemicals of concern make it easier and faster for them.

While states push for better public health protections, EWG has tools to help you shop with confidence. 

At home, consumers can check EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals, which highlights top food chemicals to avoid due to health and safety concerns. 

For more guidance, search  EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives. 

Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information at your fingertips while you shop.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Jared Hayes Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 13, 2026

EWG on FDA’s request for information on SPF and UV protection values rcoleman May 13, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments asking the Food and Drug Administration consider moving away from SPF testing in people in favor of in vitro UV protection testing, and for the agency should consider replacing the SPF value with a UV protection value that equally weights the entire UV spectra.

File Download Document fda-1978-n-0018-15844_attachment_1.pdf Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Sunscreen Toxic Chemicals Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. Carla Burns Emily Spilman November 1, 2021

EWG on FDA’s request for information on butylated hydroxyanisole in food rcoleman May 13, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments asking the Food and Drug Administration to remove BHA from food. submitted in response to the agency’s request for information.

File Download Document ewg-s-final-comments-on-bha-to-fda-4_13_2026-1-1.pdf Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. May 13, 2026

6 reasons why the toxic weedkiller paraquat must be banned now Anthony Lacey May 12, 2026

The agricultural chemical paraquat – potentially fatal, if ingested – stands out as one of the pesticides that are most urgent to ban.

California regulators are weighing whether to prohibit paraquat, a toxic weedkiller linked to a greater risk of developing Parkinson’s disease and other health harms. A recent paraquat spill in the state, leading to shelter-in-place orders, shows a ban is long overdue.

Beyond California, 13 states have introduced legislative efforts to prohibit paraquat. At least 70 countries have banned paraquat due to its health concerns, including China, which manufactures the bulk of the world’s supply of the toxic pesticide.

But at the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency has a long history of delay. Since the EPA is not acting to protect us, states are poised to take the lead. 

Here are six reasons why paraquat is uniquely terrible, and why a ban is long overdue.

1. The most notorious Parkinson’s pesticide

Paraquat stands out among the handful of agricultural chemicals linked 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. 

Researchers have used paraquat exposure in animals to study Parkinson’s disease.  

A study using data from the National Institutes of Health found people who sprayed paraquat were more than twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s as those who applied other pesticides. And a meta-analysis of 13 studies found a 64% increase in the likelihood of paraquat exposure leading to the disease.

2. Other serious health harms

Exposure to paraquat is linked to greater risk of several other serious health problems, not only Parkinson’s disease.

Some other pesticides, when they cause health harms, can affect one organ in particular. Paraquat’s toxicity is more pernicious, since its effect is broader, damaging the lungs, kidneys and brain simultaneously.

Other health problems linked to paraquat include thyroid disease and cancer, childhood leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

3. Potential harm to farmers and farmworkers

Paraquat is mostly used to clear fields before farmers plant corn, soybeans, cotton, almonds, peanuts, wine grapes and other crops. And the farmworkers applying the weedkiller are exposed to its health threats, largely by inhaling paraquat vapor.

An EWG investigation found growers and spray companies often permit farmworkers to use the harmful chemical in ways that could endanger themselves and those around them. 

The investigation shows companies fail to provide emergency supplies for their workers, allow application without the correct equipment, and even permit spraying by untrained and underprepared employees. 

EWG’s findings align with studies showing off-label use is common – further highlighting  why existing restrictions on paraquat aren’t enough. The only way to ensure safety is to stop using it. 

4. Risks to the public from vapor

It’s not just farmers and farmworkers who face health risks. Most recently, findings from UCLA researchers show that people living or working within 500 meters, or about 1,640 feet, of paraquat application could more than double their odds of developing Parkinson’s.

Paraquat doesn’t stay where it’s applied. While much of it ends up in the soil for years, the chemical can also travel through the air.

An EPA review of new test data indicates that paraquat can volatilize more than previously measured and the screening model indicates the potential for exposure to people up to and over 2.7 miles away, much farther than previously thought. 

The EPA has requested additional testing data to measure how far paraquat can travel as a vapor volatilization – but action is years away. 

5. Danger of accidental spills

In March, a large container of paraquat fell from a truck in the northern California town of Dorris, spilling roughly 60 gallons of the chemical onto a major roadway and into the surrounding community. 

Citing the threat of exposure to airborne paraquat releases, officials ordered a lockdown affecting about 600 residents, including those at a local elementary school. 

The local sheriff’s department noted paraquat is “a highly toxic herbicide that can be fatal if inhaled or ingested. This chemical can be an airborne risk.”

In 2024, paraquat from a Louisiana farm spilled into a rural water system, prompting a “do not use” warning for the water for about 200 people living nearby.

Communities near farm fields shouldn’t have to worry whether an accidental spill of paraquat will force them to stay in their homes if they want to avoid the chemical’s health risks. 

State bans on paraquat could eliminate the danger of spills. 

6. Threat of accidental or deliberate ingestion

“One sip can kill” – that’s the EPA’s message about paraquat, which dedicates a site to warning against accidentally or deliberately ingesting the chemical. 

Data from 1998-2008 in California found more than 1,400 cases of accidental poisoning because of improper paraquat storage in unmarked bottles, cups and other containers. These poisonings caused at least 50 deaths, with 12 definitively linked to improper storage. 

It’s long past time to ban paraquat

The EPA is reviewing the risks of paraquat use. But a final decision by the agency about whether to restrict it, and how, is likely years away. 

And the EPA has a long history of failing to act. No wonder eight former EPA pesticide officials recently urged states to ban paraquat.

Even major countries where paraquat is made have banned it. But not the U.S. Waiting for the EPA to act leaves Americans unnecessarily exposed to the toxic herbicide. 

That’s why California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation should act swiftly to prohibit paraquat use in the state, and why the 13 states considering legislative bans must push ahead. 

The reasons for banning paraquat are clear. Now it’s time to act.

Areas of Focus Paraquat Authors Anthony Lacey May 12, 2026

MEDIA ADVISORY Ketura Persellin May 11, 2026

ALBANY, N.Y. – State lawmakers and public health advocates will hold a rally at the New York Capitol on Wednesday, May 13, from 1 to 2 p.m. EST, to urge passage of legislation to ban the use of the toxic herbicide paraquat, a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease.

Momentum for the bill is building in the New York Legislature. The Assembly version of the paraquat ban bill, A.10074A, was reported to the floor calendar last week. The identical Senate version, S.9094A, is slated for consideration by the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee soon.

WHO

Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal (D/WF-Assembly District 67), bill sponsor

Sen. Pete Harckham (D/WF-40th Senate District), bill sponsor

Dr. Rebecca Gilbert, Ph.D., chief mission officer, American Parkinson Disease Association

Mike Mooney, former landscaper living with Parkinson’s disease

Wes Gillingham, organic farmer, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York

Sarah Teale, an Emmy-nominated documentary filmmaker and farm owner, who discovered that 36 of her neighbors and her husband, Gordon Chaplin, had Parkinson’s disease. They are all from a small farming community in Hebron, N.Y., where paraquat was widely used.

Jud Eson, an artist living with Parkinson’s disease and member of the Albany Parkinson’s disease community involved at the Capital District YMCA

Nancy Eson, wife and care partner of Jud Eson

Representatives from the Environmental Working Group, The Michael J. Fox Foundation and the Parkinson’s Foundation will emcee the event. 

WHAT

Rally urging passage of legislation to ban paraquat in New York.

WHEN

Wednesday, May 13, from 1 to 2 p.m. EST

WHERE

3rd floor staircase, outside of the Assembly Lobby,  inside New York State Capitol, Albany, N.Y.

WHY

Paraquat is one of the most toxic herbicides still in use in the U.S. and has been associated with a significantly increased risk of Parkinson’s disease. 

The chemical has been banned in more than 70 countries over its outsize risks to human health, including in China, where most of it is produced. Advocates and lawmakers  urge swift legislative action to protect public health, farmworkers and communities across New York.

###

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 Paraquat Lawmakers, advocates to rally at New York Capitol supporting ban on toxic Parkinson’s pesticide Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 11, 2026

FDA finds toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in baby formula but won’t set enforceable limits Monica Amarelo May 5, 2026

WASHINGTON – The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS were found in baby formula sold across the U.S., according to test data recently released by the Food and Drug Administration. 

The findings underscore an urgent and long-overdue need for legal limits on PFAS in food. One year ago, the Environmental Working Group urged the FDA to develop action levels for PFAS in food. 

Monitoring without action does not protect children. A PFAS action level would let the FDA take legal action to remove products from the market if they exceed that limit.

The FDA tested 312 infant formula samples from 16 brands for 30 PFAS compounds as part of its Operation Stork Speed initiative. Five PFAS compounds were detected. 

PFOS was most commonly detected, found in half of all samples at concentrations ranging from 0.51 to 6.0 parts per trillion. PFOS is one of the most toxic and well-studied PFAS and the Environmental Protection Agency says it’s likely to be carcinogenic to humans.

The FDA characterizes these levels as low and concludes the infant formula supply is safe.

“No safe level of PFAS exposure has been established, and that is especially true for infants,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., EWG chief science officer. 

“PFOS bioaccumulates in the body and it damages the immune system, including reducing the effectiveness of vaccines in babies and children. Detecting it in half of all formula samples and characterizing these findings as a proof of safety is not a conclusion the science supports,” said Andrews.

“Formula is the sole nutrition source for millions of American infants and toddlers. The FDA’s safety claim is not acceptable, given these detections of a known cancer-causing chemical. The agency must set enforceable PFAS action levels for food, as other nations already have done."

“Congress gave the FDA the authority to set limits on contaminants in infant formula. The agency has chosen not to use it,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at EWG. 

“Every day the FDA delays setting enforceable PFAS limits is another day American infants are exposed to toxic PFAS with zero legal protection. That is a policy choice, and it is the wrong one,” he said.

Not just trace contamination

PFOS was phased out of U.S. manufacturing under pressure from the EPA after evidence emerged of significant health hazards. It was used in 3M’s Scotchgard and widely deployed in firefighting foam at military bases and airports, contaminating groundwater systems across the country. 

EWG’s PFAS contamination map documents PFOS in the drinking water supply of nearly half the nation’s water systems. 

The EPA regulates PFOS in drinking water at a maximum contaminant level of just 4 parts per trillion, set because of PFOS’s classification as a carcinogen. 

The FDA has established no equivalent limit for infant formula, so infants and toddlers may continue to be exposed to PFOS in food, as well as in tap water.

“Most of the formula samples the FDA tested were powdered, and most parents mix powdered formula with tap water,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG. “Depending on where you live, your tap water may be contaminated with PFAS.

“That means babies could be getting a double dose – PFAS already present in the formula powder, and additional PFAS from the water used to prepare it. That compounding exposure is exactly why we need enforceable limits, not just monitoring,” she added.

The FDA findings closely mirror Consumer Reports’ 2025 investigation, which found PFAS in almost all of the 41 popular baby formula brands it tested, including Enfamil, Similac and Bobbie. 

Consumer Reports also identified PFOS as the most concerning compound detected. 

Two independent investigations, the same alarming result – and still no enforceable federal standard for PFAS in food.

Food may be the primary route of PFAS exposure

For millions of Americans, food – not drinking water – is the main route of PFAS exposure. These chemicals enter the food supply through multiple pathways federal regulators have failed to close.

“PFAS are clearly infiltrating our entire food system as a direct result of regulatory failure,” said Andrews. 

“PFAS-containing pesticides are being applied to crops. Biosolids contaminated with PFAS are being spread on farm fields. Contaminated water is being sprayed on food crops. Every one of these pathways is preventable, and every one of them remains legal,” said Andrews.

“We need to ban all nonessential uses of PFAS, starting with these agricultural applications, before the contamination gets any worse,” he added.

Stakes are highest for the most vulnerable

PFAS exposure, with its health stakes, begins before birth. 

PFAS are toxic at extremely low levels. They are known as forever chemicals because once released into the environment, they do not break down and can build up in the body. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies. 

PFAS readily cross the placenta and have been detected in umbilical cord blood, confirming that the developing fetus faces direct prenatal exposure. 

When PFAS are detected in the infant formula that millions of American babies depend on as their sole source of nutrition, the exposure does not begin at the first feeding. For many infants, it has already been accumulating for months.

A recent study also links prenatal PFAS exposure to premature birth, low birth weight and infant mortality. The full range of documented harms extends further still: thyroid disruption, harm to the male reproductive system, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, reduced fertility and shorter duration of breastfeeding. 

Very low doses of PFAS have been linked to suppression of the immune system. Studies show exposure to PFAS can also increase the risk of cancer, harm fetal development and reduce vaccine effectiveness. 

The impact on infants and toddlers is especially pronounced. “Babies are not small adults when it comes to chemical exposure – they are categorically more vulnerable,” said Stoiber. 

“Babies’ bodies are smaller, their organs are still developing, and their immune systems are not yet fully formed. When PFAS accumulate in an infant’s body, the proportional impact is far greater than it would be in an adult exposed to the same amount.

“Parents are often limited in the type of formula that is available to them and the FDA’s testing did not disclose the brand names tested. The FDA must act to protect all children,” she added.

“The administration says it wants to make America healthy again,” said Faber. “Here is a straightforward way to start: Set enforceable limits on PFAS in baby formula today. 

“The science is clear, the authority exists and the harm has been documented. American families cannot wait any longer for the federal government to do its job,” he added.

What parents can do right now

No parent should have to navigate this alone. Until the FDA establishes enforceable PFAS standards in infant formula, here are practical steps to reduce your baby’s exposure:

• Use filtered water when preparing powdered formula. A reverse osmosis system provides the most effective PFAS filtration. Countertop pitcher filters have also shown meaningful effectiveness in EWG testing. 
• Check EWG’s PFAS contamination map to see whether your local water supply has documented PFOS or other PFAS contamination.
• Make your voice heard. Contact the FDA and your elected representatives and demand enforceable PFAS limits in infant formula. The FDA’s Operation Stork Speed is an ongoing testing program. Sustained public pressure from parents is one of the most effective ways to accelerate the regulatory action.

###

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 & Water Food Children’s Health PFAS Chemicals Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 5, 2026

Peer-reviewed EWG study finds produce washing options can reduce pesticide residue Anthony Lacey May 4, 2026

• All methods of washing fruits and vegetables reduced pesticide residues, but effectiveness varied widely and depends on the pesticide, produce and method.
• Soaking produce in a solution of baking soda or vinegar solution was more effective than soaking or rinsing in water, on average.
• EWG scientists recommend improvements to how pesticides are monitored in food and in people to further reduce exposure.

WASHINGTON – Affordable, simple household practices can reduce pesticide levels on fruits and vegetables and help consumers lower their daily dietary exposure to potentially harmful farm chemicals, a new peer-reviewed study by Environmental Working Group scientists finds.

The study builds on EWG’s pesticide consumer guidance in the annual Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™ and its comprehensive research on pesticides exposures. 

“Fruits and vegetables are essential to a healthy diet, but they can also increase exposure to pesticides,” said Dayna de Montagnac, M.P.H., associate scientist at EWG and lead author of the study. 

“Our findings reinforce the effectiveness of safe and accessible ways to reduce pesticide exposure while highlighting necessary improvements in research and monitoring to further reduce it,” she said.

Pesticide residues on produce

The review, published recently in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Health, analyzed data from 47 peer-reviewed studies of 23 produce items and 79 pesticides. The findings point to safe and effective methods consumers can use at home to reduce pesticide residues and provide a starting point for more research and monitoring in this area of study. 

Last year, EWG published peer-reviewed research showing how the consumption of fruits and vegetables with higher pesticide residues is linked to measurable levels of pesticides in urine. Other recent publications have investigated the growing problem of PFAS pesticides, chlormequat and glyphosate. 

Studies of the general population show exposure to pesticides is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, hormone disruption and neurotoxicity in children. 

Residues of these chemicals are often detected on produce and frequently appear in mixtures on every type of produce, except potatoes, with an average of four or more pesticides detected on individual samples, according to EWG’s recent analysis of Department of Agriculture pesticide testing data. 

Key findings

EWG scientists reviewed data that recorded pesticide concentrations of fruits and vegetables before and after rinsing or soaking them with water, baking soda or vinegar. Experiments where scientists rinsed their produce for more than two minutes were excluded to better reflect how people likely wash their produce at home.

Among the key findings:

• All washing methods reduced pesticide residues, but effectiveness varied widely.
• Rinsing with water showed modest reductions, with a median of 30.2%, although reductions ranged from 0% to 94%.
• Soaking in plain water performed slightly better than rinsing, with reductions from 0.6% to over 99% and a median of 33.7%.
• Baking soda soaking substantially improved removal, achieving reductions from 0.2% to over 99%, with a median of 50.9%.
• Vinegar, or acetic acid, soaking was the most effective method overall, with reductions ranging from 8.6% to over 99% and a median of 54.2%.
• Baking soda and vinegar treatments outperformed plain water by more than 15 percentage points in median pesticide reduction across studies, likely because of how certain pesticides break down in alkaline or acidic environments. 
• Real-world effectiveness may be lower than what EWG’s study showed, since many studies used higher concentrations of baking soda or vinegar than a typical household would.
• Key factors influencing pesticide removal included the chemical properties of the pesticide, the washing method used, and the type and surface characteristics of the produce.

These findings confirm the role washing produce can provide in moderately lowering pesticide levels.

Where more work is needed

The study’s authors recommend that government agencies make it a priority to monitor stubborn pesticides, those that remain on produce even after household washing. 

They also suggest expanding biomonitoring of fruits and vegetables to include pesticides frequently detected in the U.S. food supply. 

Future research should explore what proportion of pesticide residues remain within specific produce items and to what extent these residues increase exposure. 

The authors also suggest study designs that are more realistic, such as testing for the effect of rinsing for just a few seconds as a baseline. Further experiments could then show how adding baking soda or vinegar, with incremental increases in concentrations and washing times, can compare to the baseline method.

What consumers can do

EWG recommends regularly washing and eating plenty of fruit and vegetables.

Washing produce in any way will always be better than no washing in reducing exposure to pesticide residues. The USDA’s Pesticide Residue Program rinses produce samples with cold water for 15 to 20 seconds before testing produce, reflecting the assumption that consumers do basic washing at home.

A quick rinse or soak works in a pinch. When feasible, the addition of baking soda or vinegar to soaking solutions can further reduce residues. Refer to EWG’s guide on washing produce for more guidance.

When possible, EWG recommends prioritizing organic produce for the most pesticide-heavy produce listed in its Shopper’s Guide. The guide features the Dirty Dozen™ list of the produce with the highest pesticide residues detected and the Clean Fifteen™ list of items with the lowest residues.

###

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 Food Family Health Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 5, 2026

Vermont Senate advances landmark ban on Parkinson’s pesticide Anthony Lacey May 3, 2026

Vermont’s Senate today gave its initial approval to landmark legislation that would ban the use and sale of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat, bringing the state to the cusp of becoming the first in the nation to enact such a prohibition.

The legislation, H. 739, would end Vermonters’ exposure to paraquat, an extremely dangerous weedkiller linked to serious health harms, including Parkinson’s disease. Despite these risks, the U.S. still allows its use, even though more than 70 countries have banned it.

Vermont’s House passed a nearly identical measure in March and must now vote to concur with the Senate’s version, before sending the bill to Gov. Phil Scott (R).

“With today’s vote, Vermont is on the verge of making history by becoming the first state to ban paraquat,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at the Environmental Working Group. “Lawmakers in both chambers have recognized the urgent need to protect public health. The House should act swiftly to send this bill to the governor’s desk.”

Horsfield thanked Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike for their work on the bill, led by Rep. Esme Cole (Windsor-6) and Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden-Central District). “They have made clear that safeguarding farmers, rural communities and children must take precedence over continued use of one of the most hazardous pesticides still on the market,” he added.

Paraquat has been extensively studied for its links to Parkinson’s disease and other serious illnesses, and even small amounts of exposure can pose significant health risks, including death. The chemical can travel through the air for more than two miles and persist in the environment, raising concerns for rural communities and agricultural workers alike.

If enacted, the legislation would position Vermont as a national leader at a moment of growing momentum to phase out paraquat.  At least 12 other states have introduced similar bans, and California is considering new regulatory restrictions. These efforts are clear signs of escalating concern over the chemical’s well-documented health risks.

“If signed into law, this bill will prevent needless exposure to a chemical tied to a devastating disease and set a powerful precedent for states across the country to follow,” Horsfield said.

###

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 Farming & Agriculture Paraquat Vote puts state on brink of being first-in-nation to prohibit toxic herbicide paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 6, 2026

Going full glam with EWG Verified® JR Culpepper April 30, 2026

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

Crafting the perfect look for any occasion takes laser-like focus, patience and the right products. The last thing on your mind should be whether a product is safe to use.

When you're getting ready for an important occasion, whether a wedding, prom or graduation, you don't want any stress over what’s in your cosmetics.

This spring, EWG is making sure those worries won’t interrupt your makeup flow state. We’ve put together a list of products to help reach your full glam look. This list includes lipsticks, mascaras, eyeliners, eyeshadows and foundations. 

The best part? Every product below is EWG Verified®. That means it has been reviewed by our scientists and meets our strictest standards for safety and ingredient transparency.

If you’re looking for other ideas or products, check out our Skin Deep database.

Lips CRUNCHI Everluxe® Lip Crayon View details Counter Lined and Primed Lip Defining Pencil View details Maia’s Mineral Galaxy Liquid Lipstick View details Mascara Well People Expressionist Curling Mascara View details Counter Think Big Mascara View details Rejuva Minerals Pur Lash Volumizing Mascara View details Eyeliner Well People Fresh Lines Eye Pencil View details Maia's Mineral Galaxy Mineral Eye Liner View details CRUNCHI Highliner® Pencil View details Eyeshadow CRUNCHI Shadow Bar® Enchanted Neutrals View details Rejuva Minerals Eyeshadow Multi Purpose Powder View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Eyeshadow View details Brows DIME Boost Duo View details Well People Expressionist Brow Pencil View details Foundation Well People Supernatural Complexion Stick Foundation + Concealer, Light Medium Warm View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Foundation, Cream View details Counter Skin Twin Featherweight Foundation View details Highlighter/bronzer ATTITUDE Oceanly Highlighter View details Well People Supernatural Stick Highlighter View details Counter Velvet Cream Bronzer View details Authors EWG Communications Team April 30, 2026

FDA abandons stricter tanning bed standards, leaving teens at risk Anthony Lacey April 30, 2026

Tanning beds can increase the risk of skin cancer, and the Food and Drug Administration has long warned that children and teens should never use them. Yet the agency has quietly killed a rule that would have banned anyone under 18 from using these devices.

The FDA first proposed the rule over a decade ago, along with other restrictions on the use of tanning beds and requiring that they carry warning labels. If finalized, the rule would have brought the federal government in line with dozens of states that have already restricted teens’ access to the beds.

Instead, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s FDA recently issued a notice scrapping the proposal. The agency justified the move by claiming industry groups and others raised “scientific and technical concerns” about the plan. It also asserted that withdrawing the proposal doesn’t prevent it from crafting new tanning bed rules in the future.

That leaves minors without any federal protection from an industry that has long targeted teenage girls. It’s hardly going to “Make America Healthy Again.”

At least 23 states, along with most of Canada, the European Union and Australia have already banned minors from tanning beds due to their serious health risks. The FDA’s decision is a clear case of burying its head in the sand while leaving teens in harm’s way.

What the science says

The science on tanning bed risks isn’t emerging or uncertain.

A large scientific body of evidence links tanning bed use to serious health harms, with cancer often occurring decades after first exposure. The FDA’s withdrawn rule was based on these findings, proposing a plan to protect minors across the country from these harms.  

In 1999, the National Toxicology Program classified tanning beds as known carcinogens. It cited the link between the ultraviolet, or UV, radiation the beds produce and the risk of developing both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers.

Nearly a decade later, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, placed tanning beds in its highest risk category: a known human carcinogen. This classification is the same given to tobacco and asbestos, based on a 75% increased risk of melanoma for women who start using tanning beds before the age of 30.  

A large body of epidemiological evidence also links use of sunbeds to higher melanoma risk, especially when first use occurs before age 30. 

The IARC review also found that tanning bed usage  increased the risk for other skin cancers including, squamous cell carcinoma, as well as caused serious, lasting eye damage.

Agency avoids action

Despite the evidence, the FDA spent decades avoiding any real action. 

When initially faced with evidence showing rising melanoma rates in young women, the agency proposed in 2013 a warning label. That label advised that tanning beds should not be used by people under the age of 18. But there was no way to enforce it to guarantee the labels were used, and no restriction on minors using the beds.

It was a gesture, not a safeguard.

The ultraviolet A, or UVA, radiation inside a tanning bed is very different from the natural sunlight your body encounters outdoors. 

Tanning beds are deliberately engineered to maximize  UVA radiation, the wavelength responsible for tanning the skin, while minimizing ultraviolet B, or UVB, rays responsible for sunburn. It’s a design choice to keep customers coming back by removing the most immediate, visible consequences of overexposure.

But suppressing the burn doesn’t suppress the damage. UVA radiation penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB and is linked to skin aging, skin immune harm and plays an important role in the development of skin cancer. 

Some proponents of tanning beds point to modest, short-lived increases in the body’s vitamin D levels as a justification for use. But researchers are clear. No brief vitamin D boost is worth the added cancer risk, especially when there are safer alternatives, such as dietary changes. 

Ineffective sunscreen carries its own risks

The tanning bed problem doesn’t stop at the salon door. 

Consumers might think wearing sunscreen while sunbathing protects them from harmful UVA exposure. But many sunscreens primarily block the rays that cause sunburn, UVB, while providing far weaker protection against  UVA. The result is UV exposure that closely resembles a tanning bed.

Researchers calculated that a two-week vacation spent using a sunscreen with poor UVA protection, even with frequent reapplication and no visible sunburn, delivers the same solar exposure as 10 trips to a tanning salon. 

That’s why EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens® places heavy weight on strong UVA protection in the product rankings. And it’s why we’ve worked for decades to urge the FDA to require stronger UVA standards and set a limit on sun protection factor, or SPF,  values for U.S. sunscreen.

The gap between what sunscreens promise with their often high SPF labels and what they actually deliver on UVA is well documented. 

When EWG tested sunscreens in 2021, we found that, on average, UVA protection was just one-quarter of the SPF level advertised on the label. 

FDA researchers reached the same conclusion in their own sunscreen testing, finding that many U.S. sunscreens lack adequate UVA protection. The agency flagged a particular concern that high SPF numbers often mask weak UVA coverage.

EWG Verified® sunscreens go one step further. These products must undergo additional testing to confirm that their UVA protection exceeds the requirements in both the U.S. and in Europe – not just meet them. They’re also free from EWG’s chemicals of concern, so you know you’re buying a safer and more effective sunscreen for you and your family.

The sun is both a major cause of skin cancer and the body’s primary source of vitamin D, an essential nutrient that forms when skin is exposed to intense sunlight. 

But generating vitamin D needs only a few minutes of sun exposure per week during summer for people with less melanated skin. Major medical associations advise against deliberate, prolonged sun exposure as a strategy for boosting vitamin D levels. The health risks outweigh the returns. 

What you can do

The science on tanning beds, sunscreens and UV risks is clear, even if federal policy is not. 

EWG provides actionable consumer advice to minimize the potential for long-term harm:

• Avoid tanning beds entirely. There is no safe level of use, especially for minors. The risk increases the younger that someone starts using them. 
• Use sunscreen. High SPF numbers don’t always guarantee UVA protection. It’s important to find a sunscreen that works for you.
• Check out EWG’s tools. Search EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens™ and EWG's Healthy Living App to find top-rated products that provide balanced UVA/UVB protection without ingredients of concern.
• Cover up. Wear protective clothing, hats and UV-blocking sunglasses.
• Seek shade. Find or create your shade with an umbrella or canopy.
• Time your outdoor activities. UV radiation is strongest between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Plan your outdoor time around the sun's peak hours when you can. 

Go outside. Have fun. Don’t get burned. A tanning bed isn’t worth the risk. 

Areas of Focus Sunscreen Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Agency withdraws decade-old plan for protecting minors from skin cancer Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. May 1, 2026

Your favorite brands might be in the fight against stricter food safety laws JR Culpepper April 30, 2026

More than a dozen states have enacted laws to protect consumers from harmful food chemicals and ultra-processed foods. Your favorite food brands may be tied up in efforts to erase them.

A draft bill known as the “FRESH” and Affordable Foods Act, introduced last week by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), would take an unprecedented step in food policy by undoing many state laws aimed at strengthening food safety. States would also lose authority to regulate food chemicals in the future.

If enacted, the bill would make it dramatically easier for the food industry to add new chemicals to the food supply without meaningful review by the Food and Drug Administration – and would make it harder for the public to get information about these substances.

The bill closely mirrors previous proposals advanced by Americans for Ingredient Transparency, or AFIT. This is a front group lobbying for the interests of the largest food manufacturers and trade associations in the country. 

Names you might recognize on AFIT’s website include the Coca Cola Company, General Mills, Hormel Foods, Ken’s, Keurig Dr Pepper, Kraft Heinz, McCormick & Company, Nestlé, Ocean Spray, PepsiCo, Sargento and Tyson Foods. 

While AFIT isn’t officially backing the bill, the clear parallels between its wishlist and the legislation make its involvement appear likely. 

Brand favorites are tied up in the food fight

The companies belonging to AFIT own thousands of popular U.S. food and drink brands, whose products could be sitting on your shelves or in your fridge right now.

Below are just a few brands – many of which are known for promoting healthy or kid-friendly foods – owned by companies who are members of the front group AFIT.

General Mills is known for classic cereal brands like Cheerios. It also owns Cascadian Farm, EPIC protein bars, Larabar, Nature Valley and Yoplait.

Nestlé is the parent company of a range of brands, from Gerber baby and toddler foods to San Pellegrino waters to Orgain protein powders and nutritional supplements.

Keurig Dr Pepper owns the Mott’s brand, which caters to kids and families with its applesauce, juice and other snack lines. It also owns multiple flavored water brands, including Bai and Core Hydration.

PepsiCo is the parent company of multiple brands marketing nutrition supplements and healthier beverage options like Bubly, Poppi and Lifewater. Its products also include Sabra hummus, PopCorners chips, and Quaker oats, bars and cereals.

The complete list of foods owned by member companies of AFIT spans products found in virtually every grocery aisle. It includes a wide range of popular meat and poultry items, cookies and crackers, chips and snacks, energy and sports drinks, canned food, condiments, spices and seasonings, and prepared and frozen meals.

The FRESH Act makes food less safe

The retroactive reach of the FRESH Act – undoing existing state food safety laws – is its most radical feature and the one that has received the least attention. 

California’s Food Safety Act, which bans Red Dye No. 3, brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate and propyl paraben from food sold in the state, would be nullified. 

Similar laws in Arkansas, Texas and Utah banning the same chemicals would be void. Taken together, these state laws represent years of effort, public advocacy and the democratic process, which would all be eliminated overnight by one single federal bill.  

The FRESH Act would also make it easier for companies to add chemicals to food without FDA approval. Food chemicals already approved, including those considered “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, would not receive additional FDA review. 

But GRAS chemicals aren’t necessarily safe chemicals. That’s because nearly 99% percent of the chemicals approved as GRAS since the year 2000 have been greenlighted by industry, not the FDA. 

The FRESH Act would undermine an already weak system for approving new chemicals. It would allow food chemical companies to submit even less information to the FDA on the chemicals they use. 

The bill would also let companies enlist industry-funded expert panels to decide food chemicals are safe, as long as they are added to an FDA database. Experts could also continue to have conflicts of interest as long as they are “managed.” If the FDA doesn’t respond to a request to add a new chemical to the GRAS list in 90 days, it would be added by default.

Under the FRESH Act, even if the FDA does ban a food chemical due to health and safety risks, the chemical of concern would still be allowed in food for two years. Companies may also ask the FDA to hide safety information from the public or delay chemical restrictions indefinitely by requesting hearings.

Everything the bill aims to achieve is a striking contrast to the agenda of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Under his signature “Make America Healthy Again,” Kennedy has called out food dyes, ultra-processed foods and the GRAS loophole as targets for reform. 

What consumers can do now

In the absence of federal action, states have stepped up to protect our health by removing toxic chemicals from our food. The FRESH Act would strip states of that power and place food safety in the hands of chemical companies instead.

Contact your representative and urge them to preserve critical public health protections by rejecting the FRESH Act. This is a direct attack on states rights and food safety. Your call carries weight.

At home, shoppers can check EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals, which highlights top food chemicals to avoid due to health and safety concerns. 

For some extra help, take a look at EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives. 

Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information in your pocket while you shop.

The food industry, including some of your favorite brands, is hoping consumers aren’t paying attention to this fight. Let’s prove them wrong.

Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN April 30, 2026

EWG applauds House passage of Luna amendment to protect public from toxic pesticides Anthony Lacey April 30, 2026

WASHINGTON — House lawmakers today passed a farm bill amendment, led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), that removes a controversial liability shield for pesticide manufacturers.

The successful 280-142 vote scraps a provision that would have given the companies sweeping immunity from liability for illnesses linked to their products. 

The vote also preserves states’ authority to adopt stronger health warnings for pesticides.

The following is a statement from EWG’s Legislative Director Geoff Horsfield:

EWG strongly supports the House’s adoption of Rep. Luna’s amendment to the farm bill. By striking provisions that would have shielded pesticide manufacturers from accountability and undermined state and local protections, the House has taken an important step to safeguard public health.

At a time when communities nationwide are increasingly concerned about the risks associated with pesticide exposure, lawmakers should be strengthening – not weakening – the ability of states and local governments to act. 

Preserving these protections ensures that communities, especially farmworkers and children, are not left vulnerable from exposure to harmful farm chemicals.

EWG commends the House for rejecting efforts to erode state and local authority and urges Congress to maintain this critical language as the farm bill advances. Protecting people from toxic pesticides must remain a top priority.

###

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 Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 April 30, 2026

New study finds ‘clean’ products for textured hair contain hidden hazards  Ketura Persellin April 29, 2026

Americans spend billions of dollars on hair care products every year, with growing demand for those marketed as “clean,” “natural” or “free from” harmful chemicals. But a new study finds the claims don’t always stand up to scrutiny and highlights the need for transparency in labeling to reduce uncertainty for consumers. 

The article was published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology.

This means some consumers who think they’re buying a safer product could still be exposed to potentially harmful substances in their products. And products marketed to Black women contain more hazardous ingredients, resulting in disproportionate exposure from personal care products for Black women and women of color.

Scientists led by researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Columbia University along with Black Women for Wellness and Silent Spring analyzed products marketed as “clean,” focusing on textured hair described as curly, coily or wavy. Researchers reviewed products available at a Target in Los Angeles and used EWG’s Skin Deep® database to review ingredients in 150 hair products. 

Skin Deep scores over 144,000 personal care products based on the potential toxicity of their ingredients.

Some of the products included undisclosed “fragrance” compounds that can be endocrine disruptors linked to allergies, skin irritation and potential harm to the reproductive system. Other brands included ingredients that have been linked to these and other health concerns.

Around 40% of the products the researchers analyzed are listed in EWG’s Skin Deep database. The main findings were:

• 70% of products contained undisclosed fragrance, which is an umbrella term that refers to a mixture of potentially 100 or more chemicals. 
• 90% were classified as a “moderate” hazard (between 3 and 6 in Skin Deep). 
• “Free from” claims were inconsistently used on products. For example, only 60% of products formulated without sulfates were described as “sulfate free.”

Inequitable hazards

This isn’t just a marketing or labeling problem. It’s an equity problem. 

The study focused on textured hair products because they are disproportionately used by women of color, who already bear a heavier burden of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. 

EWG’s 2025 report on products marketed to Black women found disparities in the availability of safer personal care products. Using data from Skin Deep, EWG found the products were, on average, more hazardous than products without demographic marketing. 

Studies that have measured the concentration of certain personal care product chemicals in the body have also consistently reported that concentrations are higher in Black women, compared to white women.  

Regulatory gaps

Personal care product brands and retailers should take steps to develop and promote safer options that are genuinely free from chemicals of concern.

But it’s not just the industry’s duty to act – the lack of a federal definition for “clean” products means consumers must still navigate a complex and often opaque marketplace. No U.S. government agency requires companies to back up safety claims about their products.

The European Union has taken steps to protect consumers from greenwashing, a marketing tactic that involves making misleading claims so the product appears safe, environmentally friendly or sustainable. The EU’s 2023 Green Claims Directive outlined criteria to prevent companies from using unsubstantiated claims on their products. 

While the Federal Trade Commission says it is illegal to make claims that are “unfair or deceptive,” these terms are not closely regulated. This leaves little protection for consumers from greenwashing claims.

What you can do 

If you’re shopping for hair care or any other personal care products and you want to avoid problematic ingredients, here are some tips:

• Look for the EWG Verified® mark. In lieu of stronger regulations, third-party certification can fill the gap. That’s why EWG Verified exists: It gives consumers a mark they can trust. These products have been reviewed by our scientists and meet our most rigorous standards for health and transparency. 
• Avoid undisclosed fragrance. Watch for this term on product labels. Fragrance can hide hundreds of undisclosed chemicals. Instead, choose products that disclose all their fragrance ingredients, or look for the EWG Verified mark.
• Look for low hazard options. Check the list of the 4,000+ products marketed to Black women, and choose low hazard options. Or search our Healthy Living app or Skin Deep database to identify products that score low hazard (a 1 or 2). 

Areas of Focus Cosmetics Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. April 29, 2026

EWG testimony before the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Healthier America: Legislative Proposals on the Regulation and Oversight of Food Iris Myers April 28, 2026

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

My name is Scott Faber, and I am the senior vice president for government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a national nonprofit environmental health organization. I am also an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, where I teach food and farm law. Prior to joining EWG, I was the vice president for federal affairs for the Consumer Brands Association, formerly known as the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Thank you for holding today’s hearing on legislative proposals to address food policy. Food that is safe, affordable and healthy, and that is produced in ways that reflect America’s shared values, is not a partisan issue. All Americans, regardless of party, want our food to be safe, affordable and healthy.

Many of our food and farm laws have not been updated in decades, or are not being implemented in ways that reflect our shared commitment to safe, affordable, healthy food.

Many Americans simply lack access to healthier foods. 

Diet-related disease is now our leading cause of death, surpassing smoking, as consumers struggle to distinguish between ultra-processed food, and healthier processed foods. 

And every year, thousands of us are sickened by pathogens, and hundreds die. Too many of us eat food that is contaminated with toxic metals or contaminants like PFAS. Too many of us eat food that contains food additives and substances that have been linked to serious health harms, including cancer.

In particular, nearly 99% of new food chemicals have, since 2000, been approved for safety by food chemical companies, not the Food and Drug Administration. And the FDA rarely reconsiders the safety of the thousands of chemicals we’re already eating. Many of these new chemicals were added to our food without the FDA’s knowledge. 

In the absence of federal action, our states have played an important complementary role, by phasing out the most troubling food chemicals, especially from school foods. Arizona, California, Delaware, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia are protecting our children from chemicals of concern in school foods.

Many of the bills that are the subject of today’s hearing would help make our food safer and healthier by:

• updating food labels
• banning chemicals of concern
• alerting consumers to hidden threats
• ending deceptive practices
• reducing heavy metal contamination, especially in baby and toddler food
• modernizing how we review food chemicals. 

To ensure the safety of our food, Congress should require that all new food chemicals be approved for safety by the FDA, not food chemical companies, and should direct the FDA to reconsider the safety of the chemicals we’re already eating, starting with food chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health harms. Chemicals that pose serious risks, like cancer, should not be in food, let alone considered “generally recognized as safe,” and should be quickly removed from our food. 

Food chemical assessments should be based on publicly available, scientific studies, and consumers should have the chance to share their views and receive a response from the FDA.

Congress should ensure that the FDA has the culture and clear deadlines needed to restore consumer confidence in the safety of food chemicals. Congress should also ensure that baby and toddler food is safe. Recent food safety failures and investigations have underscored the need to increase tests for more pathogens and immediately report the results, and to set and enforce tough standards for neurotoxic heavy metals like lead. 

To meet these responsibilities, Congress should allow the FDA to assess fees on chemical and food companies to ensure the FDA has the resources to be a full partner with our states.

Congress should not, as proposed by a bill under consideration at this hearing, make our broken food chemical safety system even worse by allowing food chemical companies to bypass FDA review altogether and instead allowing industry-funded panels of industry insiders to approve new food chemicals that can be immediately added to food.

Congress should not, as proposed, reduce the amount of information about new chemicals that must be submitted to the FDA. Nor should it allow a new chemical to be added to food without a thorough review and presume it to be safe just because the FDA has missed an artificial deadline. 

Congress should not, as proposed, weaken longstanding legal standards, allow hundreds of food additives and substances to escape FDA review through legal redefinitions, simply declare that all the substances now allowed in food are “safe,” or allow the chemical industry to decide whether new uses of chemicals are not “substantial” enough to require FDA review. Congress should not further delay standards for heavy metals in baby food.

Most importantly, Congress should not, as proposed, block states from providing important protections, especially when the FDA fails to protect us. State and local governments are partners critical to the FDA, inspecting food manufacturing facilities, ensuring our restaurants are safe, protecting us from toxic chemicals and contaminants in our food, enforcing food safety laws, and responding quickly when pathogens threaten our health. 

Our states are part of the solution, not the problem. 

Safer food starts with tougher standards and safeguards implemented by trusted, unbiased experts, not by industry-funded panels and secret studies. To help consumers identify healthier foods, we must make our labels clearer and expand access to healthier options. Processed foods can be part of a healthy diet, and many processed foods are healthier foods: low in added sugar, saturated fat and sodium – and free from dodgy additives. 

Congress should make it easier for busy consumers to find these healthier foods at glance.

Reforms that make our food safer and healthier will not increase the price of food. The same foods are being made in other nations without chemicals of concern or misleading labels and cost the same amount. Many factors impact the price of food – including the cost of labor, energy, transportation and marketing – but replacing a toxic chemical with a safe alternative or changing a label to help busy shoppers is not one of them.

Food manufacturers have thousands of additives and substances at their disposal, so banning a handful linked to cancer or other health harms will not increase the cost of food. By contrast, the cost of inaction – rising health care costs caused by poor diets and lost productivity due to foodborne illness – is significant and growing. 

In the absence of federal action, our states are working together to reduce the presence of ultra-processed food in our schools and to identify and address chemicals of concern that are banned elsewhere and excluded from identical products offered by the same food companies at the same cost.

I work with state and local legislators every day. Many of you were state and local legislators. We know state and local legislators are thoughtful, dedicated public servants who want what we all want: safe, healthy and affordable food. Until the FDA is doing its part, state and local legislators simply want the ability to keep us safe.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am grateful this committee has chosen to hold this hearing at a moment when food policy is on the minds of so many consumers.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals California Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 April 29, 2026

‘FRESH’ and Affordable Foods Act is rotten to the core Anthony Lacey April 22, 2026

WASHINGTON – Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) today introduced a draft bill that would, if enacted, further hobble an already broken system that allows scores of food chemicals to come onto the market with little government oversight.

The bill would gut rules on the information companies must provide the Food and Drug Administration when submitting a notice that a food chemical is “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS. Known as the FDA Review and Evaluation for Safe, Healthy and Affordable Foods, or FRESH and Affordable Foods Act, the bill would:

• Preempt, retroactively and prospectively, all state food chemical laws, including those banning the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS from food packaging and artificial dyes from school food. 
• Allow new food chemicals linked to cancer and reproductive harm to be considered “safe.”
• Allow new food chemicals to be added to food without an affirmative finding of safety by the FDA.
• Retroactively approve all food chemicals currently considered GRAS.
• Allow new chemicals to be added to food if the FDA does not respond to a GRAS notice within 90 days. 
• Allow new chemicals to be added to food as long as the food chemical company submits a “synopsis” of the chemical company’s safety conclusion.
• Allow new chemicals to be added to food without giving the FDA basic information, such as estimates of dietary exposure. 
• Allow new chemicals reviewed by industry-funded expert panels – including the flavor industry’s notorious “expert” panel – to be automatically GRAS and used in food immediately. 
• Allow companies to use food chemicals in new ways, without asking the FDA for approval. 
• Allow chemicals to be added to food for two years after the FDA determines they are no longer safe, unless there is a severe and imminent risk of harm. 

“I did not think it was possible to make our food system even weaker, but this proposal does it,” said Melanie Benesh, the Environmental Working Group’s vice president for government affairs.

Undermining food safety

Under current law, chemical companies – not the FDA – decide whether a food chemical is safe. Since 2000, almost all new chemicals – nearly 99% –  have come onto the market through the GRAS loophole, an EWG analysis found. 

Currently, many though not all chemical companies wanting to bring a new chemical onto the market submit a GRAS notice to the FDA, and the FDA responds with a “no questions” letter. 

The FRESH and Affordable Act would undermine this already weak system by reducing the information food chemical companies must provide to the FDA and by enlisting industry-funded expert panels to deem food chemicals safe  as long as they are added to an FDA database. 

Experts could continue to have conflicts of interest as long as the divided loyalties are “managed.”

“Blocking state action and further weakening FDA review of chemicals is the food industry’s dream come true: no state regulation, no federal regulation, no problem,” Benesh said.

Making the system worse

In the absence of federal action, states have led the way, banning toxic chemicals linked to cancer and other health harms. 

“We need the FDA to ensure the safety of food chemicals, but this industry proposal would make our current system even worse,” Benesh said.

“In addition to allowing new chemicals to be added to food without FDA review, the FDA does not regularly reconsider the safety of the chemicals we’re already eating,” she said. But the industry bill will not require the FDA to review a single food chemical for safety. 

“The funding proposed by this bill is a fig leaf,” she said. “This proposal will make our food less safe, not safer, by letting industry experts, not the experts we can trust, decide whether new food chemicals are safe and by failing to make sure the chemicals we’re already eating are safe. 

“Every parent should be outraged that the food brands that want their trust propose leaving them with no protection from toxic chemicals in the food they serve their families. Allowing chemicals linked to cancer to be added to food without FDA approval – or without even sharing basic information with the FDA – will not make America healthy.” 

###

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 Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 April 22, 2026

6 reasons to reject the bad House farm bill Anthony Lacey April 21, 2026

Next week, House lawmakers will vote on the farm bill, which sets food and farm policy. 

The partisan House farm bill proposed by Agriculture Committee Republicans would fail to help family farmers, lock in historic cuts to the nation’s biggest anti-hunger program, cut regenerative agriculture programs, weaken safeguards against pesticides, and roll back animal welfare and other environmental protections. 

It would also do nothing to address food prices or food safety or support healthy diets – priority issues – or protect the people who feed us. No wonder groups fighting to support family farms, hungry people, farm and food workers, public health and farm animals are united in their opposition. 

The farm bill has not been renewed since 2018 and may not be reconsidered until 2032 or later. The upcoming debate over the bill is a rare opportunity to push for resetting policies that currently mostly benefit the largest, most successful farm businesses and do little or nothing for the rest of us. 

A good farm bill would ensure that family farmers are supported and that hungry people have enough to eat, that we invest in regenerative agriculture, protect the people who feed us, and ensure that food is safe, healthy and affordable. 

A bad farm bill, like the House Republicans’ plan, would enshrine the status quo. 

Here are six reasons members of Congress should reject the bad bill that will be considered next week. The bill:

1. Fails to feed hungry people. Last year, the Republican Congress passed the biggest cut ever to anti-hunger programs, but the partisan House farm bill does nothing to help people struggling simply to have enough to eat. 
2. Fails family farms. More than 100,000 family farms have gone out of business in recent years, and President Donald Trump’s tariffs and wars have made farm inputs more expensive, worsening the problem. But the partisan House farm bill will do nothing to help our family farms, including those owned by young farmers.
3. Cuts regenerative agriculture funding. Regenerative agriculture programs help farmers adopt practices like cover crops – popular Agriculture Department programs that are badly oversubscribed. But the partisan House farm bill would cut these programs’ funding for farmers by more than $1 billion.
4. Weakens pesticide protections. Pesticides can threaten our health, especially our children’s health. But the partisan House farm bill would repeal local pesticide protections, especially safeguards near schools and parks. It would also grant legal immunity to pesticide companies.
5. Weakens animal welfare protections. State laws ensure that farm animals are raised humanely. But the partisan House farm bill would repeal state farm animal welfare laws. 
6. Does nothing to address food prices or food safety. The partisan House bill takes no action to address food prices and food safety, support healthy diets or protect the people who feed us. It also fails to fund access to healthy food. 

Areas of Focus Food Farming & Agriculture Pesticides Authors Scott Faber April 21, 2026