Environmental Working Group

How to cash in on clean energy tax credits before they disappear rcoleman July 25, 2025

Several consumer tax credits for renewable energy upgrades are suddenly poised for complete phaseouts over the next year, some in just a few months.

The recently enacted “Big Beautiful Bill” eliminates many tax incentives designed to bring down the costs of cleaner ways to power your life, such as rooftop solar and electric vehicles.

But there’s still time to take advantage of the federal tax incentives that help make it financially possible for many households to go green.

Here’s what you need to know about clean energy tax credits before they’re gone.

Rooftop solar

Rooftop solar has become increasingly popular in recent years as an energy option that’s better for the planet – and often less expensive than other electricity sources.

California has been a leader on rooftop solar, with roughly 2 million households using it. More than 60% of those users are low- or middle-income. Along with over 300,000 renters, they’ve seen reduced monthly utility bills, thanks to the clean energy source. 

Currently, consumers who install rooftop solar panels can have 30% of their installation costs reimbursed through the federal Residential Clean Energy Credit. The credit also applies to solar water heaters, wind turbines, geothermal heat pumps, fuel cells and battery storage technology.

But under the new law, that credit for customer-owned clean energy systems will disappear after December 31. Residents hoping to use it will either have to have paid for their system by then or already have it fully installed – the law isn’t clear.

The safest bet is to try to finish installation before the year ends. This is often defined as getting “permission to operate” from your local utility, the final step in the process.

Residential solar systems take about a week to install, according to the Solar Power Authority. But when you factor in contractor selection, site visits, permitting, utility interconnection procedures and other administrative requirements, the total process can take between one and five months, sometimes even longer.

That means consumers hoping to take advantage of federal tax credits for their solar projects should get started as soon as possible. But even with the tight timeline, seek bids for multiple contractors, check their licenses and read contracts carefully before signing them.

The commercial version of this credit will stick around a little longer. Developers can still get 30% back for solar systems that either begin construction by July 4, 2026, or are fully installed by December 31, 2027.

This means homeowners wanting to go solar can still choose a third-party-owned system, also known as a Power Purchase Agreement, which describes a commercial entity’s ownership of the rooftop solar panels and sale to you of the solar energy through a long-term contract. 

Electric vehicles

Tax credits for electric vehicles, or EVs, will be the first to go under the law.

These cars are becoming increasingly popular as low-carbon alternatives to traditional gas guzzlers, helping to reduce emissions from one of the country’s most carbon-intensive industries. They’re also attractive because they’re more efficient.

But in the U.S., EVs are sometimes more expensive than their gas-powered counterparts.

The Biden administration implemented a federal tax incentive program in 2022 to encourage Americans to drive electric. Anyone buying an EV – with certain limitations – can get $7,500 back on their annual taxes if the car is new, and up to $4,000 back for a used EV. The credit doesn’t apply in all taxpayer situations.

The new law moves up the end date of these incentives, from the end of 2032 to Sept. 30 of this year – just two months away.

Buyers must purchase and take delivery before then if they want to take advantage of the savings federal credits can supply.

Energy efficiency upgrades

Several home efficiency improvements, such as installation of electric heat pumps and replacement of insulation, were subsidized under the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit.

These changes can reduce the energy demand of your home, in turn lowering the electricity bill. But the credit will end after December 31.

Before then, consumers can claim up to $2,000 on new heat pumps or water heaters that meet or exceed certain standards. You can get up to another $1,200 back for upgrades to windows, doors or insulation or for conducting a home energy audit.

Some limitations apply. Credits don’t roll over to future years. They also don’t apply to businesses or new homes.

There’s a separate, similar credit for builders investing in energy-efficient technology in new homes, but it disappears as of June 30, 2026.

Other federal programs that encourage home efficiency upgrades will remain in place, unaffected by the new law. Some states and local governments have their own programs, too.

But homeowners hoping to take advantage of this tax incentive must act before the year is out.

Areas of Focus Energy Federal & State Energy Policy Renewable Energy Guest Authors Zoe Kolenovsky, Communications Fellow July 25, 2025

Transcript of EWG podcast ‘Ken Cook Is Having Another Episode' – Episode 36 JR Culpepper July 24, 2025

In this podcast episode, EWG President and co-Founder Ken Cook talks with Mike Grunwald, one of the nation’s most prominent investigative reporters and a modern agriculture expert. Grunwald is a New York Times bestseller and has written for publications including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Time and Politico. 

Cook and Grunwald discuss Grunwald’s newest book, "We Are Eating the Earth, the Race to Fix Our Food System and Save Our Climate." They tackle how food fits into the climate debate and attempt to answer a seemingly contradictory question: How to feed more people with less land?

Ken: Hey, it's Ken Cook and I'm having another episode. I'm gonna start this episode off with a story. It's 25 years ago. I'm fresh out of high school and I'm standing in the middle of a field in Aniston, Alabama with a friend who later became a board member of EWG David Baker, an amazing environmental community advocate, champion who was taking on Monsanto because Monsanto had caused the field, the two of us were standing in to be raised to the ground. It was formerly a neighborhood. There were homes, but when we were standing there, there were only empty streets with weeds growing up through the cracked cement. A few street signs, but no homes left because Monsanto had dumped huge amounts of PCBs for decades on this town. 

And instead of owning up to it and being held accountable and doing the right thing. They simply bought the property, the value of which was depressed by the Monsanto pollution, and then raised all of the homes to the ground. It was not even a ghost town. While I'm standing in that field, I call back to my colleague Mike Casey, tell him what I'm seeing. 

I had just come from a courtroom where Monsanto was being sued. So it was all coming together. But here I was, I called him and he said, “You know, you need to call Mike Grunwald at the Washington Post and tell him the story.” 

So while I'm standing there with my cell phone, I called Grunwald and I told him what I was seeing.

I told him about the court case. We had some internal documents that we had gotten hold of, and I told them that they spelled out even more of the story that Monsanto knew for decades that they were poisoning this little community. They knew fish were dying. They knew that the levels of PCBs in the soil and in the water and in the air were way above limits that were deemed safe by any scientists and authoritative bodies. And they didn't do anything about it. So they had to be sued. 

And ultimately the litigation turned out to bring about one of the biggest civil rights settlements in history for the people of Aniston. Mike went down to Aniston, he dug into those documents. He did incredible investigative work. And the next thing we know, there's a front page story in the Washington Post that says, Monsanto hid pollution for decades.

That led to other journalists picking up People Magazine picked up, did a six page spread on Aniston, Alabama. 60 Minutes did a story focused on my colleague, friend, and inspiration, David Baker, who took on Monsanto and won. 

So I'm thrilled today to have Mike Grunwald on the show. He's one of the really great investigative reporters of our time, certainly one of the greats that I've ever come across.

You can find his work now at Canary Media, at the Breakthrough Institute and on the Climate Wars Podcast. He's a New York Times bestselling author, and his new book is called We Are Eating the Earth, the Race to Fix Our Food System and Save Our Climate. It's about uncovering uncomfortable truths about our food system, including uncomfortable truths for critics and defenders of modern agriculture.

So I'm especially excited about it because it's built a lot around a friend and colleague, and another inspiration of mine, Tim Searchinger and his amazing journey uncovering these uncomfortable truths. 

Mike, welcome to the show. It's great to see you again, my friend, and I'm tickled that you're here to talk about your great new book.

Mike: It's awesome. It's been a long time since Aniston man. 

 

Ken: Yeah. Yeah. And Monsanto hasn't done any better since, but that's another story, right? 

 

Mike: Yeah. I remember looking at those documents and being like, wow, they put it all in writing. They wrote it. 

 

Ken: Yeah. We had one of them in our [office] hallway. I don't know if you remember one of the documents we blew up to about eight feet high. It was Monsanto telling the state authorities in Alabama that they hoped they would not disclose what Monsanto knew to be the case with this PCB pollution. The state regulators were reported in the same memo as saying, “Yes, that's not a problem. We won't say a word about how you're poisoning our people.” 

 

And on top of it all it was, I think, “confidential, read and destroy.”

 

Mike: Exactly. That's what I remember. That's the thing I remember most about that story. It was like the first few documents, it was like “confidential, confidential.” And Purdue was like, “Super super duper confidential.” And then “confidential, read and destroy.” 

 

That's when I'm like, huh, I think this is a story.

 

Ken: Well, it was a story in your hands and it was a great win and it really had a huge impact. On the proceedings in Anniston, the litigation, the uproar around it, the bipartisan support to help the folks down there with the problems they were having, getting a response from the EPA… All that. The best that you [could] expect from investigative journalism, and that is that it opens up issues in ways that ordinary people would never have had the opportunity to open up. And does it in a way that has a lasting impact. 

 

So that's how I, when I think of your career, I think of that. And I think this book is very much in line with that. So I love the eating part and I love how you first decided you were gonna write this book. 

 

Mike: You kind of gave away a little bit of the punchline, which is that really agriculture is eating the earth.

 

Right now, two of every five acres on this planet are cropped or grazed. And, you know, a lot of us, spent a lot of time writing about urban sprawl, about how it's kind of going into forests and wetlands. And it is, it's a real problem. 

 

But I always point out that sort of cities and suburbs and highways and driveways, the developed part of our planet, that's 1% of our land. Agriculture is 40%. 

 

And so the book is really about how this natural planet of ours is becoming an agricultural planet, which has incredible all kinds of environmental consequences, including climate consequences. Because as our agricultural footprint expands, our natural footprint shrinks. That's, you know, forests and wetlands that store a lot of carbon and that also absorb a lot of carbon from the atmosphere.

 

You know, what we're doing, it's like we're trying to clean our house when we try to decarbonize the planet, but it's like we're smashing the vacuum cleaner to bits in the living room. That's what we're doing with deforestation and we're continuing to lose a soccer field worth of tropical forest every six seconds.

 

And that's because of agriculture. 

 

Ken: Yeah. And as someone who's been to Brazil myself, that part of your book is really, really compelling and, and really concerning. But we're, you know, we're more than happy to plow up land here for no real good reason unless you count subsidies and the need to do something with that land that earns  greater return. 

 

Mike: Well, I do try to bang my spoon on my highchair a little bit about this notion that, you know, we look at the United States where there is some, still some wetlands, drainage, and there is still some deforestation, but essentially like we tore down our ‘Amazon’ in the 19th century, right?

 

Ken: Absolutely. 

 

Mike: Indiana was 85% forest and now it's all corn and soybeans. And we wag our fingers at Brazil when we see deforestation there for corn and soybeans, mostly for cattle. The fact is, you know, what we are doing is not all that different from what they're doing. They're just doing it a little bit later.

 

My sort of larger point of this book is really about recognizing that essentially we have a land problem. That we need to make more food with less land and fewer emissions. 

 

It's not like we are the good guys because we got rid of our nature so long ago while Brazil and Indonesia are, you know, dealing with those issues now. It's all the same issues. And if we'd had bulldozers, we would've done it faster 

 

Ken: Back in the day, but— 

 

Mike: Exactly. Exactly. I mean, 12,000 years ago, early agriculturalists got rid of a South America worth of nature. They transformed that into farmland before the industrial revolution. Before the tractors. [Instead of] the nasty chemicals, you know, they just use fire and the ax. 

 

So agriculture really does make a mess. And my kind of message is that we first of all have to acknowledge this mess. It's something that a lot of us don't think about every day. I certainly didn't until I started working on this.

 

And then we gotta do something about that mess. Because we gotta eat. 

 

Ken: Yeah. No question about that. And there are more and more of us who have to eat, people need food and they want more protein. That comes at a huge price. So Tim Searchinger, who's the protagonist in the book, [who] I think of as a friend of many years of mine and colleagues here at the Environmental Working Group.

 

We've worked together on any number of issues. Farm [subsidies] in particular, but also the ethanol fight in the early 2000s, and up through about 2014-2015. And so I don't know who latched onto who. My experience has been [that] Tim latches onto something and doesn't let go, but in this case, he didn't come to you and say, write a book about me.

 

But it was very compelling the way you tell his story of a critical thinker who's willing to take on, I mean literally, any intellectual challenge if he's convinced that he's right. Most of what he has built his life around is protecting the planet and human health. How did you meet Searcher? How did you decide that you're gonna, you know, follow his story and tell this broader story that you tell so well?

 

Mike: So I've known Tim for 25 years. I actually tell the story in the book of the first time I met him, which was in Union Station. I had just started doing some investigative stuff at the Washington Post, and he had some ideas for me, and I talked to him like at the time he was, you know, we were both very young.

 

He was wearing this—he kind of looked like it was like a college kid wearing his first suit. And what I remember is even [in] that first meeting, first of all this like just blizzard of verbiage which is what you get with Tim Searchinger. He is obviously brilliant. But one thing that really stuck with me is that here's this guy who's, at the time we were talking a lot about the Army Corps of Engineers, and how they were just building these wasteful and destructive boondoggles all over the country that were destroying rivers. And really for no apparent reason. 

 

First of all, he had all the documentation, because he would say these things that sounded kind of crazy. And he showed me he had done all the work—and here's the documentation. What I also remember is that he would give me all the opposing arguments, you know, he's a lawyer. He was a wetlands lawyer, but he would kind of go through the six best arguments for the other side and he would explain why four of them were bogus. And then this one was only partly bogus and this is actually a pretty good argument here. So I was like, my God, this guy is like, he's just sort of incredibly, [he’s] honest but also incredibly smart and ridiculously driven.

 

You know, I ended up doing a whole thing. I spent a year kicking around the Army Corps on the front page of the Washington Post. He gave me the first tip about the Florida Everglades that led me to write my first book and move to Florida and meet my wife and have a family. So, Tim's been a kind of influential person in my life.

 

But we had sort of, uh, we had… I guess we drifted a little apart. I'd been doing all kinds of different sorts of reporting, including a lot of climate reporting and I was mostly energy reporting, like most of us who think a lot about climate. And I had written this piece about my own life in the green economy. I'd gotten solar panels and an electric car. 

 

My point was not that, ‘I'm an awesome eco saint and you should be like me.’ My point was more like, “Hey, I'm saving a lot of money. If I've figured this out, this stuff is gonna go mainstream.” 

 

I actually had this kind of throwaway line about how I don't line dry my laundry, I don't unplug my computer at night, [and] I still eat meat. And then when I was fact checking it, I was like, huh, I still eat meat. Is meat even bad for the climate? 

 

I genuinely didn't know and I'd been writing about climate stuff for 15 years and I knew, like people talked about the cow farts. Yeah. And I knew that like, ‘Meatless Mondays’ was supposed to be good. But I [thought] like, “Is this just something that vegans say because we want to be nice to animals, or is this actually bad for the climate?”

 

Ken: Vegans with solar panels and electric cars?

 

Mike: Yeah. I knew Tim was sort of doing some agricultural stuff with climate. I called him and I said, “Hey Tim, is meat really that bad for the climate?” And he said, “Yes.” And then he said, because that's sort of how Tim is, “Just a little bit.” We ended up having this conversation and so one of the things he explained basically is that food is about a third of our climate problem, and of course it's like 3% of climate finance and like 0% of climate conversation.

 

So that was really striking to me. And we had done a story together about biofuels and he said basically the problem with meat is [that it’s] like biofuels. It uses too much land. 

 

Biofuels use about a Texas worth of the earth, and that's crazy. But livestock use like 50 Texas' worth of the earth. You know when you eat a burger, you're eating a cow, but really you're eating the Amazon, you're eating the Macaw and the Jaguars and the rest of the cast of Rio.

 

And it was just, that first conversation really made me think, ‘I don't know anything about this stuff, that it's a third of the climate problem and I write about the climate. [If I don’t know] then probably most people don't.” Obviously there are like a million books about energy and climate and a lot of them are really good books and this, it's really important. But we kind of know what to do about energy now. I mean, we're even starting to do it just not fast enough. 

 

Food, I realized, was just this incredible white space where we don't know what to do. The problem's getting worse and we haven't even really grappled with it. And so my book is really, I hope it grapples with it.

 

Ken: Yeah. So what do you think some of the big misconceptions are about how agriculture's affecting the climate and just the environment generally? The critters go first and the climate goes right after? Why hasn't more attention been paid to it? Is it just too naughty, too complex? 

 

Mike: Sure. Well, I mean, I think there are a whole bunch of misconceptions, because I think the first thing is that people don't really know much about food and climate. But then it's also a lot of what they think they know just isn't so. The first big issue, and obviously this is kind of the title of the book, is that land use, that's the giant elephant in the room, and that's what's been ignored, that the climate analysis of food, of agriculture, of biofuels has consciously ignored land use. That's where all the marbles are. That's been the big problem. 

 

And so Tim's big insight essentially is that land is not free. 

 

He first discovered this by looking at biofuels, where essentially there had been a lot of criticism of biofuels, particularly corn ethanol, because the idea was we're using almost as much fossil fuel to create ethanol as we are replacing fossil fuels. I mean, it's just incredibly inefficient. 

 

But the idea was always, yeah, you do emit a lot in making ethanol, but then when you grow corn, that kind of sucks the carbon out of the air. That you're burning in the engine. When you burn the corn and it goes out the tailpipe, those negative emissions in the field kind of offset it.

 

At the time, it was basically the, the prevailing science was, ethanol was like 20% better because of that. And Tim just looked at this and was like, well, that's weird because that cornfield was sucking up carbon when it was growing food, like even before it was growing fuel. If you're gonna grow fuel, then somewhere else you're gonna have to grow more food and it's probably not gonna be in a parking lot. It's gonna be in a forest or a wetland or a prairie or someplace that had a lot of carbon and there's gonna be a real cost. You're going to use more land and that has just been completely ignored by all of the science. And so when Tim ended up doing the math and the modeling, ethanol was not 20% better than gasoline, it was twice as bad, and soy biodiesel was even worse because you needed more land to make the same amount of diesel. 

 

So that was really the initial insight, and that really is the idea that's behind a lot of this book. You know, when you think about agriculture, there's this kind of notion that a lot of people have of, there's kind of good agriculture, Michael Pollen, agriculture. Less chemicals, which is nice, but also small scale, diverse, old school more natural. And then there's kind of big evil industrial agriculture, which is like large. And yes, it has a lot of chemicals, mono cropping, but also it's often called production agriculture or efficient agriculture. Like efficiency is this kind of evil word that rapacious corporations kind of dredge dollars out of the dirt. 

 

But when you realize, when you start thinking about land, it’s that making more food per acre is really important because then you need fewer acres to make food and that there really is this trade off.

 

When you reduce yields, there's a lot of nice things about regenerative agriculture that takes care of the soil or organic agriculture where you're using fewer chemicals. But to the extent there's a yield drag, then there's increased pressure on the Amazon, on the Congo Rainforest, on this Saranetti, you name it.

 

Ken: Or even on The Great Plains. What's left of the grasslands there. 

 

Mike: Yeah, exactly. And of course, it also creates pressure on hunger because the world population is growing and we are gonna need 50% more calories by 2050. Right now we're on track to need 70% more meat. And if we keep doing things the way we're doing them now we're gonna have to deforest another dozen Californians worth of land and we don't really have that. 

 

So that's really the kind of issues that I think have been misunderstood. There's this idea that kind of like sustainable agriculture means like not being too mean to the soil or not being too intensive. But you know, the phrase is sustainable intensification. You know, if you can make more food per acre, that is a really good thing. 

 

Ken: Yeah. The one thing that I, I kept thinking about when I was reading your book, is that there are ways in which you could intensify production and get more yield, even in an organic system or agroforestry systems. But the amount of labor it takes to do that, the return to the land, the ability to earn a living from doing it, that's not just subsistence, that's the dilemma that I think, you know, we also don't confront. 

 

Even if you could show, yeah, I'm growing instead of growing corn, I'm growing fruits and vegetables. I'm getting more value per acre, more calories per acre, more nutrients per acre. And I'm doing it organically. That's fine. But you can't, but it doesn't scale.

 

Mike: That's exactly right, that's the word I was going to use. It's very difficult to scale because really my book is about how do we feed the world without frying the world? And I do think people want to look at their own little acre. Right? And say, “Look at my microbiome. You know, look at these diverse crops.” But is that really gonna scale on the kind of like millions and billions of acres? We're going to need to actually feed 8 to 10 billion people. It's hard. 

 

Now, I wanna say, sometimes I come off, when I talk about this, I end up sounding like this kind of apologist for industrial agriculture.

 

And when, first of all, I wanna say like, I acknowledge all the things that people hate about him and I usually hate it too. Right. You know, the way that they treat animals badly, they treat people badly, they create a lot of toxic pollution. They dump too much crap in rivers. They use too much antibiotics, which creates a public health menace. Their politics suck. I'm aware of all that and I don't wanna justify that. 

 

I'm more of the, how can we reform them so that they can make even more food with less of a mess. At the same time, I also don't want to just blow off this idea that there can be better ways of farming. 

 

I went to a ranch in Brazil where they have a feedlot, they fertilize their pastures, stuff that Michael Pollen wouldn't like at all, but they also do a lot of Michael Pollan stuff. They have cover crops, they have no-till. They integrate their cattle and let them graze the cover crops. They rotational graze their cattle, so you know, the kind of regenerative mob grazing? And they get unbelievable yields. So my real focus is like yield production. That is really important because we really do need to create a lot of affordable, sustainable food.

 

But I don't wanna be the guy who's saying things like, “You have to do it this way, or you have to do it that way.” Like right now organic generally has like 20 to 40% yield drag in the United States and other parts of the world even more. But if you can figure out a way to do super high yield organic, good for you. That's awesome. 

 

Ken: You know, legislation that was passed had us on the path of really dramatically expanding ethanol, and I think Tim's argument, and there weren't many of us making the argument. It was a landslide, including a lot of people in the environmental community, which you write about, who were in favor of, let's go for ethanol. Some, partly because they bought into the technical scientific reasons that the problems with it weren't as apparent until Tim's insights became more commonplace. And secondly, some of them just wanted to curry favor with farm state legislators to get energy bills passed. That was, that's true. The ugliest part of it.

 

Mike: I tell that story, but it was also the politics of ethanol sucked. I tell that funny story about when Tim was trying to convince one democratic senator who had no corn in his state, you know, he was talking to an aide and was like, “Hey, this is just gonna tax your people and it's just going to reward agribusinesses in the Midwest.”

 

And this was John Corzine's and he said to Tim, “Look, I'm sorry, the boss can't afford to piss off the farmers in Iowa.” And Tim was like, “Wait a minute! I mean, your boss used to be the head of Goldman Sachs. He thinks he's gonna be president someday?” And the aide said, “Tim, they all think they're gonna be president someday.”

 

Ken: That's right. That's right. Especially when they look at who's already running.

 

Mike: Oh, exactly. Exactly! And so I do think, you know, the Ag-lobby is really extraordinary. Tim thought once he kind of figured this stuff out about ethanol, he realized he had this great idea where he was going to basically try to create some dissension in the ag ranks. And he went to the, he secretly met with the pork lobby because he figured, “Hey, they feed corn to their yeah pigs and ethanol's gonna increase the price of corn.” But of course the pork guys, whatever their difference about ethanol, they all stick together.

 

And they dimed Tim out and Tim ended up having to leave his environmental group because they dimed him out to his bosses that he was trying to cause problems with ethanol. People forget that this was around 2007. There was no solar [energy]. There was no wind [energy]. There were no electric cars. 

 

Biofuels were the only alternative to fossil fuels we had .And at the time Tim comes along and is sort of like, “They're actually worse than fossil fuels.” That was not what people wanted to hear. And in a way, I was kind of shocked by how many environmentalists were actually willing, and scientists were willing, to look at what Tim came up with, even though he wasn't a scientist at the time, and sort of say like, “Hey, you know what? You're right. We were wrong.” Which is a hard thing for us humans to say. 

 

That said, I do think there are still some environmentalists who are trying to make fetch happen when it comes to biofuels. Even now with everything we know about, about the land use problems, you know, and a lot of Democrats, Midwestern Democrats in this, in the Big Beautiful Republican Bill, there's language that makes it work that basically says, “Well you can't look at the [biofuels]. When you look at biofuels, you can't look at the land use change, because of course that's what makes it not pencil out.”

 

Ken: That's the Achilles heel. A hundred percent. So essentially the— 

 

Mike: The government is saying, okay, well you have to put down your pencils.

 

Ken: Yeah. And we were pretty actively involved on Tim's side and most of the environmental community was on the other side. Friends of the Earth did some good work. They were on our side. You know, some folks in the wildlife community 'cause they saw that what was left of wildlife habitat was being turned into corn ground at the loss of grasslands in the prairie, parts of the heartland.. It just got completely out of control. 

 

I was invited to speak at an ethanol conference because we were critics and they, to their credit, wanted to go back and forth with us. And I'll never forget, somebody came up at the reception. He said, “So Ken, you made some good points, but lemme ask you this. If we paired back on ethanol, what are we gonna do with all that corn?” Right? 

 

Because that was what was really driving it. Too much fucking corn. 

 

They couldn't subsidize exports anymore because of the WTO. You can only do so much with corn here in the U.S. The domestic demand has been reasonably flat. So what do we do? Well, we put it in our SUVs. Next they wanna put it in the plains. 

 

Mike: Which is even crazier! And sort of back of the envelope, to provide about a quarter of the world's jet fuel, with crops would take about 40% of the world's crops. 

 

Ken: Yeah. So talk a little bit about that because you know, one thing that people could accuse you of, I happen to know it's not the case, is that individual action is futile—It's all about big numbers, big acreages and so and so forth, making changes at the policy level. But talk a little bit about everyday people, how they should think about where they fit into this. 

 

Mike: That’s a great question. I think it was about like five years ago, there was just this vision, it kind of farang through the environmental community, this notion that we've gotta stop scolding people. You know, we don't want to be that guy anymore. I think it was like one of the big oil companies actually came up with the first carbon footprint calculator. And so it became, the kind of cool thing to say was like, if worried about your carbon footprint, you're just doing big oil’s bidding.

 

And I get it and look, they're bad. We can stipulate that. We can also stipulate that policy is really important. And look, corporations need to do their part. But you know, like Donald Trump isn't, and, and McDonald's and JBS are not shoving all these burgers, you know, they're not forcing us to eat three burgers a week.

 

And the fact is, if we only ate two burgers a week, we would save like a Massachusetts worth of land every year. And even beyond that, I think there's something kind of uncool about the environmental community. On the one hand, sort of saying like, you know, we're in a crisis. This is horrible. Like we have this deadline, we need [to be under] 2 degrees Celsius by X date, all hands on deck. 

 

And then at the same time being like, “Oh, but your emissions don't matter. Don't worry about that.” So I just think that's crazy. Yeah. You know, I don't want to be judgy and I'd certainly, I don't think perfect's on the menu and you're a vegan. That's the best thing you can do for your diet, for the climate, and that's awesome. I am weak. I am a hypocrite. I think some of this is a little bit like organized religion. You find the level of hypocrisy you're comfortable with. Right. I have cut out beef; like I said, vegan is the best and being a vegetarian is also great. But cutting out beef is about, generally about as good as being a vegetarian for the planet and the climate, because beef is so bad and vegetarians end up eating more dairy to replace their protein. And I do tell the story in the book of how I went to Brazil and spent a couple weeks on cattle ranches and fell off the wagon and ate a lot of delicious steak.

 

Ken: Hard not to in Brazil, 

 

Mike: People told me like, “Oh, after a month you won't even miss it.” And that was bullshit. I really miss it. [Beef] is delicious. And our ancestors started eating this stuff 2 million years ago. We like it. That said, I do think the best thing you can do in your individual diet is eat less beef and waste less food because when we waste food, we waste the farmland and the water and the chemicals and fertilizers that are used to grow that food.

 

It's dumb that we, the world, use about a China worth of land to grow garbage. That seems suboptimal.

 

 I try not to get up on my high horse, just [say] like, “I have an electric vehicle and solar panels and stuff.” But I fly too much. We all have an impact. 

 

All agriculture has an impact. 

 

This is my third book and, and all three books, one of the big themes has been that better is better than worse. And I think that's a good goal. I think we should try to do better rather than worse. 

 

Ken: Yeah. I do think an individual commitment like that or an understanding like that can often nourish an interest, and looking and participating in efforts to change policy. It gives you a degree of authenticity, a grounding, and so forth. 

 

Mike: We vote three times a day, right? So it really is a matter of consciousness.

 

The one thing I will say is, you know, I often hear. And usually it's to excuse something else. It's sort of like, we don't need to do X, we just all need to go vegan or we just need to stop wasting food or stop using biofuels. And one thing I do point out is that, and this is a real theme in the book as well, is that math is the math.

 

And the math really sucks. 

 

So that even in the rich world [if] we cut our beef consumption in half. Which I think is gonna be really hard, but that I think should be the goal. Because in the poor world, we actually want people to eat more meat. I mean it's outrageous that there are 6 billion people on earth that basically eat none. So just for equity and you know, we want people to be healthy and have affordable meat. 

 

Imagine we cut our beef consumption in half and imagine the entire world cutting food waste in half. And just imagine we got rid of all biofuels. We're still gonna need to make a lot more food with a lot less land to basically feed the world without frying it by 2050.

 

We really need to do all the things, or at least, you know, if not all of the above, most of the above. And that includes, on the dietary side, whether it's, you know, eating less beef or replacing it with alternative proteins, whether it's, the fake meat or maybe someday the cultivated meat grown from cells.

 

But also on the agricultural side, we need to again, whether it's higher yield crops, drought tolerant crops, alternative fertilizers, alternative pesticides, better grazing that puts more cows on the same amount of land. We're gonna need to investigate all that stuff. We need to throw money into research.

 

We need to deploy the stuff that works and then it's still gonna be hard. 

 

Ken: Yeah, no question. I think the next logical thing is, okay, well, so if I'm thinking big about policy and I'm trying to balance this out, what's the combination that results in progress, not perfection, but it's meaningful progress?

 

Taking on the climate challenge and the challenge of feeding people at the same time. If you invest in technology that boosts yields, how do you avoid the pressure to take that technology and clear more land because it grows so much more food? What's the policy frame there? 

 

Mike: That's a great question because right there is this kind of rebound effect where globally, if we increase yields, that should decrease demand for land. But locally, you give a farmer in Brazil, you know, or a farmer in Africa, access to fertilizer, he's gonna grow more food and the first thing he is gonna do is like, this is awesome. And he's gonna go and cut down more trees; farm another sector [because it] would be good. Expand the farm. 

 

So I would say from a global policy perspective, we really do need this notion of ‘produce and protect’ where it's linked, where we're gonna help farmers and we're gonna help particularly developing nations, we're gonna help them increase their yields. And also we're going to help them with the kind of climate friendly technologies that we discussed. Biological fertilizers or biological nitrification inhibition or, you know… I'm really fun at parties. 

 

Ken: People are usually worried I'm gonna take a blood sample or something. So I think, I think exactly.

 

Mike: I might even be lower on the invite list. 

 

Look, I mean, there are all kinds of very exciting technological and agronomic solutions that I think should be invested in and that can really help. But at the same time, that has to be linked with—like there has to be strings attached to the money. Hey, if not all of Brazil, at least the Brazilian province, we will give you all this money to help you make even more food, but you cannot cut down your forest. And if you do, the money gets cut off.

 

I should point out that like about 10 years ago that was supposed to be the deal where. Brazil was supposed to do its part, and if they did its part, they were supposed to get lots of money and the international community did not come up with the money, which broke our promises. And that led to a lot of political unrest and all kinds of disaster. 

 

So again, this is all very hard. I want to acknowledge that this is not something you can just snap your fingers and be like, “produce and protect, easy.” But I think that it is the model where we should be looking at and unfortunately the energy at the institutions like the UN foundations like Rockefeller and Walmart, and you name it. And even these agribusinesses like PepsiCo and General Mills, the big food, big Ag guys as well as in the United States, you see Bobby Kennedy and Joe Rogan on the right, as well as Michael Pollan and Al Gore on the left.

 

Everybody has this vision where we're gonna spend billions, maybe trillions of dollars essentially transitioning to this agroecological paradise where we're just gonna be nicer to the soil and somehow the carbon from the sky is gonna come down and just be repatriated to the soil. And that is very dangerous because the carbon farming aspect of it is mostly bullshit. It doesn't pencil out. It just doesn't work. 

 

And the regenerative agriculture part of it, which does do some very nice things for the soil, but again, if you're reducing your yields, you're creating a real deforestation problem. So I just think this is stuff that needs to be thought through. We can't have this kind of faith-based transformation of global agriculture. 

 

Ken: Yeah, I think that's right. I see a lot of benefits to regenerative agriculture, which, so capacious in its definition, it could mean everything. It's no surprise that we have some really devout, smart, advanced agro ecologists thinking about it.

 

And we have fair thinking about it, right? They both used the term. No surprise that we need a little definitional rigor here. The notion that we're going to farm in such a way that it's going to be the solution to climate change, storing carbon in the soil. And, you know, my background long ago was soil science.

 

And all the soil scientists I've gotten to know over the years have basically said when you start clearing land, you never have a very good chance of going back to that carbon storage capability that you had in a forest, say, or even tallgrass prairie. 

 

Mike: You're absolutely right, and this is an area where, again, scary Michael Pollen is a beautiful writer, and I wish I wrote as well as he does. He's done a little bit of a disservice by creating this kind of nostalgia and romance around this idea that there's this kind of good, sustainable old style farming with lovely diverse crops and the red barn and the rustic pastoral setting and the farmer and his wife with the pitchfork.

 

It's true that when those kinds of pastoral bucolic farms got transformed into bigger industrial farms, there was some environmental cost to that. And you at the Environmental Working Group have done a fantastic job of really focusing particularly on the pesticide side of it, that there really are trade-offs there that are, that are absolutely real.

 

But that said, the real environmental catastrophe was the transformation of the prairie or the forest into those bucolic Michael Pollen, beloved farms in the first place. That's where we lost biodiversity. That's where we lost the carbon. That's like a different way of thinking about agriculture.

 

When you're taking your cross-country flight and looking at all those squares and circles, you know, a way that actually treasures the land, not just for that individual piece of land, but being able to think of it as part of a food system where we are going to need to feed. A shit ton of people and they're gonna need a shit ton of food. And that agricultural sprawl, like I said, it's 40 times as big as urban sprawl and it's getting bigger and that just can't continue indefinitely.

 

Mark Twain said they ain't making any more of it. And right now there's about as much nature as there is farms.

 

But the farm part is getting bigger every day and the nature part is getting smaller. 

 

Ken: So your book is coming out and the name of the book is, We Are Eating the Earth: The Race to Fix Our Food System and Save Our Climate. And I would recommend anyone with an interest in climate, energy, agriculture, our food system, to pick up Mike's book.

 

I think it'll challenge the way you think about some things. I think it will maybe open some creative new ways to characterize the problems as maybe some of us have conceptualized them in the past and come back. I think everyone will come back to the importance of the land. I think everyone agrees it's important, but I think it's important in your book in a different way because if we continue to lose the capability to preserve nature, because we chew it all up and eat it all, we're in big trouble as we have MAHA (Make America Healthy Again). We had Kennedy on the campaign trail saying he was gonna be in charge of all the health agencies and USDA. It didn't exactly work out that way, among other promises that didn't work out. So how do you see this debate unfolding over the next few years?

 

You have a republican control of Congress. It looks very much like Mr. Trump's Secretary of Agriculture is very conventional in the way she approaches politics and policy. You have. Kennedy, unable to really do much that affects agriculture from his perch at HHS. He can do a lot of other things like cut Medicaid, but he can't really do much about agriculture.

 

So how do you see these arguments unfolding, Mike, over the next few years? 

 

Mike: We talked a little bit in the beginning about how uh, there's sort of this energy and climate world and the food and climate part of it is sort of new. Right. And I like to say it's probably 20, 25 years behind energy and climate.

 

Right now for people who are energy and climate people, which I was one of them, I guess I still am, even though I've taken this six year detour. Obviously these next four years are gonna suck. We know where Trump is. He doesn't give a shit about the climate and he's actually. A fan of fossil fuels. He is going to do everything he can to advance fossil fuels at the expense of clean energy. 

 

Ken: To his great credit, he has figured out that there's a problem with solar energy, which is called sunset. 

 

Mike: Did you know that the wind doesn't always blow, Ken? Have you, Have you heard that? 

 

Ken: I know, I wrote it down. The first time I heard him say it. 

 

Mike: So he's going to be rolling back. A lot of good stuff happened. The good news is that wind and solar and batteries and electric vehicles have gotten so cheap and good that I don't think he can just completely end the revolution.  But that's gonna be, you know, it's gonna be a political fight and he is gonna roll some stuff back.

 

So the sort of good news for my world from food and climate is that it’s so new that there's nothing to roll back. Or at least not very much. Right. But I do think that this is a time where we need to figure shit out.

 

In a way it's, I mean—opportunities not really the right word at least—so that when there is globally and in the United States when at least the kind of political stars are aligned to actually do something about this stuff we'll be ready to do the right thing. And that's where I do have to at least give a shout out to Denmark.

 

You know, when I talk about this stuff, people are, you know, there's a lot of like, oh yeah, right? “Yeah, we're just gonna snap our fingers and take on the ag industry and do this and do that.” 

 

Well, Denmark, it turns out, is doing all the things I went there with, searching for her who had been hired along with the World Resources Institute, by the Danish agricultural lobby, essentially to help them decarbonize their industry. Denmark had done so much work on climate stuff, basically on the energy side that suddenly agriculture was looking like a massive part of the problem. 

 

So they were kind of like, even though they were very powerful and they were like, “Oh my God, I mean the energy guys did their part. We're gonna have to do ours. What can we do?” And of course at the time the environs were like,”Well, you need to shut down your pig farms and shut down your dairy farms.” And Tim came and said, “No, you have incredibly efficient pig and dairy farms. It would be dumb to shut it down and outsource all that deforestation and pollution to the developing world. Instead, we should make it even more productive, but less of a mess. Test all of the technologies, you know, the drought tolerant crops and the greener fertilizers and… you name it, the feed additives so that the cows burp less methane. We're gonna test all that. We're gonna deploy the stuff that works. You'll make even more food, but you're also going to have to use less land. And we're gonna rewild a million acres of farmland at the same time. We're gonna tax agricultural emissions. We're going to have a nationwide effort to promote plant forward eating.” 

 

So basically we're gonna do everything. And I think that's the model.  

 

Now, I don't expect that to happen very soon in the United States. I talked to one pollster who told me that actually taxing or any kind of restrictions on meat was the least popular policy he had ever surveyed, he said, “It pulled like veterans benefits for ISIS.”

 

So again, it's hard. But I think that should be the goal, it’s to try to let a thousand flowers bloom, let the technologies improve, get better policy and try to have individuals try to do their part. Even if we're not perfect—we're all flawed—but we could try to do a little better.

 

Ken: Well, Mike, I'm so grateful to spend this time with you. I'm so proud of all the books you've written but especially this one. I'm really excited to have it hit the streets and the debate it's gonna stir up, I think is long overdue. We've been, in some ways, resting on some comfortable delusions for maybe too long about how big this problem is and how to take it on as an organization that's been in the teeth of big Ag for a long time. We know how hard they fight. But I do think you're pointing the way here to some ideas that we really knew do need to at least give a good sounding to and who knows.

 

The pendulum swings and there may be an embrace of some of these ideas. We look at the ideas that are popular now that we didn't think were thinkable just a few years ago. So times do change and politics change and I think, in the agriculture space, this is gonna really help shape the conversation about that.

 

So, Mike I'm thrilled for you and grateful to you and can't wait to see what you do next. 

 

Mike: Well, it's been awesome talking to you, and I really appreciate all your kind words and of course, all your great work. 

 

Ken: Mike Grunwald, thank you so much for joining us today. I also want to thank all of you out there for listening.

 

Be sure to check out Mike's latest book. We are Eating the Earth, the Race to Fix Our Food System and Save Our Climate. And if you'd like to learn more. Be sure to check out our show notes for additional links. To take a deeper dive into today's discussion, make sure to follow us on Instagram at Ken Cooks podcast, and if you're interested in learning more about EWG.

 

Head on over to ewg.org or check out the EWG Instagram account at Environmental Working Group. If this episode resonated with you or you think someone you know would benefit from it, send it along. The best way to make positive change is to start as a community with your community. Today's episode was produced by the extraordinary Beth Row and Mary Kelly.

 

Our show's theme music is Courtesy of Moby. Thank you Moby, and thanks again to all of you for listening.

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Climate & Agriculture Conservation Factory Farms Farm Pollution Food & Farm Workers Press Contact JR Culpepper jr.culpepper@ewg.org (202) 779-9990 July 24, 2025

EWG statement on FDA seeking to define ultra-processed foods rcoleman July 24, 2025

WASHINGTON – The Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture are seeking public input as they develop a definition for ultra-processed foods, or UPF. 

The following is a statement from Scott Faber, the Environmental Working Group’s senior vice president for government affairs:

EWG welcomes any effort to address the health harms posed by ultra-processed foods. While many processed foods can be part of a healthy diet, ultra-processed foods are different from processed foods, because they combine industrial ingredients and additives in ways that make our food hyperpalatable. 

These industrially engineered foods are not simply delicious; they are literally irresistible, because they change the signals sent to our brain’s reward center, increase the speed with which that reward is delivered and interfere with the signals that tell us to stop eating. 

UPF are not merely high in fat, sugar and salt. They are also processed and combined with chemicals in ways that make them unlike the foods our parents and grandparents enjoyed. 

At a time when the cost of diet-related disease continues to grow, we welcome any effort to help consumers identify and avoid UPF and build healthier diets, including state efforts like California’s groundbreaking legislation to define UPF and California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent executive order directing state scientists and top researchers to develop new policy proposals.

###

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 & Water Food Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 July 24, 2025

Former EPA scientists join EWG to expand, bolster EWG Verified® program rcoleman July 23, 2025

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Working Group is thrilled to welcome three distinguished experts and former Environmental Protection Agency leaders to the staff. They will help expand and strengthen EWG Verified®, the organization’s flagship initiative for safer, healthier consumer products. 

The trio’s deep expertise at the EPA in advancing science-based public health protections will strengthen EWG’s leadership as a trusted source for rigorous, transparent standards millions of consumers depend on.

Clive Davies
Vice president, EWG Verified

Davies brings with him a wealth of scientific and programmatic leadership developed during his long tenure at EPA and his work to encourage and reward development and use of safer chemicals. 

Before joining EWG, Davies led the EPA’s Safer Choice program, which identifies products made with ingredients that are safer for human health and the environment. The program also evaluates antimicrobial products seeking the EPA’s Design for the Environment certification for strict health and safety criteria. 

At EWG, Davies will lead a team of scientists advancing the organization’s rigorous standards for personal care, cleaning, baby products and mattresses through the EWG Verified and EWG Reviewed for Science programs. 

Lauren Sweet Duffy, Ph.D. 
Senior scientist, toxicology lead, EWG Verified

Duffy served as the lead toxicologist for the EPA’s Safer Choice Program beginning in 2017. She evaluated the safety of ingredients in cleaning products and other consumer goods. Now, as the chief toxicologist for EWG Verified, Duffy brings her deep scientific expertise and regulatory experience to strengthen the program’s rigorous standards. 

She will play a central role in ensuring that every EWG Verified product meets the highest benchmarks for health and safety while also maintaining the integrity of the program and reinforcing consumer trust.

Taylor K. Dunivin, Ph.D. 
Director, science communications, EWG Verified

Dunivin is a respected scientist and seasoned science communicator with a deep commitment to public health and chemical safety. She served as a biologist and outreach lead with the EPA’s Safer Choice program, working to identify and promote safer chemical ingredients in everyday products. 

Before her tenure at the EPA, Dunivin worked as a Senate legislative aide and at the National Institutes of Health during the Covid-19 pandemic. In her new role at EWG, Dunivin will lead the development and expansion of science communications with both companies and consumers, helping brands meet EWG Verified standards and empowering shoppers with clear, trustworthy information. Her work will play a key role in growing the EWG Verified program and expanding access to safer, healthier personal care and cleaning products.

“Clive, Lauren and Taylor each embody the science-based approach that is central to our mission,” said Jocelyn Lyle, EWG’s executive vice president for mission and partnerships. “Their combined expertise will elevate the rigor, transparency and trustworthiness of our EWG Verified program. On behalf of the entire staff and myself, we are thrilled they have joined the team at EWG.”

About EWG Verified and EWG Reviewed for Science

EWG Verified and EWG Reviewed for Science recognize products that meet the highest standards for ingredient safety and transparency. These programs are grounded in independent toxicological review and data evaluation, empowering consumers to make safer, healthier choices about their personal care, cleaning, baby products and mattresses.

###

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 Personal Care Products Household & Consumer Products Toxic Chemicals Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 July 23, 2025

How ultra-processed food may fuel Type 2 diabetes rcoleman July 23, 2025

Type 2 diabetes affects roughly 34 million Americans. The numbers are rising, especially among children, and ultra-processed food might be playing a role.

Americans are increasingly consuming this type of food, which can include packaged snacks, soda, instant noodles, fast food, frozen entrees and refined bread. Americans’ dietary habits for ready-to-eat foods has gone up over the past two decades, according to a 2022 study. 

On average, ultra-processed food or UPF, accounts for almost 60% of an American adult’s diet. It’s even higher for kids and teens, representing more than two-thirds of their total calories. 

The rising consumption of these foods may play a role in the increased incidence of long-term chronic diseases like cancer, heart disease, cardiovascular disease, Crohn’s disease, depression and brain disorders like dementia. 

Rising prevalence of Type 2 diabetes 

Some studies have associated increased consumption of UPF with a higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, one of the most widespread chronic diseases in the U.S. 

Type 2 diabetes accounts for 90% to 95% of all diabetes cases, and according to the National Institutes of Health, nearly 12% of people in the U.S. of all ages have diabetes. 

With Type 2 diabetes, the body begins to lose its ability to effectively regulate blood sugar. Disruptions to the body's usual metabolic system can also lead to higher blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose levels and obesity.

The incidence of Type 2 diabetes went up dramatically between 2002 and 2018 for all children in the U.S., especially for Black and American Indian children. 

There is a growing body of research linking UPF consumption and the risk of Type 2 diabetes, with high intake increasing the risk in one study by as much as 31%, according to a 2022 study.

In 2024, European researchers found that each 10% increase in UPF consumption in the diet was associated with a 17% higher incidence of diabetes.

This rise could mean hundreds of thousands of additional diabetes cases across the U.S.

Defining ultra-processed food

Food can be categorized by how much it has been processed – ranging from unprocessed whole food to ultra-processed. Most food products found in the grocery store are processed in some way, even if it’s just cooking or pasteurizing to make it safe and edible. 

Ultra-processed foods are different. 

They are made using one or more industrial ingredients like artificial colors and flavors, non-sugar sweeteners, and additives such as emulsifiers and thickeners. UPF is designed to be cheap, irresistibly palatable and ready to eat straight from the package. These products are engineered so we keep wanting to eat them.

Part of what makes them so craveable is their often high levels of sugar and fat.  

Studies have shown that consumption of UPF may interfere with our brain’s reward system and the signals that tell us to stop eating. This may lead to eating more of these foods compared to minimally processed foods.

Health impacts of UPF

Studies have linked UPF consumption to metabolic diseases such as metabolic syndrome and fatty liver disease.

UPF’s combination of high energy density and hyperpalatability promotes overconsumption. This can also contribute to weight gain. 

U.S. obesity rates have risen over the past several decades. Obesity also significantly increases the risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. 

Overconsumption can increase fat storage in the body and interfere with the body’s metabolic processes. This can increase insulin production and fat storage in the liver, both of which promote Type 2 diabetes. 

Policy failures and state action 

The Food and Drug Administration is failing to protect us from harmful food chemicals, including those in UPF. Nearly 99% of food chemicals introduced since 2000 have been approved by the food and chemical industry, and not reviewed by the FDA. 

Progress on oversight for food chemicals and UPF has come largely from state governments.

California recently enacted two first-in-the-nation bans on certain food chemicals, including harmful food dyes in school food. EWG co-sponsored both of these bills. 

Other states have introduced and passed similar legislation.  

The California Senate is now considering Assembly Bill 1264, which would restrict the offering of harmful UPF in public schools. 

How to limit exposure to harmful UPF chemicals

Food choices are often driven by availability and cost. Ultra-processed foods in many categories are often cheaper than less processed foods. 

It doesn’t help that so much of what’s in the grocery store is UPF – by one estimate, as much as 70%. 

But, just as higher consumption of UPF can be connected to Type 2 diabetes, the reverse is also true: Replacing UPF in the diet with food that is less processed can lower the incidence of diabetes. 

Not all UPF are equally harmful either, and processing alone doesn’t make food unhealthy. Plain Greek yogurt, whole wheat bread and whole grain cereals are processed foods that contain nutrients like protein and fiber.

For many UPF, there’s a healthier, less-processed alternative. Instead of yogurt with added flavors, artificial colors, zero-calorie sweeteners and thickeners, you might choose a yogurt with simple ingredients: cultured milk and fruit.

The key to identifying these products is reading ingredient lists and nutrition facts. This means looking beyond marketing claims, including greenwashing. Here’s what you can do: 

• Choose simple ingredients. Focus on products with ingredients whose names you recognize.
• Make healthier swaps. When possible and affordable, choose whole, minimally processed foods such as fruits and vegetables and whole grains, beans, lentils and meats.
• Upgrade your pantry. If you are buying mac and cheese in a grocery store, consider items like Ancient Harvest Pow! Mac and Cheese Power Protein Pasta over Kroger Original Macaroni and Cheese.
• Don’t aim for perfection. Eating less UPF doesn’t mean giving up convenience – it means checking ingredient labels.
• Check EWG guides. EWG has several useful food shopping guides to get you started, from frozen food to general tips in the grocery store. 

Consult EWG’s free, searchable Food Scores database, which offers ratings for more than 80,000 food and beverage products based on nutrition, ingredient concerns and processing. A flag that identifies the most unhealthy UPF appears as part of the nutrition facts in the EWG Top Findings section of a product when applicable. 

Our Healthy Living app makes it easy to check what’s in products at the store.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Family Health Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Guest Authors Owen Curtin, EWG Communications Intern July 23, 2025

EWG analysis: Almost all new food chemicals greenlighted by industry, not the FDA rcoleman July 22, 2025

Since 2000, the food and chemical industry has greenlighted nearly 99% of food chemicals introduced onto the market without federal safety review, according to a new EWG analysis. 

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for ensuring food is safe. But the industry instead is deciding what food chemicals are suitable for people to eat.

This problematic situation happened through companies exploiting a loophole in food chemicals laws allowing them to decide which chemicals are safe to consume. That’s contrary to what Congress intended when it passed the laws in 1958. 

What’s more, this loophole is now the way most new chemicals, including some that are concerning, such as EGCG, propyl paraben and theobromine, are allowed in foods. 

Since 2000, food and chemical companies have petitioned the FDA only 10 times to approve a new substance. By contrast, they have added 863 chemicals, through the “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, loophole. That’s 98.8% of new food chemicals. 

The loophole lets those companies – not the FDA – decide when a substance is safe.

Figure 1. New food chemicals introduced to market from 2000 to 2025

Image

Source: Food additive petitions filed in the Federal Register, and GRAS notices filed in the FDA’s GRAS notice inventory 

A food additive petition triggers rigorous FDA pre-market safety review of a chemical, and the agency has to approve the substance before it can be used in the marketplace. The 1958 Food Additives Amendment intended this review to serve as the main path of approval for  new food chemicals.

Nine of the 10 food additive petitions for new chemicals represented in the chart were first filed more than 10 years ago, including:  

• In 2000, Ecolab Inc. filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent.
• In 2001, Avecia Inc. filed a petition for a preservative, later withdrawn.
• In 2002, Safe Foods Corp. filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent.
• In 2002, Intralytix Inc. filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent.
• In 2005, Kareem I. Batarseh filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent.
• In 2006, ARCH Chemicals Inc. filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent, later withdrawn.
• In 2008, Lubrizol Advanced Materials Inc. filed a petition for a stabilizer and texturizer.
• In 2008, Zentox Corp. filed a petition for an antimicrobial agent, later withdrawn.
• In 2009, Ajinomoto Co. filed a petition for a non-nutritive sweetener.

Just one food additive petition for a new chemical, vitamin D2 mushroom powder, has been filed in the past decade.

For the other 863 new food chemicals added to the food supply since 2000, food chemical companies exploited the GRAS loophole so they could make their own safety determinations.

Food chemical reviews

The GRAS loophole was intended to apply narrowly to common ingredients like sugar, vinegar and baking soda. But as EWG’s analysis shows, the loophole – not FDA safety review – has become the main way new chemicals are allowed into food.

A GRAS determination shows a company believes “the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use.” The company can submit a notice to the FDA about its conclusion, through a process that is entirely voluntary. 

The FDA can review these notices and issue a “no questions” letter that means it doesn’t object to the finding. But it does not approve GRAS substances or affirm a company’s GRAS determination.

If the FDA does raise questions about a company’s safety conclusions, the company can withdraw its GRAS notice.  But it can continue to use the ingredient anyway, without further FDA review and despite the agency’s reservations. Concerned citizens do not have the chance to provide public comment on, or challenge, GRAS determinations.

EWG’s analysis includes only substances that have gone through this voluntary process, because little to no information is available when companies make their own GRAS determinations but do not notify the FDA. So the analysis certainly undercounts what’s added to food through the GRAS loophole. 

Experts estimate at least 1,000 substances have been added to the food supply without notice to the FDA.

EWG also looked at filings related to new or modified uses for existing food chemicals, in addition to new chemicals. For new or modified uses of existing food chemicals, petitions were submitted slightly more often: 48 times. 

But those 48 petitions are dwarfed by the 220 GRAS notices submitted since 2000 for new or modified uses of existing chemicals, in addition to the 863 new substances for which industry exploited the GRAS loophole.

Loophole puts consumers at risk

Because of the GRAS loophole, harmful ingredients have made their way into, and continue to enter, the food supply.

For example, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, a trade group composed of industry insiders, reviews and makes GRAS determinations on nearly all flavor ingredients. This includes seven carcinogenic flavor ingredients the association rubber-stamped as GRAS. The chemicals were later banned, in 2018, in response to a petition by EWG and other nonprofit groups.

Other GRAS substances include BHA, classified as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” by the National Toxicology Program, and BHT, which may disrupt hormone function by causing thyroid changes. Studies have also shown it affects animal development, which could indicate similar harms in humans. Green tea extract EGCG may increase risk of cancer but is classified as GRAS.

For decades, partially hydrogenated oils were considered GRAS – even though they are a major source of trans fat, which can increase cholesterol and harm the heart. When the FDA revoked GRAS status for these oils in a rare action, in 2015, it said removing them from food “could prevent thousands of heart attacks and deaths each year.”

Many of the GRAS notices lack critical health data. 

A 2020 review of GRAS notices submitted since 1997 found they were almost all inadequate. Only one of 900 notices assessed the effect of the chemical in combination with other, similar chemicals, even though both manufacturers and the FDA must consider cumulative impacts as part of a safety determination.

It’s time to close the GRAS loophole

The FDA is charged with protecting the U.S. food supply but has fallen short. 

Even Michael Taylor, a former FDA deputy commissioner for food, admitted in 2014 that the FDA “simply do[es] not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals.”

The Trump FDA announced in March it will “explore rulemaking” to mandate GRAS notices. But so far the agency has pledged only to explore changing a system that has been broken for more than 60 years. Without more concrete action, the FDA’s actions so far can best be seen as a “plan to plan” to close the GRAS loophole. 

Two states in the meantime have introduced legislation to bring more transparency to GRAS. The Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act in New York and the Food Chemical Disclosure Law in Pennsylvania would both make it illegal to sell food containing GRAS substances unless the manufacturer has submitted a scientifically robust GRAS notice either to the FDA or to a state agency as a support for the manufacturer’s GRAS determination. 

Already this year, more than 30 states have introduced bills to address harmful chemicals in our food supply.

It’s time to close the GRAS loophole and prevent new chemicals from being added to food through a side door, without government oversight.

In Congress, the Food Chemical Reassessment Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), aims to address inadequacies in food additive rules. The bill would require the FDA to regularly review and reassess food chemicals, many of which have not been reevaluated in decades.

The Ensuring Safe and Toxic-Free Foods Act, introduced by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), would narrow the GRAS loophole and require reassessment of food chemicals. 

Congress should stop the continued use of unsafe chemicals in our food supply, while ensuring that states retain power to continue addressing toxic chemicals in food.

Methodology and additional findings

To compare uses of the GRAS loophole and petitions, EWG looked at how many of each were filed for new chemicals between January 2000 and May 2025.

To find out how often the loophole was used, EWG reviewed all filings in the FDA’s GRAS notice inventory since 2000. For new substance notices that were filed, EWG located and categorized all notices for duplicate substances, based on whether they were:

• The original filing for a new substance
• A refiling of a previous notice, or
• A filing for a new or different use of an existing food chemical.

Our analysis found that between 2000 and 2025, companies filed 863 original GRAS notices for novel food chemicals. Out of a total of 1,118 GRAS filings, 35 were refilings and 220 were filings for a new food chemical or varied use of an existing one.

Because submission of a GRAS notice is voluntary, this may be an undercount. Companies may have determined that chemicals or uses are GRAS but not notified the FDA or other authorities. 

To find out how many food additive petitions were filed, EWG searched the Federal Register for food additive petitions filed since 2000. We identified a total of 97 petitions, including:

• 10 for new substances (three withdrawn).
• 48 for a new or different use of a chemical already approved through a previous food additive petition (one later withdrawn).
• 14 to ban or restrict existing food chemicals (one later withdrawn).
• 11 for food irradiation (two later withdrawn).
• 10 correcting or amending previous petitions (i.e., to change scope of use or correct information error).
• One submitted in response to a determination that a substance is not GRAS.

EWG’s comparison focuses only on GRAS notices in contrast to food additive petitions for new chemicals and requests to expand or change uses of chemicals already added directly to food.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors Melanie Benesh Guest Authors Bennet Rosenberg (EWG) July 22, 2025

15 military Superfund sites claim no health risks – but PFAS in tap water tell a different story rcoleman July 21, 2025

Results from new Department of Defense drinking water tests seem to contradict claims by the Environmental Protection Agency saying that 15 military bases designated as EPA Superfund sites due to high levels of hazardous chemical contamination have “human exposure under control.”

The EPA maintains that the amount of chemicals on the bases no longer poses a risk to human health, yet DOD test results say otherwise. Tap water testing near 15 military sites finds the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS at levels that raise concern about potential health harms.

The apparent disagreement between agencies emerges against a backdrop of uncertainty about the future of federal limits for toxic chemicals like PFAS.

Bases in Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey and Washington, among others, have all reported PFAS in nearby drinking water wells above the federal standards.

Questionable health risk assessment

The contradiction between the two agencies raises urgent concerns about how the EPA assesses health risks at some of the nation’s most polluted areas, known as Superfund sites, as well as casts doubt on the likelihood and duration of cleanup at these sites.

PFAS contaminates the off-base drinking water at 15 military Superfund sites. These highly polluted areas have been targeted for cleanup by the EPA for other toxic chemicals. However, the EPA appears not to have taken PFAS fully into account yet.

The contradiction also calls into question whether communities near these installations are unknowingly drinking contaminated water as a result of stalled cleanup efforts.

Legally permitted levels

The levels of PFAS at these sites exceed current federal standards for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS and PFNA, according to Pentagon tests. 

The EPA may roll back the PFHxS and PFNA standards, while the DOD says that, for now, it will clean up sites to the existing standards.

The federal limits are known as maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs. They represent the highest amount of a chemical legally allowed in drinking water. An MCL standard is based on the health risks of PFAS exposure and the public health benefits associated with lower PFAS levels.

The EPA’s official public reports show that human health exposure from hazardous substances is “under control” at these 15 sites. The designation of a Superfund site as “under control” signals that the EPA has determined the site is no longer a source of toxic chemical exposure.

Therefore, the designation can reduce the agency’s urgency and prolong cleanup projects, which sends a message to the community that there is no longer a risk of exposure.

Despite the DOD test results, the EPA has not yet updated its records for the 15 military Superfund sites to reflect that human health exposure to PFAS is not, in fact, entirely under control. The threat remains. Civilian wells continue to receive PFAS-contaminated water, leaving many residents living near the sites still exposed to forever chemicals in their tap water.

In a rare move, the EPA recently updated its assessment of another site, the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, officially stating that human exposure and groundwater migration are no longer “under control” due to the presence of PFAS. Although this is the only known case of a change in status tied to PFAS, there may be others.

The military has provided bottled water or tap water filters to households near the bases, although only at a select number of the locations, not all 15.

PFAS remain near sites

The groundwater beneath homes close to these 15 military bases is still contaminated with PFAS, presenting a continued risk of exposure for well owners as well as additional expenses for well owners who have installed filtration. When the EPA updates the Superfund status to indicate that human health exposure is no longer under control, expedited cleanup actions are typically taken to address the problem.

Without the change in status, well owners and neighboring communities will remain in limbo because of the delay.

Other military Superfund sites may also be misclassified as having human exposure under control, even if there are elevated levels of forever chemicals in off-base wells. 

However, we don’t know the extent of off-base exposure. More than 600 bases have reported on-site PFAS contamination, but the vast majority have not tested surrounding wells. As the military tests more locations, new installations and communities will likely be added to this list.

Military Superfund sites with ‘human exposure under control,’ despite PFAS in tap water

Type of PFAS detectedWater test result (in parts per trillion)Date of sampleLuke Air Force Base – Glendale, - Ariz.PFOS28.33/31/2022PFOA63/31/2022March Air Force Base – Riverside, Calif. PFOS3909/7/2023PFOA1104/13/2022PFHxS3102/1/2024George Air Force Base – Victorville, Calif.PFOS23.27/27/2023PFOA1437/27/2023PFHxS8467/27/2023PFNA1810/26/2023Homestead Air Force Base – Homestead, Fla.PFOS1533/30/2023PFOA544/24/2024PFHxS1302/21/2022PFNA364/24/2024Whiting Naval Air Station – Milton, Fla.PFOS13012/8/2021PFOA2068/25/2021PFHxS1298/25/2021Brunswick Naval Air Station – Brunswick, MainePFOS10.611/10/2021Loring Air Force Base – Limestone, MainePFOS16810/24/2021PFOA13.510/24/2021PFHxS72.510/24/2021Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards – Falmouth, Mass.PFOS183/6/2024PFOA111/9/2022Pease Air Force Base – Portsmouth, N.H. PFOS8602/21/2023PFOA1406/12/2024PFHxS4303/21/2023Naval Air Engineering Center (part of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst) – Lakehurst, N.J.PFOS1,9009/7/2022PFOA579/7/2022PFHxS6709/7/2022Fort Dix (part of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst) – Pemberton Township, N.J.PFOS1,9009/7/2022PFOA579/7/2022PFHxS6709/7/2022Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station – Havelock - N.C.PFOS50.27/13/2023PFOA12.67/13/2023Tinker Air Force Base – Oklahoma City, Okla.PFOS1413/17/2025PFOA616/14/2022PFHxS5604/3/2024Bremerton Naval Base – Bremerton, Wash.PFOS25.97/21/2023PFOA3909/25/2023PFHxS18.97/21/2023Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island (Seaplane Base) – Whidbey Island, Wash. PFOS4,72010/6/2021PFOA5235/19/2023PFHxS1,15010/6/2021Status of landmark protections

The EPA’s landmark standards for six PFAS in tap water, the MCLs which were finalized last year, are under threat. Some polluters and industry groups are pushing to dismantle these hard-won protections as part of a broader effort to gut environmental safeguards, and the agency has announced its intent to reconsider some of the standards.

The standards include first-time federal limits on the notorious forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS of 4 parts per trillion. The agency also set limits on three other types of PFAS, in addition to a mixture of these plus the forever chemical PFBS.

The agency’s plans for reconsidering the standards include rolling back limits for four currently regulated PFAS: PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (GenX), and the PFBS mixture. If finalized, this would be a win for PFAS polluters and a serious setback for consumers, who, if in states without their own standards, would continue to be exposed to toxic forever chemicals.

In 2024, the EPA designated PFOS and PFOA as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, formally called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Industry groups are now seeking to overturn the agency’s designation, and the EPA has until August 18 to respond to the legal challenge.

Under the Superfund law, site cleanup managers must follow federal drinking water standards to assess the location and extent of cleanup to determine whether people are still being exposed to toxic chemicals.

Ongoing risks for residents

PFAS are linked to a number of serious health harms, including impaired immune system response, liver and kidney damage, hormone disruption, developmental and reproductive issues, and several types of cancer. 

If the EPA rolls back the drinking water standards and hazardous substance designations, communities near these and many other military installations will remain contaminated, leaving exposed residents without resources to protect themselves.

The Pentagon has said that it will comply with the current EPA standards to address PFAS contamination at military sites. If the EPA cancels its limits for certain PFAS, the DOD could argue it is no longer legally obligated to clean up bases to meet those standards, a move that could halt or scale back cleanup efforts.

The Pentagon might also deny nearby communities access to clean drinking water by failing to provide bottled water or filtration, leaving thousands of civilians at continued risk of exposure to PFAS from nearby bases. This military response would threaten the health of residents in surrounding regions.

Slow cleanup progress is nothing new to communities near military installations with documented PFAS contamination. Despite knowing the health risks of PFAS for decades, the Defense Department has made few strides in cleaning up these chemicals. No site has yet to reach the formal cleanup stage of the Superfund process.

Without updated EPA reports reflecting the true scope of PFAS exposure at military sites, nearby communities will stay uninformed and unable to take action to protect themselves from continued exposure. These civilians are left defenseless against toxic threats.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Water Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Regional Issues Defense Communities Authors Jared Hayes Guest Authors Nicole Caplan (EWG) July 29, 2025

EWG comments on safer sunscreens to Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce rcoleman July 17, 2025

Attached are comments to the Health Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in reference to safer sunscreens for the hearing “Legislative Proposals to Maintain and Improve the Public Health Workforce, Rural Health, and Over-the-Counter Medicines.”

File Download Document ewg-statement-for-record-sunscreens-7.16.25.pdf Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Sunscreen July 16, 2025

California Senate environmental committee approves landmark bill to protect schoolkids from harmful UPF rcoleman July 16, 2025

SACRAMENTO – In a win for children’s health, today the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee passed a bipartisan bill that would, if enacted, phase out certain ultra-processed food, or UPF, from meals served in public schools. 

UPF are industrially manufactured and chemically modified products. They’re often made with potentially harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and durability.

Assembly Bill 1264, introduced by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would create a first-in-the-nation legal definition of UPF. 

The bill would also task Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment scientists to work with University of California researchers to research UPF links to disease and other health risks. These experts would then identify those that are “particularly harmful” and should be phased out of public school food.. 

Schools would be required to comply with the law starting in 2032.

“Our public schools should not be serving students ultra-processed food products filled with chemical additives that can harm their physical and mental health and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Gabriel. 

Some artificial food chemicals that are commonly found in UPF have been shown to affect the brain’s influence on behavior and learning. 

The bill has bipartisan support, including from Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (East Nicolaus) and Progressive Caucus Chair Alex Lee (D-San Jose).

“In California, Democrats and Republicans are joining forces to prioritize the health and safety of our children, and we are proud to be leading the nation with a bipartisan, science-based approach,” said Gabriel. 

“This new legislation will ensure that schools are serving our students the healthy, nutritious meals they need and deserve,” he added.

The Environmental Working Group is cosponsoring AB 1264. The bill now heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Health threats of UPF

Experts say UPF food and drinks encourage people to eat more of them than they really want. The products are engineered to evoke a desire to consume more, they say.

Scientific research also links UPF to serious health harms, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease, reproductive and neurobehavioral harms, and mental health issues.

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

“Ultra-processed foods aren’t just unhealthy – they’re engineered for overconsumption. Like addictive substances, they hijack the brain’s reward system, making it difficult for people to cut back, even when facing serious health consequences,” said Ashley Gearhardt, Ph.D., and professor of psychology at the University of Michigan.

“America’s diet is now dominated by ultra-processed foods, many of which were shaped by the same corporate strategies that once hooked people on cigarettes. The result? Rising rates of obesity, diabetes and diet-related diseases, especially in children,” added Gearhardt.

Food companies have consistently opposed efforts to regulate UPF. They market and sell these products to consumers, in California and nationwide, without disclosing their potential harms.

Landmark UPF legislation

“Processed foods can have a place in a healthy diet, but Americans – especially children – are consuming too many ultra-processed foods, which is contributing to increased rates of cancer, heart disease and diabetes,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.

“AB 1264 would take an important step toward protecting student health by identifying and removing the most harmful ultra-processed foods from California schools,” added Del Chiaro. “We commend Assemblymember Gabriel and all of the bill’s co-authors for taking commonsense steps toward better protecting the well-being of California’s children.”

In developing a definition of “particularly harmful” UPF, the experts would consider whether:

• The product includes additives that are banned, restricted or subject to warnings in other jurisdictions.
• Based on scientific research, the product or its ingredients are linked to cancer, cardiovascular or metabolic disease, developmental or reproductive harms, obesity, Type 2 diabetes or other health harms.
• The product or its ingredients contribute to food addiction.
• The product is high in fat, sugar or salt. 

California schools are projected to provide over 1 billion meals this school year. AB 1264 would help protect students from the harmful chemicals in “hyperpalatable” food and ensure that all children – from a diversity of economic backgrounds – have access to healthy and nutritious food.

“Healthy school meals are the fastest, most powerful way to create a healthier future for our children and our nation,” said Nora LaTorre, CEO of Eat Real, bill cosponsor along with EWG.

California leads the way

California is changing the national conversation about food safety and school nutrition. With strong bipartisan support, over the past two years the state has enacted two Gabriel-authored landmark food laws.

The California School Food Safety Act, signed into law in 2024, bans six harmful food dyes from being served in public schools. 

It followed a 2023 state law banning the manufacture, distribution or sale of food containing the chemicals Red Dye No. 3, propyl paraben, brominated vegetable oil and potassium bromate.

California has long been a bellwether state for public health protections. Now similar actions are sweeping the country, with food chemical bills introduced, debated and in some cases enacted in states from Arizona to Vermont, including Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania.

Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in January directing California agencies to look for new ways to minimize the harms of UPF consumption. The order also instructs the agencies to reduce the purchase of soda, candy and other types of UPF, including those that contain artificial dye.

“Poor nutrition in childhood, predominantly due to processed foods, which are high in added sugars and low in nutrient quality, is a major and modifiable factor contributing to life-long risk for chronic diseases, including obesity, Type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and heart disease and also affects learning and classroom performance,” said Michael Goran, Ph.D., and program director for nutrition and obesity at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. 

Goran is also professor and vice chair for research in the department of pediatrics at Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California.

Prenatal vitamin and PFAS legislation

EWG is sponsoring two other bills in the California Legislature this session: Senate Bill 682 and 646. Both bills passed the California Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials this week. 

SB 682, authored by Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), would ban manufacturers from intentionally adding PFAS to various consumer products, including cookware, food packaging and cleaners.

SB 646, authored by Sen. Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-San Diego), would require prenatal multivitamin manufacturers to test for and publicly disclose levels of potentially harmful heavy metals in their products. 

Activist and social entrepreneur Hilary Swank testified in support of the bill in front of the California Senate Health Committee on April 2.

 “As a mom and entrepreneur, I am deeply committed to protecting my family and your families,” said Swank. “We know prenatal vitamins are essential for maternal and fetal health, but recent studies show that far too many contain heavy metals that can harm developing babies.”

If signed into law, SB 646 would make California the first state to mandate transparency for prenatal supplements, setting a national precedent for stronger maternal health protections.

“Expecting mothers deserve transparency about the ingredients in the supplements they take to support their health and their baby’s growth,” said Susan Little, EWG’s legislative director for California. “It’s alarming to find heavy metals in prenatal vitamins. This bill is a critical step toward giving consumers the facts and pushing companies to make safer products.”

###

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 Family Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Regional Issues California Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 July 16, 2025

EWG testimony before the California Senate Environmental Quality Committee on AB 1264, to ban particularly harmful ultra-processed foods rcoleman July 16, 2025

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. I also teach Food Law at Georgetown University Law Center. Prior to joining EWG, I was the Vice President for Federal Affairs for the Consumer Brands Association. 

Processed foods are part of a healthy diet, and AB 1264 does not prohibit schools from offering processed foods. However, ultraprocessed foods are different from processed foods because they combine industrial ingredients and additives in ways that make foods hyperpalatable. 

These industrially engineered foods are not simply delicious; they are literally irresistible because they: 

• change the signals that are sent to our brain’s reward center.
• increase the speed with which that reward is delivered, and 
• interfere with signals that tell us to stop eating. 

More than half of the calories we consume are UPF – including 67% of the calories eaten by our children. Fortunately, many of our schools have already moved to eliminate UPF, replacing them with healthier processed foods, minimally processed foods, and whole foods from local farms. These schools have shown us we don’t need to make expensive changes to school kitchens to phase out the most harmful UPF. 

Because AB 1264 places the burden on vendors to stop selling harmful UPF to our kids, it will be food companies – not our school food professionals – who will be required to distinguish among minimally processed foods, processed foods, ultra-processed foods, and the most harmful UPF. 

Again, under AB 1264, only harmful UPF will need to be reformulated. As someone who worked for food companies, I’m confident that my food industry colleagues can meet this challenge. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I respectfully request an “aye” vote on AB 1264. 

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Regional Issues California Authors Scott Faber July 16, 2025