Environmental Working Group

Dayna de Montagnac, M.P.H. rcoleman July 25, 2024 Dayna de Montagnac, M.P.H. Pesticide Research Fellow, Science Investigations

Dayna works with the Investigations team to generate and analyze research on pesticides. She has worked for the Environmental Defense Fund and the Environmental Protection Agency, where she gained experience in systematic review of research and the organization of datasets. Dayna earned her bachelors of science in public health from American University and her masters in public health in environmental health science and policy from George Washington University. Her research focused on the effects of indoor volatile organic compounds on birth outcomes. Dayna is interested in understanding the effects of everyday exposures on critical developmental stages. She envisions an environment free of health-threatening chemicals.

New study finds alarming rise in persistent ‘forever chemicals’ in pesticides rcoleman July 23, 2024

WASHINGTON – A peer-reviewed study published today in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives has found that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, known as “forever chemicals,” are increasingly being added to U.S. pesticide products, contaminating waterways and posing potential threats to human health.

The study, “Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment,” is the first-ever comprehensive review of the many ways PFAS are introduced into U.S. pesticide products. Pesticides containing PFAS are used throughout the country on staple foods such as corn, wheat, kale, spinach, apples and strawberries. They are widely used in residences in flea treatments for pets and insect-killing sprays.

Researchers at the Center for Biological Diversity, or CBD, Environmental Working Group and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, or PEER, compiled data on sources of PFAS in pesticide products. Those sources range from specific ingredients intentionally added to pesticides, to contamination via leaching from fluorinated storage containers.

The study’s major findings include:

• Troubling trend. 14 percent of all U.S. pesticide active ingredients are PFAS, including nearly one-third of active ingredients approved in the past 10 years.
• The worst of the worst. PFOA and PFOS, thought to be among the most toxic PFAS chemicals, have been found in some pesticide products, likely from the leaching of fluorinated containers and other unknown sources.
• Persistent water pollutants. PFAS ingredients in pesticide products have been found in streams and rivers throughout the country.
• Complex mixtures. Pesticides can accumulate PFAS from multiple sources, so a single container may house a mixture of different PFAS. 
• Oversight deficiencies. The current U.S. pesticide regulatory framework is not equipped to adequately identify and assess the risks of PFAS in pesticides.  

“This is truly frightening news, because pesticides are some of the most widely dispersed pollutants in the world,” said Nathan Donley, CBD environmental health science director. “Lacing pesticides with forever chemicals is likely burdening the next generation with more chronic diseases and impossible cleanup responsibilities. The Environmental Protection Agency needs to get a grasp on this fast-emerging threat right away.” 

“Toxic PFAS have no place in our food, water or homes, posing a serious threat to our health and environment,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., EWG deputy director of investigations and a senior scientist. “The increasing use of PFAS pesticides will lead to increasing levels of PFAS in the environment. 

“PFAS not only endanger agricultural workers and communities but also jeopardize downstream water sources, where pesticide runoff can contaminate drinking supplies. From home gardens to pet care, the use of these pesticide products further illustrates why we must end all non-essential uses of these persistent ‘forever chemicals,’” Andrews added.

“I can think of no better way to poison people and the environment than to spray PFAS-laden pesticides on our crops and in our homes,” said PEER Science Policy Director Kyla Bennett. “The blame for this contamination crisis lies squarely on the EPA’s shoulders.”

PFAS are intentionally added to pesticides in part to increase the stability of pesticide ingredients and improve pesticides’ ability to kill living organisms.

Background

For this paper researchers looked at sources of PFAS in pesticide products and found both active and so-called inert ingredients that meet the definition of a PFAS chemical. They found that pesticides likely further accumulate PFAS contamination from the leaching of fluorinated containers and other as-yet-undetermined sources. More than 15,000 synthetic chemicals qualify as PFAS.  

The active, or main, ingredients in pesticides were found to be the greatest contributor of PFAS in the products, with 66 PFAS active ingredients approved for use in the U.S. Eight approved inert ingredients are PFAS, including the nonstick chemical Teflon. The EPA has recently proposed to cancel uses of Teflon in pesticide products.

An estimated 20 percent to 30 percent of plastic containers used to house pesticides and fertilizers are fluorinated and can leach PFAS into the containers’ contents. The study revealed that multiple pesticide products have been found to contain PFAS consistent with container leaching.

Some of the most sensitive harms from PFAS are to the human immune system, such as weakened antibody response to vaccinations and increased risk of infectious disease. The study found that 40 percent of active ingredients classified as immunotoxic by the EPA are PFAS, which suggests that PFAS active ingredients – more than other types of active ingredients – are likely to be immunotoxic. But since 2012 it has been common for the EPA to waive immunotoxicity study requirements for pesticides, which limits the agency’s ability to detect such harms. 

U.S. regulators have monitored the nation’s waterways for pollution from only 13 of the 66 PFAS active ingredients approved for use in pesticides in the U.S. Twelve of the 13 have been found in American streams and rivers, with some detected at high concentrations throughout the country.

The study also found that U.S. oversight of pesticides does not adequately account for harms from persistent pesticide ingredients, such as PFAS, leading pesticide regulators to underestimate key risks.

The authors recommend ways U.S. regulators can have better oversight of PFAS pesticides, including:

• Discontinue the practice of fluorinating plastic containers.   
• Require identification of all “inert” ingredients on pesticide labels.
• Require enhanced immunotoxicity tests for PFAS active and inert ingredients.
• Persistence in the environment, alone, should be a basis for pesticide regulation regardless of toxicity.
• The U.S. government must expand environmental monitoring and biomonitoring programs to include all PFAS pesticides.
• The EPA must assess the cumulative impacts from fluorinated byproducts that are common to multiple pesticide active ingredients.

###

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with over 1.7 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 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. https://www.ewg.org/

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility is a national, nonprofit service organization providing free legal services for environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values

Press contacts: 

Nathan Donley, Center for Biological Diversity, (971) 717-6406, ndonley@biologicaldiversity.org

Monica Amarelo, Environmental Working Group, (202) 939-9140, monica@ewg.org

Kyla Bennett, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, (508) 230-9933, KBennett@peer.org

Areas of Focus Food & Water Farming & Agriculture Farm Pollution Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals PFAS from pesticide products detected in rivers, streams throughout U.S. Disqus Comments Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 July 24, 2024

Deodorants vs. antiperspirants: What’s the difference? JR Culpepper July 22, 2024

This summer is on track to be hotter than normal, according to a recent National Weather Service outlook. While you’re beating the heat, make sure to choose a safe and effective deodorant or antiperspirant.

The wrong product can lead to embarrassing sweat stains or body odor– and some might even have toxic ingredients.

You have the choice of many products, and your body’s reaction to each of them is different from the next person’s. To find the one that best suits you, learn about antiperspirants versus deodorants and which chemicals to avoid in both.

How do they work?

The biggest difference between the two types of products is that while deodorants mask body odor, antiperspirants reduce how much you sweat. 

Your skin has tiny glands that produce sweat – an odorless and colorless liquid designed to hydrate your skin and cool your body. Once sweat leaves these glands, it mixes with the natural bacteria that live on your skin. These bacteria break down the sweat, producing the byproduct that is the primary source of body odor.

Variations in body odor depend on factors like genetics, lifestyle, weather and even stress level. In the U.S. most people try to avoid strong body odor, typically using deodorants, antiperspirants or a combination of the two. 

Deodorant uses a fragrance to cover up the smell of body odor, and some include ingredients with antimicrobial properties to cut down the number of odor-producing bacteria.

Antiperspirant clogs your sweat glands, usually with an aluminum-based ingredient. That way you sweat less, leaving less sweat on your skin for the bacteria to break down. Because antiperspirants affect the body’s functions, the Food and Drug Administration regulates them as a drug.

Are aluminum-based products safe?

In the past few years, researchers and others have questioned possible links between  aluminum-based antiperspirants and increased breast cancer risk and kidney damage. A 2017 study found frequent antiperspirant use is associated with aluminum buildup in breast tissue. In 2023, another study reported inconsistent results between the use of deodorants and antiperspirants and breast cancer, and suggested more research is needed on the role of metals, not only aluminum.

The National Cancer Institute has concluded there is no direct evidence that aluminum in antiperspirants causes cancer to develop. And the National Kidney Foundation has confirmed there is almost no way to absorb enough aluminum through your skin to harm your kidneys. 

EWG scientists have also confirmed the safety of antiperspirants made with aluminum, and ingredient that is allowed in the EWG Verified® program. Those containing aluminum zirconium complex are not, since they can pose a lung hazard and lead to skin hypersensitivity. 

If you prefer an aluminum-based antiperspirant, you should feel confident that doing so will not likely lead to health harms. If not, plenty of alternative products are available.

Worrying ingredients

When you shop for deodorant or antiperspirant, make sure to check the ingredients label and try to avoid these potentially harmful chemicals: 

• Phthalates. These additives are common in many cosmetic products. They are associated with health harms such as increased risk of cancer, asthma and allergies, and learning attention and behavioral difficulties in children.
• Undisclosed “fragrance.” Fragrance can be made up of a mix of any of more than 3,500 chemicals and gives personal care, cleaning and other products their unique smell. But companies aren’t required to disclose the ingredients that make up a fragrance, and they can sometimes contain toxic chemicals.
• Parabens. These are widely used in many cosmetic products as a preservative. They are a type of endocrine disruptor that can lead to health harms in kids or teens, particularly long-chain parabens.
• Benzene and butadiene. These are common impurities found in aerosol spray deodorants and antiperspirants. In a 2021 study, cancer-causing benzene was found to have tainted over 40 deodorant and antiperspirant spray products, likely due to contamination with butane or isobutane. 

An easier fix: Shop EWG Verified

Worrying about all the toxic additives to avoid can be tiring. For a simple way to get some peace of mind, look for products with the EWG Verified mark, awarded only to products that have been reviewed by our scientists and meet the highest standards of ingredient safety, transparency and efficacy.

When you’re on the go, scan products with our Healthy Living app to see EWG’s ratings for them and find their hazard ratings in our Skin Deep® database.

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Disqus Comments Authors JR Culpepper July 23, 2024

Clean slate: Choosing better stain removers for a healthier home JR Culpepper July 18, 2024

Summer is officially here, and with it the joys of children playing outside, exploring and –  inevitably – getting dirty. These outdoor activities are good for kids’ health and development, but they can also pose a challenge: stubborn clothes stains.

Choosing a stain remover from all the available options can be daunting. How can you make sure the product you choose is tough on grass, dirt and food stains, but not on your family’s health and the environment? 

EWG is here to help. We’ve pulled together recommendations for top-rated stain removers in our Guide to Healthy Cleaning or those that have earned the EWG Verified® mark, ensuring they meet our strict standards for your health.

EWG Verified stain removers

These are a few of the products that can handle even the toughest stains without ingredients on our list of unacceptable chemicals.

• Root and Splendor Foaming Pre-Spotter. This laundry option is a standout choice for tackling tough stains. 
• AspenClean Oxygen Bleach Stain Remover Zero Plastic. Not only does this laundry booster remove stubborn stains, it’s also free of plastic packaging.
• Branch Basics Oxygen Boost.You can use this oxygen booster to tackle multiple cleaning projects. It works on stains and laundry – and can even be used on carpet and bathroom tile and grout.

Highly rated stain removers

• Dapple Baby Stain Remover, Fragrance-Free.Use this cleaner to pretreat clothing. It’s formulated especially to handle baby stains like food and spit-up.
• Branch Basics Concentrate, Fragrance-Free. This all-purpose product is a versatile cleaner that can be diluted for use in various cleaning tasks, including stain removal.
• Attitude Nature + Little Ones Laundry Stain Remover, Unscented. Especially intended for clothing worn by people with delicate skin, this clothing stain remover is perfect for families with young children. 

In addition to the options listed above, our Guide to Healthy Cleaning includes ratings for even more stain removers. You can also check out our complete list of EWG Verified cleaners.

When you choose a stain remover, consider the ingredients and their potential impact on your health and the planet. Buying highly rated or EWG Verified products not only reduces your family’s exposure to harmful chemicals but also supports companies committed to avoiding harmful ingredients.

Concerning legislation

To identify and choose safer cleaning products, shoppers need access to information about their ingredients. But a troubling bill now being considered in Congress threatens to strip consumers of their right to know what’s in their cleaners. 

H.R. 5978, dubbed the DARK Act by advocates of ingredient transparency, would block state laws that increase ingredient transparency. It would also establish a convoluted regulatory process likely to weaken chemical disclosure standards. If enacted, the DARK Act would unquestionably lead to fewer disclosures of chemical ingredients, with the result being consumers who are much less informed about what’s in their products.

We urge you to contact your member of Congress and ask them to defend your right to know by opposing H.R. 5978.

Areas of Focus Household & Consumer Products Cleaning Supplies Disqus Comments Authors Iris Myers July 22, 2024

Mastering sunscreen plus makeup so you’re protected from harmful UV rays rcoleman July 16, 2024

In today’s beauty world, multi-step skincare routines are all the rage. From serums and moisturizers to primers and foundations, the perfect glow involves carefully layering products. 

But one key step is often skipped or overlooked: sunscreen.

Despite its critical role in protecting skin from damage, only 17 percent of U.S. adults incorporate sunscreen into their daily routines. This leaves the vast majority at risk for sun exposure problems such as premature aging and skin cancer.

With new SPF products such as powders, mists and drops hitting store shelves, it’s important to learn how to blend sunscreen and makeup together seamlessly.

Why isn’t SPF in makeup enough?

A common misconception is that using makeup products containing SPF eliminates the need for a separate sunscreen or SPF moisturizer. While products with SPF do offer some protection, alone they may not protect you enough against the sun’s harmful ultraviolet, or UV, rays. Here’s why:

• Quantity matters. To achieve the SPF protection labeled on your makeup products, you need to use a significant amount. Most people don’t apply enough makeup to reach the necessary level of sun protection. 
• Uneven coverage. Some makeup products with SPF, such as foundation, may not be applied consistently on the face. Product instructions often advise starting applying foundation in the middle of your face and blending outward, but this may leave some skin underprotected.
• Reapplication. For all-day protection, you must reapply your sunscreen, especially when you’re outdoors. You’re probably not going to want to reapply foundation or powder so often – it would quickly disrupt your polished look. 

Integrating sunscreen into your routine 

Start your day with a broad-spectrum sunscreen or a moisturizer with SPF as the basis of your sun protection routine. 

Even if your makeup products contain SPF, consider them bonus protection, instead of the main source. 

Sunscreen should be reapplied every two hours for proper protection. Whenever you touch up your makeup throughout the day, it’s also a great opportunity to reapply your sunscreen. Consider using a sunscreen stick instead of liquid sunscreen to minimize smearing your makeup.

What to look for in a sunscreen

When it comes to sun protection, not all sunscreens are created equal. Look for products that guard against UV damage and are free from chemicals of concern.

EWG’s 2024 Guide to Sunscreens revealed a concerning trend: Only one-quarter of nearly 1,700 SPF products sold in the U.S. meet EWG’s standards for providing balanced UVA and UVB protection while avoiding the use of concerning ingredients. 

Sunscreens that offer broad spectrum protection, such as the ones that do well in our evaluation, help safeguard from harmful UVA and UVB rays. Avoid concerning ingredients such as oxybenzone and octinoxate, which can behave like endocrine disruptors.

And to reduce inhalation risk and provide a more even coating on your skin, choose sunscreen in lotion or stick form instead of spray. 

Look for sunscreens with the EWG Verified® mark, which means they have been reviewed by EWG’s scientists and meet our rigorous standards for health and transparency. For sunscreens, it means they must meet a higher standard for broad spectrum protection.

EWG’s Skin Deep® database can also help, as it scores sunscreens and tens of thousands of other personal care products based on their hazards and ingredient data availability.

Sunscreens without harmful ingredients should be accessible to everyday consumers. The Food and Drug Administration should finalize its proposed sunscreen order, which would take an important step toward making sure all products on the market are safe for everyday use.

Overall sun protection

When it comes to sun safety, sunscreen should be used with other protective steps.

Wear protective clothing, hats and sunglasses when you’re outside. When the sun is at its peak, find shade under a tree or make your own with an umbrella. And remember to protect the often-overlooked exposed skin, such as your lips and the tops of your feet.

By making these steps part of your daily routine, you’ll enjoy glowing, protected skin – and be able to step out into the sun with confidence. 

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Sunscreen Family Health Toxic Chemicals Disqus Comments Authors Hong Lin July 23, 2024

Multiple metals detected in tampons, new study finds rcoleman July 12, 2024

Sixteen potentially harmful metals can be found in tampons sold by over a dozen unique brands, a new study finds, highlighting concerns about exposure for people who use them.

The levels of the metals found in the 30 different tampons sampled were low. But 12 of the 16 metals identified were detected in all of the tampons. The study, by researchers with Columbia University, the University of California Berkeley and Michigan State University, was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environment International.

Absorbing metals in our bodies

It’s possible the metals in tampons can be absorbed through contact, since the skin of and around the vagina is more sensitive than other parts of the body. A separate peer-reviewed paper noted that tampons can cause tiny tears in the vagina, which may allow chemicals to enter the body. 

The study’s 30 tampons included those made from cotton, rayon or a mix of cotton, rayon and viscose. There’s limited data on this risk, but one 2019 study published in Environmental Health observed that concentrations of blood mercury were higher among tampon users. This suggests metals may enter the body as a result of tampon use. 

The cotton used to make tampons commonly contains heavy metals from the soil in which it was grown. Authors of the Environmental International study also say some metals are added intentionally for odor control, lubrication or color or as preservatives, citing several tampon patents that mention the addition of metals in their design. 

EDC exposure in tampons

Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and mercury are also endocrine disruptors, or EDCs. Exposure to these chemicals is linked to a suite of health problems, including adverse reproductive effects and cardiometabolic consequences.

Metals are not the only EDCs detected in tampons and other menstrual products: Studies have also reported levels of the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, in addition to phthalates and parabens. 

Adolescents are starting to menstruate earlier and earlier, and EDC exposure during this time may be more harmful than later in life. 

Despite the low levels of metals found in tampons, stricter regulation is necessary, given the mixture of chemicals found in the products and concerns about their impact – especially during critical periods of development like adolescence. 

How tampons are regulated

Tampons are regulated as medical devices in the U.S., so manufacturers don’t have to disclose their chemical ingredients. Labeling requirements for tampons include warnings about toxic shock syndrome and absorbency information, but not ingredients.

Tampons from vending machines are exempt from any federal labeling requirements.

The Food and Drug Administration advises tampon companies to avoid use of pesticides and certain dioxins. But it hasn’t explicitly banned harmful chemicals for use in tampons. 

Nor does the FDA require ingredients used in menstrual products like tampons to meet any kind of safety standard. 

That’s why it can be difficult to know which products are safer. The FDA should pursue new rules to keep harmful chemicals out of menstrual products, require ingredient disclosure and set safety standards for ingredients.

And although the metal levels detected in the new study were low, the findings suggest a potential need to also revisit safety standards for metals in tampon material

What you can do 

Until there are adequate tampon labeling requirements, consumers’ best option is to contact brands directly to ask what ingredients they use. It’s also important to support calls for new federal and state regulations to improve the safety of menstrual products.

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Family Health Reproductive Health Toxic Chemicals Disqus Comments Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. Guest Authors Ariel Hekier, (EWG) July 12, 2024

Protecting ‘Sephora kids’: How to keep tweens safe from harmful skin care and cosmetic ingredients rcoleman July 12, 2024

• Children’s growing interest in skin care highlights the need for education about the harmful effects of products designed for older skin, which can cause redness, burning and allergic reactions.
• Summer camps are advising young girls to leave their skin care products at home.

• Resources like EWG Verified® and the Skin Deep® database provide safe alternatives, helping parents and caregivers.

*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/

Earlier this year, the “Sephora kids” trend set TikTok ablaze. Now even summer camps are asking skin-care-obsessed tweens to leave their serums, cleansers and body sprays at home.

EWG’s 2023 survey of personal care product use found the same thing – young people are avid users of skin care and cosmetics. Thirty-eight percent of Gen Z uses a skin care product daily and 23 percent weekly. They love makeup, too – 59 percent use cosmetics products at least monthly, 23 percent as often as every day.

As this trend went viral, dermatologists began raising alarms about the potential risk to young, delicate skin. 

Many of these young shoppers go to Sephora, Ulta Beauty and other cosmetic stores for sought-after brands like Glow Recipe and Drunk Elephant.  

But these products are not designed for young people, as many of the ingredients can be harmful to children. With the growing interest in skin care, it’s more important than ever to help kids in early adolescence understand how to use products safely and especially how to steer clear of harsh ingredients.

Ingredients in anti-aging products

Many popular products are intended for older skin in particular and used for anti-aging purposes. Products marketed as anti-aging, wrinkle-reducing or brightening often contain ingredients damaging to young skin and its barrier. Tweens’ use probably does more harm than good. 

Retinol, peptides, vitamin C and exfoliating acids are four of the concerning chemicals that can cause a range of health issues. 

Retinol helps increase the production of collagen and elastin, which can reduce fine lines and enlarged pores. It may redden, irritate and dry out tween skin. According to a search of Skin Deep, our free searchable database of personal care products, one in five anti-aging products contains retinol. 

Vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, is an antioxidant used to reduce the appearance of dark spots, wrinkles and acne. It can cause itchiness and burning. It is found in about 70 percent of facial moisturizers and about 2 percent of all personal care products.

Exfoliating acids, including alpha-hydroxy acids and beta-hydroxy acids, smooth skin texture and unclog pores but they can lead to dryness, irritation and redness. About one in five exfoliant products and about one in 100 personal care products contains salicylic acid, a common type of these acids.  

And though these ingredients may support the health of adult skin, they’re often too harsh for young, sensitive skin. 

Healthier alternatives for kids

You have options when it comes to protecting your children from harsh skin care ingredients. 

EWG’s Skin Deep database can help you discover safe products for tween skin. It highlights and evaluates popular products based on their ingredients. 

You can use it to find tween-friendly skin care and cosmetics free from potentially harmful ingredients that are safe for young people.

You can also look for EWG Verified cleansers, moisturizers and sunscreens to help build a simple skin care routine for your tween. 

EWG Verified products have been reviewed by our scientists and have met our rigorous standards for health and transparency. Although some EWG Verified products do contain anti-aging ingredients, others are formulated with kids and tweens in mind.

And some makeup for young people bears the EWG Verified mark, too. 

Jovy is an EWG Verified kids play cosmetics brand. The company’s stated priority is to create effective formulas that keep children safe. Their products, including Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit, allow kids to enjoy a variety of cosmetic products without the risk of harsh or toxic ingredients. 

Jovy also offers makeup stencils and a makeup set. 

Gryt is another personal care brand with products designed for children 8 and up. Their Face Courage Daily Cleanser, for tweens and teens, is EWG Verified. 

Jovy Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit, Lip Gloss, Sparkle Berry Click here Jovy Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit, Eyeshadow & Blush, Berry Sky Click here Jovy Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit, Eyeshadow & Blush, Berry Lilac Click here Jovy Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit, Eyeshadow & Blush, Berry Rose Click here Jovy Berry Bliss Play Makeup Kit Click here Gryt Face Courage Daily Cleanser Click here Regulating cosmetics

Some U.S. lawmakers believe the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates cosmetics and skin care products, doesn’t do enough to protect young people. 

As a result, advocates have tried to limit kids’ ability to buy these products. For example, California Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-Milpitas) introduced Assembly Bill 2491, which would have banned the purchase of certain anti-aging skin care products for children under 13. The legislation failed to move forward in the state Assembly. 

More ways to help tweens stay safe

• Immediately stop using any products that cause redness, irritation, itching or a burning sensation. 
• Consult EWG's Top 5 Tips for Choosing Safer Cosmetics for Kids to learn how to avoid harsh ingredients and find better products for children and tweens. 
• Start with basic, simple and gentle products formulated for young skin. As a rule of thumb, look for those made with 10 ingredients or fewer.
• Consult with your health care provider, dermatologist or skin care professional for personalized recommendations, especially if the child or teen has sensitive skin.
• Reach out to brands you’re interested in and ask which products are suited for children and teens, and what tests they have conducted.
• Find out about skin care ingredients and their potential effects on young skin, especially those linked to reproduction and endocrine disruption or that may otherwise interfere with the normal development of children and teens.   

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Family Health Children’s Health Disqus Comments Guest Authors Meghan Durkin, Stanback Fellow for EWG communications July 15, 2024

When is a farm bill not a farm bill? When it’s loaded with troubling provisions JR Culpepper July 12, 2024

A farm bill debate in Congress might conjure up visions of rustic barns and amber waves of grain. So it may surprise you to learn that this legislation could expose kids to pesticides, cut funding for hungry Americans and worsen the climate crisis.

Some parts of the farm bill do address agriculture directly, including billions of dollars in bloated farm subsidies funded by taxpayers that go to a handful of farmers – even when total farm incomes reach new heights.

But the bill covers much more than crops and cattle. And if House Republicans get their way, the health and safety of millions of people could be on the line.

Blocking pesticide safeguards 

The bill would make it much easier for Big Ag to spray potentially harmful chemicals on fields close to schools and near neighborhoods where people work and live.

Some of these chemicals have been linked to serious health concerns, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease and harm to development and reproduction. Children are especially susceptible to potential health problems. Yet the House farm bill would block efforts by states and towns to prevent pesticides from being sprayed near schools throughout the U.S.

Pesticide manufacturers favor blocking states and local governments from requiring additional warnings and use restrictions on their products. The bill would also help minimize the companies’ liability for related health problems and protect their bottom line. 

Funding fight

The House farm bill is also bad news for the 41 million Americans living on a low income who rely on SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to put food on the table. It would cut $30 billion in anti-hunger funds from SNAP, the Department of Agriculture program that leads U.S. anti-hunger efforts and is funded in the farm bill.

Where would that money go instead? It would be used for skyrocketing subsidies for a handful of large peanut, rice and cotton farmers, primarily in Southern states. 

Farm subsidies have long been out of control, with billions going to the largest farms, which don’t need the help. Between 2021 and 2023, farmers collected more than $55 billion in taxpayer-funded farm subsidies, even as national net farm income was higher on average than any time in the past 20 years.

Increasing these subsidies will drive up the costs of renting and buying land, further tilting the playing field against Black, young and small family farmers when many small farms already struggle, and many have been pushed out of business.  

Climate catastrophe

Not content with exposing kids to pesticides and letting people go hungry, the House farm bill would also move money away from actions that reduce agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. The sector already makes up about 10 percent of U.S. emissions and is set to rise.

To fight the climate crisis, agriculture’s emissions must be reined in. But the bill would scrap guardrails designed to ensure that a significant amount of USDA funding goes to climate-smart practices that reduce emissions and build soil carbon.

Practices such as cover crops also benefit water and air quality. In 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act included over $19 billion in additional funds for farmers to use to implement farming practices that help the climate through steps that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Farmers and ranchers want to use these kinds of climate-smart practices. But more than half the applicants for this conservation funding have previously been turned down because of high demand. 

If Congress removes the climate focus of the remaining $19 billion, the USDA will likely revert to its previous ways, when less than one-quarter of conservation funding flowed to practices that reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The increase in emissions could be massive. 

A farm bill for the few

Instead of obstructing state and local government efforts to protect people from the harmful effects of pesticides, the House should remove itself from the picture.

Instead of forking over more taxpayer dollars for farm subsidy programs, the House should reform them to save taxpayers money and develop more equitable federal farm policy.  

Instead of shifting funding away from programs that can reduce agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions, the House should encourage innovations that tackle the climate crisis.

If you’re a pesticide company, a Big Ag business or just a consumer satisfied with where your family’s next meal is coming from, the House farm bill may seem a winner.

For everyone else – children, taxpayers, small farmers, farmers from underrepresented groups, and people experiencing food insecurity – it’s a clear loser.

 

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Climate & Agriculture Farm Subsidies Disqus Comments Authors Anthony Lacey July 17, 2024

EWG: In California, source of much U.S. produce, almost 1,000 factory farms are near crop fields and their irrigation sources rcoleman July 10, 2024

WASHINGTON – Almost all of California’s factory farms are very close to water sources that are used to irrigate crops, creating the risk of foodborne illnesses, a new Environmental Working Group investigation finds.

Dangerous bacteria commonly found in animal manure, like E. coli and salmonella, can wash or drift with dust into these waterways, which are often used to irrigate food crops such as leafy greens. When people eat produce tainted with such pathogens, they can become very sick or even die.

“California grows many of the fruits and vegetables consumed across the country,” said EWG Senior GIS Analyst Ethan Bahe, author of the investigation. “So when the state’s produce is contaminated with pathogens, just about everyone is at risk for serious or even life-threatening foodborne illness as a result.”

EWG experts used data from the California Environmental Protection Agency’s State Water Resources Control Board to geolocate 1,062 of the state’s concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, which house nearly 77 million animals. 

Of those, 986 – almost 93 percent – were within 1 mile of canals often used to water crops. And 449 – 42 percent – were within a quarter of a mile of such waterways.

Most California CAFOs produce cattle, with 911 housing 3 million cows. Many of the other CAFOs contain poultry, with 150 facilities housing 73.8 million chickens, ducks and turkeys.

The presence of open manure storage tanks and feedlots close to an irrigation canal – sometimes only feet away – makes it easy for bacteria and other pathogens to wash or blow off feedlots and other CAFOs and end up on produce.

Research shows that pollutants from animal feeding operations can cause respiratory damage in residents up to 4 miles away. So it’s probable that bacteria in manure on cattle feedlots can drift on air currents into fields or waterways up to that distance.

The closer a CAFO is to a body of water, the higher the risk for contamination. In the Central and Imperial Valleys, high concentrations of operations in small areas of land compound the threat. 

EWG also identified 2.6 million acres of crop fields in California that are within 3 miles of at least one CAFO – 1.56 million of which are planted with fruits or vegetables. 

In 2022, over 251,000 acres in California were planted with leafy greens or melons, two crops that have recently been the source of bacterial foodborne illness outbreaks. Of these, 5.2 percent of those fields, or more than 24,000 acres, are within 3 miles of a CAFO. 

EWG looked only at facilities large enough to be considered CAFOs by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Not included in the analysis are 812 smaller facilities in the Golden State housing an additional 7.5 million animals.

“By mapping the state’s animal operations and their proximity to waterways, we hoped to spotlight the need for stricter regulations,” Bahe said. “But our analysis also shows how, without stronger oversight, food safety in this country is alarmingly precarious.”

EWG proposes that the Food and Drug Administration require farmers who use potentially contaminated irrigation water on their produce to regularly test for these contaminants. 

And EWG says the EPA should more rigorously oversee the large amount of manure produced by CAFOs.

###

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. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Climate & Agriculture Factory Farms Regional Issues California Pathogens in livestock animal manure put consumers at risk of dangerous foodborne illness Disqus Comments Press Contact Sarah Graddy sarah@ewg.org (202) 939-9141 July 24, 2024

Prime day: Eco-friendly and nontoxic deals JR Culpepper July 10, 2024

*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/

Escaping plastic and chemicals can seem impossible – the world is producing more single-use plastic than ever at 139 million tons, according to some reports. And an estimated 97 percent of Americans have the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in their blood.

But cutting down on your exposure to plastic waste and chemicals is achievable. Even small steps like switching to more sustainable products can make your world a little cleaner. And this Amazon Prime Day, EWG is here to help. With discounts on millions of products, it can be overwhelming. We’ve assembled a list of some of our favorite non-toxic and reusable products to help you take advantage of this summer’s deals. 

Toxic-free kitchen

First up: the kitchen, starting with your cutting boards. They could be releasing microplastic particles each time they’re used, research shows. A better option is a bamboo cutting board, which some studies suggest can have  antimicrobial properties.

Greener Chef Organic Bamboo Cutting Board Set

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Prime Day is also a great opportunity to save a few bucks on a high-quality home water filter, which can help prevent microplastics and other contaminants from entering the body. 

EWG’s scientists tested portable water filters to find out which best filtered PFAS from drinking water. Below are the products on Amazon that scored the highest. You can also check out our water filter guide to find the best option for your home. 

ZeroWater 7-Cup 5-Stage Water Filter Pitcher

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Epic Water Filters Pure Filter

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Travel Berkey Gravity-Fed Water Filter

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

While we’re talking about water, there are plenty of reasons to get a steel water bottle. They’re more durable, they insulate better, and they don’t leach harmful chemicals or microplastics if they’re exposed to the sun or heat. 

Klean Kanteen Classic Brushed Stainless

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Lunch containers

On Amazon you can find some great reusable food storage containers made without harmful chemicals. These from Klean Kanteen and Stasher are perfect for lunch-ins. We also love the reusable Food Huggers containers that keep fruits and vegetables fresh.

Klean Kanteen Lunch Food Box

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Food Huggers 5pc Reusable Silicone Food Savers

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Stasher Reusable Silicone Storage Bag

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

For camping and hiking trips, check out these stainless steel cups and cute collapsible cups for kids. There are also bamboo utensils that are both lightweight and durable, complete with a carabiner clip so you can attach the set to your backpack or bag – perfect for campfire dinners. 

Klean Kanteen Single Wall Stainless Steel Cups, Pint Glasses

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Stojo Jr Collapsible Travel Cup with Straw for Kids

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Premium Reusable Bamboo Utensil Travel Set

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Laundry 

Today is also a great time for a steal on Woolzies, a non-toxic brand of wool dryer balls. They last much longer than the alternative, and leave your clothes feeling soft and free of static.

Woolzies Wool Dryer Balls Organic

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

Personal care products

For some, this could be a great opportunity to save on skin care and cosmetics. Here are some Prime Day sale deals for cosmetics that have the EWG Verified® mark, which identifies products that are free from chemicals of concern and meet our strictest standards for your health.

Babo Botanicals Sheer Zinc Mineral Sunscreen Lotion SPF30 - Natural Zinc Oxide - Shea Butter

BLDG Active Skin Repair EWG Certified Hyaluronic Acid Face and Body Hydrating Serum for All Skin Types

CURECODE Double Barrier Cream (80 ml) Korean Skin-Biome Science with Neuromide

DIME Beauty Perfume 7 Summers, Sweet Floral Scent

Inna Organic FRANKINCENSE REVITALIZING FACE & EYE CREAM

JackFir Evergreen Eye Cream, Natural Eye Cream for MenThe Evergreen Eye Cream, Natural Eye Cream for Men

KORA Organics Turmeric Brightening & Exfoliating Mask, Multi-Use Facial Scrub

Lady Polpo Conscious Cleanser

LEORA Glow Revitalizing Serum Essence

make p:rem Safe me. Relief moisture cream 12

Mustela Stelatopia+ - Lipid-Replenishing Cream Moisturizer

NENA All-Natural Mineral Toner for Face

Ouli's Ointment All Purpose Beauty Balm

Oyu Booster Serum

Pampered Guest Bergamot Collection Body Creme 250mL

QET Botanicals Supple Eye Makeup Remover

Sonage Gommage Exfoliating Gel | Gentle Face Scrub For All Skin Types | Non-Abrasive Dead Skin Cell Exfoliation

STREAM 2 SEA SPF 30 Mineral Sunscreen Biodegradable and Reef Safe Sunscreen

TALENT Men’s Skin Balancing Moisturizer

Thinksport Mineral Sunscreen, SPF 50 Clear Zinc Oxide Sunscreen

Three Ships Dream Bio-Retinol + Shorea Butter Night Cream – Vegan Night Moisturizer Face Cream Hydrates & Repairs Skin

Varuza K-Beauty Real Natural Sheet Mask with Blue Ampoule with Unbleached & Non-fluorescent sheet

Well People Bio Stick Foundation, Creamy, Multi-use, Hydrating Foundation For Glowing Skin

Wild & Pure EWG Verified All Natural, Plant-Based EcoBalance Cleanser

Yoken Jojoba Oil

Vika's Essentials Certified Organic Makeup Remover

These are only a few of many great non-toxic options you may want to explore on Prime Day. You can find more by visiting our Amazon storefront.

 

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Household & Consumer Products Disqus Comments Authors JR Culpepper July 16, 2024

Most California factory farms, close to irrigation canals, threaten U.S. food safety rcoleman July 10, 2024 Ethan Bahe July 24, 2024

Almost all of the more than 1,000 large animal feeding operations in California are very close to water sources that are used to irrigate crops, threatening the food supply for the entire country, a new EWG analysis finds.

Contaminants commonly found in animal manure, like E. coli and salmonella, can enter these bodies of water, and the water may then be sprayed on food crops such as leafy greens, potentially creating foodborne illness outbreaks.

What happens on farm fields in the state can affect people across the U.S., since farmers in California grow more than one-third of the nation’s vegetables and three-fourths of fruits. 

To protect public health, the Food and Drug Administration must require farmers who use potentially contaminated irrigation water on their produce to test for these contaminants. 

The Environmental Protection Agency must also more rigorously oversee the large amount of manure produced by concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

Almost all of California’s CAFOs close to irrigation canals

EWG experts used state data to geolocate 1,062 CAFOs in California. Of those, almost 93 percent were within 1 mile and 42 percent were within a quarter of a mile of waterways often used for irrigation.

Concentrated animal feeding operations house many of the animals raised for meat, eggs and dairy products. In these facilities, hundreds or thousands of cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys and other animals are confined in large buildings or, in the case of cattle, in open feedlots. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. An image of a cattle feedlot in California’s Central Valley. 

Image

According to EWG’s analysis of data from the California EPA’s State Water Resources Control Board website, the 1,062 CAFOs house 76.8 million animals. (See Figure 2.) 

Only the largest animal feeding operations are considered CAFOs and require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the federal EPA. To be designated a CAFO, an animal facility must have 1,000 or more “animal units,” a generic term that tries to equate animal numbers across different animal types. According to this formula, 1,000 animal units in a facility equals 1,000 cows or 2,500 hogs or 30,000 broiler chickens. 

EWG only looked at facilities that are large enough to be considered CAFOs by the EPA.

In California, 812 smaller facilities house 7.5 million animals.

Figure 2. A map of all California CAFO locations. 

Image

Source: EWG, from California EPA’s State Water Resources Control Board.

Most California CAFOs produce cattle, with 911 cattle operations housing three million cows. Many of the other CAFOs are poultry, with 150 facilities housing 73.8 million chickens, ducks and turkeys.

Of all 1,062 CAFOs, 986, or 93 percent, are located within 1 mile of a canal. Of the 911 cattle operations, 847 are within 1 mile of a canal. (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3. Number of California’s CAFOs and animals by animal type, and percent within 1 mile of a canal.

CAFO typeTotal facilitiesAnimal countFacilities within 1 mile of canalPercent of CAFOs within 
1 mile of a canalCattle9113,000,82984793Poultry15073,816,57013892Other154,0001100All1,06276,871,39998693

Source: EWG, from California EPA’s State Water Resources Control Board. 

The closer a CAFO is to a body of water, the higher the risk for contamination. The presence of open manure storage tanks and feedlots close to an irrigation canal – sometimes only feet away – makes it easy for bacteria and other contaminants to end up in water sprayed on food crops.

Many of California’s animal facilities are much closer than 1 mile to an irrigation canal. Of the 1,062 CAFOs, 42 percent, or 449 facilities, are within a quarter of a mile of a waterway.

Figure 4 shows two animal operations on opposite banks of an irrigation canal (shown in blue). Together these facilities house over 1,500 dairy cows. Facility 1 has cattle feedlots just 35 feet from the irrigation canal, and at Facility 2, open lagoons hold thousands of gallons of manure about 50 feet away from the canal. 

Figure 4. Two animal facilities next to irrigation canals in the Central Valley, with facilities outlined in orange and irrigation canals indicated by blue.

Image

Source: EWG, from ESRI imagery – Maxxar, Microsoft.

The hazard posed to irrigation canals by animal manure is compounded in the Central and Imperial valleys due to the high concentration of operations in small areas of land. 

For example, in an expanded view of the same facilities (see Figure 5), it is easy to see far more than two facilities close to the canal system. 

In Figure 5, the facilities from the previous image are highlighted by a yellow box on the left side. It also shows another 16 facilities highlighted in orange. Of those facilities, seven are located within 50 feet of a canal.

Figure 5. Zoomed out view of above image, with CAFOs outlined in orange and irrigation canals indicated in blue.

Image

 Source: EWG, from ESRI imagery – Maxxar, Microsoft. 

Many acres of food crops grown near CAFOs

Manure-contaminated leafy greens are a well-known source of foodborne illness. For example, one large CAFO near thousands of acres of leafy greens fields in Arizona’s Yuma County likely contributed to a recent E. coli outbreak. 

In California, thousands of CAFOs are located near farm fields – especially in the Central and Imperial valleys – many of which are planted with fruits and vegetables. Research shows that pollutants from animal feeding operations can cause respiratory damage in residents up to four miles away.

We found that 2.6 million acres of crop fields in California are within 3 miles of at least one CAFO, and 1.56 million of these acres are planted with fruits or vegetables. 

In 2022, over 251,000 acres in California were planted with leafy greens or melons, two crops that have recently been the source of bacterial foodborne illness outbreaks. Only 5.2 percent of those fields are within 3 miles of a CAFO, but that still corresponds to over 24,000 acres. (See Figure 6.)

Figure 6. Map of the Imperial Valley showing CAFOs, irrigation canals, and fields of leafy greens and melons.

Image

Source: EWG, from Land IQ, Land Use Mapping.

When we zoomed in to fields within a quarter mile of a CAFO – which are at a higher risk for fecal bacteria contamination – our analysis found 1.8 million acres of crop fields and 54,000 acres that grow fruits and vegetables. 

How manure contaminants spread to crops

The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believe there are two likely pathways through which bacteria contaminate crops. One is when dust from feedlots drifts onto fields. The other, the focus of this analysis, is when bacteria washes or drifts into irrigation water that is then sprayed on farm fields. (See Figure 7.) 

Figure 7. Image of cattle in a feedlot and the dust they stir up. 

Image

Without knowing whether the water is contaminated, farmers who cultivate land near CAFOs use the canal water to irrigate their crops. Once harvested, the contaminated crops may get shipped and consumed almost anywhere in the U.S. – and even beyond.

E. coli is a bacteria that can be found in human and animal waste and is often linked to food outbreaks. While there are many strains of E. coli that are not harmful to humans when ingested, some can cause severe gastrointestinal issues or even death when consumed. 

Cooking food can kill pathogens, but fruits and vegetables are often consumed raw, making the bacteria on these crops particularly dangerous.

Outbreaks of bacteria on food are occurring more often. In late 2023, a widespread outbreak of salmonella on cantaloupe sickened over 400 people and killed six. 

And E. coli outbreaks on vegetables such as lettuce have occurred many times in recent decades. In 2018, five people died and hundreds were sickened when they consumed lettuce contaminated with E. coli.

Much of the U.S. food supply is grown in California, so crops contaminated with bacteria from the state’s CAFOs can – and do – cause foodborne illness in people across the country.

The risks of inadequate regulation

To protect consumers from bacterial outbreaks on food, the FDA should require testing of irrigation water before it is sprayed on produce. 

After a number of E. coli outbreaks from consumption of leafy greens, Congress directed the FDA in 2011 to develop standards for irrigation water sprayed on crops. In 2015, the FDA first issued a rule requiring enforceable periodic testing for contaminated irrigation water. 

A revised rule, proposed in 2022, abandoned the requirement to test irrigation water, allowing farms instead to voluntarily decide if they want to include tests in their “water assessments.” 

The FDA finalized this rule in May 2024. It requires farmers to conduct water testing to assess risks to their water source, including animal manure. 

But corrective actions are only required if the grower identifies risks. 

In other words, the FDA relies on farmers to regulate themselves.

Other agencies can tackle the CAFO water contamination problem. The EPA could more rigorously monitor the CAFOs’ manure production and management.