Environmental Working Group

West Virginia bill to ban harmful food chemicals from schools clears key vote Iris Myers February 27, 2026

CHARLESTON, W.V. – Today the West Virginia Senate passed a bill, introduced by West Virginia Sen. Brian Helton (R-District 9), to protect school children in the state from harmful food chemicals. 

The Environmental Working Group supports the bill, S.B. 745. If enacted, it would ban West Virginia public schools from serving food containing 23 additives.

The additives are: titanium dioxide, butylated hydroxytoluene, butylated hydroxyanisole, tert-butylhydroquinone, sodium benzoate, propyl gallate, azodicarbonamide, aloe vera, propylparaben, potassium bromate, butylparaben, acetaldehyde, propylene oxide, ethoxyquin, acrolein, aspartame, sucralose, acesulfame K, diacetyl, octyl gallate, dodecyl gallate, calcium bromate and calcium sorbate.

All 23 chemicals listed in the bill are linked to health problems, including harm to the reproductive and hormone systems and even cancer.

The following is a statement from Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president for government affairs:

Food served to children shouldn’t contain chemicals that can harm their health or make it harder for them to learn. 

Yet decades of broken federal oversight have left thousands of food chemicals on grocery store shelves and in school meals without thorough safety reviews. Some have not been reviewed in more than 40 years. 

The Food and Drug Administration has no plan to fix that. In the absence of federal leadership, West Virginia’s Senate Bill 745 is a commonsense step toward protecting kids by removing harmful additives from school foods. 

This is practical and doable: The vast majority of the substances S.B. 745 addresses aren’t widely used in school meals today, and food companies have shown they can reformulate quickly when required.

Faber testified on Feb. 17 in support of S.B. 745 in front of the West Virginia Senate Health and Human Resources Committee.

The legislation is the most recent in a series of state-led efforts to regulate harmful food chemicals. In 2025, eight states passed laws banning or restricting use of various food chemicals in public schools, and others, including Utah, Virginia and West Virginia, have passed statewide bans.

S.B. 745 will next be heard in the West Virginia House.

###

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 Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 February 27, 2026

If Trump won’t ban glyphosate, he can at least reduce kids’ exposure to it JR Culpepper February 27, 2026

Last week, President Donald Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to boost the American supply of glyphosate-based herbicides, declaring the controversial weedkiller essential to national security. 

For many in the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, the grassroots army of health-conscience voters who helped propel him back into office, it was an utter betrayal.

On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump promised to crack down on pesticides in food. He embraced Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s long-running crusade against toxic chemicals like glyphosate and pledged to put him in charge of cleaning up the nation’s food supply.

Kennedy, now secretary of Health and Human Services, has repeatedly warned that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, can cause cancer. As a plaintiffs’ attorney, he was part of the legal team that helped secure multimillion dollar verdicts against Roundup maker Bayer-Monsanto for failing to warn consumers about glyphosate’s dangers.

Who dictates pesticide policy?

Although Kennedy frequently promised to curtail pesticide use when he was supporting Trump’s presidential campaign, he does not control U.S. pesticide policy. That authority rests with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, who is also a member of President Trump’s MAHA commission, which Kennedy chairs. If Kennedy is to deliver on his promises, the administration must take action on pesticides soon or risk revealing his campaign promises as a cynical ploy to convince people to support Trump. 

In December 2025, Zeldin promised the EPA would soon unveil its own MAHA agenda.

But months later, that agenda has yet to materialize. 

Now many MAHA leaders are openly calling for Zeldin’s removal, saying his policy actions run counter to the movement’s mission. Those actions include rolling back or weakening protections targeting air and water pollution and toxic chemicals, greenlighting at least five pesticides that contain the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, and renewing approval of the herbicide dicamba.

But there is a concrete step that Zeldin – and Kennedy – could take in response to something that’s been moldering in the EPA’s inbox since Trump’s first term. 

In 2019, EWG and nearly 20 companies formally petitioned the EPA to drastically lower the allowable “tolerance” – the amount that may remain in food – for glyphosate residues in one particular food: oats. Oat-based foods, from breakfast cereals to granola bars and snack products heavily marketed to children, are among the leading sources of dietary glyphosate exposure in the U.S. 

The current federal tolerance stands at 30 parts per million, or ppm. EWG asked the agency to drastically reduce that limit, to 0.1 ppm, arguing that the higher threshold fails to account for the pesticide’s association with cancer risk and the especially high dietary exposure faced by children.

Why oats? 

Lowering the tolerance could in turn lead to less glyphosate on food, kids’ exposure and associated health risks.

EWG has found high levels of glyphosate in these foods, compared to other foods, such as bread. Glyphosate is typically applied pre-harvest to control weeds. It’s also applied as a desiccant, a way to dry out the crop more quickly and make it easier to harvest. 

Although use of glyphosate as a desiccant for oats isn’t common in the U.S., it is permitted in Canada, a major supplier of oats to American food manufacturers. 

That means glyphosate residues can make their way into food sold to U.S. families, with children facing disproportionate exposure. 

The petition submitted to the EPA by EWG and other groups calls on the agency to close this loophole and explicitly lower the allowable level of glyphosate in oats grown for the U.S. market.

EPA has the power to act

EWG’s petition lays out in painstaking detail the toxicological data, dietary exposure assessments and cancer risk calculations. Yet it has languished for years at the EPA without resolution, even while the agency received more than 100,000 public comments urging action.

If Zeldin is serious about aligning the EPA with MAHA principles, he could dust off that petition and make it a centerpiece of his long-promised agenda. Lowering the glyphosate tolerance in oats wouldn’t ban the weedkiller, though that’s what Kennedy promised and many in the MAHA movement demanded. 

But it would signal that the administration is at least willing to consider risks where the scientific evidence and exposure routes intersect most acutely: foods marketed to children.  

Kennedy does not need legal authority over pesticides to wield influence. As a cabinet member and the most prominent face of MAHA, he could publicly urge Zeldin and the EPA to act on the petition’s recommendations. 

He could frame it as a targeted, “gold standard” science-based measure to reduce childhood exposure to the herbicide he has long criticized. It’s a golden opportunity to set themselves apart from the Biden administration, which also failed to act on our petition. 

Lowering weedkiller levels

An EPA (or HHS) response to EWG’s glyphosate petition might not satisfy every MAHA activist angry over Trump’s action to spur glyphosate production and hand Bayer-Monsanto immunity from litigation. But it would lower the levels of the weedkiller in many popular foods millions of children eat every day.

The petition is already submitted. The science is solid. The real question now is, did MAHA leaders in the administration ever mean to protect public health? Or was it always just a scam to con health-conscience voters into supporting Trump?  

Zeldin and Kennedy, here is the glyphosate petition for your review and approval.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Glyphosate Pesticides Authors Alex Formuzis JR Culpepper February 27, 2026

Senate proposal would gut key provisions of chemical safety law Monica Amarelo February 26, 2026

WASHINGTON – In a coordinated assault on public health, the Senate introduced a proposal to dismantle the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, the nation’s primary defense against hazardous chemicals. 

The draft legislation, along with a House bill released in January, would effectively strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to keep cancer-causing substances out of cleaning supplies, toys, furniture and other products.

If signed into law, either proposal would undercut core protections against toxic chemicals in consumer products and drinking water. They would open the marketplace to new substances that have not been reviewed for links to reproductive harms, learning disabilities and chronic disease, with no proof they’re safe for children, pregnant people or workers.

By forcing the EPA to speed up chemical approvals and weaken safety requirements, even when corporations provide zero safety data, the legislation would transform the agency into a rubber-stamp office for the chemical industry.

The proposals would: 

• Fast-track approval of untested chemicals. Forces the EPA to clear new industrial chemicals within rigid, shortened deadlines, even when manufacturers provide incomplete safety data on cancer risk, reproductive harm or developmental toxicity.
• Leave people and workers exposed. Allows the chemical industry to override independent science and health protections for families, workers and communities.

The chemical industry has spent millions lobbying for weaker regulations. These proposals deliver their wish list: faster approvals, lower safety standards and weakening of the EPA’s power to demand health data before dangerous substances reach consumers.

The Environmental Working Group joins the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals in calling on Congress to reject these harmful proposals. Instead, lawmakers should fully implement the bipartisan chemical safety reforms enacted in 2016, ensuring public health protections come before corporate profits.

The Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals brings together leading organizations and networks in a coordinated effort to defend TSCA from rollbacks and fight for strong health protections from toxic chemicals. The passage of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act in 2016 with overwhelming bipartisan support modernized TSCA to ensure that new chemicals are reviewed for safety before entering the marketplace and that the EPA can act on dangerous chemicals that harm the health of children, workers and communities. 

Since then, the EPA has used this authority to ban deadly asbestos and methylene chloride, restrict cancer-causing chemicals like trichloroethylene, and block certain “forever chemicals” known as PFAS from entering commerce.

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

This is a gift for the chemical industry and will not make America healthier.

Members of Congress are working to dismantle a decade of bipartisan progress on public health. 

If enacted, this legislation would substantially reduce the EPA’s authority to keep hazardous chemicals out of stores, schools and homes, effectively making American families “lab rats” for industry experiments with substances of unknown toxicity. If Congress moves forward with this legislation, it will abandon the bipartisan commitment to chemical safety grounded in science. 

Rolling back safeguards that protect the developing brain and reproductive health and prevent disease in the long-term is not reform. It is a step backward.

###

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

Areas of Focus Water Household & Consumer Products Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy Bill would fast-track untested substances into American homes and workplaces Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 February 26, 2026

New proposal in Congress would gut key provisions of landmark chemical safety law, putting families’ health at risk Monica Amarelo February 26, 2026

WASHINGTON – A new Senate draft bill would dismantle core protections of the nation’s main chemical safety law and make it easier for toxic chemicals to enter homes, schools and workplaces, according to the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals, a national coalition of organizations and networks. 

The group issued an urgent warning following the release of draft legislation to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, the bipartisan law Congress overhauled in 2016. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has announced a March 4 hearing on the discussion draft.

A House proposal that would gut TSCA surfaced in January, signaling a coordinated effort to roll back protections against toxic chemicals and undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect public health. 

The new proposals would: 

• Allow more dangerous chemicals onto the market without meaningful EPA review and approval.
• Give the chemical industry more power to override independent science and health protections for families, workers, and communities.
• Allow loopholes for toxic chemicals.
• Undermine the ability of states to protect their residents, drinking water, and food from toxic chemicals.

“Children’s health must come first, yet the chemical industry is now lobbying to weaken the chemical law that protects our families,” said the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals in a joint statement. 

“Rolling back chemical safety protections will make it harder to keep out of our lives toxic chemicals linked to cancer, learning disabilities and infertility. Americans should be able to trust that any chemicals in their homes, schools, workplaces and communities won't make them sick,’’ the statement added.

Public support for chemical safety protections remains strong across party lines, with overwhelming bipartisan backing for the EPA’s authority to review and restrict dangerous chemicals. The alliance noted that rolling back TSCA would not only increase health risks but also create uncertainty for businesses that have already adapted to the law’s requirements.

The Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals brings together leading organizations and networks in a coordinated effort to defend TSCA from rollbacks and fight for strong health protections from toxic chemicals. 

Passage of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, in 2016, with overwhelming bipartisan support modernized TSCA to ensure that new chemicals are reviewed for safety before entering the marketplace and that the EPA can act on dangerous chemicals that harm the health of children, workers and communities. 

Since then, the EPA has used this authority to ban deadly asbestos and methylene chloride, restrict cancer-causing chemicals like trichloroethylene and block certain PFAS from entering commerce.

Additional quotes from alliance members

“Northern and Arctic Indigenous Peoples suffer some of the highest exposures to persistent toxic chemicals and disease burdens of any population on earth. Weakening TSCA will strip the law of its provisions to prevent harmful and cumulative exposures to persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals,’’ said Pamela Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics.

“With breast cancer rates unacceptably high in the U.S. and rising among younger women, we cannot weaken federal safeguards against cancer-causing and hormone-disrupting chemicals in our products and environment,” said Nancy Buermeyer, director of program and policy at Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. “Preventing toxic exposures is essential to protecting women’s health and reducing breast cancer risk.”

“Reopening TSCA will lead to the increased proliferation of chemical recycling, which has an abysmal track record, does nothing to solve the plastic crisis, and in fact puts even more toxic chemicals into our environment,” said Judith Enck, former EPA regional administrator and president of Beyond Plastics. 

“Every community is harmed by toxic chemicals. But communities living near the facilities where these chemicals are manufactured have some of the highest rates of cancer, asthma and COPD in the nation,” said Dr. Jamala Djinn, science and policy advisor at Break Free From Plastic. “Since the 2016 amendments to TSCA, EPA has taken concrete steps to begin to protect these communities from the thousands of different chemicals they’re simultaneously being exposed to. If this proposal were to become law, it would eliminate any progress made and further endanger these communities.”

“Regardless of political party, the American public has been clear: It does not want to be poisoned by toxic chemicals,” said Raúl García, Earthjustice Action vice president of policy and legislation. “Still, Republican congressional leadership insists on weakening the most significant tool we have to protect our families from toxics. This bill would unravel the EPA’s authority to review new and existing chemicals and assess their risks to human health while undermining science’s role in federal decision-making. It’s a wishlist for the chemical industry that would lead to a more toxic environment and more poisoned children. We urge Congress to reject it.” 

“Americans across party lines oppose weakening our bedrock chemical safety protections,” said Joanna Slaney, Environmental Defense Fund vice president for political and government affairs. “The Toxic Substances Control Act helps keep the worst toxic chemicals out of our homes and communities, and it was passed with bipartisan support. The only voices calling for Congress to roll back these essential public health standards are coming from industry.”

“This proposal is a dangerous giveaway that lets the chemical industry fast-track new chemicals into everyday products without requiring companies to prove they’re safe,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “It hands manufacturers a free pass while consumers and families shoulder the risk. Americans shouldn’t be unwitting test subjects for chemicals in their food, water, homes and workplaces.”

"Cancer. Infertility. Developmental delays in children. All three are linked to exposure to toxic chemicals, and this proposal would make it easier to put these harmful chemicals into our food, products, water and air, regardless of the damage to the health of people. Instead of creating a glide path for increased toxic pollution, the Senate should be rejecting the chemical industry’s bid to make America more contaminated so it can further line its pockets,” said Avi Kar, director of Toxics at NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). 

“For years, states have acted to protect residents from toxic chemicals when federal safeguards fell short,” said Gretchen Salter, policy director for Safer States. “Weakening TSCA ignores the public’s demand for stronger protections. Lawmakers should reinforce and strengthen national health protections, not undermine them. Families deserve consistent, science-based safeguards no matter where they live.”

“The Senate draft turns back the clock on protecting the health of our families and communities from toxic chemicals,” said Liz Hitchcock, director of federal policy at Toxic-Free Future. “Congress should stop dangerous chemicals before they contaminate our food, our homes and our children’s bodies. Instead they are proposing to weaken protections so there are even more toxic chemicals that can increase cancer, infertility, and other serious health harms.”

About the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals

The Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals is a national coalition of organizations and networks united around the principle: put people’s health first. The alliance fights for national protections to prevent harm from toxic chemicals that contribute to cancer, infertility, learning disabilities and other health challenges. We work for justice and health for all, wherever you live, work and play.

The Alliance is a growing coalition of nearly 40 local, state and national organizations including: Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, American Sustainable Business Network, Beyond Plastics, Break Free From Plastics, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, CASE Citizens Alliance for a Sustainable Englewood, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Public Environmental Oversight, Cherokee Concerned Citizens, Clean+Healthy, Clean Air Council, Clean Beauty for Black Girls, Clean Cape Fear, Clean Water Action, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Earthjustice, Ecology Center, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Working Group, Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, Green Science Policy Institute, League of Conservation Voters, Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water, Moms Clean Air Force, Move Past Plastic (MPPP), Newburgh Clean Water Project, NRDC, Oregon Environmental Council, PFOAProjectNY, Puget Soundkeeper, Safer States, Save Our Water S.O.H2O, Toxic-Free Future, Vermont Conservation Voters, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Waterspirit, and Zero Waste Ithaca.

###

MEDIA CONTACTS

For the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals: Stephanie Stohler, sstohler@toxicfreefuture.org

For ACAT: Pamela Miller, pamela@akaction.org 

For BCPP: Erika Wilhelm, erika@bcpp.org 

For Beyond Plastics: Melissa Valliant, melissavalliant@bennington.edu 

For BFFP: Brett Nadrich, brett@breakfreefromplastic.org 

For Earthjustice: Geoffrey Nolan, gnolan@earthjustice.org 

For EDF: Lexi Ambrogi, lambrogi@edf.org 

For EWG: Monica Amarelo, monica@ewg.org          

For NRDC: Margie Kelly, mkelly@nrdc.org

For Toxic-Free Future and Safer States: Stephanie Stohler, sstohler@toxicfreefuture.org

###

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 Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals warns proposals would fast-track approvals of potentially toxic chemicals, weaken protections and hand industry new power over EPA decisions Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 February 26, 2026

How a new House bill could gut state protections from harmful chemicals Anthony Lacey February 26, 2026

State bans on toxic chemicals – including cancer-causing formaldehyde in children’s products and the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in clothing and other consumer products  – are under threat from a House bill.

The legislation, recently introduced by Republicans, would overhaul the nation's chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. The changes could allow federal officials to override stronger state protections by reviewing and regulating chemicals themselves. If the officials claim a chemical poses less risk than some states claim, state rules could be quashed. 

If this bill becomes law, it would effectively gut Congress’ bipartisan compromise from 2016 that strengthened TSCA to better protect families and workers from hazardous substances. In place of those reforms, undertested chemicals could then be clear to flood American homes, schools and workplaces.

These sweeping changes to TSCA would undermine federal regulation of the toxic chemicals used in consumer and industrial products and could restrict states from taking action. 

Because the Environmental Protection Agency is already moving quickly to slash chemical protections, these state protections are more important than ever.

At a time when states are leading the charge to protect communities from harmful exposures, the proposal could halt that momentum and hand the chemical industry new tools to challenge state laws.

States and the federal government share power when it comes to regulating the toxic chemicals in our products. Often states are able to move more quickly than the federal government.

Sometimes a federal law takes precedence over a state law, blocking states from enacting their own rules or even overturning existing state rules – known as preemption.

It’s true the 2016 TSCA reform law gave the EPA the power to preempt states under some circumstances. But the new proposal could make it much more likely that hard-won state chemical protections may be wiped out, because of the ways that the legislation would significantly weaken the agency’s powers.

Weakening the EPA means weakening states

The proposal would fundamentally alter how the EPA evaluates and regulates chemicals. Among other changes, it would:

• Force the EPA to quickly approve new chemicals even when safety data is missing
• Require the EPA to ignore certain risks when assessing chemical safety like the cumulative risks from exposure to multiple similar chemicals
• Make it harder for the EPA to consider all uses of a chemical when determining a safe level of exposure for people
• Make it harder for the EPA to restrict all potentially harmful uses of chemicals
• Limit the EPA’s ability to address foreseeable but unintended uses of a chemical
• Prevent the EPA from protecting workers, who often face the highest risks
• Restrict EPA authority to require companies to provide safety data
• Require the EPA to give greater weight to industry costs when choosing restrictions

Together, these provisions would weaken federal oversight of harmful chemicals. In some cases, the EPA could be obligated to declare chemicals safe, even where data gaps or ignored potential exposures suggest otherwise. That could open the door to federal actions threatening state laws targeting the same substances.

How federal action can block state laws

Under current law, certain EPA actions can prevent states from enacting or enforcing their own protections for the same chemicals and uses. The House Republican proposal does not change TSCA’s current preemption rules, but by pushing the EPA toward narrower, weaker determinations, it increases the likelihood that federal actions will block stronger state rules.

Some EPA actions that could trigger preemption include:

• Requiring companies to test a chemical’s safety
• Determining through a post-market assessment that a chemical or specific use is safe
• Issuing a rule limiting a chemical’s use after a safety assessment
• Requiring notice to the EPA before a chemical can be used in a new way

Preemption is specific to individual chemicals and their uses. But when the EPA addresses a particular use of a substance, states can be blocked from regulating that same use, even if the agency's analysis was flawed or incomplete.

Here are a few hypothetical examples of how this might play out:

PFAS in textiles

PFAS are a family of toxic forever chemicals linked to cancer, reproductive and developmental harms, and immune system harms. For decades, they have been widely used in textiles like outdoor apparel, furniture and carpets for their water-, oil-, and stain-resistant qualities. 

The EPA could decide to evaluate some PFAS used in textiles but not all the thousands of different forever chemicals that exist. As it assesses the safety of these chemicals, the EPA could ignore the cumulative risks from the other PFAS that people are likely exposed to. The EPA could also ignore potential risks from combined exposures to PFAS through food, air, water and thousands of other consumer and industrial uses. 

By looking only at a narrow set of uses of only some PFAS, the EPA may see those chemicals and uses as being safer. 

For example, if the EPA cannot show that these PFAS in textiles are “more likely than not” to cause harm – an extremely high bar for regulation created by the proposed bill – it will not be able to limit PFAS in textiles. This could lead to overturning bans on PFAS in textiles such as apparel, carpeting and furniture. California, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington have banned the use of PFAS in textiles.

PFAS in firefighting foam

PFAS have also been used in firefighting foam at airports and military bases for decades, despite the availability of effective alternatives. 

The EPA could choose to reevaluate PFAS use in firefighting foam and again ignore total exposures from other sources or cumulative exposures from PFAS not used in foam. 

The EPA could assume that firefighting foam will be contained after release and accept industry arguments that containing the foam limits environmental and health impacts.

Under the new bill, the EPA could ignore the “reasonably foreseeable” scenario in which the foam is not contained and leads to more exposure. After consulting with the Department of Defense, as the proposal requires, the EPA could decide the foam with PFAS is a “critical use” essential to national security and too costly to replace. 

Taking into consideration all of the above, the EPA could find the PFAS in foam do not pose an “unreasonable risk” under the law. It could then overturn state bans on PFAS in firefighting foam in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, Vermont and Washington. 

Formaldehyde in children’s products

The EPA finalized a risk evaluation on formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, in January 2025 and found the chemical posed an “unreasonable risk” for all uses considered by the agency, including textiles and home furnishings. 

But in December of the same year, the EPA updated its method for calculating risk. The new method nearly doubles the amount the agency considers safe to inhale. 

The EPA could revise its formaldehyde safety assessment under the new method. Then that combined with the proposal’s weakened scientific standards for review could lead the agency to a new understanding of this chemical’s risk. The agency could decide that some amount of formaldehyde in textiles, furniture and other children’s products is not “more likely than not” to cause harm. 

A rule based on that finding could force New York to scrap its ban on formaldehyde in children’s products, and other states would be blocked from enacting similar bans.

Emerging contaminants with missing data

Imagine the EPA evaluates a chemical used in consumer products but lacks information on reproductive or immune toxicity. The agency suspects harm based on data that similar chemicals have evidence of these harms. But it can’t prove it’s “more likely than not” that the new chemical will also contribute to these harms, therefore posing an unreasonable risk. 

Under current law, in this scenario the EPA could require the companies manufacturing the chemical to generate this data. 

Under the House Republican proposal, the EPA would not have to show the risk is more likely than not. Without the information it needs to evaluate the chemical properly, the agency determines the chemical is safe. With that decision, the EPA prevents states from restricting it.

State laws that could be at risk

States have enacted dozens of laws addressing toxic chemicals in recent years. Just some of the state laws that could be overturned include:

• A New York law banning children’s products containing heavy metals, phthalates, flame retardants, mercury, bisphenols and PFAS
• The Safer Products for Washington law, which recently banned five chemical classes in 10 product categories
• A California ban on fiberglass in children’s products, mattresses and upholstered furniture
• Laws in California, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Rhode Island banning or restricting PFAS in firefighters’ turnout gear
• A Massachusetts ban on 12 flame retardants in bedding, carpeting, children’s products, upholstered furniture and window treatments
• A Rhode Island prohibition on flame retardants in residential upholstered bedding and furniture
• A Vermont law requiring manufacturers of certain hazardous household products to implement collection plans
• A Maryland restriction on playground materials such as artificial turf that contain lead or certain PFAS
• A Colorado law restricting PFAS in carpets, rugs, oil and gas products, fabric treatments, juvenile products and furniture
• A Nevada law banning certain flame retardants in upholstered furniture, children’s products, textiles and mattresses
• Maine and Minnesota bans on non-essential uses of PFAS

If the EPA addresses the same chemical in the same uses but reaches weaker conclusions, many of these protections could be gutted or rolled back.

When states might still be able to act

Under current TSCA exemptions, state laws may avoid preemption if they:

• were enacted before April 22, 2016
• regulate uses outside the scope of the EPA’s action
• create reporting, monitoring or disclosure requirements not required by the EPA
• are adopted under another federal law, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act or Occupational Safety and Health Act
• are adopted under state water, air or waste laws under certain conditions
• are identical to federal requirements

But these pathways are limited and case specific. States are also able to apply for waivers, but these can be difficult to obtain. The threat of preemption may also deter state activity, leading some states to decide not to act on chemical risks when they otherwise would. 

The bottom line

The House Republican proposal doesn’t need to rewrite TSCA’s preemption clause to undermine state authority. While states might not be preempted immediately, their laws would become much more vulnerable.

By weakening the EPA’s ability to fully assess risks, fill data gaps and impose strong restrictions, the bill could lead to federal determinations that lock in weaker protections and block states from doing more.

At a time when states are driving progress on PFAS, flame retardants, formaldehyde and other chemicals of concern, this proposal could freeze that progress in place or reverse it.

Because the EPA is already moving quickly to slash existing chemical protections, these state protections are more important than ever. 

Areas of Focus Household & Consumer Products Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Authors Melanie Benesh February 26, 2026

Trump tariff bailout sends billions to mega farms, speeding consolidation JR Culpepper February 24, 2026

Nearly 40% of the $11 billion taxpayer-funded farm bailout meant to offset the effects of the Trump administration tariffs, known as bridge payments, will likely flow to the largest farms.

An EWG analysis found that farms growing more than 1,000 acres of commodity crops would take in the large percent of the bailout, the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program. 

This latest bailout, unveiled in December, reinforces the longstanding pattern of federal farm aid disproportionately benefiting the biggest, most profitable farm operations in the country. This will increase costs in the agricultural sector and further add to the decline of small farms, consolidating farming in corporate mega farms.

Payments flow to largest farms

The imbalance is especially stark for corn and soybean farm operations. 

Farms growing more than 1,000 acres of corn make up just 6.3% of farms growing corn. But EWG projects they will collect 39.9% of all corn payments. 

Soybean payments show a similar imbalance: Farms growing more than 1,000 acres of soybeans account for just 7.6% of soybean farms but will collect 42.5% of all soybean payments. 

Even bigger soybean farms – those with more than 2,000 acres, or 1.8% of soybean farms – will receive nearly one-fifth of all soybean payments. 

Tied to production

Bridge payments are tied to production of certain commodity crops on farmed acres, so the largest farms collect the biggest payments – whether they need it or not. Recent changes to farm subsidy rules could allow large farm partnerships to collect even more funding. 

Farms growing these crops on fewer than 1,000 acres will receive smaller payments. 

It’s not just corn and soybeans: With other crops, too, larger amounts of aid go to the biggest farms.CropPercent farms with 1,000 or more acres Percent of bridge payments likely to go to farms of 1,000 or more acresPayments likely to go to farms with 1,000 or more acres (in millions) Barley5.3%38.2%$17.4 Canola13.8%40.6%$22.4 Chickpeas11.1%36.1%$5.9 Corn6.3%39.9%$1,723 Cotton17.1%59.1%$633 Flaxseed5.8%25.3%$516 Oats0.3%5.9%$10 Peanuts4.0%24.4%$26.4 Peas8.4%34.4%$9.75 Rice19.8%54.8%$204.5 Safflower6.9%43.0%$1.25 Sorghum8.0%43.5%$129 Soybeans7.6%42.5%$1,054Wheat10.6%56.1%$1,079

Source: EWG from USDA 2022 Census of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency December 2025 Crop Acreage Data, USDA Farmer Bridge Assistance Program

Fueling consolidation

Trump’s tariffs have closed markets to U.S. farmers and raised the cost of essential farm machinery and supplies, including equipment, seeds and chemicals. 

Farm household income is expected to increase in 2026, largely boosted by federal government payments. But as farm production costs rise, many small farms are struggling. 

Increasing payments to the largest farms will add pressure to small farms. The higher payments will further raise the cost of the supplies needed to run a farm, as well the cost of buying and renting farmland. 

In 2025, 15,000 farms went out of business. Most were small farms. 

Disparities in bridge payments are similar to those following past Trump bailouts. Under the Market Facilitation Program, created to offset the impacts of tariffs during the first Trump administration’s trade war, the largest 5% of farms received 41% of all payments. 

Experts later found that many farms got far more than they needed to offset the effects of the trade war. They also determined that 2,000 high income farms received more than $160 million – 20 of those farms each received more than $2 million.

Next week the House Agriculture Committee will debate the farm bill – it probably won’t do much to help small farms. The bill will likely continue the status quo and does not include subsidy limits that would level the playing field between large and small farms. 

Methodology

EWG analyzed:

• Data from the 2022 agricultural census on the distribution of farms by acreage category
• The USDA’s bridge assistance reported payment rates
• Reported 2025 crop acreage data from the USDA’s Farm Service Agency

Calculated percentages of the agricultural census’ reported numbers of farms and acres by size category were determined. These percentages by size category were applied to the 2025 reported planted acres. This provides an approximate distribution of 2025 planted acres by size. 

We then multiplied the number of acres in each size category by the payment rates set by the Farm Bridge Assistance Program. That gave us the total amount of assistance that would be received by farms in each size category and what share of the total payments those categories would take in. 

The 2022 agricultural census data on the percentage of that number of farms by size category was used in the comparison to projected payments made based on 2025 acres. 

The analysis did not include payments for insured crops that were never planted, because of the interference of an insured weather event, known as “prevented planted acres”. Those payments will not be included in the program.

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Climate & Agriculture Factory Farms Authors Jared Hayes February 24, 2026

EWG statement: RFK Jr. doubles down on defense of Trump order boosting glyphosate production, betraying vow to crack down on toxic pesticides Monica Amarelo February 23, 2026

WASHINGTON – Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is standing firm in his defense of a White House executive order to ramp up production of the weedkiller glyphosate. 

That’s the very herbicide Kennedy once condemned in court as a “probable carcinogen.” 

Now the Trump administration is treating this toxic pesticide as if it were a matter of national defense. And it’s invoking the Defense Production Act, a power typically reserved for wartime emergencies, as justification.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in American agriculture. It has been linked to non-Hodgkin lymphoma in thousands of lawsuits that have cost manufacturers tens of billions of dollars. 

As a trial lawyer, Kennedy in 2018 helped secure a landmark $289 million jury verdict against Monsanto, arguing the company knew glyphosate exposure increased cancer risk. 

But the chemical he once portrayed as a poison is now being framed as essential infrastructure that’s “critical to national security.”

The following is a statement from EWG President and co-Founder Ken Cook:

This isn’t a policy adjustment, it’s a total surrender to the chemical industry. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. built his political brand by holding chemical companies accountable for poisoning communities. Now he is defending a federal order designed to accelerate production of the very pesticide he once called dangerous.

He has officially traded the health of America’s children for a seat at the table of power.

The rationale for liability protection Kennedy is now championing for a weed killer he considers carcinogenic, and is found in most Americans, is remarkably similar to the rationale for liability protection for vaccine manufacturers that he has vehemently opposed. 

It’s just another glaring example of Kennedy’s betrayal of his professed values and the long-held positions he used to sell MAHA supporters on voting for Trump.

One important difference between the administration’s approach to vaccines and glyphosate is that no compensation mechanism will be offered to people injured by glyphosate after Monsanto/Bayer is shielded from liability.

In the face of an administration that habitually never shows its work, the public has a right to know what plans the administration has implemented to advance the ‘emerging technology’ Kennedy mentions. Where are those plans? Who is developing them? Does the Agriculture Department agree glyphosate should be phased out – is that the formal position of the Trump administration?

To the concerned parents who put their trust in his promise to ‘clean up the food supply,’ this is the ultimate betrayal. 

The real national security crisis is not a temporary disruption to glyphosate supply. It’s the epidemic of chronic disease devastating American children. It's the cancer clusters in agricultural communities that RFK Jr. himself acknowledges. 

It's a food system so saturated with pesticides that the U.S. uses 25% of global pesticides, despite being 4% of the world's population.

If anyone still wondered whether ‘Make America Healthy Again’ was a genuine commitment to public health or a scam concocted by President Trump and RFK Jr. to rally health-conscious voters in 2024, the administration’s ramping up the use of glyphosate answers that question. 

###

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 Farming & Agriculture Glyphosate Pesticides Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 February 23, 2026

New science finds babies exposed to more ‘forever chemicals’ than previously known Monica Amarelo February 20, 2026

A new peer-reviewed study raises fresh concerns about how exposure to the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS may affect health from the very start of life – and how to most effectively tackle contamination from multiple PFAS.

The study reveals a sobering reality: Babies are exposed to a much wider and complex mixture of PFAS before they even take their first breath. 

The research, published in Environmental Science & Technology, used advanced screening methods to analyze umbilical cord blood collected at birth from 120 babies between 2003 and 2006 in Cincinnati. 

Researchers identified 42 individual PFAS, only four of which were detected using the standard test methods typically employed in research labs. 

New way to measure exposure

For decades, scientists have been limited in their ability to calculate the extent of PFAS exposure in the uterus. Laboratory standards exist for only a small fraction of the thousands of PFAS in use. 

Traditional targeted analysis looks for a short list of well-known chemicals like PFOA and PFOS – two of the most notorious and well-studied PFAS. If a particular PFAS isn’t on the list, it doesn’t get counted, so thousands go undetected.

To address this limitation, researchers from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai used advanced screening and data science tools to scan for hundreds of PFAS compounds at once, including those without official reference standards.

Measuring body burden

People aren’t exposed to just one PFAS at a time. They’re exposed to complex chemical mixtures. To better reflect this reality, the researchers developed a new scoring system to convey a newborn’s total prenatal exposure.

1. The PFAS exposure burden score. This traditional score is based on the concentrations of well-known legacy PFAS, such as PFOA and PFOS.
2. The “PFAS-omics” score. This broader score created by the researchers incorporates the legacy chemicals, a range of newer, understudied PFAS, including “replacements,” and breakdown products, which are detected through nontargeted screening.

This dual-scoring method led to a significant discovery relating to PFAS exposure and the number of times a person has given birth. 

For years, studies using limited test panels found PFAS levels in first-born babies to be much higher than in younger siblings. The working theory was that the pregnant person releases part of their stored chemical burden to the developing fetus and, later, to the newborn during breastfeeding.

This study confirmed that pattern for older, phased-out chemicals. But the disparity, between first-born and subsequent newborns, disappeared when the researchers looked at the more comprehensive PFAS-omics score.

This finding suggests that while levels of older, phased-out PFAS may decline in the pregnant body over the course of successive pregnancies, exposure to PFAS as a larger class appears to be ongoing and consistent. 

In other words, how we measure PFAS matters.

Critical window for fetus  

Pregnancy is a critical window for the developing fetus. But any PFAS exposure during that period, while its organs and immune systems are forming, can have serious consequences. 

Research has linked prenatal PFAS exposure to low birth weight, preterm birth, weakened vaccine response, higher risks of certain types of cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage and immune suppression later in life.

Studies also show that even fairly low levels of PFAS in drinking water can increase blood levels and raise the risk of premature birth and infant harm. These health consequences contribute to about $8 billion a year in U.S. medical costs.

The ‘everywhere’ problem 

PFAS have been detected in drinking water at 9,552 sites in the U.S., putting an estimated 172 million people at risk of exposure. 

Although the Environmental Protection Agency finalized the first national drinking water limits for several PFAS in 2024, it is dragging its heels in enforcing the new standards.

Now the EPA is moving to roll back standards for some PFAS, leaving many communities exposed.

A second study published last week addresses indoor PFAS exposures. 

Research on household dust in Rochester, N.Y., found 43 individual PFAS in every sample tested. Homes with more carpet and upholstered furniture showed higher concentrations of certain PFAS, demonstrating how everyday household items continuously shed these chemicals into the air families breathe.

Together, the two papers underscore just how widespread this exposure is. 

While communities near industrial sites or military bases often face the highest contamination, this research makes clear that PFAS are not just a localized pollution issue. For many families, PFAS exposure comes from routine daily life.

What you can do to protect your family

PFAS are used in, and shed from, scores of everyday products, creating constant, low-level exposure from multiple sources. 

You can take these steps now:

• Check your tap water. Look up your water system using EWG’s Tap Water Database.
• Filter your water. Use reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters certified to reduce PFAS. Make sure to change the filter as directed, because otherwise you could just make the PFAS pollution worse.
• Swap cookware. Choose stainless steel, cast iron or glass instead of nonstick pans.
• Check your personal care products. PFAS are often hidden in cosmetics labeled “long wear,” “waterproof” or “smudge proof.”
• Look up products to see whether they contain PFAS. The Healthy Living app includes ingredient information and ratings for cleaning products.
• Avoid treated products. Skip rugs, furniture and clothing labeled “stain resistant,” “water repellent” or “wrinkle resistant.” These treatments often rely on PFAS coatings that can wear down and shed into the air and dust in your home.
• Reduce dust. Vacuum frequently with a machine using a HEPA filter and wet-dust surfaces regularly.

Urgent need to tackle the crisis 

These two new studies – one revealing 42 PFAS in cord blood from 20 years ago, another finding 43 types of PFAS in household dust today – deliver an urgent and sobering message: PFAS must be regulated as a class, not one chemical at a time.

Evidence suggests that even two decades ago, people were exposed to far more PFAS than standard tests captured. Today, as exposure has shifted to newer, short-chain replacement chemicals, the problem has just grown more complex. The ubiquity of PFAS mixtures in cord blood, household dust, drinking water and food makes clear that class-based regulation is essential. 

With more detailed tests, scientists are finally revealing the scope of this chemical burden affecting families long before a child is born and throughout daily life. 

The urgent question now is whether policymakers will act quickly enough to protect the next generation from these widespread, persistent forever chemicals – or whether children will continue to bear an ever-growing burden of PFAS from their first breath onward.

Two new studies show scope of contamination and need to regulate PFAS as a class Authors Monica Amarelo February 20, 2026

Scalp exposure: New study finds harmful chemicals in almost all hair extensions Monica Amarelo February 20, 2026

More than nine in 10 hair extensions sold in the U.S. contain chemicals linked to serious health harms, including cancer and hormone disruption, a new peer-reviewed study finds.

The study raises concerns about extensions being an overlooked source of chemical exposure, particularly for Black women, who are the main users of these products and already face disproportionate health risks from exposure to certain personal care products.

Published in Environment & Health, the peer-reviewed study, by researchers at the Silent Spring Institute, centered on the most comprehensive public tests of hair extensions to date. Researchers analyzed 43 samples of synthetic and human hair extensions. Using a method of analysis that did not look for the presence of any particular substance, they detected 933 unique chemical signatures, identifying 169 distinct chemicals.

Since people may wear extensions for weeks or even months at a time, the findings suggest potential health risks linked to frequent use and exposure.

Harmful substances in study’s hair samples

At least one substance linked to cancer or reproductive harm was detected in 91% of hair samples. Among them were dibutyl phthalate, naphthalene and styrene, which are included in California’s Proposition 65 list of cancer-causing chemicals. 

Nearly 10% of samples contained organotin compounds, a class of endocrine-disrupting chemicals that can interfere with hormone systems. Some levels exceeded European Union safety limits for consumer products. 

Organotins are largely unregulated in U.S. consumer products.

Elevated fluorine levels in some samples suggested the potential presence of the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, which are linked to immune suppression, cancer, harm to fetal development and other health harms.

Why this matters 

For millions of Black women and girls, hair extensions are a form of cultural and personal expression. A 2023 study found 70% of Black women reported wearing hair extensions in the previous year. 

Long-term use of the products may lead to potentially significant, cumulative exposure to chemicals. Prolonged wearing of extensions can bring harmful substances into direct contact with the scalp and neck. Heating or styling extensions may release chemical fumes. Breathing those fumes may be another way people are exposed.

The presence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in extensions is especially alarming. These substances interfere with the hormones that regulate reproduction and development, affect reproductive and birth outcomes, and increase the risk of certain types of cancer. These preventable exposures are particularly troubling, since Black women already face disproportionately higher rates of aggressive breast cancer and uterine fibroids.

These health risks do not happen in isolation. Depending on the manufacturing process, extensions may be treated with a mixture of hazardous substances, including synthetic dyes, flame retardants, waterproofing agents and harsh antimicrobial chemicals.

Disparities in beauty products

The Silent Spring Institute findings follow a 2025 Consumer Reports study that found chemicals detected in all 10 braiding samples analyzed. Together with that study, this research contributes to the growing literature on disproportionate chemical exposures in products marketed to Black women.

EWG last year released an updated analysis of 4,011 personal care products marketed to Black women. The results were stark: EWG’s Skin Deep® database rated only 21% of them low hazard, compared to 27% of products without any demographic marketing, which means there are fewer safe alternatives for Black women. 

Six percentage points may seem small, but they equate to thousands of products.

The results suggest a safety gap in products marketed to Black women that has persisted nearly a decade after EWG first documented these disparities, in 2016.

EWG’s 2025 report also contained good news. The presence of most of the common harmful chemicals found in 2016 decreased significantly, with one exception: undisclosed fragrance. 

But there’s still work to be done on the health risks of chemicals in beauty products. The updated analysis found the presence of quaternary ammonium compounds, linked to asthma and reproductive harm, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, and ingredients in hair straighteners and dyes associated with elevated risks of cancers in Black women, albeit in lower quantities than the 2016 report.

Risks similar to hair straighteners’ risks

Formaldehyde is a key ingredient in many hair-straightening treatments, helping to smooth hair when heat is applied.  

The National Toxicology Program classifies formaldehyde as known to cause cancer in humans, and long-term exposure is linked to leukemia and other types of cancer, risks the Food and Drug Administration has understood since at least 2008.

Short-term exposure to formaldehyde can cause eye, nose and throat irritation, shortness of breath and wheezing. Repeated exposure is associated with allergic reactions, asthma and other chronic respiratory problems. 

Large studies reinforce these concerns. Research from the National Institutes of Health involving more than 33,000 women found that frequent use of chemical hair straighteners – over four times a year – more than doubled the risk of uterine cancer, compared to the risk faced by non-users. 

Nearly 400 pages of FDA reports about poor product outcomes document consumer complaints of illness and injury linked to formaldehyde-based treatments. Because reporting was voluntary until 2022, the true toll is likely higher.

In EWG’s 2025 report, hair relaxers remain a high-hazard product, but the average hazard score had decreased from 8 to 5 since 2016. Relaxers still contain hazardous ingredients other than formaldehyde, including formaldehyde-releasing preservatives like DMDM hydantoin, which can cause skin reactions and slowly release small amounts of formaldehyde.

The risks are disproportionately greater for Black women, who are more likely to use chemical straighteners. In the NIH study, nearly 60% of women who reported ever using straighteners were Black.

Salon workers face even greater cumulative exposure because they repeatedly breathe in the hot fumes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warns that working with formaldehyde may increase the risk of fertility problems or miscarriage. 

Regulatory gaps leave consumers unprotected

Despite decades of evidence and internal FDA emails acknowledging their health risks, hair straighteners made with formaldehyde can legally remain on the market in some states, although it’s unclear how many are still for sale.

Concerns over formaldehyde in hair straighteners led some lawmakers to call for long-overdue federal action to protect consumers and workers. Some states, such as California and Maryland, have banned formaldehyde in cosmetics, forcing a shift in the market away from this and other dangerous ingredients.

Ingredient labeling for hair extensions is minimal or nonexistent, so it is nearly impossible for consumers to make informed choices and avoid harmful ingredients.

New York last year proposed legislation requiring manufacturers of synthetic braiding hair and extensions to disclose all ingredients. 

In Congress, the Cosmetics Safety for Communities of Color and Professional Salon Workers Act for the first time would direct the FDA to regulate synthetic braids and extensions. That piece of legislation was introduced, in 2025, as part of the Safer Beauty Bill Package. 

While some states, such as California, Maryland, Oregon and Washington, have banned  some harmful chemicals in cosmetics, most beauty products remain largely unregulated at the federal level.

What you can do

Everyone deserves to have access to beauty products that don’t raise concerns about harmful chemicals. 

Until regulation catches up by requiring disclosure of chemicals used in hair extensions and banning formaldehyde in hair straighteners, one option may be to try to lower your total chemical exposure. To do that, you would focus on swapping other products you use every day for less toxic versions of those products. 

Other tips:

• Be wary of marketing claims. Labels that boast a product is non-toxic or toxic-free don’t guarantee safety. For cosmetics products, check ingredient lists, and contact manufacturers when you’re unsure what’s in their products.
• Check products before you buy. Use EWG’s Skin Deep® database to search for hair care products, including hair dye, and other personal care items. Products are rated on a scale of 1 (lowest hazard) to 10 (highest hazard) based on their known chemical ingredients.
• Download EWG’s Healthy Living™ app. Scan barcodes while shopping to instantly check product ratings and find safer alternatives for personal care and cleaning products, and food.
• Look for EWG Verified® products. The EWG Verified mark means products meet EWG’s strictest standards for your health and are free from EWG’s chemicals of concern. Search for safer alternatives at ewg.org/verified.

The growing body of evidence makes clear that products marketed to Black women continue to carry disproportionate chemical burdens, from hair extensions and dyes to relaxers and other beauty products.

Until stronger oversight and transparency requirements are put in place, consumers must rely on independent resources to protect themselves and their families from hidden health risks in everyday products.

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Family Health Women's Health Products worn for weeks may put millions in contact with toxic substances Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. Monica Amarelo February 20, 2026

EWG: Trump’s glyphosate executive order a ‘big middle finger to every MAHA mom’ Anthony Lacey February 18, 2026

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump today signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to guarantee the supply of glyphosate-based herbicides, claiming it is critical to national security.

“If anyone still wondered whether ‘Make America Healthy Again’ was a genuine commitment to protecting public health or a scam concocted by President Trump and RFK Jr. to rally health-conscious voters in 2024, today’s decision answers that question,” said EWG President and co-Founder Ken Cook. 

“I can’t envision a bigger middle finger to every MAHA mom than this,” he added. “By granting immunity to the makers of the nation’s most widely used pesticide, President Trump just gave Bayer a license to poison people. Full stop.”

“It’s a shocking betrayal to protect all of us but especially the people who live and work near farm fields where glyphosate is used,” said Cook.

For years, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – now Health and Human Services secretary – publicly attacked glyphosate and built a national profile suing its maker, Bayer-Monsanto, over health harms tied to the herbicide. 

On the campaign trail, both Kennedy and Trump pledged to confront pesticides like glyphosate and clean up the food supply to win the trust of health-conscious voters worried about pesticide exposure.

“Elevating glyphosate to a national security priority is the exact opposite of what MAHA voters were promised,” said Cook. “If Secretary Kennedy remains at HHS after this, it will be impossible to argue that his past warnings about glyphosate were anything more than campaign rhetoric designed to win trust – and votes.”

“First President Trump sided with Bayer-Monsanto on glyphosate at the Supreme Court, and now he’s elevating it through the Defense Department,” said Cook. “At this rate, maybe the National Cancer Institute will be next to bless the safety of this notorious weedkiller at his urging. 

“MAHA supporters were promised reform, and instead, they’ve been treated by MAGA like a convenient group of useful idiots ever since Kennedy joined Trump on the campaign trail,” he added.

###

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

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Farm Pollution Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Glyphosate Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 February 18, 2026

In betrayal of MAHA, House GOP farm bill exposes kids to pesticides Monica Amarelo February 13, 2026 WASHINGTON – House Republicans’ newly released farm bill proposal would undermine public health, environmental protection and food security, while handing sweeping new protections to pesticide manufacturers at the expense of children and communities. The proposal fails to restore the deep cuts to SNAP, the  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, that Republicans and the Trump administration pushed through last year. The cuts threaten food access for millions of struggling families. House Republicans also included an alarming and controversial provision that would erase state and local pesticide safety laws that protect people, especially children, from exposure to toxic chemicals at schools, playgrounds and parks. More than 40 states, including Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York, North Carolina  and Texas, have adopted commonsense rules governing when and how pesticides can be sprayed near parks, playgrounds and schools. These safeguards reflect local conditions, public health science, and the voices of parents, educators and communities.  The House Republican proposal would wipe out those protections nationwide. This move to block state and local authority is being pushed by foreign pesticide manufacturers, including Bayer-Monsanto and ChemChina. If enacted, this partisan bill would boost pesticide sales while limiting accountability when people are harmed from exposure to toxic crop chemicals. The following is a statement from Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at the Environmental Working Group. House Republicans can’t credibly claim to back an agenda that supports public health or protects kids while advancing a bill that weakens protections from pesticides and hands more power and profits to foreign pesticide manufacturers. Congress should not be in the business of stripping states of their right to protect children from toxic chemicals. This provision would silence parents, override local decision-making, and put corporate profits ahead of kids’ health. No parent should have to wonder whether the school playground is contaminated with pesticides. Yet that is exactly what this bill would force families to do. Rather than weakening protections for children, gutting conservation programs and denying nutrition assistance to hungry families, Congress should be strengthening safeguards that support public health, environmental sustainability and rural communities.### 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 Farming & Agriculture Food & Farm Workers Farm Subsidies Children’s Health Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 February 13, 2026

At EPA and FDA, Zeldin and RFK Jr. celebrate a year in office – while public health suffers Anthony Lacey February 13, 2026

Friday the 13th is supposed to be unlucky – and for Americans’ health, it may be just that. 

That’s because it marks the anniversary of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s swearing-in as health secretary. It also marks a year of inaction and missteps on food chemicals and actively downplaying safety and effectiveness of vaccines – while the U.S. sees outbreaks of infectious diseases like measles.

Here’s another grim milestone: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on January 30 reached the first-year mark on his work dismantling the agency and effectively removing “protection” from its title. 

Recent actions by this Laurel and Hardy of public health and environmental policy underscore just how disastrous their tenure has become. Despite the administration’s stated “Make America Healthy Again,” or MAHA, agenda, their actions will likely make people sicker for years to come.

Agencies' actions aren't MAHA

The EPA is clearing the path to approve or reapprove toxic pesticides. It’s doing this while dragging its feet on reviewing the safety of agricultural chemicals like paraquat, which is linked to a greater risk of Parkinson’s disease.

At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration is slow-walking efforts to tackle harmful food chemicals. It’s letting the food industry voluntarily make unenforceable promises to switch to less harmful ingredients. The FDA is slow-walking plans to tighten safety reviews of ingredients in the American food supply. And the administration’s MAHA report, coordinated by RFK Jr., retreated from earlier promises to ban toxic agricultural chemicals.

Both agencies are also hollowing out the oversight roles they were created to fill. The FDA now says it will take food and drink manufacturers at their word when they claim not to use artificial colors in their products. 

Meanwhile, the EPA’s enforcement against polluters has dramatically slumped, and the agency has gutted its research office.

Add it all up and the picture is clear: President Donald Trump and his team aren’t MAHA. Their policy decisions will almost certainly harm the public’s health and damage the environment.

EPA weakens protections

At the EPA, the fox doesn’t just guard the hen house. Under Trump, the fox has taken up residence in a swanky office in the hen house – one the first Trump EPA chief fitted with a $43,000 private phone booth.

Under Zeldin, the agency makes it a priority to give the chemical industry exactly what it wants, when it wants it. Nowhere is this more evident than in the recent fast-tracking of pesticide renewals and approvals – even when abundant scientific research raises concerns about health harms from exposure to these substances.

Earlier this month, the EPA reapproved the toxic weedkiller dicamba. Some studies show exposure to the chemical could increase the risk of cancer in pesticide applicators and cause nervous system damage after accidental ingestion. But the agency justified its decision by saying its analysis shows dicamba does not pose an unreasonable risk to health and the environment when it’s used as instructed.

Paraquat is another agricultural chemical about which the EPA is ignoring the science. Banned in more than 70 countries, the weedkiller has been linked to Parkinson’s disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, childhood leukemia and more. In the absence of federal action, at least nine states are weighing bills to ban use of paraquat either near schools or statewide.

In December, the agency approved new pesticides made with the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, and concerns exist about their persistence. Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been linked to suppression of the immune system and an elevated risk of cancer, increased cholesterol, and reproductive and developmental harms, among other major health concerns.

EWG revealed in a recent report that California agricultural fields are sprayed with an average of 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides per year. This widespread use could be contaminating soil, water and produce sold throughout the U.S., exposing millions to potential health harms.

Most recently, Zeldin repealed the EPA’s landmark finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare – the bedrock document underpinning earlier administrations’ ambitious rules to tackle the climate crisis.

Zeldin has claimed he’s working on a MAHA plan for EPA – an effort that appears to have stalled. And some in the MAHA movement have offered support for Zeldin. MAGA Action President Tony Lyons told E&E News, “We have a MAHA head of the EPA now.”

But none of the existing EPA actions will make America healthy again.

Even some officials within the agency agree Zeldin’s agenda isn’t concerned with the MAHA movement. “MAHA should never feel optimistic when it comes to EPA. That’s not a secret,” one anonymous senior agency official recently told E&E News.

If there’s any doubt about the official’s remark, look to the Trump Department of Justice siding with agricultural chemical manufacturer Bayer in a key Supreme Court case. The justices will hear arguments April 27 in the case, where Bayer – which purchased glyphosate maker Monsanto – is seeking a ruling that would effectively quash lawsuits from people claiming the chemicals caused them to develop cancer.

As EWG President and co-Founder Ken Cook noted in a LinkedIn post, “Hard to imagine a more intentional MAGA knife in MAHA's back than DOJ siding with Bayer/Monsanto, the company Kennedy sued, in order to stop all such future litigation.”

FDA is failing on food safety

The news coming out of the FDA is just as bad. 

Without safeguards on how our food is grown, public health is already at risk. The FDA worsens the problem through inadequate oversight of how food is processed and sold.

Most recently, the FDA said this week it is launching a review of the safety of the food and cosmetics chemical butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA. This substance stabilizes flavors, extends shelf life and enhances color in a wide range of products, from Quaker Oats and Cap’n Crunch cereals to Estée Lauder moisturizing serums.

Since 1958, the FDA has categorized BHA as “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, for use in food. But BHA is associated with potential health risks, especially when consumed or applied in high doses. Prolonged exposure has been linked to health harms like reproductive toxicity, hormone disruption and cancer.

In 1990, a doctor filed a petition asking the FDA to ban the use of the additive BHA in food – and they’re still waiting for a response. 

In the meantime, West Virginia has banned BHA. The FDA’s review could mean a long wait before it decides whether the chemical is safe. Until then, many Americans will continue to be exposed to BHA’s harms through food and drink.

The FDA is also working to update its GRAS policy. For decades, the FDA has allowed chemical companies to decide whether most food chemicals are safe. EWG recently found nearly 99% of food chemicals developed since 2000 were reviewed for safety by industry scientists, not the FDA. 

In the rare instances when the FDA reviews chemicals for safety before they enter the market, the agency often does not review prior decisions, in some cases even decades old, even in light of new research. 

A Department of Health and Human Services announcement last year about review of the GRAS system falls short of what’s needed. It simply pledges to “take steps to explore” changing a system that has been broken for more than 60 years. But that’s not the change consumers rightly expect. And the rule is stuck in White House review limbo.

The FDA should take real action to put itself in charge of food chemical safety. Until then, its announcement is best seen as a “plan to plan,” not real progress toward greater food safety. 

Less oversight

During the second Trump administration, both the EPA and the FDA have been gutted by workforce cuts, leaving even fewer officials to give industries the oversight they so clearly need.

If Kennedy and Zeldin truly believe in MAHA, they’ll reverse course and aggressively pursue regulations that get the most harmful chemicals out of our food system.

Will they? Just like Friday the 13th, a bet on it could be unlucky.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Ultra-Processed Foods Farming & Agriculture Farm Pollution Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy Chlormequat Paraquat Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Authors Anthony Lacey February 13, 2026

These Olympics are first to feature a ban on ‘forever chemicals’ in ski and snowboard wax Monica Amarelo February 12, 2026

For decades, elite skiers and snowboarders chased medals with the help of high-performance wax made with the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS. 

Winter sports enthusiasts usually slicked fluorinated, or “fluoro,” wax on the bottom of their equipment. The wax gave athletes a powerful advantage, especially in wet snow, and delivered what some described as “ridiculous” speed, not to mention potential harm to people and the environment. 

Fluorine indicates the likely presence of PFAS. 

But that era is over.

For the first time in Olympic history, the games will be completely free of toxic, fluorinated ski waxes. The shift follows a total ban by the International Ski and Snowboard Federation, which took effect during the 2023-2024 season. 

The 2026 Milan Cortina Winter Games will serve as the ban’s highest-profile test yet. 

These Olympics mark a turning point for athlete safety, environmental protection and the global effort to phase out toxic forever chemicals. 

How the ban works

In 2019, the federation announced plans to ban fluorinated waxes. But enforcement required reliable ways to detect fluorine on race skis, a process that took several seasons to perfect.

In 2023, the International Biathlon Union also banned ski preparation products containing fluoro chemicals. Top-tier events, including the World Cup and World Championships, began to conduct mandatory PFAS tests. Random tests were also introduced at lower-level competitions to ensure the rule applied across the sport, not just on its biggest stages.

Officials are enforcing the rule at these Olympics, ensuring they take place on a level, fluorine-free playing field. Every pair of skis competing at the Olympics will be tested for the presence of fluorine. Athletes can be disqualified if random checks for fluorinated compounds detect them.

In fact, two Olympic skiers, Han Dasom and Lee Eui-jin of South Korea, were banned from these games after tests found PFAS on their skis. 

Why were PFAS used in ski wax?

At the highest levels of competition, even just a few fractions of a second can mean the difference between earning the gold and going home empty-handed. That’s why, since the 1980s, elite skiers and snowboarders have turned to these types of waxes.

PFAS repel water and reduce friction, allowing skis and snowboards to glide more quickly, particularly in wet snow and slush. In events where glide can determine who reaches the podium, that water-shedding power translated into a measurable competitive advantage.

Over time, manufacturers developed more concentrated forms of PFAS to boost the speed advantage. But the performance jump came at a steep cost.

Application of fluoro wax requires heat, and technicians often worked in dedicated enclosed cabins where fumes could build up. 

Those technicians, many of whom worked daily with the products, faced some of the highest exposures, inhaling vaporized PFAS season after season of working with the contaminated wax. As evidence mounted about the chemicals’ health and environmental harms, the competitive edge they provided became harder to justify. These concerns paved the way for the ban.

Environmental contamination from ski wax 

The environmental impact is also significant. With use, wax continuously wears off equipment, shedding tiny particles into the snow. Studies measuring PFAS in melted snow, nearby soil and aquifers and surface water after ski competitions have found strikingly high concentrations of these toxic “forever chemicals.”

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the environment or in our bodies. But contamination doesn’t stay on the mountain. PFAS from decades of fluorinated wax use can persist in alpine ecosystems, leaching into waterways and moving through food chains, affecting wildlife and downstream communities for decades.

The health risks of PFAS exposure

As the science became clearer, so did the stakes. Was a marginal gain in speed worth exposing elite athletes, technicians and communities to chemicals that can cause long-term health issues?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies.

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

What this means for consumers

Consumers shouldn’t have to bear the burden of protecting themselves from toxic chemicals. That is the responsibility of federal regulators. But until laws catch up with the science, informed choices protect both your personal health and the winter environment you love.

Ski wax is just one item on a long list of products historically treated with these chemicals. Many states, like Maine and Minnesota, are banning PFAS in consumer products, but the chemicals can still be found in certain foods and in soil, as well as some sources of drinking water, nonstick cookware, firefighting foam, personal care products, textiles and many others.

In April 2024, EWG President Ken Cook spoke with Peter Arlein, a former ski-shop wax technician who decided to take matters into his own hands. He founded the Colorado-based company mountainFLOW, which produces ski wax and bicycle lubricants without PFAS. You can listen to that episode here.

If you ski or snowboard recreationally, you can enjoy the snow without the toxic footprint. PFAS-free wax is now widely available and highly effective.

• Ask before you wax. If you get your equipment professionally serviced, ask your local shop what type of wax they use. Many shops have already pivoted to PFAS-free alternatives, and some manufacturers have stopped producing fluorinated wax entirely.
• Check the label. If you apply wax yourself, look for products labeled PFAS-free or fluoro-free. Companies like Colorado-based mountainFLOW have pioneered high-performance wax made without toxic chemicals.
• Safety first. When applying any wax at home, work in a well-ventilated area. Even with safer PFAS-free alternatives, it is a good practice to wear a mask during the heating and scraping process to avoid inhaling fine particles.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Here’s why it’s relevant beyond the slopes Authors Monica Amarelo February 12, 2026

Nearly three-quarters of U.S. baby foods are ultra-processed, new study finds Iris Myers February 10, 2026

Most baby food sold in U.S. grocery stores is ultra-processed, a new study finds, raising fresh concerns about what many infants and toddlers are eating during a critical window of development.

The peer-reviewed study, published in the journal Nutrients, found that 71% of baby food products sold in grocery stores are classified as ultra-processed foods, or UPF.

Researchers analyzed 651 infant and toddler food products available in the top 10 U.S. grocery retailers, using data from the Australia-based George Institute for Global Health’s FoodSwitch database. 

The study used the NOVA classification system, the most common method used to identify UPF.

UPF are typically made in industrial settings and contain one or more artificial colors or flavors, non-sugar sweeteners, or additives like emulsifiers and thickeners. Food companies use these ingredients, often in combination with large amounts of fat, sugar or salt, to create UPF.

Additives dominate the baby food aisle

A top finding of the study is the widespread use of additives in foods marketed for consumption by babies and toddlers. Nearly three-quarters of all baby food products in the study contained additives, making them the most common ingredient category.

Researchers identified more than 105 unique additives, including flavor enhancers, thickeners, emulsifiers and colors. Flavor enhancers appeared in more than one-third of all products, while thickeners and emulsifiers were also common. Nearly one in five products contained added colors.

A growing body of scientific evidence links certain food additives to potential health concerns, including negative effects on gut function and behavioral difficulties in sensitive children. 

Other additives have been studied very little due to a regulatory loophole that allows companies to add new chemicals to foods without any Food and Drug Administration safety review. Nearly 99% of new food chemicals enter the market this way. 

More sugar, salt and calories

The study also found clear nutritional differences between ultra-processed baby foods and their less-processed counterparts.

On average, ultra-processed baby foods contained nearly twice as much sugar as products that were not ultra-processed. Added sugars were found exclusively in UPF. The disparity was especially pronounced in snack and finger foods, where ultra-processed products contained two and a half times more sugar per serving than similar non-ultra-processed options.

Sodium levels were also higher in ultra-processed baby foods, containing far more sodium per 100 grams than less processed products. 

High intake of sugary, calorie-dense foods early in life has been linked to heart and metabolic conditions in children. Early childhood is a particularly sensitive period, since food exposures during those years may shape taste preferences and eating habits that persist for years.

States stepping up

The findings raise questions about whether current regulations adequately protect infants and toddlers and give parents enough information. 

There are no federal labeling requirements for UPF. In the absence of robust federal regulation, states have started taking action. Last year, California signed a historic new law to legally define UPF and phase out the most harmful from public school meals. Lawmakers in dozens of other states have introduced or passed bills targeting harmful chemicals in the food supply. 

Without stronger federal oversight and clearer labeling requirements for baby foods, parents are largely left to navigate the marketplace on their own.

Finding less processed food for kids

It’s often possible to find less-processed alternatives to common foods. Instead of yogurt with added flavors, artificial colors or zero-calorie sweeteners, you might look for a yogurt with just a few ingredients: cultured milk and fruit.

One way to identify these products is by reading ingredient lists and nutrition facts to look for more whole foods and fewer chemicals. For now, this information is usually found on the back of food packages. 

You may also need to look beyond marketing claims on the front of packages, which can include phrases, colors or pictures intended to appeal to kids.

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

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors Iris Myers Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN February 11, 2026

Statement on FDA request for information on food additive BHA Iris Myers February 10, 2026

WASHINGTON – Today the Food and Drug Administration issued a “request for information” about the food chemical preservative butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA. Studies show  BHA may cause cancer in rats, mice, fish and hamsters exposed to it through what they eat. 

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

In 1990, a doctor petitioned the FDA to ban the chemical from food, but the FDA has not yet issued a response. In 2025, West Virginia banned BHA from all food sold in the state beginning in 2028. 

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

This is yet another instance of the FDA planning to plan instead of taking decisive action. And this time the FDA’s plan is more than three decades late. A petition to ban BHA has been pending for over 30 years, during which time evidence of risk has accumulated, consumers have voiced concern, and states and retailers have stepped in where federal regulators would not. 

BHA has already been banned in West Virginia. Major retailers like Kroger, Hy-Vee and Aldi prohibit BHA from their store brands. 

This raises the obvious question of what, exactly, the FDA is hoping to learn now. Instead, the FDA could simply grant the pending petition and get BHA off the shelves everywhere much more quickly. 

A request for information that follows decades of inaction is not leadership; it’s a paper exercise. Americans deserve timely, decisive food safety regulation, not another slow-walked process that treats urgency as optional.

###

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

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 February 10, 2026

New York state lawmakers introduce bill to ban the herbicide paraquat, linked to Parkinson’s disease Anthony Lacey February 10, 2026

ALBANY, N.Y. – Lawmakers today introduced legislation to ban the use of paraquat, one of the most toxic herbicides allowed for use in the U.S. 

The lawmakers cited overwhelming scientific evidence linking the agrochemical to Parkinson’s disease and other serious health harms.

The bill, A. 10074/S. 9094, would amend the state’s environmental conservation law, banning all uses of paraquat statewide. If enacted, this change would bring New York in line with more than 70 countries that have already outlawed the pesticide, including China, Brazil and the European Union.

The proposal was authored by Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal (D/WF-Assembly District 67) and state Sen. Pete Harckham (D/WF-40th Senate District). The Environmental Working Group is supporting the bill.

“More than 70 countries have already banned the use of paraquat, a clear indication of its toxicity and the serious health issues it can cause in those who have been exposed,” said Rosenthal, chair of the Assembly Committee on Housing. 

“Paraquat has long been linked to Parkinson’s disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney and thyroid cancer and other serious health problems, even in people who have never directly handled the chemical,” she said. “The health and safety of farmworkers and rural community members must be prioritized over the use of a notoriously deadly weedkiller, particularly with many safer alternatives already on the market. 

“Working with the Environmental Working Group, I look forward to passing legislation I have introduced to ban the use of paraquat in New York state and protect the health of New Yorkers for decades to come,” Rosenthal added.

“It is mind-boggling to know that paraquat, a toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease and banned in dozens of countries, is still on the market and available for use in New York state. The long list of health risks associated with this poison can no longer be ignored. Let’s work to pass this bill and rid our environment of this toxin permanently,” said Harckham, chair of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee.

“Paraquat is so dangerous that it is banned in the countries where it is manufactured and owned – yet it is still used in New York,” said Jessica Hernandez, EWG’s legislative director. “This bill is about protecting farmers, farmworkers and those families who live in rural communities from a chemical that should never have been allowed to remain on the market.”

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation says paraquat is sold in 47 counties and reportedly used in 28 counties across the state, although use has gradually declined. 

Once it’s been sprayed on crops, paraquat builds up in the environment and takes years to break down in soil. Having settled in the soil, it then drifts as contaminated dust, putting neighbors at risk, even those who don’t work in agriculture. 

Evidence of health harms

The science linking paraquat to Parkinson’s disease is clear. Multiple studies have found that people who work in or live near fields where paraquat is sprayed face a much higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

“Farmers who handle paraquat face a 150% higher risk of Parkinson’s disease, and the risk doubles for people who live or work near where it is sprayed,” said Dr. Ray Dorsey, professor of neurology at the University of Rochester Medical Center and a leader in Parkinson's disease research and care.

“In laboratory studies, paraquat reproduces key hallmarks of the disease, including tremors. Yet this toxic weedkiller is still used across New York state, sowing the seeds of future illness. More than 70 countries, including China, have banned this 60-year-old chemical. It’s long past time for New York and the U.S. to do the same,” he said.

One study using data from the National Institutes of Health found that those who applied the weedkiller on farm fields were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as those who handled other crop chemicals.

Paraquat exposure has also been associated with other serious health harms, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma and kidney and thyroid cancer. In rural areas, prenatal exposure is also linked to a higher risk of childhood leukemia.

“Decades of research is clear: exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease,” said Zach Hardy, senior state government relations manager for The Michael J. Fox Foundation. 

“New York state can lead the nation in combating the public health risk that paraquat poses by banning the use of this dangerous herbicide. Together, we can ensure a healthier future for New Yorkers,” he added.

The Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing the risks of paraquat use, but a final decision by the agency about whether to restrict it – and how – is likely years away. 

Waiting for the EPA to act leaves New Yorkers unnecessarily exposed to the toxic herbicide, the lawmakers and environmental advocates warn.

“New York should not have to wait for federal action when the science is clear and the risks are real,” said Hernandez. “A paraquat ban is the only way to protect those who grow our food and the communities who live near farm fields.”

What other advocates are saying

Adrienne Wald EdD, MBA, RN, MCHES, FNYAM, Northeast Regional Forum organizer for Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments

“Nurses in New York applaud A. 10074/S. 9094 aimed to prohibit the use of the highly toxic weedkiller paraquat. We are glad New York lawmakers are leading to protect citizens from the unsafe risks of exposure to continued paraquat use in agriculture and the potentially devastating health impacts primarily felt by our farmworkers, farmers, and rural communities.

“Strong scientific evidence has shown its use poses an unreasonable risk to these communities with numerous studies indicating people who use or are exposed to paraquat are more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease and other adverse health conditions, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, renal cancer, thyroid cancer, and childhood leukemia. 

“Nurses have a duty to protect public health by opposing the use of dangerous chemicals and this bill will further protect New York residents and public health.”

Adrienne Esposito, executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment

“It’s rather shocking that New York still allows toxic paraquat to be used for weed control. This highly toxic chemical has been banned in 70 countries due to its harmful effects to public health as well as mammals, birds, wildlife and bees. It is incredibly toxic and one small sip can be fatal. It lasts up to six years in soil, allowing for exposures to persist. 

“Paraquat has links to Parkinson’s disease and cancers, including childhood leukemia, as well as thyroid and kidney damage. CCE thanks Sen. Harckham and Assemblymember Rosenthal for championing this legislation and fighting to protect New Yorkers from dangerous exposure to paraquat.”

Bobbi Wilding, executive director of Clean+Healthy

“How many people have to suffer the harms of paraquat before we say enough’s enough? How many more nations will have to ban it before we act? Thanks to Sen. Harckham and Assemblymember Rosenthal, New York can say ‘not one more’ by passing their legislation now.

“More than 20% of our state's land is in agriculture. Data shows that paraquat has been in widespread use in our state. But farming without the toxic pesticide paraquat shows the same long-term yields as with it. For the health of New York's 160,000 farmers and farmworkers, their neighbors, and our environment, the Senate and Assembly should pass this bill immediately." 

Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council

“Paraquat is a highly dangerous herbicide that remains on the market only because regulators have ignored clear evidence of its harm, including links to Parkinson’s disease. Disregarding science doesn’t eliminate the risk – it protects corporate profits while putting people in danger. We support New York state’s decision to follow the science and protect New Yorkers with this bill.”

Andi Lipstein Fristedt, executive vice president and chief strategy and policy officer for the Parkinson’s Foundation

“The Parkinson’s Foundation is dedicated to improving care for people living with Parkinson’s disease, advancing research toward a cure, and focusing on prevention. Research has shown a strong link between exposure to paraquat and an increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

“The Foundation strongly supports A. 10074/S. 9094 to ban paraquat in New York state and calls on its legislature to pass this bill, protect New Yorkers and help create a world where fewer people develop Parkinson’s disease in the first place.”

Margaret Preston, president of Power Over Parkinson’s

“A. 10074/S. 9094 is an instrumental next step in banning the toxic herbicide paraquat, which is linked to Parkinson’s disease in addition to other serious illnesses. If this bill is passed, it will ensure the safety of our farmers in the state of New York.”

Clariss Mancebo, policy and development associate for Re:wild Your Campus

“Re:wild Your Campus is eager to support this bill. Paraquat has been banned in over 70 other countries and is continuously linked to Parkinson’s disease along with several other cancers and reproductive/developmental disorders. There is absolutely no need to continue the use of such a dangerous chemical. A. 10074/S. 9094 will protect all New Yorkers from being exposed to such a hazardous chemical.”

###

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

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Farm Pollution Paraquat Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 February 10, 2026

Chef Johanna Hellrigl joins EWG board of directors Anthony Lacey February 10, 2026

WASHINGTON – Today the Environmental Working Group announced that Johanna Hellrigl, acclaimed chef-owner of the Washington, D.C., celebrated restaurant Ama and a 2026 James Beard Award semifinalist, has joined its board of directors. 

A longtime supporter of EWG’s work, Hellrigl brings her nationally recognized leadership in food, public health and sustainability to EWG.

Hellrigl is the visionary behind Ama, a mission-driven Northern Italian restaurant located just blocks from the U.S. Capitol. Ama, which means “love,” has earned recognition for both culinary excellence and environmental leadership. 

Hellrigl uses EWG’s science-based research, including the Dirty Dozen™ and Clean Fifteen™ lists of pesticides on produce, to guide produce sourcing and menu decisions. These values extend throughout the restaurant, which operates without single-use plastics and features an all-electric, water-efficient kitchen designed to reduce its environmental footprint.

“Johanna is an extraordinary leader whose work sits at the intersection of food, health and sustainability,” said Ken Cook, EWG co-founder, president and board chair.

“She brings a rare combination of lived experience, values-driven leadership and practical insight into how food systems affect people’s health, workers’ well-being and the environment. 

“Her belief in food as a powerful force for connection and change make her perspective incredibly valuable to EWG, and we’re truly excited to have her advising our board as we move our mission forward,” said Cook.

Dialogue and collaboration 

Hellrigl joins the board at a pivotal moment. Her work is grounded in the belief that food systems, labor, agriculture, the environment and human health are deeply connected and that real change requires breaking down silos. She regularly convenes policymakers, farmers, chefs and community leaders at Ama to foster dialogue and collaboration. 

As EWG continues to lead national conversations on the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, pesticide regulation, food chemicals and ultra-processed foods, Hellrigl will provide a critical boots-on-the-ground perspective on how these issues affect consumer behavior.

“As a business owner, chef, mother and advocate, I see firsthand how environmental toxins impact our bodies, our food and our communities,” said Hellrigl. “Joining the Environmental Working Group feels like a natural extension of my life’s mission. 

“I’m honored to contribute to EWG’s efforts to reduce harmful exposures, increase transparency, and help build a healthier, more resilient future for people and the planet, because combining our platforms allows us to reach chefs, the food industry, our farmers, and families at home, and move the needle toward meaningful, systemic change,” she added.

Protecting health and the environment

Founded in 1993, EWG is led by experts dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Its board of directors helps guide the organization’s work to ensure clean water, safer food and healthier consumer products for communities nationwide.

Hellrigl joins Cook, David Baker, Natasha Beck, Brandon Beck, Suzan Bymel, Arianne Callender, Rob Fetherstonhaugh, Christine Gardner, Dr. Mark Hyman, Dr. Bojana Jankovic Weatherly, Dr. Harvey Karp, C.J. Kettler, Karen Malkin, Nina Montée Karp, Elise Museles, Randy Paynter, Michelle Pfeiffer, Drummond Pike, William Ross Jr., Kim Rozenfeld, Laura Turner Seydel and Shazi Visram.

###

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 James Beard Award semifinalist brings culinary leadership and sustainability expertise to EWG Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 February 10, 2026

Valentine’s Day: Showing love for you or another with the perfect fragrance gift Anthony Lacey February 5, 2026

Fragrance is a longtime favorite Valentine’s Day gift, and for good reason: Some pleasing smells can trigger the release of dopamine and serotonin, contributing to feelings of happiness and well-being. 

Choosing a fragrance isn’t just about how it smells, but also about what is actually in the bottle. Some can contain chemicals of concern, but knowing which ingredients to avoid can help you make a safer choice.

The association between February 14 and love reaches back to an ancient Roman fertility festival. It intensified in the 19th century, when sentimental traditions like personalized, fancy, often scented cards grew in popularity. 

Fast forward to the 2020s: Total U.S. spending on fragrance for the big day is estimated to top $25 billion this year. 

EWG's Quick Tips for Choosing Safer Personal Care Products

So many choices – how to choose?

There are thousands of fragrance brands, so no matter who you’re shopping for, the options abound. 

There’s just one hitch: Most fragrance is a mystery cocktail of chemicals. 

The lack of transparency is troubling – leaving consumers guessing about what they're putting on their skin. It makes fragrance shopping tricky, and it’s why knowing what is in a scent matters just as much as how it smells. 

Fragrance producers often provide limited transparency about the ingredients in their product mixtures, hiding behind claims of confidential business information. 

Only partial disclosure rules exist, such as California’s requirement to disclose hazardous ingredients and allergens in fragrance. At the federal level, the Food and Drug Administration won expanded authority to set standards for fragrance allergen labeling requirements in a 2022 update to a cosmetics safety law. But the FDA is late in releasing those standards.

Potential health consequences 

Some fragrance chemicals are not benign. Exposure can lead to a range of health problems, including hormone disruption. 

Certain fragrance chemicals are phthalates, which can harm the reproductive system. Another fragrance chemical, styrene, is linked to cancer. The lack of disclosure of fragrance chemicals can also cause allergic reactions in kids and adults. 

Fragrance chemicals are also bad for the environment: Chemical vapors in fragrance, called volatile organic compounds, can contribute to ozone pollution and form fine particulates, according to one study.

Thirty-five percent of participants in a 2023 EWG-commissioned survey use fragrance daily – exposure that adds up over time.

Here’s how to choose

EWG can help you sift through the seemingly infinite number of fragrance options. 

Start with our free, searchable database, Skin Deep®, which rates about 130,000 products based on their hazards. Products with a rating of 1 or 2 are considered low hazard.

Concerns about  transparency in fragrance are one reason EWG created EWG Verified®. When you see the EWG Verified mark on a product, you can be sure it’s free from chemicals that our scientists have determined to be hazardous, and that the product meets our strictest standards for your health.

EWG Verified scents are not only made with safer ingredients, they also contain fewer ingredients, lowering the risk of toxicity.

The first brand to earn the mark was Henry Rose. Like other brands and scent websites, Henry Rose offers a “find your scent” quiz designed to help you identify your favorite fragrance type.

Today several other brands have earned the EWG Verified mark, including:

• DIME’s 7 Summers, with top notes of “juicy pear,” vanilla orchid and “blonde woods.”
• Qet, with rosewood and jasmine botanical nectars.
• Rosy & Earnest, available in a discovery set.
• Uncommon James’ Hard Feelings, whose top notes are pink pepper and bergamot.
• Layermore’s Amal, with floral, amber and musk notes.
• Just the Goods’ fragrance, in a handful of individual scents.
• The Golden Secrets Signature Blend Essential Oil Perfume.

The packaging and presentation of these scents more than hold their own against traditional fragrance. And these products offer the added benefit of helping you reduce exposure to hazardous chemicals.

A gift of fragrance should feel like an act of care, not a leap of faith. Choosing scents made with  ingredients fully disclosed to EWG and reviewed to ensure they contain none of our chemicals of concern helps protect your loved ones and yourself from unnecessary chemical exposure. 

Romance should not come with hidden risks. The best Valentine’s Day gifts are the ones that come from the heart while also safeguarding health and well-being.

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Family Health Women's Health Toxic Chemicals Phthalates Authors Ketura Persellin February 5, 2026

Kennedy’s FDA retreats from pledge to ban artificial food dyes Anthony Lacey February 5, 2026

WASHINGTON – Despite repeated pledges to crack down on artificial food dyes, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. today announced that the Food and Drug Administration will ease enforcement of federal food additive rules.

The move will make it easier for food manufacturers to claim their products are free of artificial dyes.

The following is a statement from the Environmental Working Group's President and co-Founder Ken Cook: 

This latest retreat on synthetic food dye regulations is another broken promise from Secretary Kennedy and President Donald Trump. They pledged outright bans on dangerous food chemical additives to their “Make America Healthy Again” base.

Instead, states are doing the hard work to protect families, while Kennedy settles for handshake deals with Big Food and chemical companies – agreements with no real accountability and no guarantee they’ll be honored.

There are more than 25 states where legislation is being considered that would ban synthetic food dyes and other food chemical additives linked to ADHD and hyperactivity in children, among other health harms.

###

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 Ultra-Processed Foods Family Health Children’s Health Food Chemicals Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 February 5, 2026

Pennsylvania lawmakers, health advocates rally at Capitol to ban toxic weedkiller paraquat Anthony Lacey February 5, 2026

HARRISBURG, Pa. – A bipartisan group of Pennsylvania lawmakers joined farmers and public health advocates at the Capitol this week to call for swift passage of House Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 1158. The legislation would prohibit the use of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat statewide and protect Pennsylvanians from future exposure to the chemical.

The House bill, introduced last year by state Reps. Natalie Mihalek (R-Allegheny/Washington) and Melissa Shusterman (D-Chester County), would amend the Pennsylvania Pesticide Control Act of 1973 to ban all uses of paraquat across the commonwealth, starting in 2027.

If enacted, it would bring the Keystone State in line with more than 70 countries that have already outlawed the weedkiller, including China, Brazil and the European Union.

This week, companion legislation was introduced in the state Senate by Sens. Devlin Robinson (R-37) and Nick Miller (D-14), who joined their House colleagues at the event at the Capitol. 

Research shows that people who work in or live near fields where paraquat is sprayed face significantly higher risks of developing Parkinson’s disease, with some studies showing the risk may double. One study, using data from the National Institutes of Health, found that people who applied paraquat on farm fields were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as those who handled other agricultural chemicals.

Paraquat exposure has also been associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney cancer, thyroid disorders and – particularly in rural communities – a higher risk of childhood leukemia linked to prenatal exposure.

“Paraquat is so toxic that even small exposures can be deadly, yet it remains legal in the United States while much of the world has already banned the notorious herbicide,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at the Environmental Working Group. 

“The House and Senate bills are commonsense steps to protect farmers, farmworkers and rural communities from a chemical that science has clearly shown poses unacceptable risks,” he added.

“If links to cancer and Parkinson's aren't enough to drive change in Washington D.C., then we have to take action here in Pennsylvania,” Mihalek said. "If my bill were to become law, the Commonwealth would be blazing a path for 49 other states to also prohibit paraquat from being used.”

“Over 70 countries no longer permit the use of paraquat,” said Shusterman. “It’s embarrassing that the U.S. is so far behind. We have enough data, we have enough research, and we have enough knowledge. With the federal government unwilling to move to protect us, I believe that now is the time for states to act.”

“The dangers of paraquat to human health are well established through numerous scientific studies; more than 70 countries have banned its use, including the entire EU and China, where paraquat is made,” said Robinson. 

“It’s very telling that the country that produces the product won’t even allow its own citizens to use or be exposed to it. Syngenta, the company that manufactures paraquat, has already paid millions in settlements to those it has harmed with this unsafe pesticide,” he added.

“Bottom line – exposure to paraquat is extremely hazardous and sometimes even fatal. This is why I am proud to partner with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Reps. Natalie Mihalek and Melissa Shusterman, the Parkinson Foundation Western Pennsylvania, The Parkinson Council, and many other passionate advocates to support legislation to protect our farmers, agriculture workers, and Pennsylvanians from this dangerous pesticide,” said Robinson.

The press conference coincided with a day of advocacy at the Capitol, as farmers, medical professionals and leaders from public health organizations met with lawmakers to urge support for the legislation and immediate action to advance both bills. 

###

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

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Farm Pollution Family Health Paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 February 5, 2026