Environmental Working Group

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

EWG comments on California DTSC's 2025 microplastics in consumer products research rcoleman February 4, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments in support of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s 2025 microplastics in consumer products research.

File Download Document ewg-comments-to-ca-dtsc-on-microplastics-1-30-2026.pdf Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Nanomaterials Regional Issues California Authors Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. Samantha Romanick, Ph.D. Bernadette Del Chiaro Susan Little January 30, 2026

‘Forever chemicals’ in drinking water: How exposure can impact infant health Anthony Lacey February 4, 2026

Exposure through drinking water to the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS can harm infant health before birth, a recent study finds. The risks of exposure can include premature birth, low birth weight and even infant mortality. 

University of Arizona researchers found that babies born to people living downstream from a PFAS-contaminated site were far more likely to give birth before 28 weeks and give birth to infants weighing under 2 pounds, compared to people whose drinking water sources were upstream of the site.

The research examined data on PFAS in drinking water and birth outcomes from over 11,000 births from 2010 to 2019 in New Hampshire.

Premature birth and low birth weight are key factors linked to infant mortality in the first year. The study also found that living downstream from the site was tied to an increase in infant mortality of 191%. 

A science review by EWG found that PFAS are routinely detected in umbilical cord blood, crossing the placenta and reaching the developing fetus during pregnancy. 

The New Hampshire study results add to the large body of evidence that exposure to PFAS can harm infants' health before birth. 

Exposure to PFAS is also linked to increased risks of certain cancers – most notably kidney and testicular cancer – as well as adverse effects on the immune system, thyroid function, liver and kidneys. 

Get Your FREE Copy of EWG's Guide To Avoiding PFAS Chemicals Lasting harm

Pregnancy is a critical window of health vulnerability, especially when it comes to exposure to chemicals like PFAS, which can affect infants and children in the long term. 

The New Hampshire study is unique for having a strong methodology designed to examine the impact of exposure to PFAS from drinking water. All the participants lived within about 3 miles of a PFAS-contaminated site. The only difference between the control and study groups was whether the drinking water source was upstream or downstream of the contaminated site. 

The pregnant people with the highest exposures and worst health harms were from more socioeconomically advantaged groups. Because premature birth is usually linked to economic hardship and limited access to health care, this finding strengthens the case that the PFAS exposure, rather than economic or social factors, played a major role in the poor birth outcomes.   

The health effects in young children come at a steep cost. If extended to the larger U.S., the medical costs associated with PFAS-related harms total $8 billion annually. That’s more than double the Environmental Protection Agency’s estimated annual costs of about $3.8 billion to treat PFAS in drinking water under its new regulations. The rules set the first limits on the forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS and other PFAS.

Despite these important benefits of tackling PFAS contamination, the EPA is trying to scale back the historic drinking water regulations. 

Even considering reproductive health benefits alone, the public health gains from cleaning up PFAS-contaminated drinking water could justify the costs of treatment. These gains strengthen the case that the EPA’s drinking water standards for PFAS would benefit  public health, even before accounting for benefits beyond children’s health.

EWG research shows that PFAS contamination often occurs alongside multiple other chemicals, not in isolation – and properly designed filtration can reduce many of these contaminants at the same time.

Harms even at low levels of PFAS

Another study from 2025 further supports the case for regulations. It showed that not only are many people exposed to low levels of PFAS but that a detection of PFAS in a public drinking water supply is likely linked to increased levels in blood. 

EWG has been mapping PFAS contamination of drinking water since 2015. The new study emphasizes the importance of eliminating that contamination from drinking water.

As part of a study of data collected between 2018 and 2020,  California state scientists analyzed  the ways in which PFAS in drinking water affected the levels in Southern Californians’ blood. At least one type of PFAS was detected in the water of more than half the study participants.  

Participants had 30% higher blood levels for the PFAS perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, or PFHxS, when they had at least one detection of PFHxS in their untreated source water. Examining detections in final treated drinking water, blood levels were higher for PFHxS by 80%, PFOA by 30%, PFOS by 31% and total PFAS by 42% when there were detections in the water. This demonstrated stronger associations with finished water at the tap.

Necessary protective step

PFAS blood levels in study participants were lower than national averages, and much lower, one-thousand fold, than people in highly contaminated communities. Nonetheless, 86% had levels linked to potential health harms, according to 2022 PFAS clinical follow-up guidance from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

If drinking water containing PFAS, even at low levels, changes the levels of these chemicals in our blood, and those levels potentially harm infant health, the cost of remediating public water systems is no longer just an infrastructure expense. It’s a necessary public health protection running into the billions of dollars.

Even in communities that are not highly contaminated, drinking water can contribute significantly to PFAS in blood. But the level of contamination could be lowered.

Neither the Southern California nor the New Hampshire study examined other known routes of exposure to PFAS, diet and indoor dust,  

Ultimately, the Southern California data serves as a model for a national challenge: PFAS are not just an industrial zone problem where the pollution occurs but an everywhere problem. It’s urgent that we address contamination at the source as well as treating drinking water.

Reducing exposure to PFAS 

The EPA finalized its groundbreaking regulations for PFAS in drinking water in 2024, but the agency has moved to scale back those regulations and delay compliance deadlines to 2031. Eleven states have set their own legal standards for drinking water, but a national standard is needed to protect all communities. 

The cost of an individual filtration system that can reduce or remove PFAS from tap water at home may not suit every budget. But in any event, the cost of cleaning up our drinking water should be paid by those who created the contamination.

In the meantime, there are ways you can help reduce your exposure PFAS:

• Find out what’s in your tap water using EWG’s Tap Water database to look up your water system by postal code or EWG’s interactive map of PFAS in drinking water.
• Use a reverse osmosis or carbon filter to reduce PFAS in your water.
• Tell your elected officials drinking water is important to you and your family’s health and that PFAS regulations are important.

PFAS are everywhere, not just in our drinking water. If you're looking for other ways to reduce exposure in your home and daily life, consider these tips: 

• Use cast iron, stainless steel and glass cookware.
• Avoid purchasing clothing or textiles marketed as “stain resistant” or “wrinkle resistant.”
• Reduce household dust with frequent vacuuming and dusting.
• Use EWG’s Skin Deep® database to avoid cosmetics with PFAS. 

Areas of Focus Water Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Authors Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. February 4, 2026

State bills show building momentum to ban toxic weedkiller paraquat Anthony Lacey February 3, 2026

Nine states are weighing bills to prohibit use of the toxic weedkiller paraquat entirely or near public schools, signaling growing support for banning the chemical. 

Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Utah are so far considering legislation to ban paraquat use in their state or near public schools. More states are expected to introduce paraquat ban bills in the coming weeks. 

Image

At least 70 countries have banned paraquat because it threatens the health of people exposed to the chemical. Paraquat has been linked to Parkinson’s disease, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, childhood leukemia and more.

Image

Paraquat is primarily used to clear fields before farmers plant corn, soybeans, cotton, almonds, peanuts, wine grapes and other crops. 

While much of the paraquat applied winds up in the soil for years, the chemical can also drift through the air or linger in dust. A recent Environmental Protection Agency review found paraquat can drift further than was previously thought. 

This pesticide drift creates health concerns. Recent studies show workers and residents in areas with the highest use of the chemical face greater risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Syngenta makes paraquat in the United Kingdom. The Swiss-based company, which was acquired by a Chinese state-owned chemical conglomerate, has long understood the chemical’s health risks. But it spent decades hiding this knowledge from the public and the EPA. 

Ironically, Chinese, U.K. and Swiss farmers are prohibited by their respective governments from using paraquat. 

Parkinson’s and paraquat

Chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease by reducing the number of neurons in dopamine-producing parts of the brain. Researchers have used paraquat exposure in animals to study Parkinson’s disease. 

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

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

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

EPA ignores the evidence

Like Syngenta, the EPA has long understood the risks posed by paraquat but has ignored the potential exposure faced by people working on farms or living nearby. 

The agency assumes that people spraying paraquat will follow instructions designed to minimize drift and harm. But studies show “off label” use of pesticides is common, with virtually no enforcement. Two recent investigations in California and Pennsylvania found that paraquat is not always used according to the instructions on the label.

Citing the EPA’s long history of delay, states aren’t waiting for the agency to act. Federal pesticide law sets a floor, not a ceiling, on safeguards. To protect their citizens and public health, state and local governments have the power to enact measures such as a ban on paraquat.

Areas of Focus Farm Pollution Toxic Chemicals Paraquat Guest Authors EWG Staff February 4, 2026

Bang for your buck: Lip gloss JR Culpepper February 2, 2026

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

Finding a lip gloss that delivers the perfect glass-like finish shouldn't require a compromise on your health — or your budget.

Whether you’re preparing for a date or just touching up your look, the right lip gloss will leave your lips looking refreshed, healthy and youthful. But crowded shelves and confusing ingredient labels can make finding the ideal product difficult. 

This winter, EWG is here to help. We combed through our Skin Deep® database to find options that are not only $22 or less but also carry a rating of 2 or lower, meaning they’re low hazard.

Products that are EWG Verified® have been vetted by our scientists and meet our strictest standards of safety and transparency. 

Want to explore on your own? Scan products on the go with our Healthy Living App to see their hazard rating and other information. 

EWG Verified

Well People Poutlove Peptide Lip Balm, Pink Grapefruit

Available for $14 on Amazon and Ulta.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Qet Botanicals Lip Gloss with Olive & Avocado

Available for $9.99.

PURCHASE HERE

View details Rejuva Minerals Organic and Vegan Lip Gloss

Available for $16.95.

PURCHASE HERE

View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Lip Gloss, Silky Pink

Available on Amazon for $22.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Rated 1 in Skin Deep

Pacifica Enlightened Gloss, Vanilla Bean

Available for $4 on Amazon and Ulta.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Girlactik 3-in-1 Lip Sparkle Balm, Periwinkle

Available for $18.95 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details KimChi Chic Beauty High Key Gloss, 18 Raindrop

Available for $11 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Physicians Formula Mineral Wear Diamond Gloss – Crystal Clear

Available for $6.98 on Amazon, Target and Walmart.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details L.A. COLORS High Shine Lipgloss, Clear

Available for $2.48 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Joah Beauty Glassify High Shine Lip Gloss, Ice Queen

Available for $9.95 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Laura Geller New York Treat N Go Tinted Lip Oil, Runner Up

Available for $12 on Amazon and Walmart.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Rated 2 in Skin Deep

Nyx Professional Makeup Fat Oil Lip Drip, My Main Fold

Available for $9.49 from Amazon, CVS, Ulta and Target.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

 

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics February 3, 2026

In virtual briefing, clean energy advocates highlight California’s ‘balcony solar’ bill to cut electric bills for millions Iris Myers February 2, 2026

SACRAMENTO – State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and clean energy advocates last week outlined how a bill he introduced would make it easier and more affordable for millions of Californians to lower their electricity bills by generating their own solar power.

During a January 29 virtual press briefing, supporters of the bill, SB 868, explained how it would expand access to safe, plug-in solar systems, also known as “balcony solar.” If enacted, the legislation would cut unnecessary red tape and establish clear statewide safety standards for the systems. 

SB 868 aims to expand access for renters, apartment dwellers, and residents of small homes currently paying some of the highest energy bills in the U.S.

Plug-in systems are small, portable panels that plug into a standard wall outlet. They can be mounted on apartment balconies, patios or fences, and use a home’s existing wiring to immediately power everyday household essentials, like air conditioners, computers and refrigerators.

 The Environmental Working Group is sponsoring the legislation.

The briefing featured remarks from Wiener; EWG’s Senior Vice President for California Bernadette Del Chiaro, Utah State Rep. Raymond Ward, author of Utah’s 2025 balcony solar law and Cora Stryker, co-founder of Bright Saver.

“California’s sky-high electricity rates are putting real pressure on household budgets across the state,” said Del Chiaro. “By allowing simple, affordable plug-in solar, this proposal would help families save money immediately while strengthening California’s clean energy leadership.”

If enacted, SB 868 would help to deliver immediate savings on energy bills by allowing Californians to safely generate electricity using portable solar panels that can be set up and plugged in without lengthy permitting or costly installation.

NOTE:  The full virtual webinar can be found here, and Del Chiaro is available for media interviews by contacting the communications department at: press@ewg.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 Energy Federal & State Energy Policy Renewable Energy California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 February 2, 2026

Transcript of EWG podcast 'Ken Cook Is Having Another Episode' – Episode 48 JR Culpepper January 29, 2026

Are you susceptible to cult-like thinking? According to author Jane Borden, everyone might be, especially Americans.

In today’s episode, Borden talks with EWG President and co-Founder Ken Cook about how the Pilgrims and Puritans essentially founded America as a “high-control doomsday group” and that those patterns never went away.

In her book, “Cults Like Us: Why Doomsday Thinking Drives America,” Borden identifies the warning signs: worship of a charismatic leader who can't be criticized, apocalyptic crisis narratives, conspiratorial thinking that explains away inconvenient facts, and promises to return to a “pure” past. Sound familiar?

The “Make America Great Again” and “Make America Healthy Again” movements check many of these boxes even while acknowledging that the health threats many Americans face are very real. Are we addressing those threats through evidence and accountability, or through cult-like devotion to leaders who promise easy answers?

____________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: This transcript was compiled using software and may include typographical errors.

Ken: Hi there, Ken Cook here, and I'm having another episode. Today's episode is a little bit different. I typically invite authors who write about the environment or nutrition and health, but today we're going to branch out and delve into culture. Why do we think and act the way we do? Today I'm speaking with Jane Borden, author of Cults Like Us, why Doomsday Thinking Drives America.

 

Jane is a cultural journalist and editor who contributes regularly to Vanity Fair. She's written for the New York Times Magazine and the Washington Post among other outlets. She's a beautiful writer. I have to tell you, this book has completely changed how I think about what so many of us are experiencing right now with maga.

 

Maha Q Anon, political polarization, alt-right thinking, conspiracy theories. Jane makes this fascinating argument that cult-like thinking isn't some fringe phenomena in America or something recent. It's baked into our DNA, starting with the pilgrims who came here in 1620 because they literally thought they were outrunning the apocalypse.

 

They later staged the moon landing. Jane traces seven Puritan beliefs that have shaped American culture for four centuries. Things like our desire for strong man leaders, our sense of being chosen, our anti-authoritarianism, and our apocalyptic thinking. Sound familiar? At EWG? We're all about evidence-based advocacy, exposing corporate malfeasance, pushing for safer products, holding big food and big pharma accountable.

 

We also know that many people are interested and invested in the MAHA movement, and they come to EWG for resources on toxic chemicals, food, pesticides, and other topics. So today we're going to explore what's the difference between healthy skepticism of institutions, the challenges to authority that. EWG wakes up every day practicing.

 

What's the difference between that and cult-like thinking, when does our justifiable distrust of corporations tip into something else? And how do we maintain our critical thinking without falling into the very traps that have repeated throughout American history? 

 

Jane Borden: Mm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Jane, thank 

 

Ken: you so much for being here.

 

Let's start with the basics. What's your working definition of a cult? 

 

Jane Borden: Sure. Um, and thank you for that intro. So I lean on, uh, the work of Robert j Lifton, a psychologist who developed this definition in the nineties, which has been very helpful because cult is a slippery word and people toss it around a lot to the degree that it can become meaningless.

 

So Lifton said a destructive cult has three characteristics. There's a leader who's worshiped. Typically that leader is charismatic, but not always. Uh, the worship part is important. Mm-hmm. There is undue influence at play, thought reform, mind control, what we used to call brainwashing. 

 

Ken: Mm-hmm. 

 

Jane Borden: And there's actual harm done typically to people within the group.

 

Typically financial, and often eventually sexual exploitation. This is helpful because you can look at, you know, uh, communes for example, have a lot of cult-like aspects, but. Communes don't typically have a leader who's worshiped. Right. So, well then we won't call them a cult. Right. People talk about Alcoholics Anonymous as being culty.

 

It has a lot of commonalities. People talk about the Marines that way. Mm-hmm. But again, those groups don't fit this definition, uh, laid out by lifton. Everyone kind of, when you say the word cult, they have an idea, an image that pops into their head, right? Yeah. And those are the kinds of groups that Lifton is characterizing.

 

Ken: So I was finding myself wanting to draw distinctions exactly along those lines between, for example, the term that's thrown about these days often and particularly in politics, is tribalism. A cult is not the same as a tribe, right? A tribe is a group you associate yourself with and helps define your identity.

 

But it's not the same as a cult, right? 

 

Jane Borden: Definitely there are commonalities when we start falling into tribal thinking, when we become swayed by the people around us and we all start kind of saying and thinking the same thing. That's some cultish behavior happening. But if there's not someone at the head of your group who's manipulating you specifically, so that that person can gain power and resources and take advantage of you, then you're not looking at a cult.

 

Ken: Right. And so if we overlay that definition into our, our current politics, how does MAGA line up in your estimation? As I was reading your book, I kept thinking, well, you know, there's, there's sort of a preclinical signs perhaps that you're in a cult that aren't fully expressed yet. The potential is there.

 

That right the, the subclinical. Tendencies might be there. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. How do you assess MAGA in the context of, of your work on cults? 

 

Jane Borden: So in, in my book, I explore both participation in actual cults isolated groups. And then I also look at cult-like thinking at the societal level. There have been mass movements in history that historians and sociologists have categorized as cult-like.

 

Marxism Nazim, big movements that had charismatic leaders. So when you're looking at American history, we see cult-like thinking flare from time to time, and it's certainly flaring right now. Cult-like thinking flares on the left and on the right. Typically it flares in extremist groups or extreme movements.

 

I do see a lot of cult-like thinking currently flaring. Within the MAGA movement, in particular anti-intellectualism, the sort of desire for a strong man to come and rescue us from our problems rather than working through them together. This idea of like purity and perfection and that there's some outside group that's ruining that or taking that from us, and there is a way to reeve it if we punish them.

 

These are all cult-like. Ideologies and they were all present in the puritans and pilgrims and I I, at the beginning of the book, I identify a certain number of their cult ideologies and then I trace them through secular American history. It's not a political book. I didn't intend to write a political book.

 

Right. And it's not my area of expertise. Nevertheless, I'm following these certain train lines of ideology and they've all ended at the alt-right depot in 2025. And so here we are. But to be clear, quote like thinking does not have a, a political persuasion. Uh, but yes, I do see quite a bit of it currently in maga.

 

Ken: Yeah. And you mentioned at several points that cult-like thinking often. Skews toward authoritarianism and a strong man, uh, existential stakes that this is, you know. Mm-hmm. We're at a, a moment that's, uh, going to change the world a, a mythologized past that we're gonna make America great again. Mm-hmm. We used to be great.

 

The template does again. Make me think, okay, well maybe if there was a biomarker for cultism that they could take a blood sample. Um, I, I might not be presenting all the symptoms, but there's evidence that I've been infected. 

 

Jane Borden: Well, I think we've all been infected. I think by virtue of, yeah, being in America and certainly cult-like thinking is a human phenomenon.

 

I in fact, traced the evolutionary origins of us versus them thinking toward the end of the book. I do believe that we are more prone in America to it, uh, for a few reasons, because we were founded by high control doomsday groups. Most people today, if they looked at the Pilgrims and Puritans, they would say, oh, that's a cult.

 

That looks like a cult because of the first Amendment, which protects. The right, uh, for anyone to start a church, whether that's a legitimate spiritual leader or a con artist. Um, and again, I, I've got no problem with the First Amendment, but what that allows for is a certain amount of scam artists to operate within the system.

 

Yeah. Protected. Right. And then of course we don't, we don't ask these groups to pay taxes, which allows them to amass wealth, which makes them harder to target once we do root out the ones that have bad intentions. 

 

Ken: So many of the examples that you go through in the book illustrate these, these elements. I wanted to find some way to ask myself, what, what are my cult leanings?

 

What are my cult and how do I think about that conspiratorial thinking, and a sense that the answer can be found not with existing authorities, but with whatever the cult is presenting as the, the actual truth about how the world. Is working or who is on our side or against us at the cultural level.

 

Mm-hmm. It's, it really is, um, being able to define an external enemy and being able to explain a way inconvenient facts to the cult of framing as conspiracies. Mm-hmm. We've been spending a lot of time talking about the Make America healthy again, element of the Make America Great again, broader movement.

 

Lots of elements that fit the conspiratorial thinking about the, the control of our health from drug companies and the, the collaboration deep within the Centers for Disease control, the corruption, the sense that there's a, a mythological past where we were healthy. Mm-hmm. And now we're not healthy. 

 

Jane Borden: Yeah.

 

I mean, well, well, how does 

 

Ken: that fit in your frame? 

 

Jane Borden: First of all, what you were just saying about the conspiratorial thinking, you know, if, if you're someone who wants to build authority. You can do that by getting a following of people and the way to get people, this is all part of your path to power, right?

 

The way to get people is to pull them from wherever their current allegiances lie. And you do that by attacking the existing power structures, right? That's how you take power. Yeah. It's a coup. And so I think that's behind the attack on science and that's behind vaccine misinformation. That's. Behind the attacks on the government because it's a way to take power ultimately.

 

And I think that's, I think that's what's happening with Maha and with MAGA is it's a coup. So you know, specifically with Maha. The threat is real. Right? Our health system is in shambles. Yeah. And the environment is full of toxins and forever chemicals. We are experiencing an epidemic in obesity and diabetes and heart disease.

 

People are, are dying younger. Our life expectancy is dropping in America at the moment. The threats are real. And so yeah, the claims fell on fertile ears. Now. I don't believe the power institutions being attacked are the right ones to attack. I think. Corporate interests mm-hmm. Are behind all of those problems.

 

Well, the problem is greed, not science. Right? 

 

Ken: Yeah. 

 

Jane Borden: But that's not gonna help them get power and money and influence. 

 

Ken: Yeah. 

 

Jane Borden: Because they want power and money from these corporate interests. Yeah. What you were saying about the looking back on the past and trying to return to that, that's a perfectionist movement.

 

So when you hear that kind of thinking, you're looking at a perfectionist movement. America has a rich history of perfectionist movements. This idea that on doomsday we're going to be taken up to heaven will be pure, and everyone else who's not pure will perish or, or will be taken up on a UFO and become light beings on the astral plane.

 

It's a purity thing. Yeah. Yeah. Even the social gospel movement in the late 18 hundreds, abolition movement, temperance movement, those were perfectionist movements. They thought that if they could purify America of its sins. The Civil War was an effort to purify America of its biggest sin. Slavery to the socialists.

 

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Then they thought Jesus would return. I mean, it's, it was quite literal. And the eugenics is a perfectionist movement. Tism is a perfectionist movement, so we see this again and again because we believe we're a chosen nation. We believe we're perfect, and that's what's happening with Maha because it's all about purity.

 

Right. Yeah. Why can't you just make your body healthy enough that you don't need a vaccine? 

 

Ken: Right? 

 

Jane Borden: The vaccine is, is this gross chemical foreign agent? Don't put that in your pure body, right? 

 

Ken: Yeah. That someone profits from 

 

Jane Borden: mm-hmm. 

 

Ken: Putting in your body. Mm-hmm. Yeah. 

 

Jane Borden: And in other word for, for purity is virtue, right?

 

Uh, and we see a lot of virtuousness in this movement and righteousness. And I think that's not a surprise. 

 

Ken: Yeah. As I was reading the book, I was, I was struck a couple of times by the importance of conspiracy as a tool to keep information at bay that would otherwise dissolve the cult or undermine it.

 

And that if that can't be suppressed with an expansion of the conspiracy. Then that can really help undo the cult so that there's a sense in which a conspiracy is not really much use to a cult if it can't constantly be expanded to envelop inconvenient facts and contrary information that that undermines the teachings of the leader or the 

 

Jane Borden: power of the leader.

 

The 

 

Ken: power of the leader. Yeah, and and I also noted. How important failings of, uh, healthcare were. Mm-hmm. The anxiety, which is a big theme in your book as a, a motivator for cults generally and cult activity, no matter where it is on the political spectrum. It's sort of moments of deep cultural anxiety, an on me sense of, you know, being disenfranchised, sense of hopelessness.

 

Adherence to a cult is comforting. Mm-hmm. But healthcare was something you talked about as a source of anxiety, as a source of having been left out failed. Hopelessness, because our healthcare system leaves so many people out. 

 

Jane Borden: I mean, first of all, one of the biggest attractions to cults has always been historically throughout the world, rescue from death.

 

So. I, I think when people feel their health is at stake, uh, yes, they're very interested and, and look a snake oil salesman, it's, it's always about health to some degree. And specifically with love has won. She was, she painted herself as a healer. So Amy Carlson basically was an unhappy single mom, working dead end jobs.

 

She fled her life. She much like a cult follower, became indoctrinated online into conspiracy theories and esoteric beliefs, and she just disappeared. She left her family and went to live with this guy. Uh, they started calling themselves Mother God and Father God, and offering healings. And then she decided that, uh, she was actually.

 

More God than he was God. And she left him and started her own group and people wanted to be there. They had a huge online following. And then a bunch of people came out to live with her, and a lot of former followers have said that they came because they were. Searching online for their health issues.

 

And she came up, yeah, because she was selling these healings online, digital healings, and because mm-hmm. Social media and the algorithms feed us this kind of extreme content. Right? Yeah. And she started to spiral into addiction and anorexia. It was a big party scene. All the time. Um, some former followers described her as just being wasted constantly day and night.

 

Not just alcohol, but a lot of, um, psilocybin mushrooms and, and some other, uh, controlled substances. And the group was especially interesting to me because it didn't follow the typical path of, uh, occult destruction where the leader harms everyone else. Right. Amy Carlson was ultimately harming herself, and it was her followers who ended up taking the reins because they, I think, needed her more than she needed them.

 

I think, uh, at the end of the day, she was still just trying to disappear from an unsatisfying life now through alcohol abuse, but her leaders saw her as this healer who was going to. You know, she comes once every so many billion years and she was going to rescue the whole world from its karma. Everyone would be released and ascended they thought.

 

Robin Williams's Spirit was going to pick her up on a u ffo. And you know, these groups always have extreme beliefs, which are honestly neither here nor there. The foundational pattern is always the same, but it was, as I said, slightly different in this group. And so she, um, uh, eventually, uh, wanted to go to the hospital.

 

She had been ingesting colloidal silver. Which she yes, thought was a cure all a panacea of sorts. And she was telling everyone else to ingest this stuff, don't do it. It's little bits of silver suspended in liquid. It's, it's poison for your body. She was ingesting it regularly along again with a lot of alcohol and she was slowly killing herself.

 

And there came a point where she wanted to go to the hospital and her followers said, Nope, nope. We're not gonna let you 'cause you said hospitals were evil. You said if, if we go to a hospital, some of these, um, evil beings could get into the body of a nurse and kill you. Right. That's what they thought was going to happen.

 

Uh, so we're not doing that. And it was a very tragic story. And she died at 43, 45, I can't remember exactly. She weighed like 93 pounds, something like that at the time of her death and her skin was. Purplish grayish as a result of the colloidal silver ingestion. The police who found her 

 

Ken: unbelievable. Yeah.

 

Jane Borden: What you can hear on their body cams, one of them saying, oh, I think they painted the corpse. Yeah. 'cause she was kind of purplish. 

 

Ken: Oof. Yeah. You know, and the notion that that health is central to these. Ideologies is, I think, a, a really important insight of, of your book. That really made a lot of sense to me.

 

And you know, you have to, you have to have a robust. Ability to generate conspiracies, to deal with inconvenient information that might come along or whistleblowers. Mm-hmm. The most inconvenient information of all In 

 

Jane Borden: Washington they call it spin. 

 

Ken: Yeah, exactly. You know, most people would not be amongst the 30,000 who are listening to this podcast.

 

At least I hope not, wouldn't, would maybe think it's kind of silly to be worried about anything that remotely resembles that kind of cult. Behavior. But that's where again, I go to the, well, the, you know, if, if you're maybe not fully symptomatic yet. Mm-hmm But you are looking, you are longing. For solutions to preserve longevity, to have a healthier child.

 

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Whatever it might be. 

 

Jane Borden: Well, bi biohacking is a perfectionist movement. 

 

Ken: Yeah. Of course. The billionaires who are biohacking themselves. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Of course. 

 

Jane Borden: And that's not to say that we should throw out these movements. No. But I do think it's healthy to investigate the degree to which we are prone to some cult-like thinking.

 

And that's one of the goals of my book is I, I wanna point it out. Let's acknowledge this. Yeah. Let's recognize it. So that we can see it coming so that we don't fall prey to it, so that we don't fall for the magic trick that scam artists rely on to manipulate us to serve themselves. You touched on this earlier, and maybe now's a good time to talk about when cult-like thinking does Flare.

 

When we are most susceptible to it, when we're talking about specific groups, uh, sociologists say, uh, first of all, anyone can join a cult. It really can't happen to anyone because it's not about the psychological profile, it's about the context. People join cults when they are unmoored, so, uh, they've just lost a loved one or gone through a divorce.

 

Uh, they've just gotten laid off. They've just moved to a new town. They don't know anyone yet. This is why cults recruit on college campuses. So when we're looking for community, this is why California has such a rich tradition of cult participation. It's not because we're all crazy. It's because the mainline churches didn't get a foothold in California for quite some time.

 

And so people were out there looking for community, looking for spiritual allegiance. And so it was very easy for a scam artist to show up and say, Hey, follow me. Yeah. So when we're talking about cult-like thinking at the societal level, when is a society unmoored? Sociologists point to technological revolution, which of course we're seeing right now in spades, um, with AI and, and the way social media has shattered communication, they point to social upheaval.

 

Major social upheaval at the moment. Recently, of course, me too. The quote unquote woke movement. We're gonna be minority majority by 2040. White people will comprise less than 50%. So this is major social upheaval. And then of course, uh, sociologists point to general times of crisis and experiencing one of its biggest crises in history at the moment, I believe.

 

In the economic instability, so, mm-hmm. 90% of Americans are chronically under-resourced. Since 1975, an estimated $60 trillion has moved from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top. Really 1%. So that's a major and intentional redistribution of wealth. And when Americans. Have to take on extra jobs when they've blown through their savings, when they're taking on debt.

 

This is an existential crisis. Yeah. Health as we've discussed. And resources, right? Yeah. I mean, that's as primal as it gets. And so these are people desperate for help. And when you are that unmoored, when you're that desperate, you'll listen to people who promise what you want, and it's very convenient if that person is saying.

 

In fact, what you want is owed to you, and in fact, what you want was taken from you, and I am going to get it back for you, and I'm going to punish the people who took it for you. And then all you have to do is invent a straw man and burn it down and people will do whatever you want. 

 

Ken: Yeah. Actually, uh, even in my own work, and I'll, I would put it sort of this way, one of the main elements of a successful cult, it seems to me is the ability of the, the leaders or the ideology of the cult to get its followers, to reject authority and reject standards, reject traditional power centers and so forth, and burn it down.

 

'cause those, those are often the ones that took things away from you and that have to be punished now or, or resurrected. And yet I've spent most of my career challenging authority. We, you know, we, we go after companies, we sue companies, we, you know, raise concerns about the chemicals they're putting into the environment, into your food, your air, your water.

 

But the difference is for us, we do our own research. Just because a lot of my colleagues have PhDs doesn't mean their research is necessarily better. They're just thoughtful about the sources. And you spend a lot of time in the book talking about the impact of a, of algorithms and the, and the availability of information online Now as a, uh, as an atomizing influence, as a fragmenting influence, that that allows people to make up their own world.

 

Facts and theories. And then the other element for us is, you know, we, we don't wanna get rid of authority. We wanna make it responsible and, and responsive to human needs. That seems to be something that cults, generally speaking, aren't interested in doing. They wanna parallel authority, structure, and a parallel set of facts because their facts don't mix well with.

 

Science, for example, or medicine or what have you. Does that make sense to you? Yeah. 'cause that's how it's really affected me. Yeah. And 

 

Jane Borden: because they don't want another authority structure, because they want authority, they want. All of the authority. So we, I, I mentioned earlier that the beliefs of any group are, are kind of beside the point.

 

They're the most interesting. They're the ones that make for good documentaries, are the Yeah. Out there things these people believe. But the foundational patterns are what's important because exactly what we're seeing almost always in oc cult leader's behavior is the path of power. So once a person begins to seek power, the power is what's in charge.

 

Power wants more of itself. Power is like a parasite on a human, and the path of power is always the same. It wants more of itself and it can never get enough. And so there can be no other authority. There can be only one. And it's the cult leader. What the cult leader wants when on the powertrain is complete and total control.

 

Over everything. 

 

Ken: Yeah. 

 

Jane Borden: And ultimately, the ultimate end of power's path is control over life and death. That's the ultimate power. Right? And that's why we see groups end in tragedy. That's what happened in Jonestown. That's what happened in uh, heavens Gate. That's what happened in Waco Now. Most cults don't end that way.

 

In fact, very few do, which is really just a testament to exactly how many cults there are an estimated 10,000 in America currently. But when a group isolates itself in particular, that path becomes harder to interrupt. And uh, we see cults begin careening toward. A violent end 

 

Ken: and I was struck also, uh, again and again in the culture looked at, at one point or another, they often come into conflict with, with science, and I think for a cult leader to have an independent scientific framework out there that's generating facts and evidence contrary to what is convenient.

 

To maintain the cult is, is one of the main areas. This is another thing that really struck me about your book. This is one of the main areas where it makes all the sense in the world to assault science and diminish people's connection to it. Their, their, their faith in it. The mission of. MAGA now, not just to specifically undo certain regulations, but to undo the ability of government to function specifically with respect to science, collecting data, collecting information.

 

That dysregulation, uh, agenda is really what's going to cost us in the long term, but that is definitely in the service of maintaining authority and eliminating. Rivals sources. Mm-hmm. Or centers of power like Vaccinologist or, you know, scientists at the CDC, they're just being, they're not being debated with by the administration.

 

They're just being let go. 

 

Jane Borden: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I mean, yeah, it's, it's eradicating rivals. Because that's the only way to get power and authority if you can't get it on merit. 

 

Ken: Yeah. You can't win the debate. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Get rid of the other debater. 

 

Jane Borden: Exactly. And it's very easy to rile up your followers to do the dirty work for you if you can convince them again that something was taken from them.

 

So it's, it's the grievance narrative again, right? You were owed something and you didn't get it, and it was robbed. Of you and uh, there's someone to blame and this is the person to blame. Yeah. Go get 'em. 

 

Ken: Yeah, exactly. So at the end of the book, you come away with a sense that trying to extract the positives about what you've learned about cults and why there are aspects of the American.

 

Character, if you will, that are related to the same things that make us prone to developing cults or adhering to them. But there were things that, um, encouraged you. Can you talk a little bit about that? 

 

Jane Borden: Well, you know, apocalyptic thinking itself is very interesting to me because. We focus almost exclusively on the ill effects of apocalyptic thinking 'cause they are profound.

 

This idea that one group is better than another and the other group's gonna be punished is central, of course, to apocalyptic thinking. But the reason apocalyptic thinking developed in the first place. Which goes back to Zoroastrianism from where, uh, Judaism picked it up. And the Jesus cult was an apocalyptic movement, uh, et cetera, et cetera.

 

But it developed among groups who were experiencing extreme persecution, life-threatening to them and their entire communities. And this idea started to bubble up. Well, maybe we're going to be rescued, right? Maybe the people so cruelly punishing us will be punished when we're rescued. And even though that's false, what it did was spread hope and it brought people in the community together.

 

So I think there are ways we can spread hope and come together as a community without requiring. Some kind of quote unquote other to be punished in order for us to have hope in community. And of course there are a variety of ways we have hope in community that we know about that don't involve the existential eradication of some perceived threat.

 

So I think it's important to think about what we get out of that kind of thinking. So that we can try to deliver that to ourselves in healthier ways. Also, you know, a, a lot of cult-like thinking in itself has positive elements like the, the anti-intellectualism. The anti-elitism. That's all part of our rebellious nature as Americans.

 

Like you said, sometimes institutions need to be taken down, so how can we, how can we approach that tendency of ours in a healthy way? I'm not saying we shouldn't have knee-jerk skepticism. I'm a pretty skeptical person myself, but think about the ways that serves us and identify the ways it hamstrings us and let's focus on one over the other.

 

You know, the, the kind of. Acquisitiveness that led to, for example, a cult like Amway. I mean, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been taken advantage by MLMs and Amway especially, and for decades now. And that's a whole other topic. The government has colluded in that exploitation. But at any rate, it took advantage of, or greed, essentially.

 

But the American dream and, and this idea of. Free market capitalism like that in itself isn't evil. So how can we have healthy ambition to build wealth for our families without it necessarily coming at the expense of other people who are being taken advantage of? Like there, there are ways to keep the baby and not throw out the bath bathwater.

 

And again, that's part of why I wanted to identify exactly how cult-like thinking works and how people are manipulated. So that we don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water. 

 

Ken: Yeah, that's a, a great way to summarize what I took away from your book. I mean, I, I found myself again and again thinking, okay, if, if it's the case that it's not going to be the facts that persuade someone to think differently because they, they've socialized, they've brought themselves into a cult-like thinking or tribal thinking so powerfully that they will reject those facts.

 

Then I think you step back and you say, okay, well. If you find yourself in need of a strong leader, if you find yourself in need of a conspiratorial worldview, that explains absolutely everything. If you find yourself thinking that there, there was a time when things were, were great and perfect, and we need to return to that, if you find yourself on those intellectual paths, then you know you might find yourself.

 

Wondering if you've got the right framework or if you need to step back. And as you just said, think about just connecting to people, thinking about your basic values, thinking about how I can answer these questions about myself without having to rely on those relief structures. 

 

Jane Borden: Mm. Turning to one another is going to be our way out of this because cult-like thinking.

 

Is fueled by division and it in turn fuels division. And so because the divided people are easier to conquer, right? We know that. Uh, and so the more we can turn toward one another, have conversations with people who are different than you, we can really diffuse a lot of the cult-like thinking that's blowing up America at the moment.

 

I think the biggest way to quell this, the fervor of this movement. Is, uh, to resource those experiencing economic crisis. When people are no longer in crisis, they will no longer turn to this. And you know, I would like to point out that I do believe wealth was taken from people. Yes. The reason that this isn't a grievance narrative is because I'm not sure anyone was owed wealth.

 

I think we as a community can choose to pay people a living wage. We can choose to care for one another. That way it doesn't mean anyone's owed money. Although someone could do a math equation pointing out exactly how money was taken from people of wage suppression. Maybe it is owed, but my point is the people in power took it.

 

It's a coup. And the reason they've, um, been given the ability to do so is because people are in crisis. 

 

Ken: Yeah. 

 

Jane Borden: That's what they're taking advantage of. Yeah. 

 

Ken: I also loved your observation, uh, and I'll just read the, the sentence that, uh, the radical Protestants believed as apocalyptic thinkers always have.

 

That the world contained good and evil forces and nothing else. If you have to take sides and one is all good and one is all evil, and you write about how at the end of your work on this book, you had a different thought about good and evil. And I think it relates to this quote. It's not just either or.

 

It's not just one or the other. There's, they're 

 

Jane Borden: kind of the same thing. There's 

 

Ken: a a, a useful, a useful ambiguity there, huh? 

 

Jane Borden: Yes. Yes, I explore some chemical reactions that happen in the brain when we want to attack others, and it's, uh, very much related to the same kind of chemical reactions in the brain that occur when we want to hug and love one another.

 

And so I wonder, I pose a little, a little bit of a question if maybe good and evil are just two sides of the same coin, if they're intrinsically related. And, um, if that's the case. Then you can't eradicate so-called evil. It's a missed mission from the jump. And so what if instead, we can accept that we have this tendency within ourselves?

 

To express harm and try to investigate what that means and what triggers it. 

 

Ken: Yeah. And deal with it as a society and as individuals in a way that's not, not black and white. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. I think of chemicals in our food or pollution or whatever. There's no redeeming quality to any of that, but the actors behind it, I have a hard time just characterizing them.

 

I always have as evil doers. Mm-hmm. Because I think it's wrapped up in a. Economic system incentives, the same kind of motivations to accumulate wealth that you talk about it with multi-level marketing, organ, you know, organizations. I came away from your book really thinking hard also about how I approach adversaries, uh, as a way of trying to understand, well, you know, there's the, there's that subclinical cult.

 

Strain there, and I need, that needs to be taken seriously. We wanna make sure we keep an eye on that. Mm-hmm. It gets outta control. Mm-hmm. 

 

Jane Borden: It's hard. Dialogue is the answer, right? 

 

Ken: Yeah. Dialogue's the answer. And speaking of dialogue, Jane Borden, thank you so much. Your book is Cults Like Us, why Doomsday Thinking Drives America, and I just really encourage people to pick that up as an invaluable resource to understand the times we're in now.

 

The world we're in now. And I'm so grateful for your, your scholarship and your beautiful and often funny writing. Mm-hmm. Thank you. I love the humorous moments, the asides. Thanks. Uh, they're peppered throughout the book, so thank you for that gift. 

 

Jane Borden: Well, thanks for your interest and I appreciate your, uh, podcast.

 

I'm very happy to chat with you today. 

 

Ken: Thank you to Jane Borden for joining us today, and thank you for listening. If you'd like to learn more, be sure to check out our show notes for additional links. To take a deeper dive into today's discussion, make sure you follow our show on Instagram at Ken Cooks podcast, and if you're interested in learning more about EWG, head over to ewg.org or check out the ewg Instagram account at Environmental Working Group.

 

If this episode resonated with you or you think someone you know would benefit from it, send it along. The best way to make positive change is to start as a community with your community. Never been more important than it is now. Today's episode was produced by the extraordinary Beth Row and Mary Kelly.

 

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

Authors JR Culpepper January 29, 2026

How plugging into the sun could help Californians lower their energy bills Anthony Lacey January 29, 2026

Californians, who face some of the highest electricity rates in the country, could get financial relief from something as simple as plugging a device into an outlet at home.

Plug-in solar technologies, also known as balcony solar, are portable panels that simply plug into standard wall outlets in a house or apartment. These panels are small enough to attach to apartment balcony railings, sit on a patio or lean against a backyard fence. 

The electricity the panels generate from the sun instantly powers everyday essentials, such as lights, refrigerators and air conditioners, using only the home’s existing wiring. This approach cuts the amount of energy homes need from the grid and in turn lowers utility bills. And, because they are portable and small, they work especially well for renters and people with limited space. 

Sounds great so far, right? Well, there’s a catch.

Despite the clear benefits of balcony solar, widespread use of these systems is tied up in red tape and bureaucratic uncertainty. Currently, the utility companies treat these small portable devices as if they were large-scale power plants. They subject the consumers who own them to fees and lengthy and convoluted contracts and approvals.

EWG is working to free millions of consumers, especially renters, from unnecessary delays and costs. We’re sponsoring a bill in the California Legislature that would eliminate utility red tape and make plug-in systems accessible and affordable. 

Balcony solar bill

Senate Bill 868, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), would free plug-in solar devices of all utility interconnection requirements. The bill would prevent utilities from forcing plug-in solar panel users to notify the utility, seek the utility’s permission, or pay any kind of solar fee or charge. SB 868 would also require manufacturers of these solar devices to meet the latest consumer safety standards.  

California faces an energy affordability crisis, and this bill is one way to tackle that problem fast. As the proposed legislation notes, electricity is an essential resource, especially on hot summer days. But for a growing number of families, soaring energy costs are a barrier to basic necessities such as air conditioning.

Plug-in solar is a particularly powerful tool when the mercury rises and air conditioning demand causes bills and stress on the grid to peak. Many cash-strapped consumers face a dangerous choice: cool their home or buy other essentials, like food.

Balcony solar can help families by covering 20% or more of a typical household’s electricity use – an estimated $500 per year in utility bill savings, providing immediate financial relief. 

Of course, there is an outlay on the front end. The upfront cost of the systems range from $500 to $1,200. At these prices, the consumer could net savings within a year or two and then have free solar-generated electricity for decades to come. What’s more, the panels are portable so consumers can pack them up and bring them to any new home in the future. 

And, as the market for these technologies grows, thanks to bills like SB 868, economies of scale will drive prices even lower. 

Greater access to solar power

Enacting SB 868 and removing the existing regulatory hurdles for balcony solar is essential to expanding access to solar energy to more hardworking Californians.

SB 868 would classify qualifying portable solar devices as simple household appliances – like toaster ovens – for use only by the customer in the customer’s home, and free of costly reviews and fees. 

That’s why EWG is sponsoring this legislation. Other groups backing SB 868 include the California Solar & Storage Association, Environment California, Solar Rights Alliance, the Climate Center, the Western Center for Law & Poverty and many others.

The bill is reasonable, and if signed into law would bring California in line with places where balcony solar is already common and producing tangible benefits for consumers. Millions of households in Europe benefit from balcony solar technologies today, including four million systems in Germany alone.

It’s time for the California State Legislature to quickly advance SB 868 and send it to the governor, so everyday consumers throughout California can find immediate utility bill relief by plugging into the sun. Ratepayers deserve real solutions to the energy affordability crisis. SB 868 can help make that a reality. 

Areas of Focus Energy Renewable Energy California Authors Anthony Lacey January 29, 2026

EWG statement on House lawmakers opposing limits on state, local pesticide safety policies Anthony Lacey January 28, 2026

WASHINGTON – A group of 137 House lawmakers is urging leaders in Congress and the House Agriculture Committee to reject any legislation that would limit longstanding state and local pesticide safety rules.

The lawmakers, led by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), sent a letter on January 28 warning that any restriction on pesticide rules would block states’ laws, including those intended to warn parents and protect children at schools near where pesticides are sprayed.

The letter signals strong opposition to any bill that would impede the pesticide safety ordinances that help protect communities from potential health harms. 

Congress is preparing to deliberate the next farm bill as early as February, as well as future spending bills. The letter’s signatories urge fellow lawmakers to preserve state and local governments’ right to decide which pesticide limits best suit their needs.

The letter underscores the significant pesticide oversight role granted to states and localities by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The law establishes the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority over pesticides in the U.S. But the law also gives state and local governments the power to enact additional pesticide measures. 

The following is a statement from Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at the Environmental Working Group, who helped organize the letter: 

Limiting state and local authorities would effectively shut the door on state protections from toxic pesticides. It would be particularly harmful for kids, who are more susceptible to the potential health risks. No parent wants to wonder whether there are pesticide residues on the school playground.

Many states, cities and counties have adopted legal standards to restrict pesticide spraying near schools, citing the risks the chemicals pose to children, whose bodies and brains are still developing. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, children are especially susceptible to potential pesticide-related health problems, such as neurological and behavioral development, hormone disruption and cancer.

More than 40 states – including Georgia, North Carolina, New York, Illinois and Texas – have set tough standards for how and when pesticides can be sprayed near schools. 

Pesticide industry proposals

Pesticide companies, including Bayer’s Monsanto, support legislative proposals to block state and local pesticide rules. These companies are trying to boost pesticide sales and limit court judgments that have favored people unknowingly harmed by pesticide use.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.) has repeatedly said one of his priorities is to act on behalf of these large, foreign chemical companies. 

Thompson should instead listen to farmers, parents and communities when they warn how exposure to pesticides can harm them. 

Congress has delayed passing a farm bill for over three years. To pass a bill that protects farmers and rural communities, Congress needs to drop any controversial language that would block state and local pesticide limits. 

###

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 Family Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 January 30, 2026

Virtual press briefing on California ‘balcony solar’ bill JR Culpepper January 27, 2026

Update appended

SACRAMENTO — On January 29, supporters of California’s new “balcony solar” legislation, SB 868, will hold a virtual press briefing to explain how the bill would expand consumer access to plug-in solar systems by cutting red tape and setting safety standards.

Also known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, the legislation is sponsored by the Environmental Working Group. The bill's author, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), will join the briefing, along with representatives from EWG and additional speakers.

WHEN:

Thursday, January 29, 2026

11 a.m. PST

WHO:

California State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco),  author of SB 868

Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president, California, Environmental Working Group, sponsor of the legislation

Utah State Rep. Raymond Ward (District 19), author of H.R. 340, Utah’s 2025 balcony solar bill

Cora Stryker, co-founder, Bright Saver 

WHY:

SB 868 would allow consumers to generate their own electricity from the sun using simple, portable plug-in solar systems without any red tape – just set up and plug in. This would help to immediately lower energy bills while advancing California’s clean energy goals.

HOW TO ATTEND:

RSVP here: https://ewg-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_dNKwJQQKSn--o9XF7-PSEQ

Editor's note: This advisory has been updated to reflect the bill's revised title.

###

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 Energy Federal & State Energy Policy Renewable Energy California SB 868 would cut energy bills for millions of renters, small homes Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 January 27, 2026