You are here
Environmental Working Group
Why factory farms are a major threat to food safety
Every week, federal investigators track between 17 and 36 foodborne illness outbreaks that can cause extreme sickness and even death. Industrial livestock farming, also known as factory farming, is a main cause.
In 2019, the most recent year with complete data, the U.S. saw almost 10 million cases of foodborne illnesses, including almost 1,000 deaths, from E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The harmful bacteria can contaminate raw produce like cantaloupe, lettuce, and onions or more highly processed foods like meat, poultry and ice cream.
One cause is the way large factory farms operate, including their management of the waste they generate, says the Food and Drug Administration.
Livestock waste can harbor many different types of bacteria, including a strain of E. coli that is particularly dangerous for humans. When bacteria from animal waste contaminate nearby fruit and vegetable crops, the people who eat them can get seriously sick.
Bacteria in wildlife waste and human waste sludge can also contaminate food.
Stronger FDA policies could reduce the number of foodborne illness outbreaks and better protect the health of us all.
Animal waste is more than a nuisanceFactory farms are large, concentrated facilities and feedlots that produce livestock for meat, eggs and dairy products.
In the U.S., over 90% of farm animals are raised in these facilities. If you have eaten meat in this country, you’ve almost certainly consumed some from a factory farm. Hundreds, sometimes thousands, of cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys and other animals are raised in large buildings called barns, or open feedlots for cattle.
Lots of animals produce lots of manure. EWG found in 2020 that the animals in Iowa’s largest livestock facilities alone produced nearly 70 times the amount of fecal waste Iowa’s entire 3 million human population generated in the same period.
That waste is more than an inconvenience. It contains hormones, heavy metals and bacteria, including fecal coliform, E. coli, salmonella and listeria. It can also contain pathogens like giardia and pharmaceuticals such as antibiotics.
How factory farms can cause foodborne illnessThere are two main ways bacteria from factory farms ends up on the fruits and vegetables we eat.
First, manure can contaminate the irrigation canals that run past feedlots, either by washing directly into the water or by blowing in contaminated dust particles from the feedlot through the air.
Without knowing whether the water is contaminated, produce farmers use it in the canals to irrigate their crops or mix it with pesticides before spraying it on crops.
Second, bacteria-laden dust from feedlots can drift onto nearby fields and settle directly on crops. Though this pathway seems to be less common, it is especially alarming, because dust particles can travel many miles through the air.
Once harvested, contaminated produce can get shipped almost anywhere in the U.S. and beyond – then sold and eaten.
Deadly E. coli outbreak in ArizonaA striking example of how a factory farm likely triggered a major outbreak: the deadly 2018 E. coli contamination of romaine lettuce from Yuma County, Ariz. Five people died and many more were sickened after eating lettuce grown in the region.
The FDA found that the E. coli strain that originated on lettuce from 36 fields on 23 farms was also found in an irrigation canal near one cattle feedlot: McElhaney Feedyard, a facility located close to much of Yuma County’s lettuce farmland.
A pool of cattle manure and wastewater at the feedlot sat within just a few feet of an irrigation canal (represented by the blue line), creating a contamination risk. (See Image 1.)
Image 1. A manure and wastewater pit that is very close to an irrigation canal at McElhaney Feedyard
Source: EWG, from Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Imagery Program, 2021 imagery
The problem isn’t limited to factory farms in Arizona.
It’s a risk wherever these facilities exist, especially in states that grow much of the produce consumed in the U.S. – like California, where farmers cultivate more than one-third of the nation’s vegetables and three-fourths of its fruit.
A recent EWG analysis found that 42% of California’s large factory farms are located within a quarter-mile of a waterway commonly used for irrigation. Some are only feet away. One cattle feedlot was situated just 35 feet from a canal.
What the FDA can do to make food saferProtecting yourself is harder than it sounds. Bacteria can contaminate both organic and conventionally grown produce. And studies show that washing lettuce, for example, does not significantly reduce E. coli – so even careful consumers can still get sick.
That’s why it’s so important for the FDA to protect people from bacterial outbreaks on food.
A practical first step would be to require tests of irrigation water to catch harmful bacteria and prevent it from getting onto crops.
After a series of E. coli outbreaks linked to leafy greens in the early 2000s, the FDA was required to set water safety standards for farms. While these rules, finalized in 2024, require farmers to assess the risks to their irrigation water, they don’t mandate water testing. This gap in oversight leaves farmers to mitigate their risk themselves.
Other federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, could also more rigorously monitor farm manure management.
Foodborne illness is not inevitable. It’s a public health problem the FDA and EPA have the tools to address, preventing millions of illnesses and saving lives.
Areas of Focus Food & Water Farming & Agriculture Factory Farms Farm Pollution California Midwest Authors Anne Schechinger Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN June 9, 2026Dirty Dozen Food Chemicals: BHA
Avoid or limit foods containing BHA.
BHA has been classified as a possible carcinogen, or cancer-causing chemical. Studies have shown BHA to produce oxidative stress, which occurs when highly reactive molecules build up and damage cells in the body. This can disrupt cellular function, damage DNA and interfere with the body’s hormonal system.
What is BHA?BHA, or butylated hydroxyanisole, is a preservative that prevents oxidation, extending the shelf life of fats and oils in packaged foods. BHA is also added to cosmetic products as a preservative.
Which foods contain BHA?BHA is commonly added to frozen pizza and other frozen meals and appetizers. It is also found in processed meat, including deli meat, bacon, hot dogs and sausage and packaged snacks containing oil, such as cookies and biscuits.
Look for BHA in product ingredient lists, usually below or next to the nutrition facts panel, on the back of the package. It may also appear as “butylated hydroxyanisole.” BHA may also be added to food packaging, which companies are not required to disclose.
How is BHA regulated?The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing food additives and other ingredients. BHA was generally recognized as safe in 1958 and approved for use in food by the FDA in 1961.
In early 2026 the FDA identified BHA as a top priority for review of chemicals already in the food supply and requested public feedback on BHA’s use and safety.
In response, EWG described the FDA move as a plan to plan rather than the agency taking decisive action. EWG in its public comment letter on the plan pointed the agency to the abundance of evidence of BHA risks accumulated over decades.
BHA is classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. The National Toxicology Program concluded BHA was “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”
It is also on California’s Proposition 65 list of substances known to cause cancer.
In 2025, West Virginia banned BHA from all food sold in the state, beginning in 2028.
What does the science say about BHA?When BHA breaks down in the body it can cause an imbalance between unstable molecules and protective molecules, a process called oxidative stress.
Oxidative stress can lead to damaged cells and result in structural damage to DNA and cellular proteins, which is associated with cancer and other diseases in humans. Animal studies have observed DNA damage in tissues like the colon and glandular stomach, organs that are found in the human body.
A study of breast cancer cells has also linked BHA to endocrine disruption, or interference with the body’s hormones. Prolonged exposure to BHA in one rodent study reduced testicular function in mice.
BHA can also interact with other food chemicals of concern, like propyl gallate, to cause hormone disruption, producing both estrogenic and anti-estrogenic effects.
Find out moreLearn more about recommendations relating to BHA – and the full EWG Dirty Dozen list of food chemicals – on EWG’s research page.
EWG’s Food Scores provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing concerns, and flags unhealthy ultra-processed foods to help you identify alternatives.
BHA is also added to cosmetic products as a preservative. EWG’s Skin Deep® cosmetic database helps to identify harmful chemicals in personal care and beauty products. EWG Verified® products meet the strictest criteria for transparency and health.
And the Healthy Living app lets you take these tools with you on the go.
Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN June 4, 2026EWG evaluation of food chemicals: BHA
BHA is an ingredient of concern. EWG suggests limiting consumption of foods with this ingredient.
The National Toxicology Program in 1991 classified BHA as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” It has been listed as a known carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65 since 1990.
BHA is also shown to produce oxidative stress, which can disrupt cellular function and damage DNA and cells (Esazadeh et al. 2024; Ousji & Sleno, 2020; Sasaki et al 2002). These mechanisms are associated with cancer development.
Multiple animal studies have identified BHA as an endocrine-disrupting chemical, affecting reproductive health through estrogenic and androgenic activity (Pop et al 2018; Ham et al 2020).
Science analysisWhat is BHA and why is it added to foods?
BHA, or butylated hydroxyanisole, is a preservative that prevents oxidation, extending the shelf life of fats and oils in processed foods.
BHA is typically added to packaged and frozen foods like frozen pizza, meats, biscuits and other processed goods that contain oil.
BHA is used in 1,726 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.
Top 15 food categories with the most products containing BHA (by supermarket shelf)
ImageSource: EWG’s Food Scores. Label created between 2023-01-01 and 2025-10-22
What is the regulatory status of BHA?
The Food and Drug Administration classified BHA as GRAS in 1958 and approved it for use in food in 1961.
It is commonly added to food as an antioxidant, with the limitation that the total antioxidant content not exceed 0.02% of the total fat or oil content of the food.
In early 2026, the FDA identified BHA as a top priority for review of chemicals currently in the food supply and issued a request for information on its use and safety. EWG has also issued a statement and comment letter in response to this request.
BHA was first evaluated for use in food in the European Union in 1989, following the international safety benchmark established that same year by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Both that committee and the EU Scientific Committee for Food set an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.5 mg/kg body/day.
In 2011, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) re-evaluated BHA and established an ADI of 1.0 mg/kg bw/day. This change occurred because the safety authority concluded that the forestomach tumors observed in rodent studies were not relevant to human risk assessment, since humans do not possess a forestomach.
However, EFSA noted data gaps, including questions about BHA’s potential for endocrine effects.
Recent research shows that BHA’s risks extend beyond the forestomach. Studies have shown DNA damage in human-relevant organs like the glandular stomach and significant endocrine-disrupting effects on reproductive health (Sasaki et al., 2002; Pop et al., 2018).
BHA is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 2B carcinogen, and the National Toxicology Program concluded it was “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”
BHA is also on the state of California’s Proposition 65 list of substances known to cause cancer.
In 2025, West Virginia banned BHA from all food sold in the state beginning in 2028.
Are foods containing BHA ultra-processed?
BHA and other synthetic preservatives are common ingredients in ultra-processed food, or UPF. As an ingredient synthesized in a laboratory, it falls into the NOVA framework as a UPF ingredient. (Monteiro et al 2019).
Under a recent California law defining UPF, BHA would qualify as a UPF based on its property as a flavor enhancer. (California Assembly Bill 1264).
Is BHA allowed in organic foods?
Under Department of Agriculture organic standards, synthetic substances like BHA are prohibited in certified organic foods.
What are the potential health harms associated with BHA?
As an antioxidant, BHA protects food from spoilage. But its breakdown in the body into metabolites can trigger production of reactive oxygen species, which causes oxidative stress and subsequent cell damage. Oxidative stress is associated with cancer and numerous other diseases.
Research also stresses the potential of BHA to cause genotoxicity at high concentrations, resulting in structural damage to DNA and cellular proteins (Xu et al 2021; Zhang et al 2023).
DNA damage was observed in vivo within animal tissues, the colon and glandular stomach, which are shared by humans, whereas the forestomach (the site of BHA-induced tumors in earlier rodent studies) is not (Sasaki et al 2002).
Furthermore, a study in breast cancer cells has linked BHA to endocrine disruption, exhibiting both estrogenic and androgenic activities (Pop et al 2018). Prolonged exposure to BHA in one rodent study reduced testicular function in mice (Ham et al 2020).
There is potential for BHA to work additively with other food chemicals of concern, like propyl gallate, to induce anti‐estrogenic activity (Pop et al 2018).
Uncertainties and need for more research
BHA can metabolize into TBHQ, another EWG Dirty Dozen food additive (Ousji & Sleno, 2020).
Biomonitoring studies of TBHQ and examination of exposure through consumption of foods containing BHA are needed to see whether typical intake is higher than the acceptable daily intake.
BHA has been detected in human breast milk (Zhang et al 2020), the placenta (Du et al 2019), and adipose tissue (Conacher et al 1986), indicating a need for improved safety assessments of BHA.
Older studies observed the development of cancer cells in the forestomachs of rats exposed to BHA (Ito et al 1983; Ito et al 1986; Hirose et al 1987). But research on humans has been limited. (Zhang et al 2023; Botterweck 2000; Hasenböhler 2026).
More studies are needed on the cumulative effects of BHA and similar antioxidant preservatives, such as BHT and TBHQ (Hasenböhler 2026).
BHA is also used as a preservative in cosmetic products. The ingredient scores a 7 in EWG’s Skin Deep® database and is not allowed in EWG Verified® products.
Cited resourcesGlobal health and regulatory agencies
- Office of the Commissioner. (2026, February 10). FDA launches assessment of BHA, a common food chemical preservative. U.S. Food And Drug Administration. FDA Launches Assessment of BHA, a Common Food Chemical Preservative.
- The National List | Agricultural Marketing Service. (n.d.). The National List | Agricultural Marketing Service.
- National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Fifteenth Edition. In National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services [Report]. Report on Carcinogens, Fifteenth Edition - Butylated Hydroxyanisole.
- Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. (1989). Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants: thirty-third report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. WHO Technical Report Series, (776), 1-64. https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/c4ccf354-a21d-428e-87fe-4b0fa9f810df/content.
- EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS). (2011). Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) (E 320) as a food additive. EFSA Journal, 9(10), 2392 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2392.
Legislation
- 21 CFR 182.3169 – Butylated hydroxyanisole. (n.d.). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-182/subpart-D/section-182.3169.
- Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, A.B. 1264, Chapter 467, Cal. Stat. (2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264.
- Banning certain products from food in West Virginia, House Bill 2354, (2025). https://legiscan.com/WV/text/HB2354/id/3177443.
Comprehensive review and frameworks
- Monteiro, C.A., Cannon, G., Levy, R.B., Moubarac, J., Louzada, M.L., Rauber, F., Khandpur, N., Cediel, G., Neri, D., Martinez-Steele, E., Baraldi, L.G., & Jaime, P.C. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980018003762.
- Xu, X., Liu, A., Hu, S., Ares, I., Martínez-Larrañaga, M., Wang, X., Martínez, M., Anadón, A., & Martínez, M. (2021). Synthetic phenolic antioxidants: Metabolism, hazards and mechanism of action. Food Chemistry, 353, 129488. Synthetic phenolic antioxidants: Metabolism, hazards and mechanism of action - ScienceDirect.
- Zhang, X., Diao, M., & Zhang, Y. (2023b). A review of the occurrence, metabolites and health risks of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 103(13), 6150–6166. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.12676
- Pop, A., Kiss, B., & Loghin, F. (2013). Endocrine disrupting effects of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA - E320). Clujul Medical, 86(1), 16–20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26527908/.
- Esazadeh, K., Dolatabadi, J. E. N., Andishmand, H., Mohammadzadeh‐Aghdash, H., Mahmoudpour, M., Kermanshahi, M. N., & Roosta, Y. (2024). Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of tert‐butylhydroquinone, butylated hydroxyanisole and propyl gallate as synthetic food antioxidants. Food Science & Nutrition, 12(10), 7004–7016. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.4373.
- Ousji, O., & Sleno, L. (2020). Identification of in vitro metabolites of synthetic phenolic antioxidants BHT, BHA, and TBHQ by LC-HRMS/MS. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(24), 9525. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21249525.
Health-impact studies
- Ham, J., Lim, W., You, S., & Song, G. (2019). Butylated hydroxyanisole induces testicular dysfunction in mouse testis cells by dysregulating calcium homeostasis and stimulating endoplasmic reticulum stress. The Science of the Total Environment, 702, 134775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134775.
- Pop, A., Drugan, T., Gutleb, A. C., Lupu, D., Cherfan, J., Loghin, F., & Kiss, B. (2018). Estrogenic and anti‐estrogenic activity of butylparaben, butylated hydroxyanisole, butylated hydroxytoluene and propyl gallate and their binary mixtures on two estrogen responsive cell lines (T47D‐Kbluc, MCF‐7). Journal of Applied Toxicology, 38(7), 944–957. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3601.
- Sasaki, Y. F., Kawaguchi, S., Kamaya, A., Ohshita, M., Kabasawa, K., Iwama, K., Taniguchi, K., & Tsuda, S. (2002). The comet assay with 8 mouse organs: results with 39 currently used food additives. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 519(1-2), 103-119.
- Ito, N., Fukushima, S., Hagiwara, A., Shibata, M., & Ogiso, T. (1983). Carcinogenicity of butylated hydroxyanisole in F344 rats. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 70(2), 343-352.
- Ito, N., Fukushima, S., Tamano, S., Hirose, M., & Hagiwara, A. (1986). Dose response in butylated hydroxyanisole induction of forestomach carcinogenesis in F344 rats. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 77(6), 1261–1265.
- Hirose, M., Masuda, A., Tsuda, H., Uwagawa, S., & Ito, N. (1987). Enhancement of BHA-induced proliferative rat forestomach lesion development by simultaneous treatment with other antioxidants. Carcinogenesis, 8(11), 1731–1735. https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/8.11.1731.
- Botterweck, A. A. M., Verhagen, H., Goldbohm, R. A., Kleinjans, J., & van den Brandt, P. A. (2000). Intake of butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene and stomach cancer risk: results from analyses in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 38(7), 599-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-6915(00)00042-9.
- Hasenböhler, A., Javaux, G., Payen de la Garanderie, M., Szabo de Edelenyi, F., Yvroud-Hoyos, P., Agaësse, C., De Sa, A., Huybrechts, I., Pierre, F., Audebert, M., Coumoul, X., Julia, C., Kesse-Guyot, E., Allès, B., Deschamps, V., Hercberg, S., Chassaing, B., Srour, B., Deschasaux-Tanguy, M., & Touvier, M. (2026). Intake of food additive preservatives and incidence of cancer: results from the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. The BMJ, 392, bmj-2025-084917. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-084917.
Biomonitoring Studies
- Zhang, Y., Du, B., Ge, J., Liu, L., Zhu, M., Li, J., & Zeng, L. (2020). Co-occurrence of and infant exposure to multiple common and unusual phenolic antioxidants in human breast milk. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 7(3), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00104
- Conacher, H. B., Iverson, F., Lau, P. Y., & Page, B. D. (1986). Levels of BHA and BHT in human and animal adipose tissue: interspecies extrapolation. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association, 24(10-11), 1159–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-6915(86)90302-9
- Du, B., Zhang, Y., Lam, J. C. W., Pan, S., Huang, Y., Chen, B., Lan, S., Li, J., Luo, D., & Zeng, L. (2019). Prevalence, Biotransformation, and Maternal Transfer of Synthetic Phenolic Antioxidants in Pregnant Women from South China. Environmental science & technology, 53(23), 13959–13969. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04709
New research: It’s time to treat ultra-processed foods like tobacco
A special health journal issue on ultra-processed food, or UPF, calls for bold policy action to address the growing public health crisis – and that efforts focused solely on personal responsibility are likely to fail.
The collection of 17 studies and editorials, just published in the American Journal of Public Health, brings together breaking research on the health harms of UPF.
The issue also sheds light on the tobacco industry’s lasting negative impact on today’s food landscape. It also shows why it might be time to start treating UPF with the same public health concern as tobacco, and shares policy and legal strategies that can help.
Health harms of UPF keep piling upThese studies add to a robust body of evidence linking UPF to chronic diseases like cancer, depression, Type 2 diabetes, and heart, kidney and gastrointestinal diseases.
One study provides new evidence that UPF could contribute to cognitive decline in older adults. It found that people who consumed the highest amount of UPF were at 58% higher risk of dementia, compared to those who consumed the lowest amount of UPF.
Researchers also call out the threats to public health from the UPF industry, which drives global plastic pollution, environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions.
Get your free guide: EWG's Guide to Food Additives Tobacco research reshaped the U.S. food systemMultiple studies published in the special issue reviewed internal tobacco industry documents to reveal how it transformed the U.S. food system – for the worse.
In the 1980s, major tobacco companies like R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris acquired food and beverage giants like Kraft, Del Monte and Nabisco, bringing their research and technology with them to develop harmful UPF.
The new studies show that the tobacco industry used consumer research on cigarettes to help with developing new ultra-processed products for kids, including Lunchables. Food companies created “king size” and “light” versions of snack foods, mimicking “king size” and “slim” cigarettes.
The tobacco industry also revived its playbook for fighting public health protections.
When experts began to sound the alarm about the health risks of smoking, the tobacco industry responded with what would become its signature script: deny harm, manufacture uncertainty with biased research and use political influence to prevent government action.
Some of the biggest producers of UPF are now using these tactics in seeking to block state food chemical laws.
It’s not you – it’s the UPFAn unhealthy diet is often framed as a personal failure. But in fact, many structural factors impact our ability to eat well.
The journal issue authors argue that ultra-processed foods are prominent in our diets because they are widely available, relatively affordable and highly palatable.
UPF make up an estimated 73% of the U.S. food supply, and a new study from the special issue finds our food landscape is not changing for the better. During the past 20 years, the growth of restaurants and fast-food locations in so-called “food swamps” has far outpaced the growth of healthy grocery retailers.
Ultra-processed foods also tend to be more affordable than less processed alternatives. As a result, avoiding UPF may take more time, money and careful planning. These expectations are unrealistic, if not impossible, for households already experiencing food insecurity or concerned about the cost of groceries.
As several authors write, some UPF should be considered addictive. One study found that 90% of food with addictive potential were ultra-processed, and new polling shows that 70% of people believe UPF are addictive. These qualities likely stem from the “consumer-driven product development” the tobacco industry used to create foods with maximum pleasure and appeal.
Policies for less processed foodBased on the parallels between UPF and tobacco, the path forward is policy – not personal responsibility.
The study authors recommend a range of interventions, including:
- A clear and scientifically supported federal definition of UPF, based on the NOVA classification system, that works for practical policy applications
- Front-of-pack labeling requirements and marketing restrictions, with a focus on child-targeted marketing
- Legal action by state attorneys general against food companies on behalf of the public, with settlement funds directed to health initiatives
- Institutional procurement and other policies that limit UPF and provide more minimally processed foods in places like schools.
Meaningful progress may be possible. A national survey featured in the special journal issue found broad bipartisan public support for a range of governmental and legal interventions to address the health harms of UPF.
What you can do nowSolving our UPF problem requires large, systemic change. In the meantime, people still need help shopping for their families.
Check ingredient lists and nutrition facts, usually found on the back of food packages. Look for more whole foods and avoid longer lists of additives and chemicals you probably wouldn’t find in a home kitchen.
For extra help, take a look at EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help with identifying healthier alternatives.
Shoppers on the go can also use EWG’s Healthy Living app.
Finally, follow Fed UP! – a new coalition of scientists, researchers and public health advocates dedicated to exposing the harms of UPF and showing how our food system shapes our health.
Areas of Focus Ultra-Processed Foods Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN June 3, 2026In major win for U.S. consumers, FDA approves first new sunscreen ingredient in 25 years
WASHINGTON – In a landmark decision for public health and consumer protection, the Food and Drug Administration today finalized its approval of the first new ultraviolet filter in more than 25 years deemed a safe and effective active ingredient in U.S. sunscreens.
The chemical, bemotrizinol, also known as BEMT, will give American consumers access to a level of ultraviolet A protection that has until now been unavailable on U.S. store shelves. The regulatory review process leading up to this approval took more than two decades.
Bemotrizinol offers a stable non-mineral option that doesn’t break down in the sun, unlike one of two previously approved UVA filters, avobenzone.
Sunscreen products formulated with non-mineral active ingredients are often the consumer’s preference. That’s because mineral-based sunscreens often leave a white cast on the skin, a quality that doesn’t work for many people, especially people of color.
The Environmental Working Group, which since 2019 has urged the agency to allow bemotrizinol to be added to sunscreens, hailed the decision a monumental victory for health and wellness.
Closing the UVA gap“This is a great day for American consumers and everyone who has fought to improve sunscreen options and close the UVA protection gap in U.S. sunscreens,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., chief science officer at EWG.
“For decades, Americans have used outdated sunscreen tech while the rest of the world moved forward. The approval of bemotrizinol will help change that. The FDA’s go-ahead will finally bring more effective, safer sun protection to American store shelves.
“This is a win that has been a long time coming,” said Andrews.
What sunscreens deliverTraditional U.S. sunscreens excel at blocking the radiation that causes visible sunburns, ultraviolet B rays. But they routinely fail to shield against deep-penetrating UVA rays, which drive premature aging, suppress the immune system and are the primary contributor to skin cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.
Skin cancer is the mostly commonly diagnosed cancer in the U.S., claiming more than one life every hour, with estimates of over 200,000 cases of both types of melanoma predicted in 2026, according to the Melanoma Research Foundation.
EWG’s peer-reviewed research found U.S. sunscreens deliver on average just 24% of the UVA protection implied by their sun protection factor, or SPF, labels. Most Americans reaching for high-SPF products get just a fraction of the protection they believe they’re buying.
Today’s approval is the most significant step in a generation toward fixing that problem.
“For too long, American consumers have been applying sunscreen and believing they were fully protected, not knowing that their product was delivering far less UVA protection than the label implied,” said Alexa Friedman, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG.
“Bemotrizinol changes the calculus of sun care. It is highly photostable, meaning it won’t break down when hot summer sun hits your skin – unlike avobenzone, currently the only non-mineral filter in the U.S. that provides meaningful UVA coverage,” she said.
“And it provides strong, stable broad-spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB radiation. Better yet, unlike the older non-mineral filters, it can be combined with zinc oxide to provide strong broad spectrum protection with less white cast.
“American consumers deserve access to the best available sun protection. Today they’re finally getting closer to it,” added Friedman.
What is bemotrizinol and why is it better?Bemotrizinol has been used safely in sunscreens across Europe and Asia since 1999 under brand names including Tinosorb® S by BASF and Parsol® Shield by DSM. The ingredient has amassed a 27-year safety track record abroad, though some of those jurisdictions have weaker data requirements than the U.S.
The original application for FDA approval was filed in 2005 under a regulatory process that has since been discontinued. One company, DSM, submitted its most recent request to the FDA in 2024, under an updated regulatory process established by the CARES Act. It has taken more than two decades of regulatory review to reach today’s approval.
Data submitted to the FDA confirms that at concentrations up to 6%, bemotrizinol is minimally absorbed through the skin, with average absorption levels below the concentration the FDA considers indicative of systemic exposure. Compare that to oxybenzone, which was detected in blood at 515 times the FDA’s threshold of concern after a single weekend of application. Bemotrizinol does not meaningfully enter the bloodstream.
The FDA’s review also included a two-year animal study that found no evidence of cancer-causing effects when bemotrizinol is applied to skin. A multigenerational reproductive study found no harmful effects on reproductive outcomes or offspring development.
Skin irritation tests found bemotrizinol was not irritating at permitted concentrations.
The European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety reached the same conclusions as far back as 1999.
Crucially, bemotrizinol solves problems current U.S. sunscreen ingredients cannot.
Zinc oxide and avobenzone are the only two UV filters in U.S. sunscreens that provide meaningful UVA protection. But avobenzone is chemically unstable – it breaks down in sunlight, reducing its effectiveness precisely when it is needed most. Avobenzone’s breakdown products have been linked to allergic reactions.
Zinc oxide, for all its ability to provide the most stable, balanced broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection, leaves a white cast after it’s been applied.
Until today, the FDA had proposed that only sunscreens containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide – both mineral ingredients – would be generally recognized as safe and effective.
What comes nextToday’s approval of bemotrizinol triggers 18 months’ exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. of Parsol Shield, a proprietary bemotrizinol formulation.
After that period, other manufacturers may use it in their formulations, driving broader availability and more competitive pricing.
Consumers shopping for sunscreen with bemotrizinol should look for “bemotrizinol” or “BEMT” in the active ingredients list or the trade name Parsol Shield on product packaging. It may also be listed by its internationally standardized name, bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine.
EWG will update its Guide to Sunscreens as products with bemotrizinol reach the market.
In the meantime, EWG’s top recommendation for daily use remains mineral sunscreens formulated with zinc oxide, which provide the most stable and balanced broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection currently available on U.S. shelves.
Good news – but a broken system remainsToday’s approval is cause for genuine celebration. It is also a reminder of how far the U.S. regulatory system still has to go.
Even with bemotrizinol added to the mix, U.S. sunscreen formulators will have access to 16 approved UV filters. European formulators have access to approximately 30.
In 2019 and again in 2021, the FDA proposed meaningful reforms to sunscreen regulation that included stronger UVA standards, SPF value limits, better labeling and updated safety data requirements. None of those reforms has been finalized.
Other sunscreen manufacturers have so far been unwilling to produce the safety data the FDA needs to approve additional new filters.
“This approval is a triumph of consumer advocacy, but it also shines a harsh spotlight on a federal system stuck in neutral,” said Melanie Benesh, EWG’s vice president for government affairs.
“Meanwhile, sunscreen manufacturers are refusing to provide the FDA with safety data for other UV filters, prioritizing corporate secrecy over public health. American consumers are then left with fewer options than people in Europe and Asia have had for decades.
“Congress must step in. We need binding deadlines for chemical testing and real enforcement to pull non-compliant, unsafe products from the market entirely. American families have waited long enough.
“Companies must also do more. Manufacturers of additional sunscreen filters available internationally should request market access from the FDA and provide the FDA with the necessary data so consumers have more options,” Benesh added.
How to navigate store shelvesWhile bemotrizinol products make their way to store shelves, the best sunscreen is the one that actually gets used. Here’s how to choose strong sun protection today:
Prioritize zinc oxide. Mineral sunscreens with zinc oxide provide the most stable, balanced broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection available and are EWG’s top recommendation for daily use.
For non-mineral sunscreens, look for products formulated with 3% avobenzone and check EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens for options that meet EWG’s safety and efficacy standards.
Avoid oxybenzone and octinoxate, which are linked to hormone disruption, and skip products with undisclosed “fragrance.”
Be wary of high SPF numbers. SPF 50 blocks 98% of UVB rays. SPF 100 blocks just 1% more. The negligible difference can create a false sense of security, since high-SPF products often provide no better UVA protection than lower-SPF alternatives.
Use EWG’s tools. Shoppers can search the 2026 Guide to Sunscreens, use the EWG Healthy Living app to scan products while they shop, and look for the EWG Verified® mark, which requires sunscreens to exceed both U.S. and European UVA protection standards.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.
Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Sunscreen Bemotrizinol offers stronger UVA protection, closing decades-old protection gap with sunscreens sold abroad Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 June 9, 2026
With New York Legislature adjourning June 4, advocates urge swift passage of bill to ban Parkinson’s pesticide
ALBANY, N.Y. – Ahead of New York’s legislative session ending June 4, environmentalists and other advocates are urging state lawmakers to pass a bill banning paraquat, a widely used herbicide with links to Parkinson’s disease, childhood leukemia and other serious health harms.
At a virtual briefing Tuesday, representatives from the Parkinson’s Foundation, American Parkinson Disease Association, Environmental Working Group and allied advocates called for lawmakers to back the legislation, A.10074A/S.9094A. A medical expert and a person living with Parkinson’s disease also talked about the urgent need to pass the bill.
If enacted, it would make New York the second state to prohibit the toxic weedkiller, after Vermont last month enacted its landmark ban on the use of paraquat.
The bill, led by Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal (D,WF-Assembly District 67) and Sen. Pete Harckham (D,WF-40th Senate District), would deliver critical protections for farmworkers and rural communities who face the greatest exposure risk from paraquat. It would represent a significant step in shielding future generations from the crop chemical.
‘Very challenging disease’More than 70 countries – including China, where most paraquat is produced – have already banned paraquat, yet it remains legal and widely used in the U.S. New Jersey and Pennsylvania are among other states now weighing similar restrictions.
During the virtual briefing, Rebecca Gilbert, M.D., Ph.D., chief mission officer of the American Parkinson Disease Association, described the full burden of the disease and the urgency of acting on preventable risk factors, like exposure to paraquat used on U.S. farm fields. She said:
As a doctor, I see people with Parkinson’s, and I can tell you that it is a very challenging disease to live with. . . . And the disease may be famous for causing tremor, which can be very challenging, but there’s much more than that.
“There’s stiffness, slowness, falls and then a lot of symptoms that are not related to movement at all, like depression or anxiety, sleep, problems, hallucinations, problems with cognition.
In laboratory studies, paraquat can very clearly damage the very brain cells that die in Parkinson’s disease. . . . And so putting paraquat onto cells in a laboratory can basically recreate the disease.
Forever changing livesGilbert continued:
It’s a disease that steals independence and it slowly steals it in a way where the person with the disease feels that they can’t control what it’s stealing from them and that is a situation that’s very difficult to be in. And it affects not just the person diagnosed but the entire family with the care partner responsibilities, financial stress and social isolation.
. . . I want to highlight that Parkinson’s is not just a disease of the elderly, as it is often thought of, because there is such a thing as young onset Parkinson’s that can be diagnosed in those under the age of 50, people in their 30s and 40s, sometimes even in their 20s.
And these individuals are given this news when they’re raising their children, building their careers, and the diagnosis then forever changes the trajectory of their lives.
So, when evidence mounts that there’s a known and preventable environmental exposure that contributes to the risk of Parkinson’s, we all have a responsibility to act, because we can do better.
Banning paraquat is something that we can do as a community to protect ourselves. So this is not about politics. This is about public health.
Protecting public healthAt the press event, Mike Mooney, a former landscaper and resident of Pittsford, N.Y., who is living with Parkinson’s disease, spoke about his diagnosis. He explained why he believes a ban is a straightforward public health decision:
[A]fter diagnosis . . . one of the first things I did was get the genetic testing that’s available to see if you have any known genetic links to Parkinson’s. And for me, it’s not really a unique story from that standpoint because only 12.5 percent or so of people with Parkinson’s have any genetic link . . . so 80-plus percent, or more . . . have no known genetic link. . . . It’s crazy.
So when I see countries like China producing this [paraquat], but they banned it for their people . . . I just ask the question, what are we doing? It makes no sense.
My view, the number one role of the government should be to the people. And there’s no public trust right now. Nobody knows what is going on with these chemicals. They don’t know. . . .
It’s like Russian roulette . . . but we know that one sip of paraquat will kill you. And it just seems like a no-brainer for us to ban this chemical.
New York can be a leaderJessica Hernandez, legislative director at EWG, warned that inaction this session would leave New Yorkers exposed for years to come.
“New York has an opportunity to lead on this issue and help prevent future cases of Parkinson’s disease,” she said. “We hope New York will be the second state in the nation to ban paraquat and urge the legislature to pass the Rosenthal-Harckham bill this session.”
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Parkinson’s patients, medical experts and environmental health groups unite in calling for New York to become second state to prohibit toxic weedkiller paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 June 2, 20265 viral – but problematic – TikTok tanning trends
With the days getting warmer, many are tanning or being outside more. Time in the sun is fun, as long as you protect yourself – and that usually means wearing sunscreen.
But some recent TikTok trends are discouraging people from using sunscreen.
The sun’s ultraviolet, or UV, rays can be damaging, so sunscreen is essential to reducing the health risks of prolonged sun exposure, like skin cancer.
Even if you already apply sunscreen regularly, check EWG’s 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens to see whether your products provide adequate sun protection and are free from ingredients linked to health harms.
The guide includes thousands of sunscreen products and found nearly 80% of them do not meet EWG’s criteria for top-rated products, because they provide inadequate sun protection or contain harmful ingredients.
Here are five viral sunscreen trends, the myths behind them, and how to stay safe from their potentially harmful effects.
Homemade sunscreen proponents say it’s a safe, affordable and simple option. But it may create more problems than it solves. DIY sunscreens often provide ineffective protection against UV radiation, since they almost always fail to achieve even a sun protection factor, or SPF, of 6.
2. “Base tans” and “Base burns”
Some people avoid wearing sunscreen in order to build up a “base burn,” or tan.
This is dangerous because any tan is evidence of skin damage – and sunburn is even more so. Tanning can increase your risk of skin cancer, even if you don’t burn.
This practice involves strategically applying sunscreen to some parts of the face, to enhance a tan in specific areas. Sounds great, right? Instant summerlong highlights and contours, achieved without makeup.
But “sun contouring” is dangerous – it encourages people to damage their skin intentionally by applying lower SPF sunscreen to or leaving some parts of their face entirely unprotected.
The long-term effects of this method may ultimately make you look older. In addition to preventing sunburn, sunscreen prevents premature aging and reduces the risk of skin cancer.
Instead of contouring your sunscreen, choose a contoured makeup look – and don't forget to apply sunscreen afterward
4. Sun tattoos
This is just a bad idea that requires you to overexposure your body to UV rays.
If you develop skin cancer on one part of your body, it can spread to other areas of your skin and metastasize to other parts of the body. To reduce the risk of skin cancer, make sure to apply sunscreen everywhere your body will be exposed to the sun.
Tanning beds as a solution to skin problems? Not happening.
In fact, tanning beds are classified as a known carcinogen – they can increase the risk of skin cancer. Research links the beds to a higher risk of melanoma, especially when first use occurs before age 30.
The Food and Drug Administration has long warned that children and teens should never use tanning beds because of their health concerns. But the Trump administration quietly killed a pending FDA rule that would have banned anyone under 18 from using the beds.
Tips for sun safetyHere are a few tips to help you get the most out of your time in the sun.
- Cover up and wear sunglasses. Shirts, hats, shorts and pants provide the best protection from UV rays. Good shades protect your eyes from UV radiation, which may cause cataracts.
- Find shade or make it. Picnic under a tree, read beneath an umbrella or take a canopy to the beach. Keep infants in the shade because they are still developing the tanning pigments, known as melanin, that protect skin.
- Wear sunscreen. EWG’s Annual Guide to Sunscreens evaluates the safety and efficacy of SPF-rated products, including sunscreens for recreational use and SPF-rated daily-use moisturizers and lip products. The best ratings are for products that provide broad spectrum protection formulated with ingredients that pose fewer health concerns when absorbed by the body.
Getting outside for some sun is good for you – in moderation. Just ignore the fleeting trends and stick to the tried and tested: Wear sunscreen to protect yourself, and wear it daily.
EWG’s mission in the 20 years we’ve produced the Guide to Sunscreens has been to ensure that whenever you use sunscreen, the SPF products you trust to protect your family are free from ingredients of concern, backed by science and effective at reducing the effects of UV radiation.
Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Sunscreen Guest Authors Grant Pacernick, Communications Intern June 2, 2026The dose makes the poison – but there’s more to the story
Does the dose define how chemicals can lead to harm? Yes.
But is the dose the only thing that “makes the poison”? No.
The idea that the dose makes the poison – originally explained as “all things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous” – was introduced by a 16th-century physician named Paracelsus. It laid the foundation for what is, more than 400 years later, the field of toxicology.
Today the chemical industry and its supporters point to the phrase when claiming health risks only exist above certain chemical exposure levels and some doses are “too low” to be harmful.
It’s generally true that a chemical is more toxic at higher doses. But our understanding of how chemicals and mixtures interact with our bodies has improved considerably over the past 400 years, showing that there’s more to consider than just the amount of a substance.
A complicated mix of factors affect the ‘poison’Who you are, when and how often you are exposed to something, and what else you’re exposed to all matter. And what is defined as a low dose might, with prolonged exposure, be sufficient to lead to health harms.
Relationships between dose and biological response – how it impacts a body – can be linear, where a higher dose results in a greater response. But scientists have also observed a variety of other, non-linear relationships between dose and response. Depending on the chemical, a higher dose doesn’t necessarily mean a higher response, or more “poison.”
In some cases, both lower and higher doses can trigger certain health harms, while moderate doses do not (see Panel F in Figure 1 below). For other chemicals (like in Panel D), the relationship might be logarithmic, meaning that toxicity might drastically increase at lower dose-ranges but taper off as doses get higher.
Figure 1. A variety of documented dose-response relationships
Source: Ramaiah et al., Figure 1 from Toxicological Pathology
What does ‘dose’ even mean?The dose is the amount of a substance that is absorbed into the body. But not everything that we come into contact with will be absorbed into the body.
The exposure route can play a large role.
For example, titanium dioxide is an effective active ingredient in sunscreens, an ultraviolet filter that does not cross the skin barrier when applied. But its use in sprays or powders raises concern, since the particles can be inhaled deep into the lungs and harm health.
So the impact of exposure isn’t just about the amount, it’s also about how a person is exposed.
What else matters, apart from the dose?
When you are exposedLow exposures in utero or during early childhood can have very different effects than the same exposure in adulthood. Even when they’re exposed to the same amounts of a chemical, children may absorb more than adults.
A World Health Organization study found young children can absorb up to five times more lead than adults from the same ingested dose.
And even if the dose is the same, it could have a greater impact on kids than adults because their brains are still developing. They may suffer irreversible damage to the brain and experience developmental impacts later in life.
What else you are exposed toWe know we aren’t exposed to chemicals one by one but instead to mixtures of chemicals over long periods of time. We constantly come into contact with combinations of chemicals from food, water and consumer products.
Research shows that small, seemingly insignificant doses of multiple chemicals can add up or interact together to multiply each other’s effects, creating a total health risk that is measurably more harmful than those from the chemicals acting alone.
Glyphosate, an herbicide, and cypermethrin, an insecticide, are sometimes used together to manage crops. A 2025 study compared the impacts in cells of individual exposures to glyphosate and cypermethrin with exposure to both pesticides at the same time. The authors found that joint exposure triggered early and late cell death, along with overall toxicity in animal models.
When combined, these two pesticides triggered more late cell death than would be expected from simply adding their individual effects together. A decade earlier, another study reported the same pattern – that these chemicals magnify each other’s effects when mixed.
Both pesticides are frequently used together on soy and corn fields, so this mixture analysis is a simulation of real-world exposures.
In 2021, the European Commission and European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, announced a joint strategy to integrate cumulative risk assessments in pesticide reviews. This new approach incorporates methods to assess the effect of chemical mixtures on human health. EFSA is reviewing the status of multiple approved pesticides in light of toxicity findings from mixtures assessments.
U.S. regulatory safety assessments routinely fail to account for chemical interaction, when the presence of one chemical can unexpectedly amplify the toxicity of another by altering how much is absorbed or metabolized.
The bottom line: It has been known for a while that exposure to chemicals in combination can multiply their effect. In other words, for some chemical mixtures, the sum is greater than its parts.
How often you are exposedThe average person uses between 10 and 14 personal care products a day, spanning several categories. You aren’t exposed just once, you’re exposed every day for years.
This repeated, long-term use leads to what’s called cumulative exposure. While many chemicals are rapidly excreted, they can still have an impact with repetitive low dose exposure.
The issue isn’t just a single dose today. It’s repeated exposure – even at low levels – across months or years that can add up.
Who you areIndividual susceptibility, genetics, and your microbiome matter.
Your genes can act like a personalized instruction manual for how well your body processes toxins. Some people have versions of enzymes that clear chemicals quickly, while others can have versions that allow the same small dose to build up to dangerous levels.
Your immune system and gut microbiome can also change how you respond. A “safe” dose of a given substance could be “poison” to an immunocompromised individual or someone taking a specific medication.
Statins, widely used cholesterol medications, are broken down in the body by an enzyme called CYP3A. Grapefruit juice contains compounds called furanocoumarins that stop CYP3A from doing its job.
So when ingested with grapefruit, more of the drug can be absorbed than intended. Both substances alone are safe, but the combination can be unexpectedly toxic. This is why some medications warn about consuming grapefruit while taking the medicine.
Some medication labels warn against consuming grapefruit when taking the drugs
The case of hormone disruptorsEndocrine-disrupting chemicals, or EDCs, are a class of chemicals that mimic the body’s natural hormones. Our hormone system is designed to respond to tiny “doses” of substances that act as signals to control how we grow and how our bodies use energy.
One well-known EDC is bisphenol A, or BPA. Results from a 2012 study linked low doses of BPA, legally considered “safe,” to endocrine disruption.
The study emerged from a partnership among the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and 14 independent researchers, called CLARITY-BPA.
As a landmark 2007 report in Environmental Health News notes, even exposure to a tiny dose of an EDC can interfere with these signals. Repeated exposure over time can cause health impacts later in life.
The relationship between the amount of an EDC and its effect on health doesn’t always proceed in a straight line or in one direction. When the relationship doesn’t move in one direction only – when the shape of the dose-response relationship does not consistently increase or decrease – the low-dose effects of exposure to EDCs “cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses,” one study found.
This study’s results demonstrate how, if only high doses are tested, serious health impacts that only show up at lower doses can be missed.
The researchers tested a cancer-causing chemical called TCDD on rats. At a “high dose” of 0.25 micrograms per kilogram, or µg/kg, TCDD didn’t seem to cause any reproductive problems. But when the dose was tested at a much lower level, 0.064 µg/kg, researchers saw a significant drop in the rats’ daily sperm production.
This doesn’t mean that higher doses are safer. The authors point out that high levels of TCDD are still harmful to many organs and can even be deadly. Instead, the study shows why we can’t just say “the dose makes the poison.” Low levels of exposure can interfere with the body in ways that are not seen at high doses.
Low doses do not mean safe dosesAnalysis of the science documents made public through trial discovery led to EWG advocating for increased regulation of the “forever chemical” perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA. At the time, PFOA was extensively used as a processing aid in the manufacturing of Teflon.
But industry representatives pushed back, citing the notion that dose makes the poison to argue that health concerns about PFOA were “unfounded.” PFOA detections were “negligible … and within government standards,” they said, characterizing the measured average PFOA concentrations of 4 parts per billion in drinking water as a mere “shot glass … spread among 250 railroad tankers.”
Since 2005, research has repeatedly documented the dangers of exposure to this supposedly “negligible” – and, at the time legal – level of PFOA.
That same concentration would today be 1,000 times the Environmental Protection Agency’s legal limit for PFOA in drinking water, currently set at 4 parts per trillion.
Chemical companies and pesticide manufacturers have long argued that low doses are safe. For example, Dow, a global materials science manufacturer, lists “the dose makes the poison” on its position statement page, arguing that “as a dose increases . . . the likelihood of a toxic response increases as well.”
Despite the wealth of peer-reviewed literature indicating otherwise, Dow maintains that findings of the toxicity of low doses are unsubstantiated.
Outcomes matter in defining safe dosesA “safe” dose is safe only for the specific health outcomes being measured.
Traditional tests often look for obvious signs of harm, like organ damage or a specific birth defect. But they may completely miss changes in other parts of the body, like the immune or nervous systems.
This means a chemical can be labeled safe at a certain level because it doesn’t cause organ damage in animals, even if the same dose is high enough to disrupt hormones or immunity.
What we define as the level at which a chemical becomes a poison depends entirely on which part of the body we’re looking at.
For example, PFAS were long considered safe at levels that didn’t appear to harm the liver. But once scientists researched impacts on immunotoxicity, they found these supposedly safe doses contributed to suppressed immune responses in children, prompting increased research and regulator scrutiny, including restrictions and bans on use and lower limits for allowable water contamination.
When setting a drinking water standard, the EPA evaluated data about all available health outcomes. It found that, in the case of PFOA, low exposure levels could lead to increased cholesterol, decreased birth weight, weakened immune response and liver harm.
The herbicide dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, commonly known as DCPA and sold under the brand name Dacthal, was initially approved in 1958 and deemed safe for use. In 2024, the EPA banned it following new findings that linked the pesticide to “irreversible harm to unborn babies’ developing brains,” among several other hormonal issues.
It’s more complicated than just doseThe science now suggests a more refined interpretation of Paracelsus’s statement: the dose matters, but the timing, the individual, and what else one is exposed to are also critical aspects in predicting harm.
While it’s generally true that a chemical is more toxic at higher doses, there are cases where that is not the whole picture. “The dose makes the poison” is overly simplistic and has been used for years to defend the continued use of harmful chemicals. The dose contributes to the poison, but there are many other factors at play.
And that’s why legal does not always mean safe.
Areas of Focus Family Health Toxic Chemicals Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. Varun Subramaniam, M.S. June 3, 2026Transcript of EWG podcast 'Ken Cook Is Having Another Episode' – Episode 60
There is an ongoing lawsuit between the American Academy of Pediatrics and Robert F Kennedy, Jr., head of the Department of Health and Human Services. The lead attorney of the lawsuit challenging the HHS vaccine policy changes is EWG co-Founder and President Ken Cook’s guest today.
Richard H. Hughes VI is a professor at George Washington University Law School as well as a partner at Epstein Becker Green. In addition to the American Academy of Pediatrics, Hughes’ law firm also represents the American College of Physicians and the American Public Health Association.
Hughes breaks down the legal framework behind the lawsuit against Kennedy, including the effort to dismantle and remake HHS’ immunization advisory committee, the broader implications for federal vaccine policy, and the growing erosion of public trust in pediatricians, vaccines, and public health institutions.
Disclaimer: This transcript was compiled using software and may include typographical errors.
Ken Cook: Hello there. Ken Cook here, and I'm having another episode. You know, ever since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and specifically during his confirmation process, I've been keeping a close eye on the dismantling of our vaccine policy infrastructure. I suspect a lot of you have been keeping an eye on it too.
It's one of the top priorities of the public health community now. And I've come to think of the approach that he's taken, uh, I've, I've coined a term for it, I call it vaccilation. This is why, uh, he's able to make the case on the one hand to his anti-vax followers that he's doing all he can to pursue their agenda, and that agenda is to prove various things about vaccines being harmful, even maybe more harmful than the diseases they prevent, that vaccines cause autism and so forth.
And he always does it in a kind of vacillating, vaccilating way where science is never settled, so we can always ask questions. A gold standard science is needed, and he's bringing that because you can't rely on existing authorities. And m-most importantly of all, he's not wanting to be positioned as either anti-vaccine or supporting vaccine.
He's in that vaccilating middle ground. And that has worked for him surprisingly well. It didn't work for Casey Means. Ultimately, she got caught up by not really saying what she thought when she was rejected by the Senate in the confirmation process for becoming surgeon general. But for Kennedy, it has mostly worked.
But there's one arena where it does not work, not the arena of hearings where Kennedy gives and takes with senators, not press statements, not podcasts, not Instagram posts. In all of those places, vaccilation has been a very smart strategy for him to remain elusive about where he is even as he pursues anti-vaccine measures.
But the one place where it doesn't work is in court, in legal proceedings before a judge. And today I'm joined by a lawyer who's doing something about vaccilation. Richard H. Hughes IV, who is a partner at Epstein Becker Green, a health law professor at the George Washington University Law School. And the lead counsel in American Academy of Pediatrics versus Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This was a landmark lawsuit challenging the vaccine policy changes Kennedy has implemented at HHS.
And in that setting, there is no wiggle room afforded for vacillating. You have to follow the law. Now, Richard's clients have included some of the most respected medical organizations in the country: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, the Infectious Disease Society of America, among others.
And in March, a federal judge looked at all this vacillating, and specifically the steps Kennedy had taken under the cover of vacillating, and handed these organizations a very significant early victory, ruling that HHS had acted arbitrarily, ignored established law, and failed to follow basic administrative process.
But the fight is far from over. Richard is one of the nation's leading experts in vaccine law, and he has spent his career building the very public health infrastructure that's now under attack. I'm grateful that he's here because he, like EWG, follows science, and his objective is very clear: to protect the health of America's children and their future.
Professor Hughes, thank you so much for being here. The stakes could not be higher. And knock on wood, at least from my perspective, and I'm sure yours. So far it looks like it's gone pretty well, but we've got quite a ways to go, no question about that. I just wanted to ask, how did you, as you were starting your career, what brought you, Richard, into the health arena, and specifically this subset of health pertaining to vaccines? If you don't mind. I'm just curious to know.
Richard Hughes: I don't mind. Yeah, no, Ken, I appreciate that question. It actually goes, uh... and, and thank you for having me. It goes so far back, long before I was a lawyer. I was a very young political appointee in my home state of Arkansas. So I was 22 years old, and I was appointed to the Arkansas State Board of Health, and I didn't know anything about public health.
I was incredibly unqualified. It was an undeserved privilege to get that appointment. And right after I was appointed, I survived a brain tumor.
Ken Cook: Oh my goodness.
Richard Hughes: Yeah. I was misdiagnosed with glioblastoma. It was basically a death sentence, and got a second opinion and found out that I was gonna live, and got involved in cancer issues.
And I said, "You know, I'm in this position, and I can do something, you know, to, to improve the health of Arkansans." I felt compelled to do that. And I learned about the HPV vaccine. So a colleague came to me one day and said, "There's this vaccine to prevent cervical cancer." And I didn't know anything about it.
But as I, as I dug into it, as I learned more about it, I said, "You know, we really need to talk about, uh, this vaccine, and we really need to make this vaccine accessible." At the time, this was before the Affordable Care Act, we had a lot of access issues in our state, and I knew that if we were gonna reach the most rural parts of the state, that we should consider requiring the vaccine.
That was a really unpopular opinion to have. It got me kicked out of party politics. It ended my political ambitions completely, and so I got my master's in public health, I moved to DC and said I'm gonna work in vaccine policy for the rest of my career. I went back to law school, and, um, you know, added a lot more tools to my toolbox.
Ken Cook: Wow, I, I had no idea there were so many layers to that, to your history, and, uh, just as a editorial note to start off with, you know, Environmental Working Group has, you know, we, we generally speaking, have, have always supported vaccine policy, the conventional policy that is now at least temporarily back in place, and the, the CDC's positions on all, all of those things.
We did raise questions about thimerosal back in the day, but those were resolved. But generally speaking on vaccine policy, my overall feeling is the environmental health community looked the other way on the vaccine debate, which was probably not helpful. I think we now find ourselves in a s- a situation where, uh, there is such a threat to that frontline defense, and so much energy around undoing the reputation of the CDC and of science and of practicing physicians.
I, I read some of the things people say about pediatricians, and I just... I wonder what, what pediatricians are they talking about? Uh, everyone I've ever met, and I've met, hundreds of them, because we work on children's environmental health all the time, and m- from my own experience having a son, I don't get it.
But anyway, I just wanted to, I wanted to put that out there... because a big part of this is the, the kind of atmospherics that drove you away from the job in Arkansas, right? I mean, you must feel that... in your current role as well, right?
Richard Hughes: I absolutely do. I absolutely do. And it was really hard to watch the distortion around vaccine science, and a lot of that was wrapped up in religion back in Arkansas, right?
And... you know, talking about abstinence and sex and, and that was unfortunate, but I feel like, you know, we're up against a lot of the same issues, a willingness to spread misinformation and disinformation so easily, a public that maybe at first glance sometimes, you know, you might see something, uh, that looks like a potential correlative relationship, and you might have real questions.
And I do think that we should be answering those questions and helping- Yeah ... people understand the science, right? But... it's really hard to, you know, sometimes get people off of these beliefs, these misguided beliefs, when you have somebody like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with the bully pulpit now, right, spreading all this misinformation.
Ken Cook: Yeah, no, and, and of course there's conspiracy-minded, uh, approaches to these issues. It's very convenient and very hard to overcome. It's, uh... a great, uh, retreat from, from critical thinking.
Richard Hughes: Yes, it is.
Ken Cook: Right? And that- that's, that's done a lot of harm. I found myself, when I read the judge's, uh, decision, uh, in March, I was fortified by that. Uh, not... not just because of the way the decision came down, but the learned way in which he argued it.
And I just want, I just wanna say, uh, just from the beginning of his order, uh, he, he writes that, "For our public health, Congress and the executive have built over decades an apparatus that marries the rigors of science with the execution and force of the United States government. One extraordinary product of that apparatus has been the eradication and reduction of certain communicable diseases through the development and use of vaccines."
And right there, he's drawing a distinction in his position, his conclusions, from Kennedy's, which... increasingly is to argue that these vaccines didn't play any role. And so, uh, the, the whole presence of the government in this sphere is questionable because, you know, better nutrition and sanitation and other measures… really, that's what caused polio and mumps and other diseases to be controlled. Patently not the case, but I appreciated that he was standing upright then.
Richard Hughes: Yeah. Yeah, I did too. I love that decision. It reads beautifully. I love that on the first page, he intertwines science and law, and talks about... the importance of process to both.
This is the first case I've worked on as a litigator. I'm not a litigator. I didn't go to law school to sue anybody.
Ken Cook: Oh, is that right?
Richard Hughes: It is. It is.
Ken Cook: Oh my goodness.
Richard Hughes: And sitting in the courtroom, you know, sitting in the courtroom as a vaccine law expert at the counsel table and, and really just hoping that we are doing the best possible job to help the judge get the facts right, to get the law right, to make the best, most informed decision, because we want the decision to stand.
He wants... to write an, an effective decision. He wants to get it right. He's not an ideologue. And, you know, the government over here is saying in the, in the courtroom that, you know, there's no binding, you know, guiding principles in the law that says the secretary has to do this or that, the secretary can just basically do whatever he wants, and that, you know, reasonable minds can differ on how to best prevent infectious disease, and that we're all here to protect public health.
It was really disturbing to hear some of those arguments and the way they framed it. And, and then it was so encouraging to hear the judge come back to them and, and, and to recite back to them law, and to see how he followed the apparatus that, that he described. And it has... I mean, I have to say, there was a time when all we had were vaccines, and we didn't put policy or the force of law behind it.
Sometimes then we would do that in an outbreak context. So late, you know, late 1800s, smallpox outbreaks, we're saying, "You have to go get vaccinated because we're trying to prevent it." But one of the greatest innovations in the law and in vaccine law and policy in the, in the 20th century was we realized, if we can just get everybody vaccinated early, we can actually stop the transmission of these diseases.
We can lower the overall incidence of disease, the overall morbidity and mortality, and we started to do that in a really systematic way with vaccine policy. And as the judge recited, we have these federal laws. The federal government is not making people get vaccines, that's the role of the states.
But there is a robust apparatus in federal law that says, you know, Congress has thought about this, and they've enacted a variety of laws where we essentially presuppose that vaccination is the best way to control vaccine preventable diseases in this country. And that's what, simply what we're trying to do.
Ken Cook: Yeah. I was astonished at some of, uh, when the judge asked certain questions about, well, how, how far could Secretary Kennedy go?
You know, how much power... does he have? Could he actually say, um, "Getting some of these diseases is okay, or is good, or we would, we would like to pursue policies that would encourage them to get these?" Which, which of course, Aaron Siri and others, Dale Bigtree have openly said they think that should be the case.
Yeah. I was astonished. What, what was it like in the courtroom when you were hearing that?
Richard Hughes: Well, what's really hard is when you're a... you know, I, I, I speak a lot on these issues publicly, right? I'm, I'm a policy-oriented lawyer, and I have opinions. And to sit in the courtroom at the counsel table and to really, you have to maintain decorum in the courtroom.
It's not a raucous place, right? You know? And, uh, you know, and so to have to sit and listen and keep a straight face to those kinds of arguments was really, really, really hard for me. And the number of things I w- I w- you know, that you wish you could say, right? And so for the judge to point that out, uh, and to use that example, and I think it's one of the great things that, that judges sometimes do, is to present absurd hypotheticals, and it was a really really, really effective one.
And so I think what gets overlooked is they frame up natural infection as just fine. You know? That, that natural infection is just fine. And what in reality is if you go to old graveyards and you look at the number of infant graves that are there, and you can, these graveyards are all over our country, right?
In the early 20s, late 19th century, early 20th century, right? And then I always go back, I, I tell my team all the time about this letter to the editor that I read around 1994 or 1995 in The New York Times, where a mother wrote to The New York Times, and she said, "You know, I just learned about this new vaccine to prevent chickenpox, and I don't understand why I wasn't made aware of this five years ago when the vaccine first became available."
Because she said, "To my family, chickenpox is not a minor illness." Chickenpox had devastated her household. Her kids ended up with all sorts of infections that I didn't even realize that, you know, measles, chickenpox, these things can result in other infections, other morbidities.
Ken Cook: Very serious, yeah.
Richard Hughes: Right. Very serious. Very serious, and, and sometimes very deadly. And so, you know, vaccination is a way not just to prevent cases and to have fewer or hopefully zero cases. You know, we have a sophisticated tool. People don't have to die from these diseases. They don't have to deal with the long-term effects of these diseases.
Ken Cook: And, you know, the, the consequence of not intervening through vaccines on the, the cost of the healthcare system, and I've even said to, to my colleagues in the environmental community, we all noticed what happened during COVID, where all the resources rushed from the CDC and elsewhere, rushed straight to the concerns and the, the need to a- adapt to the COVID conditions.
You lose a lot of ability to do other health-related interventions, including environmental health, and talking about pollution or, uh, contamination of food or what have you.
Richard Hughes: Yes. Yeah.
Ken Cook: That, that contracts in the face of emergencies, where it has a huge impact. I noticed, and I, I just, I wanna mention the other plaintiffs, because it's an impressive list. It's the American Academy of Pediatrics, the lead plaintiff, but it's also the American College of Physicians, the APHA, the American Public Health Association. We also have a longstanding association with them. Infectious Diseases Society of America, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the Massachusetts Public Health Alliance, and I'm sure there are others that I'm not naming.
It's impressive to me, and I've, I've said this to several, uh, people, you know, when you look at the way these, uh, interests are arrayed on the two sides of this issue, it's kind of shocking to think that there is virtually no reputable independent science association or organization that, that stands with Kennedy.
Now, I think everyone agrees, yes, there can be vaccine injuries, and yes, we should address those, and we should, we should be concerned about those, and, uh, unfortunately sometimes they're, fortunately very rarely, but sometimes they are serious.
Richard Hughes: Yes. Yeah.
Ken Cook: No question about that. But on the basic question of whether we need vaccines, whether the, where any kind of mandate, again, at the state level, which is where these are proffered, it really is shocking that we're at the state of the debate that we're at. And even to the point where I noticed that quite a bit of time was spent by the government to try and make the case that the plaintiffs you represent shouldn't have had standing.
Richard Hughes: Right, right, right, right, right, right.
Ken Cook: Can you talk a little bit about that? I just- I mean, why not try it? Why not try it?
Richard Hughes: I sure can. And I... look, I'm very honest. I, I, I'm very honest and open about how we got to this point. We knew when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. came into office that he was going to do a lot of these things. I knew he was gonna do a lot of these things because I've helped build up the system that he's trying to tear down.
And so I, I looked around me and I said to my team, I said, "You know, he's going to do these things, and we have to be prepared. We have to watch everything he does. We have to watch when he takes these actions, and we're gonna need to be prepared to put up a legal fight."
Okay, so we have a policy disagreement. Absolutely, we do. The government wants to suggest that that's all we have, and that policy disputes don't belong in court, and they belong in the legislature and, and, and all that. But there are real harms here. And I would not, I would not have pursued this and put my name and, and, and resources and effort behind this if I thought it was a mere policy disagreement.
I knew that this was going to harm, uh, not only public health and families, but that it was actually going to harm the organizations that we're representing. And they do have standing. And so if you look at the pediatricians of this country represented by AAP, not only has AAP itself as an organization had to divert all of its time and resources to deal with, with this, but the providers on the front lines, and they'll, they'll say, "Oh, you know, it's just… you know, they make a lot of money."
You know, it is so not true. Being a pediatrician is not some sort of gangbusters, you know, business to be in. It's very, uh, costly to maintain an inventory of vaccines in those practices, and the reimbursement, you know, it's not usually profitable. And so this is causing them, you know, the, the frustrating experience of having to address misinformation and disinformation that their patients are hearing, coming in confused, and to practice effective medicine.
That's been frustrated. And the same thing, uh, American Public Health Association, and, and Dr. Benjamin doesn't mind me telling folks that when I called him and I said, "You know, would you be a part of this?" He said, "We're in." It was a no-brainer. Because he and I knew, we instinctively knew, that this was going to impact health departments across the country.
There are clinical practitioners that are members of the American Public Health Association. They represent this vast constituency across the country of public health workers, clinical workers, all kinds of folks, and, um, we knew that the harm was going to just, just permeate the public health system. And so we demonstrated those harms.
We're proud to represent these plaintiffs and we take very seriously the work of showing the court that they have been harmed, and we did that. We went in in December. The government tried to get our case dismissed on standing. And we went in, and we, you know, demonstrated to the court — they're experiencing real harms.
And if anybody's interested, go read the declarations that have been filed by the dozens of, of physicians and others, uh, in the case.
Ken Cook: Yeah, I encourage people, you know, to read the whole record so far. Yeah, yeah. Every aspect of it is to me informative, up to and including the, the judge's order at, in mid-March.
You know, Kennedy's often claims that pediatricians are in the pocket of big pharma, as you suggested, and it's very profitable to, uh, give kids shots, and they make a lot of money doing it. Sometimes I've, I've seen it suggested that this is the main way they make money is by vaccines. I haven't seen any evidence of that.
But what interests me is that i- in order for his, uh, approach to work, he has to then say, "We want you to have a conversation with your doctor before you decide for yourself about getting vaccinated." So where do all the good doctors go, and where, where do all the bad doctors go that you can just... and it turns out that if it's your pediatrician, that's a good doctor.
But when they gather together under The Academy of Pediatrics or they, when they assemble, that's when they're evil. Makes no sense.
Richard Hughes: No, it doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't. And there are fringe, you know, very, very, very, very fringe physicians out there that are a part of his movement, right? That, and I'm, I'm sure that's who they would rather you go to and talk to. But they want to frame this, because these are political issues, right?
And they, they know he has a, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has a base and a constituency that he is pandering to. And when they talk about medical freedom and choice and forced medical treatment, this is all so deceptive.
And so if you go back, the old case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 1905, the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court said states can require vaccination. There's a lot of really great discussion in that case. It's a dense read, and I have my class read it every year. But it talks about sorting junk science from evidence, you know, in early 20th century terms.
And by the end of the decision, it talks about the importance that we not make people who shouldn't be vaccinated get vaccinated. It acknowledges that. That is in the opinion. So inherent, when I think about vaccine policy, and I think about requiring vaccines so that people can be healthy and we save lives, what I know as a part of that equation is that it's always going to be a conversation between the pediatrician and the parent about the child's health, and they should sit down, and they should say, you know, "Which vaccines do you need to get? Well, we have this schedule, and it's standardized, and it's based on evidence, and we should follow it."
But if this child's contraindicated, if they're at risk of some sort of harm that is ascertainable, you know, then we shouldn't vaccinate. But those cases are rare. Those cases are rare, and we should acknowledge when there are rare vaccine injuries, we need to compensate those.
We need to do it quickly and adequately. So that we can continue to pursue the public health goal. I ask my class every year, would you rather have 100 cases of polio or would you rather have, you know, two injuries? And, you know, we have to make some trade-offs. And there's a, there's a social compact here that they misconstrue, that they absolutely misconstrue.
Ken Cook: Yeah. No, I think that's right, and it's hard to think of a, of a medicine or a drug that doesn't have those kinds of potential complications for some subset of the population, these side effects. Um, and, um, I mean, even cancer drugs sometimes cause cancer, so it is a conversation with physicians, and to me, what, what I worry about is th- this debate is missing how to actually make parents better consumers of information and make them more able to have those conversations. You don't have a lot of time often in those offices. But how to, how to make the most of those conversations because that's certainly gonna be in the interest of the physician treating you as well.
Richard Hughes: That's right.
Ken Cook: So one of the things that I had all kinds of thoughts about which direction Kennedy might take vaccine policy.
I did not foresee him going immediately in the face of what he promised Congress and firing every member of the committee and replacing them summarily with his own people. B- but it goes to a, a question that I've, I've had, which is I thought in this second Trump administration they were being more careful than in the first Trump administration, certainly in environmental, uh, decision-making, where they, they made it easy to lose in court, and they mostly did lose to my colleagues in the environmental community who practice public interest law, so law that sues the government.
But then I, as I read this judge's decision and saw what, what was piling up, I was shocked at the fumbles, the mistakes that HHS made with the Administrative Procedure Act, that you made great use of, um, of that law to point out to the judge, and he ruled, I think in every instance, on your side. That's there for a purpose, too, in addition to vaccine law, which is, you know, it's to make sure that the government proceeds in an orderly manner.
It's not, uh, arbitrary. It's not capricious. And the thing that puzzled me the most, Richard, was, you know, if you're an environmental lawyer, the Administrative Procedure Act is central to how you think about challenging the government, maybe more than almost any other area.
Richard Hughes: Yes. Yes.
Ken Cook: Of public interest law, right? Because it's, it's, it's the clockworks of EPA and Interior Department and Fish and Wildlife Service.
Richard Hughes: Yes.
Ken Cook: And when they get a procedure wrong, when they're arbitrary, when they're capricious, when they side, uh, make a decision, you know, in favor of, of industry that is ill-considered, that's where the environmental community, and Kennedy in the past, has grabbed on.
I was surprised that there were so many mistakes that they're, uh, in the rush to get these decisions made, which to me tells me also that they're, they're not likely to be lasting. But I'll go back to that. But just talk a little bit about the the Administrative Procedure Act and how you saw that play in this case.
Richard Hughes: Uh, you don't even need to take a, a law school administrative law class to see that. I mean, it is so just patently obvious. I said early on, I said, "Anything this man does is going to be arbitrary and capricious because- ... the science isn't there." The science doesn't support it.
They're not going to be able to point to anything legitimate and to say, "That's the basis for this decision." Now, what I didn't expect was the lack of process. You know, the explanation part of it, and these are all, I'm talking about sort of the recipe of, of what we expect government officials to follow, right?
Ken Cook: Yeah, yeah.
Richard Hughes: We expect them to take a hard look at evidence. We expect them to follow a process to explain why they did it. I knew that they wouldn't find the evidence. I did think that they would at least try to give the appearance that they were following a process and taking a hard look. The way they throw around the term, the, well, the terms gold standard science and transparency and everything, I, I think it's very misleading, and I didn't expect a lot of explanation or transparency.
But I really did think that they would try to follow some process.
Ken Cook: So did I.
Richard Hughes: You know, right? And so for a long time environmental lawyer, who, as you said, you know, should have a deep understanding of the importance of the APA and procedure, to just go out one day and film a video, and in 58 seconds make statements like, "The previous administration's recommendations were based on nothing," right?
And to say that, "I, standing here, you know, a lawyer surrounded by two other political appointees, I'm just gonna tell you that I, I'm delighted, in fact, I'm gonna use the word delighted, to tell you that you no longer need to get the COVID vaccine."
I mean, it just reeked, it reeked of lack of process, of unseriousness. And, um, same thing with the January 5th schedule changes. And as President Trump is saying, "Well, let's look at the Danish schedule," I think there was actual reporting that, that HHS knew that what they were discussing would likely violate or potentially violate the APA. So they're, they know this, and I think that this is just evidence of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the forces around him will stop at nothing, you know, to get their agenda through.
Ken Cook: Yeah, I mean, w- what I've been saying to my friends on the other side of this issue is, "If you really did believe that you wanted to tear down vaccine policy in this country, and do it on the basis of transparency and gold standard science, you've been failed by Kennedy."
The pace at which he's operated. The fact that, I mean, here he has, he has control over the, all these funds. He could launch- the study that he says we've long not done to link vaccine harm to, you know, autism or whatever it might be. I mean, th- you've got all the money now. You could, you could control it.
Where are the studies? Where is the evidence that you're- Yeah ... putting forward or, or what basis? And then you have a, a press conference in the, in the White House a- about Tylenol, and the promise that by September of 2025 we'll know what causes autism. So obviously these aren't serious people. They don't show their work.
Anti-vax interests, anti-vax proponents, ought to begin to understand by now that these changes are not going to endure. They're not gonna stand up scientifically, and as we f- see in the case that you've been arguing, it's not standing up in the law either.
Richard Hughes: No.
Ken Cook: And the political support seems to be eroding.
At least Republicans wanna talk about healthy eating, not vaccine policy anymore. It's a real shortcoming of Kennedy's approach, but I think it's what he's left with because the evidence really isn't there.
Richard Hughes: Yeah. You know, it's not, and ultimately we're gonna prevail. We have to litigate this thing, and I, it's, it's unfortunate, but we, it, I, I knew that if he did these things and if we were going to stop him and show to be true what you just said, is that they're not showing their work, this is all false, and we need to stop it, and we need to go back to... and it's not to say that our system before couldn't use improvements. Absolutely it needs improvements.
But, you know, if we were ever going to stop this and restore sanity, we were going to have to sue, and we still have the work to do to do, we're not done yet, right? But ultimately, yes, it won't endure. It won't endure because we're stopping it.
Ken Cook: Yeah. Now let me just ask you. Kennedy in, in recent weeks, and I, I, I don't know exactly where this stands now, so help me out here — he has proposed a restructuring of the, uh, advisory committee on immunization practice, the ACIP committee at the CDC, to restructure it to include the kinds of personnel that he thinks will represent vaccine-injured people.
I was surprised the judge actually went as far as he went in go- kind of going through the list of people appointed to this committee and basically- Yeah ... saying, "You know, we, this committee can't continue." It doesn't meet the, the, the test of the law for expertise. So how do you see this latest move by Kennedy to reorient the committee and give it a, a different charter?
Richard Hughes: Yeah. Yeah. So they are trying to circumvent the judge's ruling.
Ken Cook: Patently.
Richard Hughes: Patently. I hope the White House is watching. I hope that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles is listening to this podcast, and I assume that she wanted him to cool it on vaccines, because that's not a popular issue. Going into the midterms, I don't think they want him to continue this.
Now, what they've done is they've gotten really creative. They said, "Oh, the charter's going to expire on April 1st." And so they got together, and Aaron Siri said, "We're gonna put in a petition, and we're gonna just change the charter." So Andel Bigtree, uh, has been on his podcast, and there was a Politico story that ran last week where he said, "Oh, you know, Kennedy basically just has to change the T's he's crossing and the I's that he's dotting."
Wow. You talk about transparency. I mean, they're being so transparent about their nefarious- Finally, yes. Finally.
Ken Cook: Right? Isn't it funny? So- finally some useful transparency,
Richard Hughes: Yeah ... ri- right. Very useful, because it's like, okay, you broke the rules, and you got your hand slapped, and so now you're just going to change the rules?
Well, I'm sorry, you have to follow some rules to change the rules. And it goes back actually to where we started in this conversation, too, is that the law presupposes we want to use vaccines, right, to control vaccine preventable disease. There is that thoughtful apparatus that's been set up.
They are flying, they continue to fly in the face of that. And so, you know, we'll see what he does. We need to see how he would execute on these charter changes. But it's, it's just egregious, and I hope it gets the attention that it deserves.
Ken Cook: Yeah, I do, too. Well, we'll certainly try and help as much as we can to shine- Thank you a light on that, because, you know, there's, there's never been a more opaque administration when it comes to decision-making.
And more arbitrary, almost clownishly so, and oftentimes to deadly effect. Lots of bad decisions on environmental policy that are causing harm. And we see from the shifting attitudes, the new poll that came out from Politico, that it seems like more and more Americans are, Republicans in particular, are vaccine skeptical and might decide not to have their kids vaccinated because of this ambient debate or discussion.
Debate's hard to say. Uh, it d- doesn't really suit it. What are the next steps that will unfold? Um, they haven't formally appealed yet, have they?
Richard Hughes: They haven't, and they don't have a window to appeal. There have been statements made out of HHS that they have, you know, 60 days following the ruling. This was an interlocutory decision.
They have 10 days. They would have had to have a question of law certified to be able to take it up to the First Circuit on appeal. They have missed their window. And so if they want to try to appeal this late, we would oppose that. And so where we are right now is in a relatively boring place, where we essentially are working with the government to get the administrative record and, you know, going back to the APA, because this is an APA case, we are entitled to see the record, and there are different records for each of the decisions, right?
And so we're, it's the ver- again, the very boring part of litigation, of trying to get the documents. Now, are they going to give us all of the documents we want? Are we gonna see the emails and the text messages? You know, we're looking.
Ken Cook: I would love to. I would love to.
Richard Hughes: I would, I would as well. I would as well. I would as well. So, you know, once we have that record, and once it's completed, we'll be pursuing a final judgment and to get a final decision on the merits. And, um- presumably that could be appealed in the future. I would assume they want that to happen after the midterms, because of the way we've talked about this.
But we're doing the work of getting to that final decision.
Ken Cook: Well, I wanna thank you for that work, and thank you for your time, Richard. Thank you. I've read deeply into the court record here. I, again, I encourage everyone to do the same, and I know your students will be reading through it.
Richard Hughes: Yes, they have. They have already been... yes.
Ken Cook: I, I'm sure, I'm sure. This is a pretty exciting time to be reading through something as a curriculum that's so present in the world, and that their professor is so heavily involved in. And I, I'm not happy that you had to leave your political career in, in Arkansas, but I'm, but I'm grateful in a way that where you ended up is, uh, making this case.
Richard Hudges: Me too
Ken Cook: These organizations, again, they're not perfect. The law is not perfect. The science is not perfect. But in the scheme of things, we cannot afford this area of law and policy and science to be degraded in the way it is, and that's my, one of my greatest regrets. People wor- worry about authoritarianism, I get that.
But I think before, well before we get to that, it's the corrosion in understanding what authority really means. The authority of, of knowledge and expertise as well as the, the authority of law. To me, that's the greater, that's the greater threat right now. Because that sits in a parent's head.
Richard Hughes: Yeah.
Ken Cook: Who do I trust?
Richard Hughes: I agree.
Ken Cook: If it's a pediatrician of the sort that Kennedy caricatures as in the pocket of big pharma, why would you trust them? On the other hand, you have a kid that, um, really will be vulnerable. Look at what's happened with, uh, all these infectious diseases just in the past year and a half. It's very worrisome.
Richard Hughes: No, it absolutely is, and we have so much work to do to actually reestablish trust. He talks about reestablishing trust. I'm not saying that we were ever perfect at communicating about vaccines. I think there are so many things that we could do better when it comes to talking with parents, right? You know?
Ken Cook: I agree. The fact that they feel ghosted is really upsetting to me. It is. People say that to me on, you know, on direct messaging and on, in LinkedIn and other ways I communicate, that I even questioned Kennedy, and we came out against his, his confirmation. And, uh, George Benjamin, when I called him, he said, "I'm in," when we were live streaming the con- confirmation hearings.
It's, it's like a no-brainer. And there's no one in the nonprofit environmental community who's standing up with Kennedy, which is also noteworthy. I say that to a lot of my friends who are, you know, MAHA fans and adherents that take note of that. It's kind of noteworthy that you don't have anyone in the major environmental groups that he worked with-
Richard Hughes: No ...
Ken Cook: Uh, who's willing to stand up for him. Quite the contrary, so.
Richard Hughes: That's right. That's right.
Ken Cook: Anyway. Well, thank you so much. I really-
Richard Hughes: Thank you, Ken
Ken Cook: ... appreciate it. As this evolves, I hope I can get you back on if there's-
Richard Hughes: Please, anytime
Ken Cook: ...important developments that
Richard Hughes: Please
Ken Cook: Really great. Thanks so much, counselor. Thank you so much.
Richard Hughes: Thank you, Ken.
Ken Cook: Thank you to Professor Richard Hughes for joining me today, and thank you out there for listening. If you'd like to learn more, be sure to check out our show notes for additional links so you can take a deeper dive into today's discussion.
Make sure to follow our show on Instagram, @KenCooksPodcast, and if you're interested in learning more about EWG, head on over to ewg.org or check out the EWG Instagram account, @EnvironmentalWorkingGroup. Now, if this episode resonated with you or you think someone you know would benefit from it, send it along.
The best way to make positive change is to start as a community with your community. Today's episode was produced by the extraordinary Beth Rowe and Mary Kelly, who wrote that last sentence. Our show's theme music is by Moby. Thank you, Moby, and thanks again to all of you for listening.
Areas of Focus Family Health Children’s Health May 29, 2026Transcript of EWG podcast 'Ken Cook Is Having Another Episode' – Episode 59
Two major battles over pesticide policy are unfolding at the federal level, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.
The dispute: Can states protect their citizens from pesticide harms beyond what federal law requires, or will that authority be stripped away? These are the urgent questions that a pending Supreme Court case and a fight over the farm bill could play major roles in answering.
The chemical at the center of all of this? Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and the keystone product of the Bayer-Monsanto corporation. Critics of the controversial weedkiller link it to a number of health harms through exposure.
To help unravel the legal docket, EWG co-Founder and President Ken Cook is joined by Chuck Benbrook, Ph.D. He has worked on pesticide issues in roles during the Carter administration, for Congress and with the National Academy of Sciences, and has served as an expert witness in many of the cases he and Cook discuss.
Benbrook is urging the Supreme Court to preserve the right of states to hold pesticide companies accountable when federal regulators fall short.
Disclaimer: This transcript was compiled using software and may include typographical errors.
RoundUp Ad Voice: Weeding again, hey Bob?
Bob: Huh?
RoundUp Ad Voice: Why not do it once? Do it right?
Bob: Why is your head in the ground?
RoundUp Ad Voice: I'm gonna watch Roundup kill these roots.
Bob: Hey, this is Spike's area.
RoundUp Ad Voice: Bob… Roundup can be used where kids and pets will play and breaks down into natural materials. Since Roundup kills the root, what's not coming back, Bob?
Bob: The weed.
RoundUp Ad Voice: You betcha. Bob, come on down and take a peek.
Bob: Can I squirt one?
RoundUp Ad Voice: Sure, Bob.
Ken Cook: Hello there. I'm Ken Cook and I'm having another episode. And this is an episode that's happening during glyphosate week, which is the end of April, beginning of May. It's glyphosate week for two reasons. There are two major battles that unfolded this week around this weed killer made by Bayer. One major battle took place in the Supreme Court.
And that's what we'll focus on with my guest today Dr. Charles Benbrook, who is a long time student, an expert in the field of pesticide policy, and has also been, uh, very deeply involved in some of the court cases that the Supreme Court is considering a measure to overturn. And we'll get into that. It's, um, it's, it's really directly relevant to a lot of what we've been talking about with respect to how decisions are made on pesticide policy and toxics policy generally, and how the Trump administration has time and again, taken the side of pesticide and chemical companies.
And this is, no, this is no exception. But the other thing that happened just this morning, and I'm talking about April 30th, took place in the House of Representatives. There was a move by the House Agriculture Committee in their Farm Bill. They put a provision in that would've blocked liability for Bayer and other pesticide companies in state court, and would also have taken away some of the ability of states just basically to protect their citizens beyond what EPA does.
You may have heard of this flood of litigation against Bayer, formerly known as Monsanto, with respect to this weed killer glyphosate — trade name is Roundup — the flood of litigation because thousands and thousands of people have gone to court and claimed that glyphosate contributed to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a kind of blood cancer that many people have come down with.
It's a, not an epidemic, but it's a, a serious disease that's growing in this country, and glyphosate has been fingered as one of the likely causes. So the House of Representatives weighed in on behalf, at least the House Agriculture Committee weighed in on behalf of Bayer and Monsanto and put this in their Farm Bill — brought it to the house floor.
We'll probably have another session on this topic too — brought it to the house floor — and it was challenged. First by Democrats, Chellie Pingree and Jim McGovern. Then challenged by Chellie Pingree and Thomas Massey, a Republican of Kentucky. And then, most notably challenged by Republican Congresswoman Luna from Florida.
And she stood up to the Trump administration, to the House Agriculture Committee, to Big Ag, to MAGA, to basically the powers that be in chemical agriculture and said, no, I am not going to vote and allow a measure in the Farm Bill to block liability for people who want to go to court, who believe that Roundup this chemical has caused their cancer or other harms.
So she stood up, an amendment. She got lots of grief from Republican leadership, lots of grief from the Republican dominated agriculture committee that voted overwhelmingly to put this amendment into the Farm Bill — against overwhelming opposition from Democrats on the agriculture committee. She went to the floor, and she got 73 Republicans to vote along with hundreds of Democrats to strip this language out of the bill.
And the final vote was overwhelming, a landslide, that stripped this Bayer, Trump administration, big Ag provision out of the Farm Bill, so that liability would not be blocked against people who were seeking justice in the courts. So it's an extremely important week in pesticide policy, an extremely important week with respect to the politics around MAHA, which we've been talking about quite a bit.
The fundamental question was, can states protect their residents from pesticide harms beyond what federal law might require, or the federal agency in charge EPA dictates, or will that authority be stripped away? And at least we know now from the vote in the House of Representatives this morning, that will not happen as part of the Farm Bill.
So the chemical, again at the center of all of this is called glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide roundup and other herbicides. And the stakes really couldn't be higher because human lives are at risk. They have been at risk, and human lives have been lost. So before we get into the episode, I wanna give some context on two things.
What does preemption mean and what is happening at the Supreme Court? Preemption is a legal doctrine that says, when federal law and state law conflict, federal law wins. In the pesticide context, the question is, if the EPA approves a pesticide and sets the language on its warning label, can a state court still hold a company liable for failing to warn consumers about health risks like cancer — risks that aren't mentioned on that federal label?
And EPA is very good about not mentioning on their label when pesticides might be linked to cancer. Instead, preferring, which is exactly what the pesticide makers prefer, that they make adjustments to how the pesticide might be handled or changes to instructions to farm workers or farmers put on gloves, change the time when you apply it, don't do it when it's too windy.
Soft changes like that rather than just coming right out and saying, “Hey, this stuff is carcinogenic.” Now, Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in a very controversial acquisition some years ago, they argue the answer is no. Since the EPA approved roundup and didn't require a cancer warning, Bayer says, the states have no business second guessing that through lawsuits or allowing litigation that second guesses that.
This is the preemption argument, federal regulatory approval essentially shields them from state liability. The case before the Supreme Court involves a plaintiff named John Darnell, one of thousands of people who claim Roundup's active ingredient glyphosate caused their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The Supreme Court asked the Trump administration to weigh in.
It sided with Bayer. It said, sure, we'll weigh in — their message, EPA approved the label — case closed no matter who got sick. A large group of state attorneys general, including some Republicans from red states, disagreed saying states have always had the right to hold companies accountable through their courts, regardless of what a federal label might say.
At the same time, as I mentioned, Congress was debating attaching a preemption provision to the Farm Bill and that was defeated, today. Glad to announce that. To walk us through all of this. I'm joined by Dr. Chuck Benbrook, a longtime colleague and one of the foremost experts on pesticide policy in the country, and specifically one of the foremost experts on glyphosate.
Chuck has worked on these issues from the halls of Congress to the Carter administration to the National Academy of Sciences, and he served as, as an expert witness in many of the cases, like the ones we're discussing today.
Dr. Benbrook recently submitted a formal scientific and legal argument known as an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, urging the justices to preserve the right of states to hold pesticide companies accountable when federal regulators fall short, and boy, do they fall short time and again. There's arguably no better person on the planet to walk us through how we got here, what's really at stake, and why the next few weeks could determine the future of pesticide accountability in this country for a very long time.
Not just glyphosate, not just this one pesticide, but the basic ability for people to hold these pesticide companies accountable. Chuck, welcome to the show and thanks for joining me.
Chuck Benbrook: Well, looking forward to it, uh, Ken. But first, uh, thanks for, uh, inviting me onto the podcast. It's a great honor, and I, I think I would be remiss not to share with your listeners, um, the, the day I first met you, I was, uh, working in the new executive office building for the Council on Environmental Quality in the Carter administration.
And you were a stringer for the Journal of Soil Water Conservation.
Ken Cook: That's correct.
Chuck Benbrook: Uh, a, a young reporter trying to scrape out a living at, uh, 25 bucks a piece, uh, for, uh, an article. And, uh, you called me up and said, I understand you're involved in this Resources Conservation Act implementation, that that was an issue for you and the journal.
And I said, yes, said, well, can I come talk to you? I said, sure. So you set at an appointment and you came into the building and back then they called you upstairs and you came down. And so I came down to meet my, uh, my soon to become very good friend Ken Cook, and greeted this guy in Birkenstocks without socks, white shorts, and a white t-shirt. I'll never forget it.
Ken Cook: Right. That was, that was a, a official journalistic garb for me back then. And, uh, it, it, uh, it served me well. I got a lot of scoops in that as I was writing that column for a decade or so, I can't remember. Max Schnat, the great editor of that journal, yeah, you can let me have my way. But yeah, I remember, I remember that very well.
Chuck Benbrook: It's been a, a, a wonderful friendship and a, and a wonderful journey in a lot of ways, and, you know, it's kind of a journey that feels like maybe things are turning around a little bit,
Ken Cook: Fingers crossed.
Chuck Benbrook: But where did all of this, uh, tension about glyphosate come from?
Well, a couple things that, that, that stand out. A, as you know, and most of your listeners know, glyphosate is a broad spectrum herbicide, and pretty much anything that is green and growing, if you spray it on it, it kills it. So, before the advent of genetically engineered crops that, that were genetically modified to tolerate glyphosate being sprayed on them, farmers could only use glyphosate before their crop came up, or they, they sprayed it on their crop. They'd kill the weeds and the crop, or it could be used at after the harvest to kind of clean things up and get a field ready for the next year. So the, the agricultural market for Roundup herbicides, which came on the market in ‘74, was quite limited by the very way that the product worked.
Until 1996, the year that the first genetically engineered, so-called Roundup ready crop came on the market, which was Roundup ready soybeans and roundup ready cotton. These new technologies which require genetically engineering the seed to express a gene that allowed the soybean plant and the cotton plant to go ahead, spray Roundup on me, “I, I'm, I'll be just fine.”
Ken Cook: “We love it. We love it.” Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: “We love it.” Yeah. Yeah,
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: That technology, it worked very well. And it came along at a time when farmers were super frustrated and pissed off about all the problems that they were having with weed control. The products on the market at the time, they were having to spray three or four different ones to control different weeds.
There were lots of bad interactions between the herbicides. They were spending more and more money. A lot of the herbicides were persistent in that they carried over, and if the farmers didn't watch it, they'd spray the herbicide and control the weeds in the soybean year of the rotation, but they'd end up screwing up the corn that was planted the next year.
So there were, there was a lot of problems with weed management. It wasn't working well. It was complicated. And the costs were going up. So when this Roundup ready system came along, which couldn't be easier, you just couldn't screw it up, it was such an easy system to do well because you pay the extra money for the seeds that had the trait, and then you plant your Roundup ready soybeans, and then when the weeds come up, you just spray Roundup and it kills all the weeds.
Ken Cook: Yeah. And well into the growing season, if you needed to it, the, the, the corn could be this high, the soybeans and, and you could take care of the weeds. It, it helped farmers a lot. I, one, farmers used to tell me all the time that they couldn't have made their operations bigger, which they wanted to do to generate more revenue, they couldn't have done that if Roundup ready technology had not come along and made that vital planting operation so much faster and simpler.
Chuck Benbrook: So starting in 1996, as this, uh, GMO crop revolution unfolded like, you know, a tsunami over American agriculture. It changed EWG, it changed what I was working on.
Ken Cook: Totally.
Chuck Benbrook: I got sucked from working on pesticides to working on genetically engineered crops. The foundations moved all their money, as you remember.
Ken Cook: Yep, yep.
Chuck Benbrook: And the sales of, of Roundup just took off like a, a rocket from 1996 until about 2005 or six, Roundup moved closer and closer to the most heavily applied pesticide in the country.
But around 2005, 2006, it passed atrazine and became number one.
Ken Cook: Another prominent weed killer. Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: Another corn herbicide, but had some major growth still in it. And it peaked about 2015 and at that point there was about three pounds of glyphosate applied in US agriculture for every, every pound of atrazine.
So not only had it become number one, but it passed it threefold.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: It was by far the most heavily applied pesticide ever in history in the world. Around 2015, there was enough glyphosate applied in the United States to spray three quarters of a pound of the active ingredient on every cropland acre in the country.
And globally it was about two thirds of a pound. So you just wrap your mind around it.
Ken Cook: Yeah. I don't think I've ever, maybe I've shared this story with you. I, I talked to an editor from a, an agricultural trade publication around the 2005, 6, 8 period there, and, um, asked how things were going. And this person said, well, it's, it's pretty tough because we're losing advertisers.
And I said, well, why are you losing advertisers? And she said, well, we used to have all these pesticide companies, weed killer companies buying ads in our magazine. And that kept us afloat. But once Roundup came along and it was so universally used relative to anything else, the ad flow stopped from the other companies 'cause they just kind of gave up. So even, it even affected journalistic coverage of agriculture and the ability to do that. Incredible.
Chuck Benbrook: Of course. So I started my work in the pesticide world in 1981 when I took the job as the staff director of the DORFA subcommittee. And at that point, there were 23 pesticide companies that had Washington reps that came and lobbied young staffers like me.
23 of them. And now there's four left.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: So the, the concentration in the industry is a huge issue. So the use of glyphosate just took off like a rocket starting in 1996. But not only did the agricultural use go up, but there was continued growth in the lawn and garden, forestry, government arena, industrial arena, because Monsanto recognized that there were lots of other markets where they could sell Roundup, and in particular the home and lawn and garden markets, so people that would buy it at Walmart or Lowe's or Home Depot and spray weeds in their, you know, their driveway or in around the yard or…
Ken Cook: Yeah, playgrounds.
Chuck Benbrook: Or plant a garden. So you gotta kill the grass before you till the soil, so you spray Roundup. So Monsanto aggressively went after those markets with great success and had they had specially formulated versions of lawn and garden Roundup.
As the diversity of uses of Roundup expanded incrementally, but over 20 years, there were so many different ways that people were handling the product, spraying the product, and so many different ways that people were being exposed to the product.
Ken Cook: I have to remind you here, I was invited by one of the pesticide trade associations to address their annual conference, uh, because in their, by the early to mid 1990s, EWG was very much on their radar as a, a problem in pesticide policy.
And I reminded the audience of a Monsanto commercial at the time where someone dressed as if ready to go to the airport, and that was the plot line of the commercial, a TV commercial, leaned out the window of the taxi cab, and sprayed Roundup on his driveway and sidewalk to kill the weeds, and then just brought the Roundup bottle back into the cab and off they went.
And that's just how safe and easy it was. I don't know if we could ever find that ad, but they pushed it very hard and they brought modern marketing to bear.
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah. All throughout this period of when Roundup use was going up, glyphosate use was going up so much, the percentage of the total glyphosate sales represented by Ag versus the non-Ag market stayed roughly the same around 10%.
The Ag went up fast and the non-Ag stayed 10%, but it grew because the other was growing.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: In the last 20 years, Monsanto has made almost as much profit from the 10% of glyphosate they've sold into the lawn and garden market as the 90% that they've sold to agriculture. So what does that tell you? Well, they're obviously marking up the glyphosate much more.
It's a lot of packaging, a lot of promotion. And you know, somebody goes into Home Depot to buy a, a, you know, a gallon of ready to use glyphosate. They're not that concerned if it costs 19 bucks or 22 bucks, they know it's gonna last for quite a while and they want to control their weeds. So Monsanto was, has always been able to profit, uh, much more significantly from the lawn and garden market, but yet they never did any focused research on the exposure patterns and risks that were unique to that market.
Ken Cook: That gets us to Dwayne Lee Johnson, I think, doesn't it?
Chuck Benbrook: It absolutely does. So there's two major things that happened that brought glyphosate into the middle of this massive increase in the use and diversification of the ways that it was being used, and the ways that we were all exposed to it, including this crazy idea to start spraying it on a wheat crop two weeks before harvest.
RoundUp Ad: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: The so-called pre-harvest use — that you and EWG are finally, I think, going to have some success in ending. Thank God. That's half of it. Then the other half is that in March of 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organization issued a very unexpected classification of glyphosate and glyphosate based herbicides, which would include Roundup as a probable human carcinogen.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: This came out of the blue. People, including me, were shocked 'cause we had followed the toxicity data and the EPAs human health risk assessments on glyphosate and, and, you know, glyphosate looked a, about as safe as any herbicide that had ever been registered and now all of a sudden IARC is saying it's a probable human carcinogen.
That's what triggered the interest among tort lawyers out there, and IARC said that the evidence was strongest linking Roundup to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. So people that had non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and had been using Roundup for 20 years, they said, “Hey, geez, I wonder if the Roundup contributed to my non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.”
And so they talked to a lawyer, do I have a case? And indeed they did. And Dwayne Lee Johnson, the groundskeeper for the Bonita school district just a little north of where you live, Ken.
Ken Cook: Yeah, that's right.
Chuck Benbrook: I believe it was either six or seven school campuses that he was responsible for controlling weeds and other pest control activities.
So he probably spent more time spraying Roundup than almost any other specific task in his job. And in his years of doing that, he had two very serious exposure episodes where he really got dosed. That's why his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma came on in only four years after the exposures. Usually non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has a longer latency period, but those were the two events.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, carefully going through the data and explaining why in their judgment and based on their classification system, the evidence now supports the fact that glyphosate state-based herbicides probably cause cancer. Yeah. Well that, that's what triggered the initiation of the litigation.
Ken Cook: That was a case that was brought in state court right here in the state of California. The ruling came down in in his favor. And for most of these cases where it was in favor of the plaintiff, the initial amounts, the penalties or the settlements that were announced have been reduced by, over the course of appeals and reviews and so forth.
But it was very substantial. And on top of that, um, it, it was pretty clear that there would be many more such cases, and that has turned out to be in fact what happened.
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah, so the, the Roundup non-Hodgkin's lymphoma litigation ha, you know, has dwarfed any past pesticide litigation in the history of the US by multiple orders of magnitude.
And in fact, Ken, I think the only mass tort litigation that's involved more overall settlements would be asbestos. I mean, it's,
Ken Cook: Yeah, probably, yeah,
Chuck Benbrook: There's been about a 110,000 cases that either, the vast majority of course, have settled there. There's only been like 32 trials, in 11 years. It takes a lot to get through all of the hurdles to actually have a trial.
And Bayer Monsanto has not wanted to go to trial, because that's when they're vulnerable to, what's called a punitive damage award. So Lee Johnson, who, he had pretty strong evidence that his massive exposures to to Roundup caused his non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
And he had actually called the one 800 number on the bottle to talk to Monsanto physicians went after he'd been diagnosed and he asked them, is it safe for me to go back and continue to spray Roundup even though I've been diagnosed with non Hodgkin's lymphoma? And guess what they said?
Ken Cook: Yeah, no problem Lee.
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah, your use of Roundup had nothing to do with your cancer, when they knew that it probably did.
The jury was so convinced that Monsanto's behavior was unacceptable,
Ken Cook: And that resulted in punitive damages on top of, uh, other damages
Chuck Benbrook: $250 million for one man.
Ken Cook: So you were part of that legal team as an expert witness, that, that helped Johnson's legal team succeed in that case. And another person who was part of that legal team is our current Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and he shared in the proceeds of the settlement, the share that went to the lawyers. Don't know how they divided it up, it's not been made public, but this was a case that he was integrally involved in.
And at, if you look back at the time, he made some very strong statements as he's mostly continued to make ever since about the importance of dealing with the threat that Roundup poses to human health, not just Mr. Johnson's, God bless him, but lots of other people. And he recruited people as well to bring similar cases as I understand it, uh, in other venues.
Chuck Benbrook: Let's also remember what else was going on at this time.
Bayer really wanted to buy Monsanto, either wanted to merge or acquire Monsanto, and that was actually coming to fruition in early 2018. The Lee Johnson trial started, I believe in March and concluded in May. Yeah. And the acquisition, the $63 billion check that Bayer wrote to buy Monsanto occurred right before that trial started, and at the time when Bayer wrote that $63 billion check to buy Monsanto and all of its liability, there were already 4,500 cases had been filed.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: So Bayer knew that it was going to be a significant body of litigation. I think it's, it's fair to predict that the Monsanto folks told the Bayer people, oh, this is just BS litigation. The science isn't there. We're gonna, we'll win the first few cases and it'll all go away.
I mean, there's no way that Bayer would've gone through with the acquisition.
Ken Cook: You wouldn't think
Chuck Benbrook: Unless they did believe that,
Ken Cook: You know, you, you wouldn't think, and back in around, right. At that time, I had some, some folks I was talking to with Bayer, based in Europe. And if you leave out the Monsanto conversations, Bayer was beginning to take much more seriously developing low risk, organic compliant, even pesticides of all kinds of different kinds.
They had an investment in a facility here in California to do it that I was proud to, to view. And the thought that a major player like Bayer would be weighing in, in a way that would be beneficial because of less toxic, maybe less immediately effective, as is often the case, but less toxic weed killers and other pesticides.
And I remember saying to them, when I heard that they might be buying Monsanto, I said, look, I don't know all the financial considerations or the market considerations, but what I will tell you is what I mostly know about Monsanto beyond what I know about, uh, what's happened with, with Roundup, is what they did with PCBs.
'Cause I have a member of my board from Aniston, Alabama, and we worked with him in the years before when Monsanto knew and lied about, hid from their community in Aniston what PCBs were doing to the community of Aniston, particularly a, a poor community that wasn't entirely African American, but, but largely African American.
And my current board member, David Baker, was the guy who pushed back against Monsanto, led the charge in the community, brought Johnny Cochran to town, had thousands of people lined up and got a huge settlement, the largest settlement at that time, based on fundamentally civil rights law, that they had violated the civil rights of that community.
And they, I think they came in with about a $700 million settlement for the community against Monsanto on PCBs. And I just said, look, if it's in the DNA of a company to not let you know. And this was always in the backdrop for the two of us, I think too with, with uh, GMO crops, right? This was not the kind of company that was gonna step up.
Now most of them don't. But we felt, I felt, in particular, knowing the PCB history, knowing how much money was at stake in, in Roundup, I just didn't trust the company, and I said that to these folks I knew at, at Bayer. But it was higher ups making the decisions. I think it was a bad call, but we'll see how the courts decide.
Chuck Benbrook: It's probably worth sharing, Bayer did not buy Monsanto for Roundup. They bought Monsanto for the intellectual property methods to genetically engineer seeds, and plus of course, they got all of Monsanto seeds. Monsanto, by the time Bayer bought them, had control of much of the base genetics for corn and soybeans in the United States.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: That was the real reason that drove Bayer to want to acquire Monsanto, because Monsanto was making a lot of money off of the licensing of the genetic engineering traits to all other seed companies. And when a company has intellectual property like that, that they license to other companies, it's a perpetual cash machine.
Ken Cook: Yeah. It's like owning the operating system for American agriculture in a significant way. Right? And look what that's done for Microsoft and Apple and others who stepped in, right?
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah. Yeah. So that's what Bayer was, was after and, um, so the, the Johnson case happened and about six months later, the Hardeman case.
Ken Cook: Yes.
Chuck Benbrook: And the Hardeman case was very important because it was the first trial in the federal multi-district litigation. The MDL litigation run by a, a, a very hard-nosed judge named Vince Chhabria.
Ken Cook: Here in San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit, right
Chuck Benbrook: here in San Francisco, and Chhabria to the benefit of Bear and, and Monsanto, bifurcated the trial into two parts. The plaintiff's Hardeman had to get through the first part to get to the second part of the trial.
The first part was just the general causation. Was there adequate science evidence linking exposure to Roundup and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to meet the standard of, it's more likely than not that Hardeman's exposure to Roundup contributed to his disease — contributed in a significant way?
Ken Cook: But where was Hardeman from?
Chuck Benbrook: He was from California. I don't remember where in California. He had used Roundup for 20 or 30 years
Ken Cook: On his property.
Chuck Benbrook: He wasn't a groundskeeper. He wasn't a farmer. He had been in good health. And the trial on the first part, on the general causation was.
Ken Cook: Yeah
Chuck Benbrook: That was Monsanto's and Bayer’s best shot at containing the litigation and the lawyers knew it, both sides, especially because the judge had seemed to be very open to many of the Bayer Monsanto attorney and expert arguments. Judge Chhabria was skeptical about the science.
Ken Cook: I was fully expecting the trial to end at that first juncture.
Chuck Benbrook: In that first phase of the Hardeman trial, the jury brought back a yes, we believe that Roundup contributed to his non Hodgkins lymphoma.
So phase two was liability and Monsanto's bad behavior, and how big should the compensatory damage award should be, how big should the punitive damage award be? And then just a few months after Hardeman, the Pilliod case. And the Pilliod case was what really blew it wide open. Alva and Alberta Pilliod, and after he retired from the Navy in good health, they would buy five acres of kind of rundown urban, suburban property in Northern California, clean it up.
They were birders, so they would take, each one would take their Roundup sprayer in the evening and walk through the properties and use the Roundup to make trails so they could go and watch the wildlife and the birds.
And, and it's hot, and it's hot in Northern California in the, in the spring and summer. And so they would wear flip flops or sneakers without socks. Shorts and t-shirts, because they'd been told it was safe. And because a lot of the spray solution would land on their lower legs and on their hands, they never got sick.
They didn't get a rash. Monsanto had told 'em it's safe and they knew they had it on them and they never got sick and they never had a rash. So they, they figured their lived experience was aligned with what Monsanto was saying. But Doc, there's a problem — when a chemical damages your DNA, you don't feel it.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: You, you don't get a rash.
Ken Cook: They were from Livermore, so they were out in the heat of the day. And if you've been to Livermore, you know how hot it gets over there, but yeah. And it, it got into their skin. And so what happened next?
Chuck Benbrook: Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a married couple, they got exactly the same type, the major type of non-Hodgkins lymphoma within like six months of each other.
So they got the same disease.
Ken Cook: Oh.
Chuck Benbrook: And the lawyer that presented the case, Brent Wisner, someone that you've met.
Ken Cook: Yeah. Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: He did a masterful job at the tail end of the case in presenting to the jury a way for them — if they so choose to impose punitive damages, how might they figure out the number? A million, 10 million?
And he brought to their attention multiple times during the trial, an email sent by medical doctor to the rest of the management team, the senior people in, involved in preserving their markets for Roundup. And this email chain was speculating about the impact of the IARC classification as a probable human carcinogen.
Ken Cook: Big problem for Monsanto. Big problem.
Chuck Benbrook: For big, big problem. And whether the IARC report would change the EPAs mind. So that they said no, the EPA position was, it was not likely to cause cancer. They, they were concerned about the IARC decision pushing EPA to at least go to possible carcinogen or maybe to a probable carcinogen, which is what the classification decision that IARC made.
So this, this medical officer wrote an email to the brass speculating about whether the, the IARC classification would change EPA, and he entitled it, the billion dollar question.
Ken Cook: There you go.
Chuck Benbrook: And Brent, in the end of his closing statement, the end of the closing statement, this is right before basically the case goes to the jury, he brought that that email back to the attention of the jury in a way that some of the jurors said, hmm, billion, billion, that, that's okay.
Well guess what the jury awarded? A billion dollars to both Alva and Alberta. So it's a $2 billion punitive damage award. One of the largest, punitive damage awards in history for two people.
Ken Cook: For anything. Yeah, for anything. It's this internal document, right? This secret stuff. Right. What they knew and when they knew it.
Profound impact, right? You could line up all the animal studies and all the rest of the evidence critically important to take that into account, but there's something about corporate malfeasance doing things dishonestly, that really rubbed a juror wrong.
Chuck Benbrook: So there were two other smoking gun, very impactful emails in all of these early trials.
The second one was an email by Donna Farmer sent to colleagues in Australia who were dealing with a major news program, investigative program, doing a story about this Roundup cause cancer. And they were getting advice from the brass in St. Louis about what they should say to the, the reporter. They had drafted a statement saying, oh, Roundup doesn't cause cancer, blah, blah, blah.
And she sends them an email saying, we can't say Roundup doesn't cause cancer, 'cause we haven't done the studies required to make that statement. Right in an email. Well, so the jury sees that email about five times.
Ken Cook: Yes, I remember that very well.
Chuck Benbrook: During the trial. And then my personal favorite, number three,
Ken Cook: I think I know which one this is, but go for it.
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah, yeah. You, you know what's coming. It was written by a senior scientist working for Monsanto Europe that had been involved with the very successful reregistration process in Europe, where the European regulators had basically told Monsanto Europe that they're gonna ban Roundup with polyethoxylated tallow amine POEA surfactants, because it was genotoxic, it was clearly damaging DNA.
Ken Cook: The surfactants are the things they add to the formulation to aid right in its efficacy on the leaf of the plant, right?
Chuck Benbrook: Correct. But it also speeds up the movement of the glyphosate through skin. And it also speeds up the glyphosate moving through a hematopoietic stem cell wall because the glyphosate's gotta get inside the cell to come into contact with the DNA to trigger the mutation that starts that cell on the path to non Hodgkin's lymphoma or leukemia or multiple myeloma, which are things that your buddy Benbrook learned through 11 years working on this litigation.
So this guy that helped Monsanto do this seamless transition where they voluntarily took all of the Roundup off the market that they were selling in Europe that was formulated with the POEA surfactants and replaced it with Roundup, formulated with another surfactant, coronary ammonia surfactants.
And it worked fine. They didn't lose any market. There was no big public concern. And so Dr. Richard Garnett, the guy that did this, was involved in a debate with the, again, the brass in St. Louis, the senior people who were trying to figure out what to do next. 'cause they were dealing with reregistration in the U.S.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: They were dealing with concerns in Mexico that wanted to end use of Roundup. Garnett and others put on the table, well, why don't we make the same change worldwide that we made to make Roundup safer in Europe?
Ken Cook: Why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you?
Chuck Benbrook: Why wouldn't you? And, and so in the course of this long email change with, you know, the senior people, the key people that were the decision makers that
Ken Cook: Was never meant to be public.
Chuck Benbrook: That was never meant to be public.
This guy puts in a line, why should we keep making a hazardous pesticide when we know how to make a safer one. In the email!
Ken Cook: I remember
Chuck Benbrook: And, and so again, the jury saw that like five times over the weeks of the trial. I mean, what could be a clear admission that they understood that there were risks to the old Roundup? The Roundup that's still being sold to American farmers, by the way.
Ken Cook: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Again, that, you know, when will anyone learn if they haven't learned it already, that the coverup is worse than the crime.
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah. And that's when the advertising started all over the country. I mean, how many ads did all of us, you know, on the radio, on the TV billboards, if you used a lot of Roundup?
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: Mm-hmm. Call this number. Then of course the number of cases filed, you know, ballooned from several thousand to a hundred thousand, and now I think the total is, it's pushing 180,000 total.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: There's still new cases coming in. It's one of the things that, you know, we ought to talk about a little bit is that there's absolutely no change in how Bayer Monsanto has dealt with Roundup other than for the lawn and garden market.
They took the relatively low tox, active ingredient, glyphosate out of it, and put in three or four different herbicides, including most of them, that are much more toxic than glyphosate, which is just, it's such a irresponsible action by this company, and they say, oh, we did it because we have to curtail the liability risk.
Well. You know, there's gonna be a lot of people that are harmed by this new Roundup because it's still called Roundup. People don't know that there's four other pesticides in it and they think, well, I used to get it all over me and it never made me sick. Well, you get this stuff all over you, you are gonna get, you are gonna get sick. Other than that, they've done nothing.
Ken Cook: Yeah. Yeah. And they could have, as they said themselves. So let's talk through the case that proceeded that your Amicus Brief filed on behalf of Heartland Health and Research Alliance, HHRA. The Trump administration came in in the Ninth Circuit and said, yes, we want the Supreme Court to hear it, and yes, FIFRA preempts, the federal law preempts the states, being able to have any kind of parallel warning that should be made known to anyone who uses the product.
So that case just kind of dies out because the, the Biden administration comes along and says, no, we, we think FIFRA preemption here is not appropriate.
So Hardeman gets their settlement and then Mr. Darnell comes along. And at this point we have the Department of Justice under Biden is still saying, no, we, we don't, we don't think the Supreme Court should intervene. We don't think you should look at this case because it's settled. Preemption doesn't prevent these kinds of plaintiff's cases from coming forward.
But the new Supreme Court, as of the summer of 2025. Ask the incoming, the new Trump administration, been in office, not even a year, asks them, what should we do? Should we, should we take another look? Because maybe things have changed with the new administration. And sure enough, then that's when the Trump administration for the second time in the case, it's going to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration says the same thing in effect that it said before, yeah, these cases should be thrown out because FIFRA protects the companies.
Chuck Benbrook: I learned from a very reliable source that this issue of preemption and the tension within the MAHA world came up several months ago in a, a cabinet meeting that Trump was at, and he said, what's this about?
And somebody that knew a little bit about it said, oh, it's this preemption thing. And Trump said, we shouldn't agree with that. We don't want to give a free pass to chemical companies. He said that, and at the time wasn't expected, but the view was, well, it looks like the White House wasn't gonna, wasn't gonna weigh in on, on behalf of Bayer and Syngenta in this policy fight, but clearly other voices changed his mind.
Ken Cook: Yeah. And my colleague also, Brian Bienkowski for The New Lede works with Carey Gillam. He just won the North American Agricultural Journalists top award for news because of his study using the Freedom of Information Act to unearth just how many times Bayer Monsanto lobbyists met with the administration to argue for them to come back and come back, come home and stand for the companies and not for the, the victims of this exposure.
Chuck Benbrook: Oh my God. The, the degree to which Bayer and former Bayer people and people whose professional careers and livelihood has been dependent on Bayer and the other pesticide companies. I've never seen anything like it from the Secretary of Agriculture, Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, this major fundraiser, Brandon, somebody, the Florida guy.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: They all have deep ties into Bayer. This is how large corporations engage with government.
Ken Cook: That's how they get their way.
Chuck Benbrook: They establish long-term relationships with people of influence that they don't know exactly, I mean, who would've guessed that Brooke Rollins would be Secretary of Agriculture in 2026?
Ken Cook: No one in agriculture I guess, did.
Chuck Benbrook: No, nobody in agriculture. And you know, I think, you know, Brooke, Brooke, Brooke is doing a fine job on some issues. But, uh, she certainly is paying attention to her, her friends and colleagues in the Bayer world and the degree of influence that Bayer has now on this administration, I, I've never seen anything like it.
Ken Cook: It's shocking and, uh, you know, of course Lee Zeldin responded pretty favorably when the, uh, Attorney General, early in the administration came to him and said, here's our petition to you at EPA to, to intervene on behalf of Bayer and Monsanto and stand up for, for preemption of state law.
I think all of us were blown away by the executive order that invoked national security as yet another layer of defense. Look, let's think about the layers here. First of all, there's the proceedings in federal court where the solicitor general, the top trial lawyer for the Justice Department weighed in on behalf of Bayer and Monsanto.
Then you have this executive order that, hey, it's a matter of national defense that we keep, keep this stuff being produced. And then finally, we haven't yet heard what the administration will say, but I don't think it'll be a surprise — there's an effort in Congress to rewrite the law in favor of Bayer and Monsanto and lots of other pesticide companies to choke off any kind of state-based claims of harm and avenues for accountability.
So that's, that's really pretty impressive. Uh, we probably won't get to the prospect that a bad decision at the court or the passage of this bad amendment in the Farm Bill, the implications it will have for other pesticide litigation and other venues for holding pesticide companies accountable. But it's significant, right?
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah. You asked about the Durnell case. Yeah,
Ken Cook: Yeah. Uh,
Chuck Benbrook: John Durnell was a very typical urban user of Roundup. Bought it at, you know, local Lowe's or Home Depot, sprayed it around his yard again for several years. And was exposed to enough of it that the amount of damage to the DNA in these hematopoietic stem cells in his bone marrow, it, it created enough mutated, uh, cells that are incredibly elaborate and redundant immune systems just couldn't keep up.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: And sometimes a cancer will get ahead of the immune system when the immune system's fighting a urinary tract infection or an ear infection, or upper respiratory infection. Or sometimes people are put on immunosuppressive drugs 'cause they're having an a, an organ transplant. If there's some cancer cells in that person's body, they're gonna go wild.
So there, there's, there, cancer is such a complicated disease and there's essentially never or hardly ever one thing that causes a case of cancer. It's a series of things that unfold over at least a few years. Timing has a lot to do with it. John Darnell's case, uh, which I was involved with, I did an expert report and was deposed as, as part of the case — I didn't testify at trial. Uh, it, it reached a judgment. I think he was awarded 1.25 million, which was definitely on the low side.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: Monsanto didn't pick the Durnell case because of the, the large award. There were other reasons that they felt it would be a good vehicle to get these, these issues back in, in front of the Supreme Court.
So when, Bayer Monsanto literally engineered the conflict between the appeals courts. They paid people to do the appeals and, and rewarded either plaintiffs or attorneys for an outcome in those appeals that set up the request for the Supreme Court to take the case.
Ken Cook: Set up by a split between two districts.
Chuck Benbrook: Three.
Ken Cook: The third. Three, okay. All right. I know it's the one in Philadelphia, obviously the one in California, and then where was the third one?
Chuck Benbrook: Uh, it's in the southeast.
Ken Cook: Okay. The Supreme Court's looking at it and saying, “Hey, we're getting conflicting readings right from the courts right below us. So that's an invitation for us to step in.”
Chuck Benbrook: Right. But one of the reasons this is so controversial within the legal community is that Bayer Monsanto paid for lawyers to create the conflict in a way that's been exposed.
Ken Cook: How did they go about it? How did they do it?
Chuck Benbrook: What it boiled down to is that they promised both the attorneys and the person that was the plaintiff in the litigation that they would receive financial compensation, even if they settled their case.
Ken Cook: Wow.
Chuck Benbrook: So once the Supreme Court decided to take the case, I said to myself, I've been dealing with preemption since 1981, when I served as the staff director of the DOA subcommittee. And the number one issue that the industry wanted changes on in 1981, in George Brown subcommittee was preemption. And why?
Because the state of California, Florida, Massachusetts, and New York were starting to impose further restrictions, mostly on insecticide use because they didn't want farm workers to be poisoned in the field.
Ken Cook: Yeah. These were parallel to what was required on the label, right? Not
Chuck Benbrook: Correct.
Ken Cook: Not additional to or substitutes to. They were just parallel, like you have to do this too under state law.
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah, let's use wine grapes. A lot of insecticides are used in in wine grapes. And the company gets a federal label that it, it says how much can be applied, how many times, what kind of sprayer? What sort of PPE the applicator has to wear.
Ken Cook: Personal protective equipment, yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: But doesn't say much about a farm worker, maybe in the next field over, or a, a farm worker that's going into pr...
Ken Cook: It gets on them. It spray, it drifts onto them, or whatever. A family. It could be anybody.
Chuck Benbrook: And the federal label doesn't have any warnings about if you are working in and around a treated field, make sure that you don't get, get exposed. 'Cause this, this stuff will kill you.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: Federal labels were being approved that did not address in any way, shape or form many of the ways that farm workers were getting inadvertently, accidentally, exposed in places like California where you'd have a heavily sprayed grape field next to a strawberry field, next to a cauliflower field.
And you know, they're close enough together that some of the pesticides drift and people were getting badly injured, some people were being killed. So the states were requiring on state labels additional restrictions on when and where a field could be applied. And for example, the state of California wanted to put a sign on the corner of the field — this has been sprayed, stay out of the field for at least 24 hours.
And they wanted the signs to be in Spanish. What a radical idea.
Ken Cook: Of course.
Chuck Benbrook: Right. And this is what the pesticide industry at the national level, they didn't want states to be free to address these very localized and often really dangerous, high risk exposure scenarios. So they came to our subcommittee and and said, we want to cut back the role of states in pesticide labeling.
And states can't require anything more on their label than what the federal EPA did. And if a farm worker is injured and heaven forbid killed, they can't go into a state court and sue the company because they got sprayed from this application on the grapes and were exposed to enough to kill them. They couldn't bring litigation because the application was, complied with, what was on the federal label.
So what California was doing, they were adding additional requirements, including mandatory warnings. And so now the industry says, the argument behind the current effort, is that a farmer or a farm worker, or someone that is exposed to a pesticide in a state and is harmed. Either harmed economically, the pesticide killed their crop, killed their apple trees, damaged the paint on their Maserati, which was happening from some aerial applications in California, remember?
Ken Cook: Yeah, I do remember that.
Chuck Benbrook: You know, people were being harmed from legal, labeled uses of pesticides and, and because of state law, they would go into court and say the, you know, there was a failure to warn. But the pesticide companies want now the federal court system and the Supreme Court to say to the state court, you can't recognize a failure to warn claim unless the warning was on the federal label.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: And of course, pesticide companies, they're responsible for writing the labels and they resist.
Ken Cook: They don't wanna do it.
Chuck Benbrook: They don't want to.
Ken Cook: It'll hurt sales. It'll hurt sales.
Chuck Benbrook: It'll hurt sales.
Ken Cook: Yeah. You have a phrase in your brief industry backed by the Trump administration, I'm gonna say it again, backed by the administration that includes Bobby Kennedy. What they're basically saying is, we wanna make sure that this preemption exists, not just for the things we warn about on the label, but for anything we didn't think of.
Chuck Benbrook: Or didn't understand.
Ken Cook: Didn't understand. No science. But the, the states are producing the science, Heartland Health and Research Alliance produced vital information. New science that wasn't originally considered in the registration of the pesticide you write about in the brief, but there we are.
Chuck Benbrook: Let me just briefly describe part of the HHRA amicus brief that, I think's gonna catch the attention of the Supreme Court.
Ken Cook: Fingers crossed.
Chuck Benbrook: At the core of it, the pesticide industry, Bayer Monsanto wanna take states out of the pesticide regulatory business
Ken Cook: Out of the game. Totally.
Chuck Benbrook: Out of the game. What's going on right now involving another major Monsanto herbicide called Dicamba. Dicamba is one of the herbicides that Monsanto has developed a way to genetically alter soybeans and cotton plants so that not only can you spray glyphosate over the top of the crop, but you can also spray Dicamba.
And Dicamba is very helpful in dealing with some of the difficult to control broadleaf weeds that are really plaguing corn and soybean farmers around the country now.
Ken Cook: And that because Roundup no longer works, right,
Chuck Benbrook: Because it was used too heavily and irresponsibly. Yeah, because Monsanto fought putting any kind of resistance management provisions on the label because they were afraid that it might curtail their sales.
'Cause Monsanto is all about maximizing the sale and profits from its products and anything that gets in the way of that, what they call they, they want to preserve the ‘freedom to operate.’ The freedom to get labels and then to prevent any limitations being put on the existing labels.
Ken Cook: Freedom to operate. I can see the bald eagles and the American flag — unless the pesticide has killed the bald eagles. Of course, I can see the bald eagles in the American flag in the background. Freedom. Freedom to operate.
Chuck Benbrook: Dicamba has been a hugely controversial development, these Dicamba tolerant crops, because Dicamba is very volatile.
So farmers would spray Dicamba and kill the broadleaf weeds in the soybean field. But then the Dicamba, it volatilizes and goes up in the air, and then it moves with the, the, the wind and wherever it next rains or, or a little dew, it's gonna come back down to earth. Well, guess what? There's a lot of plants and trees and shrubs that when that Dicamba comes back down to earth, it's gonna harm it, if not kill it.
So all over the Midwest, there's been, this movement of Dicamba and, and another phenoxy herbicide, two four D, which is also very volatile. So the, the, the herbicides, they don't stay on the field where they sprayed, funny thing, especially in hot and hum weather, they volatilize go up in the air and move.
And so this has just created havoc in these Midwestern and southeastern states where there's a lot of genetically engineered soybeans and cotton grown and a lot of Dicamba being applied. So what have the states done? The states all now do supplemental labels. And what's in the supplemental labels? They have things like, you can't apply Dicamba after June 15th north of, of Highway five or in X County.
So all of the states now are doing supplemental labels for the Dicamba product. That's registered for over the top use in association with a genetically engineered soybeans and cotton. And these labels have some combination of geographic restrictions where they can be sprayed and what the cutoff date is — because this volatilization problem, it gets worse as it gets hotter.
So the farther into the summer, the worse the problem is. From the first year it was used when they could use it, Christ, they could apply it in August and they were having huge problems. Now most of the states don't allow it much after the third week in June.
And basically the farther south you go, the earlier that date is.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: So now there are three companies, Bayer Monsanto, Syngenta, and BASF, that have EPA approved Dicamba labels for applications on genetically engineered soybeans and cotton. These products are now approved in 34 states. So do the math.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: 34 times three.
So now states are reviewing and approving a hundred supplemental labels. A hundred supplemental labels. These are labels that the states have to do, have to apply, they have to enforce, and there's all kinds of crazy ass implications that nobody thought of. You know, somebody's farming in Missouri along the Iowa border, and they go and they buy some Dicamba in Iowa and it's got the label for Iowa and they bring it to Missouri, who's at fault.
Ken Cook: Yeah. Yeah. It's
Chuck Benbrook: unimaginable.
Ken Cook: One of the dynamics here, and you brought it to my attention as these cases were unfolding in this instance, this is a farmer versus farmer thing, right? This is where the plaintiffs were the farmers who were complaining that the drift of this dicamba into their fields that weren't dicamba resistant was costing them a lot of money, a lot of damage, and, and, uh, very upsetting.
Much as they care about their neighbors, they want their neighbors to be able to do what they want to do, like they want to do with their own land. But this stuff doesn't stay on your land. It doesn't stay on your crops. It moves.
Chuck Benbrook: Just think of the hypocrisy here where Bayer Monsanto, for its Roundup product is saying, we gotta cut the role of states out, because we don't like the fact that sometimes we get hauled into court, maybe have to compensate somebody that's been harmed by our product.
But it, but for our Dicamba product, oh, we like it that the states are doing like a almost a hundred supplemental labels this year to allow farmers to spray Dicamba on genetically engineered soybean and cotton,
Ken Cook: And then it falls on the farmers, if they haven't obeyed the label, it falls on them. Not on Monsanto. Is that right?
Chuck Benbrook: Well, that, yes, that, that is exactly correct. Now, if Monsanto has written a inaccurate or ineffective or ambiguous label, they also can become part of litigation. But the, the thing that, that just boils my blood about this, Ken, is the current Supreme Court precedents and direction to state courts about when somebody, that, that is defending a Monsanto or a Syngenta in state court.
Somebody has Parkinson's disease, somebody has non Hodgkin's lymphoma and has brought suit, and that person is seeking compensation from the company, the instructions to the judge on how to deal with a motion — to throw out the failure to warn cause of action. The basis of the litigation.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: Throw it out. You can't do it. That foundation, that interpretation of the FIFRA law was put in place in 2005 as a result of a bunch of cantankerous Texas peanut farmers.
Ken Cook: Yes.
Chuck Benbrook: These peanut farmers had bought a brand new Dow AgroSciences herbicide diclosulam. The trade name was Strongarm.
Strongarm, right?
Ken Cook: They always have the great trade names. Machete and whatever. Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: But there was one issue with Strongarm. Maybe more than one, but one issue that Dow knew about was that in soils, high pH soils, it didn't break down as fast as it normally did, and it was pretty persistent. So if, if a peanut farmer used it in the peanuts, it would work great, it would control the weeds. But then the farmer plants a cotton crop after the peanuts, the next year.
And holy shit, the, the Strongarm herbicide is still active and damages the subsequent crop. Well, that's what happened to this group of, of, I think there was seven or eight plaintiffs led by, the lead plaintiff was a, a guy named a farmer named Bates, and all they asked for was their losses to be covered. Which is the, you know, the amount of money that they paid to plant the subsequent crop and this, this kind of thing with, you know, carry over herbicide damage. Yeah. It, it was happening regularly all over the country.
And most of the time if it was a custom applicator, they would have insurance and the insurance would more than cover it. And sometimes the companies would kick in some of the money if it was a, a larger, broader adverse impact. But for some reason Dow decided that by God we're gonna fight this and try to get rid of this failure to warn cause of action.
And so Dow takes on this group of seven Texas peanut farmers takes on big Dow AgroSciences
Ken Cook: All the way to the Supreme Court.
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah. And wins.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: And wins. And so now American farmers read the, the propaganda put out by the Modern Ag Alliance and other front groups that are being financed mostly by Bayer Monsanto and Syngenta — that are the two multinational pesticide companies facing billions of dollars of costs from litigation over, in the case of Syngenta, Paraquat Parkinson's disease, and in the case of Bayer Monsanto, Roundup and Non Hodge's lymphoma.
They are desperate, desperate to find a way to limit their liability exposure. And let, let me at this point, make one other point that is really important. Why is the pesticide industry so determined to try to get this change in law put in place?
And there's really a very obvious answer. Science is catching up with the ability to link exposure to a given pesticide to damage to DNA or some marker of the evolution of a chronic disease, which then clearly increases the risk of some bad thing happening. Science is catching up on all of the instances where the pesticide industry covered up knowledge and evidence of harm and convinced regulators to say, yeah, it's okay.
We'll label that. That pesticide can be in broccoli. This pesticide can be in carrots. This pesticide can be sprayed all over rangeland in the West. And EPA made those decisions, because the companies had successfully kept the regulators from understanding what the companies already understood about how the pesticide can damage human health.
And the companies know that there are going to be more of these successful efforts by the pesticide industry to keep products on the market, for decades, in some cases, after the company knew it was causing significantly heightened risk of, in the case of Paraquat and Parkinson's disease, the predecessor companies to Syngenta, remember back in the day when we called them Novartis?
Ken Cook: Okay, I do remember. Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, we're going back, but in 1980s, Novartis sponsored cutting edge quality research on what Paraquat was doing in the human brain. And guess what they found? It was triggering damage to dopamine neurons. Completely consistent, and fundamentally part of the progression of damaged neurons to Parkinson's disease — in the eighties!
Ken Cook: Yeah. And another shout out to Carrie Gillum because she published something called the Paraquat Papers. They're on the The New Lede website right now. They were published by The Guardian as well, that again, once you lift this corporate veil and see what they knew and when they knew it, what they were talking about in memos and emails and other communications, they fricking knew.
And they have an obligation under law to let the government know and they didn't. And we know why they didn't. For all the reasons you just described, it's the beginning of the end for them.
Chuck Benbrook: And Ken, let, let me make really clear, 'cause I'm sure some farmers that do worry about access to Roundup are listening to this.
Monsanto knew that Roundup herbicides were damaging the DNA in stem cells in all of our bone marrow. They knew that by the early two thousands. They didn't have any tools to quantify exactly how big the increase in risk of non Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma, leukemia, the blood cancers.Very important cancers.
They didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle put together like we do now, today.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: But they knew enough to say, let's put a warning on it.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: You know, if you're using this product a lot and use it over several years, take extra precautions to avoid exposures. They should have put a requirement for for on the label when you are handling and applying this product, wear gloves. I mean, how simple is that?
Ken Cook: How about a long sleeve shirt? How about long — no flip flops, right?
Chuck Benbrook: No flip flops. The Roundup non Hodgkin’s lymphoma litigation is unfortunately stuffed with incredible stories. There was a woman in Florida, she loved her backyard garden, especially her rose bushes.
She had an area in her backyard with her rose bushes.
Ken Cook: My mom and Aunt Ruth did too. I think you saw it one time too.
Chuck Benbrook: God bless them.
Ken Cook: Yeah. Yeah, that's right.
Chuck Benbrook: Been a long time since they left a stock.
Ken Cook: That's right. That's right.
Chuck Benbrook: So this woman, she used bark mulch under her roses, very proud of her roses. And then she had her lawn and she hated it when her lawn started to creep out into her bark mulch, which, yeah, don't we all tend to do.
Ken Cook: Don't we all? Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: So she devised a creative solution. She would have her little Roundup canister that she bought at Home Depot and the little electric sprayer on with shorts on and bare feet.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: And she would put her foot on top of the edge of the grass, on top of the edge of the grass and then spray the bark mulch with her foot catching the, the spray.
And she did that for several years. And guess what? She got non Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: I mean, people do kind of crazy things, but
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: When a, when a company tells people that their product is non-toxic, it's, it's all natural ingredients, biodegradable.
Ken Cook: You can spray out the window of a cab as you're on your way to the airport.
Chuck Benbrook: Right? Yeah. Right. And remember the ads for DDT with the kids in suburban areas?
Ken Cook: Yes, off course.
Chuck Benbrook: Of course. Walking behind the spray truck 'cause it looks like it's snowing. In an urban area.
Ken Cook: I did it in my suburban St. Louis neighborhood. Of course I did.
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah.
Ken Cook: Of course I did.
Chuck Benbrook: We all did. So what, what does DDT and Roundup glyphosate have in common? They have an extraordinarily high LD 50.
Ken Cook: The LD 50 is the amount that will kill half the animals in an experiment.
Chuck Benbrook: Exactly. LD stands for lethal dose. Dash 50 is 50% of the animals. So this is the
Ken Cook: Died during the study
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah. Right, right.
Ken Cook: It's not like this is, we wait around for them to get cancer. They're fricking dead.
Chuck Benbrook: Right
Ken Cook: In the cage.
Chuck Benbrook: Right, right. And so, you know, the, the, the LD 50 for glyphosate is like 4,000 parts per million. I mean, it's really high. Just the same as with DDT. I mean, you can stick your arm into a barrel of Roundup and pull your arm out and you're not gonna get sick. You're not gonna have symptoms, you're not gonna get a rash.
If you stick your little one finger just a little bit into that much Paraquat, you're gonna die.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: Or any of the high risk, uh, organophosphate or carbonate insecticide.
Ken Cook: Yeah. Yeah. It varies. Well, you've been very generous with your time, so I just want to ask you one more question and, and you know, again, we're, this is gonna stay with us for a while, depending, especially depending on where, where the Supreme Court goes down, depending on what happens with the Farm Bill next week and what, we don't have time to talk about that particular scenario, but you and I have been through dozens of Farm Bills it feels like.
But what do you think is at stake now? So politically, there are all kinds of questions now in the world of MAHA because they feel betrayed, and rightly so. They shouldn't have been surprised, but because they don't know all the history that we know, uh, they just assume when Trump said he was gonna do something about pesticides, and it sounds like you've, you've heard he was surprised at the preemption position the government took, uh, in the end too.
So there's that political element where we gotta get people to wake up to what's really going on. But then there's, there's the real possibility that if this decision goes the wrong way, and we've had some doozies on the environment from this court, right — that we could, we could really be in trouble.
We could really lose one of our few remaining avenues, other than buying organic food. But certainly for a lot of people being exposed outside the dietary exposure route, we, we could really be in trouble when it comes to protecting human health and the environment and all kinds of critters from pesticides.
But, but what, what's your sort of closing thought on all of this, Chuck? You, I mean, you, you and I go back decades, but you've been, you know, a, a, a leader on pesticide policy and regulation and obviously deeply involved as an expert in this litigation now also for decades. What comes to your mind that, that makes you most concerned if this goes sideways?
Chuck Benbrook: Really important, uh, question Ken and I, I, I think the answer is that right now, the, the only meaningful accountability and concern about coming forward and getting high risk pesticides registered for uses that are gonna result in a lot of, uh, human exposure is the, the risk of litigation. If that risk is taken away, then, right now, the, the pesticide industry has a very cozy relationship with the Office of Pesticide Programs.
Ken Cook: Longstanding very long, unfortunately, uncomfortably longstanding. I think, I don't wanna put words in your mouth, but, you know.
Chuck Benbrook: OPP started to go downhill by the late eighties, uh, and from basically the late eighties on, the ability of pesticide registrants to get their way with the Office of Pesticide Programs has steadily increased to, to the point now where they're, they're not really that concerned about getting their, their products on the market, and they're certainly not concerned about EPA taking a high risk product off the market.
I mean, look what happened just two weeks ago. Syngenta bailed on Paraquat before the EPA took it off the market.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: And what, why did Syngenta bail on it? Because they know they're gonna keep getting sued. It, it's, it's been banned in China, which owns Syngenta. You know, it's, it's just, uh, the, the lax approach of the US EPA and the Office of Pesticide programs about well documented, clearly hazardous uses of pesticides.
It, it's, it's, a travesty. And I think that farmers are starting to figure it out — because they look in their neighborhood cancer, this family, two cases of cancer, this family, three cases in this family.
Ken Cook: Yeah. Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: They can see that people are getting sick.
Ken Cook: Yeah.
Chuck Benbrook: And unfortunately we have big problems with how we grow food in this country, and then what we do with the food between when it leaves the farm and people eat it.
The concerns over ultra processed food are real. The health of the American public is a national disgrace right now.
Ken Cook: Yeah, for sure.
Chuck Benbrook: I think the public is about had it with it. And I think that the day is going to come, you know, in, in the next five or 10 years where there's going to be substantial changes in some of the laws and policies that govern agriculture and, and, and food safety and food quality.
We could have the most nutritious, delicious, diverse food supply in this country if we wanted to, but no. What do we have? We produce a lot of ethanol. We export a lot of food and we feed a lot of corn and soybeans to, to livestock and create unhealthy fats that keep us unhealthy. Our food and fiber system is seriously broken, and the, the, the time is, is, has come to fix it.
Ken Cook: Well, between your lips and God's ears, brother Chuck, I'm gonna end there and, and thank you for, uh, explaining all of this to me and to my, uh, audience and, and also for your decades of devotion, uh, intellectually and, um, devotion that comes from, from the heart. I know that firsthand, we'll come back when we find out how some of these deci, big decisions have come down.
The most momentous decisions really since the 1990, mid 1990s, Food Quality Protection Act and the National Academy, most momentous moment.
Chuck Benbrook: I, I knew you were gonna say that at some point.
Ken Cook: Yeah. We haven't agree. Had a moment like this and, um…
Chuck Benbrook: Yeah.
Ken Cook: We'll stick with it. Uh, Chuck Benbrook, thank you for joining and giving me another great episode.
Chuck Benbrook: Thank you.
Ken Cook: Thank you to Dr. Chuck Benbrook for joining me today, and thank you out there 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 to follow our show on Instagram @KenCooksPodcast. And if you're interested in learning more about ewg, head on over to ewg.org or check out the ewg Instagram account @EnvironmentalWorkingGroup.
Now, if this episode resonated with you, and I hope it did, and you think someone you know would benefit from it, send it along. The best way to make positive change is to start as a community with your community. Today's episode was produced by the extremely remarkable Beth Rowe at Mary Kelly. Our show's theme music is by Moby.
Thank you Moby, and thank you again out there for listening.
Areas of Focus Chemical Policy Glyphosate Pesticides May 29, 2026Transcript of EWG podcast 'Ken Cook Is Having Another Episode' – Episode 58
This Earth Day, we’re not celebrating progress; we’re sounding the alarm. In today’s episode, EWG co-Founder and President Ken Cook sits down with Dr. Phil Landrigan and Dr. Adam Gaffney, co-authors of a landmark article in the New England Journal of Medicine that breaks down how the Trump administration’s sweeping environmental rollbacks are threatening the health of every American.
Landrigan is no stranger to these fights. As a young Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doctor in the 1970s, his groundbreaking research on lead poisoning in children helped drive lead out of gasoline and paint. This victory reduced childhood lead poisoning by 95% and raised the IQ of an entire generation.
Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Harvard Medical School, has spent his career fighting to protect his patients’ lungs – and now the very protections that keep those lungs healthy are being dismantled one regulation at a time.
Together, the doctors share with Cook all the vital rules that the administration is undoing, who will suffer most, and what it will cost the public in health harms and lives lost – from weakened air quality standards and gutted climate policy, to the quiet destruction of the scientific institutions that keep Americans safe.
Disclaimer: This transcript was compiled using software and may include typographical errors.
Ken: Hi there. I'm Ken Cook and I'm having another episode. On the eve of Earth Day, I'm really thrilled to be joined today by Dr. Phil Landrigan and Dr. Adam Gaffney to discuss their recently published article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “The Dismantling of Environmental Protections, a Grave Threat to America's Health,” that published on March 25th, 2026.
Dr. Philip Landrigan is a pediatrician and a legendary public health physician who directs the global observatory on planetary health at Boston College. A prominent figure in environmental health and guest on this show, Dr. Landrigan spent 15 years at the CDC and is internationally recognized for his decades of research on the health effects of toxic chemicals, pesticides, and pollution, particularly on children.
And it's always worth mentioning because it is so important: in 1976 alongside the late, wonderful, great Dr. Herb Needleman, another longtime friend of EWG, Dr. Landrigan led the US government to mandate the removal of lead from gasoline and paint. That action reduced childhood lead poisoning dramatically in the United States by 95% — that's legendary.
My other guest today is Dr. Adam Gaffney, who's an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, a pulmonary and critical care physician at the Cambridge Health Alliance, a health policy researcher, and a writer and commentator on issues of medicine and policy. His research focuses on national healthcare reform, healthcare equity, and disparities in lung health.
The article was also co-authored by Dr. David Himmelstein, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, and researcher Sancia Sehdev. This team collectively brings decades of expertise in public health, health equity, and environmental medicine. Now on Earth Day, we like to think we'd be celebrating the progress made in protecting our air, water, and the health of future generations.
Instead, this episode finds us at a deeply troubling moment, one where the very protections that Earth Day was created to champion are being systematically rolled back. Rather than marking another year of progress, Dr. Landrigan, Dr. Gaffney, and their colleagues have felt compelled to sound the alarm, documenting in painstaking detail what is being lost and what it will cost us in human health and lives.
This is not the Earth Day any of us hoped to celebrate this year, but it is one that demands our full attention. Dr. Landrigan and Dr. Gaffney, congratulations to both of you on this paper. One of my frustrations, and I think as public health doctors, it probably is one of your frustrations too, is that the public often doesn't understand the connection of the environment to their health. And so the first step is to get people to recognize that.
But clean air, clean water, pesticide policy, all manner of issues involving climate change, all of these can have very distinctly important, indeed, profound impacts on human health — that are unfortunately tragically being eroded severely in this administration. So let me just start off and ask both of you, what made you take this article on this research project?
Dr. Landrigan: Well, Ken, firstly, let me say how nice it is to be here. It's really great to be to be with you again. I think we go back to the early 1990s when we were working together on pesticides in their hazards to children's health.
Ken: Yeah. I was in high school at the time, if you'll remember. I was.
Dr. Landrigan: You were possibly middle school.
Ken: Otherwise the math would be bad for me right now I think.
Dr. Landrigan: Exactly. But why did, why did we take this on?
Well, this, this is actually the second time we've taken this on. We actually did a similar exercise during the first Trump administration and we tabulated the rollbacks. And we published a paper in The Lancet, which is the world's most widely read medical journal, published outta London, and we calculated that environmental and occupational health rollbacks during Trump one were responsible for, in the neighborhood of 20,000 unnecessary premature deaths per year in the United States.
Most of those deaths were due to increased levels of air pollution. And a smaller but still significant number were due to rollbacks of occupational health and safety safeguards. The administration talks about these rollbacks as freeing industry from the shackles of regulation and about driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion.
What they don't talk about is that those common sense safeguards that they're rolling back actually protect people's health. They save lives and, and speaking as a pediatrician, they especially protect the health of children. We reckoned, Adam and I reckoned, that we needed to shine a light on what was going on.
Dr. Gaffney: You know, for me clinically, I'm a pulmonary and critical care physician, so the lungs are near and dear to what I do each day, and so many of these policies will do harm to, not only the lungs of the patients I treat or adults, but of children whose lungs are still developing and may never achieve the health that they could have had had they not been exposed to, uh, unnecessary levels of pollutants — like soot pollution and so forth.
So it's near and dear to my clinical work. I would also add that sort of, as you said, Ken, it's very easy for a lot of these policies to be implemented with relatively little public knowledge because they’re so complex, because there's so many, because it's a death by a thousand cuts sort of approach.
Whereby even if you do care about the environment, even if you are worried about the cleanliness of our air and water, you might not realize what is happening. You may not realize that polluters are going to be allowed to put more mercury into the air, to put more pollutants in the water, to release more air pollution into the environment.
So that's part of why I wanted to collaborate on this is to actually systematically outline what is happening in the potential risks for Americans.
Ken: And you've, you've really put your finger on something important here. I like to think I keep up as a professional paid environmentalist, but I can't. With all of the changes that are taking place just at EPA, then if you were to add in changes at the Department of Interior, even the Department of Defense, uh, certainly the energy department, all of these changes that have been made in the name of, um, you know, cutting regulation.
What does, uh, Zelin, the EPA administrator, he, his little micro brand is, um, the Great American comeback. That's how he advertises all of his regulatory cuts. But for sure, just keeping up with them is, is difficult. And that was, I think that's part of the plan.
We had an author on David Graham from The Atlantic who wrote a book about Project 2025, and one of the most important elements that was embedded in that, not just the document, but the strategy was to go fast, go quickly, do a lot of things at once so no one can focus for very long on any one impact. And I'm gonna get a little nerdy here, maybe for some listeners, but I encourage everyone to read this article.
It's, it's open source, it's available. Right. There's no paywall. You can get it and read it, and it's written for, you know, a concerned layman. It's not, you don't have to be a scientist to understand the impact of this very thoroughly documented piece, but the, you know, just the, the title Selected Health Effects of Trump Administration, Environmental Policy, Actions and Proposals, and you go through air pollution regulation, power plant regulation, climate change, motor vehicle pollution, water pollution, occupational health.
We've talked to, uh, I've talked to a number of people about different aspects of this, but you've put it all together when you stand back and look at the scope of it. And the, the speed, I mean, we're, we're really just over a year in, right? As public health professionals and, and, and clinicians, what do you make of the overall assault, I think is the only term that can be put, it's, is it, is it literally breathtaking for you as it has been for me?
Dr. Landrigan: Yeah. It's, it's, it's massive, Ken. It's, it's massive. And what we'll do next, the next phase of our work, which is just now getting underway. Is that we will actually do our best to tabulate the toll of disease and death that results from these rollbacks.
So for example, we'll look at how much air pollution increases in each of the 50 states over the next couple of years.
Ken: Yeah.
Dr. Landrigan: And we know very well from previous research that we and others have conducted, that each increment in air pollution causes more heart attacks, more strokes, more lung cancers, more deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease in adults, in kids, more still births, more premature births, more children with asthma.
We'll tabulate those impacts. There's no way in the world we can ever do a full accounting, but we'll do our best to count how much disease and death is due to, to these rollbacks. And you know, one of my mentors, decades ago when I was working at CDC, told me that statistics are people with the tears wiped off.
And in our articles, we won't be able to tell the stories of individual people. We'll leave that to folks like you Ken, but we can certainly present the, the statistics and thereby enable Americans to understand the, the magnitude of what's going on.
Ken: Yeah. Adam, is there, is there any proposals or actions across these issue areas that really stood out for you as a public health expert and then also as a clinician where you, where you thought, oh wow, this is just gonna make my public health and my clinical jobs much, much harder?
Dr. Gaffney: Well, it is hard to say one, and I'll, and I'll add this to that discussion, which is that, the problem is even larger than what that table shows. In another paper that Phil and I and many other colleagues published recently, we look at additional policies that are gonna harm the lung health of Americans.
So even beyond environmental and occupational policies, we're looking at 10 million people losing health coverage as a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Right? We're looking at cuts and NIH funding. We're looking at cutbacks in research. We're looking at anti-immigrant actions that are going to have impacts on health and healthcare delivery.
So just to take a step back, this is actually part and parcel of a larger agenda for sure, that will for sure all be injurious to health. I think, you know, in terms of these specific policies, it is hard to pick it out. I mean, it's one, one year ago, Zelin, you know, had this press release where he declared the biggest deregulatory action in US history, quote unquote, and there were 31 different actions.
And some of the ones that we sort of described in this paper that I think I'll just highlight — one, rolling back the heightened standards for particulate matter 2.5 pollution, PM 2.5 pollution that the Biden administration in advance. Building on a huge body of science and knowledge that this pollution is harmful, it causes heart attacks, it causes strokes, it causes lung disease.
To go back into the past and undercut those protections to me is just mind bogglingly shortsighted. I also think the destruction of the endangerment finding, which is the policy that effectively allows the federal government to regulate climate pollution, uh, is going to have very harmful long-term effects.
We're basically taking away our own ability to do anything about climate change. So I could, I could kind of go on and on, but those two, I think, are worth highlighting at the outside of the discussion.
Ken: Yeah. No, I, I agree with you on those and it is hard to pick. I had, uh, Joe Goffman on, uh, the podcast a while back, who's one of the premier experts on Clean Air Act Policy and climate change policy ran the EPA programs, uh, under, uh, the Biden administration. And I said to him at the time, and you know, for me the Clean Air Act is the queen of environmental laws. That's the one that's really worked. And Phil and I have worked on pesticides and lots of other issues where we wish it worked as well as the Clean Air Act worked.
And I, I asked him if he didn't think, you know, the Clean Air Act and regulations around it really became kind of a, a bullseye, uh, for, you know, let's just be candid when, when Republicans take over and, uh, there's the kind of push there has been. And, uh, we have plenty of Republicans that support environmental protection, I don't mean that.
But there's an ideology here that really does seem to focus on what ends up in our lungs because they go after Clean Air Act regulations like the PM 2.5 standard, right? They wanna push those back. And Joe went into some detail about just the many ways they're trying to do that. And there are two elements here, and you touch on both of them in this paper.
One is a little easier to understand than the other. One is, I think one is the deregulatory steps are pretty easy to at least understand what they're doing. They're taking a specific regulation and they're gonna try and undo it — the endangerment finding or what they're doing on how our plant regulation, what have.
The, the more insidious and maybe the scarier element for me is the dysregulation that they're pursuing by reducing staff, reducing funding, getting rid of scientists. They don't have scientific debates in this administration, they just fire the scientists that disagree with 'em or sideline them or push them out. Talk a little bit about this long-term erosion of capability and capacity and how damaging that is going to be and hard to repair.
We might be able to reinstate a regulation and we might even defeat some of these efforts in court. The Trump administration's, you know, up against lots of litigation from folks in my community who are trying to stop these rules that they can, you know, I think in many cases are considered, you know, borderline if not illegal, and so they'll lose in court.
But the dysregulatory stuff — the long-term damage to these agencies and the staffs and the funding for extramural research funding that goes outside agencies to support academic institutions and children's health centers and so forth. That's really hard to tally up, hard to explain to people, but say, because you're both involved in it, say a little bit about how that hits.
Dr. Gaffney: Well, Ken, I think you are right, and the reality is, is that it's easier to destroy than to create. Institutions need to be built up over time, and it's very hard to put the net back together again. So, for example, the Office of Research and Development, the EPA’s internal research agency, which has been credited with all sorts of advances over time in terms of pushing forward our understanding of pollution, but also how to control it and how to regulate it.
That's, you know, being taken apart by the administration. And how does that get put back together again? I think you're seeing the same thing with research science at, say, the NIH. Congress rejected the administration's calls for cuts to NIH funding. But what happens to the know-how when people leave, when projects get defunded, when research gets interrupted when the clinical trials don't get completed.
That's harder to put back together again. I'll add one other thing though. I agree with you that there's the deregulation that's sort of easy to understand. It's sort of seen as pro-business say. Another thing that I truly can't understand is the assault on clean energy, which isn't even pushing business forward in America. It's really just favoring one specific sector and undercutting our ability to power America in a safe way, uh, for years to come.
Ken: I agree. And some of those forms of clean energy are also the cheapest forms of energy in terms of providing electricity now, and I'm really glad that I have solar panels on my roof and an EV out in the parking pad because, um, I'm not, uh, getting the direct hit from, uh the increase in gas prices we're experiencing now and the pollution that goes with it. But, you know, we have, we were inventing a new energy economy at the end of the Biden administration.
We were really just getting started and that's all been thrown in reverse and that's going to have big impacts on air pollution, our lungs, obviously on contamination of the environment with mercury from coal burning power plants, oil spills, all the rest.
Dr. Landrigan: And, and Ken, just think about the economics of it. I mean, this morning as I was coming into work, I passed a gas station. Gas was at $4 a gallon, 3.99 a gallon. At the same time, the cost of solar energy have come down by more than 90%.
Ken: Yeah.
Dr. Landrigan: The cost of wind energy has come down by 75 to 80%. The cost of battery storage have come down by 95%. We're turning our back on clean energy that is also affordable energy in favor of yesterday's energy source, which is oil and gas and coal.
Ken: Yeah. And turning the, all the advantage over to other countries, certainly China, uh, that's pushing ahead.
I mean, there's a global buildout on solar in particular that is mind blowing right now, both at the utility scale and rooftop and we're, we put the brakes on it, in fact, threw it into reverse. It's very discouraging because that will have. A great many environmental impacts down the road.
Dr. Gaffney: It's not only about taking away the subsidies that went towards battery production or electric vehicle purchasing, it's a direct attempt to undercut those sectors, you know, even on their own terms.
So for instance, the Trump administration, I don't know whether it stands now, tried to block a nearly complete wind farm, you know, in Rhode Island from being completed. That's just an example of using the power of the government to go after one sector of energy production. Meanwhile, they actually mandated that some fossil fuel power plants stay open even when the grid operators had already said, these are obsolete. That's a very stunning development.
Ken: Again, I think the, the, the boldness has always defeated my imagination when it comes to the Trump administration. Just things like the rep, last report I saw, I think it's, we might have the same wind energy proposal in mind, they were going to pay the company a billion dollars not to build the,
Dr. Landrigan: That's a different one. The one the, the one that Adam is mentioning is in Rhode Island. The one where they paid the billion dollars to the French investor was on Long Island, New York.
Ken: Yeah. I mean, I don't know how much dumber it gets, but that's right up there.
Unbelievable. So there's a really useful appendix, uh, with any number of tables that help people understand in detail. Where these proposals have landed. And one of the areas is occupational health, which I know is near and dear to you, Phil and I had a NIOSH scientist on, uh, on the program fairly early on in, uh, the last year, and she was third generation NIOSH scientist.
It's, NIOSH is the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. It's part of the Centers for Disease Control — and that agency early on, they've, they've made some rectifications, but mostly they just clubbed it in the early weeks and months of the Trump administration. Laid off a bunch of scientists, she told me that it was so bad that in some cases scientists had to kind of go into their labs and euthanize the animals, uh, in the experiments they were doing because they weren't gonna be allowed in to, to feed them.
The experiments were supposed to just stop, uh, but the animals were there in their cages. But we don't spend very much money as it is on occupational health and the, and the returns are enormous to protect our workforce. Say a little bit about what you learned when you looked at what, what is going on with respect to investment and in understanding occupational safety and health?
Dr. Landrigan: Sure. No, it's a, it's, it's such a big thing. Uh, I worked at NIOSH for, for six years. I was, I was a medical epidemiologist there, and when I was at NIOSH, what we used to do, which, we would go out to factories, where our work sites were, where problems were reported. We would investigate the problem, we'd figure out what was going on, and then we would work with the employee, we would work with the employees, we would work with the union if there was a union.
And collaboratively come up with solutions that protected the workers' health, saved lives, and generally made the businesses more profitable because they weren't having to pay large sums of money for workers' compensation or face liability suits.
It was basically a, a partnership for health rather than splitting people apart and, and fermenting divisiveness. So, and when people have done economic analysis on occupational safety and health, the, the returns are anywhere from six to one, to 10 to one, to 12 to one. For every dollar that's invested in protecting workers' health and safety, that's a six, 10, $12 return in the form of lower healthcare costs and increased productivity.
Ken: And I think I had, until I interviewed the scientist, I didn't realize just really how modest our investment at NIOSH is. She, she said there were like maybe 800 total employees at NIOSH.
Dr. Landrigan: There are many, many more game wardens across the United States protecting deer in the forest than there are occupational safety and health inspectors.
Ken: Yeah, well talk about priorities. Um, but yeah, I was startled. And so even with that modest investment that was savagely reduced, at least in the early days,
Dr. Landrigan: Something like the initial cut was in the neighborhood of 90% of the staff.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. Say a little bit if you can, um, about what you're hearing. I don't want you to betray any confidences.
Actually I do, if you would, if it's, if it's interesting, please do betray them. But, um, what's your sense of what's happening at NIH and at CDC? I know you, you both have dozens and dozens of connections there. What's the mood of the people I talk to are, uh, you know, they're sticking by their guns in many cases, if they can, and they're trying to do the best they can under the circumstances, but it's grim, right?
Dr. Landrigan: Yeah. Well, you know, I was including my six years at NIOSH. I was a total of 15 years at CDC.
Ken: Yeah.
Dr. Landrigan: And I must tell you, the CDC workforce are among the most dedicated, selfless people in America. They will drop what they're doing on a moment's notice to fly to West Africa to deal with the Ebola outbreak.
They'll stop whatever research they're doing to go to Utah or Alaska or North Carolina or Maine to deal with an outbreak of rabies or measles. Often at great physical hazard to themselves.
Dr. Gaffney: Yeah.
Dr. Landrigan: What they're doing is, I think that those people are dedicated to the mission. Many of your doctors, others, or nurses, epidemiologists, public health scientists, they deeply believe in the mission.
They're just going to do their best to, to hang on and, and ride this crisis through. I'm sure that day to day it's not easy, but you know, they, they have a sense of fulfilling a noble mission and they're gonna stick with it.
Ken: That's been my total experience with the, the CDC scientists and professionals that I've dealt with over the past 40 or 50 years.
It's just, um, if, if there was one agency that I really held in high regard, maybe because they're fundamentally not regulatory, but they're, you know, they're, you get the straight science from them. At least that's been my experience. It's just, uh, heartbreaking to see, see that under assault. Uh, same with just generally the, you know, the NIH. I mean, my goodness, and I know the big funding cuts were rejected, true enough, but, uh, there was, there's still been enormous, enormous damage done.
And, and the morale, the hit to morale, you know, you know that we were on the right track, for example, to take on a specific issue and then to find that stymied or, you know, distractions brought in, like, working on lesser topics like Ivermectin or whatever it might be.
Dr. Landrigan: You know, for decades, American science has been the envy of the world. Nobody else in the world, not in Europe, not in China, not in India, nowhere has done science as well as we do, and, and the reason we do it is several fold. Firstly, the funding has been generous. Secondly, it operates on a meritocracy and everything is peer reviewed.
Only the best of the best science gets funded. It's not a buddy system, it's not a crony system, it's not corrupt, it's transparent. And, um, if you wanna succeed in the system, you have to be good and you have to make contributions and, and you have to be about helping other people. And it's because American science has been so good that scientists have come here to American universities, to American think tanks from, from countries around the world.
Sadly, we're now squandering that advantage and, and we're seeing really good scientists, especially the younger ones who have not yet established their careers taking jobs in Europe, in Canada, in Australia, in China, in India. And what we're seeing is a brain drain from the United States. That is not good. Not good at all.
Dr. Gaffney: And I would just add very briefly, this is not just about funding cuts, which are devastating. There's this broader politicization and pseudoscience.
Dr. Landrigan: Yeah.
Dr. Gaffney: RFK junior anti-vaccine rhetoric. The embrace of pseudoscientific theories, as you said around ivermectin and chem trails. I could go on and on.
It's almost embarrassing to even talk about, and there was even a shooting at the CDC this year. Right? And so I can only imagine that that sort of environment is very demoralizing.
Ken: Totally. One aspect of politicizing that you consider in this brief paper is the fact that many of these environmental harms are visited most harshly on disadvantaged communities, low income communities, communities of color, and of course, that was sort of the first filter that was put in that we should stop research, regulatory enforcement, anything that related to diversity, equity, and inclusion or however they define that.
And I've learned so much of this from from Phil. We've focused on kids 'cause they're especially vulnerable. And we really have only begun to just catch up on the necessary focus on communities that are really benighted by pollution much more than than the rest of us.
And they tend to be low income communities, uh, fewer resources, fewer medical resources, harder to manage healthcare costs, and tremendous insults from air, water, occupational pollution, neighborhood pollution. Can you say a little bit about how that stood out in your analysis? That the impact of, uh, politicizing around DEI and how that might have affected environmental policy?
Dr. Gaffney: Sure. I think on the one hand, as you said, many of these policies are going to strike hardest against communities that are already suffering from poor health, lack of investment, discrimination and so forth. So you take something like the deregulation of mercury standards for power plants. Yeah, well, who lives close to power plants — and disproportionately — lower income people.
You know, I think that makes this easier in a sense for them to do, right? Because they view these communities as, as not their constituents in many ways. On the other hand, many policies that they're pursuing will in fact, harm what they view as their constituents. So if you take something like the rollback or the lack of enforcement, lack of implementation of these silica standards that were meant to protect minors from deadly dust that they encounter in their workplace.
And that's a disease that I might see — silicosis is a potentially fatal lung disease — those communities are disproportionately in red states. Similarly, if you look at the cutbacks to Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income Americans, uh, yes, it will certainly take healthcare away from many, uh, working class folks in blue states who may be disproportionately black or Hispanic.
On the other hand, it will be devastating to rural areas, and to rural white areas that have a lot of low income folks who, who rely on this as their primary healthcare. So they're really, these policies really are going to be harmful for working class lower income groups across sort of demographic categories.
Ken: Yeah.
Dr. Landrigan: Ken, it's also worth saying something about the disproportionate impacts on infants and children, and I, I speak here as a pediatrician. This administration came to power talking about their commitment to the right to life, and yet by allowing increased levels of pollution, specifically mercury pollution, which damages the brains of infants in the womb. Fine particulate air pollution PM 2.5 air pollution, which damages the brains, the hearts, the lungs, and other organs of infants in the wound.
They're actually belying their own words — if they really wanna protect children before they're born, the last thing this administration should be doing is rolling back environmental standards that protect children before they're born.
Ken: I couldn't agree more. There's been so much made dur, during the election and then during the transition of the Trump administration's interest relating to what you just said, Phil, to Make America Healthy Again.
And while I think the ideologues, uh, have, are locked into their position, there are a lot of rank and file a lot of, you know, everyday Americans who, it sounds good to them and it sounds, why wouldn't it sound good to make America healthy?
Uh, whether you think again is appropriate or not is another matter. But there were so many big promises that were made and in many ways, the Make America Healthy Again, agenda didn't include a lot of the issues that you address in this paper. People are upset about food additives. My organization works on food additives.
We take a backseat to no one in trying to do something about that, but, but to think that, if we make any progress on that, it's okay to make the cutbacks in clean air regulation or vehicular regulation or any of the other environmental policy assaults. What, what do you tell someone who, who believes in or adheres to just the general principles of making America healthy again.
Polling is showing us now that even people who believe in that don't think the Trump administration has done a very good job, but, but how do you get someone to expand their horizon and think about some of these other issues — let's say someone who's focused on vaccines and they feel like the vaccines are harmful.
It doesn't happen to be my position, far from it. But if that's their focus and they're not gonna move from that, it's one thing. But for many people I think they're uncertain and they just don't know about the other dimensions of environmental health that really should be part of any agenda properly called make America healthy.
How do you talk to folks like that? You probably, you probably come across them all the time.
Dr. Gaffney: So I think that actually when it comes to these policies, it's an easy case to make. I'm going to mention healthcare first, but from the healthcare perspective, the policies of cutting back on Medicaid, uh, cutting back the Affordable Care Act are actually already unpopular even with Republican voters.
Dr. Landrigan: Yeah.
Dr. Gaffney: When it comes to clean air and water, actually these rollbacks are unpopular. And I think the main barrier you have is what we already talked about, which is the complexity of the issues and the getting lost in the details. I think when it comes to the MAHA agenda, they did raise some important issues.
As you've mentioned, the food supply needs to be improved. There are problems with metabolic health. These aren't made up concerns. But what they've done time and time again is a very superficial attempt to talk about these issues — not taking on powerful corporations, not really going after those who are purveying harms.
You know, making these sort of voluntary agreements, getting Shake Shack to put beef tallow in their fries or whatever it is. These kinds of very performative stuff that's kind of made for the media, but then behind the scenes, what's really happening and that's what we have to talk about and that's what we came in.
What's actually happening in the realm of policy, putting aside this sort of media show. And it's the kinds of policies that we've outlined in this article. It's the rollback of pollution, of, of measures to protect our air. It's the rollback of protections against mercury in our water. It's rollback of protections that are keeping miners from getting deathly ill.
So I think we need to move the conversation away from the sort of catchy media issues to the real policies.
Ken: So you're saying wrestling a, a, a Twinkie, is, uh, great for Instagram, but not so great, uh, if you're really concerned about making America healthy. It's, you know, it's an Instagram post, and we don't make policy by Instagram post.
Would that we could, um, that's all I'd be doing, but, uh, turns out you have to actually get in there. Debate powerful industries, bring evidence forward, fight through for regulations. Phil and I have done this dozens and dozens of times over the year. It's never easy. And it's really, it's really not just something you can do from a podium. You have to dig in.
Dr. Landrigan: You know, glyphosate is a case in point. So glyphosate, Roundup, is the world's most widely used herbicide. 11 years ago, in 2015, the World Health Organization did a very careful independent review and came to the conclusion that glyphosate, marketed as Roundup, probably causes cancer in humans.
When this administration, when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. first came into power, one of the chemicals that they talked about controlling was glyphosate, and they mentioned it in the first edition of the MAHA Report. But curiously, glyphosate was absent from the second version of the MAHA report. Most recently, just a couple of weeks ago, president Trump issued an executive order saying that glyphosate was a national security matter, that we needed it for the safety and the security of the United States of America — which is the first I'd heard that despite many years in both the US Public Health Service and the US Navy.
So I think that MAHA people are very sincere. What MAHA people are all about is protecting their kids, protecting their families. I don't agree with everything that they stand for, but I certainly respect their sincerity. My plea to the folks in MAHA is look at the issues one by one.
Look at food safety. Look at glyphosate, look at vaccines. Look at clean air, look at clean water. Each of those is an important issue in its own right, and they've all gotta be properly balanced. If America's children are gonna be protected.
Dr. Gaffney: One thing I'd add to that list, which I think says a lot about the priorities of the administration is tobacco policy, right?
Is there one thing that we can all agree on is an absolute poison than cigarettes? Talking about making America healthy. They completely defunded the office, the CDC um, office that works on tobacco control. They're not pursuing it seems a nicotine reduction rule that would help get people to stop smoking.
I think the priorities become pretty clear there.
Ken: Yeah, I agree. Well, thank both of you very much for coming on and talking about this amazing article. It's called The Dismantling of Environmental Protections, A Grave Threat to America's Health. It was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
We're gonna encourage everyone to take a look at it. It's very readable, it's very brief, and it's a devastating assessment of what's happening now. And I know you've got more work to come, we'll have you come back on and talk about it. Thank you so much for your commitment to, to public health and human health.
We count on champions like you to tell us what the score is.
Dr. Landrigan: And to you, for yours, Ken.
Dr. Gaffney: Thank you, Ken
Ken: Thank you to Dr. Phil Landrigan and Dr. Adam Gaffney for joining me today. And thank you out there 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 to follow our show on Instagram @KenCooksPodcast. And if you're interested in learning more about ewg, head over to ewg.org. Check out the EWG Instagram account @EnvironmentalWorkingGroup. If this episode resonated with you or you think someone you know would benefit from it, send it along.
The best way to make positive change is to start as a community with your community. Today's episode was produced by the extraordinary Beth Rowe and Mary Kelly. Our show's theme music is by Moby, and thanks again for listening.
Areas of Focus Federal & State Energy Policy Chemical Policy May 29, 2026Transcript of EWG podcast 'Ken Cook Is Having Another Episode' – Episode 57
What does it look like to stand on principle when everyone around you is playing it safe? In today’s episode, EWG co-Founder and President Ken Cook sits down with Rina Shah, a political commentator, GOP strategist, geopolitical risk advisor and one of the most recognized Republican voices on national television.
As a former senior Capitol Hill advisor and two-time presidential campaign chief spokesperson, Shah spent years appearing on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and nearly every major network covering politics and global affairs. But long before the television appearances and the op-eds, she was the daughter of a Ugandan refugee family that lost everything under the brutal dictatorship of Idi Amin. That experience shaped everything about how she sees leadership, power and democracy.
Shah shares her family's remarkable story of survival, why she recognized the echoes of authoritarianism in President Donald Trump long before most were willing to say it out loud, and what it cost her to become the first elected Republican delegate to publicly challenge Trump’s nomination in 2016. A decade later, she’s still a Republican, still speaking out, and still refusing to let the party she loves be defined by fear and silence.
Disclaimer: This transcript was compiled using software and may include typographical errors.
Ken: I'm Ken Cook and I'm having another episode. And this is what I'm really excited about. This is a friend I've made over the internets. Over the past year and a half or so. And um, I have followed Rina Shah in her public persona, which is on just about every network television program I can think of that deals with politics, global affairs. The world of Washington. The, the world of GOP Democratic Party conflict.
You are constantly sought for your input and your perspective and just having spent, for the first time, you know, an hour or so together, uh, in person, I can see why. And so I'm tickled you were able to make some time and, and come on and talk to me, Rina. We've got
Rina: I had to make time, for a digital friend. We had to make it IRL, so here we are.
Ken: I'm so glad you did. Thank you. And, and there's so much to talk about. You know, one of the things that we chatted about just before the camera started rolling was sometimes I've felt like the Democratic party has left me.
Sometimes I felt like I left it. I've often identified as a bipartisan, nonpartisan in my professional life because I felt that was the best way to, to go about it. As well as abiding by the law and being nonpartisan. It just felt right. And for years, some of the best advice, some of the best support we got for environmental initiatives came from Congressional Republicans who had a conservation mindset who believed that we needed to protect nature because conserving things for the long term was a value that they held dear and so forth.
And even today, we, we never initiate a policy idea that we don't at least try to recruit Republican interest in or talk through with Republicans, both in California and here in in DC. And we were talking beforehand about how much that had changed. And it changed even during the course of your coming of age, right?
Rina: It did.
Ken: You had different plans, then to be someone who raised concerns about. Donald Trump in 2015 or 16.
Rina: And continue to, to this day, warn about Trumpism. Because what I, I think has happened in my journey is I've seen the light. And I, some people find it much earlier, people find it later. For me, I was forced to find it because I went through such a dark moment.
Exactly 10 years ago, I was the first elected delegate to the Republican National Convention to buck Trump and to say that I wanted to fight his nomination. And I did so in a place that was most unusual, but certainly had the most spotlight, which was Fox News. And I didn't expect to, because when I did it, it was just a natural answer to a question.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And so that experience taught me that, you know, you think you have friends one minute, and because you've said something, they suddenly don't wanna see you or affiliate with you. And it was a political fight that actually took a legal angle as well, because I was removed from a list of democratically elected delegates to the Republican National Convention, erased by my party.
And so, uh, to my family's credit, they helped me mount a legal fight. And I didn't take it lying down. And in doing so, I was the first challenge to Trump. And, uh, the whole world, the whole nation saw it. And so I still meet people to this day who said, I know who you were. I just never knew your name or what you look like, but I knew you were the first.
I remember I met filmmaker Michael Moore and he said, oh, I already know who you are. And there were people then, because it was the first kind of potential stop to Trump, because what my case signaled is that we could fight him on the floor of the convention and deny him the nomination to the party.
Which ultimately ended up not happening. I started basically the Free The Delegates movement. My case rather did. Other cases followed from, uh, a group of North Carolina delegates and Colorado delegates. And so I'm glad that I inspired people to do the right thing and express publicly what we felt about a man who did not, I feel, felt at the time, was not a Republican, a man who didn't seem to really show any allegiance to, to Republican party principles.
And had a lot of, I think, characteristics about him that gave me pause. Probably prime of which was, he was really somebody that looked like he saw the presidency as a, as a king. He wanted to be king. And I thought, oh, no, no. Because in my family's history, we know what that's like. On my dad's side, we were kicked out after three generations in Uganda by a dictator, by the name of, Idi Amin. And uh, we lost everything and so I grew up with my grandparents.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Because they came and lived with my father in the US. The rest of my family all became political refugees to the United Kingdom. But because my father was already here in the United States getting medical training, we were lucky enough, and my dad had really chosen America too.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: As a young boy growing up in Uganda, he knew he wanted to come to America. He, of course, he could have never predicted that we'd be kicked out after three generations. I have cousins, older cousins of mine who have Ugandan passports as their birth passport. So this is a very recent experience in my family that I have had to see what you know, the result of was. And I've had to live that experience. I always say that dictators cause intergenerational trauma because
Ken: Yeah
Rina: My dad had seven sisters and loads of cousins who all looked up to him and, and many of whom needed him on a monetary level too. So much of my childhood and, and even young adult life was spent seeing that and seeing kind of the shambles of, again, losing everything we had, uh, and what it does just because one man didn't like how successful we were as merchants there in Uganda and he, and he killed many, I mean, it was a genocide.
Ken: Yeah, for sure.
Rina: My grandfather was able to escape a camp, and again, knowing these things, knowing that the madman Ida Amin, wanted to be a dictator, I kind of just knew that anybody who behaves that way is gonna create an America that I wouldn't recognize.
Ken: Had impulses that go in the wrong direction. And just to be clear to everybody you declare still as a Republican do, and it's not, not like you've left the Republican party. Yeah. It's more that under Trump,
Rina: The party’s left me.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: In a way.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: In a way. Yeah.
Ken: Yeah. Exactly. Right.
And, and you know, just in our, you know, brief conversation before. I so admire the way you express your values, and they're not all the same as mine. But the one thing that I, that I'm really impressed by is it's sort of the inverse of betrayal, which is, you know, loyalty to principles versus betraying them for the sake of power.
And we talked a lot about that. Of course, this is a town that trades in that. Where you're, you're almost seen as a sucker if you don't know the game and play by it. Right. Uh, what kind of loser would stand up for their principles, instead of get the next job? And, and I'm just thinking you must have been, you know, at, at that point in your career, you would've seen yourself in a Republican party, like the party of the of Bush.
You would've seen yourself maybe going into government rising up in the ranks and, and, and living within the Republican values that you hold dear and serving the country in that way. But that future,
Rina: It's not there that, that's not a reality, right. Yeah. I, I, well, I think I was telling you, all my family, or everybody in my family is a doctor.
My, my husband, my late father, both my brother and my sister. All four of my brother-in-laws and sister-in-laws, everybody has a medical degree. And I just have the greatest utmost respect for that because of course it is, I've seen their, their journeys and their tough journeys. You know, it is not only one of great sacrifice, emotionally and physically, it's a monetary sacrifice. Because going into the medical profession nowadays isn't an instant
Ken: No.
Rina: You know, um, sort of payday. I mean, yes, it's good money, but you gotta really want it. And I, I think I always grappled with what I really wanted and I, I looked back at some point in my, uh, young professional life and, and this was like right after college and I said, what is it I really wanna do?
And I had always loved the American presidency, and now I'm, I have the great pleasure of saying that I've actually served two US presidential campaigns at the highest level. Yeah. I've been a comms director and chief spokesperson for two of them, and they were chaotic and unsuccessful. But they were still full fledged presidential campaigns that allowed me to live outta my suitcase in many, many states, including South Carolina, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico.
I mean, learning all the things that you need to know and yeah, so I had this great life as a political operative when I left Capitol Hill, and I left Capitol Hill only in 2011.
Ken: Yeah
Rina: So I hadn't been a political operative for very long when I did the thing I did in 2016, so 10 years ago, I blew up my own career by bucking President Trump.
And after that, I, I think it's been a recurring question to me. What do I really want? Well, I wanna help people the way that my siblings and my husband and my dad did. And so, uh, to honor my late dad's legacy, we kept all his clinics open and, and it's just been a really great thing to be able to do that.
So, the way I see public service or having a job in government is public service to me. It's a way to change people's lives for the better. And I keep thinking about that. Well, surely there's an opportunity for me to do that again and, and every couple years I get a call from somebody saying, well, you run somewhere.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And in this past 10 years, it's been a no. Because I suffered what I suffered 10 years ago. I've lived to tell the tale, which I feel great about, and I was vindicated, of course by the impeachment decisions on Capitol Hill. And you know, I will say, I'm still able to enter the White House. So that is the testament to how America is a beautiful nation in which anything is possible.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: But I definitely worry about just the impact I could have on, um, my fellow man because I'm, I'm not able to run for something and take on a real role in, uh, in public life that I, I would've wanted prior to 10 years ago.
Ken: Well, I, I mean, just to be clear, again, I think that the role you have in public life is more than impressive now.
Rina: Um, thank you.
Ken: Like I say, I don't, I, I can hardly turn on the television where your, your perspective hasn't been sought by someone and for good reason. Let's talk a little bit about the whole question of how so many people made the opposite decision that you made, Rina. Saw the same things, probably thought very close to the same thing about what they were seeing in Trump.
Rina: Oh yeah.
Ken: And yet they decided that they were going to go along or they were gonna be quiet, or they were going to look the other way. Or, or maybe they thought, and I think this was probably quite common, that they felt like someone needed to serve the interests of the public with a Republican lens and that they could do it.
And if they were in the government or if they were following along, they would get things done that would advance the greater good. Saw maybe Trumpism as more of a sideshow that they could work within. I think that was pretty common in his first term.
Rina: Yeah.
Ken: I think maybe some people were hiding out a little bit and maybe just liking the power and the position, but I think a lot of people really felt like, I gotta stick with this job 'cause someone worse will come in, that will bend to his will and I can — and so that became part of what Trump wanted to get rid of in his second term.
Those RINO Republicans, right. And uncontrolled bureaucrats in the deep state. And so now, how does it all hold together for so many of those people?
And we talked about it before and I think you summarized it and just said it's power.
Rina: Yeah. There's an obsession with power and money once you get here. It's exactly like what you see in the movies. It's disturbing to actually be able to have to, you know, say that that, that it is on that level. The sort of mental, I think acrobatics that have to take place
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Are kind of mind boggling to me when I see people working through a lot of, what are illogical pathways to an answer under this administration? Because a lot of what this administration puts out, it, it just doesn't make sense.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Take for example, the tariffs.
Ken: The tariffs, and we have to, we have to tell everyone. You were one of the name plaintiffs. In the tariff case, then you opposing Trump's tariffs and, um, congratulations on winning at the Supreme Court among many others.
Rina: Yeah. The team definitely, uh, deserves a credit. I was actually named in the amicus brief, so I can't take full credit, but, uh, but def, defending democracy together.
Neal Katyal, uh, Norm Eisen. These are giants. I think if, if you're not following them, uh, you're missing out because they make the most coherent arguments. And I think that's, that's where we're at. You just have to, in the face of this nonsense, you have to sort of very squarely and coherently say, no, this is what's what.
And so that tariff case, the one that I was in the amicus brief for, was, um, with many other Republicans, I must add. Former congresswoman from Virginia, Barbara Comstock. Uh, there were some folks from the Nixon administration, Reagan administration. So you can tell these are long time.
Ken: My people.
Rina: Yes. I mean, I was gonna say, come on now. Experience learned, people who care a lot about principles and values. So yes, you, I have figured that out in our friendship. Ken, you just, you, you seem to understand that at no point does one need to turn their back on what they've been saying all along. No, because then that makes you completely untrustworthy.
And what kinda leader are you then? There have been any many times I've, I've looked at sort of my trajectory and thought, well, is this. I'm a businesswoman now. I have a firm, I get clients, we do geopolitical risk advisory services. These are, I'm selling something to companies. So, uh, a lot of what I'm out there saying could endanger some of their businesses, but that is why I decided to do all of this under non-disclosure agreements.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: But I had to get creative to save myself. To be able to continue to earn money. That kind of bothers me at the end of the day.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I shouldn't. A person that's been a two time senior Capitol Hill advisor and a two time presidential campaign chief spokesperson should not have to worry about where their next job is gonna be.
And so, um, fortunately I've kept my firm running, but, but back to the tariffs case, because I, I wanna bring that together and say, I was a, a, a creature of Congress and why I signed onto this case is because the case hinged entirely on Trump not having the authority to impose these tariffs. That Congress has the actual authority.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: You know, I know most Americans don't think about Article One. But when you start to kind of, even at the surface level, like start to follow some of these people, you'll see very plainly what is at stake in the, in the Trump era, and it's some of the most decent common stuff. So the fact that we had to do a case for something so simple just really made me livid.
Uh, and, and I was named in the case that was actually Learning Resources, which is a toy company they brought first. And, and so a
Ken: A toy company,?
Rina: I love this toy company, right? Yeah. I bought the toys well before I, they brought this case and so. I noticed their, their toys were pretty good quality. I noticed at times they were not made in the USA, but that's kind of the norm these days.
And um, most millennial moms like me will say most everything we've been buying since we first find out we're pregnant, is made offshore, made in China, made somewhere else and, and it's been really discouraging and I, and I get what the president has been trying to say, make in America, but you can't snap your fingers and do it right away.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I am concerned, yes. About what's going into our landfills. I'm concerned about this consumption centric culture. But I don't think the president is concerned about those things.
Ken: No.
Rina: I think he's trying to negotiate better trade deals. He's had plenty of time to do so and he hasn't.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: So I was glad we were successful with this case.
People say, well, he turned around and said the next day he's gonna issue a 15% global tariff and, and sure he can do that under another temporary order. But even experts are saying that they don't think he has the right to do so.
Ken: It won't hold either.
Rina: Yeah. So I was I, to that end, I was like, we'll fight him anywhere and any time and anyhow.
Yeah, because yeah. He's not doing things that he has the authority to do. That is what we, the American people have the right to do is to stand up against that. And so a lot of this is hard for me to talk about, Ken, to be real honest.
Ken: I, I understand. '
Rina: ‘Cause I'm a bridge builder. I'm not a real fighter where I'm like, yeah, we're gonna get him, we're gonna tear him down.
Ken: We're gonna, we're gonna defeat.
Rina: Yeah. Time to shred this guy, you know? I'm not that type. And I, I guess people would say, well, what kind of political operative were you? Well, probably not a great one, you know? I mean, I, I gave it my all, but I am a lover, not a fighter. I, I care about building bridges and I think it's so obvious to me in this moment we need to do that because we’ve become completely polarized.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And uh, the people on the right are just defending nonsense every day of the week in the name of sticking it to the other side.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. And being loyal to Trump. I noticed the distinction he made with, uh, Erika Kirk, where she said she forgave even the person who shot her husband and, uh, said, you know, spoke about embracing and loving, uh, even the most vile direct enemies, and Trump got up at the same ceremony and said, he likes to hate his.
Rina: Yeah. It's, it's completely bizarre how those kind of people remain around him when he says the kind of things that we teach our children not to say.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: The kind of things we would never utter in a meeting. We've just allowed our, our, you know, the head of our executive branch, who by the way doesn't recognize that he is co-equal to the legislative branch.
I mean, you can't normalize this. There's not any degree of what he says that I can feel proud of, and I think that's. Real tragic because the American presidency is a place where you genuinely look up to for direction. When the country feels lost, I mean, I was very young on 9/11, but I remember Bush two leading us, George W. Bush
Ken: He rose to the moment
Rina: For what it was, he was able to do that. And there were plenty of times President Obama did too. I, because I think what I, I, we were discussing earlier, right? Is that sense that those guys cared?
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: They showed care. Yeah. Trump actually shows the opposite in so many of his interactions, he's showing you how little he cares.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: He wants you to know that he's got something more important than that. And, and that is another instance in which I have to wonder what kind of impact is this gonna have on the next generation of Americans? Gen Alpha? I don't know what that's gonna do to their brains about how they see government. Elected office. Do they see that
Ken: Civic discourse?
Rina: Yeah. What is leadership to them? Is leadership just being in the role and then behaving any which way you see fit?
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: That to me is even worse because so much of the work you've done, I love that we connect on this, is that you know you wanna treat things, people around you well, right?
If you're not even treating the people around you, well, are you treating this earth we've inherited? Well, no, I don't think so.
Ken: And I, I came up in a time where some of the best advice I got certainly in Washington to try and get legislation passed or try and build bridges, as you were saying, came from Republicans who would pull you aside and and say, look, here's how to approach some of my members who don't maybe agree with you or even with me.
Try these arguments, see this person first, and if that person agrees. Basic coaching, because the goal was to do something that was good for the conservation of natural resources, the protection of the environment. It doesn't get more conservative than that. You know now so many of those impulses because they run against what Trump says, you know, that windmills cause cancer and we have to keep producing unlimited amounts of coal and oil, uh, because they're all clean and solar panels are dangerous.
All this stuff that he's saying. And then the deregulatory efforts, uh, for climate change and clean water, clean air. I know there are Republicans on Capitol Hill. I know it. Who object to this, but they dare not speak out.
Rina: They don't wanna be primaried, they don't want to be in his cross hairs, because with that comes public attention.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: So many of them don't want that. Um, because then it trickles down to their families too. And it is, every time Trump pours a little bit of gasoline on a fire, it just doesn't turn into a small fire or even one that's a house fire. It's, it becomes a blazing inferno.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And that's what each one of them fear is that inferno will take them down in a different way.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: But at the same time, what you're seeing is a complete capitulation to a man who acts as if he's king.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Like I said, kind of doing things under temporary orders, which he doesn't even have the right to do. And so everything goes to the courts. And I trust the courts. I'm somebody that has always believed that the courts give me at least hope.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Um, because the courts have saved us from a lot of terrible things in this republic. But again, in a representative democracy like ours, 'cause that is what we are, we have trust in these men and women to go up there and speak the minds of their constituents. And their constituents all aren't one party and they all aren't one demographic.
And so it's almost like they've been derelict of their duty in not speaking up against Trump and just kind of keeping their heads down and ho hum doing the job. I think a lot of them do that too. Well, I think this is a problem across the political spectrum. They remain in office just because of the money and the power.
Ken: The entourage, the attention.
Rina: Awards for doing nothing almost. I mean it's, it's kind of laughable that we've created an entire class of Americans that are above the average retirement age in this country, which is somewhere between 61 and 67. Whole crop of folks that go to Congress and stay out how? Oh, wait until death.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I mean, it is, it is just,
Ken: They get, they have to be carried out.
Rina: Yeah. So many people look at Congress and feel kind of betrayed and, and that there's no hope in it anymore because they know these people just stay to become fat cats. I mean, genuinely, if you're not leaving, what are you doing?
And, and I, I think term limits I can, the best case I've heard against them is that, well, it doesn't leave people enough time to come and have the impact they wanna have. Like, so be it. So then they're gonna be forced to try to have that impact in a shorter, truncated timeline. But really going back to kind of what these people are consumed with, the fact that there's no ban on insider trading is a huge tell.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: The fact that so many of their net worth just grows and grows and grows over the years, though they've held no other jobs outside.
Ken: And we know what they make.
Rina: Indeed.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And then, uh, just a real desire to be relevant. I think that's why so many of them don't leave. 'Cause they fear again, won't have that, that fanfare that they're so used to.
Ken: Yeah
Rina: It, it's almost like a coming down off of that. But that's not mine and your problem. We are the taxpayers who pay for them to go up there and really advocate for us. How many of them advocate for us anymore?
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And I don't even know that they're advocating for the right thing. I mean, there were good Republicans who were so concerned about Trump and the Paris Accords and, and this horrible hand.
Ken: The climate, the climate, international climate accords.
Rina: Exactly. Just the flat out denial he's done of climate change. That, that
Ken: It's a hoax,
Rina: It's a sickening thing when you know that there, even in my beautiful Native West Virginia, there are rivers and streams that are contaminated with literal poison. Toxins that are causing people to get sick. So why do we have a president that is again, doing this?
And to answer my own question, it's because he knows that distraction is the best way to slip other things through.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. One of the moments when I, I really sort of thought this second term was going to be bad, was in the consideration of the great Big Beautiful Bill.
When all of the investments that had been made under the Biden administration in red states for clean energy, battery plants, uh, electric vehicles, all manner of investments that were being made in red states. And there were plenty of Republicans going to the ribbon cuttings. It was gonna be more jobs, it was gonna be more tax revenue. All good things. They didn't vote for the bill, but that's okay.
Biden, you know, Biden kind of gave him a wink and said, I know you didn't vote for it. This is an American
Rina: Oh yeah.
Ken: Effort to, you know, to green our energy supplies and compete with China. But when, when Trump came in and just, you know, just said, it's all a hoax and we have to end everything that Biden invested in, even in Republican districts and states, they just, so many of 'em just stayed silent.
Rina: I mean, hundreds of billions of funds, public, private funds. And um disproportionately
Ken: And jobs.
Rina: Right. And disproportionately going to red states.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I mean, the logic there would be okay, just kinda let that one go. People you know, over time will, will figure out that these are there, I'm looking at where were the top districts that saw most, uh, of the billions in factories, like EVs and uh, and solar and batteries. These were deeply red. In Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Texas. I mean, when you're creating jobs in rural and suburban red communities and you're not saying anything about those people not having voted for it, I think that's a true statesmanlike stance.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And I think that's what we can credit Biden for, but when we're talking about there being no lasting political insulation for that, that's a real missed opportunity on the Trump administration's part.
Ken: I felt like it was, I, I thought that would really undercut a lot of environmentalists and Democrats.
You know, it, it just didn't cross my mind. I mean, I have seen over, over years I've seen. You know, the tea parties say, well, we shouldn't even build highways.
Rina: Yeah.
Ken: Block the highway bill. But this is something very different. And I've taken a lot of this Trump stuff very seriously. It's, people have commented on it. But that's, that's how I do my environmental policy and politicking.
Rina: I love that, Ken, because why wouldn't you take it seriously? This is about how
Ken: How could you not.
Rina: The country and, and what you just said right there again, the missed opportunity on, on economy and jobs and growth. This is should be nonpartisan.
Ken: Totally. And it's the cheapest energy now, right? I mean, we're going back to coal that costs more. Didn't used to, but it does now.
Rina: Right. I just think that it's, it's nonsensical — that these leaders resisted preserving these subsidies.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Constituents, I hope, tell some of these people how they feel, but I do think most people are tuning in.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Because they, they're tired of the chaos and, and Trump knows that too. He knows when it's too chaotic. Everybody's not tuning in fully. And in fact they're tuning out because they're sort of like, okay, it's too much.
Ken: Yeah,
Rina: It's too much.
Ken: I'll live my life somehow without that channel.
Rina: I mean, with the Biden stuff, there was no chaos.
So that's why I think. The mainstream media zeroed in on his health so vehemently obviously he was in decline.
Ken: Mm-hmm.
Rina: Not everybody makes it to the age of 80 and behaves the same.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I, I was in shock the other evening to see Trump at the podium in the House of Representatives for the state, uh, state of the Union, because he's not that much younger than Biden.
Ken: Right.
Rina: And the fact that he seemed very perky and no letting up on the gas. Uh, that was surprising to me. But again, aging hits different people differently. Everyone's different. Yeah. I just think that because the Biden administration didn't engage in the chaos strategy that this administration deploys every day of the week, then
Ken: That's interesting.
Rina: They were able to unfortunately have a target on their back.
Ken: Yeah. One of the things that caught my eye, uh, with you in the last couple of years, and there've been many 'cause I see you all, like I say, I see you all the time on my screen, was when you raise concerns about RFK Junior as the nominee for HHS, and you know, you're, you're someone who trained in as to the master's level in public health.
So you might well have been someone who rose through the ranks if you'd gone into government and been a high official now at HHS or FDA or whatever. And we would've been well served by your, our attitude to build bridges and, and compromise, if, if we'd had that. So say a little bit about speaking out on Kennedy's nomination.
We, of course we opposed it here for a lot of different reasons, but what caught your eye there? He seems very like Trump in many ways. Uh, and the way he approaches debates by just making them go away. Or like, instead of, you know, having gold standard science, which would mean a scientific debate, just firing scientists who disagree with them.
What was your early warning sign? As someone with some public health background and a family of doctors. They must have been calling you up. Say this is a disaster.
Rina: Well, I th, I think they know that I'm, I'm very, very much, uh, disturbed by the a Secretary Kennedy. I still believe Trump should rescind him because — the vaccine stance.
Ken: Yeah, the vaccine stance. I agree.
Rina: Toughest one for me. And it's, it's personal actually. My, my late dad, um, was a polio survivor. And so, uh, a lot of why dad passed away is 'cause he had post-polio syndrome, which weakens your, your muscles. Uh, internally.
Ken: Yeah, yeah.
Rina: And, um, he contracted polio at age three in Africa at a time where people here in the US were getting polio vaccine, my dad was not. He was a surgeon. He was able to operate for eight hours at a time. His right shoe was built up, uh, because his leg was shorter.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And so every one of his shoes were built up and, and yes, it was absolutely amazing. He was a real life Superman, just knowing that if he'd had access to that vaccine. That wouldn't have been a story. And maybe he'd still be with us today.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And so I, I think for dad, if he were alive today, he'd be completely gobsmacked, by the idea of this Kennedy, in, you know, in a cabinet role, telling Americans that vaccines are not safe.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: With the measles outbreak in Texas.
Ken: And South Carolina, even now, there were up to a thousand cases there.
Rina: Right. I, I mean, it's just a really disturbing, disturbing thing. I mean, he, I know RFK Jr has brought attention to a lot of under-discussed issues. Chronic illness, the roots of those, uh, illnesses. Uh, environmental toxins, obviously. Food additives.
Ken: Yeah, yeah.
Rina: Food system reform.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: You know, I know these are areas where EWG, you are champions, but he's also shifted the conversation in the Republican party towards health is a core issue, which means something.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: But again, kind of, not just softly or indirectly pointing to that crowd of generally homeschooling mothers who are nervous about whatever vaccine for their kids.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: He's elevated those people.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: To the point where I don't think the criticisms he gets are unfounded.
I'm, I'm glad he's seeing a lot of challenges because in, in the polling that I've seen, people are showing that they are concerned about his performance.
Ken: They're very concerned.
Rina: It's a mixed bag.
Ken: After all his criticism of the medical profession, parents still trust their doctors.
Rina: Yeah.
Ken: They mistrust him on vaccine policy.
Rina: Yeah. 60% overall disapprove in KFF data.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting because time, and again, Kennedy will say that the, the medical profession's been corrupted by Big Pharma and so forth, and yet he'll always fall back on the point that you should just have a conversation with your doctor.
Well, where are all these crooked doctors then. Why are they, what's not fitting together here? And, you know, people do trust their family doctor, and, you know, none of the doctors in your family are making money by what they prescribe.
Rina: No. No, they're not. Absolutely not. And I think that's, that's a huge misconception.
And, and certainly there was a point in time where the pharmaceutical industry had a choke hold on American doctors. Yeah. I mean, seventies, eighties. I remember when I, I was born in the eighties, but. There were, you know, reps that were, their sole job was to entertain the doctor and his family
Ken: Yes, of course.
Rina: And take them on these lavish vacations. And all this, and give them all this swag. So in my own home I remember there being like Cipro pens and stuff like that. And I just remember like my, my dad was not a prescriber, like in that way. Of course he prescribed, but he was a surgeon more.
So, you know, he didn't have the challenges his friends who were internal medicines had. I would go over to some of my dad and mom's friends' houses and they were, you know, family physicians or internists. I mean, everything would be drug company, like the Post-It notes even.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah.
Rina: So that branding came from, yes, them wanting doctors to prescribe their stuff and there was a heavy hand on that. But there's been serious legislation over the past 25 to 35 years.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: That has really made it difficult for a doctor to be genuinely owned by a pharmaceutical company. I mean, there, there are certain areas, pain and addiction medicine where.
You know, people could make some claims, but I mean that, we are such a litigious society, let me put it that way. That I, I don't think we're seeing in American medicine what we saw years ago. Uh, you are seeing because it's a, a, actually, actually not as lucrative as it used to be. You are seeing a more of a, a servant minded physician leader go in.
Ken: Yeah, that's been my impression.
Rina: Yeah. It's been really fascinating.
Ken: And you see them online now. More of them. Some, oftentimes speaking out against things Kennedy has said, and I'm encouraged by, you know, doctors in everyday life just saying, okay, I'm gonna turn on the camera and I'm gonna.
Rina: I think they should.
Ken: Talk about my lived experience.
Rina: Yeah, you know, uh, we should definitely meet, uh, Dr. Vin Gupta, who's up in New York City. I think a frequent guest on MS Now.
Ken: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Rina: He's great. He's got a real service mind too, and I think
Ken: Absolutely.
Rina: He happens to be also of Indian descent like me. I think for many of us who grew up with fathers or mothers who were in the service profession.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And, and my mom ran my dad's clinics for many years. Yeah. And in addition to a, a, a very large staff, it was about this do good, you know, do good for your fellow man. Particularly in impoverished areas where, where we've had rural clinics, I mean, you see people come in that haven't had access to a hot meal or a hot shower, you know, they've got a lot of things going on, uh, malnourished people.
And, and all you can say is that that is the place where, you know, we need to be talking most about how to really make sure we strengthen the safety net in this country. I think that is the one thing that this administration has disappointed me greatly in the second term on — it's a lack of regard for Medicare and Medicaid recipients.
Ken: Yeah. I'm very worried about that.
Rina: Government's job is to help those that can't help themselves.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: The young, the poor, the, the sick and the elderly.
Ken: And in many cases there, you know, there's significant overlap with environmental pollution — those are the, the communities that are most afflicted.
They're the communities where they often are underinsured or uninsured. They won't have access to the same safety net that had a year ago because of some of the changes in the, in the law last year. And I've said to several people, environmental protection in some ways is built on the control of infectious disease by public health professionals.
That allows us to worry now about environmental pollution and its chronic, uh, effects on health because we, we have this baseline that's been taken care of. That's driven by acceptable vaccination rates and protection against measles and polio and mumps and and so forth. If that starts to erode, the public health profession's not gonna say, well, we need to keep focused on lead poisoning or some of these more complex environmental exposures.
They're gonna rush to the emergency, and the emergency is going to be measles, it's going to be mumps, it's going to be pertussis, it's going to be all those diseases that we can control with vaccines.
Rina: I just think to continue to paint out doctors is a problem, is a really terrible thing that RFK Jr. is doing because.
There is no greater trust, and this, again, another nonpartisan view than the relationship. And, and it, it's a trust relationship between a patient and a doctor.
Ken: A hundred percent
Rina: Or any provider, even if you've got a nurse practitioner. I think he's, he's really by not having any formal training. I, I think he's doing a real disservice to the country.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And that's why I had, um, I had said, uh, I believe on CNN, that I believe that Dr. Marty Macari or Dr. Scott Gottlieb would've been better people and could still be if Trump chooses to rescind this guy. Because I'm not entirely sold that he is a bridge to getting independence to become Republicans. No, I mean, he is just, he is somebody who's distracting from the priorities that this country has on a public health level.
Ken: Yeah. We'll have to see what the midterms bring, but I
Rina: Oh yeah.
Ken: We've been commenting quite a bit on social media lately that his decision to support Trump in the executive order to make more of this weed killer glyphosate by under, you know, defense authorization conditions. A lot of Maha moms feel really betrayed by that. And they’re right to feel betrayed.
Rina: I was very excited about the MAHA movement at first. It's vaccines that's turned me completely off. I actually even attended a MAHA Roundtable.
And so I got the invitation for the second one, but it was, um, oh, it was on the epidemic of vaccine injury.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And I was a total, whew.
Ken: Hard no.
Rina: Yeah, because it's like really? Because the one I was at was really good. It was about school lunches. And these were really great moms who were up there talking about how they're getting everything local from, the meats even. And
Ken: So exciting.
Rina: It, super exciting.
I had meant to stay for like 20 minutes just to see what it was all about. I ended up seeing like an hour and a half, 'cause it's a great concern to me. I have children. And my children are very small and I, I don't get much right in motherhood. In fact, every day I think I'm being a hashtag bad mom.
But, I do pride myself on making their lunches and snacks fresh every day. And they are in, um, Planet Box, which are, it's a great company. I love them.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Yeah. Uh, I've been using Planet Box for years and, and these are just stainless steel reusable, so easy with my faucet just to wash them quickly.
Absolutely. I, I don't have these plastic things that I'm putting in a dishwasher worried about.
Ken: The microplastics and all the rest,
Rina: The chemicals. None of it
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And my kids know, I even send dipping sauces and little stainless steel. They know their, their utensils are stainless steel.
Ken: So if you're, you're just, you're basically saying if something opens up here at EWG, you'd be a good, you'd be a good candidate.
Rina: I'm a big fan.
Ken: I think you might be
Rina: My kids even eat off of stainless steel plates, I, I'm just so concerned about kind of, all of the leaching of the toxins. Coming off the, the materials that we have just normalized for ourselves and giving these tiny, tiny babies, these all plastic bottles. I mean, when I was growing up, we just didn't even have anything that had that many components.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And sure we weren't taking water bottles to school.
Ken: No, no.
Rina: We were drinking from water fountains
Ken: No. When did we get so thirsty? Exactly. Well, you know, and, and I have to say, we look at the MAHA Moms and except for the vaccine part, which we looked the other way from. I regret that now I should have paid more attention to what was happening with that dynamic.
But they're EWG people in many ways, right? They, they're worried about what's in their food, their air, their water. They don't want to have tons of ultra processed food. They want to make sure that we have a food environment, as it were, that offers other choices that are affordable and accessible.
All good things, not things Kennedy worked on directly before he went to support Trump, by the way. He was not a food policy guy, we never saw him in those debates. But still, he got the idea and it allowed him to not talk about vaccines during the campaign, which I think they didn't want him to do.
But now it is, it has turned out that it's harder to make lasting real change in food policy. Most of the jurisdiction for environmental protection is not under Kennedy, and they're deregulating just as fast and deeply as they can over at EPA, uh, and energy and interior. So he's brought along a lot of people with big promises and one after another, at least by my estimation, I think even in vaccines, ultimately it won't pan out.
I think ultimately, the decisions he's making defacto now, will be overrun by the march of science, ultimately. So he can make the decisions now 'cause by fiat because he has that power. But in order for them to really stick, he really does have to have gold standard science and go up against the best scientific minds that have a different approach.
And that's how you resolve these debates, not by firing the scientists that disagree with you, you.
Rina: Evidence is so important.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I mean, I remember when Obama and and Bush would come out even with charts, I mean, that wasn't uncommon. This president doesn't bring a single shred of evidence that is normal.
Ken: They don't show their work.
Rina: No, they don't. And if they do put up a picture or a graph or something, it's highly questionable.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Because let's not forget, this is a president that lied about his inauguration numbers in the first term
Ken: From the start? Yeah. Like day one. Yeah. And then he got his press secretary
Rina: To double down.
Ken: To double down. And that's the dynamic that is, has been more than anything disheartening to me knowing so many Republicans here in Washington and in just in life. I know so many of them. I know you're disappointed to see people not speaking truth to power. Just, just running for, for cover.
Rina: Well, I always say I stay in the Republican party to be an agent for good and change.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Because what happened to me 10 years ago, easily could have pushed me out of the party and I could have said, I'm an independent now, I'm a Democrat now. We're a multi-party system.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Or so we like to think. But the reality is we are a duopoly. And yes, the independents are growing in number. When you live in this town, you kind of have to pick a side and I, I don't wanna be pushed out, I'll tell you that.
I'm, maybe I'm a little too arrogant on that piece.
Ken: You don't strike me as the kind of person that's pushed out very easily.
Rina: Exactly.
Ken: I think you got that from mom and dad too.
Rina: I think I did. And it was, you know, one of those moments where I had to say, is this worth fighting for? And now 10 years later, I can absolutely say it was because I stood up for what I believed in.
I stood up against an injustice, what was wrong. They had no right to do that when I had become the number two vote getter. Out of 160 people a ballot. And so I, I just knew that I had to stand my ground. But in standing my ground, in this town, I've also realized a few things — is that there are people here who will keep their mouths shut because they are tired of having to defend their decision.
And also because their decision was one that was more about being against the other side than being for this side. That's kind of what I've seen with many a Republican who supports Trump, uh, that may even go and work in one of these agencies. The way I, I see them, these people, is that they feel that they aren't able to do anything outside of what they've got their sight set on.
So they'll do it, but they'll stay quiet about the tough stuff. Because why rock the boat for themselves? Why ruin a good thing, when this is probably a job that has a nice price tag attached? You know this, there's a lot of power and money concern in this town because it all leads back to somewhere. And as humans, I get it.
We wanna be tribal.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: I mean, I know there's a growing crop of us that are anti-Trump. Uh, particularly with my organization, our Republican legacy, which, uh, Senator Jack Danforth of Missouri, Missouri and I we're, we've, uh, he created the org. He and some others. He is, uh, right now our, our figurehead and just a gem of a, a human.
Ken: Yeah, he is, of course.
Rina: He's got so much fight in him. He, uh, he asked me to co-author a Wall Street Journal op-ed with him this past fall in October. It was, um, titled Republicans, uh, ditch MAGA and, and so, you know, we were sort of making the case as to why Republicans need to abandon.
Ken: Take their party back
Rina: Yeah. And I, I think there's a growing sense that we can do it because Trump can't be here forever. And, uh, if he tries there's certain things in the Constitution that prohibit him from doing so. But I also believe that there are people out there who don't feel that JD Vance, the vice president, has what it takes to be
Ken: The successor.
Rina: Mm-hmm. The, yeah, to be the person who carries the mantle for, for Trumpism or MAGA or for MAHA, like he just doesn't have it. But certainly from a lot more people, I do hear that there was a silent Trump voter this last time. And many women my age, you know? Who would never tell you that they did.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Because they felt so betrayed by Biden on the economy. Now here we sit.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: Over a year out from Trump having taken office and we see the economy isn't any better.
Ken: No.
Rina: So I think voters are hungry for not just a bridge builder, but somebody that's gonna really roll their sleeves up and get it done and be creative policy-wise.
Not do this nonsensical stuff of, let me just issue these tariffs across the board. And if you're really aiming at China, why aren't the tariffs against them much higher?
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: So he's not ever able to explain to the American people why he does what he does.
Ken: Yeah.
Rina: And the next, uh, leader of the Republican Party, I think will have that. Will have to explain.
Ken: Well, let's hope so. Um, and I just wanna thank you and, and tell you how much I admire your courage and uh, your consistency. It's inspirational. I'm not one who thinks institutions protect themselves. I think institutions a, actually, are very malleable, and that the only thing that matters is the people in them.
You know, you, you just decided to stand up and say, no, this, you know, the way our process works, I should be represented. I earned the votes and refused to believe otherwise when you were challenged because you have the evidence. So I look forward to the day when Republicans like you are the ones in charge.
When we can have these conversations about all manner of issues and come out the other side and not just be friends, but be allies for the common good, 'cause that's how you strike me, my friend. I'm so grateful that you took some time to be on the show with me today.
Rina: For having me here and you give me hope that wherever there's a wrong, there'll be somebody who makes it right, 'cause that's what you've been doing in your work and in your life. So thank you.
Ken: Thank you. It's good to be in the foxhole with you.
Rina: Indeed. Thanks again.
Areas of Focus Food & Water Ultra-Processed Foods May 28, 2026Transcript of EWG podcast 'Ken Cook Is Having Another Episode' – Episode 56
Long before “Make America Healthy Again,” or MAHA, existed, there was Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine): A self-described hippie, back-to-the-lander, certified organic farmer, and the first woman ever elected to Congress from Maine’s first district.
Since taking office in 2009, she has relentlessly fought pesticide preemption, championed SNAP benefits and school nutrition programs, and pioneered legislation on food waste and organic agriculture. She’s been fighting for healthier lives long before MAHA was a movement.
Now MAHA has arrived, promising to achieve in a news cycle what Pingree has spent decades trying to accomplish legislatively. MAHA Action's president recently sent a memo to Republican Party leadership calling the movement “a once in a generation political gift to the GOP" and pledging $100 million to elect Republicans in the midterms.
Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., once a prominent voice against toxic pesticides, now celebrates executive orders by President Donald Trump expanding glyphosate production, even as former pesticide lobbyists take key positions at the Environmental Protection Agency.
MAHA was pitched as a bipartisan effort – but reality tells a different story. In today’s episode, EWG co-Founder and President Ken Cook talks with Pingree about the contradictions between what the administration says on MAHA and what it’s actually doing on policy.
And that’s the real divide: between those doing the difficult work of governing and achieving real results, and those packaging that work into snappy branding and social media posts. One is measured in years of policy fights and incremental wins. The other is measured in headlines and clicks. Yet only one of them changes the law to protect the public.
Disclaimer: This transcript was compiled using software and may include typographical errors.
Ken: Hi, I'm Ken Cook and I'm having another episode. And I'm wondering if any of you have had an episode like this, because it pertains to MAHA. And specifically I wonder those of you out there who you know adhere to MAHA principles, hope for the success of Make America Healthy again, I wonder if you know that MAHA, that was supposed to be bipartisan and nonpartisan, is anything but now. I'm referring specifically to a memo from the President of Maha Action, Tony Lyons, and this is a memo that he sent to the top political leaders of the Republican Party: the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, the Chairman of the committee that elects Senate Republicans, the chairman of the committee that elects House Republicans. And the subject is, making Maha a permanent part of the GOP coalition. That's right. And it was CC'd also to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and the speaker of the house, Republican Mike Johnson, all Republicans. And here's how it starts, the executive summary: just like MAGA Make America Great again was eight years ago, The Make America Healthy Again movement is a once in a generation political gift to the GOP. It promises to expand the Republican base and help the GOP win future elections, in the midterms and beyond.
In sending this memo along to these GOP political leaders, Tony Lyons pledged to raise $100 million, the president of MAHA Action, $100 million for the midterms, solely to elect Republicans.
Now, the reason I bring this up now is because the guest on my show today is one of the revered legislators in the space of trying to make agriculture and our health work together. Everything from organic farming, because she is an organic farmer, to nutrition programs, to reducing pesticide use, to trying to do something about food additives. My guest today, Chellie Pingree, is central in Congress to all of those efforts.
But it turns out she's a Democrat. In fact, she's the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee that considered a spending bill earlier this year that had a provision in it that MAHA hated. And that provision, uh, would have eliminated the liability of pesticide companies like Bayer Monsanto, producer, seller, marketer of Roundup, and glyphosate, the active ingredient.
That would've prevented them from being basically exempt from liability by changing the preemption provisions of federal law to make sure that state law couldn't be used, such as failure to warn provisions in state law, that that couldn't be used as the basis of court cases against Bayer Monsanto. That was the foundation of the case by the way, that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. HHS secretary was on the legal team of. Uh, the very first Roundup case, uh, that awarded millions of dollars to a groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Well, this provision would've made it impossible to pursue those kinds of cases under state law because it said basically only what EPA says about cancer or only what EPA insists beyond a label matters, not what states decide, might be relevant to preventing exposure to carcinogens.
Now, the person who killed that was not a MAHA Republican of the sort that Tony Lyons and MAHA Action wants to exclusively elect. It was Democrat Chellie Pingree. Long before she was a lawmaker representative Chellie Pingree was a self-described hippie, a back to the lander, and a certified organic farmer on North Haven Island off the coast of Maine.
Her unique background shaped a career spent taking on some of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. Since she arrived in Congress in 2009, the first woman ever elected to Congress from Maine's first district by the way, she served on both the House Agriculture Committee and the Appropriations Committee.
She pioneered legislation on food waste, fought pesticide preemption provisions year after year, including most recently, a measure sponsored by Republicans only, on the House Appropriations Committee. She championed full SNAP benefits and support, nutrition support for low income families, school nutrition programs, and organic agriculture.
She was doing all this when some others weren't paying attention that should have been paying attention, and she's worked to try and get Democrats to focus more on this. Mostly she's done this without much fanfare and too often without enough company. Of her fellow legislators. Now MAHA has arrived, Make America Healthy Again, promising to do in a news cycle what Pingree has spent decades trying to accomplish legislatively.
The movement talks a big game on ultra processed food, toxic chemicals, the broken food system and pesticides. But the record so far tells a different story. RFK Jr. Cheered a Trump executive order expanding glyphosate production.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the world's most widely used weed killer, made infamous by Monsanto that is now owned by Bayer. Why? Because pesticide lobbyists now run the EPA. Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency, run by pesticide lobbyists in this particular sphere. And no, of course, it doesn't make any sense.
Now SNAP, the single most important tool for getting healthy food to struggling families is in the crosshairs of the Farm Bill Republicans are pushing right now. I've known Congresswoman Pingree for, we're, we're not really sure. We tried to figure it out, but it's certainly decades. We don't wanna do the numbers.
She's really one of my heroes in the realm of food and agriculture and public policy, and where environment and health and agriculture intersect with social justice. Thank you for being with us Congresswoman. I'm also proud to say we've had the good fortune to work with your daughter, Hannah Pingree. Who is also a distinguished public servant in her own right.
Chellie: That is so true. She's a rock star. I'm just glad she's not running against me 'cause I'd have to drop out. She's way cooler than me.
Ken: She is the bomb. Well, thank you for joining. Uh, I know you're so, so busy and there's a number of topics I wanna, I wanna try and cover with you, but I wanna start with something.
Because I, I noted it at the time. It was just over a year ago, you wrote an op-ed for The Hill, in which you asked the question, "Make America Healthy Again, question mark… let's see if they're serious." And you went through a number of issues there. Agreed with MAHA and, uh, their leadership. The food system's broken.
No one has been more eloquent in describing how it's broken and how we should try and fix it than you have been over many years. Congressman Pingree, you've been very vigilant to make sure that we understand that you can't Make America Healthy Again if you have hungry people, and especially hungry kids, that we need to worry about pesticides and microplastics and PFAS, and you mention all of these in your editorial.
You also mention what Kennedy talks about all the time, the, the chronic disease epidemic that we're facing, much of which is related to what we eat and the need to crack down on food, chemicals, and ultra processed food. You laid it all out at the very beginning, just before the inauguration.
So let me ask you now, as you appraise the Trump administration or the, the MAHA movement, Congressman Pingry, what, what do you think? Have they been serious? Where have they been serious? Where have they been producing policy vaporware?
Chellie: Yeah, really good question. Thank you. That could take up about two and a half hours of our time, and in some ways you could say the jury's still out.
And Ken, thank you for the great work that EWG does on these very areas, because I know we're really aligned on so many of these topics. I guess there's two ways I'd look at it. There are times when my colleagues say: hey, RFK, you know, misses the mark on a variety of things. So I can't listen to a thing that he said, you know, earplugs in, he's done.
On the other hand, there's this sort of school of thought, look, we're not in power, we're not in control as a, as a Democrat or even, um, certain ideologies, but what can we win while we have the opportunity? And I guess I would say that's more my side of this equation. There are battles that we've been in.
Whether it's with toxic chemicals or healthy foods that we haven't always been able to get, you know, a win, whether it's the Democratic side or Republican side. Sometimes it's just that nobody sort of cares about this, or we're up against huge lobbying entities that we can never beat. So my feeling is, look, there's some things that they're talking about clearly around the food is medicine side, this idea that you know what you eat really has a huge impact on your health.
But we have to make sure that it's not just window dressing and it's not just, you know, some, some great applause lines, but it never comes to anything. And we have to be sure that they don't dismantle the good things we already have at the USDA or other programs that we care about.
So, on the one hand, I mean, I'm thrilled they're talking about ultra processed food and saying, you know, how do we actually regulate it? What do we go about doing? I'm glad that they're talking about toxics in the environment and you know, eliminating pesticides. I'm concerned when they say things like, “Hey, we're gonna just really support regenerative agriculture at the USDA,” but on the other hand, maybe don't support organics or don't support some way of determining, when you say regenerative agriculture, are you still saying you can use glyphosate to kill the weeds?
You know, how are you gonna go about doing this? So you gotta have some specifics there. And I'm also really worried about this administration overall, which doesn't come through RFK necessarily, these proclamations. But they've already done a lot of damage to our SNAP benefit program, which is really the fundamental way that people who are barely making ends meet afford more healthy food.
And we're just about to go into a markup of the Farm Bill finally. And I am worried that, you know, SNAP could be harmed, programs like GusNIP, which is, you know, the way people get access to healthier fruits and vegetables and adds to their SNAP benefits aren't being enhanced.
And some of the things that we've already lost at the USDA, one of which was the program that helped pair up farmers producing healthy foods, going into school lunches and food banks was already destroyed in an earlier program, and we haven't been able to get it back. So that's a long, sort of chaotic way of saying, hey, the jury's out.
I'm gonna be with you anytime. You know, we can make some improvements here, and if you're willing to take on the pesticide industry with me, you know, RFK, I'm all in. But if this is just window dressing as it has been in some ways with this administration at the EPA level where they've backed down on some things like both glyphosate and pfas, dicamba, you know, like we've already seen them sort of backtracking.
Then I don't want them getting all the glory and it just being kind of bullshit.
Ken: Yeah. I, I'm with you on that. And you know, Jane Black recently wrote a great piece for the New Republic, uh, for TNR. Where she sort of asked the question, where are Democrats? Why are they letting this issue be taken away from them?
And of course, the Democrats I think of immediately that deserve the credit and I think have not gotten it, are people like you and Cory Booker and you know, Jim McGovern, who was on the podcast a couple weeks ago. And so many others that I've worked with, EWG has worked with in some cases for decades.
And it is frustrating. It's also frustrating. I, I know that you were a big supporter of First Lady Michelle Obama when she was saying many of the things that, uh, Kennedy has been saying recently. Uh, saying them from the, really, with the strength of the Oval Office behind her and alignment of agencies.
But at that time, Republicans weren't having it. It was the nanny state. Uh, you know, you can't help but think the person who was saying it determined their views, uh, to a, a disturbing degree more than the the substance of what she was speaking about. How do you think about the issues generally?
Mostly it's been Democrats standing up and I'll give a great example, and you were the exemplar of it recently. I don't know how many times and how many Farm Bills we've had to fight back preemption types of provisions invariably offered by Republicans. Sometimes it was on animal welfare in California or Prop 65 in California.
It last, uh, couple of years, it's been pesticide preemption. But you're the one in the appropriations process, a Democrat who stood up, and I don't think any Republicans, correct me if I'm wrong, stood with you to stop that preemption provision from just moving through on a spending bill. How do Democrats sort of step back into what I think they deserve, as, you know, certainly work to be done, but you've been there, Democrats have been there on these issues for many years.
Chellie: Yeah, it's an interesting case study and, and you're right, I just read the Jane Black, uh, story myself, and in there I say you know, I spend a lot of time trying to convince my colleagues that this is an important and relevant issue, and that has actually been true since I came to Congress.
Ken: I've watched you do it in rooms with your colleagues.
Chellie: Yes, I have. Yeah. And when I first came, you know, I had worked on a lot of prescription drug pricing issues and I thought, oh, you know, this is gonna be my fight. And I got in there and there were a hundred people in the Democratic caucus lined up to fight on healthcare and prescription drugs. And virtually nobody wanted to go to the agriculture committee in those days.
And if they did, it was because they represented a particular commodity or a state, or they felt it was their obligation. Now that has changed and you see a lot more Democrats who wanna be on the Ag Committee, and many of them really stand up and fight for SNAP benefits and fresh, healthy local food. And we are the ones who sign on to issues, like you said, the pesticide preemption.
When that came up in my subcommittee, I'm the ranking member on the interior. An environment subcommittee, you know, I just said, we're drawing a line in the sand here. I am not standing for this. But it was tough, because there are always those times when people even on my side of the aisle say, hmm, you know, I don't know how that's gonna go with the farmers in my district and I wanna take it on.
All that said, we are the majority of the people who have been in this fight with groups like yours over the years. And the interesting thing about the story was saying, you know, now the attention is coming through MAHA and this idea that this is sort of RFK and the MAHA groups that thought of this for the first time when we've been toiling in the, you know, sort of organic regenerative, healthy food spear for a long time.
Now, for me, I've just said, as I said earlier, look. If there are MAHA moms or people who feel they identify with the MAHA movement, they're gonna stand up and care about this. You know, let's have a conversation and let's work together. So one of the things we really did in that committee hearing and, and during that debate.
Was to make sure that we were contacting all of the activists on the MAHA side that we could find and saying, let's talk about this. Let's talk about how we can win on these issues. And for many of them, you know, they came at it through being moms. They came at it through, you know, learning this on social media, on the internet, and didn't really know that, you know, there was a Democratic side or a Republican side.
They really thought that Donald Trump and RFK brought these things up for the first time, and the rest of us were all just sitting in the pocket of the chemical companies. And I was very pleased to see that many of them, highly knowledgeable, you know, just were activists because they cared about these health issues.
And so we've had great success really working with them on amendments and ideas and you know, questions around the Farm Bill or around EPA measures. And I think some of it is just, you know, figuring out, like you've gotta find your allies on both sides of the aisle. You gotta fight to win here. You can't just be like, well I wanna make sure the other side always loses and my side never aligns myself with them because I just think that can be a mistake in politics when our politics is so volatile and it switches back and forth.
All the time. But as to the topic of like getting my own colleagues to understand what a important issue this is to their constituents, it is my eternal crusade, and I'm in the middle of it again right now. 'Cause we're going into another election cycle, and when I had the chance and caucus to explain to the broad cross section of our caucus, like how did we win the pesticide preemption thing.
You know, plug your ears if you're one of the few people who's on the other side of this, but for the majority of my caucus, these are just issues they don't pay attention to or think about.
Ken: Yeah.
Chellie: And they have to be reminded, you know, your district is full of moms, of people who are really worried about what their kids are eating, of people who are worried about their own personal health and why toxic chemicals are appearing in our diet more often, or fertility rates are changing and you need to speak directly to them.
And so I've just been, you know, crusading through my colleagues and saying, if you want my help, I will help you think about what issues matter in your district, how to make connections with those, uh, moms and others, and you need to understand this is a bipartisan or a nonpartisan issue.
A lot of people come into politics because they're mad about you know, sewage sludge being spent near their house or some other toxics issue. And then they start to see like, ooh, look at all the money that gets spent on this. Or how people get co-opted for their vote, or how often, you know, members vote without really thinking through the issue. So I truly believe it's a, it's just a shortcoming right now of, of my side.
And I'm sure you'll agree with me, if you had told me this 10 years ago, that somehow the world would be fully turned upside down and rather than us being the champions of, you know, organic, clean, healthy food, it would be the other side and we would look like we were in the pockets of industry. I wouldn't have believed you, you know?
Ken: Yeah.
Chellie: I grew up in sort of the organic, back to the land movement, and this has always been one of the things I've worked on, but I've seen the conversion of people to the other side because they think we're not paying attention.
Ken: Yeah, it's, it's very frustrating and a lot of it does relate to social media and the fact that that's where people get their information and I think, you know, certainly, um, Kennedy and his followers have been very aggressive and very adept at making this case and finding a villain.
I thought St. Linda Lake's comment in the TNR story that Jane wrote was right on that, you know, Democrats have not been muscular enough.
Chellie: Mm-hmm.
Ken: And we have not been willing to call out villains.
I've, I've always found that, you know, Democrats are, they're sort of shy about taking on or worried about taking on the agricultural establishment. And at the same time, kind of hopeful that if we give them enough subsidies, whether, whether it's solar farms in rural districts or increased subsidies for ethanol or whatever, it may, may be that, that, that farmers will come home.
I don't know.
Chellie: No, it, it hasn't worked. Let's just be clear. It hasn't worked. And I think when you're talking about on the food side of it. You know, we think about the agriculture issue, the Farm Bill and the Ag Committee as farmers, and we talk endlessly about, you know, capturing the hearts of farmers.
But 85, 80 to 85% of it is nutrition and really impacting what people eat. And when you come down to eating, everybody eats, everybody's worried about their health. Everybody's being told by their doctor that they gotta, you know, take more tests or pay more attention to their health or cut back on the foods that are bad for them.
I mean, it's in everybody's vocabulary and we walk away from something really important when we miss that. So it's just stupid not to get this one right.
Ken: It's frustrating. Right?
Chellie: Yeah.
Ken: You know, I, I'm willing to be much more critical of MAHA and Kennedy maybe than, than you are at this juncture.
Just because I think, he made a lot of promises during the campaign and during the transition he was gonna ban all these pesticides. He was gonna ban all these food chemicals. Hasn't done that. In fact, quite the opposite. And you have Lee Zelin, as you mentioned, over at at EPA. I think a lot of MAHA influencers are now realizing that he's in charge of pesticides and that he hired pesticide lobbyists
Chellie: Right
Ken: To run the agency. Uh, how they missed that first time around? I'm not really sure. We all saw it unfolding. And, you know, Zelin has, um, been a, a big advocate of, uh, deregulation, getting the government out of climate change just last week, of course, the greatest deregulatory act in history. He is always very modest about, um, what he's doing and supporting of, of Trump and modest about his environmental ambitions.
And as Churchill once said of a rival, he has much to be modest about in that regard. But, but I find it frustrating that we've replaced authority with influence and authority, meaning knowledge and competency and so forth. Until there's an appetite for that as opposed to more clicks or more engagement and more followers, until there's a real substantive focus, I think it's gonna be very, very easy for people to be duped.
And I, I think a lot of MAHA followers have been duped. I mean, look what's happened at the Supreme Court now. We have the Department of Justice weighing in on the side of Monsanto.
Chellie: I wanna be a thousand percent with you on this. I don't wanna, I don't wanna be misleading. ‘Cause I agree. We now have an administration run by incompetent people who are, uh, for the most part, especially when you're talking about the EPA and the USDA, of ill will are using their power to, you know, damage these systems we've built up over the years.
And going back to DOGE and Elon Musk, they decimated these departments and we got rid of so many competent, knowledgeable people, and particularly at places like the EPA, where they've now eliminated all of the research that they do there and just taken the teeth out of what they're able to do. And the American public expects the federal government, that's one thing, is to take care of, you know, our environment and our health.
And they lie through their teeth about things like the endangerment clause. And you know, I mean, there's so much bad going on over there. And I do think one of the problems with RFK is that he sort of came in as a crusader running a presidential campaign. And then said, I'm gonna fix agriculture and the chemical system and, you know, make food healthier for people again.
And he has absolutely no ability to influence any of those other agencies. They're just doing, you know, the bidding of this administration. So RFK is sort of the ultimate huckster in that kind of way. It's been interesting talking to the, uh, some of the MAHA advocates who came into my office and said, “wow, you know, we were really surprised that they signed onto this Supreme Court brief in favor, you know, of Bayer” and exactly what you said.
You know, they started a petition, some of them, to fire Lee Zeldin because all of a sudden I think it did occur to them again, you know, earnest citizens in a sense who didn't have, you know, a huge like, you know, handbook of civics and how these things work came in thinking, well, RFK has told us this stuff and it's gonna work.
So yeah, I don't wanna think we can let our guard down at any moment. I'm only trying to win a few things here and there and make sure we, we do that and, and again, make sure, whoever gets credit for it, you know, that the Democrats realize these are important issues. And that's sort of what brought them in.
I mean, again, another thing that story said is that for many of these people, they're sort of saying like, “Oh, well I voted for Trump, but maybe, you know, maybe I should consider the other side.” I mean, one person actually said to me, are there Democrats who would be in favor of these issues we care about, you know, that we should consider in the next election?
And I was like, you know, what the hell? You know, like, yeah, just to be clear, let me show you this letter, you know, with a hundred of my colleagues on here who are mad about these, you know, pesticide preemptions or whatever it is. So yeah, I mean, it's just a reminder that we all have our work cut out for us on this stuff and that this election will be really critical and we can't let people get hoodwinked again by these guys who are just the worst possible intent.
Ken: No, I, I think that's exactly right. And one of the things that really sort of bothers me now there, you know, there's sort of the MAHA rank and file, lots of mom. Some are there for the vaccine hesitancy or oppositions. A lot of 'em are just there for the food.
A lot of 'em are republicans, some are independent. There’s polling on all of this. So it's a very diverse movement, but at the top of it, that's political. They are dedicated and they have a rally on the, on a Zoom call almost every Wednesday. They're dedicated to maintaining GOP control. I mean, that is the objective that they talk about, rallying around Bobby, making sure we retain the House and the Senate.
So that we can continue forward with this winning agenda. And I think that's where I'm, you know, I'm wanting to see more crossover for MAHA rank and file to think about that in exactly the way you just described.
Like, well, you know, there is another alternative and if you were to go down the list of people who've actually done things: introduced legislation, tried to get things passed opposed, bad things, most of that column is gonna be with Ds next to their names. And to me to say, well, we're, you know, we're, we're in play, we might go Republican or we might go Democratic. At this juncture in this administration, how on earth could you see a choice?
Chellie: But I do think you're right. It's partly because of the politics of this administration and strong arming people and saying, hey, you know, you're either with us or against us. You gotta stick with us here. And sort of this weakness of Democrats not standing up and saying, but this is our agenda.
You know, we are the ones fighting for your ability to have good health. And to make sure your kids are safe and that they get a healthy school lunch and that you can afford to eat these fresh fruits and vegetables and the healthy foods that are gonna make you feel better. We lose that at our own peril, or we don't talk about that at our own peril.
You know, we're coming up to a, a Farm Bill markup, and I give Angie Craig credit because one of the things she's done. From the start is to say we're drawing a line in the sand on the pesticide preemption thing,
Ken: Which is in the house Republican bill, right?
Chellie: Yeah. They've put that in the bill. Yeah. So we'll have an, I'll probably do the amendment and we will fight back on it, and we're hoping that there have been enough MAHA calls into some Republicans on that committee who actually feel, you know, that they don't need it in the bill.
And there'll be, you know, a lot of fighting in that markup about SNAP benefits and you know, the ability to afford healthy food. And a variety of other things that I think are really important part of this agenda. Now, very little of America tunes into a Farm Bill markup, let's just be clear.
But yeah, again, you know, it all depends on, you know, what gets clipped and recycled on social media and what do people see, and I think it's a really important time for us to make those statements and people to be able to say like, who's fighting for you and who's going against you? And then keep up that drumbeat as we go into the, you know, next round of elections.
Ken: Well, I know where you'll be, you'll be at the front leading along with other Democrats on that committee. And Angie's a good example. Jim McGovern's on the ag committee too. It's gonna be a time to, I, I'm not saying pull out the popcorn, I'm thinking, it's better to show up rather than just to watch. Let's, let's encourage everyone to participate, call your members and, and weigh in please. Because it is hard for people to pay attention.
Even when you look at the complexion, sort of, of the Democratic caucus, as you say, until recently, people didn't wanna necessarily get on the Ag committee if they represented suburban and mostly urban constituencies. And the Farm Bill vote was for many years, kind of a throwaway or you know, they'd make a deal in exchange for something they wanted. Very natural part of everyday politics. But now I think we see the stakes are pretty high. And a lot is riding on the leadership position.
Mr. Thompson has a very different set of views about agriculture than MAHA when you lay it out and um, I'm, I'm hoping those contrasts come through.
Chellie: Yeah. And he got in a fight with one of the MAHA people because he, he stated in a, a political article or something that the people who were opposing the pesticide preemption were extremists and that really upset a lot of MAHA moms, which created a lot of social media attention.
So, and there's already setting it up for a fight. And, uh, I think they're already feeling a little bit of the pain, you know, maybe they should change the language or something else. And again, that's just one small issue, but we have to be making, you know, a real serious point on every one of those kinds of issues so that people can hear over and over again.
Who's worrying about your health? Who's really fighting the chemical companies? You know, these are fights that you don't have to do a lot of persuasion because people generally don't like chemical companies and don't wanna have toxics in their food or their environment, but you gotta make sure they know what's going on and, and how they fight back.
I mean, politics has gotten so just exhausting for people right now because it's a daily assault of, you know, ICE in the streets or international issues, or just so much conflict in the Epstein files. You know, it just sort of reins down on you every day.
But also I think it's been helpful to try to help understand a little bit that, for instance, people who have been struggling with this healthcare cost problem, which is, you know, affecting more and more people. Whether it's through the loss of the tax exemptions or what's coming with Medicaid and the impact on rural hospitals or everything else, everybody feels a, a problem with the cost of healthcare, but a lot of that happened in the big ugly bill.
And, you know, they took away the money for healthcare and gave it to ICE. They took away the money for, you know, things that you cared about, like, um, SNAP benefits and food for people who are struggling and gave it to ICE. So suddenly people are like, wait, that's why there's so many of 'em in the street.
You know, that's why they wanna build this detention center in, you know, Southern New Hampshire or Eastern Oklahoma or wherever it is you are. So it's complicated, but you kinda have to pull people into all these issues and say, hey, I know you're just focusing on this ICE detention center, but the reason they've got all this money is they took away the money from hungry people.
Ken: Yeah. People talk all the time about kitchen table issues? Well, there's no place where the kitchen table is centered more than the Farm Bill debates. Look into the crystal ball. Now you've been pretty good at looking into crystal balls. Over the years, you've been someone who's, you, you, you have really seen a lot of these issues over the horizon that other people have not seen.
Where do we end up after the Ag Committee finishes its work? They report a bill out. It goes to the floor. Obviously we have a parallel process in the Senate. And we wanna remind people that that's, as that unfolds, many of the same fights will have to be waged over there as well. But how do you think this is going to end up, and one of the, this is the, this is a little bit of a nerdy question.
You know, but back in the day, and I really am dating myself, there was a time when enough Republicans and enough Democrats could come together to at least threaten a floor amendment to make a change in the Farm Bill, to preserve SNAP benefits, to move money out of the big subsidy programs, or at least limit them so we have enough for conservation and rural development and other issues.
That was always, uh, to me, the, the antidote to a kind of not great bipartisanship, which was let, let's just get as much money Democrats and Republicans to the farm subsidy lobby, and the rest will be rounding errors or will hold steady.
But the bipartisan push for reforms, I mean, this goes back to, you know when Sherry Boehlert, people like that around Ryan Kind, obviously on the Democratic side. Talk a little bit about how you see the post-committee process unfolding in the House. They'll probably try and move the bill to the floor pretty quickly, I would, I would guess, if they can. But what do you think it will look like and do you think there will be any opportunity to stage some at least protest votes?
If not, try and win some amendments on the floor if there's bad things we need to fix.
Chellie: Yeah. Very good questions. You know, the, the crystal ball is more murky than it ever was. As you might recall, you know, we've had. I think the most recent Farm Bill, where we really couldn't come to an agreement in the House.
And it took the Senate to write a more, hospitable Farm Bill that then had to come back to us, which isn't usually how it happens. 'cause usually we do find this sort of coalition of people who, you know, take a little from the subsidies, a little from here. And had we been able to do the Farm Bill prior to the Big Ugly Bill, Big Beautiful Bill, it was called, we might have had a little more latitude for that because I think GT was getting pretty close to, you know, making a deal. 'cause we could move some money around.
You know, the, SNAP program had a little bit of money that we didn't wanna give up, but might've gone over here. There was extra conservation funds that were gonna go over here. And then you had the CCC, which is this big sort of pot of money
Ken: Big piggy bank for Trump.
Chellie: Right, exactly. Well, and a lot of that got taken away in the big ugly bill. So the cash that usually sort of softens the blow on some of these things has disappeared.
Ken: It's spent.
Chellie: Yeah. They spent the money. It's, and then, then you've got the tariff problem where Trump has just created himself an enormous nightmare that has been really damaging to so many farmers.
He's already had one bailout. I mean, we've heard that maybe the total bailout is closer to like. $40 billion. I mean, it's lots and lots of money that they actually need to do these bailouts to help out all the commodities that have been harmed by his kind of crazy and unpredictable tariffs. So you throw that into the mix, it's much harder to figure out how we could have a floor strategy, how this does anything, but just get through the floor perhaps on a partisan basis.
Or maybe they don't have the votes again, to do it. Because we don't have as many Democrats who will say, yeah, I need to pass a Farm Bill, I'll just bite my tongue and go along with it. Because they've put so many either poison pills in there, maybe some of them will come out, or they've done so much damage to the SNAP program. Now whether the Senate can actually, you know, make this all, make the magic happen and try to come together with something, I mean, I, I think they could get the poison pills out, but whether there's enough money in there to make everybody whole, I'm not sure.
But you know, it's sometimes not revealed till it's revealed. So, you know, we kind of have to see what the tenor of the markup is. Does anything, you know, come out after that. You know, that, you know, GT and the Republicans really wanna move this Farm Bill. I mean, it's, it's getting pretty old and it really is time we're working on the next farm bill, honestly.
So it's like a lot of other things that have just lost their functionality with this administration. With less competent executive branch secretaries and others, and with this sort of bleeding of the funds and staff to do the thing. So it's hard to tell.
Ken: Yeah. Well those are all the question marks over this process after assuming the fireworks end in the, in the committee, but I don't think they will.
I think we'll see more spill over into the floor and we'll see if anything can be done about it. I just want to thank you for, uh, and again, just point out to people that when you think about leadership on an agenda that you might call the Michelle Obama agenda, you might call the Michael Pollan agenda, you might call the organic agriculture, sustainable agriculture.
Any agenda that you would associate with progress on our food system going after processed food, encouraging more fruits and veg, you have been the leader, Congresswoman. You have been the leader time and time again, and I know you have, you're gonna give credit to lots of other people because that's your nature.
But I just want to single you out right now, 'cause I got you on a, on camera, to thank you. It's been an honor to work by your side for many years. And we're still right there, so, uh, let's try and get something done.
Chellie: Well, we're, uh, once again in the fight of our lifetime. So, Ken, thank you for, for taking the time to chat with me and for all of your gracious compliments, but really I am so grateful for EWG and the work that you do and the unique niche that you guys occupy because it's really been so critically important on so many of these issues and in a very broad spectrum of the things that we care deeply about.
So thank you for that. I look forward to continuing this fight and we will somehow navigate this and I do believe in the end, you know, we're gonna win here. We're gonna win on these things, but it's a tough slog right now.
Ken: I agree. Well, I, Congresswoman Pingree, I will see you in the foxhole.
Chellie: I look forward to it. Thank you so much.
Ken: Thank you to Congresswoman Chellie Pingree for joining me today, and thank you out there for listening.
If you'd like to learn more, be sure to check out our show notes for additional link. To take a deeper dive into today's discussion, make sure to follow our show on Instagram at KenCooksPodcast. And if you're interested in learning more about ewg, head over to ewg.org or check out EWG's Instagram account @EnvironmentalWorkingGroup.
If this episode resonated with you or you think someone you know would benefit from it, send it along. The best way to make positive change is to start as a community. With your community. Today's episode was produced by the estimable Beth Rowe and Mary Kelly, and our show's theme music is by Moby.
Thanks for listening.
Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Farming & Agriculture Farm Subsidies Pesticides May 28, 2026California bill tackling toxic ‘forever chemical’ pesticides clears Assembly floor
SACRAMENTO – The California Assembly voted May 27 to advance a bill targeting the use of toxic PFAS “forever chemical” pesticides found in nearly 40% of state-sampled California-grown non-organic fruits and vegetables.
The vote on Assembly Bill 1603 moves the nation’s largest agricultural state closer to phasing out a pervasive source of PFAS contamination. The bill now heads to the Senate.
PFAS pesticides were also found in up to 50% of California surface water samples, and in about 45% to 55% of sediment samples, according to a recent Environmental Working Group analysis.
EWG is cosponsoring AB 1603, introduced by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank). If enacted, it would require these pesticides to be clearly identified as being PFAS and it would halt approvals of the use of new PFAS pesticides in California.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation currently allows 53 pesticides to be used in the state. Meanwhile, 17 PFAS pesticides approved by the federal Environmental Protection Agency could be added to the state’s crop fields in the near future if not for this legislation.
As approved by the Assembly, AB 1603 would also properly identify and notify the public when PFAS pesticides are used on agricultural fields and require growers to obtain county permits before using the chemicals on crops.
Under pressure from the pesticides industry and some agricultural interests, Schultz committed to removing sections of the bill that would outright ban all uses of PFAS pesticides, a vow necessary for the Assembly to support advancing the legislation.
Other bill cosponsors include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.
“The country depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now they’re being seasoned with chemicals that never break down,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.
“We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops,” she said.
A growing crisis in California fieldsAn EWG analysis of state data found PFAS pesticide residues on 37% of 930 samples of non-organic California-grown produce, including nine out of 10 samples of peaches, nectarines and plums.
Farmers applied 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides across all 58 California counties between 2018 and 2023. These chemicals don't break down in the environment and can build up in the body, creating the potential for long-term harm.
“As a father, I don't want my kids eating strawberries contaminated with chemicals that will stay in their bodies for decades,” said Schultz.
“AB 1603 is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation, not by the accumulation of toxic PFAS in our soil and water. We need to help our farmers transition away from these persistent chemicals so that California can be a global leader in food safety,” he said.
Why are some PFAS pesticidesPFAS are a group of thousands of human-made chemicals used in a wide range of consumer, industrial and electronic products, in addition to pesticides.
PFAS’ carbon-fluorine bond is among the strongest in chemistry. It is the reason they don’t break down – and the reason they’re called “forever chemicals.”
“The scale of this contamination is staggering,” said Susan Little, EWG’s legislative director in California. “Millions of pounds of PFAS are used on everyday California crops.
“AB 1603 takes a big step forward by immediately banning new state approvals and requiring full transparency regarding their use,” she added.
As these chemicals partially break down over time, they can form other harmful compounds, including trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA, which is increasingly being detected in the environment, wildlife and people. One study estimates that PFAS pesticide use in California could generate between 185,000 and 616,000 pounds of TFA each year.
Emerging research links TFA to reproductive harm and immune suppression, raising growing concerns about its spread and potential health risks.
An EPA analysis noted that 36 PFAS pesticides – 25 of which are registered in California – lack updated developmental and reproductive toxicity tests. Immunotoxicity studies are routinely waived in pesticide applications, despite growing evidence that PFAS chemicals are particularly harmful to the immune system.
“By the time these PFAS residues reach our plates, they have become part of a toxic cocktail that can suppress the immune system and harm reproductive health,” said Varun Subramaniam, EWG science analyst. “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using these chemicals on food crops.”
“The most troubling part is how little we know about their safety. We’re spraying millions of pounds of chemicals on food without understanding their full health impacts or considering what little we do know. It’s unconscionable,” he added.
California’s agricultural PFAS use means residents of the Golden State get hit twice – through contaminated food and through contaminated water. PFAS pesticides leave residues on fruits and vegetables, and the chemicals get into the surface water that become drinking water.
States leading on regulationThe federal EPA regulates and approves pesticides for national use, but states aren’t required to follow suit. California operates its own approval system: The state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation must independently evaluate and authorize each chemical before farmers can use it.
That gives California the much needed authority to protect residents – power the state has largely chosen not to use when it comes to PFAS pesticides.
While California remains one of the world’s largest users of PFAS pesticides, other jurisdictions have moved to restrict or ban them. In 2023, Maine enacted the nation’s first ban on PFAS pesticides, starting in 2030. In 2023, Minnesota passed a broad ban on nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, phasing them out by 2032.
Denmark banned six PFAS pesticide ingredients in 2025. And the European Union has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides heavily used in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet.
AB 1603 would start to move California in line with these other states and jurisdictions, laying the groundwork for the nation’s “salad bowl” to once again be a public health leader and help ensure what we are putting on America’s kitchen table is free from PFAS pesticides.
“California has been a public health bellwether for decades, from car emissions to chemical safety,” said Del Chiaro. “But we've been silent on PFAS pesticides, even though we are one of the biggest users.
“AB 1603 begins to change that. This is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food,” she 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 Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 28, 2026California State Assembly advances bill to create landmark ‘non-ultraprocessed’ food label
SACRAMENTO – In a major win for public health, the California State Assembly voted today to advance a trailblazing bill that would give shoppers an easy way to identify less harmful processed foods.
Assembly Bill 2244, introduced on March 24 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), aims to create a first-of-its-kind state certification program for products that are not ultraprocessed food, or UPF. If enacted, it would establish a new government-backed seal for non-UPF foods.
“Parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids,” said Gabriel.
“AB 2244 will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. This new seal doesn’t limit consumer choice, it just makes informed choice possible,” he added.
UPF are industrially manufactured and chemically modified products. They’re often made with potentially harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and durability.
The Environmental Working Group is co-sponsoring the bill. It now goes to the Senate.
A new standard for healthier foodUnder AB 2244, the state would create a standardized label bearing the phrase “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.” Products would not be permitted to carry the new label if they are classified as UPF under state law.
Only products that meet these requirements could display the seal.
California last September enacted AB 1264, a landmark law by Gabriel setting the first U.S. legal definition of UPF.
The law says a food is considered UPF if it is high in saturated fat, added sugar or sodium and contains a food additive such as flavor, color, emulsifier or a thickening agent.
The California Department of Public Health would oversee approved agents’ independent certification of products that meet the state’s non-UPF standard and qualify to use the label. Certified products would be required to undergo recertification at least every three years.
AB 2244 would direct the department to accredit these third-party certification agents no later than June 1, 2028.
“This is about setting a higher bar for what we consider healthy food,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California.
“Consumers deserve labels they can trust. And families deserve a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory.
“If enacted, the bill would establish a state-verified seal for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that define the modern American diet,” she added.
Bringing transparency and accountability to the food systemThe bill includes these strong oversight and transparency measures:
- Certification agents must register with the state and disclose all certified products
- The state can audit certification records at any time
- The state would maintain a public, online list of certified products
- Misuse of the label would be illegal and subject to enforcement
These provisions are designed to ensure the label’s credibility.
Making healthier choices easier in storesIn addition to creating the label, the bill would require large food retailers to display certified products carrying the label in a way that’s easy for consumers to identify, such as through special signage or physical separation within the store.
This requirement applies to grocery stores that sell more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified product types and brings in more than $10 million in annual sales.
Addressing the rise of UPFUPF are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products often made with harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and shelf life.
In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet.
Experts say ultra-processed food and drinks are engineered to trick people into consuming more of them than they want, especially soda.
Scientific research has linked diets high in UPF to serious health harms, including cancer, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders (such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease) and mental health issues.
Obesity is chief among the health problems linked to UPF. Rates of obesity in the U.S. and globally have skyrocketed in tandem with the rising UPF consumption.
Help for consumersDespite these concerns, consumers have no clear, standard labeling system to help them identify UPF.
With federal regulators slow to update oversight of food additives and processing, states are increasingly taking action to protect public health.
AB 2244 builds on California’s leadership in addressing harmful food chemicals and improving transparency for consumers.
“Because companies are not required to disclose an ingredient’s purpose, it can be really difficult even for experts, even for people like me who have a doctoral degree in nutrition, to look at a food package and determine whether a food is ultra-processed or not,” said Alyssa Moran, ScD, MPH. Moran is deputy director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
“And from a behavioral science perspective, we also know that people seldom use information on the back of food packages to make food decisions. So that is exactly why clear, science-backed labels on the front of food packages can be so influential in helping people to make better choices,” Moran said.
“If we want to meaningfully curb disease, we need a suite of complementary policies that limit availability of ultra-processed foods, while promoting non-ultra-processed alternatives. I firmly believe this is the only way that we’ll make progress,” she added.
Consumers can consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products that are less processed. Food Scores also flags unhealthy ultra-processed food and drinks and can help identify alternatives.
###
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.
Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 May 27, 2026California bill requiring full disclosure of chemicals in diapers passes Assembly floor
SACRAMENTO – The California State Assembly on March 26 decisively approved a bill that would give parents a complete list of what’s in their baby’s diaper.
Assembly Bill 1901 cleared the Assembly with a bipartisan vote of 68-1. The legislation now moves to the Senate for consideration.
If enacted, it would require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose their ingredients on the product’s packaging and online.
Assemblymember Mark Berman (D-Menlo Park) authored the bill, which is co-sponsored by Environmental Working Group, Consumer Reports, Center for Environmental Health and Children Now.
“As a new dad, I have a new appreciation for how important it is for parents to make informed decisions when it comes to the health and wellness of their children,” said Berman.
“We all want the best for our children, but the lack of transparency around diaper ingredients prevents us from knowing what ‘the best’ is when buying the one thing that is touching our baby’s skin every minute of their lives for years,” he said.
“I’m proud to author AB 1901 to give parents greater transparency into what chemicals are in their children’s diapers so that they can make the right choice for their family,” Berman added.
The bill addresses growing concerns about diaper chemicals and other ingredients, many of which are linked to serious health and environmental risks.
The stakes are high, and the timeline is urgent. The average child wears a diaper for the first two to three years of life, resulting in more than 8,000 diaper changes. Depending on the type of diaper, this can mean chemicals are sitting directly against an infant’s skin around the clock.
Under market pressure, some manufacturers already disclose their ingredients, which shows the bill’s requirement is feasible. If enacted, the law would ensure transparency throughout the industry.
Newborns and toddlers especially vulnerableBabies are not simply small adults when it comes to chemical exposure.
“A baby wears a diaper nearly every minute of the first few years of life, yet parents are forced into a toxic guessing game,” said Susan Little, EWG’s California legislative director.
Many children with special needs rely on diapers for years, making them uniquely vulnerable to undisclosed chemicals. When manufacturers hide their ingredients, caregivers may feel fearful and sidelined. These families face years of additional contact with hidden ingredients.
“Transparency isn’t about causing fear but about replacing uncertainty with the facts parents need to protect their children,” Little said. “And because an infant’s thin skin absorbs chemicals more easily, hidden ingredients like phthalates can trigger a lifetime of health challenges.”
“California parents shouldn’t need a chemistry degree to buy a diaper. They deserve to know exactly what is touching their child’s skin. Parents want this information,” she added.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that infants’ thinner, more permeable skin absorbs chemicals more readily than adult skin and the biological systems that would normally process and eliminate those chemicals are still developing.
Health and environmental problemsRecent test results show many diapers are made with ingredients that can cause health and environmental problems, including phthalates, which are linked to hormone disruption, and bleaching agents, which can cause skin and respiratory irritation.
Volatile organic compounds, also often used in diapers, can include hazardous air pollutants like toluene and xylene, which are associated with respiratory and other health harms.
“Parents shouldn’t have to worry about potentially harmful chemicals in baby products, especially diapers. However, manufacturers are not required to be fully transparent with that information,” said Gabe Knight, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports.
“This bill would help ensure that parents and caregivers have the information they need to make informed decisions about which products are best for their baby.
“Consumer Reports is pleased to support this bill and commends Assemblymember Berman for his work on this issue,” Knight said.
Certain wetness indicators and colorful designs may contain harmful compounds, heavy metals and dyes that can cause allergic contact dermatitis.
“Children, especially infants and toddlers, are not little adults. They are more susceptible and experience more significant health impacts from exposures to environmental health hazards than adults,” said Cara Cook, M.S., R.N., deputy director of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.
“Infants and toddlers are especially vulnerable to harmful chemicals, because their bodies and skin are still developing. Unfortunately, some diaper ingredients and chemicals, such as phthalates, are linked to health risks in children,” she added.
Diapers can also use “undisclosed fragrance,” an umbrella term that obscures many potentially harmful chemicals used in scent mixtures.
Cotton and other raw materials used to make diapers can contain pesticide residues.
“Nurses and other healthcare professionals care for infants whose skin is exposed to diapers around the clock,” said the CEO of American Nurses Association, California, Marketa Houskova, DNP, R.N.
“Manufacturers should fully disclose all ingredients used in these products so families and clinicians can make informed decisions to better protect children’s health,” she said.
Commonsense solution to a transparency voidAB 1901 would help families make more informed purchasing decisions about products that sit directly against a baby’s skin.
If it becomes law, AB 1901 would set a January 1, 2028, deadline for the manufacturer of any children’s diaper sold, distributed or manufactured in California to list intentionally added ingredients publicly online. They would also have to provide details about the function or purpose of each ingredient.
One year later, the company would be required to disclose complete ingredient information online. After that, diapers that didn’t comply would be banned in the state.
Record of transparency making baby products saferCalifornia has already shown that sunlight lowers the hazards of ingredients in baby products.
After the state required public disclosure of heavy metal tests results of baby food in January 2025, manufacturers responded by reducing contamination levels in many product categories.
AB 1901 applies that same principle to diapers while giving parents and caregivers more informed choices.
“Parents and caregivers should be able to feel confident about the products they choose to keep their babies and toddlers clean and dry,” said Ted Lempert, Children Now’s president.
“AB 1901 is a ‘pro-kid’ bill that makes transparent information about diapers easily accessible, so families can make informed choices for their little ones.”
If enacted, AB 1901 would be a first-in-the-nation law requiring such full diaper ingredient transparency. AB 1901 follows a 2023 New York law that requires on-label disclosure of diaper ingredients.
“Stronger regulation and full disclosure are needed, and that’s why this bill is so important to protect children's health,” said Little.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports has a mission to create a fair and just marketplace for all. Widely known for our rigorous research and testing of products and services, we also survey millions of consumers each year, report extensively on marketplace issues, and advocate for consumer rights and protections around safety as well as digital rights, financial fairness, and sustainability. CR is independent and nonprofit.
Children Now harnesses collective power to achieve transformational and systemic results for California’s kids as one of the country’s most impactful kids’ nonprofits. Led by experienced policy and government relations teams spanning health, education, early childhood, child welfare, and a range of other areas, Children Now learns from kids and families where they need support and lift up solutions to policymakers with the power to act.
What to know about new ‘non-UPF’ certification labels
- Certifications for non-ultraprocessed food, or non-UPF, are emerging due to a lack of Food and Drug Administration guidance.
- Public certification programs that rely on the NOVA system to define UPF and incorporate nutrient limits are well-positioned for public health impact.
- Non-UPF labels and other tools, like EWG’s Food Scores, can help consumers choose foods that are less processed and lower in salt, sugar and fat.
California is advancing a bill to help shoppers identify alternatives to ultraprocessed foods, or UPF, at the grocery store. If enacted, it would create a first-ever government-run and state-certified label for non-UPF foods that meet nutritional standards.
This certification would help cut through misleading marketing to provide shoppers with clear and actionable information about what is and isn’t UPF.
UPF are industrially made products that contain colors, additives or ingredients not commonly found in home kitchens. In the U.S., these foods make up more than half the typical adult diet and nearly two-thirds of what children eat. Leading health experts now consider UPF a key driver of chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and depression.
By defining UPF, the Food and Drug Administration could take a critical step toward helping consumers identify healthier alternatives. But it’s failing to act.
In the absence of federal action, other stakeholders are stepping in. Nonprofit and private certifications like the Non-UPF Project, Non-UPF Program and WISEcode are also making their way into the marketplace.
But the California non-UPF certification has several standout features that may elevate its potential for benefiting public health.
Ingredients provide information about food processingThe proposed California non-UPF certification uses ingredient groupings based on the NOVA classification system, which is the most widely used and validated framework for determining what counts as an ultra-processed food.
According to the NOVA system, there are two main groups of ingredients that indicate a food is ultra-processed: cosmetic additives and non-culinary ingredients. Cosmetic additives are used to enhance how a food looks, tastes or feels, and can include artificial flavors, colors, emulsifiers and sweeteners. Non-culinary ingredients are things you wouldn’t typically find in a home kitchen, like high fructose corn syrup or protein isolates.
Because companies are required to publicly publish product ingredient lists, they provide a practical and transparent way to help decide which foods are UPF.
The Non-UPF Program also uses the NOVA system.
WISEcode takes a different route, using a proprietary formula that weights ingredients to score food across five processing levels: minimal, light, moderate, ultra or super-ultra processed. This system does not use NOVA as its basis.
The Non-UPF Project evaluates both ingredients and processing methods provided by companies seeking certification. Processing methods are classified as permissible (e.g., curing or smoking), conditional (e.g., high temperature oil refining), or prohibited (e.g., hydrogenation). However, relying on company-supplied information can introduce potential conflicts of interest and make independent verification more difficult.
Avoiding the ‘health halo’ effectMany UPF are high in added sugar, sodium or saturated fat. Studies have documented industry efforts to create combinations of these nutrients that make foods as appealing as possible. The effects are so powerful that some experts are urging the medical community to recognize UPF addiction as a disorder.
Without limits on sugar, salt and fat, a product could earn a non-UPF label if it contains no industrial additives but is engineered with high levels of these nutrients. This can create a “health halo” – a misleading impression that a food is healthy.
The California non-UPF certification would address this by limiting added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat in certified products, with exceptions for minimally processed foods.
The Non-UPF Project and WISEcode take different approaches to limiting added sugars, but do not impose limits on sodium or saturated fat.
Nutrient levels alone don’t tell much about processing – for example, food made at home can be high in sugar, salt or fat.
But combined with ingredient-based UPF markers, nutrient levels can help policies distinguish between foods that offer meaningful nutritional benefits and those that don’t. That’s important for a consumer-facing certification intended to guide healthier choices.
How do non-UPF certifications stack up?The average U.S. grocery store carries more than 31,000 food products. Even the most nuanced systems for separating UPF from other processed foods will have imperfections. And policies targeting UPF will almost certainly need to change over time as the food industry responds with reformulated products.
But public health experts think we can get close.
Currently, California's proposed seal is the only certification that would combine a NOVA-based ingredient standard, limits on key nutrients of concern and a publicly verifiable process.
An expert panel recently recommended that NOVA be used as the basis for defining UPF in policy – specifically, that a food should be designated as ultra-processed if one or more ingredients falls in NOVA Category 4. The panel found that an ingredient-based approach focused on cosmetic additives alone is highly accurate, capturing 98% of products identified as UPF under the full NOVA framework.
Ensuring that foods high in added sugar, salt or saturated fat – like some cookies – are not labeled as non-UPF regardless of ingredients prevents the “health halo” effect. This helps to avoid consumer confusion and focus policy efforts on foods most harmful to public health.
And state-run programs offer several advantages. They rely on publicly available ingredient data, apply consistent and verifiable standards, and are not funded by the manufacturers seeking certification in a fee-based structure.
See Table 1 below for more information on how these certifications compare. The chart omits WISEcode, as its methods use weighted scoring as opposed to outright bans.
Table 1. Comparison of non-UPF certifications
Non-UPF Standard and Verification CriteriaCalifornia Non-UPFNonultraprocessed.orgNon-UPF Program▼ Standard development and product verificationGovernment-Developed StandardYesNoNoPublicly Available StandardYesYesYesPublicly Verifiable StandardYesNoNoThird-Party VerificationYesYesYesVerification Fees to Standard Developer*NoYesYes▼ Non-UPF label criteriaBased on NovaYesNoYesArtificial Colors ProhibitedYesYesYesArtificial Flavors ProhibitedYesYesYesNatural Flavors ProhibitedYesUnder certain conditions**YesNon-Nutritive Sweeteners Prohibited***YesYesYesPreservatives ProhibitedNoSomeSomeEmulsifiers ProhibitedYesSomeYesBioengineered Ingredients (GMOs) ProhibitedNoYesNoOther Standards for Product Formulation, Based on Ingredient NameNoYesNoOther Standards for Product Formulation, Based on Ingredient Physical or Technical EffectYesNoYesStandards for ProcessingNoYesYesAdded Sugar LimitYesYesNoSodium LimitYesNoNoSaturated Fat LimitYesNoNo▼ Packaged foods ineligible for labelProduceNoYesNo .non-upf-section-content.hidden { display: none; } .non-upf-table th:nth-child(2), .non-upf-table th:nth-child(4) { white-space: normal; } .non-upf-table th:nth-child(3) { white-space: nowrap; } .non-upf-section-header { background-color: #e8e8e8; } .non-upf-section-header td { cursor: pointer; } function toggleNonUPFSection(headerRow) { // Toggle the collapsed state on the header headerRow.classList.toggle('collapsed'); // Get the section number from the data attribute const sectionNum = headerRow.getAttribute('data-section'); const sectionClass = `section-${sectionNum}`; // Toggle all rows that belong to this section const rows = document.querySelectorAll(`.${sectionClass}`); rows.forEach(row => { row.classList.toggle('hidden'); }); }* Food manufacturer verification fees paid directly to the organization developing the standard
** Prohibited when used to imply the presence of an ingredient that is absent or present only in trace amounts
***Includes natural (e.g., stevia, monkfruit) and artificial (e.g., aspartame, sucralose) non-nutritive sweeteners
While consumers wait for non-UPF certifications and regulations to hit grocery store shelves, there are a few steps they can take to shop with more confidence.
One option is to check ingredient lists and nutrition facts, which are usually found on the back of food packages, looking for more whole foods and fewer chemicals. This may also mean looking beyond marketing claims on the front of packages, which can include phrases, colors or symbols intended to mislead consumers about what’s inside.
For some extra help, take a look at EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help with identifying alternatives.
Shoppers on the go can also use EWG’s Healthy Living app.
Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 27, 20263 ways the House farm bill threatens your health
The farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation most of us have never heard of – and Congress is negotiating it right now.
This sweeping bill affects everyone, even those who have never stepped foot on a farm. A good farm bill would help families buy groceries, support the farmers growing our food, guide agricultural practices protecting our water supply, even expand access to infrastructure like broadband internet.
But the Republicans’ House farm bill, the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026, passed last month with a focus on slashing many beneficial programs.
The Senate is soon to follow with its farm bill. If the final legislation looks anything like the House bill, it would lead to far-reaching public health harms, from pesticide exposure to longer food pantry lines to widespread water pollution.
How? Here are three ways the House farm bill may be harmful to your health.
1. Increasing exposure to toxic pesticides
Exposure to pesticides like glyphosate and paraquat can be devastating to a person’s health, leading to cancer and Parkinson’s disease, among other harms.
The federal government has the power to protect us – but it hasn’t done so. Instead, the Trump administration signed an executive order to support companies in producing a steady supply of glyphosate-based herbicides, rolled back regulations intended to keep our water safe from the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS and even approved new pesticides containing PFAS.
So states and local governments are enacting their own pesticide protections.
Some of these safeguards would limit the use of these harmful chemicals on fields near schools and public parks, where children – who are most vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure – spend their time.
But the Senate farm bill could include a provision to replace, or “preempt,” strong state or local pesticide protections with far weaker federal rules.
A similar provision in the House bill – removed at the 11th hour – would have erased dozens of state laws and given pesticide chemical companies sweeping immunity from liability for the illnesses linked to their products.
Even with the defeat of that troublesome language, there are still several provisions in the House farm bill that favor pesticide makers, not public health, by:
- Excluding many hazardous agricultural chemicals from existing health and safety reviews
- Making it easier for polluters to ignore health and environmental safeguards
- Delaying new reviews of certain potentially harmful pesticides until 2031
- Failing to protect people from PFAS in pesticides and biosolids.
2. Erecting barriers to healthy eating
There are already many barriers to eating healthy in the U.S. Our food system is flooded with ultra-processed food, a leading cause of chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, depression and multiple forms of cancer. Recent research shows that foods that cost less often contain more food additives and higher amounts of sugar and sodium.
More than half of adults in the U.S. say they worry about affording food for their families, and about one in seven households can’t always get enough food for everyone at home.
Study after study has linked food insecurity and lack of healthy food access to a greater risk of diet-related diseases and poorer health outcomes.
Rather than taking action to help people eat healthier diets, the partisan House farm bill could make these problems far worse. President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act included large cuts to funding for vital nutrition programs, and the House farm bill would make those cuts permanent.
The House farm bill would kneecap nutrition programs that more than 40 million people rely on, almost 40% of whom are kids. These cuts will cause an estimated 5 million people to lose access to food assistance over the coming years and could spell trouble for small grocers who rely on their spending.
3. Failing to protect food safety and a clean water supply
The House farm bill would cut funding to a popular Department of Agriculture conservation program that supports practices that help reduce water pollution.
Our drinking water is being polluted by factory farms – large-scale animal production facilities where about 90% of U.S. farm animals are raised – which produce enormous amounts of manure.
This manure can harbor a lot of bacteria, including a strain of E. coli that is particularly dangerous for humans. When bacteria from animal waste spread to nearby fruit and vegetable crops, the people who eat that produce can get seriously sick.
Manure can also pollute the water with nitrogen and phosphorus, as can runoff from commercial fertilizer. Nitrogen can become nitrate in water, and nitrate in drinking water poses serious public health risks. A recent EWG analysis found nitrate in the drinking water of 1 in 5 U.S. households. Exposure to nitrate increases the risk of cancer, including colorectal and bladder cancer, thyroid disease and birth defects in infants.
Decreasing funding for the USDA’s program and other conservation programs would increase farming-related pollution of drinking water and air, putting families at risk downstream.
The farm bill should promote public healthAmericans deserve a better farm bill – one that would:
- Protect farmworkers, families and children from toxic chemicals, including PFAS forever chemicals, present in the pesticides and fertilizers used to grow our food
- Ensure all families have access to the safe and nutritious foods they need to live healthy lives
- Help farmers protect the critical natural resources we all rely on, like clean water and air
- Prevent foodborne illnesses caused by bacteria that come from factory farms.
While Congress debates the farm bill, consumers can use EWG tools to make informed choices. You can:
- Follow EWG to get the latest updates about farm bill negotiations
- Consult our Tap Water Database to find out about the quality of your drinking water. If necessary, learn what type of water filter will work best in your home
- Choose organic produce when possible. Non-organic fruit and vegetables are typically grown with toxic pesticides that organic farmers are not permitted to use
- Check our Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™, which identifies the non-organic fruit and vegetables that have the most and least pesticide residues
- And tell your representatives in Congress not to cave to corporations like Bayer-Monsanto, which are trying to strip state and local pesticide protections in the 2026 Farm Bill. Preserving these powerful state and local safeguards means protecting our farmworkers, families and children.
Washington recognizes EWG Verified® as higher standard for safer salon products
WASHINGTON – In a first-of-its-kind pilot project, Washington is recognizing products with the EWG Verified® mark in its Safer Salons Partnership, which reimburses independent hair stylists, barbers and small salon businesses for switching to safer beauty products.
The program, led by Washington’s Department of Ecology, says EWG Verified meets the criteria for the highest reimbursement level. This is reserved for certifications that ban a broad range of harmful chemicals and assess the health hazards of ingredients and impurities. More than 2,700 products have earned the EWG Verified mark.
“EWG is proud to be recognized by Washington State's Safer Salons Partnership,” said Clive Davies, vice president of EWG Verified. “This is a watershed moment for the beauty industry. Washington State is putting safer product choice directly in the hands of the workers who need it most, with the money on the table to help make it happen.
“By recognizing EWG Verified at the highest level, the state is sending a clear message to manufacturers: Designing safer products is not only possible, it’s preferred. EWG is proud to be part of making that happen,” he added.
Protecting the workers most at riskSalon workers face some of the highest occupational exposures to toxic chemicals in the beauty industry.
Hair straighteners, dyes and styling products can contain formaldehyde, phthalates and other chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption and reproductive toxicity. Unlike consumers, salon workers breathe them in and absorb them through their skin for hours at a time every single working day.
“For too long, we’ve expected salon workers to deliver high-performance results without assurance that the products they use are safe,” said Lauren Sweet Duffy, Ph.D., senior director of EWG Verified. “They shouldn't need a chemistry degree to know whether the products they use every day are safer.
“When a stylist sees the EWG Verified mark, the guesswork is gone. It means the product has been rigorously reviewed, meets high standards for ingredient safety and transparency, and is free from the hidden chemicals that have put salon workers’ health at risk for decades. That is not a small thing. We are thrilled to work with Washington state and help amplify these positive impacts,” she added
Washington targets toxic cosmeticsWashington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, enacted in 2023, is a model for what meaningful cosmetic ingredient reform looks like in practice. The law not only bans a broad range of harmful chemicals from cosmetic products sold or distributed in the state but also offers financial support for small businesses.
The European Union and other countries have banned or limited more than 1,600 chemicals from personal care products while the U.S. prohibits just nine for safety reasons.
States have stepped in to ban dozens of other chemicals. Washington’s Department of Ecology recently finalized a new rule under the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act that will ban formaldehyde and 25 specific formaldehyde-releasing chemicals from cosmetic products beginning January 1, 2027.
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen commonly used in hair-smoothing treatments and also linked to respiratory disease and skin sensitization, risks that fall most heavily on the salon workers who apply these products daily.
The state is piloting the Safer Salons Partnership with several Washington salon professionals and barbershops. In addition to EWG Verified products, some other beauty products are eligible for the program.
A full directory of EWG Verified products eligible for reimbursement during the pilot is available at ewg.org/ewgverified. More information about the Safer Salons Partnership is available at ecology.wa.gov/safer-salons.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Family Health Women's Health Toxic Chemicals Phthalates State’s pilot reimburses salon workers, barbers for buying items with EWG Verified mark Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 21, 2026EWG: PFAS pesticides contaminate half of California surface water and sediment tests
SACRAMENTO – Pesticides that are the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS are showing up in roughly half of surface water and sediment tests throughout California, a new Environmental Working Group analysis finds, underscoring the need to phase out the use of PFAS pesticides.
The analysis, which examined surface water and sediment test data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the U.S. Geological Survey collected between 2020 and 2024 found that bifenthrin, a PFAS pesticide potentially linked to cancer, was detected in nearly half of all surface water samples and in over half of the sediment samples.
In San Luis Obispo and Stanislaus counties, the chemical was found in over 80% of surface water samples. The data was collected from ten counties across the state, including Santa Barbara and Monterey counties.
“What we are finding in California’s waterways should alarm every Californian, and every American who eats California-grown food,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.
“If we’re seeing PFAS pesticides show up this often even in limited surface water and sediment tests, the true scale of this contamination is almost certainly even greater. We need to stop deliberately spraying these toxic chemicals on our crops,” she added.
Millions of Californians are already being exposed to harmful PFAS through pesticide applications on produce grown in the state. EWG’s analysis shows that exposure through surface water and sediment could also be of concern.
More than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to California farmland annually. EWG also found frequent detections of these chemicals on produce grown in the state, and that feeds not only California but the rest of the U.S.
Since PFAS never fully break down in the environment, exposure through these two environmental pathways may persist for generations through PFAS’ breakdown products.
Overall sampling data were limited in size and scope, so PFAS contamination from pesticide use is likely more widespread than the data currently suggest. For instance, the data did not include samples from Fresno or Kern Counties, the counties that use the most PFAS pesticides in the state.
“The fact that we are finding potentially carcinogenic chemicals at high rates is a profound public health concern,” said Varun Subramaniam, M.S., EWG science analyst and co-author of the analysis.
“There are data gaps that likely mean PFAS contamination in sediment is underestimated currently. With more frequent and geographically diverse sampling, as well as testing for a wider variety of PFAS, detections would almost certainly rise,” he added.
Breakdown products are concerningThe contamination documented in this analysis may represent only a fraction of the actual PFAS burden in California’s waterways. Many PFAS pesticides transform in the environment into a highly persistent, short-chain form called trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA. Research has linked TFA exposure with reproductive and developmental risks. There are also concerns about TFA’s ability to persist in the environment for an extremely long time.
It remains unknown how long it takes PFAS pesticides to degrade into TFA. It varies according to pesticide types and environmental conditions.
“Since PFAS never fully break down, exposure through surface water and sediment could persist for generations,” said Subramaniam. “In the absence of comprehensive monitoring for TFA and PFAS pesticide breakdown products, we are underestimating how widely these chemicals have spread in the environment and how they are affecting our health.”
This new analysis is a significant step forward in trying to capture the many ways we are exposed to PFAS. And it builds on EWG’s growing efforts to highlight the worrisome broad use of PFAS pesticides in the state that continues unchecked.
A ban would protect people“We already know that PFAS are toxic chemicals that can harm people in a number of serious ways,” said Susan Little, EWG’s California legislative director. “The state needs to move swiftly to phase out PFAS pesticides for agricultural uses.”
EWG is sponsoring a bill moving through the California State Legislature, AB 1603, which would ban the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides used on crops statewide by 2035.
“Ending the use of PFAS pesticides would safeguard our food and water systems and prevent PFAS pesticide buildup in the environment,” said Little.
###
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 Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California ‘Forever chemicals’ may expose millions to potential health concerns Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 27, 2026Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.