You are here
Environmental Working Group
Four EWG-sponsored California consumer choice, safety bills clear key spending committees
SACRAMENTO – Four bills sponsored by the Environmental Working Group this week cleared appropriations committees in the California Legislature, sending the legislation for full floor votes as state lawmakers enter their final voting stretch before adjournment.
The bills target some of the most pressing consumer health and affordability issues facing Californians: toxic “forever chemical” pesticides, undisclosed chemicals in baby diapers, America’s addiction to ultra-processed foods and sky-high electricity bills.
“Sacramento lawmakers have a chance this month to prove, once again, why California continues to reshape the national marketplace on health and safety,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG's senior vice president for California.
“Each of these bills reflects something simple: people deserve transparency, and they deserve affordable options that don't compromise their health,” she added.
Using solar to lower sky-high electricity bills (Senate Bill 868)SB 868, the Plug and Play Solar Act, would cut the red tape blocking affordable balcony solar systems from being placed in apartments, condos and single-family homes, while ensuring the systems meet strict safety standards. The bill sustained some extensive amendments in the Assembly Appropriations Committee that have yet to be reviewed and analyzed.
The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network, and now heads for an Assembly floor vote.
“Balcony solar lets California residents place a small solar panel on a sunny patio or balcony, plug it into a regular wall outlet and start saving on their electricity bill right away,” said Del Chiaro. “Installing balcony solar is as simple as plugging an appliance like a toaster into a standard wall outlet. At a time when many struggle to pay their energy bills, balcony solar is a powerful cost-cutting tool.
“We have yet to see the amendments to the bill and can’t yet comment on their significance,” she added.
California electricity rates have nearly doubled over the past decade, leaving the state with the nation's second-highest energy prices. A single 400-watt balcony solar system can cover roughly 14% of the average apartment's electricity usage, providing savings of about $250 per year. While the cost of balcony solar starts around $500 today, EWG expects SB 868 would enable broader adoption of the systems, making them more accessible to low-income households.
Balcony solar already thrives in Europe, with more than 4 million systems installed in Germany alone, and efforts to expand deployment continue to gather steam in other countries.
In the U.S., regulatory barriers have kept the technology out of reach for many – barriers SB 868 would remove while setting statewide safety standards.
Other states are moving in the same direction, including New York, where a balcony solar bill now awaits Gov. Kathy Hochul's signature.
Widespread use of PFAS pesticides (Assembly Bill 1603)AB 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would address the use of toxic "forever chemicals" pesticides allowed for use in California. It now heads to the Senate floor.
More than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to California crops each year, contaminating produce, soil and water. EWG research found PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of peaches, nectarines and plums tested by the state.
As introduced, AB 1603 would have banned the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides statewide by 2035, paused new state approvals immediately, phased out by 2030 the PFAS pesticides not permitted in Europe, and required public disclosure of PFAS pesticide use.
Under pressure from the pesticide industry and agricultural interests, the bill's author agreed to remove the ban provisions and other restrictions, in order to keep the legislation moving.
Even in its amended form, AB 1603 is an important step forward as it represents growing legislative concern about regulating PFAS as a class of chemicals, and it marks the first time California has required the state to systematically track and disclose PFAS pesticide use, information state agencies didn't have before EWG's research brought it to light.
“We need to stop spraying our strawberries and peaches with toxic forever chemicals,” said Susan Little, EWG's California legislative director. “We are contaminating our food and water supplies and it needs to stop.”
“With this bill, we are calling a spade a spade so that farmers and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this problem and we can continue to address it,” she added.
Of the thousands of PFAS used in commerce, very few have comprehensive toxicity data, but what we do know is alarming: the health harms linked to the most well-studied PFAS, including cancer, immune suppression, and reproductive and developmental harm, show up at doses far lower than regulators once considered safe.
Baby diapers made of mystery chemicals (Assembly Bill 1901)AB 1901, by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), would require manufacturers of children's diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose all intentionally added ingredients, both on product packaging and online.
EWG is co-sponsoring the bill alongside Consumer Reports, the Center for Environmental Health and Children Now. AB 1901 now heads to a full Senate floor vote.
Babies spend much of their first two to three years of life in diapers. Yet disposable diapers are exempt by the federal government from carrying ingredient labels of any kind, and manufacturers are not required to inform regulators about the chemicals used to make them.
Today, manufacturers can hide dozens of chemicals behind umbrella terms like “fragrance” or “colors,” potentially toxic mystery cocktails that leave parents with no way of knowing what chemicals sit against their baby's skin day after day.
“A newborn can't choose what touches their skin, and right now, neither can their parents because manufacturers have made sure of it,” said EWG’s Little.
“Every hour of every day, an infant's skin is absorbing whatever industry decided not to tell us about. Parents can read a nutrition label or a shampoo label but not this. AB 1901 isn't asking for anything radical. It's asking for diapers to contain ingredient labels that are similar to labels required of other baby products,” she added.
Recent tests have found diapers may contain volatile organic compounds; phthalates, linked to hormone disruption and reproductive and developmental harm; quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, used in wetness indicators and linked to reproductive effects, skin irritation and asthma; and dyes and bleaching agents that can cause allergic reactions or skin and respiratory irritation. Because babies' skin is thinner, more permeable and still developing, they are especially vulnerable to these exposures.
EWG has created a Guide to Safer Diapers to help parents navigate the market in the meantime, and diapers earning the EWG Verified® mark meet our strict standards for ingredient transparency and health.
What is and isn't ultra-processed food (Assembly Bill 2244)AB 2244, by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would create a first-of-its-kind state certification program allowing shoppers to easily identify foods that are not ultra-processed, or UPF. These foods make up more than two-thirds of children's diets and more than half of the typical adult diet in the U.S., and have been linked to serious health harms including cancer, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders and mental health issues.
If enacted, the bill would establish a standardized “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” label. Products could carry the new label if they are classified as “not UPF” under state law. The legislation will next get a full Senate floor vote.
The California Department of Public Health would oversee accreditation of independent certification agents, with products subject to recertification at least every three years. Certification agents would be required to register with the state, disclose all certified products, and submit to state audits at any time, with a public online list of certified products and enforcement against misuse of the label.
“Parents shouldn't need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they're feeding their kids,” said Del Chiaro. “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 like flavors. This new seal doesn't limit consumer choice, it just makes informed choice possible.”
“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,” she added.
The bill would also require large food retailers, those selling more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified product types and generating more than $10 million in annual sales, to display certified products in a way that's easy for shoppers to identify, such as through special signage or physical separation in stores.
What's nextIf lawmakers pass the bills, they would head to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk for his signature.
“California has an opportunity, once again, to show the rest of the country what real consumer protection looks like,” Del Chiaro said. “We're urging lawmakers to finish the job on all four of these bills.”
###
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Legislation covers diaper chemicals, PFAS pesticides, solar and ultra-processed food Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 August 13, 2026EWG applauds California’s phase-out of toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s and other diseases
SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today applauded the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s announcement that all manufacturers of pesticide products containing paraquat-dichloride have voluntarily cancelled their registrations that allow them to sell paraquat in the state.
The decision starts the phase-out of one of the most toxic weedkillers in use in California agriculture. It’s a major step toward protecting farmworkers, agricultural communities and the environment from a highly toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease, thyroid disease, childhood leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and birth defects.
“California is sending a powerful message that there is no place for paraquat in modern agriculture,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “The fact is, farmworkers and nearby communities have been unprotected from the health threats of paraquat making this decision long overdue.
“That, along with the tragic spill in Dorris put the writing on the wall that paraquat’s days were numbered,” said Del Chiaro.
In March, a large container of paraquat fell from a truck in the northern California town Dorris, spilling roughly 60 gallons of the chemical onto a major roadway and into the surrounding community. Citing the risk of exposure to airborne paraquat releases, officials ordered a lockdown affecting about 600 residents, including those at a local elementary school.
Del Chiaro praised the California Legislature, in particular former Assemblymember and now Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Calif.) and leading voices like Dolores Huerta that ultimately led to today’s announcement through the enactment of AB 1963 in 2004. EWG sponsored the legislation, which required DPR to prioritize the scientific reevaluation of paraquat.
Using paraquat is banned in more than 70 countries, and earlier this year Vermont became the first U.S. state to prohibit its use.
“Paraquat is bad news for farmers, farmworkers and public health,” said Del Chiaro. “We applaud today’s announcement and urge other states to follow the lead of California and Vermont and ban this toxic crop chemical once and for all.”
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.
Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Family Health Toxic Chemicals Paraquat California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 August 10, 2026EWG statement on FDA’s new GRAS proposal
WASHINGTON – Today the Food and Drug Administration proposed a new rule to amend the “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, food chemicals loophole.
The GRAS regulatory loophole has, for years, allowed companies to add new, potentially harmful chemicals and other substances to snacks, drinks and more without first undergoing FDA safety review.
When Congress created the GRAS loophole in 1958, it was meant to apply largely to ingredients widely recognized as safe, such as salt, yeast and chicken broth.
But the loophole means that now almost all chemicals added to food are greenlighted by the food industry, not the FDA. Since 2000, nearly 99 percent of food chemicals added to commerce came into the market through the loophole, a 2025 Environmental Working Group analysis found.
The following is a statement from Melanie Benesh, EWG’s vice president for government affairs:
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is correct that the GRAS system is broken and in urgent need of reform. And eliminating the pathway that allows companies to self-certify chemicals as “generally recognized as safe” without notifying the FDA is the first step toward meaningful reform.
But true GRAS reform requires more than mandatory notification. It must also include strong, science-based safety standards and thorough, independent FDA review before chemicals are allowed in our food. And it must address the thousands of substances already on the market that have not been meaningfully reviewed in decades.
Americans deserve a system where food safety decisions are made by independent experts at the FDA – not by the companies that profit from selling these chemicals.
###
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 August 10, 20264 ways the food industry fools your senses
Companies use a range of tricks to make your food taste more flavorful.
Many of these tactics come straight from the tobacco industry playbook – and they’re so effective that some ultra-processed foods, or UPF, are considered addictive.
But companies are not just targeting your taste buds. They’re tricking your other senses, too. It’s all part of a sales strategy to make their food products as appealing as possible, and most people never even realize it.
From the time you see a packaged food to the smell you get when you open it to the sound it makes when you bite into it – you’re subject to marketing ploys the food industry has spent decades and millions of dollars perfecting.
Here’s how companies use these tactics to sell ultra-processed products, from cream cheese to chips to cheese puffs.
1. Scent marketing can trigger cravingsSmell is a powerful sensory cue. Specific scents can bring up old memories, evoke an emotional response and – of course – trigger hunger.
Food companies, retailers and restaurants have figured out how to use this to their advantage.
Some grocers strategically pump bakery smells through the store to inspire impulse purchases. Sometimes the smells aren’t even real. One promotional campaign used scented diffusers to release a baked cheesecake aroma into select grocery stores in an attempt to sell Philadelphia-brand cream cheese.
Food companies will even use “scent marketing” in their packaging and labels to appeal to consumers and build brand loyalty. As Chris van Tulleken describes in “Ultra-Processed People,” some ice cream producers use caramel scented wrappers to compensate for the lack of smell in frozen foods.
2. Chips are engineered for the perfect crunchIt’s not by chance that biting a potato chip feels so satisfying. Companies that make chips and other crunchy snacks have put serious thought into the sound they make when you eat them.
One study famously asked volunteers to judge the freshness of Pringles chips based on the volume of their crunch. People who heard louder crunches rated the chips as fresher than those who heard quieter crunches. Another study found that people ate fewer potato chips when they wore headphones to cancel out the crunching sound.
PepsiCo, parent company of Frito-Lay, has 19 research and development centers that research food qualities like chip crispness. Some companies patent the processes they use to create a proprietary chip texture and crunch.
3. Food coloring can trick you into tasting more flavorsThe color of a food can influence its taste. When you see a red fruit snack or a pink yogurt, your brain expects a certain type of flavor – and that expectation can affect how you experience it. Food companies know that, which is why many artificially flavored strawberry products also contain artificial red color.
Studies consistently show that people expect more intense flavors from foods with intense colors. Research found that added food coloring can increase the perception of sweetness by as much as 10%.
When margarine was first introduced in the late 1800s, it was white. Sales increased when manufacturers started using yellow food dye to make it look more like butter – to the dismay of dairy producers, who successfully lobbied some states for “anti-color laws.”
4. Cheese puffs are designed to disappear in your mouthLight, airy snacks like cheese puffs are made to melt in your mouth. That isn’t just for texture and taste – it can actually short circuit the signals your body uses to tell you you’re full.
When food like a Cheeto dissolves quickly in your mouth, your brain doesn’t always have enough time to recognize that you’ve eaten food. The result is that you don’t experience a sense of fullness and you’re more likely to keep snacking.
This disappearing act is backed by science. A range of studies have found strategies that slow down eating speed can reduce appetite and overall calorie intake.
Don’t let the food industry fool youThe food industry’s priority is to sell products, not support public health.
This has experts asking whether it’s time to treat UPF like tobacco. But the federal government has failed to take any policy action to protect public health.
States are stepping in to fill the gaps. In recent years, dozens have proposed or enacted stricter food chemical laws. California took on ultra-processed foods directly with a landmark law to remove the most harmful UPF from schools. State lawmakers are now considering creating a non-UPF certification to help shoppers make more informed choices at the grocery store.
Until the federal government adopts food policies that put our health first, there are a few steps you can take to avoid UPF and the marketing ploys that promote them.
One approach is to look past colors and other creative marketing to check ingredient lists and nutrition facts on the back of the package. Look to avoid longer lists of ingredients, including artificial colors and flavors, that you probably wouldn’t find in a home kitchen.
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 concerns. 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 Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Family Health Food Chemicals Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN August 6, 2026Do ‘feel good’ energy drinks deliver on their health claims?
Energy drink brands like Monster and Red Bull have dominated the market for years with gritty marketing. Now, wellness-focused brands like Celsius are promoting energy drinks they claim will boost metabolism and support an active lifestyle – but are they actually healthy?
These newer brands swap the sugar and high calories for wellness-inspired branding; think bright colors and fruit-forward imagery. Alani-Nu, owned by Celsius, says its products break away from “dark cans, extreme sports” energy drinks. Instead, the company says its drinks provide “ingredients you can feel good about” and a “high energy” boost.
But efforts to create a healthier image don’t necessarily lead to a healthier product. Many of these drinks contain high levels of caffeine and ultra-processed ingredients, including artificial chemicals used to enhance flavor, color and shelf stability rather than nutrition.
Get your free guide: EWG's Guide to Food Additives Food chemicals and energy drinksAn increasingly common ingredient in these newer energy drinks is green tea extract. While green tea is often associated with health benefits, the highly concentrated extracts used in some beverages are a different story.
One of green tea’s primary compounds, epigallocatechin gallate, or EGCG, can be present in concentrated forms at levels far higher than those found in a typical cup of tea, raising safety questions.
The Food and Drug Administration has questioned EGCG’s effects, including its potential association with increased risk of cancer based on studies conducted in cells and on harm to several organs.
But you may find EGCG in your drink anyway, thanks to a legal loophole that allows food ingredients to be considered “generally recognized as safe” by industry scientists – even without FDA review. The exemption lets manufacturers determine which food chemicals are safe.
Chemical and food companies have exploited this loophole for decades – in fact, that’s how almost all new food chemicals get introduced to the market.
Artificial sweeteners aren’t a health fix“Zero sugar” doesn’t mean zero risk. Many of these beverages rely on artificial sweeteners such as acesulfame potassium and sucralose, which is 600 times sweeter than regular table sugar.
Sucralose is included on EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals. The list highlights ingredients to avoid because of links to health and safety risks.
Don’t overlook the high caffeine content, either. These “healthy” alternatives often pack as much as 200 milligrams of caffeine per can – nearly double that of traditional options like Red Bull and Monster. That’s about half of the FDA’s recommended maximum daily limit, potentially triggering spiked heart rates, anxiety and insomnia.
EWG helps you choose healthier optionsThe bottom line? Don't let these drinks’ clean packaging designs fool you – they don’t make the beverage it contains any better for you. Reading ingredient lists and nutrition labels are the best way to find out what’s in the food and drinks you consume.
That’s where EWG’s Food Scores database comes in.
Food Scores rates more than 150,000 products based on nutrition, ingredient concerns and the degree of processing, making it easy to compare products side by side and make more informed choices at the grocery store. Food Scores also flags unhealthy ultra-processed food and drinks and can help you identify alternatives.
Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Family Health Women's Health Food Chemicals Guest Authors Luz Fontana-Mansilla (EWG communications intern) August 5, 2026EWG evaluation of food chemicals: ADA
Azodicarbonamide, also known as ADA, is an ingredient of concern. EWG suggests limiting consumption of foods containing this ingredient.
Experimental studies have demonstrated that baking bread made with ADA-treated flour results in the formation of SEM, which has been the focus of toxicological concern because laboratory and animal studies have suggested carcinogenic and genotoxic potential.
Science analysisWhat is ADA and why is it added to foods?
ADA is a dough strengthener and flour bleaching agent. It is used to improve the texture of dough and brighten the appearance of flour.
ADA is typically found in breads, deli sandwiches and frozen appetizers.
ADA is used in 60 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025, demonstrating that ADA is now used in only a small fraction of newly introduced food products.
Top 15 food and drink categories organized by supermarket shelf ImageSource: EWG’s Food Scores. Product Label created between 2023-01-01 and 2025-10-22.
What is the regulatory status of ADA?
The European Union never authorized ADA as a food additive but did allow it as a blowing agent (a substance that helps create foam) in food-contact plastics. In 2004, the EU prohibited the use of ADA in jar seals and gaskets intended for food contact because of concerns about the formation of SEM during heat sterilization.
A European Food Safety Authority panel concluded after review of commissioned research that SEM shows weak carcinogenic activity in lab animals and weak genotoxicity in vitro, but newer studies showed a lack of genotoxicity. The new information reduced concerns and the panel concluded the risk to human health was low, but the ban remains.
Because of toxicity concerns, ADA is also banned as a food additive in Brazil, China, India and New Zealand.
ADA is regulated as an approved direct food additive in 1962 and permitted for use in the U.S. up to 45 parts per million in cereal flour and as dough conditioner in bread.
In 2026, the Food and Drug Administration launched a formal post-market safety assessment of ADA. The agency opened a public request for data targeting current use levels, dietary exposures and the presence of its toxic decomposition byproducts, such as semicarbazide and urethane, in the food supply.
Are foods containing ADA ultra-processed?
As an industrially synthesized ingredient, ADA is classified as an ultra-processed ingredient in the NOVA framework. (Monteiro et al., 2019).
Is ADA allowed in organic foods?
Under Department of Agriculture organic standards, synthetic substances, such as ADA, are prohibited in certified organic foods.
What are the potential health harms associated with ADA?
Health concerns about ADA arise mainly because of the byproducts that form when it breaks down, especially during heating.
During dough preparation and baking, ADA breaks down into several compounds, including biurea, semicarbazide (SEM), ammonia and isocyanates. Experimental studies have demonstrated that baking bread made with ADA-treated flour results in the formation of SEM (Noonan et al., 2008). Laboratory and animal studies have raised toxicological concerns about SEM because they suggest it has carcinogenic and genotoxic potential (Kumari et al., 2026).
The formation of SEM during baking and other high-temperature food processing was first characterized in experimental studies of ADA-treated flour and bread (Noonan et al., 2008; Becalski et al., 2004). In a 2016 survey of over 250 products, the FDA found levels of SEM can vary widely. The agency found that many products fell into a median range, between 100 and 400 parts per billion (ppb) but maximum outliers reached as high as 767 ppb for biscuits and 1,490 ppb for French and Vienna breads (FDA 2016).
SEM has produced tumors in mice and demonstrated DNA-damaging activity in mechanistic studies. Although in vivo genotoxicity findings are inconsistent, the combination of carcinogenicity and genotoxic potential raises concerns (EFSA 2005; Hirakawa 2003).
A rodent study found SEM to have hormone-disrupting properties, altering testosterone regulation in male and female rats (Maranghi et al., 2009). SEM has also shown it can harm the reproductive system, affecting sperm maturation in male mice even at low doses (Tian et al., 2014). Animal studies have shown the metabolite may also damage other organs, such as the heart, liver and kidneys (Tian et al., 2014; Olofinnade et al., 2020).
Baking foods with ADA can produce small amounts of urethane, or ethyl carbamate. This process contaminant forms when ethanol from yeast fermentation reacts with cyanate or carbamoyl-containing compounds, which can be derived from ADA's direct breakdown products like isocyanic acid. Urethane is a Group 2A probable human carcinogen (Abt et al., 2021).
Repeated exposure to ADA led to dose-dependent decreases in weight and food consumption, oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation in rats (Olafinnade et al., 2020). Oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation can cause cellular and DNA damage and are implicated in numerous diseases.
The breakdown to SEM is a concern for both foods and contact materials containing ADA, specifically in gaskets used in lids for glass baby food jars (Nepalia et al 2017).
Uncertainties/where more research is needed
Although experimental studies suggest that ADA and its breakdown products may contribute to oxidative stress, inflammation, DNA damage, reproductive toxicity, and alterations to the gut microbiome, the available evidence is derived largely from in vitro and animal studies, and important data gaps remain (Lieshchova et al., 2023). The long-term health effects of chronic dietary ADA exposure in humans also remain poorly characterized (Kumari et al., 2026).
ADA was used as a foaming agent in the production of plastic gaskets in glass jars. When its metabolite semicarbazide was found to contaminate foods in glass containers, including baby food, the EU banned its use in food contact materials. Under market pressure, brands have phased it out in global markets, although it is still technically allowed in lids in the U.S.
Whole Foods Market prohibits ADA in products sold in its stores. Aldi and Walmart have policies restricting ADA in many or all of their private-label food products. Panera and Subway removed ADA from their bread products in 2014.
ADA is also used in foamed plastics, such as those used to make yoga mats.
Cited resourcesGlobal health and regulatory agencies
- EFSA Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food, 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food (AFC) related to Semicarbazide in food. EFSA Journal 2005; 3(6):219, 141 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2005.219
- International Agency for Research on Cancer. (1983). Some food additives, feed additives and naturally occurring substances. https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Evaluation-Of-Carcinogenic-Risks-To-Humans/Some-Food-Additives-Feed-Additives-And-Naturally-Occurring-Substances-1983
Comprehensive reviews and frameworks
- Abt, E., Incorvati, V., Posnick Robin, L. and Redan, B.W., 2021. Occurrence of Ethyl Carbamate in Foods and Beverages: Review of the Formation Mechanisms, Advances in Analytical Methods, and Mitigation Strategies. Journal of Food Protection, 84(12), pp. 2195-2212 https://doi.org/10.4315/JFP-21-219.
- Kumari, D., Janmeda, P., & Singh, D. (2026). From food additive to health hazard? A review of azodicarbonamide, potassium bromate, and monosodium glutamate with in-silico toxicity analysis. Food Chemistry Advances, 10, 101239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.focha.2026.101239.
- 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.
- Nepalia, A., Singh, A., Mathur, N., & Pareek, S. (2017). Baby foods can also have toxic side effects: A review. Asian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(3), 4386-4393.
- Tian, W., Sang, Y., & Wang, X. (2014). Semicarbazide – from state-of-the-art analytical methods and exposure to toxicity: a review. Food Additives & Contaminants Part A, 31(11), 1850–1860. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2014.953012.
Legislation
- Commission Directive 2004/1/EC of 6 January 2004 amending Directive 2002/72/EC as regards the suspension of the use of azodicarbonamide as blowing agent, Official Journal of the European Union, L 7/45. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:007:0045:0046:EN:PDF.
Specific health impact studies
- Becalski A, Lau BP-Y, Lewis D, Seaman SW. (2004). Semicarbazide Formation in Azodicarbonamide-Treated Flour: A Model Study. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 52(18), 5730–5734. doi: 10.1021/jf0495385
- Food and Drug Administration, 2016. Exposure Estimate for Semicarbazide from the Use of Azodicarbonamide in Bread for the U.S. Population. (Presented at the 251st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, March 15, 2016). https://www.fda.gov/media/97444/download.
- Hirakawa K, Midorikawa K, Oikawa S, Kawanishi S. (2003). Carcinogenic semicarbazide induces sequence-specific DNA damage through the generation of reactive oxygen species and the derived organic radicals. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis. 2003;536(1–2):91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5718(03)00030-5
- Lieshchova, M., Logvinova, V., Bilan, M., Bohomaz, A., & Brygadyrenko, V. (2023). Effect of azodicarbonamide on rats with a high-fat hypercaloric diet. Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica, 26(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.15414/afz.2023.26.01.15-27.
- Maranghi, F., Tassinari, R., Marcoccia, D., Altieri, I., Catone, T., De Angelis, G., Testai, E., Mastrangelo, S., Evandri, M. G., Bolle, P., & Lorenzetti, S. (2009). The food contaminant semicarbazide acts as an endocrine disrupter: Evidence from an integrated in vivo/in vitro approach. Chemico-Biological Interactions, 183(1), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2009.09.016.
- Olofinnade, A.T., Onaolapo, A.Y., Onaolapo, O.J., Olowe, O.A., & Adeyeba, O.A. (2020b). Food-added azodicarbonamide alters hematological parameters, antioxidant status and biochemical/histomorphological indices of liver and kidney injury in rats. Journal of Basic and Clinical Physiology and Pharmacology, 32(2), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1515/jbcpp-2019-0341.
Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: ADA
Avoid or limit foods containing azodicarbonamide, or ADA.
ADA breaks down during baking into several compounds, including semicarbazide, or SEM. Laboratory and animal studies suggest SEM may damage genetic material or cause cancer.
What is ADA?ADA is a dough strengthener and flour bleaching agent. It is used to improve the texture of dough and brighten the appearance of flour.
Outside of the food industry, it’s used as a chemical foaming agent for the foam rubber in yoga mats.
Which foods contain ADA?ADA is typically found in bread, deli sandwiches and frozen appetizers.
Look for ADA in product ingredient lists, usually below or next to the Nutrition Facts panel, on the back of the package. It may also appear as “azodicarbonamide.”
How is ADA regulated?The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing food additives and other ingredients. ADA is allowed for use in food at up to 45 parts per million in cereal flour and dough conditioner in bread.
In 2026, the FDA began a new safety review of ADA, requesting public input on current use levels, dietary exposures and the presence of toxic breakdown byproducts like SEM and urethane in the food supply. EWG submitted comments to the FDA on ADA, citing potential health concerns in urging the agency to ban its use in food.
The European Union never authorized ADA as a food additive, though it did allow it in food-contact plastics. The EU banned ADA from all food contact materials in 2004 over the potential carcinogenicity of SEM, which forms during high-heat sterilization of glass jars.
A later European Food Safety Authority review found newer studies showed ADA did not harm genetic material and concluded the risk to human health was low. But the ban remains in place.
ADA is also banned as a food additive in Brazil, China, India and New Zealand because of toxicity concerns.
In the U.S., ADA is prohibited in food certified as organic under Agriculture Department standards, which bar synthetic substances.
What does the science say about ADA?The metabolite SEM forms when ADA is used in flour and bread during baking and other high-heat food processing – a finding first documented in the mid-2000s. In a 2016 survey of more than 250 products, the FDA found SEM levels vary widely across foods.
SEM has caused tumors in mice and shows some evidence of potential DNA harm. While the DNA-damaging effects aren’t consistent across all studies, the combination of cancer-causing and DNA-harming potential may be cause for concern.
One animal study found SEM interfered with testosterone regulation in both male and female rats. Another found it can impair the male reproductive system, affecting sperm in mice even at low doses. Animal studies have also linked SEM exposure to potential damage in other organs, including the heart, liver and kidneys.
Find out moreLearn more about recommendations relating to ADA – 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. Food Scores flags unhealthy ultra-processed foods to help you identify alternatives.
EWG’s free, searchable Skin Deep® cosmetic database helps to identify harmful chemicals in personal care and beauty products. EWG Verified® products meet EWG’s strictest criteria for ingredient transparency and health.
And the Healthy Living app lets you take these tools with you on the go.
Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN Dayna de Montagnac, MPH August 5, 2026What to know about the new wave of biotech beauty
Cosmetics ingredients once discussed mostly in dermatology clinics, research labs or professional spas are now widely available. And biotechnology, or biotech, for personal care products is a rapidly growing part of the industry.
Biotech beauty is fueled by consumer demand for products that promise effective, “clinical,” “regenerative” and “science backed” results at home. These ingredients usually promise to be “anti-aging” or to provide “cellular repair” or “barrier strength.”
But biotech ingredients do not automatically make a product safe, effective or well studied. For most products, premarket tests aren’t required and claims may be backed by very little data. Consumers should look beyond marketing claims and ask what evidence supports claims about an ingredient’s safety and benefits.
Biotech in personal care products refers to ingredients inspired by biology, medicine or lab-based innovation. It’s not a single category and can include familiar skincare ingredients like hyaluronic acid and newer ingredients like polydeoxyribonucleotide, or PDRN, and spicules.
Cosmetics using PDRNYou may have heard of “salmon facials” and skincare using “salmon sperm.” These treatments use DNA fragments from salmon sperm to help boost collagen and reduce signs of aging.
The ingredient behind the buzz is PDRN, which activates tissue repair. Botanical versions are also emerging in the market.
PDRN is not entirely new. For decades, it has been approved for medical use in Italy and South Korea, including as a treatment for wounds and ulcers.
Cosmetics that contain PDRN are available in the U.S. too. But since the Food and Drug Administration does not require pre-marketing tests of ingredients, PDRN's presence on store shelves doesn’t indicate it’s been reviewed for safety or efficacy.
In lab studies, injected PDRN has been shown to increase collagen production, which helps smooth and firm the skin.
Topical PDRN has been shown to support skin regeneration for skin ulcers. The data about undamaged skin is limited, but topical PDRN may not penetrate deeply enough for meaningful results.
PDRN is believed to be a lower hazard ingredient, though there is no data on carcinogenicity or reproductive harm. An animal study showed no acute toxicity and no effects to major organs, even at high doses.
PDRN from salmon sperm can be a concern for people allergic to salmon. If you have a fish allergy and want to try products with PDRN, look for plant-based instead.
PDRN’s pathway is also used by certain types of tumors to grow and evade immune responses. So anyone with cancer or a history of cancer should consult their doctor before use, even though no evidence currently links topical PDRN to cancer.
It can be difficult to tell whether a product contains PDRN. Product marketing may highlight PDRN, but you won't find it on ingredient labels. Instead, look for the term “sodium DNA.”
Cosmetics using spicules“Liquid microneedling” is also gaining popularity.
It’s a technology based on another biotech ingredient: spicules. These are tiny, needle-like structures from marine sponges or synthetically produced using silica. Liquid microneedling is a topical treatment that creates tiny openings in the skin, triggering collagen production and helping skincare penetrate more deeply.
Spicules are promoted as a way to help other beauty product ingredients penetrate the skin, rather than the main active ingredient. They are often paired with ingredients like PDRN, peptides and hyaluronic acid.
The data is limited, but spicules are believed to be lower hazard ingredients. A bigger concern is the other ingredients in the same product.
Spicules can help some ingredients pass through the skin barrier, making some formulas more effective but also increasing risk of exposure to potentially harmful chemicals, like certain fragrance ingredients.
If you’re reaching for a product with spicules, consider the safety of its other ingredients. By design, spicules affect the skin barrier and can cause redness, stinging or irritation, so they’re best avoided by people with sensitive skin, rosacea, eczema, active acne or a compromised skin barrier.
But it can be difficult to tell whether a product has spicules. Marketing may call out spicules, but ingredient labels won’t. Instead look for the term “hydrolyzed sponge” on the label.
Tips for consumersIf you’re thinking about buying a biotech-inspired beauty product, consider these tips:
- Consult resources like EWG’s free searchable database of personal care products, Skin Deep®, to make more informed choices. Skin Deep considers increased absorption when scoring products.
- When you’re out shopping for cosmetics, you can also use EWG’s Healthy Living™ app to learn more about a product, its ingredients and safety.
- Look for products bearing the EWG Verified® mark, which means it is free from EWG's ingredients of concern and meets our strictest standards for your health.
- If you have sensitive skin, talk to a dermatologist or patch-test the product before applying it more extensively.
- If you want to avoid animal-derived ingredients, beware vegan marketing claims and check ingredients carefully, since animal-derived ingredients may not always be obvious on the label. Look for full disclosure about ingredients.
EWG statement on Senate Republican farm bill proposal
WASHINGTON – The Senate Agriculture Committee, chaired by John Boozman (R-Ark.), on July 31 released an updated farm bill proposal.
The following is a statement from the Environmental Working Group’s Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Scott Faber:
No one should support a farm bill that fails to support family farmers, feed hungry children, support farmers adopting regenerative practices or build healthy diets.
The farm bill released Friday night by Sen. Boozman fails on all four accounts by failing to close loopholes that tilt the playing field against small farms, by failing to restore the cuts to SNAP that have left more than 1 million children without anti-hunger assistance and by failing to reverse a $2 billion cut to popular farm stewardship programs.
We need farm and food policies that support healthy diets, the people who feed us, the hungry and our environment, not a farm bill for the 1%.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.
Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Conservation Food & Farm Workers Farm Subsidies Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 August 2, 2026California could soon force diaper makers to reveal what’s in their products
Lawmakers in California are on the verge of forcing diaper manufacturers to strip away the secrecy over what goes into one of the products babies use most.
Assembly Bill 1901, by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), would require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose all intentionally added ingredients, both on product packaging and online. It would empower parents and caregivers in making safer diaper shopping decisions.
EWG is co-sponsoring the bill, along with Consumer Reports, the Center for Environmental Health and Children Now.
AB 1901 already passed the California Assembly and Senate Environmental Quality Committee with bipartisan votes. It’s now in the Senate Appropriations Committee awaiting a vote that could send it to the Senate floor.
Today, manufacturers can hide dozens of chemicals behind umbrella terms like “fragrance” or “colors. These are potentially toxic mystery cocktails that prevent parents from knowing what’s in the products they use on their children every day.
The bill would, if enacted, give parents meaningful and easily accessible ingredient transparency. It would also replace catch-all labels with specific ingredient names.
AB 1901 would not require diaper makers to disclose other information about how they create their products, so they can still protect other details that make their products unique.
Why transparency mattersBabies spend much of the first two to three years of their lives in diapers. Yet unlike many other consumer products, disposable diapers are exempt by the federal government from carrying ingredient labels of any kind. And diaper manufacturers do not have to inform regulators about the chemicals they use to create the products.
That means parents often have no way of knowing what chemicals their baby’s skin is swaddled in day after day.
Babies’ skin is thinner, more permeable and still developing, making them more vulnerable to chemical exposures than adults. Without full ingredient disclosure, families are left to trust manufacturers without having the information they need to make informed choices.
EWG created the Guide to Safer Diapers to help fill that information gap. It explains common diaper materials, identifying chemicals of concern and highlighting products that meet higher standards for health and transparency.
Diaper chemicals parents should know aboutPhthalates
Studies have detected phthalates in some disposable diapers, and research has linked certain phthalates to hormone disruption, as well as reproductive and developmental harms. Because phthalates are only loosely bound to plastics, they can migrate out of products over time.
Fragrances
Many diapers contain added fragrance, but the only way to confirm it is if manufacturers disclose ingredients on the packaging or online. The term ”fragrance” can represent hundreds – or even thousands – of different chemicals.
Undisclosed fragrances can also contain phthalates as a solvent or stabilizer in the mixture, but lack of regulation doesn't require them to be disclosed.
Some fragrance ingredients have been linked to allergies and skin irritation, but parents have no way of knowing which chemicals are present in the products they buy.
AB 1901 would give families the ingredient information they need to make informed decisions based on their child's individual needs and sensitivities.
Quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats
Quats are antimicrobial chemicals commonly used in disinfectants and other consumer products. Some quats are used in diapers to indicate wetness.
Research has linked certain quats to reproductive and developmental effects, skin irritation and respiratory problems, including asthma.
Dyes and bleaching chemicals
Colorful prints and decorative designs on diapers mean added dyes and inks, which may cause allergic reactions or be contaminated with heavy metals. Some diapers also use chlorine-based bleaching processes with unwanted byproducts.
Choosing plain, undyed diapers made with unbleached or totally chlorine-free pulp can help reduce unnecessary exposure to harmful chemicals.
How to choose a safer diaperWhile California lawmakers work to improve transparency, parents can take steps today to reduce their family's exposure to potentially harmful chemicals.
Consider diapers that have earned the EWG Verified® mark, which certifies products meeting EWG's strict standards for ingredient transparency and health.
Parents have a right to knowAB 1901 would give families accessible information they deserve, whether in buying diapers at a store or letting them compare ingredient details online.
California has an opportunity to set a new standard for transparency and empower parents to make informed decisions for their families.
If you live in California, contact your state senator, assemblymember and Gov. Gavin Newsom and urge them to support Assembly Bill 1901.
Areas of Focus Household & Consumer Products Family Health Children’s Health Phthalates California Guest Authors Luz Fontana-Mansilla, Communications intern July 30, 2026PFAS may be in your kid’s favorite plush animal – what parents need to know
Give a beloved teddy bear or other stuffed creature to a baby or toddler and they might try to put it in their mouth. A new study suggests that this typical behavior could expose them to the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS used in making the toys.
Levels of the most notorious forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS – linked to cancer and other serious health harms – in stuffed animals were below European health guidelines, the study found. But 100% of the toys tested released detectable levels of short-chain “replacement” chemicals, specifically perfluorohexanoic acid, or PFHxA.
PFAS can migrate from stuffed toys and into a child’s mouth during normal play. The study, by Swiss researchers, raises concerns about the next generation of chemicals quietly replacing “legacy” PFAS like PFOA and PFOS, which are banned from children’s products.
The study was published recently in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology.
Whack-a-mole regulatory gapResearchers tested 18 stuffed toys marketed for infants and toddlers. To measure how chemicals leach into the artificial saliva used in the study, the scientists simulated the kind of prolonged mouthing and chewing babies do naturally when playing with plushies.
As federal and state regulators banned older PFAS compounds like PFOA and PFOS, manufacturers pivoted to making products using short-chain alternative forever chemicals. But because these replacement chemicals are often more water-soluble and mobile, they can easily migrate into a small child’s saliva when the stuffed toy is chewed or sucked on, the study found.
While a small study – just 18 toys – cannot represent every product on the market, the research highlights a persistent regulatory loophole: chemical companies replacing one unsafe compound with another substance that has received far less scrutiny. This whack-a-mole approach to tackling PFAS means current policies don’t adequately cover the chemicals replacing PFAS in stuffed animals.
It doesn’t mean every plushie in your home is a hazard. But the fact that short-chain replacements were found in each toy is a concern. Washing toys before play can help, as can shopping for stuffed animals made from natural fibers and avoiding those labeled “stain resistant.”
And the study further underscores the need to regulate PFAS as a class rather than one by one, the current approach.
Health risks of PFAS exposurePFAS exposure and health risks start before birth. They’re toxic at extremely low levels and known as forever chemicals because they don’t break down in the environment and can build up in the body. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies.
PFAS readily cross the placenta and have been detected in umbilical cord blood, confirming that the developing fetus faces direct prenatal exposure.
Detections of PFAS in the infant formula millions of American babies depend on as their sole source of nutrition means the exposure did not begin at the first feeding. For many infants, it has already been accumulating for months.
A recent study also links prenatal PFAS exposure to premature birth, low birth weight and infant mortality. It can also cause thyroid disruption, harm to the male reproductive system, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, reduced fertility and shorter duration of breastfeeding.
The impact on infants and toddlers is especially pronounced. Babies are not small adults when it comes to chemical exposure – they are categorically more vulnerable.
Does washing help?For years, standard advice for parents was simple: Throw new plush toys in the washing machine before handing them to a child.
Washing helps for some of the PFAS that are well-linked to harm.
In the study, washing reduced detected amounts of the forever chemicals PFHxA and PFOS by 95% to 100% in most toys. While a simulated water rinse lowered overall chemical migration in most toys, it actually increased the release of certain short-chain chemicals in a subset of products.
For the forever chemical PFBA, washing increased migration in some toys. Researchers suspect mechanical agitation during washing may break down synthetic coatings or loosen fibers, making these chemicals more accessible on the fabric's surface.
What else parents and caregivers can doParents shouldn’t need a degree in toxicology to buy a safe stuffed animal.
While parents cannot shop their way out of a systemic chemical regulation problem, there are small, practical steps that can help minimize exposure during critical developmental windows:
- Skip “stain-resistant” or “easy clean” claims. Avoid plush items, nap mats, or baby gear marketed as “spill-proof,” “stain-resistant” or “easy-clean.” These marketing labels are often red flags for fluorinated treatments and a common way PFAS gets intentionally added to textiles.
- Opt for untreated, natural fibers. Choose plush toys made from certified organic cotton or wool, rather than synthetic materials, which are far more likely to feature stain- or water-repellent chemical treatments.
- Swap teethers. During peak mouthing phases, offer teethers made from 100% natural rubber, untreated wood or solid organic cotton, instead of synthetic plush toys.
- Tackle household dust: Since textile coatings break down over time, chemicals migrate into household dust where infants crawl and play. Regular vacuuming with a HEPA filter and damp-mopping floors helps reduce household dust that may contain PFAS.
Buying cookware? A California law makes it easier to spot PFAS in kitchen products
For years, the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS were used in many products that touch food, including popcorn bags, pizza boxes, pans and other cookware. Concerns about PFAS’ health harms then led many states to either restrict or outright ban the chemicals in specific items.
Eventually, outcry over these toxic substances led to manufacturers phasing out their use in food packaging nationwide. But they’re still allowed in kitchen products.
That doesn’t mean you’re stuck with PFAS when you’re shopping for pots and pans.
Thanks to a California law that banned PFAS in paper-based food packaging, it is now possible for consumers across the country to find out which companies use PFAS in their products. That’s because the law also included language ordering companies to disclose on their websites if they use PFAS in their cookware – information anyone can see, not just Californians.
Which companies use PFAS?Last week, the environmental group Defend Our Health compiled this data and released a public directory detailing PFAS usage claims by over 200 cookware companies. You can check the directory to see if a product you are interested in purchasing is labeled PFAS-free.
Of the 210 companies, about 40%, or 82 companies, disclosed their products contained PFAS. A total of 44 companies clearly disclosed through the California requirements that they don’t use PFAS in their products.
Another 23 companies stated that they do not use PFAS, but these claims could not be verified because the companies either did not provide a disclosure in keeping with the California requirement or may have been exempt from the disclosure requirement under California law.
Widespread contaminationTeflon and other PFAS-coated cookware are the poster child for a contamination crisis that extends across the globe, with the chemicals detected in soil, water and air.
Exposure to PFAS at incredibly low concentrations can lead to health harms that have been documented in nearly every system in the body. The chemicals have been linked to cancer, reproductive and immune system harm and other diseases.
When pans coated with the forever chemical PTFE are heated above roughly 400 to 500 degrees Fahrenheit, they can release hazardous fumes. Overheating has been linked to a documented condition called polymer fume fever, sometimes known as “Teflon flu.”
PFAS in nonstick cookware and other consumer and industrial products remain a concern throughout their lifecycle – from manufacturing and use to disposal – because they can pollute the environment and contribute to human exposure..
EWG for over 20 years has recommended consumers avoid nonstick pans. EWG commissioned tests of nonstick pans in 2003 and published a report, “Canaries in the Kitchen,” showing that pans can overheat and off-gas pollutants within minutes of use.
In 2021, EWG scientists summarized peer-reviewed studies showing that PFAS can migrate from containers and cookware into food. Our recommendation still stands: Seek out cast iron, stainless steel or carbon steel cookware.
States are leading the wayStates are taking steps to tackle PFAS in kitchen products.
In 2025, California Senate Bill 682, authored by state Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), would have banned the sale of cookware containing intentionally added PFAS beginning in 2030. Despite passing the Legislature, the measure was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, meaning the chemicals can still be used in products sold in the state.
That veto didn’t slow other states from banning PFAS in cookware outright.
Amara’s Law ended the sale of PFAS cookware in Minnesota, the first state to do so. The law took effect in 2025. Maine and Colorado PFAS cookware bans took effect in January 2026. Connecticut, Vermont and Washington have bans on the use of PFAS in cookware set to take effect in the coming years.
States also set the first PFAS drinking water standards, and they continue to lead on tackling other sources of forever chemicals contamination.
According to the SaferStates PFAS tracker, 17 states have legislation pending that would end the use of PFAS in categories ranging from textiles and dental floss to cookware and firefighting foam.
This state-driven action is leading to real change. Online disclosure of PFAS use is an important first step for consumers, but more change is still needed. Some companies already go beyond what is required in California by independently verifying their products are PFAS-free.
Reducing your exposure to PFASPFAS exposure is widespread, because this class of chemicals has found its way into hundreds of products used every day by consumers.
Research indicates the source of exposure comes from food, water and PFAS that have migrated into dust from household products. No single step will completely eliminate exposure, but small changes matter.
Start with the sources you can control, including:
- Choose PFAS-free cookware
- Filter PFAS from your tap water
- Cook fresh food at home as much as possible and limit takeout
- Vacuum frequently with a HEPA-filter vacuum to remove household dust
- Avoid purchasing products marketed as “stain resistant,” “water proof” and “long lasting.”
Two chemicals with safety concerns are still in your food. EWG is urging the FDA to act.
Two additives, known as ADA and BHT, are found in cereal, baked goods and other processed food millions of Americans enjoy. They’re also linked to potential health harms such as cancer and hormone disruption, so EWG is reiterating calls for banning their use in food.
Even though research on the two chemicals is ongoing, studies so far in animals or humans have already found their potential to cause health problems. These concerns justify the Food and Drug Administration revoking its approval for use of the two additives, EWG said in a pair of letters submitted to the agency earlier this month.
Safer alternatives to ADA and BHT are available, allowing manufacturers to achieve the same functions without relying on these chemicals. Some retailers – including major chains like Pizza Hut and Whole Foods Market – have already taken steps to get one or both of the additives out of their products.
It’s time for the regulatory system to catch up with the science and food companies’ voluntary actions.
Ongoing FDA reviewThe comments follow the FDA’ s request for information, or RFI, about the two chemicals in food earlier this year – ADA, or azodicarbonamide, and BHT, or butylated hydroxytoluene.
It’s part of the agency’s new program to reevaluate the safety of food chemicals.
The RFI only gathers input – it isn’t any kind of policy action. But the comments it receives on the request could eventually be used to guide decisions about allowing the additives in food.
That’s why EWG weighed in with written comments highlighting our concerns. The deadline to submit comments on BHT has been extended to August 13. The comment period for ADA closed on July 13.
What is ADA?ADA was greenlighted for use in food in 1962 by the FDA as “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS. It’s added to baked goods as a dough conditioner.
ADA breaks down during breadmaking, and two of its breakdown products, semicarbazide and urethane, have been shown to cause cancer. Urethane can also damage the reproductive system.
Because of these concerns, ADA is not permitted as a food additive in Australia or the European Union. International evaluations have also identified kidney effects in laboratory animals exposed to ADA.
Despite these concerns, the FDA has not thoroughly reexamined ADA’s safety in light of newer research on its potential health effects.
Lawmakers in New York and Texas introduced legislation to remove ADA from food sold in their states, but neither bill passed.
Several food retailers, including Whole Foods, Aldi and Walmart, have voluntarily removed or restricted ADA in their products. A 2025 survey by the American Bakers Association found that nearly 95% of its member companies already don’t use ADA.
Given the evidence of health risks – and how few companies still use the chemical – the FDA should take decisive action to end the use of ADA in food.
What is BHT?The FDA approved BHT for use in food in 1954 and deemed it GRAS in 1959. The chemical is commonly added to breakfast cereal, frozen pizza, chewing gum and other processed foods, acting as a preservative, extending the shelf life of fats and oils.
While it has not been formally classified as a carcinogen, studies have linked it to tumor promotion in animals. It has also been linked to damage to DNA and hormonal disruption.
A 2019 study found that U.S. residents had some of the highest exposure levels of BHT globally, with some exposure estimates exceeding safety limits. The chemical has been detected in human cord blood, breast milk, blood, urine and body fat.
Some states have already acted on concerns about BHT’s health effects, and several major food retailers and manufacturers, including Whole Foods and General Mills, have voluntarily removed the chemical from many products.
Given the already available evidence showing the potential health risks of BHT, the FDA should act to immediately revoke approval for its use in food.
The trouble with GRASBoth BHT and ADA remain on the market, thanks to their GRAS status.
When Congress created the GRAS exemption, in 1958, it was intended to apply to ingredients whose safety was beyond dispute, such as salt, water, yeast and vinegar.
But in the decades since, GRAS has expanded far beyond that intent. Since 2000, nearly 99% of new food chemicals have entered the market through the GRAS loophole, according to a 2025 EWG analysis. This lets scores of food chemicals reach store shelves with little government oversight, leaving food safety in the hands of manufacturers.
To protect the safety of our food supply from harmful chemicals like BHT and ADA, the FDA must close the GRAS loophole.
In March 2025 the Department of Health and Human Services, of which the FDA is part, announced a plan to review GRAS, originally slated for October 2025. That timeline has since been delayed to December 2026. The announcement could eventually lead to changes in the GRAS rule, but without firm proposals, there’s no real progress on food safety.
In the absence of enforceable federal action on GRAS, New York passed a bill that would ban use of three harmful food chemicals statewide – Red Dye No. 3, potassium bromate and propyl paraben – and reform the GRAS loophole at the state level. The bill awaits Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature.
What you can doWhile we wait for the FDA to act on BHT and ADA and amend the GRAS loophole, consumers can minimize exposure to harmful food chemicals with these tips.
- Check ingredient labels and avoid food products that contain BHT and ADA. Food companies must list these on packaged food labels if they’re added as a food ingredient.
- Consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products without BHT, ADA and other concerning ingredients. When you’re on the go, use EWG’s Healthy Living™ app to find products without toxic chemicals.
- Whenever possible, look for packaged foods that are certified organic. These products must meet strong standards that protect consumers from exposure to potentially harmful additives.
- Reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods when possible. Many contain ingredients of concern that could harm your health.
EWG names former California pesticide regulator Emily Bryson senior policy director
SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today announced that Emily Bryson, a veteran environmental scientist and former senior leader at the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, has joined the organization as senior policy director for California.
At EWG, Bryson will help lead the organization’s California regulatory agenda, with a particular focus on pesticides, public health and advancement of stronger protections for farmworkers, consumers and communities.
Bryson brings to EWG nearly a decade of experience at the nation’s leading pesticide regulatory agency. In that role she helped develop science-based policies to reduce pesticide exposure, strengthen protections for agricultural workers and guide the state’s response to emerging technologies.
“Emily’s experience is exactly what EWG needs as we continue to push for stronger protections from harmful chemicals across California,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.
“She understands the science, regulatory process and real-world impacts toxic chemicals have on workers, communities and consumers. Emily’s expertise strengthens an already strong EWG team, particularly as California continues to lead the nation on public health policy.”
Protecting agricultural workersBryson most recently served as a supervising senior environmental scientist in the DPR’s Worker Health and Safety Branch. While there, she managed a team of scientists conducting pesticide exposure studies and developing regulations to better protect agricultural workers.
During her tenure, she led initiatives to modernize pesticide mitigation efforts, supervised scientific research measuring occupational pesticide exposure, and worked with stakeholders across government, academia, agriculture, labor organizations and public health.
She also founded and chaired DPR’s Emerging Technologies Workgroup and represented the department on numerous state and federal advisory committees addressing pesticide safety, agricultural innovation and worker protections.
Earlier in her career, Bryson authored studies evaluating pesticide exposure among agricultural workers, helped develop worker safety regulations and conducted outreach to farmworkers and agricultural communities throughout California. Her public health research has also examined links between environmental pesticide exposure and autoimmune diseases in children.
Safeguards against harmful pesticides“I've spent my career working to ensure pesticide policies are grounded in sound science and protect the people most at risk from exposure,” said Bryson. “EWG has been a leading voice for healthier food, safer farming and stronger protections from harmful chemicals for decades.
“I'm excited to join such an outstanding team and help advance policies that better protect workers, families and the environment,” she added.
Bryson earned a master’s degree of public health in environmental health from San Diego State University and a bachelor’s degree in anthropology from California State University, Long Beach.
###
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 California Veteran scientist brings nearly a decade of experience protecting farmworkers and advancing pesticide safeguards Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 July 23, 2026How Iowa’s many factory farms may be harming health and the environment
If you’ve eaten sausage or ham – or any kind of pork product – there’s a good chance it came from Iowa.
The Hawkeye State raises about a third of all hogs in the U.S. – more by a wide margin than any other state, along with some poultry and beef.
Iowa also has a high – and rising – rate of cancer. It’s one of only three states where cancer is rising. Those two things may be related.
Manure from all that livestock may well be partly responsible, because it can end up in drinking water, exposing people to a greater risk of cancer.
A new EWG analysis finds Iowa has over 15,000 factory farms – thousands more than state data shows. These animals produce a staggering amount of manure: 107 million tons a year.
The average human produces about 12 tons of solid waste over the course of an entire lifetime. Iowa’s factory farms annually generate more waste than the entire population of New York City, enough to fill more than 38,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.
How factory farms pollute waterTo be disposed of, the manure is spread – untreated – on nearby farm fields, fulfilling two purposes – disposal and, because of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, fertilizer for neighboring cropland.
But those fields can’t always absorb all the nutrients – if the ground is frozen, for instance, or if the growing crops already have enough nitrogen or phosphorus. The excess manure or nutrients may run off fields or get into tile drains below fields, flowing into water, or leach through soil into groundwater, contaminating the drinking water supply.
Once nitrogen enters the water, it can become nitrate, which is harmful at different levels in drinking water.
Research links nitrate – found in manure and commercial nitrogen fertilizer – in drinking water to an increased risk of colorectal, bladder, kidney, ovarian and thyroid cancers. It’s also linked to adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight and spina bifida.
Many Iowans are affected by exposure to nitrate. Results of tests for nitrate showed that 146 Iowa community water systems – serving 1.2 million people – between 2021 and 2023 had elevated levels of the contaminant, EWG found.
Outdated nitrate limitThat means 1.2 million Iowans are being served water with elevated levels of nitrate and being exposed as a result to elevated risks of cancer and birth defects.
Eighty-one water systems, serving almost 800,000 people, served water that tested even higher. Eight systems, serving 56,000 people, exceeded the federal nitrate legal limit.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s limit on nitrate in drinking water, set in 1962, aimed to prevent a potentially fatal condition in infants sometimes called “blue baby syndrome.”
Recent research links nitrate exposure at levels well below the legal limit to a higher risk of colorectal and other cancers, thyroid disease and birth defects.
Iowa already has the second-highest rate of new cancer cases in the country, a trend researchers have connected to a number of environmental factors, like water contamination, although other factors are also at play.
It’s not just Iowans who are affected. Nitrate contamination travels through surface water and groundwater aquifers, and the food raised on treated land moves through the food supply.
So anyone who eats or drinks items connected to industrial agriculture has a stake in how well this waste is managed.
Threat to the environmentManure contamination of water also contributes to other problems affecting public health and the environment. Phosphorus and nitrate in excess can affect aquatic ecosystems and contribute to algae blooms.
Industrial-scale meat production also contributes to climate change. Excess nitrogen can break down into nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere. Extreme weather events, such as drought followed by heavy rain, can lead to higher nitrous oxide emissions from farming.
The problem keeps getting worseThe number of the largest animal facilities in Iowa grew nearly 13% between 2019 and 2025, climbing to 4,444 operations, the new EWG analysis found.
But it’s not just sheer growth in the number of these operations that causes an issue. It’s also the consequences of growth.
Large operations make up less than a third of all farms in the state, which are mostly smaller and mid-size operations. But because of the sheer quantity of animals they house, they produce 60% of the manure.
As livestock production consolidates into bigger, more concentrated operations, the waste problem intensifies along with it, becoming more difficult to manage, whether to spread as fertilizer without triggering runoff or to transport it longer distances.
Policy failuresFederal policy failures that could control and manage industrial farms’ growth are at least partly to blame.
For purposes of federal oversight, factory farms are defined by their size. An operation may be too small to qualify as a large farm subject to stricter permitting and planning rules, even if they produce virtually the same amount of manure. That’s the case with over 3,200 Iowa operations, which fall under the large threshold by at most 50 animals.
Federal funding paid through farmer subsidies effectively promotes factory farm expansion rather than programs intended to promote a safer, more climate-resilient farming system. Instead of protecting water quality or the climate, taxpayers’ money supports the expansion of factory farming.
What you can doYou can’t personally fix a state’s water quality, but everyday choices add up and send a signal to the market.
Eating less meat, or choosing meat that wasn’t raised on a factory farm, reduces demand for the kind of large-scale, concentrated production driving this problem. Consult our meat and dairy label decoder for guidance.
In the grocery store, look for labels on meat and poultry like Animal Welfare Approved, Certified Humane (paired with “grass-fed” or “pasture-raised”), or Global Animal Partnership’s more stringent standards. These labels indicate the animals were raised in better conditions, with more space and less concentration of waste than is typical of a factory farm.
Beyond the grocery store, consumer advocacy is also critical. Encourage local, state and federal officials to strengthen oversight of manure application and push for change in the priorities of federal expenditures.
Areas of Focus Factory Farms Authors Ketura Persellin July 22, 2026EWG applauds Senate vote on UPF disclosure bill
WASHINGTON – Senate lawmakers today advanced a bill, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), that addresses the harms caused by ultra-processed food, or UPF.
S. 5026, the Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act, would require a disclosure on front of the package of food that’s UPF. The bill cleared the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee today, advancing the bill to the full Senate.
The following is a statement from the Environmental Working Group’s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs, Scott Faber.
Defining UPF and requiring a front-of-package disclosure is long overdue.
Diets high in UPF are a driver of chronic disease, linked to everything from diabetes to depression to dementia. The United States leads the world in UPF consumption, and kids now get more than 60% of their calories from these foods.
We applaud senators for advancing legislation to help consumers identify and avoid UPF.
For more information about UPF, visit: https://www.ewg.org/areas-focus/food-water/ultra-processed-foods
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 July 22, 2026Update on EWG-sponsored California bills to boost consumer safety, choice and transparency
California, the world’s fourth-largest economy, could soon prove – once again – its status as a leader in environmental and public health policy that helps reshape the U.S. marketplace.
When Sacramento lawmakers return from recess next month, they’ll consider four EWG-sponsored bills that address key issues: energy affordability, “forever chemicals” pesticides, toxic chemicals in diapers and ultra-processed foods, or UPF.
If enacted, these bills would help consumers lead cleaner, healthier lives through transparency, commonsense safety regulations and choice. They face further votes in the Legislature in August before being sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature.
1. Using solar to lower sky-high electricity bills (Senate Bill 868)The average California ratepayer faces electricity bills higher than those of most Americans. “Balcony solar” could help.
SB 868 would make it easier for everyone, including renters, apartment and condo dwellers, as well as owners of single-family homes, to plug into the sun using balcony solar systems – small, portable solar panels that can easily be set up on a patio or balcony and taken along when the owner moves.
The systems are inexpensive enough that ratepayers can recoup their investment within a couple of years, putting solar – and savings – within reach of more people. And the costs should decline as the market grows.
But complex rules make accessing balcony solar unnecessarily hard, if not impossible for many.
That’s why EWG is sponsoring this bill, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). If enacted, it would ensure that balcony solar systems meet strict safety standards and remove hurdles for Californians who want to take more ownership over their utility bills.
SB 868 passed in the California Senate in May, and through the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee in June. No major amendments have been added to this bill and the next step in the process is review by the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
2. Widespread use of PFAS pesticides (Assembly Bill 1603)This bill would address the use of the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS that are currently being allowed to be used as pesticides in California.
Over 2.5 million pounds of these chemicals are applied to crops each year within the state, contaminating not just produce but soil and water too.
The bill follows EWG research showing state test results finding PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of peaches, nectarines and plums. It’s critical to address this source of toxic pollution in the state that grows about half the country’s produce.
Our interactive map shows the California fields where PFAS pesticides are applied.
As introduced, AB 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would have banned the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides statewide beginning in 2035. It would have also immediately paused state approvals, phased out by 2030 the PFAS pesticides not allowed in Europe, and required public disclosure of PFAS pesticide uses.
AB 1603 passed the Assembly in May and went on to pass through two Senate policy committees in June, Environmental Quality and Agriculture, where it was heavily amended. The Senate Appropriations Committee will next review the bill, followed by a full Senate vote.
The bill has been modified to no longer prohibit the sale or use of PFAS pesticides. It requires disclosure only. Still, that’s an important first step in addressing the use of these chemicals.
AB 1603 also maintains a categorical approach – viewing PFAS as a class of chemicals, rather than regulating them one at a time.
3. Baby diapers made of mystery chemicals (Assembly Bill 1901)Many categories of personal care products are a virtual black box, their ingredients a mystery.
That’s especially true for baby diapers, since infants and toddlers wear them constantly for at least a couple years. Their developing bodies make them particularly vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure.
AB 1901, by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), would require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose their ingredients on product packaging and online.
Recent tests have found diapers may contain phthalates, linked to hormone disruption, bleaching agents associated with skin and respiratory irritation, and volatile organic compounds, including hazardous air pollutants like toluene and xylene.
Parents and caregivers deserve to know what chemicals sit for years on their child’s body 24/7.
AB 1901 passed the California State Assembly and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. In August, the bill heads, with no major changes, to the Senate Appropriations Committee for review.
4. What is and isn’t ultra-processed food (Assembly Bill 2244)UPF make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half of the typical adult diet in the U.S.
AB 2244 addresses the confusion shoppers face in distinguishing ultra-processed from less processed food, with the intent of helping to rein in skyrocketing and harmful UPF consumption.
If enacted, the bill would establish a system for certifying qualifying foods as free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that often characterize UPF. It would tie that system to California’s first-in-the-nation definition of UPF, which was adopted last year as the result of an earlier bill, also intended to stem the consumption of UPF.
Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) is the lawmaker behind this bill and several other pioneering laws addressing food safety, especially for kids. His work has helped galvanize a national movement to address food chemicals.
AB 2244 passed the Assembly in May, when it was revised to give grocers more flexibility in how they display products sporting the UPF label. The Senate health and judiciary committees have passed the bill, and the Senate appropriations panel will consider it next.
Protein powder bill falls shortEWG also sponsored a fifth bill, which aimed to require manufacturers of protein powder and shakes to disclose levels of heavy metals in their products.
Millions supplement their protein intake in various forms every day. But they have no way to know whether the shakes, powders and bars they consume contain concerning levels of harmful contaminants: lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic. One recent study showed about half the products tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for these contaminants.
The fifth bill, SB 1033, would have required manufacturers to disclose levels of heavy metals in their products. Its author, state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), sought to make manufacturers accountable for a product that is under-regulated by federal standards.
This bill would have brought greater transparency to protein products, much like an earlier law, which holds producers of baby food to a safety standard for heavy metal. But the legislation did not advance out of the Senate.
Areas of Focus Ultra-Processed Foods Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California July 23, 2026Safe food depends on the states
The recent outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a food-borne illness, has shown we can’t count on the federal government to make sure our food is safe.
States have always played a central role in the safety of our food, tracking pathogens and inspecting food manufacturing facilities, farms and restaurants.
The states have become even more important in recent years, as the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that have been underfunded for decades, have laid off experienced food safety experts, conducted fewer inspections, tracked fewer pathogens,including cyclospora, and delayed efforts to trace the source of foodborne illnesses.
The states are especially important for the safety of food chemicals.
While states have acted to ban many toxic chemicals from food and food packaging, including chemicals linked to cancer, the FDA has banned just two – and only after states had done so. Some food chemicals have been under review by the FDA for decades.
When it comes to the toxic chemicals in our food, the FDA has a long history of failure.
It has largely allowed food chemical companies to decide which food chemicals are safe and permitted these companies to add new chemicals to food without the FDA’s knowledge.
Now, on behalf of the food industry, some members of Congress want to make things even worse.
It would block states from keeping our food safe, and would do so both retroactively and prospectively. This isn’t just about stopping states from passing new protections. It would also wipe out laws already in effect. In all, the proposal in Congress could preempt more than 100 state laws, including state and local regulations that keep restaurant food safe.
Food companies want to block state laws that:
- Ban PFAS from food packaging and cookware
- Ban BPA and phthalates from food packaging
- Ban synthetic dyes from school foods and lead from lunch boxes
- Define and remove ultra-processed food from school food.
- Require testing and reporting on toxic metals in baby foods.
State and local food labeling laws that apply to food packages and menus, such as allergen warnings, could be blocked. State laws that exempt entrepreneurs who make food at home for sale at farmers markets could be in jeopardy. Enforcement of state laws could also be blocked by the food industry’s proposal, including state laws that allow consumers to sue food companies when they have been injured.
Even state pet food laws could be invalidated.
Blocking our states from keeping our food safe – during the nation’s worst food safety outbreak in years – would be hard to stomach. After four recent food safety failures, including the 2024 McDonald’s e. Coli outbreak and three infant formula recalls, we should be making our food safety laws stronger, not weaker.
Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Scott Faber July 20, 2026The 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.