Environmental Working Group

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: Potassium bromate Iris Myers November 5, 2026 EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing potassium bromate.

Potassium bromate has been classified as a possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency, based on evidence of kidney and thyroid tumors in animals. Potassium bromate is intended to convert to potassium bromide during baking, but some residual potassium bromate may remain in finished products. 

What is potassium bromate?

Potassium bromate is used as a dough strengthener, flour treating agent and oxidizing agent. It strengthens gluten, improves dough elasticity and helps bread rise more consistently, producing a higher-volume loaf.

Which foods contain potassium bromate?

Potassium bromate is added to some flour and dough used to make bread products, including hamburger buns, sandwich bread, rolls, tortillas, pastries and crackers.

Look for potassium bromate in product ingredient lists, usually below or next to the Nutrition Facts panel, on the back of the package. It may also appear as “bromated flour” on ingredient labels.

How is potassium bromate regulated?

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing food additives and other ingredients. Potassium bromate entered the U.S. food supply before the 1958 Food Additives Amendment established the modern additive approval process, so it was never required to undergo full premarket safety review. 

It remains permitted in bread, rolls and buns at up to 75 parts per million of flour weight. In 2024, the FDA identified potassium bromate as a priority additive for safety reassessment.

The WHO cancer research agency has classified potassium bromate as possibly carcinogenic to humans. It has been banned from food in the EU, U.K., Canada, Brazil, China, South Korea and many other countries. 

Since 1990, potassium bromate has been on California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer. The state will prohibit potassium bromate in food starting in 2027. Arkansas enacted a ban in 2025, which will go into effect in 2028. New York has passed legislation, which awaits the governor’s signature, and numerous other states have introduced similar bills.

Potassium bromate is prohibited in certified organic foods under Agriculture Department  organic standards, which bar synthetic substances.

What does the science say about potassium bromate?

When bread bakes, heat is supposed to convert potassium bromate into potassium bromide, a less-harmful compound. But if baking times are too short, temperatures too low, or dough too thick, that conversion is incomplete – leaving residual potassium bromate in the finished product. 

The kidney is the primary vulnerable organ: Long-term animal studies found significant increases in kidney tumors in rats, along with other tumors in the lining of the abdomen and, in some studies, the thyroid gland.

Laboratory and animal studies show that potassium bromate can cause oxidative stress – a buildup of reactive molecules that can damage cells – as well as DNA breaks and chromosomal damage.

Research has also found that potassium bromate can damage DNA through a distinct mechanism, generating reactive intermediates that cause specific DNA lesions. Those lesions can contribute to mutations. 

Direct evidence of harm in humans is limited, and research about exactly how potassium bromate causes cancer is ongoing.

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to potassium bromate – 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. 

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 November 5, 2026

Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ found in tap water of 197M Americans JR Culpepper November 5, 2026

WASHINGTON – About 197 million people in the U.S. drink drinking water contaminated with the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, according to test data released by the Environmental Protection Agency and recent state test results.

That’s 23 million more Americans exposed to PFAS in drinking water than the EPA found in previous tests. 

The number aligns with findings from a 2020 paper by Environmental Working Group scientists that estimated PFAS was in the water of 200 million Americans. 

The new EPA findings mark the last installment of tests of the nation’s drinking water supply conducted as part of the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, or UCMR 5, the regulation that required U.S. water utilities to test drinking water for 29 individual PFAS compounds.

The UCMR 5 data reveal 3,595 sites with detectable levels of PFAS, bringing the total number of known PFAS-contaminated sites to 13,459.

“The new data confirms what we feared: PFAS contamination of tap water is as widespread as our study estimated in 2020,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., EWG’s chief science officer. 

Protections under threat

The EPA results come against a backdrop of increasing environmental deregulation. The agency is in the final stages of rolling back limits on four PFAS chemicals. 

The agency is retaining first-time drinking water standards for the two most notorious PFAS – PFOA and PFOS. And the EPA set a health goal of zero for these two chemicals because it has identified no level in tap water that is without health risk. 

“We already know PFAS exposure has been linked to a variety of health harms and can be harmful in extremely small amounts. Delaying, weakening or abandoning PFAS limits would be detrimental to public health.” Andrews added.

In 2024, the Biden EPA finalized first-time limits on six PFAS in drinking water. The limits, called maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs, set enforceable standards for the amount of contaminants allowed in drinking water. 

In a reversal last year, Trump’s EPA announced plans to leave four PFAS unregulated – GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS. 

The agency plans to retain the PFOA and PFOS standards at 4 parts per trillion. But it also wants to extend the compliance deadline for meeting those standards to 2031. 

The EPA’s plan to reverse the four MCLs also likely contradicts an anti-backsliding provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act. That law requires any revision to a federal drinking water standard to “maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons.”

“This isn’t just a regulatory change, it’s a public health betrayal. These rollbacks will expose American families to chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health issues,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s vice president for government affairs.

“The EPA is abandoning science-based protections at the exact moment its own tests prove we need them most,” he added. 

Widespread PFAS pollution 

Even if the limits for PFOA and PFOS remain in force, scrapping the four other limits will make it harder to hold polluters responsible for endangering millions of Americans by releasing toxic forever chemicals into U.S. waterways. 

The EPA’s toxicity assessments of GenX and PFHxS – replacement chemicals for PFOA and PFOS – found that exposure to even extremely small doses could pose similarly serious health risks. Finalizing the rollback means the agency wouldn’t enforce limits on GenX and PFHxS in tap water.

EWG estimates nearly 30,000 industrial polluters could be discharging PFAS into the environment, including into sources of drinking water. Restrictions on industrial discharges would lower the amount of PFAS ending up in drinking water sources.

Other organizations have found similarly concerning levels of PFAS contamination as EWG’s estimates. A recent report from Environment America found that PFAS was detected in 83% of rivers, lakes, streams and other surface waters between 2022 and 2024.

“It’s time to turn off the tap and address drinking water contamination at the source. For PFAS, that’s chemical plants, industrial sites and any manufacturers unnecessarily using these chemicals,” said Faber.

Health risks of PFAS exposure

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because once released into the environment, they do not break down, and they 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. 

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

“Consumers shouldn’t have to worry about the safety of the water that comes from their tap,” Andrews said. “With 197 million people exposed to PFAS in their drinking water, government regulators must hold polluters accountable and ensure utilities have the resources to remove these toxic forever chemicals.”

While the cost of removing PFAS from drinking water should not fall on consumers, numerous  home filter options can help,” he added.

For people who know of or suspect the presence of PFAS in their tap water, a home filtration system is the most efficient way to reduce exposure. Reverse osmosis and activated carbon water filters can effectively remove these chemicals. But consumers should make sure to change their filters as recommended. 

In 2023, EWG researchers tested the performance of 10 popular water filters to evaluate how well each reduced PFAS levels detected in home tap water.

###

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 Water Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals EPA, state PFAS data confirm EWG’s 2020 estimate as Trump moves to scrap protections Press Contact JR Culpepper jr.culpepper@ewg.org (202) 779-9990 November 5, 2026

Nearly 7M U.S. school students may be exposed to pesticides used to treat crop fields Anthony Lacey November 5, 2026 Geoff Horsfield Al Rabine 1 in 4 schools within a quarter-mile of pesticide-treated fields, new EWG analysis shows November 5, 2026

Nearly 20,000 U.S. public elementary and middle schools sit within a quarter-mile of crop fields where harmful pesticides may be sprayed, a new EWG analysis finds. Almost 7 million students attend those schools and could be exposed, including more than 575,000 at schools within 200 feet of a field.

Pesticide applications could be putting children, families and school staff at risk because they lack basic protections such as buffer zones and warnings. 

INTERACTIVE MAP U.S. elementary and middle schools near crop fields

This map shows the number and percentage of elementary and middle schools within a quarter mile, 1,000 feet and 200 feet of what the Department of Agriculture considers to be a crop field. These schools have the potential to be in the “spray zone” of pesticides that may be used on these fields. Pesticides sprayed on crop land can harm children who attend schools nearby.

View here

Children face higher risks of the potential health harms linked to pesticides because their developing bodies and nervous systems are more vulnerable to chemical toxicity. Two hundred feet is close enough for harmful drift to reach classrooms and playgrounds. In addition to students, thousands of teachers and other school staff are at risk. 

EWG’s new map allows users to see how many schools in their state, county, congressional district or state legislative district are at risk. It does not account for public high schools or private schools. Nor does it include the thousands of public parks, playgrounds and ball fields where children live and play that may also be sprayed with pesticides. Schools were considered if they contained at least one grade that is K-8. 

Research shows that pesticides are often detected inside homes as far as a half-mile from spraying. EWG found 1,932 public elementary and middle schools within just 200 feet of application and 19,208 within a quarter-mile of a crop field that could be treated with pesticides – one out of every four schools in America.

And it doesn’t matter where kids go to school – this is a nationwide issue:

• In New York, over 550 schools are within a quarter-mile of a crop field, totaling over 200,000 students. 
• In Ohio, almost 1,000 schools and 400,000 children are within a quarter-mile of a crop field.  
• In Florida, over 270 schools and almost 150,000 children. 
• In Colorado, 340 schools and over 100,000 children.  
• In Vermont, more than 71% of schools in the state are within a quarter-mile of a crop field. 

But families lack key information about these commercial pesticide applications. Parents and caregivers deserve the certainty of knowing their children are not being exposed to harmful pesticides when they are at school. They have the right to know when pesticides are being applied near their schools, who is applying them, what is being applied and what precautions are being taken to protect children.

EWG’s map makes it clear that Congress must do more to protect consumers and kids at schools from commercial applications of toxic chemicals. 

That’s why EWG and Consumer Reports are urging Congress to reject any new pesticide laws unless they include the Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights – a road map for making the food Americans eat and the communities they live in safer. It addresses long-running gaps in pesticide protection, and it includes a call for Congress to ensure that children are safe from pesticide exposure while at school.

What are the health risks of pesticide exposure?

Studies show that living near pesticide spraying is linked to harm to the respiratory system, increased risk of cancer and harm to the developing fetus, such as low birth weight and reduced IQ. 

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, children are especially susceptible to potential health problems stemming from pesticide exposure, such as neurological and behavioral development, endocrine disruption and cancer.

Spraying creates dangers not just for kids at schools close to fields where pesticides are used but also for those in more distant neighborhoods, where chemicals may drift.

Pesticide air monitoring has shown some pesticides can travel miles from the application site. Evidence suggests health harms such as pediatric cancers may be associated with pesticide applications up to 2.5 miles away. 

How is pesticide use regulated near schools?

Many states, cities and counties have adopted legal standards to restrict pesticide spraying near schools, citing the risks it poses to children, whose bodies and brains are still developing. But these protections vary from state to state.

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

Alabama and North Carolina, for example, ban crop dusting near schools. Many other states – including Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan and New Hampshire – have placed buffer zones that restrict pesticide spraying around schools. 

Illinois and other states require that alerts be posted on school grounds to tell students before or after spraying. 

Some states, including Kentucky, Minnesota and Nevada, require that parents be notified. Others, like Louisiana and Pennsylvania, require schools to track students who are sensitive to pesticides. 

Other states, including Georgia and New Mexico, limit the hours when pesticides can be sprayed near schools. California prohibits pesticide applications within a quarter-mile of public schools during the hours when children are most likely to be present. The state also requires additional notifications, reporting and training, 

What should the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress do?

State regulations and laws are inconsistent, and many help parents and students only after they have been exposed to toxic chemicals or when it is too late. 

The standards also always assume pesticides will be applied without error by the applicator –  something that isn’t always done.

Instead, the federal government should set a minimum standard for buffer zones around schools, and ensure states’ ability to go further. Even though the people who spread the chemicals on farm fields may already be required to wear special protective gear, communities nearby remain unprotected. 

Congress and the EPA can also ensure proper notifications are sent if pesticides are applied near schools, as many states already require. 

Parents and families should not have to track down a government registry, pay a fee or require a doctor’s note to be notified of pesticide applications that could expose them, their children or their pets to toxics. Families deserve to know whether someone living or working near their home has applied pesticides that can make people sick. 

As with some state programs, the EPA and states should work together to proactively notify people of commercial pesticide applications near their homes and schools. This would give parents more information to potentially lower their kids’ exposure risk.

Pesticide companies, including Bayer’s Monsanto and ChemChina’s Syngenta, are actively trying to hide pesticide application information from consumers. These companies are trying to boost pesticide sales and hide the risks from industrial chemical use. 

Now, they’re trying to push Congress to quickly reauthorize a pesticide law, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, without making any changes to protect the public. 

Congress might consider renewing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act as early as December. The current law, through which the chemical industry negotiates fees that fund the EPA’s pesticide reviews, is set to expire next September. 

Lawmakers shouldn’t support any new pesticide law that fails to protect consumers and kids at school. Any such legislation should adopt EWG and Consumer Reports’ Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights – making clear that consumers deserve to be protected from toxic chemicals. 

Food was on the table. Now Congress should deliver. Anthony Lacey November 4, 2026

Food was on the table during the election – and voters are hungry for change. 

While many issues mattered to voters, polling shows that food issues like rising food inflation, food safety and how food affects our health were as important as health care and other concerns. 

For starters, voters want Congress to do more to make sure that our food is safe. In particular, Congress should make sure the chemicals added to our food meet tough safety standards. Congress should also do more to keep our food free from pathogens and contaminants like the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS.

When farmers offer to adopt regenerative practices like cover crops, Congress should make sure they get financial support. 

Voters also want Congress to do more to ensure consumers have access to healthy food. In particular, Congress should require that our schools offer healthier options, and some states have already acted to phase out harmful ultra-processed foods. 

Voters also want Congress to restore funding cuts to anti-hunger programs and take steps to address rising food prices. Reducing tariffs on food imports and breaking up monopolies would be good places to start. 

Until the election, few of these issues got the attention we deserve. Now that the voters have spoken, it’s time for Congress to deliver a recipe for success. 

Here are seven steps the new Congress can take right away to provide consumers with more safe, healthy, and affordable food:

1. The new Congress should require that all new food chemicals are reviewed for safety before they are added to our food. Right now, 99% of new food chemicals are reviewed for safety by the chemical companies, not the safety experts at the Food and Drug Administration. 
2. The new Congress should require that pesticide residues found on the fruits and vegetables most commonly eaten by our kids meet the toughest safety standards, and that safety experts at the Environmental Protection Agency quickly review pesticides when they are banned by other nations. 
3. The new Congress should define ultra processed foods and require a disclosure on food labels so we can find healthier options when we shop. 
4. The new Congress should make sure that food safety experts carefully track pathogens and regularly inspect food manufacturing plants and fruit and vegetable farms to reduce the risk posed by pathogens like cyclospora. 
5. The new Congress should direct food safety experts to set limits on the amount of toxic PFAS in our food and ban PFAS in cookware. 
6. The new Congress should triple spending on regenerative farming practices like cover crops to help address water pollution in places like Iowa. Right now, three out of four farmers are turned away when they seek help to adopt regenerative farming practices. 
7. The new Congress should rescind the cuts to anti-hunger programs that have increased hunger at a time of rising food prices. Everyone should have enough to eat. 

Food is a kitchen table issue. There’s much more Congress should do to make our food a priority. These seven steps are a good place to start.  

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Scott Faber November 4, 2026

Historic midterms deliver clear message to Congress: Prioritize people’s health and well-being Anthony Lacey November 4, 2026

WASHINGTON – The American people have sent a powerful message with the historic midterm elections: They demand a government that works for them, not a government corrupted by the power of polluters and corporate interests. 

The sweeping rejection of the Trump administration’s policies presents Congress’ incoming Democratic majority with both an opportunity and an obligation to deliver on the issues that matter most to families. 

The Environmental Working Group says the next Congress should pursue efforts to provide safe, healthy food and clean drinking water, strengthen protections against toxic chemicals and pesticides, and support affordable clean energy.

The following is a statement from EWG President and Co-founder Ken Cook:

This historic election is a celebration of American pluralism – and a reminder that, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin’s warning, we have a republic, if we can keep it. 

Last night’s results offer us a reason for optimism and a renewed confidence that progress is possible. By listening to voters and putting people first, we can begin to restore trust in government, and build a healthier, safer and more hopeful future for generations to come.

The results are also a resounding rejection of President Donald Trump’s agenda and a powerful affirmation of the values that make America stronger: opportunity, accountability and the fundamental promise that government should work for the people, not powerful corporate interests.

The people are fed up with policies that cater to polluters and corrupt corporate interests ahead of the health, safety and economic well-being of millions of Americans. 

Democrats now have an opportunity – and an obligation – to deliver on a different vision, one grounded in the kitchen-table issues that matter to families every day. That means fighting for clean, safe, healthy food free from harmful pesticides and toxic additives; drinking water free from dangerous contaminants; and affordable, clean energy. 

It means holding polluters accountable, restoring the government’s ability to protect public health and the environment, and rejecting the playbook of the last two years of putting Big Food, Big Ag and Big Pesticides ahead of the public interest.

Democrats must also begin to repair the damage inflicted by the most stridently anti-environmental, anti-science administration in our history, and rebuild the federal government’s capacity to protect Americans.

That means restoring and strengthening critical agencies, including the EPA, the FDA and the CDC. It means restoring and strengthening science-based safeguards against pesticide exposure and toxic chemicals; protecting drinking water from contamination; and ensuring that public health, not corporate influence, drives regulatory decisions.

EWG stands ready to work with Congress – and all stakeholders – to make it happen and to turn this electoral mandate into real action.

We have an ambitious agenda and concrete opportunities to make progress. We look forward to working with incoming members of Congress and continuing our work to reform our food chemical safety system, strengthen pesticide protection and help farmers lead the transition to regenerative agriculture. 

###

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 Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 November 4, 2026

New study: Neonic pesticides found in semen and urine, linked to lower sperm concentration Anthony Lacey November 4, 2026

• A study of 179 men at a fertility clinic tested urine and semen for neonicotinoids, or neonics, and linked higher neonic exposure in semen to lower sperm concentration.
• Eleven neonics or their breakdown products were found in more than 75% of urine samples, and four were found in more than 75% of semen samples.
• A proposed settlement would give the Environmental Protection Agency until April 30, 2027, to decide on revoking legal limits for residues of five neonics on food.

Neonicotinoid insecticides, notorious for their role in the collapse of bee populations, are turning up in human semen and may be linked to lower sperm count, a new peer-reviewed study finds.

Researchers found these pesticides, also known as neonics, and their breakdown products – the compounds the chemicals become in the body – in nearly every study participant. 

In urine, 11 neonics or their breakdown products were found in more than 75% of samples, and acetamiprid, one of the most widely used neonics, was found in every one. In semen, four were found in more than 75% of samples, and one, a breakdown product of the neonic dinotefuran, was detected in more than 99%. 

It’s just one study of 179 men in China, and the findings are preliminary. The men were partners in couples seeking fertility treatment and they provided samples once. A stronger study would include a comparison group from the general population. But the finding of an association between neonic exposure and semen quality adds to a growing set of studies showing wide human exposure to neonics. 

Beyond this study, concerns have also emerged about how that exposure may harm human reproduction and development.

Delay on deciding neonics petition

The prevalence of neonics in humans, combined with the building case for potential health concerns linked to exposure, comes as the Environmental Protection Agency may face a legal deadline for deciding whether to keep allowing five neonics’ residue on food.

In August 2026, the EPA agreed to a proposed settlement with the Natural Resources Defense Council that would set a binding April 30, 2027, deadline to respond to the group’s neonics petition. 

That petition asked the agency to revoke tolerances – the maximum allowable amount of a pesticide on food – for five neonics: acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. 

The study’s findings point to issues the NRDC flagged in its petition: The EPA ignored evidence that harm may occur at low exposure levels, the compounds neonics become can be more toxic than the original chemicals, and people are exposed to several neonics at once.

What did the new study find?

Published in the journal Frontiers in Endocrinology in September 2026, the study was led by researchers at a Chinese fertility clinic and a medical university.

The authors collected urine from 179 men and semen from 173, with 146 men providing both. After testing for 18 neonics and their breakdown products, the researchers detected at least one neonic in almost every sample, though how often each compound turned up varied by neonic and sample type.

Some compounds were found at higher levels in semen than in urine. And levels in urine were a poor predictor of levels in semen, suggesting urine tests alone may miss what’s in semen.

Most previous pesticide exposure studies rely on testing urine. The study’s authors suggest semen may be “a potentially informative matrix for reproductive risk assessment” – meaning it could give a clearer picture of how neonic exposure affects reproductive health.

Two breakdown products in semen were linked to lower sperm concentration, a key measure of sperm quality and male fertility. Looking at the combined effect of all the neonics in semen, higher overall exposure was also associated with lower sperm concentration but not to lower total sperm count, movement or shape. 

Why are neonics a concern?

Some human health studies suggest exposure to neonics may harm children and the developing fetus. Biomonitoring studies show that exposure is widespread in children and pregnant people around the world. 

In federal biomonitoring from 2015-2016, a neonic breakdown product was detected in the urine of half of kids ages 3 to 5, and their diet may be a primary route of exposure. 

The EPA continues to allow the use of these insecticides. But some states are taking action to limit their use, in an effort to protect pollinators. 

California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation moved to limit outdoor uses of imidacloprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran and thiamethoxam on most food and feed crops that are attractive to bees and other pollinators. Several other states, including Maine and New Jersey, regulate the use of neonics. 

But the U.S. has lagged far behind these states in taking action on neonics, even though bee colony collapse has caused severe economic losses for American beekeepers. 

It has also harmed others who rely on bees and other pollinators. For instance, they’re essential for U.S. farmers who grow squash, melon, cantaloupe, apples, almonds and many other crops that need pollination to bear fruit. 

Other studies show the extensive use of neonics may not be necessary. 

Research published in the journal PNAS in 2021 found that on farms growing corn and watermelon together, integrated pest management – treatment of crops only when pests reach damaging levels – cut insecticide use by 95% while maintaining corn yields and increasing watermelon yields.

EWG and more than 120,000 of our supporters have written to the EPA urging it to ban all unnecessary uses of neonic insecticides in the U.S. 

How can I reduce my exposure to neonics?

Because neonics are absorbed into plants, washing produce can’t get rid of their residue on produce entirely. But EWG still recommends washing your produce to potentially reduce the amount of pesticide residue on it.

Other steps you can take to reduce your exposure to these chemicals:

• Check EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™. The guide identifies the Dirty Dozen™ list of non-organic fruit and vegetables with the most pesticide residues. Neonics can be found on some U.S. produce, including blackberries. 
• Choose organic when you can, especially for the produce on the Dirty Dozen. Synthetic neonics aren’t permitted in organic farming. 
• Keep eating fruits and vegetables. The health benefits of a diet rich in produce outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure. If organic isn’t available or affordable, non-organic produce is still far better than none. 
• Skip neonics at home. Many lawn, garden and pet flea products contain imidacloprid and other neonics. Check labels before you buy, and skip products with neonics. 

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Pesticides Authors Anthony Lacey November 5, 2026

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: propyl paraben Iris Myers November 3, 2026 EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing propyl paraben.

Propyl paraben is a synthetic preservative shown in studies to mimic the hormone estrogen, raising concerns about its potential to disrupt hormonal processes. 

Several studies have linked propyl paraben exposure to reproductive health effects. These effects include changes in sperm quality and testosterone levels in males and associations with egg quality and quantity and pregnancy outcomes in females.

What is propyl paraben?

Propyl paraben, part of the paraben family, is a synthetic preservative used to prevent the growth of bacteria, mold and yeast in food, personal care products, cosmetics and some pharmaceuticals, extending their shelf life.

Which foods contain propyl paraben?

Propyl paraben is typically added to baked goods such as tortillas, cookies, cakes and packaged snacks like chips and trail mix.

Look for propyl paraben in product ingredient lists, usually below or next to the Nutrition Facts panel, on the back of the package.

How is propyl paraben regulated?

The Food and Drug Administration oversees food additives and other ingredients. The FDA has permitted propyl paraben as a food additive since 1977, classifying it as “generally recognized as safe” under thresholds of 0.1 percent. 

In 2024, the FDA added propyl paraben to its list of chemicals under post-market safety reassessment.

The European Union banned propyl paraben from food in 2006, citing the EU’s food safety arm finding that it caused reproductive harm and hormone disruption in young rats at all doses tested – meaning no safe daily intake could be established.

Several U.S. states have acted to restrict or ban propyl paraben in food. In 2023, California passed a law to prohibit it in food sold in the state beginning in 2027. West Virginia and Arkansas passed similar restrictions in 2025. Numerous other states have proposed legislation to ban propyl paraben.

Propyl paraben is prohibited in certified organic foods under Agriculture Department organic standards, which bar synthetic substances.

What does the science say about propyl paraben?

Multiple studies have confirmed that even at low doses, propyl paraben can mimic the hormone estrogen in the body, potentially disrupting hormone-sensitive processes like reproduction, development and cell growth. 

In laboratory experiments, propyl paraben activated genes linked to tumor growth. It also encouraged the growth of breast cancer cells that respond to estrogen.

These findings suggest propyl paraben may play a role in breast cancer progression.

Studies in humans and animals have linked propyl paraben to reproductive harm. Research found associations between higher levels of propyl paraben in urine and reduced egg count in women. 

In men, propyl paraben exposure has been associated with reduced sperm count and quality and decreased testosterone levels. A 2026 study of mother-infant pairs found prenatal propyl paraben exposure was associated with fetal distress and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Animal studies show propyl paraben can affect multiple generations: Prenatal exposure has been linked to reduced egg count across generations, while long-term low-dose exposure has been shown to promote mammary tumor growth. 

In mouse embryos, propyl paraben triggered oxidative stress, DNA damage and mitochondrial dysfunction, interfering with early embryo development.

Because people are exposed to propyl paraben both through food and personal care products, determining the long-term impact of dietary exposure alone is an area of ongoing research.

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to propyl paraben – 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.

Propyl paraben 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.

Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN November 3, 2026

State food chemical laws don’t create chaos. They make food safer for everyone. Anthony Lacey November 2, 2026

More than a dozen states have now passed laws restricting certain chemicals from food. Most apply to food served in schools, and a few may apply to food sold in stores.

Companies have argued that differing state laws make food manufacturing and distribution systems less efficient – and that this “patchwork” of requirements could make food more expensive. Major industry groups have even backed a draft bill in Congress to block them.

But the industry argument doesn’t hold up. 

What usually happens instead: When one state raises the bar for consumer safety by passing a new law saying what can and can’t be in products, companies often change their products nationwide, extending the new law’s benefits to everyone.

These are just a few examples of “patchwork” state laws that made consumer products safer for all of us: removing toxic flame retardants from furniture, bisphenol A, or BPA, from baby bottles and higher-risk ingredients from food.

How did California get toxic flame retardants out of furniture?

Before 2013, most furniture sold in the U.S. contained toxic flame retardant chemicals in its upholstery foam. The foam helped furniture pass product safety tests. 

But research linked these chemicals – also commonly used in baby products like strollers, car seats and nursing pillows – to multiple health risks, including cancer, hormone disruption and deficits in attention and learning in children, without providing meaningful fire safety.

As a result, California began updating its testing standards and phasing flame retardants out of products sold in the state. 

The effort faced fierce industry opposition. Chemical corporations spent millions lobbying to keep the old standard in place. One such company, Chemtura, sued California to overturn the new rules. The company lost, and the new standards took full effect in 2015.

In 2020, Congress adopted these same standards as a federal requirement through the Safer Occupancy Furniture Flammability Act – helping all states switch to product safety tests that kept chemical flame retardants out of furniture.

How does state policy protect infants from BPA in baby bottles?

In 2009, Minnesota became the first state to make baby bottles free of BPA, a synthetic estrogen linked to early puberty, impaired immune function and other developmental harms. 

Ten more states followed with their own policies restricting BPA in children’s products. Most laws targeted baby bottles, sippy cups and infant formula containers.

Under pressure from state lawmakers and attorneys general, major manufacturers took BPA out of products nationwide, regardless of which states those items were sold in.

By 2012, so many manufacturers had already dropped BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups that the FDA formally ended its use in those products. 

The Food and Drug Administration in 2013 also ended the use of BPA in formula packaging. 

What has been the California Food Safety Act impact?

The California Food Safety Act banned four food additives – Red Dye No. 3, brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate and propylparaben – from food sold in the state starting in 2027.

Food companies pushed back. The Consumer Brands Association and other industry groups together opposed the bill. The National Confectioners Association called the legislation part of a “patchwork of inconsistent state requirements created by legislative fiat that will increase food costs.”

But by 2024, multiple states had introduced similar bans. 

In early 2025, the FDA revoked authorization of Red 3 in food. That same year, major manufacturers, such as Kraft Heinz and General Mills, began announcing plans to reformulate products without artificial colors. 

No company has announced planned price increases associated with the changes.

What would the FRESH Act do to state food chemical laws?

The food industry’s “patchwork” argument isn’t just a talking point – it’s the basis of a draft bill. 

The FRESH Act would block state bans or restrictions of food additives, or even mandatory warnings. The bill was proposed by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.).

If enacted, it would push groundbreaking state laws like California’s off the table – laws that have helped rid consumer products nationwide of chemicals like Red 3.  

History is clear: When states act, companies change their products for everyone, for the better. The chaos predicted by food companies never actually occurs. 

States aren’t the problem in our food safety system. Until the FDA adopts stricter regulations to help protect people from toxic chemicals, states are filling the gap.

What can you do?

Tell your members of Congress to oppose any federal bill that strips states of the power to protect their residents from harmful food chemicals. 

In the meantime, you can check what’s in your groceries using EWG’s Food Scores database, which provides ratings of more than 150,000 food products based on ingredients of concern, nutrition and processing. 

Areas of Focus Food Food Chemicals Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN Scott Faber November 2, 2026

Cutting ultra-processed foods may ease depression, new study finds Anthony Lacey October 28, 2026

• Diets with less ultra-processed food may help to relieve depression symptoms.
• A small new pilot study adds to a growing body of evidence linking UPF to mental health.
• EWG’s Food Scores flags ultra-processed foods to help you make simple, healthy swaps.

Cutting back on ultra-processed food, or UPF, may help improve symptoms of depression, according to a new study. 

UPF such as sugary drinks, salty snacks and frozen meals have already been shown to be strongly tied to chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

These findings add to the growing evidence that what we eat may also play a role in our mental health.

Get your free guide: EWG's Guide to Food Additives Study links eating less UPF to fewer depression symptoms

The study, published in JAMA Psychiatry in September, is among the first to examine whether cutting back on UPF can improve symptoms of depression and ease some symptoms of anxiety. 

It involved 20 participants with depression who regularly consumed large amounts of UPF. They were told to follow either their usual diet or a low-UPF diet for four weeks, then switched to the other diet for another four weeks. 

Researchers then measured changes in their self-reported depression and anxiety symptoms.

Study participants who cut their UPF intake by about 85% percent experienced moderate to large improvements on three measures of depression. Anxiety symptoms also improved modestly.

The findings may reveal some new insights about the way food affects our mood and mental health.

But this was a small pilot study, and improvements in depression and anxiety symptoms were self-reported. More research is needed to determine whether reducing UPF can directly improve depression symptoms. 

Why might ultra-processed foods affect mental health?

Researchers are still trying to understand why a diet high in UPF may be linked to depression. One possibility is that some UPF contain additives that may affect the gut microbiome. Because the gut and brain communicate with one another, researchers are investigating whether changes in the gut microbiome could influence mood. 

Another possibility is that diets high in UPF may displace minimally processed foods that provide fiber, vitamins and minerals important for overall health. 

States are taking action on ultra-processed foods

Scientific evidence has done little to persuade the federal government to protect us from harmful chemicals in our food. But action at the state level is forcing the issue and driving meaningful change. 

California’s Real Food, Healthy Kids Act last year created the nation’s first legal definition of UPF. The law also requires schools to phase the worst UPF out of meals. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom also recently signed AB 2244, an EWG co-sponsored law that creates the first state-backed “non-ultraprocessed certified” label. This voluntary seal is designed to help shoppers in California more easily identify foods that aren’t ultra-processed – a big step toward making healthier choices more accessible.

How to cut back on UPF

About 70% of packaged food in the U.S. is ultra-processed, which makes it difficult to avoid. It’s also designed to be craveable and hard to resist.

Cooking from scratch takes time and energy, which can be tough for those trying to balance nutrition, convenience and cost. And experts say that can be especially challenging for people with depression.

You don’t have to aim for perfection. Cutting back on ultra-processed foods in any amount is a good place to start. Begin by swapping some packaged snacks for fruit, nuts or other minimally processed options. And at the grocery store, make a point to check ingredient lists to find products with fewer additives.

EWG’s Food Scores can help take some of the guesswork out of grocery shopping. The database rates foods based on nutrition, ingredient concerns and degree of processing, making it easier to compare products and find healthier options. 

You can also use EWG’s Healthy Living™ app to check products while you’re at the store.

Nicole Pajer is a freelance journalist.

Areas of Focus Ultra-Processed Foods Guest Authors Nicole Pajer (for EWG) October 28, 2026

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: Artificial dyes Iris Myers October 27, 2026 EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing artificial dyes.

Human and animal studies suggest artificial food dyes may harm children’s behavior and brain development. Studies on laboratory animals and cells found certain dyes may cause cancer.

Seven petroleum-derived synthetic dyes – Blue Dye No. 1, Blue 2, Green Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 3, Red 40, Yellow Dye No. 5 and Yellow 6 – are ingredients of concern. 

What are artificial dyes?

Artificial dyes are synthetic, petroleum-derived color additives added to processed foods to give them color, restore color lost during processing and make them more visually appealing. 

Six synthetic food dyes are authorized for general use in U.S. foods: Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6. 

Red 3, another petroleum-derived dye, is being phased out, with food manufacturers required to reformulate products by January 15, 2027.

Which foods contain artificial dyes?

Artificial dyes are most commonly used in candy, but they’re also found in baked goods, breakfast cereals, soda, sports drinks and many snacks, among other products.

Look for artificial dyes in product ingredient lists, usually below or next to the Nutrition Facts panel, on the back of the package. They may appear by name (such as “Red 40” or “Yellow 5”) or by their technical names, such as Allura Red AC or Tartrazine. 

Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 account for most of the dyes in U.S. food products.

How are artificial dyes regulated?

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing food additives and other ingredients. In 2025 the FDA revoked the authorization for Red 3 in food and oral medication under the Delaney Clause, which prohibits approval of any additive found to cause cancer in humans or animals. 

That same year, the FDA asked manufacturers to voluntarily phase out the remaining six petroleum-based synthetic dyes by the end of 2026 – a nonbinding target that has since slipped to 2027.

In 2026, the FDA revoked authorization for Orange B and proposed doing the same for Citrus Red No. 2. Both are less common artificial dyes, with limited use.

In the European Union, food containing Red 40, Yellow 5 or Yellow 6 must carry a label warning the dye “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Green 3 is not approved as a food additive in the EU at all.

Several U.S. states have banned Blue 1, Blue 3, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 in food served in public schools. The states include Arizona, California, Utah and Virginia, and West Virginia has banned the dyes statewide. 

In 2025 EWG supported the Ban Harmful Food Dyes Act, federal legislation that would revoke approval for all six dyes.

Artificial dyes are prohibited in certified organic foods under USDA Organic standards, which bar synthetic substances.

What does the science say about artificial dyes?

Foods with artificial dyes are typically marketed to children, and the strongest, most consistent evidence about artificial dyes is about their effects on children’s behavior.

An assessment by the California Environmental Protection Agency links artificial food dyes to negative behavioral outcomes – including irritability, decreased attention span and sleeplessness – in children with and without preexisting behavioral disorders. 

The agency reviewed both human and animal studies and concluded the FDA’s current acceptable daily intake limits are not strict enough to protect children, because they are based on decades-old data not meant to assess behavioral effects.

Animal studies reinforce these concerns. A series of studies that exposed pregnant mice to a mixture of artificial dyes found lasting behavior and learning changes in their offspring into adulthood. 

Those changes included altered activity levels and anxiety-like behavior – in some cases at doses comparable to typical human exposure. 

Red 3 gives rise to carcinogenic concern: It has been shown to induce thyroid tumors in rats, which is what triggered the FDA’s 2025 ban. 

Separate research found Red 3 can interfere with hormone signaling and estrogen-related pathways in human breast cancer cells, raising questions about its potential to disrupt hormones. 

Yellow 5 has been linked to DNA damage in human cells and, even at levels established as safe, changes in gene regulation in mice linked to potential long-term cancer and neurological effects. Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 have also been linked to disruption of the gut microbiome, and Red 40 to colitis, or inflammation of the colon, in animal studies.

New research has also connected overall intake of food coloring additives – both natural and artificial – with Type 2 diabetes in humans, though the underlying reasons are not yet understood.

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to artificial dyes – 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.

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 EWG’s Healthy Living™ app lets you take these tools with you on the go.

Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN October 27, 2026

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: Titanium dioxide rcoleman October 23, 2026 Dayna de Montagnac, MPH Sydney Evans, MPH Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. Jump to: What is titanium dioxide and why is it added to food? Where is titanium dioxide found in food? What is the regulatory status of titanium dioxide? Are foods containing titanium dioxide ultra-processed? Is titanium dioxide allowed in organic foods? What are the potential health harms associated with titanium dioxide? Uncertainties and where more research is needed More details about titanium dioxide Cited resources October 23, 2026 EWG’s recommendation

Titanium dioxide, or TiO₂, is an ingredient of concern in food, and EWG suggests limiting consumption of food containing this ingredient. 

Food-grade synthetic titanium dioxide contains a substantial fraction of nanoscale particles, and although systemic absorption after ingestion is low, absorbed titanium dioxide can distribute to tissues, and studies indicate that tissue elimination may be slow. 

In its 2021 assessment of TiO₂, the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, expressed concern about immunotoxicity and inflammation, gastrointestinal effects and neurotoxicity. The EFSA concluded that a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out on the basis of evidence that TiO₂ particles can induce DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage. 

Because of these findings and the remaining uncertainties, the EFSA concluded that TiO₂ could no longer be considered safe for use as a food additive (EFSA, 2021). Since TiO₂ is a food color additive, consumers can easily choose products without it. 

Science analysis

What is titanium dioxide and why is it added to food?

Titanium dioxide is a synthetically produced white color additive used in some kinds of food to brighten its appearance, create a smooth finish, enhance whiteness and provide opacity for other food colors.

Where is titanium dioxide found in food?

Most commonly used in candy, titanium dioxide can also be found in salad dressing, chewing gum, ice cream, drink mixes and many other food categories.

It is used in 15,483 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

The 15 food categories with the most products containing titanium dioxide (by supermarket shelf)

Image

Source: EWG’s Food Scores. Label created between January 2023 and October 2025.

What is the regulatory status of titanium dioxide?

In 1973, the Food and Drug Administration authorized titanium dioxide as a food color additive in certain types of food, as long as it does not exceed 1% of the food by weight. But particle size is not limited.

Because of recent safety reviews, in 2023 EWG and other NGOs petitioned the FDA to roll back approval of titanium dioxide.

Titanium dioxide was removed from the EU’s list of approved food additives in 2022 after a 2021 EFSA re-evaluation raised concerns about its potential genotoxicity. 

A 2025 Arizona ban on the use of TiO₂ in food sold in schools took effect at the beginning of the 2026-2027 school year. 

Are foods containing titanium dioxide ultra-processed?

TiO₂ and other color additives 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, food containing TiO₂ qualifies as UPF because of its property as a color and coloring adjunct (Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, 2025). 

Is titanium dioxide allowed in organic foods?

Under Agriculture Department organic standards, synthetic substances are prohibited in certified organic foods. 

What are the potential health harms associated with titanium dioxide?

Food-grade titanium dioxide contains a nanoscale fraction, and although systemic absorption after ingestion is low, absorbed particles may persist in tissues. EFSA found that TiO₂ particles can accumulate in the body and noted that nanoscale particles showed particularly long half-lives in animal studies (EFSA, 2021). 

A study using the food additive TiO₂ in mice found accumulation of TiO₂ in the intestine and liver and evidence of an inflammatory response (Talamini et al., 2019). TiO₂ particles have also been detected in human placenta and meconium, and an ex vivo study using food-grade TiO₂ nanoparticles provided evidence of maternal-fetal transfer (Guillard et al., 2020). 

Experimental studies have reported the potential effects of TiO₂, particularly nanoscale forms, on the gastrointestinal, immune, neurological, reproductive and developmental systems. The EFSA identified potential immunotoxicity and inflammation, neurotoxicity, and gastrointestinal effects, including indications that TiO₂ may induce aberrant crypt foci, or ACF, in the colon, a potential marker of preneoplastic change (EFSA, 2021; Bettini et al., 2017). Studies of food-grade TiO₂ nanoparticles have also reported alterations in intestinal microbial populations, brush border membrane functionality, and intestinal morphology (Cheng et al., 2023). But these findings have not been consistently reproduced, and the EFSA found no reproductive or developmental toxicity in its TiO₂ study (EFSA, 2021).

Evidence of the genotoxicity of TiO₂ remains mixed. The EFSA concluded that TiO₂ particles have the potential to cause DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage and that a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out (EFSA, 2021). A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 studies found that TiO₂ nanoparticles were associated with DNA and chromosomal damage in both in vivo and in vitro studies (Cao et al., 2023). In human intestinal cell models, exposure to digested TiO₂ nanomaterials also produced DNA damage, with some effects more pronounced after simulated digestion (Vieira et al., 2022). 

In contrast, the World Health Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, or WHO/JECFA, concluded that the available data did not provide convincing evidence of genotoxicity, while noting limitations in current testing methods for poorly soluble particulate materials and nanoparticles (JECFA, 2023).

Uncertainties and where more research is needed

The genotoxicity of titanium dioxide remains uncertain. While the EFSA’s conclusions regarding the possible genotoxicity of TiO₂ leading to its EU ban raise concern, the WHO/JECFA could not make the same conclusions due to study limitations.

Since these assessments, studies have produced mixed findings, with some reporting DNA or chromosomal damage and others finding no evidence of genotoxicity. 

Uncertainties remain regarding the mechanisms of potential genotoxic effects, the relevance of experimental findings to human exposure, and the potential genotoxic effects of nanoscale TiO₂ particles. 

Human epidemiological evidence is also limited. The JECFA cautioned that available studies do not allow conclusions about associations between dietary TiO₂ exposure and human health effects. 

Evidence for carcinogenicity from dietary exposure also remains uncertain. EFSA found no appropriately designed studies evaluating the carcinogenicity of TiO₂ nanoparticles. It observed that TiO₂ may induce ACF in the colon, but did not conclude TiO₂ causes cancer (EFSA, 2021). 

The JECFA subsequently concluded that TiO₂ was not carcinogenic in adequately conducted two-year studies in mice and rats and also considered studies investigating the potential initiation or promotion of colon cancer (JECFA, 2023).

More details about titanium dioxide

An exposure analysis found titanium dioxide was most common in candy, chewing gum and other sweets, so children were more likely to consume more titanium dioxide than adults (Weir et al 2012). 

In 2015, Dunkin’ announced it was phasing out titanium dioxide from the powdered sugar used on its doughnuts. In 2024 Mars removed titanium dioxide from Skittles sold in the U.S.   

TiO₂ is also added to personal care products such as toothpaste and cosmetics and is used as an ultraviolet, or UV, filter in sunscreen products. 

It is one of three active UV filters in the U.S. designed as generally recognized as safe and effective. Sunscreen products formulated with titanium dioxide have long appeared on EWG’s best lists. EWG recommends avoiding spray or powder products that contain titanium dioxide because of concerns about risks from inhaling nanoparticles and subsequent health effects. 

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

• EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings), 2021. Scientific Opinion on the safety assessment of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive. EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6585, 130 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6585 
• Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). (2023). Evaluation of certain food additives: Ninety-seventh report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (WHO Technical Report Series No. 1051). World Health Organization.  https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/jecfa-risk-assessment-of-titanium-dioxide-risk-released-background-information 
• Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Titanium dioxide as a color additive in foods. https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/titanium-dioxide-color-additive-foods 

Comprehensive reviews and frameworks

• Cao, Y., Chen, J., Bian, Q., Ning, J., Yong, L., Ou, T., Song, Y., and Wei, S. (2023). Genotoxicity Evaluation of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles In Vivo and In Vitro: A Meta-Analysis. Toxics, 11(11), 882. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11110882 
• 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., and 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 
• Weir, A., Westerhoff, P., Fabricius, L., Hristovski, K., and Von Goetz, N. (2012). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles in food and personal care products. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(4), 2242–2250. https://doi.org/10.1021/es204168d 

Legislation

• Arizona Healthy Schools Act, H.B. 2164, 57th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (2025). https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2164/2025 
• Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, A.B. 1264, Chapter 467, Cal. Stat. (2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264. 

Specific health impact studies

• Bettini, S., Boutet-Robinet, E., Cartier, C., Coméra, C., Gaultier, E., Dupuy, J., Naud, N., Taché, S., Grysan, P., Reguer, S., Thieriet, N., Réfrégiers, M., Thiaudière, D., Cravedi, J.-P., Carrière, M., Audinot, J.-N., Pierre, F.H., Guzylack-Piriou, L., and Houdeau, E. (2017). Food-grade TiO₂ impairs intestinal and systemic immune homeostasis, initiates preneoplastic lesions and promotes aberrant crypt development in the rat colon. Scientific Reports, 7, 40373. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40373  
• Cheng, J., Kolba, N., García-Rodríguez, A., Marques, C.N.H., Mahler, G. J., and Tako, E. (2023). Food-grade metal oxide nanoparticles exposure alters intestinal microbial populations, brush border membrane functionality and morphology, in vivo (Gallus gallus). Antioxidants, 12(2), 431. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12020431 
• Guillard, A., Gaultier, E., Cartier, C., Devoille, L., Noireaux, J., Chevalier, L., Morin, M., Grandin, F., Lacroix, M. Z., Coméra, C., Cazanave, A., de Place, A., Gayrard, V., Bach, V., Chardon, K., Bekhti, N., Adel-Patient, K., Vayssière, C., Fisicaro, P., Feltin, N., de la Farge, F., Picard-Hagen, N., Lamas, B., and Houdeau, E. (2020). Basal Ti level in the human placenta and meconium and evidence of a materno-foetal transfer of food-grade TiO₂ nanoparticles in an ex vivo placental perfusion model. Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 17, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-020-00381-z   
• Talamini, L., Gimondi, S., Violatto, M.B., Fiordaliso, F., Pedica, F., Tran, N.L., Sitia, G., Aureli, F., Raggi, A., Nelissen, I., Cubadda, F., Bigini, P., and Diomede, L. (2019). Repeated administration of the food additive E171 to mice results in accumulation in intestine and liver and promotes an inflammatory status. Nanotoxicology, 13(8), 1087–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2019.1640910 
• Vieira, A., Vital, N., Rolo, D., Roque, R., Gonçalves, L.M., Bettencourt, A., Silva, M.J., and Louro, H. (2022). Investigation of the genotoxicity of digested titanium dioxide nanomaterials in human intestinal cells. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 161, 112841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.112841   

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: Titanium dioxide Iris Myers October 22, 2026 EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing titanium dioxide.

Titanium dioxide is a color additive used to brighten packaged foods. Food-grade titanium dioxide contains a large amount of nanoscale particles that can accumulate in the body. 

In 2021, the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, concluded titanium dioxide could no longer be considered safe as a food additive due to concerns about genotoxicity, inflammation and effects on the immune system and gut.

What is titanium dioxide?

Titanium dioxide is a synthetically produced white color additive. It’s used in some foods to brighten their appearance, enhance whiteness and provide opacity.

Which foods contain titanium dioxide?

Titanium dioxide is most commonly found in candy. It is also used in salad dressings, chewing gum, ice cream, drink mixes and other food. 

Look for titanium dioxide in product ingredient lists, usually below or next to the Nutrition Facts panel, on the back of the package. 

How is titanium dioxide regulated?

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing food additives and other ingredients. Titanium dioxide is allowed as a food color additive in the U.S. at up to 1% by weight of the food. 

The European Union removed titanium dioxide from its approved food additives list in 2021, determining the chemical could no longer be considered safe for use in food. An Arizona law bans titanium dioxide in food sold in schools, beginning with the 2026-2027 school year.

Titanium dioxide is prohibited in certified organic foods under Department of Agriculture organic standards, which bar synthetic substances.

What does the science say about titanium dioxide?

The health risks of titanium dioxide are closely tied to particle size. Nanoparticles – those smaller than 100 nanometers – are generally more toxic than larger particles. Although food-grade titanium dioxide is not entirely nanoscale, a significant fraction of its particles fall within that range. These nanoparticles can accumulate in tissues, causing oxidative stress and cell damage.

A 2023 meta-analysis found titanium dioxide nanoparticles can cause significant DNA damage in both in vivo and in vitro models. The 2021 EFSA review reached the same conclusion, finding it could not rule out DNA or chromosomal damage.

By contrast, the World Health Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives maintains that as of 2023, the available evidence does not prove titanium dioxide is genotoxic. It isn’t completely clear how titanium dioxide nanoparticles cause genotoxicity, and evidence from studies conducted on humans is limited.

When titanium dioxide nanoparticles accumulate in the digestive tract of animals, they cause gut inflammation and damage to the intestinal lining. They can also cross the placental barrier, with animal studies linking prenatal exposure to developmental and neurological effects in offspring. Animal studies have also reported reproductive harm, including impaired sperm function and disrupted ovarian hormones.

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to titanium dioxide – 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.

Titanium dioxide is also added to personal care products, including  sunscreens, as a whitener and UV filter. EWG’s Skin Deep® database helps to identify harmful chemicals in personal care and beauty products. Those bearing the EWG Verified® mark meet the strictest criteria for transparency and health. 

Titanium dioxide is safe when used on the skin as an ingredient in personal care products. It is classified as potentially hazardous if inhaled from sprays or loose powders, which permit titanium dioxide to reach deep into the lungs. EWG recommends avoiding titanium dioxide products that can be inhaled, such as spray sunscreens and loose powders. 

EWG’s 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 October 22, 2026

Atrazine taints tap water for millions – California says it causes cancer. EPA’s plan won’t fix it. Anthony Lacey October 22, 2026

Three recent developments underscore the health threat posed by atrazine, one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S. 

Earlier this month, California’s environmental health agency said it planned to list atrazine as a carcinogen. 

A new analysis found roughly one-quarter of the miles of rivers and streams in the U.S. are contaminated by it at levels harmful to aquatic life. 

And a separate study said the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed approach to curbing atrazine runoff would do little to resolve the contamination problem. 

EWG's Guide to Safer Drinking Water

Reduce your exposures to common drinking water pollutants with EWG's handy tipsheet!

Prevalence and exposure 

Agrochemical giant Syngenta’s atrazine is one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S., with roughly 70 million pounds applied annually, primarily to cornfields across the Midwest. 

Rain washes the chemical off farm fields and into nearby rivers, streams, lakes and groundwater. About 860,000 miles of rivers in the U.S. are contaminated with the weedkiller at levels that can harm aquatic life, according to a new analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity. 

The problem isn’t limited to the Midwest. Atrazine is especially prevalent in five hot spots, including the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Okeechobee and Texas’ Gulf Coast. In the Chesapeake Bay, atrazine contaminates more than 5.5 million acres of the watershed at levels higher than those known to harm aquatic ecosystems. 

The runoff also pollutes sources of drinking water for millions of Americans. Atrazine is consistently the most frequently detected crop chemical in tap water, according to EWG’s Tap Water Database, which shows that 2,055 water utilities in 36 states detected atrazine, affecting drinking water for about 40 million people.

Of those utilities, 479 in 18 states serving roughly 3 million people reported atrazine levels above EWG’s health guideline of 0.1 parts per billion, or ppb.

The EPA’s own monitoring data repeatedly show atrazine in Midwestern drinking water sources at levels that spike above EPA’s woefully inadequate legal atrazine tap water limit of 3 ppb. 

What exposure can do to your health

A growing body of scientific research links atrazine exposure to serious health concerns, including reproductive and developmental harm, such as premature birth and low birth weight, as well as endocrine disruption, which can interfere with the body’s hormone systems. 

More recent research has also raised concerns about the connection between atrazine exposure and an increased risk of cancer.

In 2025, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, classified atrazine as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” underscoring the urgent need for the EPA to reassess the chemical’s safety. 

But the agency, parroting Syngenta’s talking points, dismissed IARC’s findings. It claimed the science shows exposure does not increase cancer risk. 

Federal and state regulation

Set in 1991, the EPA’s outdated atrazine tap water standard fails to reflect the full body of scientific evidence accumulated over the past three decades. 

EWG’s health guideline is 0.1 ppb to protect from harm to the developing fetus, harm to the reproductive system and hormone disruption. 

A second recent peer-reviewed study by researchers with CBD, published in the Journal of Environmental Quality, concluded that the EPA’s proposed measures to curb atrazine runoff would do little to protect U.S. waterways from the herbicide. The agency in 2024 proposed a contamination-relief plan but is yet to finalize it.

The researchers estimated that just 1% of the 11,248 watersheds contaminated with atrazine would fall below the EPA’s threshold for concentrations that can harm aquatic ecosystems if the plan were implemented. 

The CBD, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network this month sued the Trump EPA for failing to establish Clean Water Act-required water quality criteria for the weedkiller. 

The lawsuit comes just as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin considers whether to renew approval of atrazine for another 20 years.

The suit doesn’t seek a ban, but its outcome could eventually shape how states regulate herbicide runoff from farmland. 

Recent California action may force the issue. 

Earlier this month, the state’s EPA announced its intent to list atrazine as a carcinogen under the state’s Proposition 65 law. 

Prop. 65 requires businesses to warn state residents about the health risks of exposure to certain chemicals. A conclusion by the state EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment carries weight among environment and safety advocacy experts.

Government action and inaction

Today more than 60 countries prohibit the use of atrazine. Yet it remains legal in the U.S. and widely applied to agricultural fields, despite widespread water contamination and mounting evidence of its potential harm to human health.

And given the Trump administration’s increasingly industry-friendly approach to pesticides, there is little reason for confidence that the review will result in meaningful restrictions.

The initial report from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again Commission explicitly acknowledged that atrazine “can cause hormone disruption and birth defects” in babies. 

But even that limited recognition of the weedkiller’s health risks provoked an intense backlash from the pesticide industry. All references to atrazine and other crop chemicals were subsequently stripped from the final report.

Over the past year, the Trump EPA has approved more than five new pesticides containing “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, while President Donald Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to boost domestic production of glyphosate, the nation’s most widely used weedkiller. 

Against this backdrop, the prospect of the EPA taking decisive action to curb atrazine’s use and protect public health remains uncertain.

The bottom line

The growing evidence of atrazine’s potential health risks, its widespread presence in drinking water and waterways, and its classification as probably carcinogenic to humans demand a serious response from federal regulators. 

Rather than dismiss independent scientific findings and yield to pesticide-industry pressure, the Trump EPA should thoroughly reassess atrazine, establish more protective water-quality standards and put the health of families over the narrow financial interests of chemical corporations. 

Americans should not have to wonder whether the water flowing from their taps contains a pesticide that likely causes cancer and developmental harm to children and that dozens of countries have banned.

What can consumers do to protect themselves?

While stronger federal safeguards are needed to protect everyone from atrazine and other drinking water contaminants, consumers can take steps to learn more about what is in their drinking water. 

EWG’s Tap Water Database helps fill critical information gaps by allowing people to search by ZIP code for reports on contaminants detected in their local water supply, the levels found for each and the potential health risks in their drinking water.

The database also offers guidance on water filters that may help reduce contaminants detected in a user’s water supply, helping consumers identify options tailored to their local water-quality concerns.

Areas of Focus Water Farming & Agriculture Guest Authors Aspen Rosner (EWG communications intern) October 22, 2026

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: Seven artificial dyes rcoleman October 22, 2026 Jump to: What are artificial dyes and why are they added to foods? Where are artificial dyes found in foods? What is the regulatory status of artificial dyes? Are foods containing artificial dyes ultra-processed? Are artificial dyes allowed in organic foods? What are the potential health harms associated with artificial dyes? Uncertainties/where more research is needed More details about artificial dyes Cited resources October 23, 2026 EWG’s recommendation

Petroleum-based, synthetic dyes, including Blue Dye No. 1, Blue Dye No. 2, Green Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40, Yellow Dye No. 5 and Yellow Dye No. 6, are ingredients of concern. 

EWG suggests limiting consumption of food that contains them. 

Human and animal studies suggest artificial food dyes may affect behavior and learning, particularly in children. A 2021 assessment by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard, or OEHHA, linked these dyes to adverse behavioral outcomes in children both with and without preexisting behavioral difficulties. 

Animal studies have concluded that prenatal exposure to synthetic food dye mixtures can produce lasting changes in offspring behavior, including altered activity levels and measures of anxiety-like behavior and exploration.

Red 3 has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals exposed to high doses, prompting the Food and Drug Administration in 2025 to finally revoke its authorization of the dye for use in food. 

Science analysis

What are artificial dyes and why are they added to foods?

Artificial dyes are added to processed foods to give them color, restore color lost during processing, and make them visually appealing. 

Six synthetic food dyes are authorized for general use in U.S. food: Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6. Red 3, another petroleum-derived synthetic dye, is currently being phased out. 

Ingredient nameSynonymEuropean numberRed 40Allura Red ACE129*Red 3ErythrosineE127Yellow 5TartrazineE102*Yellow 6Sunset Yellow FCFE110*Blue 1Brilliant Blue FCFE133Blue 2Indigotine / Indigo CarmineE132Green 3Fast Green FCFE143 (Not authorized in the EU)

* Must carry a warning label in the EU.

Where are artificial dyes found in foods?

Artificial dyes are most commonly added to candy, baked goods, desserts, beverages, breakfast cereal and other snacks.

They are found in 23,312 of the 172,081 foods and beverages added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

The 15 food categories with the most products containing food dyes (by supermarket shelf):

Image

Source: EWG’s Food Scores. Label created between January 2023 and October 2025.

What is the regulatory status of artificial dyes?

In 2025, the FDA revoked the use of Red 3 in food products and oral medication on the basis of the Delaney Clause, which bans authorization of a food or color additive found to induce cancer in humans or animals. Red 3 must be phased out of all food products by January 15, 2027. 

In 2025, the FDA announced plans to work with manufacturers to phase out the remaining six artificial dyes in foods by the end of 2027.

Bills have been enacted in California, Utah, Arizona, Virginia and other states to ban Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 in food sold in public schools. And in 2025, West Virginia enacted a bill to ban these artificial dyes statewide.

Food containing Red 40, Yellow 5 or Yellow 6 sold in the European Union must carry a warning label stating the dye “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” The EU doesn’t allow the use of Green 3 as a food additive.

In 2025, EWG supported the Ban Harmful Food Dyes Act, a bill in Congress which aimed to revoke approval for use of Blue 1, Blue 2, Citrus Red No. 2, Green 3, Orange B, Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, titanium dioxide and any additive similar in chemical makeup. The FDA revoked authorization for Orange B in 2026, and proposed revoking authorization for Citrus Red 2.

Are foods containing artificial dyes ultra-processed?

Industrially synthesized ingredients such as artificial food dyes are common in ingredients defined as ultra-processed food, or UPF, ingredients in the Nova framework (Monteiro et al., 2019).

Under a recent California law defining UPF, food containing artificial dyes is considered UPF (Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, 2025). 

Are artificial dyes allowed in organic foods?

Under Agriculture Department organic standards, synthetic substances are banned in certified organic foods. 

What are the potential health harms associated with artificial dyes?

Thorough review by the OEHHA found artificial food dyes are linked to adverse behavioral outcomes in children both with and without preexisting behavioral disorders (OEHHA, 2021), which is of particular importance since foods containing artificial food dyes are typically marketed to children (Dunford et al. 2025). 

Although mixtures of all seven food dyes produced observed effects across studies, the most evidence of toxicity comes from studies of Red 3, Red 40 and Yellow 5. Reviewed studies support the evidence of their behavior and learning effects. 

The research found changes in the behavior and learning of children exposed to artificial food dyes, both when the colors were added and eliminated from their diets.

This assessment of human and animal studies showed that because of outdated toxicity data, current allowable daily intake values do not sufficiently protect children from harm. 

In one study, Yellow 5 was found to increase behavioral changes such as irritability, sleeplessness and decreased attention span in a dose-dependent manner in children (Rowe & Rowe, 1994).

In animal studies, developmental effects were observed in rodents exposed to artificial food coloring in utero. A series of studies that exposed pregnant mice to a mixture of artificial dyes and followed their offspring to adulthood observed long-term neurobehavioral changes. 

Exposed offspring exhibited significant changes in movement and exploratory behaviors and altered anxiety profiles (Doguc et al., 2013, 2015, 2019). In one of these studies, these effects occurred with doses relevant to human exposure.

The neurobehavioral effects of artificial food dyes are believed to be caused by the ability of the dyes to bind to certain proteins and affect neurotransmitter pathways. When studying learning and behavior changes in rodents, researchers found that exposure during pregnancy can lead to altered expression of receptors that control memory (Ceyhan et al., 2013). 

Red 3 was linked to cancer when it was observed to induce thyroid tumors in rats (Hiasa et al., 1988). Separate laboratory research found Red 3 can interfere with thyroid hormone signaling and estrogen-related pathways in human breast cancer cells, raising questions about its potential to disrupt hormones (Dees et al., 1997). 

A 2015 study of human lymphocytes observed damage to genetic material  exposed to Yellow 5 (Soares et al., 2015). 

Another found that long-term consumption of this dye, even at levels established as safe, significantly changed how epigenetic genes are regulated in multiple mouse organs, suggesting the potential for developing cancer and behavioral effects (Zand et al., 2023). 

Other research has linked certain food dyes, such as Yellow 5 and 6, to disruption of the human gut microbiome (Elder et al., 2023), and Red 40 to colitis in animal studies (He et al., 2021; Kwon et al., 2022). 

Although research is limited on how artificial food dyes affect human health, some epidemiological evidence suggests that consumption of foods with both natural and artificial dyes is associated with an increased incidence of Type 2 diabetes (Shah et al., 2026). 

Uncertainties/where more research is needed

From its 2021 report, the OEHHA identified important gaps in research on synthetic food dyes, including limited understanding of individual susceptibility, long-term developmental effects, absorption and metabolism, and differences in exposure and effects across population groups. 

It also noted that current FDA acceptable daily intakes are based largely on decades-old studies that were not designed to assess behavior and learning effects. 

The OEHHA nevertheless concluded the available human and animal evidence supports behavioral effects in some children and called for modern, dye-specific research to set exposure levels that adequately protect children’s health.

More details about artificial dyes

Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 account for most of the dyes used in the U.S. market.

Synthetic food dyes can contain manufacturing-related impurities, including carcinogenic compounds, that raise potential health concerns. A review by the Center for Science in the Public Interest called attention to p-cresidine as one potential carcinogenic impurity in Red 40 and benzidine and 4-aminobiphenyl in Yellow 5 and Yellow 6. Benzidine is classified as carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Orange B, an artificial color used only to color sausage casings, was “abandoned by industry” and is no longer approved for use as of September 2026. Since it is no longer being used, it doesn’t need to be evaluated. 

Citrus Red 2 is allowed to be used only to restore the orange color to the skin of oranges that lose their color, but is also abandoned by industry.

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

• Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives. (2008). Official Journal of the European Union, L 354, 16–33. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1333/oj 

Comprehensive reviews 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. 
• Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (April 2021). Health effects assessment: Potential neurobehavioral effects of synthetic food dyes in children. California Environmental Protection Agency, Children’s Environmental Health Center. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/risk-assessment/report/healthefftsassess041621.pdf 

Legislation

• Arizona House Bill No. 2164, 57th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess., Ariz. (2025). https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2164/2025
• Ban Harmful Food Dyes Act, H.R. 5027, 119th Cong. (2025). https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5027/all-info 
• California Assembly Bill No. 2316, Chapter 914, Cal. Stat. (2024). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2316
• Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, Assemb. Bill 1264, Chapter 467 (Cal. 2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264. 
• Food and Drug Administration. (2025, January 15). FD&C Red No. 3. https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/fdc-red-no-3 
• FDA. (April 22, 2025). HHS, FDA to phase out petroleum-based synthetic dyes in nation’s food supply. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/hhs-fda-phase-out-petroleum-based-synthetic-dyes-nations-food-supply 
• Utah House Bill No. 402, General Session, Utah State Legislature (2025). https://legiscan.com/UT/text/HB0402/2025
• Virginia Senate Bill No. 1289, Chapter 222, Va. Acts (2025). https://legiscan.com/VA/text/SB1289/id/3191585/Virginia-2025-SB1289-Chaptered.html
• West Virginia House Bill No. 2354, Chapter 206, W.Va. Acts (2025). https://legiscan.com/WV/text/HB2354/id/3177443/West_Virginia-2025-HB2354-Enrolled.html 

Specific health impact studies

• Ceyhan, B. M., Gultekin, F., Doguc, D. K., & Kulac, E. (2013). Effects of maternally exposed coloring food additives on receptor expressions related to learning and memory in rats. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association, 56, 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.02.016 
• Dees, C., Askari, M., Garrett, S., Gehrs, K., Henley, D., & Ardies, C. M. (1997). Estrogenic and DNA-damaging activity of Red No. 3 in human breast cancer cells. Environmental health perspectives, 105 Suppl 3(Suppl 3), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.97105s3625 
• Doguc D.K., Ceyhan B.M., Ozturk M., Gultekin F. 2013. Effects of maternally exposed colouring food additives on cognitive performance in rats. Toxicol Ind Health 29:616623.
• Doguc D.K., Aylak F., Ilhan I., Kulac E., Gultekin F. 2015. Are there any remarkable effects of prenatal exposure to food colourings on neurobehaviour and learning process in rat offspring? Nutr Neurosci 18:12-21.
• Doguc D.K., Deniz F., Ilhan I., Ergonul E., Gultekin F. 2021. Prenatal exposure to artificial food colorings alters NMDA receptor subunit concentrations in rat hippocampus. Nutr Neurosci:1-11.
• Elder, R., Vancuren, S. J., Botschner, A. J., Josephy, P. D., & Allen-Vercoe, E. (2023). Metabolism of azo food dyes by bacterial members of the human gut microbiome. Anaerobe, 83, Article 102783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2023.102783 
• He, Z., Chen, L., Catalan-Dibene, J., Lafaille, J. J., Furtado, G. C., & Lira, S. A. (2021). Food colorants metabolized by commensal bacteria promote colitis in mice with dysregulated expression of interleukin-23. Cell Metabolism, 33(7), 1358–1371.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2021.04.015 
• Hiasa, Y., Ohshima, M., Kitahori, Y., Konishi, N., Shimoyama, T., Sakaguchi, Y., Hashimoto, H., Minami, S., & Kato, Y. (1988). The promoting effects of food dyes, erythrosine (Red 3) and rose bengal B (Red 105), on thyroid tumors in partially thyroidectomized N-bis(2-hydroxypropyl)nitrosamine-treated rats. Japanese Journal of Cancer Research, 79(3), 314–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1349-7006.1988.tb01593.x 
• Kwon, Y.H., Banskota, S., Wang, H. et al. Chronic exposure to synthetic food colorant Allura Red AC promotes susceptibility to experimental colitis via intestinal serotonin in mice. Nat Commun 13, 7617 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35309-y 
• Rowe, K. S., & Rowe, K. J. (1994). Synthetic food coloring and behavior: A dose response effect in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, repeated-measures study. The Journal of Pediatrics, 125(5), 691–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(06)80164-2 
• Sanam Shah, Anaïs Hasenböhler, Guillaume Javaux, Marie Payen de la Garanderie, Fabien Szabo de Edelenyi, Paola Yvroud, Cédric Agaësse, Alexandre De Sa, Inge Huybrechts, Fabrice Pierre, Marc Audebert, Xavier Coumoul, Chantal Julia, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Benjamin Allès, Valérie Deschamps, Serge Hercberg, Benoit Chassaing, Emmanuel Cosson, Sopio Tatulashvili, Mélanie Deschasaux-Tanguy, Bernard Srour, Mathilde Touvier; Food Coloring Additives and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort. Diabetes Care 20 May 2026; 49 (6): 1067–1077. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc25-2727 
• Soares, B. M., Araújo, T. M. T., Ramos, J. A. B., Pinto, L. C., Khayat, B. M., Bahia, M. O., Montenegro, R. C., Burbano, R. M. R., & Khayat, A. S. (2015). Effects on DNA repair in human lymphocytes exposed to the food dye tartrazine yellow. Anticancer Research, 35(3), 1465–1474. https://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/35/3/1465 
• Zand, A., Enkhbilguun, S., Macharia, J. M., Budán, F., Gyöngyi, Z., & Varjas, T. (2023). Tartrazine Modifies the Activity of DNMT and HDAC Genes-Is This a Link between Cancer and Neurological Disorders?. Nutrients, 15(13), 2946. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132946 

Other

• Dunford, E. K., Galligan, T. M., Taillie, L. S., & Musicus, A. A. (2025). All the Colors of the Rainbow: Synthetic Dyes in US Packaged Foods and Beverages in 2020. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 125(9), 1207-1217.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2025.05.007 
• Simon, J.E., Decker, E.A., Ferruzzi, M.G., Giusti, M.M., Mejia, C.D., Goldschmidt, M. and Talcott, S.T. (2017), Establishing Standards on Colors from Natural Sources. Journal of Food Science, 82: 2539-2553. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13927 

EWG comments to HHS and FCC on radiofrequency radiation exposure limits Anthony Lacey October 22, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Communications Commission urging joint action to update radiofrequency radiation exposure limits to protect public health and children.

File Download Document ewg_comments_to_hhs_and_fcc_october_2026.docx.pdf Areas of Focus Cell Phones October 21, 2026

Best bang for your buck: Halloween edition JR Culpepper October 21, 2026

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

Finding the perfect finishing touch for your Halloween costume can be tricky, especially when you have to worry about spooky ingredients hiding in makeup and personal care products.

To make Halloween shopping a little simpler for you and your kids, we’ve rounded up lower-hazard options for eyeliner, mascara, hair gel and body art products, including fake blood, glitter and face paint. And what’s more, they’re all $20 or less.

Each product listed rates green on our Skin Deep® database, which identifies ingredients and potential health hazards in personal care products.

Some of the products below are EWG Verified®, which means they have been reviewed by our scientists to ensure they meet strict health and transparency standards and avoid EWG’s ingredients of concern.

Looking for even more options? Use our Healthy Living™ app on the go to scan any product and find out its hazard rating on Skin Deep. Or look for our EWG Verified mark on products at your favorite shop and online.

Mascara ATTITUDE Oceanly Mascara + Serum, Blue

EWG Verified. Available for $20.58 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Maia's Mineral Galaxy Natural Mascara, Brown

EWG Verified. Available for $20.99 on Maia's Mineral Galaxy.

PURCHASE HERE

View details The Honest Company Extreme Volume + Bold Lash Primer

EWG Verified. Available for $19.99 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Well People Expressionist Pro Mascara, Pro Black

EWG Verified. Available for $20 on Well People.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details Eyeliner Rejuva Minerals Eye & Brow Pencil, Black Sapphire

EWG Verified. Available for $18.95 on Rejuva Minerals.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details The Honest Company Vibeliner Pencil Eyeliner, Grounded

EWG Verified. Available for $15 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View Details Well People Fresh Lines Liquid Eyeliner, Black

EWG Verified. Available for $12.60 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View Details Maia's Mineral Galaxy Mineral Eye Liner, Twilight Green

EWG Verified. Available for $15.49 on Maias Mineral Galaxy.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details Hair Gel Fresh Monster Hair Styling Gel, Medium Hold

Rated 1. Available for $13.98 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View Details Jozi Curls, Strong Hold Styling Gel, Style

Rated 1. Available for $5.99 on Jozi Curls.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details Original Sprout Natural Styling Balm

Rated 1. Available for $16.99 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View Details Made For Locs Vegan Retwisting Firm Hold Styling Hair Gel

Rated 1. Available for $9.97 on Amazon.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details Miscellaneous Black Moon Cosmetics Moon Diamond, Emerald Eclipse

Rated 1. Available for $17 on Emerald Eclipse.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details Jovy Eyeshadow/Blush, Capri Gold

EWG Verified. Available for $12 on Jovy.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Guest Authors Aspen Rosner, Communications intern October 21, 2026

Five problems with the FDA’s proposed food chemicals rule Anthony Lacey October 21, 2026

A new EWG analysis finds a Food and Drug Administration proposed food chemicals rule update may represent more bark than bite – its “requirements” could be mandatory in name only, and worse, may weaken the current rule. 

The FDA in August proposed to narrow a legal loophole in a food chemicals approval process that’s currently shrouded in mystery. 

The food chemicals fall into the category of “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS. 

The GRAS loophole allows food and chemical companies, rather than the FDA, to greenlight new food chemicals or new uses of those chemicals – often in secret. Since 2000, the food and chemical industry has greenlighted nearly 99% of food chemicals introduced onto the market without federal safety review, a 2025 EWG analysis found.

Under current law, a company gets to decide for itself whether to notify the FDA after deciding a food chemical is GRAS. Many choose not to inform the agency, leaving it – and consumers – in the dark about what’s in their food. 

EWG has identified over 100 of these so-called “secret GRAS” chemicals used in thousands of products. The FDA estimates in the proposed rule that there could be thousands of these secret ingredients. 

The FDA rule purports to take the secrecy out of GRAS by mandating companies tell it when they determine a new chemical or use is safe. But EWG’s analysis suggests the proposed rule is toothless and may weaken some existing requirements. 

Here are five major problems with the FDA’s proposal. 

1. Potentially unsafe chemicals can still go into food before FDA review 

The FDA has said its proposed rule will end so-called secret GRAS notifications by requiring companies to notify it when they introduce a new ingredient. 

But buried in the rule is a remarkable admission: “a company may reach a GRAS conclusion about a new use of a substance and introduce the substance into interstate commerce before submitting a GRAS notice.” 

Worse, there’s no deadline for notifying the FDA. A chemical could be on the market indefinitely before the FDA gets involved. And it’s allowed to remain on the market while the FDA completes its review. 

So even if the FDA decides in the end a chemical is not safe, consumers may have already been exposed for years. 

2. No incentive to comply

What happens to a company that ignores the notification requirement? Not much, according to the rule. 

It states that non-compliance is merely “a factor in FDA’s prioritization of food substances for post-market review.” It doesn’t lead to civil penalties or any requirement to pull the product from shelves.

The FDA’s post-market review program is chronically underfunded and notoriously slow. It took the FDA nearly 35 years to ban Red Dye No. 3 after determining in 1990 the dye causes cancer. The FDA banned brominated vegetable oil 50 years after first raising concerns about its safety. And petitions calling on the FDA to address potentially dangerous chemicals often languish for years.

With the agency sometimes taking decades to work its way through its watchlist, if it ever does, the threat of landing on that list is not a meaningful deterrent.

3. No data? No problem! 

The proposed rule streamlines the review process for potentially thousands of chemicals and uses currently on the market. These are chemicals companies have secretly decided should be considered GRAS and never told the FDA about. 

To qualify for this process, a company must submit basic information only, including, in addition to its name and its uses, details about how much of it was being used and proof it was being sold in food before the rule took effect. 

What isn’t required: safety data. Scientific justification. Not even a short summary of why the company thinks the substance is safe. 

The proposed rule states the FDA will post these submissions on a public list, but it also says appearing on the list “does not mean that the FDA has reviewed the GRAS status of the substance.” 

How many secret GRAS chemicals or uses could benefit from this “streamlined” process? No one knows, but the FDA estimates it could receive more than 2,400 submissions from more than 900 companies through this track alone. 

Some new substances – or new uses of substances already in our food – have never been reviewed by the FDA for safety. And under this rule, they wouldn’t have to be. They’d simply be registered. 

This approach contrasts starkly with current law. 

Today, when a company submits a notice to the FDA, it must include a list of all the data it relied on to conclude the chemical was safe. All that information must be of the “same quantity and quality of scientific evidence” as would be required by the more rigorous pre-market review process for food additives. 

4. Creates perverse incentives to rush potentially unsafe ingredients onto store shelves

Any substance in the food supply before the rule’s effective date can use the streamlined no-safety-data process up to one year after the rule is finalized. 

Finalizing a proposed rule can take years. The last time the FDA updated its GRAS process, through a rule proposed in 1997, it took the agency 19 years to finalize. 

Now there’s a window when companies can introduce new chemicals – or use chemicals in new ways – by taking advantage of the shorter process.  

The proposed rule effectively rewards companies for getting their product on the market quickly, before oversight begins. It gives companies a financial incentive to move quickly, skipping review rather than taking  the time for careful scrutiny. 

A rule intended to rein in the secret GRAS loophole process may accelerate the very behavior it was meant to stop.

5. Creates a major new loophole for minor amounts of new chemicals 

The proposal also expands a fairly obscure exemption, as the Guardian recently reported.  

Until recently, the “threshold of regulation” loophole applied only to food contact materials that might leach into food in tiny amounts – 0.5 parts per billion. Any chemical whose dietary exposure falls below that threshold and does not cause cancer is able to evade the normal review process. 

Companies have exploited the rules to let some chemicals into the food supply. Perchlorate, a rocket fuel chemical that could harm children’s brain development, can be used in dry food packaging through the loophole.

The proposed rule would extend this exemption to substances added directly to food. That’s a major change. 

The FDA’s cancer-centered approach to risk also ignores other important kinds of potential harm. For example, hormone-disrupting chemicals can cause damage at very low doses. So can chemicals that affect fetal development, harm the nervous system or suppress immune function. 

The proposed loophole extension also fails to consider the total risk that might come from exposure to the same chemicals from other foods or from non-food sources like personal care products. 

This new exemption could allow substances like flavor ingredients, enzymes, solvents, processing aids and fermentation byproducts to skip FDA review altogether. 

What we need instead

The FDA’s proposal will not fix the problems with our food chemical review system. Congress can still step in to make our food safer. 

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) have introduced legislation that would go much further than the proposed rule. It would require pre-market review of new GRAS substances, mandate disclosure of important safety data, and give the FDA the resources it needs to complete the job. 

These bills represent the kind of structural reform the GRAS system needs. EWG urges Congress to move the bills forward and calls on the FDA to strengthen its proposed rule.

States stepping up

In the meantime, states have stepped in to fill the FDA’s regulatory gaps. More than 30 states have introduced legislation to make our food safer. Food companies have responded by reformulating products.

New York recently passed a bill requiring companies to disclose their use of GRAS substances, which is awaiting the governor’s signature. Any federal action on food chemicals must preserve these important state protections. 

EWG will continue to push for a food safety system that puts consumer health first – not one that creates the appearance of oversight while leaving the door open to unreviewed chemicals.

Areas of Focus Food Authors Melanie Benesh October 21, 2026

Ultra-processed food affects metabolism and brain activity, even with the same nutrients Anthony Lacey October 16, 2026

It’s not just poor nutrition that links ultra-processed food to health harms, a new study finds. 

The body’s response is also determined by the amount of processing the food has gone through, which changes the way we get energy from food.

Researchers at Virginia Tech gave 32 study participants two different meals three days apart. The meals had the same amount of calories and nutrients, but one was ultra-processed and the other wasn’t. 

Participants had a greater insulin response after eating the ultra-processed meal, meaning their bodies were working harder to regulate their blood sugar. Their brain activity also changed when they looked at pictures of ultra-processed foods, or UPF.

How the study measured UPF metabolism

In the study, published recently in Nature Metabolism, the researchers wanted to find out whether a meal of ultra-processed food would be metabolized, or used for energy, differently than a meal of minimally processed food.

The researchers designed two 300-calorie meals whose nutrition matched: They were nearly identical in calories, carbs, fat, fiber, protein, sodium and water content.

The ultra-processed meal included portions of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, deli turkey, veggie chips, instant mashed potatoes, cereal and a cookie. These foods are not always ultra-processed, but the brands used in this study were.

The minimally processed meal was made from banana, dried cranberries, cheese and egg.

Participants ate the meals three days apart. Before and after each meal, they entered a metabolic chamber – an airtight room that measures calories burned based on the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the chamber.

Researchers found that the ultra-processed meals led to higher insulin, the hormone that regulates blood sugar, and lower use of carbohydrates for energy.

How the study measured brain activity

The study also assessed whether the two meals would activate the brain in different ways.

Researchers later showed participants pictures of ultra-processed and minimally processed foods while they received a specialized brain scan called a functional MRI. Some of the food pictured was the same food used in the study’s meals.

One key finding: Ultra-processed food caused different responses in the area of the brain related to motivation and reward.

That might mean that, in addition to variations in how our bodies use food for energy, the ways the brain thinks about and values food fluctuates depending on how processed it is.

Science is showing that food processing can affect health

Some researchers say nutrition, not processing, makes ultra-processed food harmful to health. It’s true that ultra-processed foods are often high in added sugar and saturated fat, and low in beneficial nutrients like fiber and protein.

But this isn’t the first study to show that processing plays a role. In 2019, the first randomized controlled trial showed that an ultra-processed diet led to greater calorie intake and weight gain than a minimally processed diet – even when they had the same nutritional profile.

What’s more, many researchers who have critiqued the main classification system for ultra-processed food have received food industry funding.

What you can do 

It’s not practical for most people to avoid all ultra-processed food – they’re widely available, affordable and appealing for consumers. Research has even shown that food companies took tips from the tobacco industry to create products with maximum pleasure and appeal.

The federal government has failed to regulate ultra-processed food. States like California are taking the lead, recently enacting a law establishing a “non-ultra-processed” label for foods sold in California stores.

Until change comes to your state, you can use EWG’s Food Scores, which rates more than 150,000 products on nutrition, ingredients and processing and flags UPF for you. 

Shoppers on the go can also use EWG’s Healthy Living app to find non-UPF options at the grocery store.

Areas of Focus Ultra-Processed Foods Family Health Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN October 16, 2026

EWG, Consumer Reports: People demand stronger protections from pesticides rcoleman October 14, 2026

WASHINGTON – Consumers deserve to be protected from pesticides, and Congress should reject any pesticide legislation that fails to do so. 

Today the Environmental Working Group and Consumer Reports unveiled their Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights to ensure that any federal pesticide legislation protects the public, including children. 

Consumers too often lack basic information about pesticides used in their homes, communities and in food, and lack meaningful protections when those chemicals put their health at risk. 

The Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights declares Americans’ right to: 

• Warnings on the products people bring into their homes, including the right to know whether a pesticide is linked to cancer and other health harms.. 
• Know if a toxic pesticide that can make people sick is being sprayed nearby.
• Know that the food people feed their children is subject to the toughest pesticide safety standards. 
• Expect that children are protected from toxic pesticides when they are at school or playing in local parks. 
• Expect that U.S. pesticide regulators will act quickly to review toxic pesticides when other nations ban them. 
• Be informed about where pesticides have been used, when they’ve been mishandled, and how much is being detected in Americans’ food and water.
• Seek justice when pesticides have caused harm. 

“Consumers deserve to know if the pesticides we bring into our homes or that have been sprayed nearby might make us sick,” said EWG Legislative Director Geoff Horsfield.

“We should be confident our children are safe when they’re at school and confident their food is subject to the toughest safety standards,” he added.

“Our current pesticide laws fall short of giving consumers the information and protections they need to protect their families,” said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports. “This Bill of Rights is a road map for making the food we eat and the communities we live in safer.”

The Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights addresses long-running gaps in pesticide protection.

Few states require farmers or commercial pesticide companies to publicly notify when they’re spraying these chemicals. Warnings on household pesticide products are often inadequate. And many pesticides found on food children commonly eat aren’t subject to the strictest safety standards. 

Only a handful of states require buffers to protect kids at school from exposure to toxic pesticides, and standards vary regarding pesticides that can be used in school buildings or on school grounds. 

Many pesticides used in the U.S. have been banned by other nations. But the EPA can take decades to restrict pesticides. Consumers also lack basic information about pesticide use, spills and detections on food and water.

Exacerbating an already problematic situation, the Supreme Court recently acted to limit access to the courts for people harmed by pesticides. 

The Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights tackles many of these issues head-on – and lawmakers may soon have a chance to incorporate it into legislation.

Congress could consider renewing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act as early as December. The current law, through which the chemical industry negotiates fees that fund EPA’s pesticide reviews, is set to expire next September.

“Congress should reject any new pesticide law that fails to protect consumers,” said Horsfield. “We should expect our kids to be safe from toxic pesticides. We deserve to know when pesticides could make us sick. And we should be able to seek justice in court when pesticides do make us sick.”

“The renewal of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act is a critical opportunity to deliver meaningful protections for Americans, including clearer warnings and greater transparency about where these chemicals are used and when they’re detected in our food and water,” said Ronholm. 

###

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.

Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports (CR) has a mission to help build a fair and just marketplace for all. The nonprofit CR is widely known for its rigorous research, testing, and reviews of thousands of products and services. CR advocates for consumer rights and protections, reports extensively on consumer issues, and surveys millions of people every year. CR is nonpartisan and independent, and it accepts no advertising. Learn more at www.consumerreports.org

Areas of Focus Family Health Children’s Health Pesticides ‘Bill of Rights’ seeks to protect consumers as Congress weighs federal pesticide policy law Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 October 14, 2026

EWG statement on California announcing clean energy milestone during 'extreme' heat Anthony Lacey October 13, 2026

SACRAMENTO – California Gov. Gavin Newsom today announced that the state’s power grid met the highest demand for electricity in four years. 

The peak demand on the grid, due to “extreme” heat, was on par with the peaks of 2006 and 2017. It was met without having to conserve energy or take emergency steps.

The Environmental Working Group recently released a report finding climate change is driving up “major” and “extreme” heat advisories between 30% and 145% in parts of the state. Yet soaring electricity costs make home cooling unaffordable for millions, threatening public health.

This dynamic creates an impossible choice for many Californians struggling with affordability: Suffer during hazardous heat or default on electricity bills.

EWG is calling for policymakers to find solutions that tackle both the heat and utility bills. 

One step is doing more to expand consumer access to distributed generation devices, such as rooftop solar or balcony solar, that can help power electricity-hungry air conditioners more cost-effectively and without contributing to climate change or adding strain to the electric grid. 

Newsom last month signed into law an EWG-backed measure that will significantly expand access to balcony solar for millions of Californians. The state needs to take similar actions to continue to lower costs and expand access to solar energy. 

The following is a statement from Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president, California:

California kept the lights on – but could consumers afford to run their AC?

With the help of even the smallest solar energy systems, such as balcony solar, millions of California families are turning toward the sun to achieve greater energy affordability and beat the heat with solar-powered AC. 

California should do more to ease restrictions on customer-sited solar energy, lower upfront costs, and put local solar energy devices in the hands of everyone.

###

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 Renewable Energy California Grid met highest electricity demand in four years without emergency measures Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 October 13, 2026