Environmental Working Group

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

Study: Hundreds of chemicals linked to breast cancer in lab and animal studies in high use in the U.S. Anthony Lacey October 13, 2026

Breast cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosis among women and cases are on the rise. Anyone can get breast cancer – but it’s most common in women.

A new peer-reviewed study looks at where Americans are exposed to chemicals that may contribute to that rise. Published in Environmental Health Perspectives, the analysis found that hundreds of chemicals tied to breast cancer risk in animal and laboratory studies turn up in everyday products, food, drinking water, pesticides and air pollution.

It was led by scientists at the Silent Spring Institute, with co-authors from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of California, San Francisco. 

In this study, the researchers found breast-cancer-relevant chemicals in consumer products, food, drinking water and drinking water supplies, pesticide products, medications and building materials. 

Many of the chemicals are produced in large amounts. In 2019 alone, 143 were made in or imported to the U.S. in volumes of 1 million pounds or more.

A 2024 analysis by the same authors identified 920 chemicals that caused mammary gland tumors in animal studies or changed hormone activity in ways linked to breast cancer. This study tells us where we could potentially be exposed to those chemicals.

Breast-cancer-relevant chemicals

In their 2024 study, the Silent Spring researchers created the list of 920 chemicals they call breast-cancer-relevant chemicals. A chemical made the list if it did at least one of the following:

• Caused mammary gland tumors in rats or mice in at least one study.
• Increased estrogen or progesterone production in lab tests using human cells. 
• Activated the estrogen receptor, the switch inside cells that responds to estrogen.

The researchers also checked whether each chemical can damage DNA, another way chemicals can lead to cancer. Many chemicals on the list do more than one of these things. Chemicals with strong hormone effects that also damage DNA were the most likely to cause mammary tumors in animals.

Presence on this list is not proof that a chemical causes breast cancer in people. It flags chemicals that need more research, especially when many of us are exposed to them every day.

What the authors found

The team combined data from more than a dozen federal databases that track how chemicals are produced, used, released into the environment and measured in people.

Some of the chemicals are well known, including bisphenol A, better known as BPA, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, the solvent dichloromethane and parabens. Others, such as p-cresol and 2,4-dimethylphenol, have received much less attention.

Federal biomonitoring data show many of these chemicals, or the compounds they break down into, are in almost all people. The “breakdown products” of methylparaben, the sunscreen active ingredient oxybenzone, several phthalates and certain pesticides were detected in more than 95% of people tested.

Industrial facilities reported releasing nearly 82 million pounds of these chemicals into the air, water and land in 2024. When the researchers included all sources of air pollution, such as vehicles, wildfires and the burning of fossil fuels, estimated emissions topped 2 billion pounds in 2020.

Consumer products

Most of the breast cancer chemicals, about 500, were present in the consumer products category. Of those, 181 are also hormone disruptors and 88 are genotoxic, meaning they can damage cellular genetic material, which can lead to mutations or cancer. 

Among these commonly used ingredients in personal care products are chemicals like parabens, phthalates and bisphenols. 

Also on the list are ingredients in hair dyes like resorcinol and p-phenylenediamine, which causes mammary tumors in animal studies. They can also damage DNA and increase production of estrogen and progesterone in lab tests. 

Studies have linked hair dye use to breast cancer risk.

Prescription skin-lightening creams can contain hydroquinone, which also increased estrogen and progesterone production in lab tests. The researchers note these products are more likely to be used by women of color, which could add to existing disparities in exposure. 

Pesticide products

The study also highlighted pesticide products as an important source of exposure to breast cancer chemicals. People can be exposed to pesticides in multiple ways, including as residues on produce and in drinking water. Pesticides may also be found in products in the home, such as insect repellents, medical treatments and pest control. 

The study reported 485 chemicals found in pesticide formulations. But the authors point out that only about one-third of them are currently registered with the Environmental Protection Agency as active ingredients. 

In most cases, before a pesticide can be sold, the EPA requires extensive toxicity testing of its active ingredients, including long-term studies of whether they cause cancer.

The other chemicals are classified as inert ingredients – solvents, preservatives and other chemicals that help a product work. Inert ingredients do not require tests as stringent as those for active ingredients. Only sometimes they are required to be on product labels. This means people using these products usually can’t tell which inert ingredients they contain. 

Using national biomonitoring data collected between 2017 and 2020, the study reported that organophosphate pesticides (like malathion, which is commonly used on crops) were found in more than 90% of  the U.S. population. 

This finding adds to existing concerns about widespread “forever chemicals” PFAS pesticide use, including mixtures of pesticide classes frequently detected on produce. 

Food and water

The researchers report 462 of these chemicals in food. Of these, 83 are on the Food and Drug Administration’s list of substances added to food, which means they are expected to be there. The others may be present as contaminants that migrate from packaging and processing equipment or be present as contaminants for other reasons, such as pesticide residues. 

Others are chemicals formed when meat is cooked at high temperatures and some, such as soy compounds, occur naturally in plants.

People who rely more on packaged and ultra-processed foods may face higher exposure to chemicals from food additives and packaging.

The authors also reported 162 breast-cancer-relevant chemicals, such as pesticides and industrial solvents, likely to be present in drinking water. 

Some chemicals form as byproducts when drinking water is disinfected. These disinfection byproducts, or DBPs, emerge when disinfectants such as chlorine react with naturally occurring organic matter in water. 

Some DBPs have been linked to cancer and other health concerns.

Among the pesticides linked to breast cancer and reported present in drinking water, 50 have current registrations, but 37 no longer have a current EPA registration. 

The data source the authors used to identify chemicals in drinking water, the EPA’s CPDat, reports only whether a chemical has been found in drinking water. It does not report where or how much of it was found or when the detection occurred. 

Pharmaceuticals

The researchers also found 142 breast-cancer-relevant chemicals in medications sold in the U.S. Most of the active ingredients fall into a few groups: hormone treatments, chemotherapy drugs, treatments for infections and parasites, anti-inflammatory drugs and blood pressure medications.

This does not mean you should stop taking medication. Many of these drugs treat serious conditions, and some, like hormone therapies, have been shown to interact with the hormone system because they have been designed for that purpose. 

Totality of exposures

The study highlights the widespread occurrence of breast-cancer-relevant chemicals. People are not just exposed to one chemical at a time. They’re exposed to hundreds of chemicals from multiple sources over the course of their lives. Even if most are at low levels, exposures add up.

The national biomonitoring data cited in the study show how common these combined exposures are. Research shows that exposure to chemical mixtures, or multiple chemicals that can add up or sometimes interact together to multiply each other’s effects, creates a total health risk that is measurably more harmful than those from the chemicals acting alone. 

And in most cases, regulations for chemicals do not take cumulative exposures into account.

What you can do to reduce exposure 

• Check EWG’s resources for safer products. Use our Healthy Living App, Skin Deep® and Guide to Healthy Cleaning and look for products with low hazard scores or our EWG Verified® mark.
• Invest in a home water filter for improving water quality. Consult the EWG Tap Water Database to find out what’s in your water. EWG’s water filter guide can help you find the right filter for your budget. Shop organic, when possible, to reduce pesticide exposure. Consult the EWG Shopper’s Guide Pesticides in Produce™ to find out which fruits and vegetables have the highest and lowest pesticide residues, so you can make the best decisions for your family. And see EWG’s Guide to Washing Produce. 
• If you have questions about a medication, especially if you have a history or higher risk of breast cancer, talk with your doctor or pharmacist before making changes.

Other actions you can take

• Know your family history. If possible, find out whether anyone in your family has had breast cancer. Some genes with mutations increase risk of developing this type of cancer. 
• Get screened early. Preventive procedures such as regular breast cancer screenings are important to detect breast cancer early, which can also make it easier to treat. As of 2026, experts suggest screening for breast cancer starting at age 40. 

Areas of Focus Food & Water Family Health Women's Health Toxic Chemicals BPA Pesticides October 13, 2026

Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights rcoleman October 7, 2026 EWG and Consumer Reports October 14, 2026 details { border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd; margin-bottom: 0; } details summary { cursor: pointer; list-style: none; display: flex; justify-content: space-between; align-items: flex-start; gap: 12px; padding: 12px 0; } details summary::-webkit-details-marker { display: none; } details summary::after { content: "+"; font-size: 2.5rem; font-weight: 300; line-height: 1; flex-shrink: 0; margin-top: 2px; } details[open] summary::after { content: "−"; } details summary h4 { margin: 0; } details .details-body { padding-bottom: 16px; } Consumers have the right to warnings on the products they bring into their homes, including the right to know whether a pesticide is linked to cancer and other health harms.

Pesticide residue can lurk on a range of everyday products we wouldn’t immediately think of. Consumers deserve to know whether the pesticides they bring into their homes – ranging from insecticides to lawncare or petcare products – may pose the risk of long-term health harms.

Children are especially vulnerable to the chemicals that may be present in the pesticides designed to kill insects found in and around our homes. One study found an average of over 30 different pesticides in urine samples from every American child surveyed.

Although warnings often alert consumers to risks like eye or skin irritation, labels on residential-use pesticides don’t warn consumers about other risks associated with long-term exposures.

These risks include harm to the lungs, the brain, reproductive or hormone systems, breast cancer, and cancer in children. Even low levels of exposure can affect a young child’s behavioral development.

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that long-term exposure to some pesticides used in our homes can result in damage to the liver, kidneys and the hormone and nervous systems. For example, some pet care products designed to kill fleas and ticks contain a chemical that may be dangerous to consumers, especially children and pregnant people. Exposure to this chemical can increase the risk of learning disabilities.

The National Poison Control Centers report more than 28,000 household pesticide exposures to children under the age of 5 and over 35,000 adults each year. In 2024, pesticides were pregnant people’s third most common exposure to poison.

Consumers have the right to know if someone nearby is spraying a pesticide that can make them sick.

Consumers deserve to know whether someone living or working near their home has applied pesticides that can make people sick. In most states, consumers have no way of knowing whether a toxic pesticide has been sprayed nearby. Farmers and other commercial and government applicators are not required to notify their neighbors about potential risks.

Pesticides can travel from their intended target. Some pesticides can drift in the wind after they are applied. Others can volatilize and travel as an invisible vapor.

For example, federal experts using a screening model recently estimated that paraquat, a highly toxic pesticide that’s been linked to Parkinson’s disease, could reach levels of concern in air up to or beyond 2.7 miles from where it’s applied.

And though the people who spread the chemicals may be required to wear special protective gear, communities nearby remain unprotected.

Consumers have the right to know that what they feed their children is subject to the toughest pesticide safety standards.

Consumers deserve to know that the pesticides found on foods most commonly consumed by children – fruit like strawberries and blueberries and vegetables like broccoli and carrots – are subject to the strictest food safety standards.

Federal law requires by default that the EPA apply an additional safety factor when it sets limits on pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables. But it rarely does.

While pesticide residues detected on fruits and vegetables meet federal standards, they are not set low enough to ensure they are safe, especially for kids.

An EWG peer-reviewed study found the EPA fails to adequately consider children when setting limits for 90% of the most common pesticides.

Consumers have the right to expect their kids are protected from toxic pesticides at school and in local parks.

Consumers deserve to know children are safe when they are at school. They have the right to expect the pesticides sprayed in school, on school grounds and near schools are not toxic. Children face higher risk from pesticides because their developing bodies and nervous system are more vulnerable to chemical toxicity.

Despite mounting scientific evidence of these potential harms, school pesticide safety standards vary from state to state.

Some allow pesticide application within proximity to schools. EWG found 3,901 public elementary and middle schools located within just 200 feet of a crop field where pesticides could be sprayed.

Nearly 25,000 other schools are situated within a quarter-mile of a pesticide-treated crop field.

Consumers have the right to expect America’s pesticide regulators will act quickly to review toxic pesticides when other nations ban the chemicals.

When a pesticide is banned by another country, U.S. consumers have the right to expect the EPA will quickly evaluate whether we should ban it too.

But dozens of pesticides, including those linked to serious health harms, such as cancer and Parkinson’s disease, have been banned by other nations – yet are still allowed for use in the U.S. And many will not be reviewed by the EPA for safety for years to come.

Consumers have the right to know where and when pesticides have been used and misused and when they’re detected in food and water.

Consumers have the right to know more about the impact and details of pesticide use, including especially:

• Where and how much is manufactured
• Where and how much is applied
• Which pesticides can be detected in food and water
• When spills may pose a risk to our health

Some of that information is publicly available. But it is often hard to find, and when it is, may be out of date.

And in most states, this kind of data about the location and quantities of manufacturing and application isn’t available at all.

Consumers deserve to know more about pesticides so they can protect their families.

Consumers have the right to seek justice when pesticides have caused harm.

The Supreme Court this year blocked many pesticide lawsuits, leaving consumers who have been harmed by a pesticide with fewer ways to hold pesticide corporations accountable. When pesticides have made us sick – and consumers can show their health was harmed because of their exposure to pesticides – they should have access to justice through the courts.

Surging rates of high blood pressure in pregnancy – does chemical exposure play a role? Anthony Lacey September 30, 2026

• Rates of high blood pressure in pregnancy rose 73% between 2016 and 2024, building on a trend of rates more than doubling between 1989 and 2016.
• The increases are not limited to people with established risk factors and span all age, weight and racial/ethnic groups.
• A growing body of research links exposure to environmental chemicals with hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.
• To reduce exposure to chemicals, consumers can check product labels, choose glass over plastic and consider using a water filter.

Rates of high blood pressure during pregnancy have risen sharply, up 73% between 2016 and 2024, according to a report from the Centers for Disease and Control Prevention. 

The 2026 report, finding the rate of gestational hypertension jumped from 6% in 2016 to 10.4% in 2024, draws on data from U.S. birth certificates collected during this period.

The increase during this period extends an upward trend observed in previous years – rates more than doubled between 1989 and 2016. 

True rates of gestational hypertension could be even higher: the CDC notes it may be underreported on birth certificates.

Disorders affecting many

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, usually referred to as HDP, affect roughly 10% to 15% of pregnancies in the U.S.  

HDP is an umbrella term covering several related but distinct conditions, each with their own health risks. The CDC report focuses on one of these disorders – gestational hypertension – but any of them can pose major threats to the health of the mothers giving birth and the developing fetus:

• Chronic hypertension. High blood pressure present before pregnancy or diagnosed before 20 weeks of gestation.
• Gestational hypertension. High blood pressure that develops after 20 weeks of pregnancy, without signs of organ damage or protein in the urine.
• Preeclampsia or eclampsia. High blood pressure after 20 weeks of gestation, with the presence of protein in the urine or signs of other organ dysfunction, such as liver or kidney issues. Preeclampsia becomes eclampsia with the onset of seizures.
• Superimposed preeclampsia. New or worsening symptoms or organ dysfunction in a person with chronic hypertension diagnosed before the pregnancy. 

Long-term harms

These common pregnancy disorders are among the leading causes of illness and mortality among pregnant people in the U.S. 

Adverse health outcomes of any of these disorders have been linked to placental abruption, organ damage or failure, maternal mortality, and cardiovascular disease later in life. They can also contribute to poor birth outcomes, such as stillbirth, neonatal mortality, restricted fetal growth, preterm birth and low birthweight. 

Some of these birth outcomes, like preterm birth, are known to be associated with worse health outcomes, such as developing chronic respiratory or renal problems, later in life. 

Known HDP risk factors

A person is more likely to develop HDP if they have any of the following: 

• Pre-existing health conditions, like chronic high blood pressure, diabetes, kidney disease
• An autoimmune disease such as lupus
• Certain characteristics and types of pregnancy, such as a pregnancy of multiples, a first pregnancy, conception through IVF, or a previous history of HDP. 

Demographic factors, including being 35 or older, having obesity, income status, and race and ethnicity, have also been associated with increased risk. 

The CDC report showed that the increased rates spanned all racial and ethnic groups, though not equally. Black and Native American women had the highest overall rates, up to 12.3% for Black women and 13.2% for Native American women. 

Although the overall rate among Asian pregnant people is lower than the average, they also have experienced the steepest percentage increase, with rates more than doubling from 3.5% to 7.1% during the study period. 

Consistent with prior research, the CDC report found gestational hypertension rates were higher among people with known risks, such as obesity and pregnancy at an age over 40. 

Rates also rose across all age groups and in every body mass index category, not just among those already considered high risk. 

This finding suggests existing risk factors alone do not account for the increase, though the exact degree to which any single factor contributes to this trend remains unclear.

Could environmental chemical exposure increase the risk?

While the CDC report cites other studies on HDP risk factors, those references do not examine environmental exposures. But regular exposure to harmful chemicals in personal care products, food and water, and household items could be contributing to this rise in HDP.

Pregnancy is a period of heightened biological sensitivity to environmental chemicals. Exposure to a specific chemical can affect a pregnant person differently than it would affect someone who is not pregnant, partly because of rapid physiological changes in the body and the developing placenta.  

For instance, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, or EDCs, such as phthalates, lead and cadmium, and the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, can interfere with hormone signaling and have been linked to worse maternal cardiometabolic health, including HDP. Research suggests that this link holds independent of established risk factors like obesity and age. 

Harmful chemical exposure may also increase risk of other conditions associated with HDP. This is because chemicals affect the same hormones and body systems. For example, EDC exposure has been linked to insulin resistance and Type 2 diabetes and metabolic disorders like obesity. 

EDC exposure may not just be a unique risk associated with HDP, but may also be a reason why certain risk factors, like obesity and diabetes, develop in the first place. 

Reducing chemical exposure may offer a way to also reduce risk of some of these established factors before they fully develop, along with managing HDP risk after these risks are already present.

Evidence of an HDP-environmental chemical exposure connection

A growing number of scientific studies show evidence of the connection between HDP and exposure to specific environmental chemicals. The chemicals are widely used in consumer products, detected in drinking water and used in industrial applications.

.dn { display: none !important; } .flipped-vert { transform: rotateX(180deg); } .table-wrapper { margin-bottom: 10px; } .table-cat { border-bottom: 1px solid #000; border-top: 1px solid #000; cursor: pointer; display: flex; font-family: niveau-grotesk, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; justify-content: space-between; padding: 20px 0; } .toggle-wrapper { align-items: center; display: flex; } .toggle { width: 20px; } .drop-content { padding: 20px 0 10px; } .drop-content p { line-height: 1.5; max-width: 700px; } PFAS

PFAS are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances widely used in personal care products, food packaging, children’s toys and household cleaners. They are known as “forever chemicals” because they can persist in the body and do not break down in the environment.

Studies have linked exposure to some PFAS and increased risk of HDP. A 2026 study of women in Puerto Rico found a mixture of six PFAS was associated with more than double the odds of developing gestational hypertension.

Similar associations between eight PFAS and gestational hypertension were also observed in a 2022 study of pregnant people in the Boston metro area. This is consistent with an older study, where researchers used data from the C8 health studies, a large court-mandated public health investigation of the forever chemical PFOA. They reported links between PFOA exposure and several health outcomes.

The Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes, or ECHO, cohort reported in a 2026 study that PFAS levels in the body were linked to higher odds of preeclampsia. ECHO is a National Institutes of Health-supported research program designed to enhance the health of children by combining data across multiple U.S. geographical sites. 

They also reported a suggestive association between PFOA and gestational hypertension risk, but the findings were not consistent among all study sites.

Phthalates

Based on EWG data, the average adult uses 12 personal care products a day. These products can expose people to hundreds of chemicals, including some, like phthalates, associated with health harms.

Phthalates are used to soften plastic or stabilize scents and are found in consumer products, including in personal care products, such as nail polish. Studies report associations between phthalates and HDP, but findings differ based on when during pregnancy exposure is measured and by the specific phthalate.

In a longitudinal cohort collecting data of women in Boston between 2016 and 2020, mixtures of phthalate concentrations detected in urine samples were associated with increased blood pressure during pregnancy.

A 2026 nested case-control study in China noted similar findings: Increased levels of phthalate mixtures in urine were associated with 1.49 times the odds of having had gestational hypertension.

A 2025 study of 291 pregnant people in Texas and Virginia found a replacement phthalate, diisononyl phthalate, was linked to higher odds of HDP – but only when exposure was measured during early pregnancy, not later.

Replacement phthalates are chemicals that became more popular in use after others were phased out due to concerns about their toxicity.

In a 2024 ECHO study of 3,430 pregnant participants across eight U.S. cohorts, researchers found that two-fold higher levels of certain phthalates in urine were associated with higher odds of preeclampsia/eclampsia and other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Exposure to a mixture of individual phthalates was also linked to higher odds of preeclampsia/eclampsia.

Flame retardants

Flame retardants are chemicals added to electronics, furniture and building materials to slow down or stop fires. These chemicals leach off into household air and dust over time, because they are not chemically bound to the products they are added to.

Only a few studies have examined whether there is a relationship between exposure to flame retardants and HDP.

A 2023 review identified just two studies that examined the link between polybrominated flame retardants, or PBDEs, and hypertensive disorders during pregnancy. The first, a case-control study in the U.S., reported increased odds of gestational hypertension for two PBDEs, BDE-66 and BDE-47. The other, a case-control study based in Iran, reported higher levels of all PBDEs were associated with 2.19 times the odds of having preeclampsia.

PBDEs were phased out of furniture, mattresses and baby products in the mid-2000s due to concerns about their toxicity. Now companies mostly use organophosphate ester flame retardants, or OPEs, as replacements. OPEs also help make plastic more flexible and are used in vinyl flooring, children’s toys and in personal care products, like nail polish.

Evidence of an association between OPEs and HDP is mixed. A small 2021 prospective cohort study of 346 pregnant women in Cincinnati found modest associations between some OPE flame retardants in urine and higher diastolic blood pressure later in pregnancy.

A more recent 2025 study of 900 pregnant women in Boston found no link to preeclampsia, though it did find some increases in continuous blood pressure measurements.

Given how few studies exist and how inconsistent their findings are, this evidence should be considered preliminary.

Bisphenols

Bisphenol A, or BPA, has been phased out of many consumer products. But it remains in epoxy resins used to line water pipes and metal food cans, and in printed thermal receipt paper. Evidence linking BPA exposure to HDP is limited to a few studies and overall is inconclusive.

A 2016 study of 481 pregnant women living in the Boston metro area found that urinary concentrations of BPA and several phthalate metabolites were associated with increased risk of preeclampsia. But this association was not observed at all doctor visits during the study period and differed by child sex.

A 2017 nested case-control study of 173 pregnancies in China found a similar link. BPA, measured in urine samples, was associated with risk of preeclampsia.

When the European Food Safety Authority reviewed this evidence in 2023, it concluded the link between BPA and preeclampsia was “as likely as not,” meaning the evidence was not strong enough to confirm a link but also not weak enough to rule one out.

Heavy metals

People can be exposed to heavy metals like lead, cadmium and mercury through drinking contaminated water, ingestion of certain foods, particularly fish, polluted air and contaminated personal care products. Several heavy metals, including lead and cadmium, are recognized endocrine disruptors.

A 2022 review noted that heavy metals like cadmium and lead have been linked to HDP. Globally, evidence linked cadmium exposure to preeclampsia, the review found. One well-known source of cadmium is cigarette smoke.

A 2026 review linked lead exposure to gestational hypertension, and a 2018 meta-analysis identified lead exposure as a significant risk factor for preeclampsia.

It’s worth noting that heavy metal levels are present at very low levels in most everyday consumer products, and U.S. regulations set limits for lead, cadmium and other heavy metals in a range of products.

document.querySelectorAll('.table-cat').forEach(item => { var toggle = item.querySelector('.toggle'); item.addEventListener('click', event => { toggle.classList.toggle('flipped-vert'); item.nextElementSibling.classList.toggle('dn'); }); }); The problem of ‘regrettable substitutions’

Biomonitoring data show that levels of several once-common chemicals, like brominated flame retardants, BPA, some PFAS, and certain phthalates, have declined in the U.S. population since bans and phase-outs began, in the mid-2000s and 2010s. 

But that decline was offset by rising exposure to newer replacement chemicals with similar chemical structures, and in some cases, similar health effects. This pattern is called a “regrettable substitution.”

For example, U.S. biomonitoring data showed median BPA levels fell 15% nationwide from 2013 to 2016, but levels of its replacement bisphenol S rose 20% over the same period. 

European biomonitoring data documents the same pattern – as BPA levels fell, its replacements bisphenol S and bisphenol F rose. 

The phthalate substitute diisononyl cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylat showed a similar rising trend. And OPE flame retardants, which largely replaced PBDEs, are now detected in urine samples from over 95% of the U.S. population. 

Image

Not every chemical class follows this substitution pattern. Blood lead levels have fallen substantially since leaded gasoline and paint were phased out, without a comparable replacement taking its place. 

Concentrations of the forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS have also declined continuously since regulatory restrictions began in the early 2000s. 

Whether a chemical has been substituted or has truly declined, research continues to link even lower exposure levels to hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. 

This may point to the absence of a clearly safe exposure threshold for these endocrine-disrupting chemicals. 

Or it may reflect the fact that people are rarely exposed to one chemical at a time, and the combined effect of many low-level chemical exposures may matter more than any single compound.

Research designed to study these combined, real-world mixtures, rather than one chemical at a time, is still developing and is an important direction for future work.

How to reduce exposure to concerning chemicals

Collectively, these studies suggest that exposure to environmental chemicals during pregnancy may be one contributor to the risk of developing hypertensive disorders.  

People who want to reduce their exposure don’t have to try replacing all their belongings at once. Small changes, such as swapping out one product for a safer alternative or filtering your water, can help reduce exposure to harmful chemicals.

Here are some tips:

• Find safer personal care products free from chemicals of concern by searching EWG’s Skin Deep® database or using EWG’s Healthy Living™ app. 
• Avoid products whose labels do not disclose their fragrance. Phthalates used in personal care products might not always show up on the label if they are part of a fragrance blend. The umbrella term “fragrance” or “parfum” can contain up to 100 ingredients, some of which may be chemicals associated with health harms. 
• Consult EWG’s Tap Water Database to find which contaminants are detected in drinking water around the country. EWG’s water filter guide can help consumers match a filter to the specific contaminants in a particular location’s water and individual budget. Not every filter removes every harmful chemical.
• Choose glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids, and avoid reheating foods in plastic.
• If avoiding flame retardants in mattresses is a priority, consumers should look for a mattress or crib mattress made by a company that’s transparent about how it meets fire-safety requirements and what materials it uses in products. Or look for EWG Verified® mattresses for the highest level of confidence.

 

Areas of Focus Women's Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals BPA Flame Retardants PFAS Chemicals Phthalates Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. Guest Authors Eunice Daudu September 30, 2026

Newsom signs landmark bill to track and disclose PFAS pesticide use in California Monica Amarelo September 22, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed groundbreaking legislation that takes a first step in addressing the widespread use of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” pesticides on California produce. 

The new law, AB 1603, authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), requires the state to monitor and disclose PFAS pesticide use. State agencies do not track the concerning use of toxic PFAS on crops – but that will change now that the Environmental Working Group has raised concerns.

EWG found that more than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to Golden State crops each year, contaminating produce – in addition to soil and water – sold in the state and throughout the U.S. 

EWG’s research also found PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of non-organic peaches, nectarines and plums tested by the state, as well as in local waterways and sediment.

“I want to thank Gov. Newsom for recognizing that families deserve to know what’s being sprayed on their food,” said Schultz.

“Signing AB 1603 into law is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation. Tracking and monitoring is the crucial first step. You can’t fix what you can’t see,” he added.

“We’re grateful to Gov. Newsom for highlighting PFAS pesticide use and signing this bill into law,” said Susan Little, EWG California legislative director. 

“Now, for the first time, we’ll have a comprehensive picture of where these chemicals are being sprayed and in what quantities.

“We need to help our farmers transition away from these persistent chemicals so California can be a global leader in food safety,” Little said.

Along with EWG, other sponsors of the new law include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

Defining PFAS pesticides

The new law establishes a class-based definition of PFAS pesticides, consistent with other California laws and regulations already addressing these chemicals. That definition matters: It ensures tracking and disclosure requirements can’t be sidestepped with chemical-by-chemical loopholes.

The definition would also lay the groundwork for action that avoids “regrettable substitutions” – PFAS replacements that can also have health concerns.

Though thousands of PFAS are used today, comprehensive toxicity data is available about very few. But what is known is alarming: The health harms linked to the most well-studied PFAS, including cancer, suppression of the immune system and reproductive and developmental harm, show up at doses far lower than regulators once considered safe.

The tracking and disclosure law Newsom signed is narrower than what Schultz first proposed, following almost $900,000 in agricultural and chemical industry lobbying. 

That included roughly $179,000 from the American Chemistry Council and more than $20,000 from PFAS pesticide maker Syngenta, both targeting AB 1603 specifically. The spending also paid for meals and gift baskets for lawmakers, according to state campaign finance disclosures reviewed by Inside Climate News.  

Why tracking and monitoring matter

Despite the narrowing, the law still requires first-time Department of Pesticide Regulation systematic tracking and public disclosure of PFAS pesticides use in the state.

“Because of their chemical structures, all PFAS share the core characteristics of extreme environmental persistence and potential harm to immune and reproductive systems,” said Varun Subramaniam, EWG science analyst. “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using PFAS pesticides on food crops.

“Thanks to Gov. Newsom, we’re finally telling it like it is, so farmers, regulators and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this hidden PFAS use. This kind of tracking and monitoring has to come first, before we can talk about what comes next,” said Subramaniam. 

Collecting reliable, ongoing tracking data will end the long-running gap in data about PFAS pesticide use in the state. Access to this data will help build a foundation for action that could include use restrictions, farmer transition support, water monitoring and more. 

“The United States depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now that produce is being seasoned with chemicals that never break down,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. 

“We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops. Getting a handle on where and how much is being used is the essential first step,” she said.

States leading on regulation

The federal Environmental Protection Agency regulates and approves pesticides for national use, but states aren’t required to follow suit. 

California operates its own approval system: Its Department of Pesticide Regulation must independently evaluate and authorize each chemical before farmers can use it. That gives the state the power to protect its residents – authority Newsom has now put to greater use with this new tracking and disclosure requirement.

That authority matters more than ever because of federal developments. The EPA has continued to approve new PFAS pesticides at an accelerating pace, greenlighting three more in July. Many carry documented health harms, including links to cancer and reproductive toxicity.

With the EPA fast-tracking approvals, it’s necessary for California to take the lead in informing the public and local officials about the pesticides that do contain PFAS, while monitoring the pesticide use.

Banning PFAS pesticides

While California remains one of the world’s largest users of PFAS pesticides, other jurisdictions have moved to restrict or ban them. In 2023, Maine enacted the nation’s first ban on PFAS pesticides, starting in 2030. In the same year, Minnesota banned nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, phasing them out by 2032.

Other countries are also acting. The European Union has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides heavily used in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet.

With AB 1603 now law, California joins these other states and jurisdictions in laying the groundwork for the nation’s salad bowl to once again be a public health leader. 

“California has been a public health bellwether for decades, from car emissions to chemical safety,” said Del Chiaro. “This new law is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food.

“It’s the foundation for everything,” she added.

###

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

Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) is a diverse, statewide coalition of 200+ member groups working to strengthen pesticide policies in California to protect public health and the environment. Member groups include public and children’s health advocates, clean air and water groups, health practitioners, environmental justice groups, labor, education, farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates from across the state.

The Center for Environmental Health believes everything people consume, from the water they drink to the toys their children handle, should put health first. We insist on laws and policies that protect the public from harm, work to make communities more aware of risks, and push to transform corporate behavior. CEH advances environmental health and justice for the greater good, from the courtroom to the boardroom.

Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN) North America, is the North America Regional Center for the international PAN network. We work with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem and reclaim the future of food and farming from the pesticide and biotech corporations that have, for far too long, dictated how we grow food, placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities.

Areas of Focus Food Farming & Agriculture Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California New transparency law will reveal ‘forever chemicals’ sprayed on the state’s produce Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 September 28, 2026