Environmental Working Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harms even at low levels of PFAS

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

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

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

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

Necessary protective step

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing exposure to PFAS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image

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

Image

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

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

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

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

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

Parkinson’s and paraquat

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

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

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

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

EPA ignores the evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EWG Verified

Well People Poutlove Peptide Lip Balm, Pink Grapefruit

Available for $14 on Amazon and Ulta.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Qet Botanicals Lip Gloss with Olive & Avocado

Available for $9.99.

PURCHASE HERE

View details Rejuva Minerals Organic and Vegan Lip Gloss

Available for $16.95.

PURCHASE HERE

View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Lip Gloss, Silky Pink

Available on Amazon for $22.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Rated 1 in Skin Deep

Pacifica Enlightened Gloss, Vanilla Bean

Available for $4 on Amazon and Ulta.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

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

Available for $18.95 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details KimChi Chic Beauty High Key Gloss, 18 Raindrop

Available for $11 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details Physicians Formula Mineral Wear Diamond Gloss – Crystal Clear

Available for $6.98 on Amazon, Target and Walmart.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

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

Available for $2.48 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

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

Available for $9.95 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

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

Available for $12 on Amazon and Walmart.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Rated 2 in Skin Deep

Nyx Professional Makeup Fat Oil Lip Drip, My Main Fold

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

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

 

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics February 3, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

 The Environmental Working Group is sponsoring the legislation.

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

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

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

NOTE:  The full virtual webinar can be found here, and Del Chiaro is available for media interviews by contacting the communications department at: press@ewg.org

###

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

Areas of Focus Energy Federal & State Energy Policy Renewable Energy California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 February 2, 2026