Environmental Working Group

3 ways the House farm bill threatens your health Anthony Lacey May 26, 2026

The farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation most of us have never heard of – and Congress is negotiating it right now.

This sweeping bill affects everyone, even those who have never stepped foot on a farm. A good farm bill would help families buy groceries, support the farmers growing our food, guide agricultural practices protecting our water supply, even expand access to infrastructure like broadband internet. 

But the Republicans’ House farm bill, the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026, passed last month with a focus on slashing many beneficial programs.

The Senate is soon to follow with its farm bill. If the final legislation looks anything like the House bill, it would lead to far-reaching public health harms, from pesticide exposure to longer food pantry lines to widespread water pollution. 

How? Here are three ways the House farm bill may be harmful to your health.

1. Increasing exposure to toxic pesticides 

Exposure to pesticides like glyphosate and paraquat can be devastating to a person’s health, leading to cancer and Parkinson’s disease, among other harms. 

The federal government has the power to protect us – but it hasn’t done so. Instead, the Trump administration signed an executive order to support companies in producing a steady supply of glyphosate-based herbicides, rolled back regulations intended to keep our water safe from the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS and even approved new pesticides containing PFAS.

So states and local governments are enacting their own pesticide protections. 

Some of these safeguards would limit the use of these harmful chemicals on fields near schools and public parks, where children – who are most vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure – spend their time. 

But the Senate farm bill could include a provision to replace, or “preempt,” strong state or local pesticide protections with far weaker federal rules. 

A similar provision in the House bill – removed at the 11th hour – would have erased dozens of state laws and given pesticide chemical companies sweeping immunity from liability for the illnesses linked to their products.

Even with the defeat of that troublesome language, there are still several provisions in the House farm bill that favor pesticide makers, not public health, by:

• Excluding many hazardous agricultural chemicals from existing health and safety reviews
• Making it easier for polluters to ignore health and environmental safeguards
• Delaying new reviews of certain potentially harmful pesticides until 2031
• Failing to protect people from PFAS in pesticides and biosolids.

2. Erecting barriers to healthy eating 

There are already many barriers to eating healthy in the U.S. Our food system is flooded with ultra-processed food, a leading cause of chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, depression and multiple forms of cancer. Recent research shows that foods that cost less often contain more food additives and higher amounts of sugar and sodium.

More than half of adults in the U.S. say they worry about affording food for their families, and about one in seven households can’t always get enough food for everyone at home.  

Study after study has linked food insecurity and lack of healthy food access to a greater risk of diet-related diseases and poorer health outcomes.

Rather than taking action to help people eat healthier diets, the partisan House farm bill could make these problems far worse. President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act included large cuts to funding for vital nutrition programs, and the House farm bill would make those cuts permanent.

The House farm bill would kneecap nutrition programs that more than 40 million people rely on, almost 40% of whom are kids. These cuts will cause an estimated 5 million people to lose access to food assistance over the coming years and could spell trouble for small grocers who rely on their spending. 

3. Failing to protect food safety and a clean water supply

The House farm bill would cut funding to a popular Department of Agriculture conservation program that supports practices that help reduce water pollution.

Our drinking water is being polluted by factory farms – large-scale animal production facilities where about 90% of U.S. farm animals are raised – which produce enormous amounts of manure. 

This manure can harbor a lot of bacteria, including a strain of E. coli that is particularly dangerous for humans. When bacteria from animal waste spread to nearby fruit and vegetable crops, the people who eat that produce can get seriously sick.

Manure can also pollute the water with nitrogen and phosphorus, as can runoff from commercial fertilizer. Nitrogen can become nitrate in water, and nitrate in drinking water poses serious public health risks. A recent EWG analysis found nitrate in the drinking water of 1 in 5 U.S. households. Exposure to nitrate increases the risk of cancer, including colorectal and bladder cancer, thyroid disease and birth defects in infants.

Decreasing funding for the USDA’s program and other conservation programs would increase farming-related pollution of drinking water and air, putting families at risk downstream. 

The farm bill should promote public health

Americans deserve a better farm bill – one that would:

• Protect farmworkers, families and children from toxic chemicals, including PFAS forever chemicals, present in the pesticides and fertilizers used to grow our food
• Ensure all families have access to the safe and nutritious foods they need to live healthy lives
• Help farmers protect the critical natural resources we all rely on, like clean water and air 
• Prevent foodborne illnesses caused by bacteria that come from factory farms.

What you can do

While Congress debates the farm bill, consumers can use EWG tools to make informed choices. You can: 

• Follow EWG to get the latest updates about farm bill negotiations
• Consult our Tap Water Database to find out about the quality of your drinking water. If necessary, learn what type of water filter will work best in your home
• Choose organic produce when possible. Non-organic fruit and vegetables are typically grown with toxic pesticides that organic farmers are not permitted to use
• Check our Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™, which identifies the non-organic fruit and vegetables that have the most and least pesticide residues
• And tell your representatives in Congress not to cave to corporations like Bayer-Monsanto, which are trying to strip state and local pesticide protections in the 2026 Farm Bill. Preserving these powerful state and local safeguards means protecting our farmworkers, families and children. 

Areas of Focus Food & Water Farming & Agriculture Family Health Pesticides Authors Ketura Persellin Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 26, 2026

Washington recognizes EWG Verified® as higher standard for safer salon products Anthony Lacey May 21, 2026

WASHINGTON – In a first-of-its-kind pilot project, Washington is recognizing products with the EWG Verified® mark in its Safer Salons Partnership, which reimburses independent hair stylists, barbers and small salon businesses for switching to safer beauty products.

The program, led by Washington’s Department of Ecology, says EWG Verified meets the criteria for the highest reimbursement level. This is reserved for certifications that ban a broad range of harmful chemicals and assess the health hazards of ingredients and impurities. More than 2,700 products have earned the EWG Verified mark.

“EWG is proud to be recognized by Washington State's Safer Salons Partnership,” said Clive Davies, vice president of EWG Verified. “This is a watershed moment for the beauty industry. Washington State is putting safer product choice directly in the hands of the workers who need it most, with the money on the table to help make it happen.

“By recognizing EWG Verified at the highest level, the state is sending a clear message to manufacturers: Designing safer products is not only possible, it’s preferred. EWG is proud to be part of making that happen,” he added.

Protecting the workers most at risk

Salon workers face some of the highest occupational exposures to toxic chemicals in the beauty industry. 

Hair straighteners, dyes and styling products can contain formaldehyde, phthalates and other chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption and reproductive toxicity. Unlike consumers, salon workers breathe them in and absorb them through their skin for hours at a time every single working day.

“For too long, we’ve expected salon workers to deliver high-performance results without assurance that the products they use are safe,” said Lauren Sweet Duffy, Ph.D., senior director of EWG Verified. “They shouldn't need a chemistry degree to know whether the products they use every day are safer.

“When a stylist sees the EWG Verified mark, the guesswork is gone. It means the product has been rigorously reviewed, meets high standards for ingredient safety and transparency, and is free from the hidden chemicals that have put salon workers’ health at risk for decades. That is not a small thing. We are thrilled to work with Washington state and help amplify these positive impacts,” she added

Washington targets toxic cosmetics

Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, enacted in 2023, is a model for what meaningful cosmetic ingredient reform looks like in practice. The law not only bans a broad range of harmful chemicals from cosmetic products sold or distributed in the state but also offers financial support for small businesses.

The European Union and other countries have banned or limited more than 1,600 chemicals from personal care products while the U.S. prohibits just nine for safety reasons.

States have stepped in to ban dozens of other chemicals. Washington’s Department of Ecology recently finalized a new rule under the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act that will ban formaldehyde and 25 specific formaldehyde-releasing chemicals from cosmetic products beginning January 1, 2027. 

Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen commonly used in hair-smoothing treatments and also linked to respiratory disease and skin sensitization, risks that fall most heavily on the salon workers who apply these products daily.

The state is piloting the Safer Salons Partnership with several Washington salon professionals and barbershops. In addition to EWG Verified products, some other beauty products are eligible for the program.

A full directory of EWG Verified products eligible for reimbursement during the pilot is available at ewg.org/ewgverified. More information about the Safer Salons Partnership is available at ecology.wa.gov/safer-salons.

###

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

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Family Health Women's Health Toxic Chemicals Phthalates State’s pilot reimburses salon workers, barbers for buying items with EWG Verified mark Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 21, 2026

EWG: PFAS pesticides contaminate half of California surface water and sediment tests Anthony Lacey May 21, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Pesticides that are the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS are showing up in roughly half of surface water and sediment tests throughout California, a new Environmental Working Group analysis finds, underscoring the need to phase out the use of PFAS pesticides.

The analysis, which examined surface water and sediment test data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the U.S. Geological Survey collected between 2020 and 2024 found that bifenthrin, a PFAS pesticide potentially linked to cancer, was detected in nearly half of all surface water samples and in over half of the sediment samples. 

In San Luis Obispo and Stanislaus counties, the chemical was found in over 80% of surface water samples. The data was collected from ten counties across the state, including Santa Barbara and Monterey counties. 

“What we are finding in California’s waterways should alarm every Californian, and every American who eats California-grown food,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.

“If we’re seeing PFAS pesticides show up this often even in limited surface water and sediment tests, the true scale of this contamination is almost certainly even greater. We need to stop deliberately spraying these toxic chemicals on our crops,” she added.

Millions of Californians are already being exposed to harmful PFAS through pesticide applications on produce grown in the state. EWG’s analysis shows that exposure through surface water and sediment could also be of concern. 

More than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to California farmland annually. EWG also found frequent detections of these chemicals on produce grown in the state, and that feeds not only California but the rest of the U.S.

Since PFAS never fully break down in the environment, exposure through these two environmental pathways may persist for generations through PFAS’ breakdown products.

Overall sampling data were limited in size and scope, so PFAS contamination from pesticide use is likely more widespread than the data currently suggest. For instance, the data did not include samples from Fresno or Kern Counties, the counties that use the most PFAS pesticides in the state.

“The fact that we are finding potentially carcinogenic chemicals at high rates is a profound public health concern,” said Varun Subramaniam, M.S., EWG science analyst and co-author of the analysis.

“There are data gaps that likely mean PFAS contamination in sediment is underestimated currently. With more frequent and geographically diverse sampling, as well as testing for a wider variety of PFAS, detections would almost certainly rise,” he added.

Breakdown products are concerning

The contamination documented in this analysis may represent only a fraction of the actual PFAS burden in California’s waterways. Many PFAS pesticides transform in the environment into a highly persistent, short-chain form called trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA. Research has linked TFA exposure with reproductive and developmental risks. There are also concerns about TFA’s ability to persist in the environment for an extremely long time.

It remains unknown how long it takes PFAS pesticides to degrade into TFA. It varies according to pesticide types and environmental conditions. 

“Since PFAS never fully break down, exposure through surface water and sediment could persist for generations,” said Subramaniam. “In the absence of comprehensive monitoring for TFA and PFAS pesticide breakdown products, we are underestimating how widely these chemicals have spread in the environment and how they are affecting our health.”

This new analysis is a significant step forward in trying to capture the many ways we are exposed to PFAS. And it builds on EWG’s growing efforts to highlight the worrisome broad use of PFAS pesticides in the state that continues unchecked.

A ban would protect people

“We already know that PFAS are toxic chemicals that can harm people in a number of serious ways,” said Susan Little, EWG’s California legislative director. “The state needs to move swiftly to phase out PFAS pesticides for agricultural uses.”

EWG is sponsoring a bill moving through the California State Legislature, AB 1603, which would ban the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides used on crops statewide by 2035. 

“Ending the use of PFAS pesticides would safeguard our food and water systems and prevent PFAS pesticide buildup in the environment,” said Little.

###

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

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California ‘Forever chemicals’ may expose millions to potential health concerns Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 27, 2026

California’s surface water and sediment are often contaminated with PFAS pesticides rcoleman May 20, 2026

Pesticides that are part of the family of toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS contaminate surface water and sediment in agricultural areas across California, an EWG analysis finds.

PFAS pesticides were found in up to 50% of California surface water samples, and in about 45% to 55% of sediment samples. These chemicals – fungicides, herbicides and insecticides – do not just end up on produce that feeds the nation. These findings suggest pesticides could also be exposing millions of Californians to PFAS through water and soil. 

What’s worse, exposure may persist for generations, since PFAS never fully break down in the environment. 

To reduce water and soil contamination from PFAS pesticides, California should phase out their use, sale and manufacture for agricultural uses.

Potential health concerns

PFAS pesticides are those whose active ingredients meet the internationally recognized definition of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. These active ingredients have the carbon-fluorine bond characteristic of PFAS chemicals, which makes them highly persistent in the environment and resistant to complete breakdown.

EWG recently revealed over 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied on California farmland annually, and also found frequent detections of these chemicals on produce grown in the state.

Exposure to PFAS pesticides could harm the immune system. Yet EWG’s published research highlighted an important oversight gap: Review of studies of immune system toxicity – a key outcome observed in several studies of PFAS exposure – is routinely waived as part of PFAS pesticide approvals.

Many PFAS pesticides also transform in the environment into a highly persistent, short-chain form called trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA. Early research has linked TFA exposure with reproductive and developmental risks. There are also concerns about TFA’s ability to persist in the environment for an extremely long time.

We don’t know how long it takes for PFAS pesticides to degrade into TFA. It varies according to pesticide types and environmental conditions. 

In the absence of comprehensive monitoring for TFA and PFAS pesticide breakdown products, current exposure estimates don’t fully account for the range of how these chemicals can harm our environment and health.

EWG’s new analysis is a significant step forward in trying to capture the many ways we are exposed to PFAS.

Studying surface water

Our analysis of sampling results found multiple PFAS pesticides were detected in California surface water. 

To quantify the extent of PFAS pesticide contamination of California surface waters near agricultural areas, EWG compared four subsets of data. The number of PFAS pesticide samples for each dataset is denoted by n in the list below.

1. 2025 Surface Water Database, or SURF (n = 4,158): Surface Water Monitoring Studies 304, 301 and 321 with results spanning 2020-2023, from the California DPR, obtained from the 2025 DPR SURF Release:

Counties sampled: Butte, Colusa, Imperial, Merced, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo.

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Alamo River, Butte Creek, Clarks Ditch-Colusa Basin Drain, Ingram Creek, Lower Logan Creek, New River, Salinas River, Santa Maria River, South Slough-Deadman Creek, Tembladero Slough, Town of Hilmar-San Joaquin River, Willow Creek.

2. 2026 Study 310 (n = 298): Summary data from DPR Study 310, published in a January 7, 2026, report, with pesticide monitoring data on near-agricultural areas for Northern California in 2024:

Counties sampled: Butte, Colusa, Merced, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo 

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Butte Creek, Clarks Ditch-Colusa Basin Drain, Ingram Creek, Lower Logan Creek, South Slough-Deadman Creek, Town of Hilmar-San Joaquin River, Willow Creek

3. 2026 Study 321 (n = 548): Summary data from DPR Study 321, published in a January 1, 2026, report, with pesticide monitoring data on near-agricultural areas for the Central Coast and Southern California in 2024:

Counties sampled: Imperial, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara 

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Alamo River, New River, Oso Flaco Creek, Salinas River, Santa Maria River, Tembladero Slough

4. USGS (n = 580): Data from Table S4 of Woodward et al. (2026), with 2024 pesticide sampling data collected from agricultural streams in California, conducted by the USGS:

Counties sampled: Butte, Merced, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Butte Creek, Colusa Basin Drainage Canal, Del Puerto Creek, French Camp Slough, Ingram Creek, Mustang Creek, Orestimba Creek, Reclamation Drain, Snake River, Sweeney Creek

Because the data underlying Study 310 and Study 321 for samples collected in 2024 were not available within the SURF database as of the publication of this article, EWG’s analysis utilized summary statistics from DPR within the preliminary reports published in early 2026.

Information on PFAS pesticide detection frequencies from these data sources is summarized in Table 1, below. Data for the 10 most frequently detected PFAS pesticides between 2020 and 2023 in California SURF data are shown.

Table 1. Multiple PFAS pesticides detected in California surface water. 

PFAS Pesticide Detection Frequency Detection frequency (%) in surface water

PFAS pesticide

Top 10 from SURF

SURF

(n=4,158)
2020-2023

Study 310

(n=298)
2024

Study 321

(n=548)
2024

USGS

(n=580)
2024

Bifenthrin45.830.431.615.0Oxyfluorfen41.0ND26.320.0Lambda-cyhalothrin26.536.8  Sulfoxaflor19.9ND2.1 Fludioxonil12.1ND20.4 Trifloxystrobin6.3ND12.2 Indoxacarb5.9ND13.65.0Trifluralin3.5ND30.0 Fipronil1.2NDND Benefin1.1   

Gray cells indicate no testing for corresponding PFAS pesticide. ND = not detected.

Detection frequencies differed by region and study design. For example, oxyfluorfen detections varied by 21% across the data. But all four studies in Table 1 found evidence of PFAS pesticide contamination of surface water near agricultural areas.

Similar detection frequencies for bifenthrin – about one in three samples – were observed in both study regions, showing widespread bifenthrin contamination of state surface waters.

Data for the PFAS pesticides oxyfluorfen and lambda-cyhalothrin also showed frequent detections in state agricultural waterways both in SURF data (range: 12.1% to 41%) and within the 2024 results in Study 321 (range: 20.4% to 36.8%). 

Some county-level patterns in PFAS pesticide detections were observed from SURF data. Between 2020 and 2023, pesticide monitoring of near-agricultural surface water showed higher overall detection frequencies in San Luis Obispo (mean detection frequency = 23%) and Monterey (22%) counties than the other eight counties covered. 

Bifenthrin was detected in all 15 samples from San Luis Obispo, and in 88% of samples from Stanislaus County. In Butte and Colusa counties, all 10 PFAS pesticides shown in Table 1 were detected in under 10% of samples. 

The number of PFAS pesticides detected in surface water by county varied, with 10 detected in Monterey County, compared to just one in each of Sutter and Merced counties.

Notably, data for Fresno and Kern counties, where PFAS pesticide applications are the highest in the state, were not reported in the agricultural surface water or sediment monitoring studies within SURF. This suggests a concerning gap in the state of California’s testing of PFAS in surface water. 

Assessing sediment

EWG’s analysis found that both PFAS pesticides that were tested for in California sediment were frequently detected.

SURF data were subsetted to the same three datasets on pesticide monitoring in agricultural areas, and summary data were extracted from the 2026 Study 310 and Study 321 reports. The USGS dataset did not report concentrations for sediment and was not included.

Altogether, sediment data were far sparser than surface water data, with a much smaller set of pesticides sampled. 

In the 2020-2023 subset of SURF data and in the 2026 Study 310 data, only seven pesticides were sampled in total, while eight were sampled in the 2026 Study 321 data. 

Across all three datasets, just two of the sampled chemicals – bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin – were PFAS pesticides. 

Table 2. Bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin were frequently detected in California sediment.* 

PFAS Pesticide Detection Frequency in Sediment Detection frequency in sediment (%)PFAS pesticide

SURF

(n=152)

2020-2023

Study 310 

(n=10)

2024

Study 321

(n=26)

2024

Bifenthrin56.620.025.0*Lambda-cyhalothrin47.420.030.0*

Number of PFAS pesticide samples denoted by n.

*Due to a testing error in the 2026 Study 321 results, no sediment data were available from the Imperial Valley, a major agricultural region in southeastern California. The report notes this lack of data "significantly impacted 2024 results" and resulted in a drop in the detection frequency for lambda-cyhalothrin in sediment, from 80% in 2023 to 30% in 2024.

Between 2020 and 2023, SURF data indicated both bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin were more frequently detected than the other five non-PFAS pesticides.

The sediment analysis is far more limited due to smaller sample sizes, limited pesticide coverage and testing errors (see Table 2 footnote). 

Only two PFAS pesticides were tested for, despite several more being applied to crops, detected on produce and frequently found in nearby surface waters. 

These data gaps almost certainly lead to underestimated PFAS contamination in sediment. With more frequent and geographically diverse sampling, as well as consideration of a wider variety of chemicals, detections would likely rise. These limitations also hinder geographic comparisons of sediment.

Nevertheless, the findings in Table 2 indicate that, at minimum, bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin have both contaminated sediment in areas near agricultural land in California. 

Need for more comprehensive monitoring

Our analysis looked at surface water and sediment test results from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, or DPR, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Bifenthrin, a PFAS pesticide that may be linked to cancer, was detected in almost half of all surface water samples and in over half of the sediment samples between 2020 and 2023.

Overall sampling data are limited in size and scope, so PFAS contamination from pesticide use is likely more widespread than the data currently suggest. This report emphasizes the need for much more extensive environmental monitoring. 

Current test panels don’t sample for all PFAS pesticides or the chemical breakdown products that can form in the environment, so the full picture of contamination remains unclear. But EWG’s findings, based on current data only, highlight ample reason for concern.

Addressing PFAS pesticides

To eliminate the concerns over PFAS pesticides and their presence on produce, sediment and surface water, California should move to phase out the use of these chemicals on crops. Ending the use of PFAS pesticides would safeguard our food and water systems and prevent PFAS pesticide buildup in the environment.

Furthermore, current monitoring of both surface water and sediment looks at individual pesticides only, not the highly concerning PFAS byproducts that can form from their partial breakdown.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Water Farming & Agriculture Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Regional Issues California Authors Varun Subramaniam, M.S. David Andrews, Ph.D. May 27, 2026