Environmental Working Group - Know your environment. Protect your health.

EWG, Consumer Reports: People demand stronger protections from pesticides

rcoleman — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 04:01:00 +0000

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 — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 17:18:07 +0000

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 — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 04:01:00 +0000

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

October 13, 2026

Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights

rcoleman — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 18:34:09 +0000

Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights rcoleman October 7, 2026

EWG and Consumer Reports

October 14, 2026

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 — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 04:01:00 +0000

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.

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.

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.

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

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 — Tue, 22 Sep 2026 13:41:51 +0000

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.

###

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

What California’s paraquat phaseout means for your state

Anthony Lacey — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 12:21:40 +0000

What California’s paraquat phaseout means for your state Anthony Lacey September 21, 2026

When California regulators asked the pesticide industry for more information about the toxic chemical paraquat, the companies abandoned the state instead of providing the data.

It’s a telling sign that every state should heed – not just because California is the second state to phase out paraquat but because of what the industry’s behavior revealed.

California regulators sought data to determine whether the health and safety risks of paraquat were fully understood and whether they could be controlled after new studies linked exposure to paraquat to thyroid damage and birth defects.

If the paraquat companies had proof the chemical was safe to use, submitting that information might have kept them in the largest paraquat market in the country.

Instead, they walked away from California entirely.

That’s the clearest signal a company can send that no fix exists. When managing health and environmental risks from pesticides is possible, California regulators tend to allow the industry to propose mitigation plans because it’s the cheaper, more profitable and politically palatable path.

When industry chooses to ditch an entire market instead, that’s a strong indication the risk sits beyond what regulators assume they can address by merely restricting how it’s used.

Failing to turn over safety data

A 2024 California law required the state’s pesticide regulators to reevaluate paraquat’s risks to public health and the environment. As questions arose, regulators called on the paraquat companies for missing safety data.

California’s regulators sought additional data from industry after their own scientists publicly reviewed studies linking paraquat to preterm birth, congenital heart and limb defects, low birth weight, hypothyroidism and lower thyroid hormone levels.

The state also requested a study on field volatility. Field volatility studies monitor how far a pesticide travels through the air after it's applied, which regulators use to estimate exposure risks to nearby workers and communities.

That request followed new data submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Syngenta, the world’s largest paraquat distributor at the time. The data indicated that paraquat vapor may travel more than 2.7 miles from the field where it's applied, based on early estimates from computer models.

When regulators ask for this information, what they really want to see is if they can keep the product on the market, not pull it. If the answer had been, “it travels a manageable distance, and here's how buffer zones or application changes address the risks,” paraquat might have been allowed to stay in use in California under new restrictions.

The companies shared some data, but ultimately decided to pull their products from California rather than provide the requested data about birth defects, thyroid damage and field volatility.

Instead of complying with the state’s request, all seven paraquat manufacturers chose to walk away from their largest market. And it wasn’t just one or two major companies who could afford to take the hit. Every company had the chance to provide data when the regulators began their process, but all chose to back out.

Their decision triggered a so-called “voluntary” end to the sale of paraquat in California, which the state’s pesticide regulatory program announced in August.

The word “voluntary” is somewhat misleading. The inability or unwillingness to prove that the ongoing use of paraquat is safe belies the industry’s “voluntary” action.

Why 2.7 miles is a mitigation problem, not just a statistic

The paraquat regulations currently in place in California and across the country were implemented under the assumption that only people working directly with the chemical were at risk of breathing it in.

The new 2.7-mile estimate from the Syngenta data means that people living around areas where it’s used are not protected by those regulations.

That distance matters because it falls largely outside what standard regulatory tools can fix. That is why both California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation and the EPA asked pesticide companies to monitor how far paraquat actually moves in the air away from the application site.

Industry left California, rather than submit that data to DPR.

Regulators often use buffer zones to protect nearby workers and communities when they believe a risk is contained to a few hundred feet. Application timing restrictions are implemented when the danger is tied to specific conditions, like wind speed on the day of applying. But a vapor that can potentially travel multiple miles after application isn't something a buffer zone or a limited application schedule can reliably contain.

There are no obvious restrictions that manage a risk of that magnitude for paraquat, which may be exactly why the companies were unable to successfully propose one.

Paraquat health risks

Paraquat is one of a small number of chemicals with a clear link to Parkinson's disease. Chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing the disease by reducing the number of neurons in dopamine-producing parts of the brain.

Exposure to the chemical is also linked to thyroid cancer, childhood leukemia, kidney cancer, lung damage and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

More than 70 countries have already banned it, along with the state of Vermont.

The risk isn't abstract. In March, a truck spilled 60 gallons of paraquat on a highway in Dorris, a small town in Northern California, forcing roughly 600 residents, including students at a nearby elementary and high school, to shelter in place. Ten people were hospitalized.

The companies had every reason to address the problems and didn't.

Despite the risks, paraquat manufacturers had a straightforward business incentive to keep selling in California: it was their biggest U.S. customer base. Over the past 10 years, paraquat use peaked in the state at around 11 million pounds in 2018. It has since declined to roughly 370,000 pounds in the most recently available year of data (2023).

That decline suggests farmers have effective alternatives. But that’s still a massive amount of paraquat.

If mitigating these risks had been possible, proposing a plan would have cost far less than walking away from the nation’s biggest market entirely.

The pesticide companies didn't contest DPR's initial concerns about potential health effects, nor did they propose ways to mitigate the human safety risks. They simply left, and DPR canceled every paraquat product registered in the state, a step so rare in California that it almost never happens.

Why this matters regardless of your state’s regulatory tools

Not every state has California’s regulatory authority to reevaluate and cancel a pesticide's registration.

But what happened in the state makes one thing clear: when given the chance to demonstrate that paraquat's risks could be managed, the industry that profits most from paraquat could not do it.

States like Michigan and Maine have utilized their pesticide regulatory authority to cancel the registration of dacthal and ban chlorpyrifos, respectively.

Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, and several other states have restricted other high-risk pesticides through legislation, without needing California's specific reevaluation process. Other states have recently attempted to ban or restrict the use of paraquat through legislation.

California's story strengthens the case for state action, regardless of the route a state must take. In the face of unknown exposure and health risks that cannot be controlled or mitigated, the only answer is to cancel paraquat.

What you can do

Areas of Focus

Farming & Agriculture

Family Health

Paraquat

California

The decision highlights safety risks that regulations can’t address

Authors

Emily Bryson, MPH

September 21, 2026

Newsom signs landmark California transparency bill, creating ‘non-ultraprocessed’ label for food

Anthony Lacey — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 17:35:55 +0000

Newsom signs landmark California transparency bill, creating ‘non-ultraprocessed’ label for food Anthony Lacey September 19, 2026

SACRAMENTO – In a historic victory for consumers, California Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed a trailblazing law that gives shoppers in the grocery store an easy way to spot less harmful processed foods.

Assembly Bill 2244, introduced by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), received bipartisan support from legislators in the state Assembly and Senate.

The Environmental Working Group co-sponsored the bill.

“While Washington D.C. is paralyzed by inaction, Republicans and Democrats in California are joining forces to empower consumers to avoid harmful ultra-processed foods,” said Gabriel.

“Like the USDA Organic label, this new seal will provide consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. Parents shouldn't need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids.

“California began this movement three years ago by banning the most dangerous food additives, and with Governor Newsom’s continued leadership we are taking another big step forward today,” he added.

The new law directs the state to create a standardized label bearing the phrase “non-ultra-processed certified.” Products will not be permitted to carry the new label if California law classifies them as ultra-processed food, or UPF.

Only products that meet these requirements can display the seal. A food will not qualify for the label if it contains substances or additives, including dyes, flavor enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners or processing aids, used to manipulate the taste or quality of foods, making them hyperpalatable or irresistible.

Raising the bar

AB 2244 builds on AB 1264, a 2025 landmark law, also authored by Gabriel. AB 1264 created the first U.S. legal definition of UPF and banned the worst of the worst from K-12 public schools.

The California Department of Public Health will oversee certification of products that meet the state’s non-UPF standard, approving and accrediting third-party certifiers to conduct product certifications. The products must be recertified at least every three years. The law directs the department to accredit these third-party certifiers no later than June 1, 2029.

“Today California raised the bar for what we consider healthy food,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. “Consumers deserve labels they can trust, and with Gov. Newsom’s signature, families now have a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory.”

“AB 2244 creates a state-verified seal for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that have come to define the modern American diet,” she added.

“California is once again leading where Washington has stalled – and this new law gives millions of families a fighting chance to shop with confidence.”

Transparency and accountability for the food system

The law includes these strong oversight and transparency measures:

Certification agents must register with the state
The state can audit certification records at any time
The state must maintain a public, online list of certified products
Misuse of the label will be illegal and subject to enforcement

These provisions are designed to ensure the label’s credibility.

Making healthier choices easier in stores

In addition to creating the label, the law requires large food retailers to display certified products so consumers can easily identify them, for instance, through special signage or physical separation within the store.

This requirement applies to grocery stores that sell more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified products and brings in more than $10 million in annual sales.

Addressing the rise of UPF

UPF are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products often made with additives widely used in cosmetics and used in food to enhance taste, texture, appearance and shelf life.

In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet.

Experts say ultra-processed food and drinks are engineered to trick people into consuming more of them than they want, especially soda.

Scientific research has linked diets high in UPF to serious health harms, including cancer, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders (such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease) and mental health issues.

Obesity is chief among the health problems linked to UPF. Rates of obesity in the U.S. and globally have skyrocketed in tandem with the rising UPF consumption.

Help for consumers

Despite these concerns, consumers have no clear, standard labeling system to help them identify foods that are not UPF.

With federal regulators slow to update oversight of food additives and processing, states are increasingly taking action to protect public health.

The new law builds on California’s leadership in addressing harmful food chemicals and improving transparency for consumers.

“Because companies are not required to disclose an ingredient’s purpose, it can be really difficult even for experts, even for people like me who have a doctoral degree in nutrition, to look at a food package and determine whether a food is ultra-processed or not,” said Alyssa Moran, ScD, MPH. Moran is deputy director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

“And from a behavioral science perspective, we also know that people seldom use information on the back of food packages to make food decisions,” Moran said. “So that is exactly why clear, science-backed labels on the front of food packages can be so influential in helping people to make better choices.

“If we want to meaningfully curb disease, we need a suite of complementary policies that limit the availability of ultra-processed foods while promoting non-ultra-processed alternatives. I firmly believe this is the only way we’ll make progress,” she added.

Consumers can consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products that are less processed. Food Scores also flags unhealthy ultra-processed food and drinks and can help identify alternatives.

###

Areas of Focus

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

California

Press Contact

Monica Amarelo

monica@ewg.org

(202) 939-9140

September 28, 2026

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: Aspartame

rcoleman — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 15:30:38 +0000

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: Aspartame rcoleman September 17, 2026

Dayna de Montagnac, MPH

Sydney Evans, MPH

Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D.

Jump to:

What is aspartame and why is it added to food?

Where is aspartame found in foods?

What is the regulatory status of aspartame?

Are foods containing aspartame ultra-processed?

Is aspartame allowed in organic foods?

What are the potential health harms associated with aspartame?

Uncertainties/where more research is needed

Cited resources

September 17, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

Aspartame is an ingredient of concern, and EWG suggests limiting consumption of foods containing this ingredient.

Aspartame poses specific risks to vulnerable populations, such as individuals with phenylketonuria.

While scientific consensus remains limited, some research in animals and humans has suggested associations between aspartame consumption and certain cancers. Oxidative stress, which aspartame can produce, has been proposed to play a role in carcinogenesis. Based on limited evidence, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies aspartame as Group 2B (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”).

The World Health Organization (WHO) advised against using non-sugar sweeteners (like aspartame) for weight control. Their review concluded that long-term use does not help with reducing body fat in the long run and is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.

Science analysis

What is aspartame and why is it added to food?

Aspartame is a low-calorie sweetener about 200 times sweeter than sugar. It is commonly used as a dietary sugar substitute.

Where is aspartame found in foods?

Aspartame is typically added to diet beverages, powdered drinks and sugar-free chewing gums.

Aspartame is used in 919 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

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

^{Source: EWG’s Food Scores. Label created between 2023-01-01 and 2025-10-22.}

What is the regulatory status of aspartame?

As of February 2026, the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, was re-evaluating the safety of the mixture aspartame and acesulfame, a sweetener commonly used with aspartame. In the last EFSA evaluation, in 2013, it concluded aspartame was not a safety concern at its acceptable daily intake, or ADI, of 40 mg/kg per body weight per day.

In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration requires food containing aspartame to state the additive is not for use as a sugar substitute in cooking or baking because it is not heat stable.

The FDA also requires any food containing aspartame to have the label: “Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine.”

Are foods containing aspartame ultra-processed?

Aspartame and other synthetic sweeteners are common ingredients in ultra-processed foods, or UPF. As an industrially synthesized ingredient and artificial sweetener, it falls into the NOVA framework as a UPF ingredient (Monteiro et al., 2019).

Under a recent California law defining UPF, food served in schools containing aspartame is considered UPF because of aspartame’s property as a non-nutritive sweetener and flavor enhancer (Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, 2025).

Is aspartame allowed in organic foods?

Under Department of Agriculture organic standards, synthetic substances such as aspartame are prohibited in certified organic foods.

What are the potential health harms associated with aspartame?

In 2023, the IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on limited evidence in humans of hepatocellular carcinoma, a type of liver cancer.

A 2026 meta-analysis found that dietary sources of each common non-nutritive sweetener (NNS), including aspartame, and total NNS were associated with higher risk of type 2 diabetes and that total NNS and certain types were associated with some cardiovascular disease outcomes (Wang et al. 2026). Using computer modeling, Yang et al. (2025) showed that aspartame can bind to key proteins in the body, potentially triggering the chronic inflammation and cell damage that could lead to heart disease. Zhang et al (2025) found that aspartame might worsen ischemic stroke by latching onto core targets in the body that control blood flow, clotting, and neuroinflammation. Using animal models, Wu et al (2025) found that aspartame can trigger an insulin spike that causes a specific protein to trap passing immune cells on blood vessel walls, accelerating the arterial plaque buildup that leads to heart disease.

A large population-based cohort study conducted in France found an association between cancer risk, specifically breast and obesity-related cancers, and aspartame and acesulfame-K (Debras et al 2022). Some studies have also observed carcinogenesis in animal models (Landrigan & Straif 2021). But comprehensive safety reviews did not find this link (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources 2014; National Toxicology Program, 2005).

A 2025 systematic review of studies of human consumption of aspartame observed an increased incidence of clinical depression, high irritability and spatial orientation impairment at levels below the ADI (Fogel et al 2025). This review also found that those with preexisting neurocognitive deficits or metabolic disorders were more vulnerable to the neurocognitive effects of aspartame (Amin, Hassan & Rashed 2018; Ediga et al., 2023).

Parallel rodent studies monitoring subchronic doses at or below the ADI reported alterations in brain function, such as changes in neurotransmitter activity (Onaolapo et al 2017), as well as decreases in learning and memory deficits (Iyaswamy et al., 2018).

Aspartame breaks down in the body into phenylalanine, aspartic acid and trace amounts of methanol. The re-evaluation of aspartame by the EFSA, in 2013, determined that aspartame can pose risks to people with phenylketonuria (PKU), or high levels of phenylalanine in the blood. Therefore, the ADI does not apply to these individuals.

Phenylalanine can become neurotoxic at elevated concentrations, such as those observed in those with PKU, where it competes with other large neutral amino acids for transport across the blood-brain barrier and may disrupt neurotransmitter precursor availability. Dar et al. (2024) proposed that aspartame-derived phenylalanine could contribute to altered neurotransmitter balance; however, whether this mechanism occurs at typical dietary exposure levels remains uncertain (Dar, 2024).

Aspartic acid, a metabolite of aspartame, can overstimulate nerve cells at high concentrations (Dar, 2024). Excessive stimulation of nerve receptors can contribute to neuronal injury, although the relevance of this mechanism to typical aspartame exposure is uncertain (Zhao & Danbolt, 2014).

This mechanism may also affect microglia, or immune cells within the brain, which can contribute to inflammation. Neuroinflammation is associated with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease (Bonte et al., 2021).

An acute rodent study observed rats that were given a dose of aspartame 1.5 times higher than the allowable daily intake led to detectable levels of blood methanol for 24 hours and increased lipid peroxidation level in multiple brain regions (Ashok et al., 2015). Methanol breaks down further into other toxic byproducts, such as formate and formaldehyde, a probable carcinogen.

One rodent study found alterations in the structure, growth and function of the placenta of pregnant mice that consumed aspartame (Huang et al., 2023).

Uncertainties/where more research is needed

Because of its flavor profile, aspartame is rarely used in isolation. In commercial products it is frequently paired with other non-nutritive sweeteners like acesulfame-K or sucralose (Basson et al., 2021). More high-quality human research is needed that accurately isolates the long-term health outcomes of independent aspartame exposure from these broader sweetener mixtures (Choudhary & Singh, 2025). Further study on multiple appetite-regulating hormones is also needed (Boxall et al 2025).

Findings in cancer studies remain inconsistent. While some rodent studies show dose-related increases in tumors, epidemiological studies in humans have yet to establish a definitive link (Shaher et al., 2023; Doueihy et al., 2025).

The exact mechanisms by which aspartame causes disease are still largely theoretical (Dar 2024). More empirical evidence in humans is needed to establish a causal link.

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food (ANS). Scientific Opinion on the Re-Evaluation of Aspartame (E 951) as a Food Additive. EFSA J. 2013, 11, 3496.
National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP Report on the Toxicology Studies of Aspartame in Genetically Modified Mice; Department of Health and Human Services: Research Triangle Park, N.C., USA, 2005.
World Health Organization. (2023). Summary of findings of the evaluation of aspartame at the international agency for research on cancer (IARC) monographs programme’s 134th meeting, and the joint FAO/WHO Expert committee on food additives (JECFA) 96th meeting. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2023). Use of non-sugar sweeteners: WHO guideline. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073616

Comprehensive reviews and frameworks

Amin, S.N., Hassan, S.S., & Rashed, L.A. (2017). Effects of chronic aspartame consumption on MPTP-induced Parkinsonism in male and female mice. Archives of Physiology and Biochemistry, 124(4), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/13813455.2017.1396348.
Basson, A.R., Rodriguez-Palacios, A., & Cominelli, F. (2021). Artificial Sweeteners: History and New Concepts on Inflammation. Frontiers in Nutrition, 8, 746247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.746247.
Bonte, M., Idrissi, F. E., Gressier, B., Devos, D., & Belarbi, K. (2021). Protein network exploration prioritizes targets for modulating neuroinflammation in Parkinson’s disease. International Immunopharmacology, 95, 107526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107526.
Boxall, L.R., Eskandari, F., Wallis, J., Bielat, A.D., & Appleton, K. M. (2025). The Effects of aspartame on glucose, insulin, and Appetite-Regulating hormone responses in Humans: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. Advances in Nutrition, 16(7), 100449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100449.
Choudhary, A.K., & Singh, N. (2026). Neurotoxic and metabolic effects of chronic aspartame consumption in rodent models: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376516.2026.2662931.
Dar, W. (2024). Aspartame-induced cognitive dysfunction: Unveiling role of microglia-mediated neuroinflammation and molecular remediation. International Immunopharmacology, 135, 112295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2024.112295.
Doueihy, N.E., Ghaleb, J., Kfoury, K., Khouzami, K.K., Nassif, N., Attieh, P., Ghadieh, H.E., Azar, S., Kanaan, A., & Harb, F. (2025). Aspartame and Human Health: A Mini-Review of Carcinogenic and Systemic Effects. Journal of Xenobiotics, 15(4), 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/jox15040114.
Fogel, M.N., Khalil, A., Khaled, S.F., Rodriguez, E.M., Payne, K.M., Blount, J.R., Petschke, M., Nizamuddin, R.A., Jeidel, F., Riven, V., & Petrosky, S. (2025). Aspartame and its potential neurocognitive effects in humans. Nutrition Reviews, 84(5), 1026-1038. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf103.
Monteiro, C.A., Cannon, G., Levy, R.B., Moubarac, J., Louzada, M.L., Rauber, F., Khandpur, N., Cediel, G., Neri, D., Martinez-Steele, E., Baraldi, L.G., & Jaime, P.C. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: What they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980018003762.
Nam, T. (2011). Lipid peroxidation and its toxicological implications. Toxicological Research, 27(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.5487/tr.2011.27.1.001.
Shaher, S. A.A., Mihailescu, D.F., & Amuzescu, B. (2023). Aspartame Safety as a Food Sweetener and Related Health Hazards. Nutrients, 15(16), 3627. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15163627.
Wang, M., Wu, O. Y., Wallen, O. G., & Mozaffarian, D. (2026). Artificial and other non-nutritive sweeteners, the microbiome, and cardiometabolic health. Current Atherosclerosis Reports. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-026-01429-9
Xiao L., Xian M., Zhang C., Guo Q. and Yi Q. (2024) Lipid peroxidation of immune cells in cancer. Front. Immunol. 14:1322746. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1322746
Zhou, Y., & Danbolt, N. C. (2014). Glutamate as a neurotransmitter in the healthy brain. Journal of Neural Transmission, 121(8), 799-817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-014-1180-8.

Legislation

21 CFR 172.804 – Aspartame. (n.d.). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-172/subpart-I/section-172.804.
Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, Assemb. Bill 1264, Chapter 467 (Cal. 2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264.

Health impact studies

Ashok I, Sheeladevi R, Wankhar D. Acute effect of aspartame-induced oxidative stress in Wistar albino rat brain. J Biomed Res. 2015 Sep;29(5):390-6. doi: 10.7555/JBR.28.20120118. Epub 2014 Jan 12. PMID: 26445572; PMCID: PMC4585433.
Debras, C., Chazelas, E., Srour, B., Druesne-Pecollo, N., Esseddik, Y., De Edelenyi, F. S., Agaësse, C., De Sa, A., Lutchia, R., Gigandet, S., Huybrechts, I., Julia, C., Kesse-Guyot, E., Allès, B., Andreeva, V. A., Galan, P., Hercberg, S., Deschasaux-Tanguy, M., & Touvier, M. (2022). Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk: Results from the NutriNet-Santé population-based cohort study. PLoS Medicine, 19(3), e1003950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003950.
Ediga, M. G., Annapureddy, S., Salikineedy, K., & Nimgampalle, M. (2023). Aspartame consumption causes cognitive impairment in streptozotocin-induced diabetic Wistar rats. Biologia, 78(9), 2393–2407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-023-01363-0.
Huang, S. Y., Sun, R., Chen, Y. C., Kang, L., Wang, C. T., Chiu, C. F., & Wu, H. T. (2023). Aspartame consumption during pregnancy impairs placenta growth in mice through sweet taste receptor-reactive oxygen species-dependent pathway. The Journal of nutritional biochemistry, 113, 109228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutbio.2022.109228.
Iyaswamy, A., Kammella, A. K., Thavasimuthu, C., Wankupar, W., Dapkupar, W., Shanmugam, S., Rajan, R., & Rathinasamy, S. (2017). Oxidative stress evoked damages leading to attenuated memory and inhibition of NMDAR–CaMKII–ERK/CREB signalling on consumption of aspartame in rat model. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis, 26(2), 903–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2017.11.001.
Landrigan, P. J., & Straif, K. (2021). Aspartame and cancer - new evidence for causation. Environmental health : a global access science source, 20(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00725-y.
Onaolapo, A. Y., Onaolapo, O. J., & Nwoha, P. U. (2017). Aspartame and the hippocampus: Revealing a bi-directional, dose/time-dependent behavioural and morphological shift in mice. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 139, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2016.12.021.
Wu, W., Sui, W., Chen, S., et al. (2025). Sweetener aspartame aggravates atherosclerosis through insulin-triggered inflammation. Cell Metabolism, 41(x). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2025.01.006
Yang, T., Luo, J. Z., Zhang, L., Li, H., & Wang, J. (2025). Aspartame and cardiovascular disease: Unraveling potential molecular mechanisms through integrative network toxicology, molecular docking, and dynamics simulation. Medicine, 104(47), e46012. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000046012
Zhang, T., Wang, T., Yu, K., Huang, C., & Bao, K. (2025). Aspartame and ischemic stroke: Unraveling the molecular link through network toxicology and molecular docking analysis. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 23871. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08898-z

Betraying MAHA, Senate GOP farm bill would erase progress on regenerative agriculture

Anthony Lacey — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 04:00:01 +0000

Betraying MAHA, Senate GOP farm bill would erase progress on regenerative agriculture Anthony Lacey September 17, 2026

Anne Schechinger, M.S.

September 17, 2026

Overview

Regenerative agriculture is part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda that top Trump administration officials often tout.
Conservation funding for regenerative practices from one program decreased by over $400 million in 2025.
House and Senate Republicans are trying to cut conservation funding in the farm bill, which would lead to even less money for regenerative agriculture.

Leaders in the Make America Healthy Again movement like to tout their support for regenerative agriculture as a way to cut farm pollution and pesticide use, among other benefits.

But Senate Republicans’ farm bill includes drastic funding cuts that would stall progress made by farmers adopting regenerative agriculture practices, undermining MAHA’s goal.

The practices include cover crops and riparian buffers. These efforts can help decrease air pollution, including nitrous oxide emissions, and increase farm resilience and profitability, while also improving the environment. Although they need reform, these programs help reduce agriculture’s climate emissions and water pollution, add to farm resilience and improve food safety.

Considerable progress had been made in farmers adopting regenerative agriculture practices, thanks to increased funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA. But that progress had already started to slide backward when conservation funding for regenerative practices from just one program decreased by over $400 million between 2024 and 2025.

The Senate bill would make a bad situation even worse. The bill cuts over $2 billion from two of the nation’s most widely used conservation programs – the Agriculture Department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, and the Conservation Stewardship Program, or CSP. The programs give farmers and ranchers incentives to implement conservation practices on their land, including regenerative practices.

Last year, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., leader of the MAHA movement, announced the administration’s MAHA plan, which laid out a clear vision for EQIP and CSP. The plan pointed to efforts aimed at “empowering farmers and keeping solutions voluntary by expanding programs like” the two conservation programs.

Kennedy continues to highlight the benefits of regenerative agriculture and why these conservation programs are successful.

Instead, Senate Republicans’ farm bill joins the House counterpart in committing to cuts in funding for these programs – despite their growing popularity.

If the cuts became law, there would be considerably fewer regenerative practices on farms and fewer environmental and climate benefits – and thousands of farmers would be turned away from conservation funding.

Progress is being undone

Much more funding went to farmers for regenerative practices in 2023 and 2024, thanks to the IRA. But that decreased substantially in 2025, during the Trump administration, and will continue to go down if the farm bill cuts are adopted.

The 2022 IRA established almost $20 billion in new funding for farmers through multiple conservation programs. This conservation funding was required to go to farmers for regenerative agriculture. Because of the additional funding, total EQIP obligations to farmers went up, from $1.1 billion in 2022 to $1.5 billion in 2023, and then even higher, to $2.5 billion in 2024.

Many of the climate-smart practices that farmers received IRA funding for in 2023 and 2024 were regenerative agriculture practices like cover crops, reduced or no tillage, and nutrient management.

EWG has identified a list of 43 regenerative agriculture EQIP practices that lessen climate emissions from farming and help farmers become more resilient to extreme weather.

In the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, congressional Republicans retained the extra conservation funding from the IRA, but removed the requirement that it be spent on regenerative practices. Now lawmakers are going back on this promise and attempting to cut conservation funding.

EQIP obligations for regenerative practices on EWG’s list went up in 2023 and 2024 but then dropped in 2025. The USDA under the Trump administration designated significantly less total EQIP money in 2025 at $1.8 billion.

Obligations for regenerative practices went from $415.9 million in 2022 to $546.0 million in 2023 then all the way to $1.18 billion in 2024, before decreasing to $773.6 million in 2025. That means regenerative funding fell over $400 million between 2024 and 2025. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. EQIP funding for regenerative practices went up in 2023 and 2024 before decreasing in 2025.

Source: EWG, from USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, Financial Assistance Program Data

Additionally, the number of regenerative practices that were among the top 10 that received the most money went up in 2023 and 2024 but down in 2025. Four of the top 10 practices were regenerative in 2023, while five were regenerative in 2024, and only four were regenerative in 2025.

Farmers received more funding in 2023 than they did in 2022 for 29 of the regenerative practices on EWG’s list. Then in 2024, farmers received more money for 33 practices than they had in 2023. But that dropped in 2025 – farmers only collected more money for 16 of the practices in 2025 than in 2024, meaning that 60% of the regenerative practices lost money in 2025 compared to 2024.

Funding for some of the regenerative practices declined steeply in 2025. Cover crops were the top paid EQIP practice every year from 2022 through 2025. But spending for cover crops went down by half, from $352.7 million in 2024 to $176.3 million in 2025.

There were also three regenerative practices that didn’t get any funding at all in 2025: strip cropping, contour buffer strips, and herbaceous wind barriers. And four other practices got less than $100,000 each nationally: contour orchard and other perennial crops, filter strips, riparian herbaceous cover, and salinity and sodic soil management.

As EWG has found, among all conservation practices, some of these unfunded and low-funded practices have the biggest potential for reducing climate emissions.

The majority of states also lost money for regenerative EQIP practices in 2025. There were 54 states and territories that got payments for regenerative practices in 2025, but of those, 43 had less funding for regenerative practices in 2025 than in 2024. Only 11 states had more money in 2025 than in 2024. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2. The 10 states with the biggest losses in regenerative EQIP funding between 2024 and 2025.

Source: EWG, from USDA, NRCS Financial Assistance Program Data

MAHA’s pilot program won’t have much of an impact

While the Trump administration claims to care about regenerative agriculture, this analysis shows that funding for regenerative practices actually went down during the first year of the administration.

The administration’s only real action to support regenerative agriculture was establishing the Regenerative Pilot Program, or RPP. But the program prioritizes a small amount of conservation funding to regenerative practices, without providing any new funding for them.

The RPP prioritizes EQIP and CSP funding for regenerative practices, with $400 million going to regenerative practices through EQIP and $300 million through CSP. However, RPP only includes 15 primary regenerative practices funded through EQIP, which is much fewer than the 43 practices on EWG’s regenerative list.

And $400 million for regenerative practices may not actually change how any of the EQIP funding is spent. Over $400 million already went to farmers for these practices in previous years: $775.9 million for the 15 primary RPP practices in 2024, and $470.8 million for those practices in 2025.

Assigning $400 million to a list of practices that were already receiving over $400 million a year means the program won’t increase funding for these practices at all.

The House and Senate Republican farm bills even block the implementation of the RPP as it was designed by prohibiting funding from going to testing soil health or whole-farm planning. Farmers and ranchers looking to access the regenerative market would have to pay for their own testing, rather than get help from the federal government.

USDA conservation funding must be protected

When federal conservation programs have adequate funding, more farmers sign up and put the money toward the most environmentally beneficial and cost-effective regenerative agriculture practices. But the House and Senate Republican farm bill proposals would further reduce funding for the EQIP and CSP.

The Senate Republican farm bill, which recently passed out of the Agriculture Committee along party lines, would leave more than 56,500 valid farmer applications unfunded by EQIP over the next few fiscal years. Many of those unfunded applications would be for regenerative practices.

The bill would undermine efforts to advance regenerative agriculture, running counter to the MAHA agenda.

The farm bill instead must maintain conservation funding, especially for regenerative practices. Farmers and ranchers have been promised this money – Congress shouldn’t take it away.

Restoring funding for EQIP and CSP would not only reduce agriculture’s environmental and climate impact. It would also provide reliable support to tens of thousands of farmers and potentially reduce the costs of ad hoc disaster assistance and crop insurance payouts covered by American taxpayers.