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

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: Potassium bromate

Iris Myers — Thu, 05 Nov 2026 16:25:27 +0000

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: Potassium bromate Iris Myers November 5, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing potassium bromate.

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

What is potassium bromate?

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

Which foods contain potassium bromate?

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

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

How is potassium bromate regulated?

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

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

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

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

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

What does the science say about potassium bromate?

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

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

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

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

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

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to potassium bromate – and the full EWG Dirty Dozen™ list of food chemicals – on EWG’s research page.

EWG’s Food Scores provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing concerns, and flags unhealthy ultra-processed foods to help you identify alternatives.

EWG’s Skin Deep® cosmetic database helps to identify harmful chemicals in personal care and beauty products. EWG Verified® products meet the strictest criteria for transparency and health.

And the Healthy Living™ app lets you take these tools with you on the go.

Areas of Focus

Food & Water

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Toxic Chemicals

Food Chemicals

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

November 5, 2026

Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ found in tap water of 197M Americans

JR Culpepper — Thu, 05 Nov 2026 15:20:24 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protections under threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Widespread PFAS pollution

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

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

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

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

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

Health risks of PFAS exposure

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because once released into the environment, they do not break down, and they can build up in the body. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies.

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

Areas of Focus

Water

Toxic Chemicals

PFAS Chemicals

EPA, state PFAS data confirm EWG’s 2020 estimate as Trump moves to scrap protections

Press Contact

JR Culpepper

jr.culpepper@ewg.org

(202) 779-9990

November 5, 2026

Nearly 7M U.S. school students may be exposed to pesticides used to treat crop fields

Anthony Lacey — Thu, 05 Nov 2026 05:01:00 +0000

Nearly 7M U.S. school students may be exposed to pesticides used to treat crop fields Anthony Lacey November 5, 2026

Geoff Horsfield

Al Rabine

1 in 4 schools within a quarter-mile of pesticide-treated fields, new EWG analysis shows

November 5, 2026

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

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

INTERACTIVE MAP

U.S. elementary and middle schools near crop fields

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

View here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the health risks of pesticide exposure?

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

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

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

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

How is pesticide use regulated near schools?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What should the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food was on the table. Now Congress should deliver.

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 22:35:38 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Areas of Focus

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Food Chemicals

Authors

Scott Faber

November 4, 2026

Historic midterms deliver clear message to Congress: Prioritize people’s health and well-being

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 18:51:22 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

This historic election is a celebration of American pluralism – and a reminder that, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin’s warning, we have a republic, if we can keep it.
Last night’s results offer us a reason for optimism and a renewed confidence that progress is possible. By listening to voters and putting people first, we can begin to restore trust in government, and build a healthier, safer and more hopeful future for generations to come.
The results are also a resounding rejection of President Donald Trump’s agenda and a powerful affirmation of the values that make America stronger: opportunity, accountability and the fundamental promise that government should work for the people, not powerful corporate interests.
The people are fed up with policies that cater to polluters and corrupt corporate interests ahead of the health, safety and economic well-being of millions of Americans.
Democrats now have an opportunity – and an obligation – to deliver on a different vision, one grounded in the kitchen-table issues that matter to families every day. That means fighting for clean, safe, healthy food free from harmful pesticides and toxic additives; drinking water free from dangerous contaminants; and affordable, clean energy.
It means holding polluters accountable, restoring the government’s ability to protect public health and the environment, and rejecting the playbook of the last two years of putting Big Food, Big Ag and Big Pesticides ahead of the public interest.
Democrats must also begin to repair the damage inflicted by the most stridently anti-environmental, anti-science administration in our history, and rebuild the federal government’s capacity to protect Americans.
That means restoring and strengthening critical agencies, including the EPA, the FDA and the CDC. It means restoring and strengthening science-based safeguards against pesticide exposure and toxic chemicals; protecting drinking water from contamination; and ensuring that public health, not corporate influence, drives regulatory decisions.
EWG stands ready to work with Congress – and all stakeholders – to make it happen and to turn this electoral mandate into real action.
We have an ambitious agenda and concrete opportunities to make progress. We look forward to working with incoming members of Congress and continuing our work to reform our food chemical safety system, strengthen pesticide protection and help farmers lead the transition to regenerative agriculture.

###

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

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

November 4, 2026

New study: Neonic pesticides found in semen and urine, linked to lower sperm concentration

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 17:04:49 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delay on deciding neonics petition

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

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

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

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

What did the new study find?

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

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

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

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

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

Why are neonics a concern?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can I reduce my exposure to neonics?

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

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

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

Areas of Focus

Farming & Agriculture

Pesticides

Authors

Anthony Lacey

November 5, 2026

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: propyl paraben

Iris Myers — Tue, 03 Nov 2026 14:28:41 +0000

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: propyl paraben Iris Myers November 3, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing propyl paraben.

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

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

What is propyl paraben?

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

Which foods contain propyl paraben?

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

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

How is propyl paraben regulated?

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

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

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

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

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

What does the science say about propyl paraben?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to propyl paraben – and the full EWG Dirty Dozen™ list of food chemicals – on EWG’s research page.

Propyl paraben is also added to cosmetic products as a preservative. EWG’s Skin Deep® cosmetic database helps to identify harmful chemicals in personal care and beauty products. EWG Verified® products meet the strictest criteria for transparency and health.

And the Healthy Living™ app lets you take these tools with you on the go.

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

November 3, 2026

State food chemical laws don’t create chaos. They make food safer for everyone.

Anthony Lacey — Mon, 02 Nov 2026 15:51:28 +0000

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

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

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

But the industry argument doesn’t hold up.

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

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

How did California get toxic flame retardants out of furniture?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has been the California Food Safety Act impact?

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

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

But by 2024, multiple states had introduced similar bans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can you do?

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

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

Areas of Focus

Food

Food Chemicals

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

Scott Faber

November 2, 2026

Cutting ultra-processed foods may ease depression, new study finds

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 04:01:00 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

Get your free guide: EWG's Guide to Food Additives

Study links eating less UPF to fewer depression symptoms

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why might ultra-processed foods affect mental health?

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

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

States are taking action on ultra-processed foods

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

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

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

How to cut back on UPF

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

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

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

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

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

Nicole Pajer is a freelance journalist.

Areas of Focus

Ultra-Processed Foods

Guest Authors

Nicole Pajer (for EWG)

October 28, 2026

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: Artificial dyes

Iris Myers — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 16:19:09 +0000

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: Artificial dyes Iris Myers October 27, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing artificial dyes.

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

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

What are artificial dyes?

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

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

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

Which foods contain artificial dyes?

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

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

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

How are artificial dyes regulated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the science say about artificial dyes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to artificial dyes – and the full EWG Dirty Dozen™ list of food chemicals – on EWG’s research page.

EWG’s Food Scores provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing concerns and flags unhealthy ultra-processed foods to help you identify alternatives.

EWG’s Skin Deep® cosmetic database helps to identify harmful chemicals in personal care and beauty products. EWG Verified® products meet the strictest criteria for transparency and health.

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

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

October 27, 2026