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

5 healthier school lunches you can pack in minutes

Anthony Lacey — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 04:01:00 +0000

5 healthier school lunches you can pack in minutes Anthony Lacey September 8, 2026

Food companies sell a lot of pre-packaged lunches wrapped in bright colors, new flavors or other ways to get kids’ attention. In fact, the company behind Lunchables used some of the same research and marketing strategies that boosted tobacco companies’ sales of cigarettes.

The food companies’ goal is keeping kids hooked on their products – not keeping them healthy.

While they’re appealing to parents stretched for time, these pre-packaged lunches are often highly processed. They can contain dozens of ingredients, including food chemicals with potential health harms, and don’t necessarily provide the nutrition kids need.

The good news: You don’t need much extra time in your morning routine to pack something better.

What does a less-processed school lunch actually look like?

Here are five less-processed lunches that you or your kids can build in minutes.

Crackers and cheese (2 minutes)

Whole grain crackers like Triscuits
Cheese
Roasted seeds (sunflower, pumpkin)
Clementine
Cucumber

Hummus and pita (2 minutes)

Hummus
Whole grain pita
Cheese
Carrots
Apple

Peanut butter pita (3 minutes)

Whole grain pita
Nut butter (sunflower, peanut*)
Banana
Popcorn
Cucumber

* Make sure to check your school’s nut policy.

Tuna plate (4 minutes)

Whole grain cracker such as Triscuits
Canned tuna
Cheese
Carrots
Applesauce

Chips and salsa (4 minutes)

Whole grain chips
Salsa
Black beans
Cheese
Pear

These combinations are all flexible. Swap in whatever fruits, vegetables or sides – like popcorn, nuts or seeds – you already have on hand. Add a dip or sauce if that encourages your kid to eat healthier food.

And remember that not every single meal has to be perfectly balanced. What matters most is what your kid eats over the course of the day or week, not a single lunchbox.

Other ideas to try

Beans can be a major value-add. They’re affordable, high in protein and fiber, and ready to use straight from the can. Add some chickpeas to a hummus and pita plate, or black beans to chips and salsa, for a nutrition boost.

If your kid likes leftovers, you can also keep things simple and cook one batch of whole grain pasta or rice for the week. Add your choice of vegetables and protein – like cherry tomatoes and cheese cubes in a pasta salad, or frozen edamame in brown rice – to make it a meal. This is also a great place to add some chicken or other meat from last night’s dinner.

If lunch doesn’t feel complete without something sweet, a piece of dried fruit or a handful of chocolate chips makes an affordable treat with far fewer additives than most packaged candy or fruit snacks.

When in doubt, check EWG’s Food Scores for more information on food ingredients, processing and nutrition. Use EWG’s Healthy Living™ app to scan products right on grocery store shelves.

A few foods worth skipping – try these instead

Here are some old favorites that don’t stack up when it comes to nutrition – and what to consider as alternatives.

Processed meat. There’s a reason deli sandwiches didn’t make the cut for less-processed lunches. Despite their popularity, particularly for lunches, processed deli meats like turkey, ham, salami and roast beef have been strongly linked to cancer.

Cheese, beans, hard boiled eggs, plain yogurt, nuts and seeds all deliver protein without that potential health risk.

Enriched bread. Many kids and adults alike eat a lot of bread, crackers and snacks made with enriched flour, which don’t offer much in the way of real nutrition. It can be hard to find a whole-grain bread without all the additives, despite how many options seem to be available.

Whole grain pitas and woven wheat crackers tend to be easier to track down and contain some healthy fiber.

Less-processed pantry staples

Keeping a few of these foods on hand can help you pack school lunches and snacks in a pinch.

Produce

Apples
Bananas
Carrots
Cucumbers
Pears

Dairy, eggs and refrigerated

Cheese. Avoid orange powders, sprays and spreads; sticks and bricks are better choices
Eggs. Use EWG’s meat and dairy label decoder to see what the certifications actually mean
Hummus. Look for these five ingredients – chickpeas, tahini, salt, oil and lemon juice – plus seasonings like garlic.
Yogurt. Choose yogurt free of added colors, flavors and sweeteners (including added sugar and artificial sweeteners)

Canned goods

Black beans. The label should list beans only, or can include some salt
Chickpeas. The label should say chickpeas (or garbanzo beans) only, and may include some salt
Salsa. Look for just vegetables, herbs and spices you might use at home

Snacks and pantry

Applesauce. Skip any added colors, flavors, and sweeteners (including added sugar and artificial sweeteners)
Chocolate chips. For a sweet treat, look for cocoa butter and five or fewer ingredients total
Dried fruit. For a sweet treat, stick to just the fruit without added sugar
Nut butter. Just nuts or seeds with salt – avoid added sugar and hydrogenated oils
Popcorn. A short ingredient list is the goal: popcorn, and maybe a little oil and salt
Roasted nuts or seeds. Nuts or seeds and a little salt is all you need
Whole grain crackers. Look for woven wheat: whole grains and salt, nothing more
Whole grain chips. Like whole grain corn with some oil and salt, the shorter the ingredient list, the better

Breads and bakery

Whole grain pita. Look for whole grains and five or fewer ingredients total

Areas of Focus

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Women's Health

Children’s Health

Food Chemicals

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

September 8, 2026

Most fast food chains have concerning chemicals on the menu

Iris Myers — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 04:01:00 +0000

Most fast food chains have concerning chemicals on the menu Iris Myers September 3, 2026

When you’re trying to decide what to get at your favorite fast food spot, it can be hard to know exactly what you’re eating – including whether it’s made with potentially harmful ingredients.

That’s because restaurants aren’t required to make their ingredients public. And due to a decades-long legal loophole called “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, many of the chemicals used in our food haven’t actually been reviewed for health or safety. Food companies, not the Food and Drug Administration, are deciding what’s safe to put in what you eat.

We took a closer look at menus from 12 of the top fast food chains in the U.S. to find out which were still using food chemicals with potential health and safety risks:

Arby’s
Burger King
Chick-fil-A
Chipotle
Domino’s
KFC
McDonald’s
Panera
Pizza Hut
Subway
Taco Bell
Wendy’s

Beyond the ingredient lists, our findings reveal a bigger picture: U.S. food policies are falling short of helping people eat healthy.

Food chemicals appear on most fast food menus

We looked at how many popular chains used chemicals from EWG’s Dirty Dozen™ Guide to Food Chemicals. This guide spotlights some of the top food chemicals that experts recommend avoiding because of their potential health harms.

Because fast food chains don’t have to make ingredient lists public, EWG’s review of menu items was limited to the most recent information available online. It isn’t a comprehensive look at all fast food, but it does reveal some clues about how chemicals of concern are used in the places we eat.

At least one Dirty Dozen chemical appeared on almost every menu we reviewed, with the exception of Chipotle.

Subway and Panera also appeared to use fewer chemicals of concern in their food, while McDonald’s used most of EWG’s top chemicals of concern somewhere on its menu.

Artificial dyes and other common additives

The most common additive on fast food menus was artificial dyes, which appeared on all menus except for Chipotle’s and Subway’s. Dyes were mostly used in artificially flavored beverages like sodas, lemonade and milkshakes, though not every chain posted drink ingredients.

Sodium nitrite, a meat preservative linked to cancer, appeared on more than half of the menus reviewed. Used in processed meats like sausage, ham and pepperoni, sodium nitrite was frequently found in foods from Pizza Hut, Subway, Domino's, McDonald’s and Wendy’s.

Titanium dioxide, an additive European regulators say is no longer safe in food, was listed in about half of the menus – mostly in dressings. It also appeared in Taco Bell’s vanilla creamer, which is used in some of its dirty sodas, Refrescas and coffee drinks.

Artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose showed up often in “zero sugar” beverages.

TBHQ, a preservative with potential toxicity, was used at pizza chains like Domino’s and Pizza Hut. Most Pizza Hut crusts were made with TBHQ, as were its chicken wings and breadsticks.

What should families in a fast food world eat?

It’s not practical to expect people to become experts on every food chemical. That’s why EWG advocates for policies that make healthy eating easier for everyone.

The FDA recently proposed to narrow the GRAS loophole, but far more is needed to make sure the food supply is safe.

In the meantime, you can scan nutrition facts and ingredient lists when they’re available, and try to avoid long lists of ingredients you wouldn’t find in your home kitchen.

If you’re grocery shopping, check EWG's Food Scores, which rates more than 150,000 products on nutrition, ingredients and processing and flags ultra-processed foods for you. Shoppers on the go can also use EWG’s Healthy Living app.

Areas of Focus

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Food Chemicals

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

Guest Authors

Adam Levin, EWG communications intern

September 3, 2026

Adding folic acid to food can save newborn babies. A misleading food 'safety' bill could block that

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 18:35:39 +0000

Adding folic acid to food can save newborn babies. A misleading food 'safety' bill could block that Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026

The “FRESH” Act would block states from regulating chemicals in food or requiring folic acid fortification, proven to reduce birth defects
The food industry group Americans for Ingredient Transparency is pushing the bill that could gut states’ food safety authority
Congress should reject the FRESH Act. EWG is rallying against it in Washington, D.C., on September 15 with partners and supporters.

Food companies are pushing a bill in Congress, the FRESH Act, as a food safety measure. It isn’t.

The bill, if enacted, would block state laws regulating chemicals in food, known as preemption. And its preemption provisions are so broad it could harm public health far beyond the chemicals the measure would allow in food, according to a new Harvard Law School analysis.

The FRESH Act would make the Food and Drug Administration the sole regulator of food additives, stripping states of the authority to pass or enforce their own food chemical laws.

In practice, Harvard’s analysis finds the bill’s preemption language covers almost anything that could become a “component” of food. That means the FRESH Act’s threats to the food supply are twofold: It would erase state bans on harmful food chemicals – and might roll back a range of other public health protections with it.

One consequence of the bill would be blocking state laws that require folic acid to be added to certain foods – a practice the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called one of the greatest public health achievements in recent decades.

Benefits of folic acid fortification

The addition of folic acid to food – also known as folic acid fortification – is a public health measure designed to prevent neural tube defects in infants. Conditions like spina bifida can develop in the first weeks of pregnancy, often before someone even knows they’re pregnant.

The U.S. has required folic acid fortification in enriched grain products like bread and cereal since 1998. This policy may have helped to reduce the rate of neural tube defects by between 25% and 50%.

Many Latino communities benefit less from the federal fortification mandate, because they eat more tortillas and tamales – foods not captured in national fortification requirements. So some states, including Alabama and California, have extended that mandate to include corn masa flour. Florida introduced a similar bill to address health disparities, though it failed in committee.

The FRESH Act would wipe away those existing state laws and prevent any other state from pursuing future similar measures.

Harvard’s analysis warns that the FRESH Act’s preemption language is broad enough to block new folic acid fortification laws from ever taking effect, and to erase the ones already on the books in Alabama and California.

Despite its industry backers calling the bill a way to ensure consistent food safety nationwide, it could also frustrate other public health measures. For example, it would likely block state allergen labeling requirements and lead and arsenic limits in baby food.

Stopping state food chemical laws

A group called Americans for Ingredient Transparency, which is backed by major multinational food corporations, is pushing the bill.

Their goal is simple: make the FDA the only regulator that matters when it comes to food additives, effectively shutting state efforts down.

But the FDA’s system for evaluating food chemical safety is effectively broken.

Under current law, food companies can add chemicals to food through a provision called GRAS, or “generally recognized as safe.” It is a regulatory loophole that has allowed thousands of chemicals into our food supply – some of which the chemical companies never even notified the FDA about.

And a recent GRAS “reform” proposal from the FDA fails to fix the broken system. Although it would require companies to tell the FDA about new chemicals, it sets no deadlines for notification, allows companies to use new chemicals before the FDA has reviewed them, and fails to guarantee those chemicals are safe.

It also permits existing GRAS chemicals to stay on the market without submitting any safety data to the FDA.

The absence of federal leadership on food safety prompted many states to step up. In many cases, states are the sole line of defense against food chemicals that may harm our health. In 2025 alone, more than 30 states introduced nearly 120 bills addressing food chemical safety.

What needs to change – and what you can do now

Congress should reject the FRESH Act – and in the meantime, states should continue passing and defending their own food safety laws.

Join EWG in Washington, D.C., on September 15 for our Toxics Off the Table! rally to fight the FRESH Act and protect state food safety laws. Visit our website for more information.

Until there are enough policies in place to protect public health, EWG’s tools can help you navigate the food supply.

EWG’s Dirty Dozen™ Guide to Food Chemicals breaks down the most concerning additives currently allowed in our food.

And our Food Scores database lets you search for more than 150,000 products rated on nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns. Use EWG’s Healthy Living™ App on the go.

Areas of Focus

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

September 2, 2026

EWG letter objecting to the EPA's chlormequat tolerances

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 16:11:48 +0000

EWG letter objecting to the EPA's chlormequat tolerances Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026

Attached are EWG’s objections to the Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule setting chlormequat tolerances. EWG urges the agency to retain the tenfold children’s safety factor required by law.

File Download

ewg-objections_to_chlormequat_tolerances_epa-ha-opp-2021-0290.pdf

Areas of Focus

Pesticides

Authors

David Andrews, Ph.D.

August 31, 2026

EWG comments on EPA's proposed sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 15:44:32 +0000

EWG comments on EPA's proposed sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments to the Environmental Protection Agency on its proposed sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.

File Download

ewg_ucmr6comments.pdf

Areas of Focus

Water

Toxic Chemicals

PFAS Chemicals

Authors

Varun Subramaniam, M.S.

Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D.

David Andrews, Ph.D.

August 31, 2026

Agriculture’s climate emissions are rising but fully funding conservation can slow them

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 04:00:01 +0000

Agriculture’s climate emissions are rising but fully funding conservation can slow them Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026

Anne Schechinger, M.S.

September 2, 2026

Overview

Agriculture produces around 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the sector’s emissions are rising.
Under current policies, that 10% could jump to between 18% and 41% by 2050.
The next farm bill should prioritize and fully fund regenerative agriculture practices to stop the sector from becoming the largest source of emissions.

Agriculture could become the nation’s leading producer of greenhouse gases by 2050.

Most other sectors of the economy, especially transportation and electricity, are expected to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions dramatically in the coming decades. That decline is mostly due to voluntary industry efforts and changing technology.

Agriculture’s climate pollution is driven overwhelmingly by nitrous oxide and methane. Nitrous oxide accounts for 52% of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, while methane accounts for another 46%. And the sector’s emissions keep rising – they’re projected to go up a quarter of a percent every year through mid-century.

That should be a wake-up call for Congress.

Agricultural conservation practices – like riparian forest buffers, tree establishment, diversified crop rotations and nutrient management – can help reduce climate emissions or store carbon, so agriculture doesn’t become the biggest source of emissions.

These practices also have other benefits, such as reducing air pollution and protecting waterways.

But the billions of dollars both the House and Senate farm bills propose to cut from federal conservation programs would make it harder for farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Congress, through the farm bill, should maintain conservation program funding, and prioritize the money for regenerative practices, instead of continuing to send so much money to structural practices that bring little, if any, climate emissions reductions.

Agriculture’s growing share of emissions

Agriculture is responsible for at least 10% of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. When combined with emissions from fertilizer production, the sector’s share is even higher.

Climate models show that if the sector’s emissions increase slightly while emissions from other sectors fall, as projected, agriculture’s share of U.S. emissions will grow.

Agriculture ranks fourth among U.S. economic sectors for greenhouse gas emissions, behind transportation, industry and electricity and ahead of buildings and “other” sources.

But that ranking is unlikely to last.

Under policies in place today, agriculture’s share of emissions is expected to almost double by 2050, from 10% to 18%. Agriculture would move up to being the third largest greenhouse-gas-producing sector, after industry and transportation.

But the U.S. has previously made international climate commitments, including through the Paris Agreement, that have led to federal rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gases from most other sectors, including industry and transportation.

Even though the Trump administration – in both the first and second terms – withdrew from the Paris climate pact, the industry and transportation sectors are still rapidly reducing their emissions.

There are no broad federal greenhouse gas rules in place to force cuts in agriculture’s emissions. As industry, transportation and other sectors lower their overall emissions, agriculture’s share rises – unless the sector also acts to cut emissions.

Under the scenario in which the U.S. reduces total emissions to levels agreed on in the Paris Agreement, the agriculture sector would make up 41% of total U.S. emissions in 2050. In this scenario, agriculture would be the economic sector producing the most greenhouse gas emissions, because the other sectors would severely cut their emissions. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. U.S. emissions by economic sector in 2026, and predicted emissions in 2050 under two scenarios

Source: EWG, using data from Energy Innovation’s Energy Policy Simulator.

Agriculture must reduce its emissions to avoid becoming the No. 1 source of U.S. climate emissions. (See Figure 2.) Scientists warn that if emissions from agriculture don’t go down, the worst impacts of the climate crisis will be inescapable.

Figure 2. If the U.S. follows its international commitments in other sectors, agriculture could top 40% of emissions by 2050

Source: EWG, using data from Energy Innovation’s Energy Policy Simulator.

Nitrous oxide and methane are agriculture’s main climate emissions

Agricultural soil management is the main driver of the sector’s nitrous oxide emissions, particularly the widespread use of fertilizer on crops like corn. Microbes in soil turn nitrogen from fertilizer and manure into nitrous oxide.

Even though nitrous oxide makes up a small share of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, it is a potent greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for over 100 years and has a global warming potential 273 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Global nitrous oxide emissions grew by 40% between 1980 and 2020, and they are expected to increase another 30% between 2020 and 2050. Corn production makes up over half of all nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture.

Nitrous oxide does not just contribute to climate change; it also depletes the ozone layer. And ammonia nitrous oxides can form with other compounds to create particulate matter, with exposure leading to premature deaths.

Methane makes up the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. agriculture. Most agricultural methane emissions come from livestock. Enteric fermentation from beef and dairy cattle – their natural digestion process – accounts for about 25% of total U.S. methane emissions.

Manure management also contributes to both methane and nitrous oxide emissions, making up 9% of total U.S. methane emissions and 4% of total nitrous oxide emissions.

Methane does not stay in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide, but it has a global warming potential 28 times that of carbon dioxide over 100 years.

Regenerative agriculture practices can reduce emissions

Conservation practices implemented on farm fields can help to lower agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.

A 2022 report from the Boston Consulting Group and the Walton Family Foundation found that practice changes could slash greenhouse gas emissions from farming by almost 22%.

The report showed emissions could go down as a result of changes in fertilizer applications, tillage practices, grazing management, the use of cover crops, livestock feed additives, soil amendments and the targeted use of trees, among other practices.

EWG found in a 2025 analysis that many conservation practices can reduce farming’s greenhouse gas emissions. Even if they are adopted on only a small number of acres, they can have a big climate impact.

The conservation practices applied to Midwest corn acres that would most lower climate emissions are riparian forest buffers, tree or shrub establishment, hedgerow planting and windbreak establishment.

Other practices, including no-tillage, cover crops, and diversifying crops so there is a conservation crop rotation, would also reduce climate emissions.

But federal conservation program funding needs to be prioritized for practices that help farmers reduce climate emissions and adapt to extreme weather conditions tied to intensifying climate change.

EWG has identified a list of regenerative agriculture practices that decrease a farm’s greenhouse gas emissions and increase climate resilience.

Farmers can receive funding to implement these regenerative practices from the Agriculture Department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, one of the largest federal conservation programs.

But EQIP spending must be reformed. In 2025, only $660.9 million from EQIP, or 39% of all payments from the program, went to farmers for practices on EWG’s regenerative practice list. Only four of the top 10 paid practices were regenerative: cover crops, brush management, forest stand improvement, and pasture and hay planting.

Prioritizing funding

Six of the 10 most funded practices that were not regenerative were structural, building or equipment practices, which together received $427.1 million. These are practices like irrigation pipelines and animal waste storage facilities, which rarely benefit the climate.

Farmers collected hardly any money for some of the conservation practices that are the best at reducing emissions. Two practices that would generate substantial emissions reductions on Midwest corn acres – riparian forest buffer and hedgerow planting – received only $423,000 and $735,000 from EQIP nationally in 2025, respectively.

More conservation funding must be prioritized for regenerative practices that have climate benefits. Adoption of more of these practices could slow the growth of agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions so the sector does not produce the largest share of U.S. emissions by 2050.

The versions of the farm bill proposed by the House and Senate cut conservation spending by billions of dollars, including reducing funding for EQIP.

If these cuts were to go into effect, they would hurt farmers and the climate.

California bill to require full disclosure of diaper chemicals heads to Gov. Newsom for signature

Monica Amarelo — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 17:57:04 +0000

California bill to require full disclosure of diaper chemicals heads to Gov. Newsom for signature Monica Amarelo August 26, 2026

SACRAMENTO – California’s Legislature today passed a bill that would, if enacted, require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in the state to fully disclose their ingredients on the product’s packaging and online.

Assembly Bill 1901, by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature. The Environmental Working Group, Consumer Reports, Children Now and the Center for Environmental Health are co-sponsoring the bill.

“As a new dad, I have a new appreciation for how important it is for parents to make informed decisions when it comes to the health and wellness of their children,” said Berman.

“We all want the best for our children, but the lack of transparency around diaper ingredients prevents us from knowing what ‘the best’ is when buying the one thing that is touching our baby’s skin every minute of their lives for years,” he said.

“I’m proud to author AB 1901 to give parents greater transparency about the chemicals in their children’s diapers so that they can make the right choice for their family,” Berman added.

Newborns and toddlers especially vulnerable

Babies spend much of their first two to three years of life in diapers. Yet the federal government does not require disposable diapers to carry ingredient labels of any kind.

Manufacturers are not required to inform regulators about the chemicals used to make them. Instead, they can hide dozens of chemicals behind umbrella terms like “fragrance” or “colors” – potentially toxic mystery cocktails. This situation leaves parents with no way of knowing what chemicals sit against their baby’s skin day after day.

“A newborn’s skin is thinner, more permeable and still developing, which means it absorbs chemicals more readily than an adult’s does, and diapers are in constant contact with that skin, around the clock, for years,” said Sydney Swanson, a senior science analyst at EWG.

“Right now, parents have no way of knowing what their baby is being exposed to. Every hour of every day, an infant’s skin is absorbing whatever industry decided not to tell us about. Parents can read a nutrition label or a shampoo label but not this,” she added.

“AB 1901 isn’t asking for anything radical. It’s asking for diapers to contain ingredient labels that are similar to labels required of other baby products,” Swanson said.

Chemicals found in diapers

Recent tests have found diapers may contain volatile organic compounds and phthalates, linked to hormone disruption and reproductive and developmental harm.

Tests have also found diapers containing quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, used in wetness indicators and linked to reproductive effects, skin irritation and asthma, as well as dyes and bleaching agents that can cause allergic reactions or skin and respiratory irritation.

Because babies’ skin is thinner, more permeable and still developing, they are especially vulnerable to potential harms from these chemical exposures.

Many children with special needs rely on diapers for years, prolonging the exposure risk. When manufacturers hide their ingredients, caregivers may feel fearful and sidelined.

“Transparency isn’t about causing fear but about replacing uncertainty with the facts parents need to protect their children,” said Susan Little, California legislative director.

“And because an infant’s thin skin absorbs chemicals more easily, hidden ingredients like phthalates can trigger a lifetime of health challenges.”

“California parents shouldn’t need a chemistry degree to buy a diaper. They deserve to know exactly what is touching their child’s skin. Caregivers want this information,” said Little.

Making baby products safer

California has already shown that more transparency about what’s in baby products can help spur changes that reduce hazardous ingredients and their health threats. After the state required public disclosure of results of heavy metal tests of baby food, in January 2025, manufacturers responded by reducing heavy metal contamination levels in many product categories.

AB 1901 applies that same principle to diapers while giving parents and caregivers more informed choices. If enacted, it would be a first-in-the-nation law requiring such full diaper ingredient transparency. The bill would require online disclosure to begin on January 1, 2029, and disclosure on the package to begin July 1, 2029.

“Stronger regulation and full disclosure are needed, and that’s why this bill is so important to protect children's health,” said Little.

And AB 1901 is something manufacturers can comply with – a 2023 New York law that requires on-label disclosure of diaper ingredients shows that greater transparency is achievable.

EWG has created a Guide to Safer Diapers to help parents navigate the market in the meantime, and diapers earning the EWG Verified® mark meet our strict standards for ingredient transparency and health.

###

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.

Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports has a mission to create a fair and just marketplace for all. Widely known for our rigorous research and testing of products and services, we also survey millions of consumers each year, report extensively on marketplace issues, and advocate for consumer rights and protections around safety as well as digital rights, financial fairness, and sustainability. CR is independent and nonprofit.

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.

Children Now harnesses collective power to achieve transformational and systemic results for California’s kids as one of the country’s most impactful kids’ nonprofits. Led by experienced policy and government relations teams spanning health, education, early childhood, child welfare, and a range of other areas, Children Now learns from kids and families where they need support and lift up solutions to policymakers with the power to act.

Areas of Focus

Household & Consumer Products

Press Contact

Monica Amarelo

monica@ewg.org

(202) 939-9140

August 27, 2026

Landmark California bill that would track and disclose PFAS pesticide use heads to Newsom’s desk

Monica Amarelo — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 17:41:48 +0000

Landmark California bill that would track and disclose PFAS pesticide use heads to Newsom’s desk Monica Amarelo August 26, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Groundbreaking legislation that would address the widespread use of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” pesticides on California produce today passed the state Legislature.

It now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature.

If enacted, Assembly Bill 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would require the state to monitor and disclose PFAS pesticide use. State agencies were not tracking the concerning use of toxic PFAS on crops until the Environmental Working Group raised concerns.

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

EWG research 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.

“As a father, I don’t want my kids eating strawberries contaminated with chemicals that will stay in their bodies for decades,” said Schultz.

“AB 1603 is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation, not by the accumulation of toxic PFAS in our soil and water,” he added.

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

“The state cannot act on this newly revealed PFAS problem if it ignores the issue and pretends it doesn’t exist,” said Susan Little, EWG California legislative director.

“Right now, the state has no comprehensive picture of where these chemicals are being sprayed or in what quantities,” she added.

The bill would also establish 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.

Other AB 1603 sponsors include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

Why tracking and monitoring matter

If enacted, AB 1603 will require the Department of Pesticide Regulation to begin systematically tracking and publicly disclosing PFAS pesticide use across the state, marking the first time California has required this level of visibility about where the chemicals are applied.

“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.”

“We need to stop spraying our produce with toxic ‘forever chemicals.’ With this bill, we are telling it like it is, so farmers and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this hidden PFAS use,” 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,” 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 authority to protect its residents – power it has largely chosen not to use when it comes to PFAS pesticides.

That authority matters more than ever because of what is happening at the federal level. The EPA has continued to approve new PFAS pesticides at an accelerating pace, greenlighting three more in July.

With the EPA fast-tracking approvals, California taking the lead in informing the public and local officials about the pesticides that do contain PFAS, while monitoring the pesticides’ use, is necessary.

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.

AB 1603, if enacted, will put California in line with these other states and jurisdictions, 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. “But we’ve been silent on PFAS pesticides, even though we are one of the biggest users.

“AB 1603 can begin to change that. This is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food,” she added.

###

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

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

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

Farming & Agriculture

Transparency legislation would reveal ‘forever chemicals’ sprayed on the state’s produce

Press Contact

Monica Amarelo

monica@ewg.org

(202) 939-9140

August 26, 2026

California lawmakers pass bill to create landmark ‘non-ultra-processed’ food label

Iris Myers — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 14:56:23 +0000

California lawmakers pass bill to create landmark ‘non-ultra-processed’ food label Iris Myers August 26, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Today the California Legislature took a major step toward protecting public health by passing a first-of-its-kind bill to create a certified “non-ultra-processed” food label intended to make it easier for consumers to choose less-processed foods in the grocery store.

Assembly Bill 2244, authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would develop a state certification program for products that are not ultra-processed, or UPF. If enacted, it would create a new standardized and government-backed seal for non-UPF foods.

It would also require some of the largest grocery stores to highlight these products in store so they’re easier for shoppers to identify.

The Environmental Working Group is cosponsoring the bill, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature.

“Parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids,” said Gabriel.

“AB 2244 will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. This new seal doesn’t limit consumer choice, it just makes informed choice possible,” he added.

A new standard for healthier food

Under AB 2244, the state would create a standardized label bearing the phrase “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.” Products would not be permitted to carry the new label if they are classified as UPF under state law.

Some types of food, such as substances or additives used to manipulate taste and quality, would not qualify for the new label. These food chemicals, such as dyes, flavor enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners and processing aids, are used to make food hyperpalatable and irresistible.

AB 2244 builds on a precedent-setting earlier law by Gabriel. AB 1264 set the first U.S. legal definition of UPF and banned the worst UPF from K-12 public schools.

If Newson signs AB 2244, the California Department of Public Health would oversee approved agents’ independent certification of products that meet the state’s non-UPF standard and qualify to use the label.

AB 2244 would direct the department to accredit these third-party agents no later than June 1, 2029. It would also require product recertification at least every three years.

“This is about setting a higher bar for what we consider healthy food and helping consumers make wise choices,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California.

“Consumers deserve labels they can trust. And families deserve a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory.”

“If enacted, the bill would establish 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.

Transparency and accountability

The bill includes these strong oversight and transparency measures:

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

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

Making healthier choices easier

In addition to creating the label, the bill would require large food retailers to display certified products carrying the label in a way that’s easy for consumers to identify, such as through special signage or physical separation within the store.

This requirement would apply to any grocery store that sells more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified product types 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 harmful additives 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, particularly soda, are engineered to trick people into consuming more than they want.

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 UPF.

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

AB 2244 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 people seldom use information on the back of food packages to make food decisions. 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,” Moran said.

“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

Food Chemicals

California

UPF labeling legislation now heads to Gov. Newsom’s desk

Press Contact

Iris Myers

iris@ewg.org

(202) 939-9126

August 28, 2026

California Legislature approves bill easing access to clean, affordable ‘balcony solar’

Anthony Lacey — Tue, 25 Aug 2026 21:47:09 +0000

California Legislature approves bill easing access to clean, affordable ‘balcony solar’ Anthony Lacey August 25, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today applauds the California Legislature for passing a bill that will help Californians invest in clean energy while also tackling sky-high energy bills by making it easier to install small, affordable “balcony solar” systems.

Senate Bill 868, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, would eliminate red tape that has kept these systems from being placed in apartments, condos and single-family homes. The legislation would also ensure the systems comply with strict safety standards.

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network. SB 868 heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature.

“This is the most exciting clean energy idea around,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “With this bill, California is poised to fling its doors wide open to a real, tangible affordability solution for everyday consumers.

“Solar energy is a no-brainer for California and we applaud Sen. Wiener and his legislative colleagues for their hard work to put this critical clean energy solution on the governor’s desk,” she added.

Balcony solar is thriving in Europe – in Germany more than 4 million systems have been installed. Efforts to ease their deployment are gathering steam in other countries.

But in the U.S., regulatory barriers keep this technology out of reach for many. If enacted, SB 868 would remove those barriers while ensuring the systems meet safety standards.

Homeowners and renters could then buy portable balcony solar panels from retailers and plug them in without first having to get an interconnection agreement from their utility. The cost and time involved with getting that agreement has been a barrier to greater deployment of these systems.

The Assembly amended the bill with a provision sunsetting the interconnection exemption on Jan. 1, 2030 – language sought by the utilities – but SB 868 gives the market four years to take off and the Legislature has the opportunity to remove the sunset in the future.

Solving an urgent public health problem

EWG this month released a report showing that California is experiencing more frequent and dangerous heat days, with extreme heat events up 55% statewide threatening public health and safety without access to cooling. But soaring utility bills mean millions of people can’t afford the air conditioning that could keep them safe.

Balcony solar is one solution, helping lower electricity costs and making it cheaper to run vital cooling. With 2027 shaping up to be the hottest year on record, it can’t come soon enough.

That’s why EWG is calling on policy makers to prioritize solutions like customer-sited solar energy that can drastically lower or eliminate annual utility costs for air conditioning. If it becomes law, SB 868 would help millions of families tackle air conditioning costs.

“These small, easy-to-use solar panels will give everyone, including renters, the relief they desperately need on our outrageous energy bills,” said Wiener. “Electricity costs have reached ridiculous levels here in California and the Plug and Play Solar Act provides a much-needed tool to provide relief. It’s time to put money back in the pockets of Californians.”

A single 400-watt balcony solar system can cover roughly 14% of the average apartment’s electricity usage, providing savings of about $250 per year. While the cost of balcony solar starts around $500 today, with broader adoption enabled by SB 868, EWG expects costs to fall, making solar even more accessible to renters and low-income households.

California electricity rates have nearly doubled over the past decade, leaving the state with the nation’s second-highest energy prices. SB 868 provides consumers with a straightforward way to take control of their energy bills.

And the systems are easy to use. “Installing balcony solar is as simple as plugging an appliance like a toaster into a standard wall outlet,” said Del Chiaro.

“At a time when many struggle to pay their energy bills, balcony solar is a powerful cost-cutting tool that also helps the state meet its clean energy goals,” she added.

SB 868 would also ensure these plug-and-play systems meet strict safety standards. All systems must be certified by UL, or Underwriters Laboratories, the global independent safety science company, or an equivalent national testing lab. To protect utility workers and prevent electrical hazards, systems must automatically shut off within seconds if the grid goes down.

System size is capped at 1,200 watts, enough to power everyday appliances such as fridges, lights, Wi-Fi routers and AC units.

California is not the first state to remove barriers to balcony solar. Utah became the first in 2025, and so far, eight other states have enacted laws to do the same.

With today’s vote, California joins New York as another state with a balcony solar bill sitting on the governor’s desk. Newsom has 30 days to take action on SB 868. The California Assembly and Senate both gave the bill strong bipartisan support, with over 90% approval in both chambers.

“California may not be the first out of the gates but we are the biggest prize,” said Del Chiaro. “If Gov. Newsom signs this bill into law, the size of our market will radically transform and accelerate the adoption of this brilliant new way to tackle both climate change and energy affordability.”

###

Areas of Focus

Energy

Renewable Energy

California

SB 868 would end red tape blocking millions from utility bill savings

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

August 25, 2026