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

EWG seeks California Supreme Court review of anti-rooftop solar, anti-affordability ruling

Anthony Lacey — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 18:03:51 +0000

EWG seeks California Supreme Court review of anti-rooftop solar, anti-affordability ruling Anthony Lacey April 20, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group, along with its allies, is asking the California Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision that threatens the future of clean energy in the state.

EWG, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Protect Our Communities Foundation on April 17 petitioned the high court to review the California Court of Appeal’s March ruling upholding a California Public Utilities Commission policy sharply scaling back the state’s once-thriving rooftop solar program, known as net energy metering.

The state’s three monopoly utilities sought the policy, seeing rooftop solar as their main competition.

The coalition has argued that, in upholding the policy, the appeals court gave too much deference to the commission’s decision-making, ignoring the California State Legislature's clear directives. They also say the policy failed to account for the many benefits of small, distributed solar systems, which help lower costs and make energy more affordable for everyone.

The following is a statement from EWG Senior Vice President for California Bernadette Del Chiaro:

Many Californians struggle to pay their ever-increasing electricity bills, and the commission’s ill-conceived policy will only make matters worse. Putting clean, reliable rooftop solar financially out of reach for millions of renters and homeowners makes no sense.
An affordability crisis is the time to promote efforts to reduce energy costs and save people money – not reward the monopoly utilities by throttling their competition.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear our case, we’ll make clear how the commission’s anti-solar policy fails on every front. It’s unlawful, undermines efforts to lower electricity bills and harms Californians and our environment.

###

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

Areas of Focus

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

April 20, 2026

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: Sucralose

rcoleman — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:19:04 +0000

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: Sucralose rcoleman April 15, 2026

David Andrews, Ph.D.

Sydney Evans, MPH

Dayna de Montagnac, MPH

Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D.

Jump to:

What is sucralose and why is it added to foods?

Where is sucralose found in foods?

What is the regulatory status of sucralose?

Are foods containing sucralose ultra-processed?

Is sucralose allowed in organic foods?

What are the potential health harms associated with sucralose?

Uncertainties/where more research is needed

Cited resources

April 15, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

Sucralose is an ingredient of concern. EWG suggests avoiding or limiting consumption of products with this ingredient or using sucralose as a sugar substitute. This recommendation is specific to frequent consumption and non-medical uses.

The World Health Organization in 2023 completed a systematic review of 283 studies on the consumption of non-sugar sweeteners and found they provided no long-term weight loss benefit. The review also identified potential harm, including increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and mortality in adults, as well as preterm birth (WHO 2023).

There is potential for widespread, repeated exposure, since sucralose is a common sugar substitute, especially in beverages and foods, which are consumed regularly. They are often marketed as “low calorie” or “zero sugar.” (Sylvetsky and Rother 2016, Sylvetsky et al 2012, Grilo et al 2023).

Science analysis

What is sucralose and why is it added to foods?

Sucralose, a tabletop sweetener sold under the brand name Splenda, is a non-nutritive, or artificial, sweetener that is about 600 times sweeter than sugar. It tastes similar to sugar but has zero calories.

Where is sucralose found in foods?

Sucralose is typically added to sugar-free or “low calorie” diet foods and drinks.

Sucralose is present in 5,574, or 3.2%, of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

Top 15 food and drink categories, organized by supermarket shelf

^{Source: EWG’s Food Scores. Label created between January 1, 2023, and October 22, 2025.}

What is the regulatory status of sucralose?

Sucralose is approved for use in foods and beverages in both the U.S. and Europe. The Food and Drug Administration in 1998 established an acceptable daily intake, or ADI, of 5 mg/kg body weight per day.

In California, a law was passed with implementation starting in 2029 that targets ultraprocessed food, or UPF, of concern in school meals, and any food with an artificial sweetener is considered a UPF.

In Europe, the European Food Safety Authority and the joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives have set an ADI of 15 mg/kg body weight per day.

In the EU, sucralose is not permitted in food or supplements for infants or young children, with exceptions for food for special medical purposes. In 2026, the EU classified sucralose as a low-concern ingredient but did raise concern about uses where the ingredient was heated, such as in baked goods or fried foods.

Are foods containing sucralose ultra-processed?

Non-sugar sweeteners are not only commonly used in UPF, they are identified in the NOVA framework as characteristic markers of UPF (Monteiro et al 2019). California’s recent law defining UPF includes any food with “a nonnutritive sweetener” (California Assembly Bill 1264).

Is sucralose allowed in organic foods?

No. Under Department of Agriculture organic standards, synthetic substances such as artificial sweeteners are prohibited in certified organic foods.

What are the potential health harms associated with sucralose?

The WHO completed a systematic review in 2023 finding consumption of non-sugar sweeteners provided no long-term weight benefit but did lead to potential harm, including increased risk for Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and mortality in adults as well as preterm birth (WHO 2023).

EFSA published a re-evaluation of sucralose’s safety in 2026. It said that based on the available evidence, current intake levels were of low concern, except when heated. These heated foods may be a source of chlorinated compounds (EFSA 2026).

Recent rodent studies have linked sucralose to disruption of the gut microbiome, weight gain, cardiometabolic disease, and persistence in body fat and breast milk (Zheng et al 2021, Ragi et al 2021, Risdon et al 2021, Bornemann et al 2018, Sylvetsky et al 2015).

Evidence also suggests that, because of how it’s broken down in the body, sucralose when ingested can affect satiety – the feeling of fullness – which in turn can lead to overeating (Wang et al. 2016).

Uncertainties/where more research is needed

Health effects of long-term regular consumption of sucralose – people who consume sucralose exclusively for long periods of time – focused on pregnant people, children and those with metabolic diseases (Debras et al. 2022, WHO 2023).

Health risks from exposure to chlorinated compounds formed from baked/fried goods containing sucralose (EFSA 2026).

Health effects of transfer of sucralose to young children through pregnant or breastfeeding parents (Sylvetsky et al. 2017).

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

World Health Organization (WHO). (2023). Use of non-sugar sweeteners: WHO guideline. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073616
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (1999). Food Additives Permitted for Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption; Sucralose. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1999-08-12/pdf/99-20888.pdf
European Parliament and Council. (2008). Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1333/oj/eng
USDA National Organic Program. The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/national-list
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2026). Re-evaluation of sucralose (E 955) as a food additive. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/sweeteners (Current portal)

Legislation

California, Legislature, Assembly (2025). Real Food, Healthy Kids Act. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264.

Comprehensive reviews and frameworks

Aguayo-Guerrero, J., et al. (2024). Sucralose: From Sweet Success to Metabolic Controversies—Unraveling the Global Health Implications of a Pervasive Non-Caloric Artificial Sweetener. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10971371/
Monteiro, C. A., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed foods, diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/5277b379-0acb-4d97-a6a3-602774104629/content
Risdon, S., et al. (2021). Non-nutritive Sweeteners and Cardiometabolic Health: A Review. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33578411/

Consumption trends and exposure

Sylvetsky, A. C., & Rother, K. I. (2016). Trends in the consumption of low-calorie sweeteners. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27039282/
Sylvetsky, A. C., et al. (2012). Consumption of Low-Calorie Sweeteners among Children and Adults in the United States. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28087414/
Grilo, M. F., et al. (2023). Global intake of non-sugar sweeteners: A systematic review. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/consumption-of-lowcalorie-sweeteners-findings-from-the-campinas-nutrition-and-health-survey/6F97B9417AAE5195F8271BAEEFB9EEAC

Specific health-impact studies

Singh, A. S., et al. (2024). Unveiling the profound influence of sucralose on metabolism and its role in shaping obesity trends. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11250074/
Wang, Y., et al. (2016). Sucralose Promotes Food Intake through NPY and a Neuronal Fasting Response https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38217520/
Zheng, Z., et al. (2022). Impact of sucralose on the gut microbiome. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35284433/
Sylvetsky, A. C., et al. (2015). Non-nutritive Sweeteners in Breast Milk.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26267522/
Sylvetsky, A. C., et al. (2017). Plasma concentrations of sucralose in children and adults. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28775393/
Debras, C., et al. (2022). Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk: Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35324894/
Bornemann, V., et al. (2018). Intestinal Metabolism and Bioaccumulation of Sucralose In Adipose Tissue In The Rat. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15287394.2018.1502560
Ragi, S., et al. (2021). The effect of aspartame and sucralose intake on body weight measures and blood metabolites: role of their form (solid and/or liquid) of ingestion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/effect-of-aspartame-and-sucralose-intake-on-body-weight-measures-and-blood-metabolites-role-of-their-form-solid-andor-liquid-of-ingestion/F97EA712AAC19B3D5A8E98BCE78AD22E

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: TBHQ

rcoleman — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:07:23 +0000

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: TBHQ rcoleman April 15, 2026

David Andrews, Ph.D.

Sydney Evans, MPH

Dayna de Montagnac, MPH

Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D.

Jump to:

What is TBHQ and why is it added to foods?

Where is TBHQ found in foods?

What is the regulatory status of TBHQ?

Are foods containing TBHQ ultra-processed?

Is TBHQ allowed in organic foods?

What are the potential health harms associated with TBHQ?

Uncertainties/where more research is needed

Cited resources

April 15, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

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

Multiple animal studies have associated TBHQ with immune dysfunction, including evidence suggesting it may decrease the immune system’s ability to fight infections and cancer cells (Boss et al, 2018).

TBHQ has also been associated with mechanisms related to cancer development, such as the generation of reactive oxygen species and DNA damage (Ousji & Sleno, 2020). BHA, another food preservative of concern, can be metabolized to TBHQ in the body, although its contribution to overall TBHQ exposure remains unclear.

A published peer-reviewed study by EWG found TBHQ may act as an immunotoxin, affecting multiple receptors involved in regulating inflammation and immune responses. (Naidenko et al. (2021).

Science analysis

What is TBHQ and why is it added to foods?

TBHQ is a preservative that prevents oxidation, extending the shelf life of fats and oils in processed foods.

Where is TBHQ found in foods?

TBHQ is typically added to packaged foods like crackers, processed potato products, and baked goods that contain oil.

TBHQ is used in 2,730 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

Top 15 food and drink categories organized by supermarket shelf

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

What is the regulatory status of TBHQ?

The Food and Drug Administration approved TBHQ for use in food 1972.

The European Food Safety Authority approved its use in food in 2004. The international Acceptable Daily Intake, or ADI – confirmed by the European Union and World Health Organization – is 0.7 milligrams/kilogram of body weight per day (EFSA 2016).

In 2016, based on an exposure assessment, a statement by EFSA concluded that if TBHQ were added to baby formula, it could exceed the ADI for infants and toddlers in a high consumption scenario (EFSA 2016). TBHQ is not approved for use in infant formula sold in the EU.

Are foods containing TBHQ ultra-processed?

Yes, TBHQ and other synthetic preservatives are common ingredients in ultra-processed food, or UPF. As an ingredient synthesized in a laboratory, it falls into the NOVA framework as a UPF ingredient (Monteiro et al 2019).

While most foods with TBHQ would be classified as ultra-processed, a recent California law defining UPF does not include preservatives such as TBHQ (California Assembly Bill 1264).

Is TBHQ allowed in organic foods?

No. Under Department of Agriculture organic standards, synthetic substances are prohibited in certified organic foods.

What are the potential health harms associated with TBHQ?

While TBHQ protects food from spoilage, its breakdown in the body can trigger oxidative stress. TBHQ is shown in some animal studies to cause cells to produce antioxidants, which protects them from oxidative stress by activating Nrf2, a protein. But constant activation of this protein from repeated exposure to TBHQ may do the opposite, causing immune cell dysfunction (Freeborn et al 2019).

Rodent studies have linked TBHQ to impaired immune system function and DNA damage. Doses of TBHQ that are relevant to human exposure have been shown in rodents to significantly impair NK cells, which are responsible for killing infected and cancerous cells. They may also affect the immune system's response to influenza and possibly vaccine efficacy (Freeborn et al 2019).

DNA damage was observed in rodent stomach, kidney and liver cells following higher exposure levels (Ramadan & Suzuki (2012)).

EWG published a peer-reviewed study in 2021 showing TBHQ acts as a potential immunotoxin, with activity in both high-throughput screening and classical assays. TBHQ may suppress or harm human immune responses by affecting Nrf2, the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, and the glucocorticoid receptor, which play roles in regulating inflammation and immune responses (Naidenko et al. (2021).

Uncertainties/where more research is needed

Biomonitoring studies of TBHQ and examination of exposure through consumption of foods containing BHA are needed to observe if typical intake exceeds the ADI.

More details about TBHQ

BHA, another Dirty Dozen food additive, is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC. TBHQ can form in the body when it metabolizes BHA (Ousji & Sleno (2020).

TBHQ has also been studied for therapeutic effects with respect to inhibiting neurotoxicity caused by oxidative stress (Zhao et al. (2020)).

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

EFSA (2016). Statement on the refined exposure assessment of tertiary-butyl hydroquinone (E 319). View Statement (EFSA Journal)
USDA National Organic Program. The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/national-list
42 Fed. Reg. 14557 (1977). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1977-03-15/pdf/FR-1977-03-15.pdf#page=421
37 FR Reg. 25356 (1972) https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/37-FR-25356

Comprehensive reviews and frameworks

Monteiro et al. (2018): The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28322183/

Legislation

California, Legislature, Assembly (2025). Real Food, Healthy Kids Act. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264.

Specific health impact studies

Naidenko et al. (2021). Investigation of Modulating Effects of Common Food Additives and Contaminants on Immune Cell Functions.https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3590
Freeborn et al. (2019). Tert-Butylhydroquinone (tBHQ) Impairs the Immune Response to Influenza Virus Infection. https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.2019.33.1_supplement.505.3
Eskandani et al. (2014). Cytotoxicity and DNA damage properties of tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ) food additive.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24491735/
Ousji & Sleno (2020). Identification of In Vitro Metabolites of Synthetic Phenolic Antioxidants BHT, BHA, and TBHQ.https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7765162/
Boss et al. (2018). The Nrf2 activator tBHQ inhibits the activation of primary murine natural killer cells. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278691518306240?via%3Dihub
Zhao et al. (2020). t-BHQ Provides Protection against Lead Neurotoxicity via Nrf2/HO-1 Pathway. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4698940/

Dirty dozen food chemicals: Sucralose

rcoleman — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 20:37:49 +0000

Dirty dozen food chemicals: Sucralose rcoleman April 14, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing sucralose.

Artificial sweeteners such as sucralose may increase risk of Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and mortality in adults, as well as preterm birth. Evidence also suggests that artificial, or non-sugar, sweeteners do not lead to long-term weight loss.

What is sucralose?

Sucralose is an artificial sweetener that is about 600 times sweeter than sugar. It tastes similar to sugar but contains zero calories.

Sucralose is often used as a sugar substitute in foods and drinks marketed as “diet,” “low calorie” or “zero sugar.” It is most commonly found in soda, flavored water, sports drinks, and other beverages, as well as yogurt, energy and granola bars, ice cream, candy, chewing gum and mints.

As a table sugar substitute, sucralose is better known by one of its brand names, Splenda.

Look for sucralose in the product ingredient list, usually below or next to the nutrition facts panel on the back of the package. It may also be listed as Splenda.

How is sucralose regulated?

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing food additives and other ingredients. The FDA last reviewed and approved sucralose for use in 1998.

Sucralose is also approved in the European Union. But it can not be used in food or supplements for infants and young children, with exceptions for special medical purposes.

The European Food Safety Authority determined earlier this year it could not confirm the safety of sucralose in foods that involve heating – for instance, baked goods – because it can form dangerous compounds in some circumstances.

In California, food and beverages containing artificial sweeteners will be considered ultraprocessed and restricted in school meals, starting in 2029.

What does the science say about sucralose?

In 2023, the World Health Organization completed a systematic review of more than 280 studies on sucralose and other non-sugar sweeteners.

The WHO found non-sugar sweeteners provided no long-term weight loss benefit and were linked to a wide range of potential health harms, including Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and mortality in adults, as well as preterm birth. As a result, the WHO recommends that artificial sweeteners should not be used to lose weight or reduce chronic disease risk.

Since sucralose is in many common foods, it’s likely one of the most widely consumed non-sugar sweeteners.

Children ingest more sucralose relative to their body weight than adults do. And it can also pass through breast milk, increasing exposure for infants and young children.

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to sucralose – 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

April 15, 2026

Dirty dozen food chemicals: TBHQ

rcoleman — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 20:35:54 +0000

Dirty dozen food chemicals: TBHQ rcoleman April 14, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing the preservative TBHQ.

Some animal studies have associated TBHQ with immune dysfunction, including potentially impairing the body’s ability to regulate inflammation and fight infections and cancer.

What is TBHQ?

TBHQ, or tertiary butylhydroquinone, is a preservative that prevents oxidation, extending the shelf life of fats and oils in processed foods.

TBHQ is typically added to packaged foods like crackers, potato chips and baked goods that contain oil.

Look for TBHQ in the product ingredient list, usually found below or next to the nutrition facts panel on the back of the package. It may also be listed as tertiary butylhydroquinone or tert-butylhydroquinone.

How is TBHQ regulated?

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing food additives and other ingredients. The FDA first reviewed and approved TBHQ as a food additive in 1972.

The European Union approved the use of TBHQ in food in 2004. But studies published since then point to the preservative’s potential toxicity. The European Food Safety Authority has not approved TBHQ for use in baby formula, because of safety concerns for infants and toddlers, particularly if they consume large amounts of formula. It is still allowed in baby formula sold in the U.S.

What does the science say about TBHQ?

TBHQ may affect immune system function and has been associated with DNA damage in animal studies. Recent studies in rodents show it can weaken immune cells that fight infections and cancer and affect how well the body responds to the flu or vaccines.

At higher doses, TBHQ has also been linked to DNA damage in organs like the stomach, liver and kidneys. A 2021 study found it may act as an immunotoxin, interfering with key proteins that control inflammation and immune responses in the human body.

BHA, another preservative and Dirty Dozen food chemical, can break down into TBHQ in the body. More research is needed to determine whether eating foods with BHA can cause exposure levels to exceed daily limits for TBHQ.

Where can I learn more?

Find out more about EWG’s recommendations about TBHQ – and the full Dirty Dozen list of food chemicals – on EWG’s research page.

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

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

April 15, 2026

California Assembly panel advances bill to create landmark ‘non-ultraprocessed’ food label

Iris Myers — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 16:55:21 +0000

California Assembly panel advances bill to create landmark ‘non-ultraprocessed’ food label Iris Myers April 14, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Today the California Assembly’s Committee on Health voted to advance a trailblazing bill that would give shoppers an easy way to identify less harmful processed foods.

Assembly Bill 2244, introduced on March 24 by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), aims to create a first-of-its-kind state certification program for products that are not ultraprocessed food, or UPF. If enacted, it would establish a new seal for non-UPF foods.

“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.

The Environmental Working Group is co-sponsoring the bill. It now goes to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

A new standard for healthier food

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

It would direct the department to accredit these third-party certification agents, no later than June 1, 2028.

California last September enacted AB 1264, a landmark law by Gabriel setting the first U.S. legal definition of UPF. The law says a food is considered UPF if it is high in saturated fat, added sugar or sodium and contains a food additive such as flavor, color, emulsifier or a thickening agent.

AB 2244 would not let products carry the new label if they are classified as UPF under state law. They’d also be disqualified if they were already on the list of foods restricted in public schools.

Certified products would be required to undergo recertification at least every three years. The state would create a standardized label bearing the phrase “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.”

Only products that meet these requirements could display the seal.

“This is about setting a higher bar for what we consider healthy food,” 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 define the modern American diet,” she added.

Bringing transparency and accountability to the food system

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 stores

In addition to creating the label, the bill would require large food retailers to showcase certified products carrying the label by giving them more prominent placement within the store.

If a grocery store sells more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified product types and brings in more than $10 million in annual sales, it would be required to display “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” products prominently, for instance, at checkout or store entrances.

Addressing the rise of UPF

UPF are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products often made with harmful additives to enhance taste, texture and appearance.

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

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

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

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

Help for consumers

Despite these concerns, consumers have no clear, standard labeling system to help them identify 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 that 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 availability of ultra-processed foods, while promoting non-ultra-processed alternatives. I firmly believe this is the only way that 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 & Water

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Regional Issues

California

Legislation would establish first-in-nation government certification for consumers

Press Contact

Iris Myers

iris@ewg.org

(202) 939-9126

April 14, 2026

California Assembly panel advances bill to ban toxic ‘forever chemical’ pesticides

Monica Amarelo — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 16:45:55 +0000

California Assembly panel advances bill to ban toxic ‘forever chemical’ pesticides Monica Amarelo April 14, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The California Assembly’s Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials voted today to advance a bill that would ban toxic “forever chemical” pesticides found on nearly two in five California-grown non-organic fruits and vegetables.

The vote on Assembly Bill 1603 moves the nation’s largest agricultural state closer to phasing out a pervasive source of contamination from potentially harmful PFAS.

PFAS pesticides can’t legally be used for growing organic produce.

The legislation, introduced by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would ban the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides in California beginning in 2035. The ban would start even earlier, in 2030, for 23 PFAS pesticides the European Union has already prohibited.

The bill, if enacted, would also immediately place a pause on state approvals of PFAS pesticides and require public disclosure of the chemicals.

The Environmental Working Group is consponsoring AB 1603. Other cosponsors include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health, the Pesticide Action Network and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network. The bill now heads to the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee.

“The country depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now they’re 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.

A growing crisis in California fields

An EWG analysis of state data found PFAS pesticide residues on 37% of 930 samples of non-organic California-grown produce, including nine out of 10 samples of peaches, nectarines and plums.

Farmers applied 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides across all 58 California counties between 2018 and 2023. These chemicals don't break down in the environment and can build up in the body, creating the potential for long-term harm.

“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. We are providing a clear, responsible road map for our farmers to transition away from these persistent chemicals while re-establishing California as a global leader in food safety,” he said.

Why are some PFAS pesticides

PFAS are a group of thousands of human-made chemicals used in a wide range of consumer, industrial and electronic products, in addition to pesticides.

PFAS’ carbon-fluorine bond is among the strongest in chemistry. It is the reason they don’t break down – and the reason they’re called “forever chemicals.”

“The scale of this contamination is staggering,” said Susan Little, EWG’s legislative director in California. “Millions of pounds of PFAS are used on everyday California crops without any plan to phase them out.”

“AB 1603 provides that road map. By immediately banning new state approvals, requiring full transparency starting next year, and phasing out these chemicals as of 2035, we are finally putting public health ahead of the chemical industry,” she added.

As these chemicals partially break down over time, they can form other harmful compounds, including trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA, which is increasingly being detected in the environment, wildlife and people. One study estimates that PFAS pesticide use in California could generate between 185,000 and 616,000 pounds of TFA each year.

Emerging research links TFA to reproductive harm and immune suppression, raising growing concerns about its spread and potential health risks.

A recent analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency noted that 36 PFAS pesticides – 25 of which are registered in California – lack updated developmental and reproductive toxicity tests. Immunotoxicity studies are routinely waived in pesticide applications, despite growing evidence that PFAS chemicals are particularly harmful to the immune system.

“By the time these PFAS residues reach our plates, they have become part of a toxic cocktail that can suppress the immune system and harm reproductive health,” said Varun Subramaniam, EWG science analyst. “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using these chemicals on food crops.”

“The most troubling part is how little we know about their safety. We’re spraying millions of pounds of chemicals on food without understanding their full health impacts or considering what little we do know. It’s unconscionable,” he added.

California’s agricultural PFAS use means residents of the Golden State get hit twice – through contaminated food and through contaminated water. PFAS pesticides leave residues on fruits and vegetables, and the chemicals leach into groundwater that becomes drinking water.

States leading on regulation

The EPA regulates and approves pesticides for national use, but states aren’t required to follow suit. California operates its own approval system: The state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation must independently evaluate and authorize each chemical before farmers can use it.

That gives California enormous power to protect residents – power the state has largely chosen not to use when it comes to PFAS pesticides.

While California has remained 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 2023, Minnesota passed a broad ban on nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, phasing them out by 2032.

Denmark banned six PFAS pesticide ingredients in 2025. And the EU has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides heavily used in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet.

AB 1603 would bring California in line with these other states and jurisdictions, making the nation’s “salad bowl” once again a public health leader and helping ensure what we are putting on America’s kitchen table is free from PFAS pesticides.

“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’ve become one of the biggest users.

“AB 1603 changes that. Within a decade, ‘California Grown’ will mean grown without PFAS pesticides, which 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 is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus

Food

Farming & Agriculture

Pesticides

PFAS Chemicals

California

PFAS pesticides contaminate almost 40% of state-grown non-organic produce

Press Contact

Monica Amarelo

monica@ewg.org

(202) 939-9140

April 14, 2026

Setting a gold standard in the Golden State: 5 EWG-sponsored bills to boost safety choice and transparency

Ketura Persellin — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 18:35:49 +0000

Setting a gold standard in the Golden State: 5 EWG-sponsored bills to boost safety choice and transparency Ketura Persellin April 13, 2026

As the world’s fourth largest economy, California doesn’t just pass laws, it helps reshape the American marketplace.

With the Sacramento legislative session in full swing, EWG is sponsoring five critical bills to help consumers lead cleaner, healthier lives through transparency, commonsense safety regulations, and choice. The bills address energy, toxic chemicals and ultra-processed food, or UPF, among others.

In order of bill number, here are the problems they address.

Sky-high electricity bills (Senate Bill 868)

The average California ratepayer faces electricity bills higher than those of most Americans. “Balcony solar” could help.

SB 868 would make it easier for renters, apartment dwellers and owners of single family homes to plug into the sun. The small, portable solar panels can be easily set up on a patio or balcony and taken along when its owner moves. But complex energy rules make it unnecessarily hard to get these systems.

EWG is sponsoring the Plug and Play Solar Act to streamline and accelerate balcony solar. The bill is authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).

If enacted, the bill would ensure balcony solar systems meet strict safety standards while removing additional obstacles for Californians who want to take ownership over their electricity bill and also help clean the air.

Setup is absurdly easy – about the same as plugging a toaster oven into the wall. And it’s not free, but it’s inexpensive enough that ratepayers can recoup their investment within a couple of years, putting solar – and savings – within reach of more people. And we expect the costs to decline as the market grows.

Produce contaminated with PFAS pesticides (Assembly Bill 1603)

This bill would rein in the use of the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS that are used as pesticides. Yes, you read that right. California allows PFAS chemicals to be used as pesticides. Over 2.5 million pounds of these chemicals are applied to crops each year, contaminating not just produce but soil and water too.

The bill comes on the heels of state test results showing PFAS pesticides contamination on nine in 10 samples of peaches, nectarines and plums grown in California. It’s critical to check this source of toxic pollution in the state that grows about half the country’s produce.

AB 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would ban the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides statewide beginning in 2035. It would also immediately put a pause on state approvals, phase out by 2030 the use of 23 PFAS pesticides not allowed in Europe, and require public disclosure of PFAS pesticide uses.

Our interactive map shows where PFAS pesticides are applied.

Protein supplements legally contaminated with heavy metals (Senate Bill 1033)

Millions supplement their protein intake in various forms every day. But they have no way to know if their shakes, powders and bars contain concerning levels of heavy metals – lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic.

One recent study showed that about half the products tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for these contaminants.

SB 1033 would require manufacturers to disclose levels of heavy metals in their products. The author, state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), seeks to make manufacturers accountable for a product that is underregulated by federal standards.

The stakes are high: Heavy metals are potent toxins, and repeated exposure, even at low levels, can cause lasting and irreversible harm, particularly threatening the health of pregnant people and the developing fetus.

Because of an earlier law, which we also backed, California holds producers of baby food to a safety standard for heavy metal in their products similar to what we are proposing. The result? Manufacturers lowered contamination levels.

The bill would bring similar transparency to protein products.

Baby diapers made of mystery chemicals (Assembly Bill 1901)

From the consumer point of view, many categories of personal care products are a black box, their ingredients a mystery.

That’s especially an issue with baby diapers, since infants and toddlers wear them constantly for at least a couple years. Their developing bodies make them particularly vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure.

AB 1901, by Assemblymember Mark Berman (D-Menlo Park), would require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose their ingredients on the product’s packaging and online.

Recent tests have found diapers can contain phthalates, linked to hormone disruption, bleaching agents associated with skin and respiratory irritation, and volatile organic compounds including hazardous air pollutants like toluene and xylene.

Parents and caregivers deserve to know what chemicals sit on their child’s body 24/7 for years.

Consumer bafflement over what is and isn’t ultra-processed food (Assembly Bill 2244)

UPF make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet in the U.S.

It’s a good idea to try to cut back on eating UPF, for yourself and your family. But that’s hard to do when, as shoppers consistently say, it’s tough to distinguish ultra-processed from less processed food.

This bill addresses that confusion, with the intent of reining in skyrocketing and harmful UPF consumption.

If enacted, the bill would:

Establish a system for certifying qualifying foods as free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that often characterize UPF.
Tie that system to California’s first-in-the-nation definition of UPF adopted last year as the result of a bill intended to stem the consumption of UPF.

The bill’s author, Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), is the lawmaker behind this bill and several other pioneering laws addressing food safety, especially for kids. His work has galvanized a national movement to address food chemicals.

Areas of Focus

California

Authors

Ketura Persellin

April 13, 2026

5 ways to reduce your energy bill whether you rent or own

JR Culpepper — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 19:30:32 +0000

5 ways to reduce your energy bill whether you rent or own JR Culpepper April 6, 2026

With everything from groceries to gas getting pricier, monthly expenses can feel even more daunting. But with spring bringing warmer weather, there are five steps to consider that may help lower monthly utility costs and bring relief for renters and homeowners.

These tips, including running appliances strategically or embracing solar power, are a win-win by helping you save money on energy bills, while also helping the environment. Switching to greener energy sources or reducing your energy use altogether can help lower the cost, while alleviating the need for reliance on dirty energy sources like coal.

1. Set your thermostat for savings

In the warmer spring and summer months, set your thermostat no cooler than 78 degrees. In the winter, set it no warmer than 68. If those temperatures are uncomfortable for you, make small 1-2 degree adjustments until you hit the right spot.

In the summer, every degree above 72 can save you at least 1-3 percent on your utility bill. That can add up to more than $200 per year, based on average monthly utility bills of $600. Ratepayers in states like California with higher electricity rates will save even more.

2. Make the switch to LED lightbulbs.

Spring cleaning could include added savings by switching out old energy-inefficient bulbs for higher-efficiency LED bulbs. The average household saves around $225 in yearly energy costs by switching to LED bulbs.

The lighting inside your home accounts for 15% of your total electricity usage. LED lightbulbs can cut electricity consumption by 75-90%.

These bulbs save energy and cash long-term and usually cost around $2 each, only slightly more expensive than a traditional light bulb. Their cost has decreased significantly since they entered the market, and will likely continue to come down further.

3. Run your appliances strategically

If you live in an area that requires “time-of-use” pricing for electricity, where it’s more expensive in the evening than mid-day or night, be mindful of when you use large appliances such as your air conditioner, your dishwasher or your washing machines that may need lots of energy. Electricity prices are usually lower before 4 p.m. or after 9 p.m.

Running the dishwasher or doing your laundry outside of the 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. window can help you score savings on your next bill.

4. Consider going solar

Everyone can go solar, whether you rent or own. If you own your home and have a roof that gets good sunlight, have a reputable solar contractor visit your home and give you a free bid for adding professionally designed and installed solar panels.

Depending on the policies and programs available to you where you live, a rooftop solar system can cover all of your home’s electricity usage for the year, helping you save thousands of dollars.

If you rent, or have a heavily shaded roof, consider balcony solar. These systems are smaller, simpler versions of rooftop solar, typically 1/5th to 1/30th the size. They don’t need professional installation, just a small patch of sun on a balcony or patio and a regular wall outlet.

Just like with rooftop systems, the electricity that balcony solar produces is used instantly inside a home, powering everyday essential appliances. These technologies reduce your reliance on traditional utilities, lowering your monthly payments.

With prices starting around $400 to $1,200, these systems can cover up to 30% of a household’s average electricity use, making them one of the most accessible clean energy options available. At today’s prices and depending on where you live, the systems can pay themselves within three to six years and start saving the average consumer around $200-$450 per year on energy bills.

Depending on where you live in the U.S., these systems are currently available for purchase. Utah was first to enact a law allowing these systems to be sold, in 2025. And legislation is pending in several other states, including California and New York, that would, if enacted, lower prices and make these devices available and easy to use for everyone.

5. Replace old windows

Old, inefficient windows can significantly waste the energy you use to heat or cool your home. Replacing older windows with new, efficient ones can cut your utility bill by 25-30%.

The average upfront cost of a new window can range from $300-1,200, but since the average window lasts 15 to 30 years, with hundreds of dollars in savings each year, the investment will save money in the long run.

For homeowners, new windows increase the resale value of your home, while bringing in monthly energy savings by reducing your energy use.

Areas of Focus

Energy

Guest Authors

Grant Pacernick, Communications intern

April 6, 2026

Flooded fields, polluted environment

rcoleman — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 14:08:31 +0000

Flooded fields, polluted environment rcoleman April 6, 2026

Al Rabine

April 3, 2026

Over 4.2 million acres of flood-prone cropland in four major Corn Belt states of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin likely generate nitrous oxide emissions that contribute to climate change, and produce nitrate contamination of drinking water, new EWG research finds.

These acres are in the 100-year flood plain – areas with a 1% chance of flooding in a year. The problem is especially acute for the more than 2 million acres of corn grown in this area, since corn is heavily applied with nitrogen fertilizer. Frequent flooding can lead to cropland emitting more nitrous oxide and greater nitrate runoff into water.

EWG also modeled cropland within the much more frequently flooded 2-year flood plain in the Middle Fork Zumbro watershed in Southeast Minnesota. That analysis shows between 1,619 and 6,435 acres of cropland fall within the likely 2-year flood plain.

Of those, between 1,083 and 4,058 acres were planted with corn. These acres are much more likely to flood than those in the 100-year flood plain, magnifying both climate and water quality impacts.

Implementing more conservation practices on cropland that is in a flood plain, like cover crops, reducing tillage, crop diversification or buffer strips, or transitioning land in flood plains away from cropland can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and nitrate pollution of drinking water.

Reducing the amount of nitrate in drinking water is a health-protective step, because nitrate is a pollutant linked to cancer and that is potentially dangerous for infants.

It is particularly important for agriculture to reduce nitrous oxide emissions because nitrous oxide is roughly 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, meaning it warms the earth much more per ton of gas. Agriculture is the main source of nitrous oxide emissions.

Farming accounts for roughly 10% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. As climate change accelerates, farmers face growing pressure to cut emissions and prevent agriculture from becoming the nation’s leading source of climate pollution. Agriculture’s emissions are still going up while other sectors’ emissions are decreasing, such as transportation and electric power.

Strengthening federal and state conservation programs will be essential in helping farmers adopt conservation practices that can reduce nitrous oxide and nitrate, and permanently retire cropland in flood plains where farming poses the greatest risks.

100-year flood plain cropland growing corn

The Federal Emergency Management Agency defines the 100-year flood plain as containing land that has a 1% chance of flooding in a year.

Nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate contamination of drinking water are particularly prominent when the cropland in a flood plain is used to grow corn. Vast amounts of nitrogen fertilizer are applied to corn. Nationally, over two thirds of all nitrogen fertilizer applications are for corn.

Farmland in flood plains are prone to spikes in nitrous oxide emissions. Up to a certain point, higher levels of soil moisture contribute to greater emissions of nitrous oxide. Because of this, cropland acres in flood plains are likely to be nitrous-oxide-producing hotspots, as they have higher levels of soil moisture than cropland located outside a flood plain. Flood plains are also more likely to experience runoff and contribute nitrogen pollution to waterways, in turn polluting drinking water with nitrates.

As of 2024, there were 4.2 million acres of cropland in the 100-year flood plain across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Of those, over 2 million acres, or 48%, were used to grow corn.

Insert map of counties with the most cropland in 100-year flood plain here

Iowa had the most cropland acres within the flood plain at over 1.7 million acres, and also the most corn acres in the flood plain at over 981,000 acres.

Wisconsin had the lowest number of cropland and corn acres in the flood plain, but the highest percent of cropland acres in the flood plain that were used to grow corn at 59%. (See Table 1.)

Table 1. Cropland and corn acres in the 100-year flood plain for 4 Corn Belt states.

State	Total crops in flood plain	Total corn acres in flood plain	Percent of flood plain cropland acres used to grow corn
Iowa	1,727,763	981,626	57%
Illinois	1,572,991	744,420	47%
Minnesota	662,053	161,988	24%
Wisconsin	255,838	151,532	59%

Source: EWG, from Agriculture Department National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer, and FEMA Flood Maps

Among the counties with the most corn acres within the 100-year flood plain, four of the top five are in Iowa: Monona, Harrison, Woodbury and Pottawattamie counties.

Whiteside County, Ill., is the only non-Iowa county in the top five, ranking third overall for the most corn acres within the flood plain.

Case study: cropland in the 2-year flood plain of the Middle Fork Zumbro River watershed

The 2-year flood plain includes areas expected to flood, on average, once every two years –meaning there is a 50% chance of flooding in any given year.

Unlike the 100-year flood plain, FEMA does not designate the 2-year flood plain and it must be delineated using modeling. Because these models involve uncertainty, results are presented as a range rather than a single estimate.

Southeastern Minnesota’s Middle Fork Zumbro River watershed is a region that has long struggled with nitrate in drinking water, especially in the Southeast portion of the state. Much of the region sits atop karst soils that water and contaminants can easily leach through, making groundwater more vulnerable to nitrate contamination.

The Middle Fork watershed is 566 square miles in size, and has over 100,000 acres of total cropland with over half of those acres used to grow corn.

EWG used the Height Above Nearest Drainage, or HAND, model to map the likely 2-year flood plain within the Middle Fork watershed. This is a simple way to estimate where flooding is likely to occur by comparing land elevations to the height of nearby stream channels. The model identifies areas that have low elevation relative to a stream when water levels rise.

The model looked at inundation rates between 0.5 and 1.5 meters. The inundation rates were determined using U.S. Geological Survey StreamStats and USGS rating curves, which are determined by historical flood calculations.

EWG created different maps for the inundation rates and calculated cropland within the potentially-flooded areas given the different inundation rates. So the size of the 2-year flood plain is provided as a range, with the size ranging from the number of acres of land that would be in the flood plain at a 0.5 meter inundation rate and the number of acres at a 1.5 meter inundation rate. See the methodology section at the end of the report for more information.

The map below shows the modeled 2-year flood plain within the Middle Fork watershed.

Insert map of 2-year flood plain range here

Within the watershed, an estimated 1,619 to 6,435 acres of cropland lie within the likely 2-year flood plain. Most of the cropland acres were planted with corn, ranging from 1,083 acres at the low end to as many as 4,058 acres at the high end.

This means that there are potentially over 4,000 acres of corn that could possibly flood every other year, in this one watershed alone. Since corn is usually heavily fertilized, frequent flooding of corn fields would potentially make those fields emit larger amounts of nitrous oxide emissions to the atmosphere than non-flooded fields, and add more nitrogen pollution to nearby bodies of water.

Hotspots for nitrous oxide emissions and water pollution

Elevated soil moisture is a key driver of nitrous oxide emissions from cropland.

Studies have found peak nitrous oxide emissions at different water levels in soil, but many studies have found that water-filled porosity space around 80% is the level that generates the highest amount of nitrous oxide emissions. Extreme precipitation events can produce spikes in nitrous oxide emissions.

Flood plains also pose a heightened risk to water quality. Fertilizer nitrogen is more likely to run off flooded fields and leach through saturated soils into drainage systems, ultimately contaminating nearby waterways. As a result, flooded cropland releases more nitrogen pollution than comparable land outside flood plains.

Consuming high levels of nitrate in drinking water can cause blue baby syndrome, a potentially fatal condition that starves infants of oxygen. Drinking water with low levels of nitrate can increase the risk of birth defects and cancer.

Nitrous oxide is a small but important greenhouse gas

Nitrous oxide accounts for roughly 6% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. While that might appear modest, its climate impacts are outsized. Nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for over 100 years and has a global warming potential 273 times greater than carbon dioxide.

When looking at total agricultural U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, nitrous oxide makes up the largest share at 52%. Global nitrous oxide emissions are projected to increase 30% between 2020 and 2050. Corn production alone accounts for over half of all nitrous oxide emissions from U.S. agriculture. Emissions vary widely across farms, depending on soil conditions, weather characteristics and farm management practices.

Missed opportunities at USDA and state agencies

The federal government invests billions of dollars through multiple conservation programs. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, is a federal working lands conservation program. Some states discussed in this analysis also have smaller state-based conservation programs and a few agricultural regulations.

But the Agriculture Department and Midwest state agencies can do more to encourage farmers to adopt practices that reduce climate emissions, particularly in flood plains.

Funding for the conservation practices that do the best job of reducing climate emissions and nitrate pollution to water in flood plains should be increased and prioritized.

For example, EQIP should be updated to allow states to pay 90% of the cost of EQIP practices to farmers for practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; practices like cover crops and crop diversification. Currently, too much funding from EQIP goes to structural, equipment and facility practices that do little, if anything, to reduce farming’s nitrous oxide emissions.

A considerable amount of EQIP funding has gone to farmers for structural practices.

According to EWG’s Conservation Database, six of the top ten highest-paid practices between 2017 and 2024 were structural practices. Farmers received $2.59 billion for fencing, sprinkler systems, manure waste pit roofs and covers, animal waste storage facilities, irrigation pipelines and livestock waste pipelines, which was 25% of total EQIP funding across all practices.

Many of these practices do not have climate benefits, and a number of the producers receiving this funding are operating factory farms that are legally required to implement these practices.

There are bipartisan efforts, notably the EQIP Improvement Act from Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.) that would help provide cost-savings and ensure more farmers can access climate-smart agriculture dollars.

Another proposal, the bipartisan CROP for Farming Act from Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Josh Riley (D-N.Y.) and Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.), would provide a higher cost-share, 90%, for conservation practices that help reduce emissions and improve waterways.

More money for farmers through the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, or ACEP, Wetlands Reserve Easements would also help. This option pays farmers to retire farmland into wetlands, either permanently or for many years. These easements can bring significant climate and water quality benefits when flooded cropland is retired and turned into wetlands.

Fixing these and other missed opportunities within the USDA and state agencies could reduce nitrous oxide emissions and nitrate water pollution from agriculture in the Midwest.

It remains to be seen if the new Regenerative Pilot Program recently announced by the USDA will make a difference, but it signals growing recognition of the practices that offer the greatest environmental benefits.

Methodology

To calculate how much land is within the 100-year flood plain in each county, EWG used flood plain data from FEMA. EWG mapped the cropland acres in each county using data from the USDA’s Cropland Data Layer, which shows the crops produced on every farm field in the U.S.

EWG then compared the cropland and crop type acreage data was then compared to the FEMA’s 100-year flood plain data to find the number of cropland and corn acres within the flood plain.

EWG used the Height Above Nearest Drainage, or HAND, model to map the likely 2-year flood plain in the Middle Fork Zumbro River watershed in Minnesota. Cropland and corn acres from the Cropland Data Layer were then located within the modeled 2-year flood plain in this watershed to find the number of cropland and corn acres that were within the flood plain.

The HAND model is a simplified way to estimate where flooding is likely to occur by comparing land elevations to the elevation of nearby stream channels. This is done by using a digital elevation model and stream network data. The HAND model identifies a defined area that is a vertical distance from a stream that is likely to flood given different inundation rates.

To estimate flooding from a typical 2-year flood event, flow rates were calculated using the U.S. Geological Survey’s StreamStats website, which is a tool used to estimate how much water flows through a stream during common flood events. Stream gauges were also used where available in the Middlefork watershed.

The flow rates were compared to historical measurements gathered by the stream gauges (rating curve) to see how much the water level usually rises during a 2-year flood event. Using StreamStats and stream gauges throughout the watershed, areas between 0.5 and 1.5 meters above the stream channel were mapped as potential 2 year flood plains. A range was used to reflect the natural differences in stream size and terrain differences across the watershed.

The HAND model is great for simple flood plain modeling, especially where data is scarce, but does not replace a more robust flood plain modeling software like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s HEC-RAS software as well as on the ground analysis.

The numbers provided in this analysis are modeled estimates, whereas the actual 2-year flood plain for this and other watersheds should be calculated by government officials using more-exact software and on the ground analysis.