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

What is the sunscreen filter bemotrizinol?

Iris Myers — Tue, 19 May 2026 19:31:08 +0000

What is the sunscreen filter bemotrizinol? Iris Myers May 19, 2026

For the first time in over 25 years, the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to approve a new sunscreen ultraviolet, or UV, filter for the U.S. market: bemotrizinol, or BEMT.

It’s a UV filter that since 1999 has been used in sunscreens in other countries, offering greater protection against harmful ultraviolet A, or UVA, rays.

UVA radiation is the sun wavelength that penetrates deepest into the skin, leads to premature skin aging, suppresses the immune system and increases risk of skin cancers, like melanoma. The sunscreens most Americans use do not provide enough UVA protection.

For decades, Americans have had access to fewer sunscreen ingredients than consumers in Europe and Asia. In some cases the sunscreen sold in the U.S. offers UVA protection that is much worse than the sunscreens sold overseas.

EWG’s own peer-reviewed research found that U.S. sunscreens deliver on average just 24% of the UVA protection implied by their SPF labels.

But that might be about to change.

Proposal could improve sunscreen options

In late 2025, the FDA proposed to add BEMT to the U.S. list of active ingredients allowed in sunscreens. The proposal allows for use up to 6%.

If the agency finalizes its decision, BEMT will be the first new UV filter approved for the U.S. market in over 25 years.

BEMT could be widely adopted into sunscreen formulations, since it will be allowed for use in combination with almost all currently approved active ingredients.

The only restriction on using the filter would be a ban on combining it with two other UV filters: para-aminobenzoic acid, or PABA, and trolamine salicylate. In 2019 and again in 2021, the FDA proposed these two filters are not “generally recognized as safe and effective,” or GRASE, for use in sunscreens sold in the U.S.

In the European Union, BEMT is sold by numerous companies under trade names that include Tinosorb® S, Parsol® Shield, AakoSun BEMT, and Escalol™ S. The chemical company CIBA Speciality Chemicals invented the filter and applied for FDA approval in 2005, so it has already had more than two decades of regulatory review. CIBA was acquired by BASF, which manufactures and markets BEMT internationally.

DSM, a pharmaceutical company, has been leading calls for FDA approval of its version of BEMT, sold as PARSOL® Shield. If the FDA finalizes its approval, DSM would have 18 months of marketing exclusivity.

After that period, other manufacturers would be able to use BEMT in their formulations, which should expand the range of products available to consumers.

Data submitted to the FDA about products with BEMT at concentrations up to 6%, led the agency to propose the ingredient as safe and effective.

Similarly, European Union Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety 1999 findings report that at levels up to 10%, BEMT does not irritate the skin and is not associated in animal studies with harm to the reproductive system.

A step forward in UVA protection

The most important use of BEMT would be closing the UVA protection gap that has plagued American sunscreens for decades.

In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs, and the FDA oversees sunscreen safety. The agency said in 2019 and 2021 only two of 16 ingredients on the market – zinc oxide and titanium – are GRASE.

Due to safety concerns, the FDA has flagged PABA and trolamine salicylate as not GRASE.

The 12 other ingredients on the U.S. market are also not GRASE. But that status is primarily due to insufficient data. The agency has requested additional safety data on these ingredients, although they are still allowed for use in products sold in the U.S.

Problems with existing filters

The best sunscreens are those that provide broad spectrum protection – from both UVA and ultraviolet B, or UVB, rays.

UVA rays don’t easily burn the skin. But they can cause it to age, suppress the immune system and contribute to the development of skin cancer.

Zinc oxide and avobenzone are the only two UV filters in U.S. sunscreens today that are effective at reducing UVA rays significantly.

Avobenzone is chemically unstable and must be paired with other ingredients to prevent it from breaking down in sunlight. Breakdown products of avobenzone have also been shown to cause allergic reactions.

BEMT solves these problems. According to the FDA review, it provides strong broad-spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB radiation.

It is more stable in sunlight than avobenzone and – unlike avobenzone – can be combined with zinc oxide to provide greater UVA protection. It also has more safety data than any non-mineral filters on the U.S. market.

Minimal health concerns

Data suggests that most available non-mineral UV filters may have safety concerns.

The FDA’s proposed approval of BEMT includes extensive scientific review requiring data on absorption into the body and likelihood of irritation and sensitization, as well as animal studies of carcinogenicity and potential to harm reproduction or development.

Minimal skin absorption

Documents submitted to the FDA report that BEMT at concentrations up to 6% is minimally absorbed into the body and the amount that does absorb is below the concentration FDA considers to be indicative of systemic exposure after application.

Compared to the other 12 ingredient chemical filters on the U.S. market, BEMT has robust data for safety and does not absorb into the skin.

FDA studies in 2019 and 2020 showed that a one-time application of six other chemical actives – oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, avobenzone and octinoxate – were absorbed through the skin at levels above 0.5 nanograms per milliliter, the maximum concentration the FDA says may be found in blood without potential safety concerns.

One ingredient, oxybenzone, was detected at 258.1 nanograms per milliliter in blood after multiple lotion applications – 515 times the FDA’s threshold of concern.

No evidence of carcinogenicity

In a two-year long animal study, BEMT was applied to the skin of rats. The results indicated that BEMT did not cause abnormal, unregulated growth on the skin. This suggests that BEMT is likely not cancer-causing when applied to skin.

No reproductive harm

The FDA also reviewed a multi-generational reproductive study and concluded that there were no harmful reproductive effects on the rats giving birth or the survival and development of their offspring.

Not irritating

Data submitted to the FDA also included a repeated insult patch test and cumulative irritation patch test, a photo-allergenicity test and a phototoxicity test. Results suggest BEMT was not irritating to the skin.

More options are still needed

Approving BEMT is a meaningful step forward, but it doesn’t solve every problem with the U.S. sunscreen market.

For over 20 years, companies have submitted some safety data to the FDA in hopes of adding BEMT to the U.S. market. Even with the addition of avobenzone in 1999, the U.S. has been left with fewer options because the FDA’s approval process has been so slow.

In sunscreens sold in Europe and elsewhere worldwide, BEMT is formulated with other active ingredients that are not approved for use in the U.S.

Sunscreens are often formulated with a mixture of active ingredients and, even with the addition of BEMT, the U.S. sunscreen market, would still lag behind the EU market.

In the U.S., 16 active ingredients are permitted and in the EU, about 30 filters are available for formulation.

With a law known as the 2020 CARES Act, the FDA’s rules for over-the-counter drugs were modernized. The law restructured the regulation of all OTC monograph drugs and replaced the legacy rulemaking process with a streamlined administrative order system. This change simplified the regulatory process.

If the FDA finalizes the addition of BEMT, it’ll be the first new sunscreen active ingredient allowed in the U.S. in nearly 30 years. Other sunscreen companies could also submit applications to allow additional sunscreen ingredients on the market.

But, so far, these manufacturers seem unwilling to produce the safety data that the FDA requests.

Tips for sun safety

Cover up and wear sunglasses. Shirts, hats, shorts and pants provide the best protection from UV rays. Good shades protect your eyes from UV radiation, which may cause cataracts.
Find shade or make it. Picnic under a tree, read beneath an umbrella or take a canopy to the beach. Keep infants in the shade, because they are still developing the tanning pigments, known as melanin, that protect skin.
Wear sunscreen. EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens evaluates the safety and efficacy of SPF-rated products, including sunscreens for recreational use and SPF-rated daily-use moisturizers and lip products. The best ratings are for products that provide broad spectrum protection formulated with ingredients that pose fewer health concerns when absorbed by the body.
Look for EWG Verified®. Consumers can also shop for EWG Verified sunscreens, making it easier to find products that are safer and effective.

Areas of Focus

Cosmetics

Sunscreen

Household & Consumer Products

Authors

Alexa Friedman, Ph.D.

David Andrews, Ph.D.

May 19, 2026

‘Balcony solar’ bill to cut energy costs clears California Senate

Anthony Lacey — Tue, 19 May 2026 19:21:27 +0000

‘Balcony solar’ bill to cut energy costs clears California Senate Anthony Lacey May 19, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group applauds California’s Senate for passing a bill today that would let residents install small, portable “balcony solar” systems in apartments, condos and single-family homes, bringing them relief from sky-high electricity bills.

Senate Bill 868, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, cleared the Senate in a 35-1 vote, with four abstensions. It now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network.

“EWG commends the Senate for advancing this proposal, a major step forward for energy affordability and consumer choice,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California.

A 400-watt balcony solar system can cut monthly utility bills for the average apartment dweller by up to $250 per year. Small balcony solar systems start at $500 today, but broader adoption enabled by SB 868 could drive prices down and give renters and low-income households more access to clean energy.

“These systems are simple, practical and proven. They give people the ability to plug into clean energy savings immediately,” said Del Chiaro.

Balcony solar systems are as simple as plugging in a toaster or other electrical appliance at home. But red tape means the systems aren’t widely used. SB 868 would eliminate those barriers.

“We strongly encourage the Assembly to promptly take up and pass the balcony solar bill, ensuring that as we head into a hot summer, millions of Californians can look forward to having access to this technology and begin to see meaningful reductions in their energy bills,” Del Chiaro added.

Consumer-friendly cost-saving tool

California’s electricity rates have climbed dramatically in recent years, leaving the state with some of the nation’s highest energy costs.

SB 868 would give Californians a practical, consumer-friendly tool to take greater control over their energy bills. System size is capped at 1,200 watts, enough to power everyday appliances like fridges, lights, Wi-Fi routers or an air conditioning unit.

The bill includes strict safety requirements modeled on internationally recognized standards. All systems must be certified by UL, or Underwriters Laboratories, the global independent safety science organization, or an equivalent nationally recognized testing laboratory.

The legislation also requires that balcony solar systems have automatic shutoff protections that are triggered within seconds if the grid goes down, helping protect utility workers.

Balcony solar is already thriving in Europe, with over 4 million systems installed in Germany alone. But in California, regulatory barriers have kept this technology out of reach for many.

SB 868 would remove those barriers while establishing statewide safety standards that do not currently exist.

###

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

Energy

Renewable Energy

California

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

May 19, 2026

EWG’s 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens finds market progress, a promising new ingredient but a stubborn UVA protection gap

Monica Amarelo — Mon, 18 May 2026 19:30:30 +0000

EWG’s 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens finds market progress, a promising new ingredient but a stubborn UVA protection gap Monica Amarelo May 18, 2026

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Working Group today released its 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens, and after evaluating nearly 2,800 SPF products, the most comprehensive review in the guide’s history, the news is mixed.

The sunscreen market is measurably better. Finding a safer and more effective sunscreen that works for your skin and your routine remains important in making sun protection a lifelong habit. The product you will actually use is the right one.

“The market has improved. The number of harmful ingredients like oxybenzone has nosedived, the percentage of products that are mineral sunscreens has nearly tripled and consumers are more informed than ever,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., chief science officer at EWG.

“But the fundamental problem remains unsolved: Most American sunscreens fail to deliver adequate UVA protection, critical for reducing skin cancer risk, including melanoma.

“That is not a marketing problem but a failure of sunscreen companies to develop the data showing their ingredients are safe,” said Andrews.

Twenty years ago, most Americans had no independent, science-based resource to consult when buying sunscreen. The market was flooded with harmful chemicals, misleading SPF claims and products that offered little meaningful protection against the radiation most responsible for skin cancer.

So EWG built a guide.

This year, 550 of the 2,784 SPF products EWG evaluated meet its criteria for both ingredient safety and balanced UV protection.

Sixty-two sunscreens bear the EWG Verified® mark. To qualify, they must:

Meet EWG’s highest standards for safety and ingredient transparency
Satisfy EWG’s standard for ultraviolet A, or UVA, and ultraviolet B, or UVB protection
Surpass both U.S. and European requirements for UVA protection.

In total 130 SPF products, including moisturizers and lip balms, are EWG Verified.

20 years of measurable progress

“Wearing any sunscreen at all is key to reducing health concerns about excess UV exposure,” said Andrews.

“But not all sunscreens are created equal. EWG’s guide is a trusted, science-based resource that consumers can turn to every year to find the sunscreens that offer the strongest broad-spectrum protection without concerning ingredients.”

When EWG launched the first Guide to Sunscreens, in 2007, oxybenzone – a chemical linked to hormone disruption and environmental harm – appeared in 70% of non-mineral sunscreens on the market. Today it’s an ingredient in just 5%.

Vitamin A, which can degrade in sunlight and potentially accelerate rather than prevent skin damage, has plummeted from 41% of sunscreens to just 2%.

Mineral sunscreens using zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, the only active sunscreen ingredients the Food and Drug Administration has proposed as generally recognized as safe and effective, have grown from 17% to 47% of products EWG reviews.

These are not small victories. They represent a sea change in how an entire industry formulates its products, driven in significant part by consumers armed with better information.

A promising new ingredient on the horizon

For the first time in more than a quarter-century, EWG has cause for optimism about what is coming to U.S. sunscreen shelves. In late 2025, the FDA proposed classifying bemotrizinol, a UV filter used safely since 1999 in European and Asian sunscreens, as safe and effective for the U.S. market.

“Bemotrizinol is the most significant development in American sunscreen regulation in 25 years, and EWG is proud to have pushed for its inclusion in U.S. products for more than a decade,” said Alexa Friedman, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG.

Bemotrizinol provides several advantages, including:

strong broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection
greater stability in sunlight than avobenzone, currently the only chemical filter in the U.S. that provides meaningful UVA protection
minimal skin absorption
potential for combination with zinc oxide for even greater UVA coverage, unlike avobenzone.

If the FDA finalizes its proposal, American consumers who prefer non-mineral sunscreens will have a better option for the first time in nearly three decades.

“But one new ingredient does not fix a marketplace that has been stuck in neutral for a generation,” said Melanie Benesh, EWG vice president of government affairs.

“The FDA proposed meaningful reforms to sunscreen regulation in 2019 and again in 2021 – stronger UVA standards, SPF value limits, better labeling, updated safety data requirements.

“None of those reforms have been finalized, and sunscreen manufacturers have failed to provide the FDA with the safety data it needs to approve better UV filters,” she said.

“Congress must force the issue by setting enforceable deadlines for companies to submit the required data and empower the FDA to remove noncompliant ingredients from the market,” Benesh added.

Most sunscreens still fail on UVA

Progress is real. But the gap in American sun protection has not closed.

EWG’s peer-reviewed research, published in Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine, tested 51 U.S. sunscreens and found that products delivered on average just 59% of their labeled UVB protection and only 24% of the UVA protection implied by their SPF labels.

UVA radiation penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB, is a driver of melanoma and photo-aging, and causes damage year-round through car and office windows, on cloudy days and at high altitudes.

Melanoma cases are projected to rise 10.6% this year, according to the American Cancer Society. The rate of new melanoma cases has tripled since the 1970s.

The problem is compounded by misleading high-SPF marketing.

In perfect laboratory conditions, an SPF 50 product blocks 98% of UVB rays. SPF 100 blocks 99%. The difference is negligible, yet manufacturers continue to push SPF 70, 80 and 100+ products using chemical boosters that may inflate the number without improving UVA protection.

SPF tests triggered a regulatory reckoning in Australia, where independent tests found that one product labeled SPF 50+ tested at just SPF 4. The scandal triggered government investigations and mass product recalls. The U.S. has the same testing inconsistencies, but the FDA has not acted.

Europe adopted more accurate, objective laboratory testing protocols in 2024.

The U.S. still relies on subjective in vivo tests, which involves technicians visually judging skin redness on human subjects, a method so inconsistent that the same formula can produce results of SPF 51 at one lab and SPF 28 at another.

“The SPF number on your sunscreen bottle doesn’t tell you the whole story,” said Friedman. “Consumers who reach for the highest SPF because they want maximum protection are often getting the least reliable UVA coverage of all.

“That is a public health problem, and the FDA has the authority and the obligation to fix it,” she added.

Undisclosed “fragrance” in 36% of SPF products

More than one in three sunscreens EWG evaluated in 2026 list undisclosed “fragrance” on the label. That word can conceal hundreds of chemicals, including allergens, hormone disruptors and carcinogens.

For daily sunscreen users, those exposures accumulate. A 2025 peer-reviewed paper found the cumulative health effects of repeated fragrance ingredient exposure remain poorly understood and inadequately regulated. Congress set a 2024 deadline for the FDA to address fragrance allergen labeling in cosmetics, a rule that would have covered moisturizers with SPF. The agency missed it.

There is no equivalent fragrance disclosure requirement for sunscreens, so consumers have no way to know what is hidden behind that word on a product label.

“‘Fragrance’ on a sunscreen label doesn’t describe a single ingredient,” said Jilly Senk, science analyst at EWG Verified.

“When you apply that product every day – to your face, your children’s skin, year after year – those undisclosed exposures add up. The EWG Verified mark exists precisely because the law does not require the transparency consumers deserve,” she said

How to find a sunscreen that works for you

The 2026 Guide to Sunscreens also offers important lists, including a selection of the top-rated recreational sunscreens, the safest for kids and babies, moisturizers with SPF and lip balms. They’re the products EWG scientists ranked the highest for their overall protection from UVA and UVB rays and other factors.

EWG also recommends “12 Bang for Your Buck Kids Sunscreens,” all priced at less than $20.

Here is EWG’s guidance for choosing a sunscreen that works and that you will use:

Choose mineral protection. Look for zinc oxide, which provides stable, balanced UVA and UVB coverage. EWG also recommends titanium dioxide for daily use.

Choose lotions or sticks over sprays. Sprays raise concerns about inhalation and often result in uneven coverage, especially in wind.

Skip high SPF numbers. Stick with SPF 50 or lower. Products with SPF 70, 80, or 100+ may not provide better UVA protection and can create a dangerous false sense of security.

Avoid chemicals of concern and undisclosed fragrance. Ingredients like oxybenzone and octinoxate are linked to hormone disruption and environmental harm. Undisclosed fragrance masks potentially harmful chemicals.

Use EWG’s tools. Search EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens, use the EWG Healthy Living app to scan products while you shop, and look for the EWG Verified mark, which requires sunscreens to exceed both U.S. and European UVA protection standards.

Finding a safer and more effective sunscreen that works for your skin and your routine is the final step in making sun protection a lifelong habit. The time of year does not matter. The weather does not matter. Every day is a sunscreen day – and the right product you will actually use.

###

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

Areas of Focus

Personal Care Products

Sunscreen

Family Health

Children’s Health

80% of almost 2,800 reviewed SPF products rate poorly for skin protection or concerning ingredients

Press Contact

Monica Amarelo

monica@ewg.org

(202) 939-9140

May 19, 2026

EPA is undoing PFAS protections. How can you remove ‘forever chemicals’ from tap water?

JR Culpepper — Mon, 18 May 2026 19:21:20 +0000

EPA is undoing PFAS protections. How can you remove ‘forever chemicals’ from tap water? JR Culpepper May 18, 2026

“Do I have PFAS in my tap water? How can I get rid of PFAS in drinking water?”

If you’re asking these questions, you’re not alone. The Environmental Protection Agency formally proposed to undo enforceable limits for four toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in drinking water: PFNA, PFHxS, GenX and PFBS.

The agency is stripping protections from millions of Americans whose tap water is already contaminated, an unprecedented and likely unlawful move.

The EPA is leaving in place PFAS limits for the two most notorious and well-studied forever chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, which will help reduce levels of those chemicals in drinking water.

But the agency is also proposing to delay by two years the deadline water systems have to comply – until 2031, for utilities that ask. That risks continuing the PFOA and PFOS contamination in communities that have already waited decades for clean water.

The alarming move to scrap the four other PFAS limits may leave millions of people exposed to tap water chemicals linked to cancer, immune suppression and many other risks.

EWG estimated in 2020 that 200 million Americans could have PFAS in their tap water. The EPA’s latest national tap water data update says the number is at least 176 million.

So far, that’s all bad news.

Here’s the good news: You can take steps that may help to reduce the amount of PFAS in your home’s tap water.

EWG is here to guide you through your options.

Are PFAS in my tap water? How to find out.

First, find out whether your tap water contains PFAS. Here are two tools:

EWG’s Tap Water Database lets you enter your ZIP code, showing you the most up-to-date information about PFAS and other contaminants in your community's tap water. It contains data from water systems across the country, showing you exactly which chemicals have been detected and at what concentrations.
EWG’s interactive PFAS map shows where forever chemicals have been detected below and above the EPA’s first-time tap water limits. The map was updated with the EPA’s most recent national PFAS test data from March 2026, and includes communities, military bases and other locations.

If you rely on a private well, your water is not monitored or tested by any public utility. If you live near a military base, industrial facility, airport or area with known PFAS contamination, consider getting your water tested.

How do I remove PFAS from my tap water?

“PFAS are in my tap water. Can I do anything about it?”

The simple answer is yes; there is something you can do – find and use a home filter designed to reduce PFAS in your drinking water. There are many brands and varieties available, at a range of prices. Not all filters remove PFAS effectively. Do not assume a filter removes PFAS unless it specifically states that it does.

There are a few different ways to filter water for PFAS.

EWG’s guide to countertop water filters helps you navigate through some other accessible choices. EWG reviewed 10 of the leading brands and models, telling you which filter is most effective at removing PFAS, how much it costs, how quickly the filter parts must be replaced, and how easy it is to use, among other important considerations.

What’s key is the right PFAS filter option will depend on your budget and preferences:

Carbon-based. Absorbs contaminants like PFAS as water flows through granular-activated carbon or a carbon block. Used in pitchers, under-sink filters and faucet-mounted filters, it’s often the most accessible and affordable option.
Reverse osmosis. Pushes tap water through a semi-permeable membrane that separates particles from water molecules, cutting PFAS and other contaminants. It is typically installed under a sink, but some new counter top models are available. Reverse osmosis is a highly effective option for reducing PFAS in drinking water.
Ion exchange. Exchanges contaminants in the water for less-harmful ions to trap certain contaminants. Not as common in home filters and sometimes used in whole-house filtration systems, so often ends up being more expensive than point-of-use systems like filters you attach to a faucet.
Whole-house filtration. These systems are often more expensive than other options. They’re not necessary for most homes – they’re typically just used by those with the worst contamination.

Renters may prefer counter-top, faucet-mounted or pitcher-type filters, technologies that don’t require changes to a property’s plumbing and can be easily removed when they move out.

The best filter is the one that’s most suitable for your situation and that you will use.

Tell the EPA not to roll back PFAS standards

EWG strongly opposes the EPA’s rollback of four PFAS limits. The move could violate the Safe Drinking Water Act, the law that the agency used to first develop the standards.

If you’re also alarmed, you can make your voice heard.

Tell the agency to keep PFAS protections in place. Preserving the limits for PFAS in water will protect health, save lives and clean up drinking water.

The EPA is taking public comment on the proposal through July 16. Use docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2025-1742 or EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654 to tell the agency who you are, where you live and whether PFAS are in your water. Let the regulators know why these protections matter to you and your family.

Personal stories from affected community members carry significant weight. The agency needs to hear from concerned Americans to understand just how misguided its plan is.

You can also contact your members of Congress and urge them to investigate whether the EPA’s rollback of PFAS regulations violates the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Areas of Focus

Authors

May 18, 2026

Protein is everywhere– it probably isn't making us healthier

JR Culpepper — Mon, 18 May 2026 15:08:44 +0000

Protein is everywhere– it probably isn't making us healthier JR Culpepper May 18, 2026

Protein used to be the domain of bodybuilders and fitness fanatics. Now it’s everywhere: high-protein claims on Doritos chips, Dunkin’ Donuts lattes, breakfast toaster pastries and even pints of ice cream.

There is even, somehow, “high performance man cereal” packed with protein.

The protein powder market has become a more than $20 billion dollar industry, and demand for whey protein is so high that food and beverage companies may soon face a shortage.

But more isn’t always better. And not all protein sources are the same.

Despite mountains of marketing claims suggesting otherwise, we are not all walking around with protein deficits. In fact, some protein products being sold as a silver bullet for better health may pose their own risks.

American diets have a problem – but it’s not protein

Many of us don’t need to worry about getting more in our diets. The average U.S. adult’s consumption exceeds daily protein recommendations.

But some groups may benefit from a protein boost, including older or postmenopausal adults, pregnant or lactating individuals, athletes engaging in resistance or endurance training and, potentially, people taking GLP-1 medications.

Foods like beans, lentils, nuts, seeds and whole grains can provide protein, along with another nutrient few people get enough of: fiber. More than 90% of women and 97% of men fall short of recommended daily fiber intake, around 25 to 38 grams per day. Diets low in fiber are linked to higher risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer.

A bonus of foods high in both protein and fiber: They are often more affordable than traditional protein sources. For example, a cup of cooked lentils contains about 18 grams of protein and 16 grams of fiber – often for less than a dollar per serving.

Concerns about supplements’ safety

Much of the protein boom is driven by the marketing of protein powders.

These are classified as dietary supplements, so the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t regulate them the same way as food and drinks. Companies themselves are responsible for verifying the health and safety of their products.

Potential contamination of protein powders is also a significant concern. A 2025 Consumer Reports investigation found detectable lead in nearly every sample of protein powder and shake tested. Some single servings contained enough lead to cause a woman of childbearing age to exceed the FDA’s recommended daily limit for lead from food.

Another study revealed that nearly half of protein supplements tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for lead, cadmium, mercury or arsenic.

Many brands also contain artificial food dyes, sweeteners and other highly processed ingredients that offer no nutritional value and may be linked to other health harms.

Ultra-processed protein products

New products boasting added protein should also give you pause.

Many snacks, drinks and desserts now boasting protein claims – from chips to cereals to flavored coffee drinks – are ultra-processed.

Ultra-processed foods, or UPF, are industrially manufactured products that contain colors, additives or ingredients not commonly found in home kitchens. In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet.

Leading health experts now consider UPF a key driver of chronic disease, including Type 2 diabetes, depression, and heart, kidney and gastrointestinal diseases.

Extra protein in an ultra-processed product doesn’t reduce any of these risks. It’s also unlikely to provide other beneficial nutrients, like fiber, found in minimally processed or whole foods.

What you can do

Consumers shouldn’t have to figure all of this out alone.

Companies should be required to routinely test supplements like protein powders and disclose the results, including any findings of heavy metals in powders, shakes and bars.

States like California have already successfully adopted these requirements for baby food. By reducing contamination levels in many product categories, they showed that transparency drives cleaner sourcing and safer manufacturing.

Last year, California also signed landmark legislation to ban the most harmful UPF from public schools. Now, California lawmakers are considering a state-run non-UPF certification program to make grocery shopping easier for concerned consumers.

In the meantime, people looking to learn more about their protein sources can use EWG’s Food Scores to identify nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns in more than 150,000 foods. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives.

Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information in your pocket while you shop.

Areas of Focus

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

May 18, 2026

Four EWG-backed California bills clear key appropriations panels, advancing protections

Ketura Persellin — Thu, 14 May 2026 16:34:41 +0000

Four EWG-backed California bills clear key appropriations panels, advancing protections Ketura Persellin May 14, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Stronger safeguards for families and the environment are moving forward after four bills sponsored by the Environmental Working Group cleared California Legislature spending committees. The bills address consumer protection, food safety and clean energy.

“Today is a great day for California families,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “Four bills that would make a real and lasting difference in people's lives just cleared a major hurdle.”

Three of the bills are pending in the Assembly and must now pass a floor vote by May 29 to proceed to further debate and approval before getting sent to the governor.

One bill is pending in the Senate and faces the same deadline for a floor vote ahead of further action.

The bills address some of the most urgent and unresolved threats to California consumers:

The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS used on produce as pesticides
Mystery ingredients in baby diapers
No clear way for consumers to identify harmful ultra-processed food, or UPF
Electricity bills that are straining California ratepayers’ pocketbooks

“Californians are being exposed to toxic chemicals in their food, their baby products, and their water. And their electricity bills are bleeding them dry,” said Del Chiaro.

“The legislature has a historic opportunity to act on all of these urgent issues this year. We are calling on every legislator to vote yes on each of these four bills,” she said.

“The clock is ticking,” said Susan Little, EWG director of California legislative affairs. “These bills now go to the full Assembly and full Senate for votes that will determine whether California continues to lead the nation on consumer protection or lets the moment slip away.

“EWG will be fighting for every vote between now and May 29,” she added.

Potential for groundbreaking change for consumers

Assembly Bill 1603: Banning PFAS pesticides

California, which grows half the nation’s produce, applies more than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides to crops every year, contaminating fruit and vegetables, soil and water. State test results have already found PFAS pesticide contamination on nine out of 10 samples of non-organic peaches, nectarines and plums grown in California.

AB 1603 would ban the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides used on crops statewide by 2035. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would immediately pause new state approvals of these pesticides, set a 2030 deadline for phasing out use in the state of PFAS pesticides not allowed in Europe and require public disclosure of all PFAS pesticide applications.

“Consumers have no idea that PFAS pesticides are being deliberately sprayed on California crops, contaminating produce soil and water,” said Del Chiaro.

“California grows food for the entire country. When forever chemicals are so pervasive on produce, that is not a California problem. That is a national food safety problem.”

Assembly Bill 1901: Baby diaper ingredient disclosure

Parents and caregivers have a right to know what chemicals sit against their baby’s skin 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the first years of life.

Authored by Assemblymember Mark Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1901 would set a first-in-the-nation requirement for manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose all ingredients on the product packaging and online.

Recent tests found diapers can contain potentially harmful ingredients like phthalates, which are linked to hormone disruption, and bleaching agents linked to skin and respiratory irritation.

Infants and toddlers are especially vulnerable, because their bodies are still developing and their skin absorbs chemicals more quickly.

“A baby wears a diaper every minute of every day for years, yet parents are forced to make purchasing decisions with zero information about what’s in them,” said Little.

“AB 1901 is the most straightforward consumer protection bill you can imagine. It just requires manufacturers to tell parents what is in their product,” she added. “There is no good reason to vote against it.”

California already proved with baby food that this approach works. When the state required disclosure of heavy metal test results, manufacturers lowered levels in the food.

Assembly Bill 2244: Ultra-processed food certification seal

Ultra-processed food makes up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half of the typical adult diet in the U.S. Research consistently links high UPF consumption to obesity, metabolic disease and other serious health harms.

But it’s hard for consumers to know what is and isn’t UPF at a grocery store or supermarket.

AB 2244, authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would establish a California certification system for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, artificial dyes and flavors that characterize UPF.

This system would be based on the state’s trailblazing UPF definition enacted last year. Products meeting the standard could carry a certification seal, a clear, at-a-glance tool to help consumers make healthier choices.

“Parents are trying to feed their kids better, but the food industry has made it nearly impossible to know what you are actually buying,” said Del Chiaro.

“AB 2244 gives consumers a simple, trusted signal at the point of purchase – no chemistry degree required.”

“California already defined ultra-processed food. Now it is time to bring that definition to the grocery aisle. This bill could change how millions of American families shop for food, starting in California,” she added

Senate Bill 868: Balcony solar

California ratepayers face some of the highest electricity bills in the country, as well as some of the worst air pollution. Solar energy can help solve both problems.

Small, portable balcony solar panels offer a practical, affordable alternative that is especially suitable for renters because they’re not permanently fixed to a home. But complex rules make the systems largely unavailable in the U.S., even as balcony solar markets thrive in Europe.

Authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), SB 868 would streamline and accelerate access to balcony solar by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers while establishing consumer safety standards.

Setup is simple – comparable to plugging a small appliance into a wall outlet – and affordable enough that most consumers could recoup their investment within a few years.

“Electricity bills are crushing California families’ finances, and the solution could be sitting not just on rooftops but also on balconies and patios across the state,” said Del Chiaro.

“Balcony solar puts clean, affordable energy within reach of millions of California consumers. SB 868 removes the red tape standing between California families and lower electricity bills. There is every reason to make clean energy easier to access for everyone,” she added.

Protein bill fails to advance

Another EWG-backed bill, to require manufacturers to disclose levels of heavy metals in their protein supplement products, failed to advance after the Senate Appropriations Committee held it in suspense.

Millions of Californians consume protein shakes, powders and bars every day but don’t know whether the products contain dangerous levels of lead, cadmium, mercury or arsenic.

SB 1033, authored by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), would have followed similar ingredient transparency state laws for baby food and prenatal vitamins.

A recent study found about half of protein supplement products tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for heavy metals. These substances are potent toxins, and even at low levels, repeated exposure can cause lasting and irreversible harm, particularly to pregnant people and the developing fetus.

Next steps for remaining bills

The four remaining EWG-backed bills must pass their respective chambers – the three Assembly bills in a full Assembly floor vote and the Senate bill in a full Senate floor vote – by May 29.

Following floor passage, the bills would be sent to their respective other chambers for committee hearings and votes before heading to Newsom’s desk for signature in September.

EWG is urging all California Assembly and Senate members to vote yes on all four bills.

Californians can contact their state legislators directly at legislature.ca.gov to urge a yes vote on the bills: AB 1901, AB 1603, AB 2244 and SB 868.

###

Areas of Focus

Ultra-Processed Foods

Legislation targets PFAS pesticides, energy affordability and more

Press Contact

Monica Amarelo

monica@ewg.org

(202) 939-9140

May 14, 2026

Vermont passes first-in-the-nation bill to ban toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 13 May 2026 19:36:02 +0000

Vermont passes first-in-the-nation bill to ban toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease Anthony Lacey May 13, 2026

In a historic show of bipartisan leadership, Vermont lawmakers today approved a bill to ban the highly toxic herbicide paraquat. It’s the first time a state legislature has passed legislation to phaseout paraquat, a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease.

House Bill 739 would, if enacted, end Vermonters’ exposure to one of the most dangerous pesticides still in use.

The Environmental Working Group is urging Gov. Phil Scott to sign the legislation and set a first-in-the-nation precedent for banning paraquat. The vote also comes as 12 other states have introduced bills to ban or restrict the chemical and California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation is re-reviewing paraquat.

Paraquat has been linked not only to Parkinson’s disease but also to other serious health harms, including cancer. More than 70 countries have banned paraquat due to these health concerns, yet it remains used in the U.S.

“With today’s vote, Vermont is making history and putting the health of its residents first,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at EWG. “This is the first time any legislative body in the country has passed a bill to fully ban paraquat, sending a powerful signal that the days of tolerating this dangerous chemical are numbered.

“Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike have made clear that safeguarding farmers, rural communities and children must take precedence over continued use of one of the most hazardous pesticides still on the market.” he added. “Now that the House has passed this landmark bill, we urge Gov. Scott to sign it.”

State Rep. Esme Cole (D-Windsor) and state Sen. Martine Gulick (D-Chittenden-Central District) championed their chambers’ versions of the bills.

In addition to EWG, groups supporting the paraquat ban bill include the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, The Michael J. Fox Foundation, Parkinson’s Foundation, the American Parkinson Disease Association, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and others.

“No one, including farmers, farmworkers, families or children, should be exposed to a chemical with such well-documented risks,” added Horsfield.

Once Scott signs the legislation, it would mark a major milestone in the fight to eliminate paraquat use in the U.S. and could accelerate efforts in other states.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and education, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus

Paraquat

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

May 13, 2026

Food industry claims state chemical laws will spike grocery bills, but that doesn’t add up

Ketura Persellin — Wed, 13 May 2026 16:03:44 +0000

Food industry claims state chemical laws will spike grocery bills, but that doesn’t add up Ketura Persellin May 13, 2026

In a page straight out of the industry playbook, a powerful group of U.S. food companies has funded a “study” claiming consumers will pay more if harmful chemicals are labeled or banned.

The industry front group, which represents food giants Nestlé and General Mills, among many others, is also backing other efforts to quash states’ ability to enact stricter food chemical laws.

The Policy Navigation Group, a lobbying and consulting firm whose clients include Dow Chemical and Snack International, published the so-called study. It says food chemical laws in Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia would increase household grocery spending by 12%, or $860, per year.

Louisiana and Texas enacted laws requiring a simple label or QR code be added to a food products packaging if it includes select ingredients of concern, such as certain artificial dyes and preservatives. West Virginia’s law bans food products containing potentially harmful ingredients like propylparaben, Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40 and Yellow Dye No. 5 from being sold in the state.

Federal regulatory failures have driven dozens of states to introduce similar laws targeting dyes, additives and other ingredients of concern.

But the study has serious flaws. From faulty data to bad math and poor logic, scrutinizing the claims makes clear they don’t add up.

Flawed grocery price analysis

The study uses highly selective examples, false assumptions and outdated models to drive up the cost estimates.

The study’s central assumption is that consumers who see a warning label on food will waste valuable time searching for an alternative that is more expensive. That’s because the study’s authors looked at only a handful of selected retailers who possibly charge more for products with fewer ingredients of concern.

But that’s not how most Americans actually shop.

Many major grocery chains, including Kroger, Publix, ShopRite and Wegmans, already offer affordable store-brand products that are free of many of the chemicals states are targeting with new food safety laws.

ShopRite, for instance, designed its Wholesome Pantry store brand to be free of artificial additives at competitive prices.

The study largely fails to account for these affordable, available alternatives – a limitation the researchers themselves acknowledge, noting that their focus on particular retailers likely led them to overlook some products and introduce bias in their results.

Texas, where H-E-B dominates the grocery business, is a heavy focus of the study. Under market pressure, H-E-B has already removed more than 175 synthetic ingredients from its store-brand line. That’s most of the ingredients targeted by Texas’ food chemical labeling law.

The study didn’t disclose the products and brands it analyzed. But its retailer of choice, Amazon, also owns Whole Foods, so it’s possible many of the pricier alternatives the study identified were Whole Foods products, not the kind of everyday substitutes most shoppers reach for.

According to a separate food industry report from February, two-thirds of all grocery retailers are reformulating brands to meet consumers’ desire for cleaner products. This includes removing artificial dyes and additives while maintaining affordability.

Faulty math skews study's outcomes

The study’s flaws don’t stop there.

Most significantly, it claims to be a cost-benefit analysis yet it fails to include the benefits of food chemical labels. This is not a minor methodological oversight but a fundamental failure.

Lower consumer exposure to chemicals of concern would benefit public health, yielding significant healthcare savings. Increased consumption of ultra-processed food, or UPF, is linked to higher rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes, dementia and reproductive harm.

And the study’s calculations included the 14% of consumers who said they would ignore warning labels. This inflates estimates in consumer spending by assuming cost increases among consumers whose behavior would not actually change.

It also relied on consumer behavior data that is more than 16 years old, a limitation the researchers themselves flagged as a source of unknown bias.

Rather than use the lowest available prices for label-free alternatives, as a budget-conscious shopper would likely do, the study used average prices, further overstating the real cost to consumers.

Further, industry representatives and lawmakers sympathetic to them have misused the results to claim that labeling laws would increase by 12% the prices we see on store shelves. The study doesn’t predict that individual grocery items will get more expensive. It actually – and inaccurately – predicts some people will choose to buy more expensive groceries to avoid ingredients of concern. Those are not the same thing.

Helping shoppers make more informed choices is a public health benefit, not a burden. But the study frames labeling requirements as financial harm only.

Real-world effects of changing food labels

Faulty studies and overinflated price claims are tired industry responses to requests for greater food ingredient transparency.

In 2022, a federal rule took effect requiring labels on products made with genetically modified ingredients. Industry-funded studies predicted major price increases when products made with GMO ingredients were required to bear labels.

But the new labels didn’t drive prices up. Many brands simply chose to include the new symbol on their existing labels while other household staples like Cheerios and Grape Nuts were reformulated at no extra cost to consumers.

Consumer Reports found similar industry-funded studies overstated the costs of GMO labeling by nearly a factor of 10. The most realistic industry estimate was around $66 per family of four per year, compared to the original estimate of nearly $500, and even that lower figure was likely inflated.

Food companies update their labels regularly for seasonal promotions and rebranding, without consumers switching to pricier products. Ingredient disclosure labels would be no different.

A label change would cost a company as little as $205, an amount too small to show up on store shelves, according to the Agriculture Department in 2024.

Clearer labels mean more confident consumers

The study’s authors are correct about one thing: Shoppers’ time is valuable.

Right now, consumers who want to make better food purchases have to read fine-print ingredient lists on every product. Clear labels designed to identify chemicals of concern make it easier and faster for them.

While states push for better public health protections, EWG has tools to help you shop with confidence.

At home, consumers can check EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals, which highlights top food chemicals to avoid due to health and safety concerns.

For more guidance, search EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives.

Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information at your fingertips while you shop.

Areas of Focus

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Food Chemicals

Authors

Jared Hayes

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

May 13, 2026

EWG on FDA’s request for information on SPF and UV protection values

rcoleman — Wed, 13 May 2026 12:53:14 +0000

EWG on FDA’s request for information on SPF and UV protection values rcoleman May 13, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments asking the Food and Drug Administration consider moving away from SPF testing in people in favor of in vitro UV protection testing, and for the agency should consider replacing the SPF value with a UV protection value that equally weights the entire UV spectra.

File Download

fda-1978-n-0018-15844_attachment_1.pdf

Areas of Focus

Personal Care Products

Authors

November 1, 2021

EWG on FDA’s request for information on butylated hydroxyanisole in food

rcoleman — Wed, 13 May 2026 12:47:16 +0000

EWG on FDA’s request for information on butylated hydroxyanisole in food rcoleman May 13, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments asking the Food and Drug Administration to remove BHA from food. submitted in response to the agency’s request for information.

File Download

ewg-s-final-comments-on-bha-to-fda-4_13_2026-1-1.pdf

Areas of Focus

Food & Water

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Authors

May 13, 2026