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

EWG testimony before the California Senate Health Committee on AB 2244, to create a ‘non-ultraprocessed’ food label

Iris Myers — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 16:19:14 +0000

EWG testimony before the California Senate Health Committee on AB 2244, to create a ‘non-ultraprocessed’ food label Iris Myers June 25, 2026

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Scott Faber, and I am testifying on behalf of the Environmental Working Group, a national environmental health organization and a sponsor of AB 2244. I am also an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, where I teach food and farm law. Prior to joining EWG, I was the vice president for federal affairs for the Consumers Brand Association.

The overwhelming scientific evidence shows that ultraprocessed foods have been linked to serious health harms ranging from diabetes to dementia.

Processed foods are part of a healthy diet. But ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, are different from processed foods because they have been engineered in ways that make our food not just delicious but literally irresistible.

Consumers are increasingly trying to avoid UPFs, and there are many processed foods in the grocery store that are not ultra-processed and are lower in saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars. However, consumers are struggling to distinguish between UPFs and these healthier processed foods.

The voluntary, non-UPF seal authorized by AB 2244 will help consumers by applying the definition you created in AB 1264 to the marketplace, and by asking grocers to make these non-UPF options easier to find. Minimally processed foods like olive oil, nuts and pasteurized milk are all non-UPF options eligible for the non-UPF seal.

California’s definition of UPF closely tracks the consensus definition published by UPF experts in May, which recommends that UPFs be defined as food containing a “cosmetic” additive, such as flavors, synthetic colors, stabilizers, thickeners, and emulsifying agents.

Let me reiterate: The non-UPF seal authorized by AB 2244 is completely voluntary.

By contrast, many other countries, including Mexico and Canada, have required a mandatory warning on the front of unhealthy processed foods.

Let’s help consumers build healthier diets. I urge you to support AB 2244 to help consumers find better options for their families.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Areas of Focus

Food & Water

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Regional Issues

California

Press Contact

Iris Myers

iris@ewg.org

(202) 939-9126

June 25, 2026

EWG opposes proposed ASTM standard that could classify hazardous amphibole particles as non-asbestos

rcoleman — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 15:28:37 +0000

EWG opposes proposed ASTM standard that could classify hazardous amphibole particles as non-asbestos rcoleman June 25, 2026

Attached are EWG's comments to ASTM International opposing a proposed standard for classifying elongate amphibole particles. EWG raises concerns that the method relies on outdated binary classifications and may not adequately reflect health-relevant particle characteristics.

File Download

astm_comment-6-2026.pdf

Areas of Focus

Toxic Chemicals

Authors

Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D.

June 11, 2026

Algae blooms: Unsightly for the Reflecting Pool, potentially toxic elsewhere

Ketura Persellin — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:32:25 +0000

Algae blooms: Unsightly for the Reflecting Pool, potentially toxic elsewhere Ketura Persellin June 25, 2026

Algae is making headlines after the Trump administration’s $14.2 million renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool turned its water closer in color to the Chicago River on St. Patrick's Day – an unmistakable bright green.

But the color of the Reflecting Pool came not from thousands of tons of green dye but from an algae bloom consuming the 6.5 million gallon basin.

Over half of all U.S. lakes now suffer from worsening algae blooms, a problem that has intensified dramatically since 2015. Not all algae blooms are toxic, and that includes the current reflecting pool growth.

It’s the toxic blooms elsewhere that prompt health concerns.

A toxic algae bloom is not algae at all. It’s an overgrowth of algae-like bacteria in an aquatic ecosystem. It can kill fish, birds and other wildlife, and cause severe kidney and degenerative diseases in humans.

It’s impossible to know by sight alone whether an algae bloom is toxic. Green-blue scum, thick mats on the water’s surface, or foul odors can signal danger. But the problem often starts upstream, when fertilizer, manure and climate-driven runoff fuel rapid algae growth.

Health impacts of toxic algae

In freshwater systems, harmful algae blooms are produced by blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria. Algae blooms can exist during part of the year before they become toxic.

Toxins produced by harmful algae blooms can enter the body through three main pathways: skin absorption, consumption of contaminated drinking water and breathing in airborne particles, which can drift for miles.

In 2022 alone, the latest year for which the data is available, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that harmful algae blooms resulted in 95 human and over 102,000 animal illnesses.

In Michigan’s Lower Peninsula, four dogs died soon after drinking toxic pond water. They had shown symptoms of exposure such as vomiting and complete loss of coordination, followed by a rapid deterioration.

These outbreaks also have major economic and community costs: swimming advisories go up and beaches close. Water recreation, including tourism and fishing, halts, lakes require testing and treatment, and health risks strain local healthcare systems. One estimate puts the cost of freshwater harmful algae blooms in the U.S. at $4.6 billion each year.

Identifying harmful algae blooms

No single federal body oversees harmful algae blooms. The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration collaborate to monitor some algae blooms across the U.S..

But the agencies lack a complete set of data because there are too many bodies of water to monitor. Real-time monitoring on cyanobacteria blooms ended in 2024.

At the state level, monitoring and warning programs exist unevenly across the U.S. In 2019, the Natural Resources Defense Council rated each state on the effectiveness and extent of their algae bloom monitoring and outreach programs, determining that 16 states still did not collect any data and 40 states did not provide that data online.

It’s impossible to tell for sure if an algae bloom is toxic just by looking at it. These signs may indicate toxicity:

A strong, unpleasant odor, like rotten eggs or rotting plants
Green or bluish green scum that looks like spilled paint, or mats/globs of algae

What should you do if you think you see a harmful algae bloom?

Avoid contact with the water or foam in or near the water, and keep pets away, too.
Rinse off immediately with soap and warm water if you’ve touched an algae bloom or water near the algae.
Avoid contaminated fish or shellfish from ecosystems experiencing a harmful algae bloom.
Notify your county or state health officials if you’ve experienced respiratory or other health symptoms after being near an algae bloom.

How manure and fertilizer drive toxic blooms

Harmful algae blooms are often caused by human practices. Agricultural inputs, like animal manure and chemical fertilizers, are one of the primary culprits.

The problem often begins with factory farms and major commodity crop farms. Factory farm animals produce huge amounts of manure every year, which is then spread, along with synthetic fertilizers, on nearby crop fields. Both can run off from farm fields into nearby waterways, raising the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, feeding the blue-green algae and causing potentially toxic blooms to flourish.

Climate change also worsens the problem of algae blooms. Hotter temperatures driven by intensifying climate change exacerbate cyanobacteria growth. The climate crisis has made rainfall events more severe and frequent, driving increased agricultural runoff to rivers, streams, and lakes.

Higher carbon dioxide levels feed toxic algae species, which need it to survive. Since 2015, the number of toxic algae bloom advisories and closures has increased every single year.

The Midwest, because of its concentration of industrial farming operations, is particularly at risk. An EPA-led study found that 56% of Midwestern lakes near agriculturally dominated areas exceeded World Health Organization cyanobacteria concentration limits.

Policies to reduce nutrient pollution

There isn’t one simple solution to the problem of toxic algae blooms.

Crop farms could help mitigate their occurrence by using conservation practices that reduce runoff: cover crops, diversified crop rotations and grass buffers near bodies of water. Keeping livestock away from rivers and streams and matching fertilizer or manure amounts to crop needs can also help.

Agriculture Department conservation programs could help fund farmers’ use of these practices, but the programs are oversubscribed, so many of the farmers who apply for funding don’t get it.

Areas of Focus

Farm Pollution

Guest Authors

Adam Levin

June 25, 2026

Supreme Court backs Bayer and Trump, limiting Americans’ right to sue over pesticide harms

Anthony Lacey — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:20:49 +0000

Supreme Court backs Bayer and Trump, limiting Americans’ right to sue over pesticide harms Anthony Lacey June 25, 2026

WASHINGTON – In a decision that will reverberate far beyond a single lawsuit, the Supreme Court today handed toxic agricultural chemical makers a sweeping victory that threatens states’ ability to protect people from harmful pesticides.

The 7-2 ruling, by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, accepts chemical giant Bayer-Monsanto’s argument that federal pesticide labeling law blocks peoples’ ability to file lawsuits under state law claiming that pesticide makers’ products could cause cancer. The court gives companies a powerful shield for avoiding accountability for the health harms their products cause.

The decision undermines the rights of Americans harmed by corporate misconduct to seek justice in court, as noted in a dissent by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch: “Ultimately, the effect of the majority’s interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs . . .”

The decision threatens to extinguish thousands of pending lawsuits – and to block countless future cases – by people who might have developed cancer and other serious illnesses after being exposed to pesticides. Those harmful chemicals include Bayer’s signature Roundup herbicide, which contains the active ingredient glyphosate.

“This case was never just about Bayer,” said Environmental Working Group President and co-founder Ken Cook. “It was about whether states retain the authority to provide stronger protections for their residents when federal regulations fall short, and whether ordinary Americans can hold powerful corporations accountable when their pesticides cause harm.”

Trump backed Bayer’s claims

This Supreme Court has repeatedly tilted toward corporate interests in high-stakes environmental and public health cases.

The decision also comes after an extraordinary coordinated effort by the Trump administration to put its thumb on the scale for Bayer.

The administration intervened at every turn, pushing the court to side with Bayer at the expense of the many Americans harmed by toxic agricultural chemicals – and against American consumers, farmers, farmworkers, groundskeepers and others seeking their day in court.

The Justice Department’s Office of the Solicitor General filed briefs urging the Court to take up the case, endorsing Bayer’s sweeping preemption argument. That argument claims the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval of a pesticide label should provide permanent immunity for manufacturers from lawsuits people file under state law – no matter what evidence might later emerge about the harms resulting from a chemical exposure

President Donald Trump doubled down on his support for pesticide makers by signing an executive order in February to boost the production of glyphosate.

That order ignited a rebellion among many in the Make America Healthy Again movement. Some followers had been swayed to support Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign when he and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now Health and Human Services Secretary, pledged to crack down on the use of toxic pesticides like glyphosate.

“The Trump administration didn’t sit on the sidelines – it lobbied the Supreme Court to strip Americans of their right to sue. And its tactics worked,” said Cook.

“When a president uses the vast power of the federal government to protect a pesticide company from accountability – instead of the people he swore to serve – our system is no longer working for ordinary Americans,” he added.

Limiting future lawsuits

EWG and other environmental advocates argue the ruling will make it much harder for people exposed to hazardous crop chemicals to hold manufacturers accountable. The decision will inevitably shift power away from states that have traditionally played a key role in protecting public health.

A growing body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence links widely used pesticides to a host of health harms, including cancers, birth defects, endocrine disruption, Parkinson’s disease, and infertility.

The justices’ decision is a notable win for pesticide manufacturers in their yearslong coordinated effort to seek legal immunity for causing those harms.

The decision is especially alarming given glyphosate’s ubiquity. It is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. and the world, detected in the food supply and in the bodies of most Americans. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified it as a probable human carcinogen.

Tens of thousands of people have sued Bayer-Monsanto, alleging their cancer diagnoses are linked to Roundup exposure – lawsuits that today’s ruling now puts in jeopardy.

“The ultimate losers are the American people,” said Cook. “People who were exposed, workers who were never warned, consumers who trusted a label – they now have fewer tools to use to fight back. And the corporations responsible for that harm have more protection than ever.”

Dangerous precedent

Today’s ruling also creates a dangerous precedent that could extend far beyond pesticides, inviting other industries to argue that compliance with often weak and outdated federal regulations should shield them from stronger state consumer protection laws and civil liability.

It is now up to Congress to rein in pesticide manufacturers and reform major pesticide laws to protect people before they are harmed.

Congress should also move to amend the 1972 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide.

Lawmakers should also revise the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act to better protect communities, increase transparency, and provide more tools to regulators.

States can also help by banning the most harmful pesticides, such as paraquat. Vermont in May became the first state to prohibit the use of the chemical, which is linked to greater risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

###

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

Areas of Focus

Pesticides

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

June 25, 2026

Senate farm bill undermines regenerative agriculture, Trump administration’s MAHA priorities

Anthony Lacey — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 20:00:34 +0000

Senate farm bill undermines regenerative agriculture, Trump administration’s MAHA priorities Anthony Lacey June 23, 2026

WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans’ just-released farm bill proposal would undermine efforts to advance regenerative agriculture and runs counter to the Make America Healthy Again agenda touted by top Trump administration officials.

Most notably, the bill cuts over $2 billion from two of the nation’s most widely used conservation programs – the Agriculture Department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, and the Conservation Stewardship Program, or CSP. The programs give farmers and ranchers incentives to implement regenerative agriculture practices on their land.

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

Instead, Senate Republicans are joining their House counterparts in committing to cuts in funding for these programs at a time when the popularity of these programs is growing.

In the most recent year for which data is available, only 24% of EQIP applicants and 37% of CSP applicants were awarded contracts. Every state saw a decrease in the number of funded applicants in the past year. That means there are thousands of farmers asking the federal government for help in implementing regenerative agriculture practices who are being turned away.

Congress should expand these vital programs, not cut them.

The Senate farm bill would also block key portions of the USDA’s Regenerative Pilot Program, which aims to prioritize certain regenerative agriculture practices, including cover crops, in national conservation programs. This pilot program is an important step toward improving farm resilience and regenerative agriculture.

But the bill would prevent the department from fully implementing it. Senate Republicans would prevent farmers from taking a “whole farm” approach and would block government funding for soil health testing – meaning farmers and ranchers would not be able to see what progress they are making in improving environmental outcomes.

The bill also fails to adequately restore local school food purchasing programs that connect farmers with nearby schools. These programs provide reliable markets for producers while helping schools serve fresh food to students from nearby farms.

The following is a statement from Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at the Environmental Working Group.

Prioritizing regenerative agriculture practices like cover crops and encouraging farmers to develop whole farm conservation plans are important steps to improving farm resilience. This bill from Senate Republicans fails to support the rare actions taken by the administration to help farmers.
Rather than cut money for these popular programs, Congress must provide more funding to meet the growing backlog of farmer demand for the most effective conservation practices.

###

Areas of Focus

Farming & Agriculture

Conservation

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

June 23, 2026

Safer skincare starter kits for teens

JR Culpepper — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 18:43:17 +0000

Safer skincare starter kits for teens JR Culpepper June 23, 2026

Teens experiencing acne or other skin imperfections due to hormonal changes often seek solutions.

One source of help is “get ready with me” videos, which teens widely view and follow on apps such as TikTok and Instagram.

These videos often feature multistep skincare routines filmed in tutorial-like fashion, with influencers applying a never-ending list of serums and scrubs in the name of self-care.

A self-care routine can be valuable for mental health. But are these routines really necessary for teenagers to have healthy skin?

Dermatologists often advise against using an elaborate list of products for naturally youthful skin. These self-care routines become harmful and counterproductive when overdone – especially for teens whose skin is thinner, more permeable and more sensitive than an adult's skin.

Teens’ use of products that feature strong active ingredients – like exfoliating acids, vitamin C or retinols – can lead to unwanted irritation and damage the natural skin barrier.

A balanced approach to self-care for teens starts with safer ingredients and simple routines.

We’ve assembled a list of EWG Verified® cleansers, moisturizers, sunscreens and lip balms safer for your teen’s routine. Products with the EWG Verified mark are made without EWG’s chemicals of concern and meet our strictest standards for health and transparency.

Explore additional EWG Verified products in EWG’s Skin Deep® cosmetics database.

Cleansers

Be Green Bath & Body Gentle Facial Cleanser

Purchase from Be Green $22.

PURCHASE HERE

View details

cleanjourney Clean Slay Purifying Face Cleanser

Purchase from Amazon or cleanjourney $15.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Evereden Steer Clear Balancing Cleanser

Purchase from Amazon $19.95.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Moisturizers

Noori Skincare Girl and a Goat Moisturizer

Purchase from Amazon $29.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

The Honest Company Sensitive Skin Daily Moisturizer

Purchase from Amazon $24.99.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Sunscreens

Mustela Mineral Sunscreen Stick, Face and Body, SPF 50

Purchase from Amazon or Mustela $14.50.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Thinksport Clear Zinc Active Face Sunscreen Lotion

Purchase from Amazon $14.99.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Well People Daygleamer Mineral Sunscreen SPF 34

Purchase from Well People $26.

PURCHASE HERE

View details

Lip Balms

ATTITUDE Sunly Lip Balm SPF 15 – Unscented

Purchase from Amazon $11.80 or ATTITUDE $6.95.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Solara Suncare Pout Protector Moisturizing Lip Serum, SPF 15

Purchase from Amazon or Solara Suncare $16.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Areas of Focus

Personal Care Products

Guest Authors

Luz Fontana-Mansilla, Communications intern

June 23, 2026

Testimony of Environmental Working Group on proposals to Make America Healthier Again

Iris Myers — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 18:17:10 +0000

Testimony of Environmental Working Group on proposals to Make America Healthier Again Iris Myers June 23, 2026

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Scott Faber, and I am the senior vice president for government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a national environmental health organization. I am also an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, where I teach food and farm law. I am testifying today on behalf of EWG.

Thank you for holding today’s hearing. Food that is safe, healthy, and affordable – and produced in ways that reflect America’s shared values – is not a partisan issue. All Americans, regardless of party, want our food to be safe, healthy and affordable.

Diet-related disease is now our leading cause of death. Many Americans simply lack access to healthier food. Every year, thousands of us are sickened by pathogens, and hundreds die. Too many of us eat food contaminated with toxic metals, pesticides or contaminants like PFAS.

Too many of us eat food that contains food additives and substances that have been linked to serious health harms, including cancer, but that have never been reviewed by the FDA or were last reviewed many decades ago.

Most farmers are turned away when they offer to share the cost of regenerative farming practices.

The MAHA assessment, released in May 2025, and the MAHA strategy, released in September 2025, included many bold proposals that, if implemented, would help make our food safer and healthier.

For example, the MAHA assessment documented the harms of toxic additives and pesticides in our food, and the MAHA strategy proposed limits or bans on some food chemicals, post-market reviews of other food chemicals, and closing the loophole that has allowed food companies to determine which new food chemicals can be added to our food.

For example, the MAHA strategy proposed to support healthier diets by defining ultra-processed food, or UPF; requiring a front-of-pack label to help consumers avoid UPF; updating the Dietary Guidelines; and increasing access to healthier options, including fruits and vegetables.

The MAHA strategy further proposed to update infant formula standards and increase tests for heavy metals and other contaminants, including plastics, in our food.

These promises – to get toxins out of our food, to increase access to healthier foods – are, so far, unfulfilled.

So far, the administration has not banned toxic food chemicals of concern, including food chemicals linked to cancer; has not yet conducted post-market reviews of other chemicals we are already eating; and has not yet narrowed the loophole that allows food chemical companies to decide which new food chemicals are safe to eat.

So far, the administration has not yet updated infant formula standards or set enforceable limits for toxic metals in baby food.

Instead, the administration has made our food less safe by firing food safety experts, reducing food safety inspections, reducing the number of pathogens that must be tracked, withdrawing salmonella standards, increasing line speeds in slaughterhouses, and delaying efforts to trace the source of foodborne illnesses.

While the MAHA assessment sounded the alarm about the risks posed by pesticides, the administration has so far granted or sought legal immunity for some existing pesticides and approved new pesticides made with PFAS. In addition, the administration has so far refused to set limits on the amount of PFAS that can be in our food, as other nations have done. The administration has also made our tap water less safe by delaying and weakening drinking water standards for PFAS.

It’s good news that the updated Dietary Guidelines urge consumers to “eat real food” and to avoid “highly processed” foods. But so far the administration has cut funding for programs that provide us fresh, local food, especially to our schools.

The FDA and USDA have not yet defined UPF and have not yet proposed a front-of-pack label to help consumers avoid foods designed, with the tobacco industry’s know-how, to interfere with our brains’ reward centers. Instead, the administration signed legislation eliminating the nation’s biggest nutrition education program and has since proposed to eliminate funding for programs that expand access to healthier foods.

So far, the administration has also made our food more costly, especially the “real foods” the Dietary Guidelines advise us to eat. Since January 2025, the cost of food has increased by more than 3% as the administration has placed tariffs on food imports and taken other steps that have raised the cost of making food, including the cost of energy, labor and farm inputs.

The price of vegetables increased by 11.5% between April 2025 and April 2026.

So far, the administration has provided the lion’s share of new farm subsidies to the largest producers of feed crops, not food crops, and cut anti-hunger programs to offset the cost of these new subsidies.

We should all welcome bold ideas, like those proposed in the MAHA assessment and MAHA strategy, to make our food safer and healthier and support the people who feed us. But so far, the administration is trying to have it both ways: by sounding the alarm about food safety failures and diet-related disease, by making bold promises to help Americans avoid toxins in our food and build healthier diets, but so far failing to deliver on those promises and instead adopting policies that make our food less safe, less healthy and more costly.

So far, our states, not the EPA, FDA or USDA, are delivering the safe and healthy food consumers want. In particular, our states, not the FDA, have banned toxic chemicals from our food, including toxic chemicals linked to cancer and neurobehavioral harms. Three states have banned 11 toxic chemicals from all food, 10 states have banned synthetic dyes from school food and 13 states have banned PFAS from food packaging.

Everyone agrees: Our food should be free from toxic chemicals, and people we trust should review the safety of food chemicals and pesticides.

Everyone agrees: When companies make us sick or worse, we should have access to justice.

Everyone agrees: We should increase, not reduce, food safety inspections; adopt tougher, not weaker, food safety standards; track more, not fewer, pathogens; and that we should move faster, not slower, when outbreaks occur.

Everyone agrees: We should have less, not more, PFAS, lead and other contaminants in our water and food.

Everyone agrees: We should make it easier for consumers to identify and avoid UPF; stop food companies from marketing UPF to our children; and make healthier food choices more accessible and more affordable.

So far, the administration has failed to deliver the food we want. It has not yet banned toxic chemicals from our food, has not yet narrowed the loophole that puts food chemical companies in charge, has not yet defined UPF and helped us avoid them, has not increased food safety inspections, has not yet helped the family farms that feed us “real” food, and has not increased access to healthier “real” food.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.

Areas of Focus

Food & Water

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Press Contact

Iris Myers

iris@ewg.org

(202) 939-9126

June 23, 2026

Pennsylvania moves one step closer to becoming second state to ban Parkinson’s pesticide

Anthony Lacey — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 19:48:09 +0000

Pennsylvania moves one step closer to becoming second state to ban Parkinson’s pesticide Anthony Lacey June 22, 2026

In a victory for public health, today a bill to ban the use of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat in Pennsylvania moved one step closer to becoming law.

The Pennsylvania House Consumer Protection, Technology and Utilities Committee voted to advance the bill, which would rid the state of a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease and other harms.

H.B. 1135 would amend the Pennsylvania Pesticide Control Act of 1973 to ban all uses of paraquat across the commonwealth, one year after enactment. It was introduced last year by state Reps. Natalie Mihalek (R-Allegheny/Washington) and Melissa Shusterman (D-Chester County).

The committee action moves Pennsylvania significantly closer to becoming the second state in the nation, after Vermont, to enact a statewide ban on paraquat.

If the Pennsylvania General Assembly approves the bill and Gov. Josh Shapiro signs it, the state would become another national leader in protecting farmworkers, rural communities and families from exposure to one of the most dangerous pesticides still used in U.S. agriculture.

“Today’s vote is an important step toward an end to the use of a chemical that poses unacceptable risks to human health,” said Environmental Working Group Legislative Director Geoff Horsfield.

“Pennsylvania lawmakers are recognizing what dozens of countries around the world already have: Paraquat is too dangerous to continue using when safer alternatives are available.

“We are grateful to our bill champions and supporters,” said Horsfield, who also thanked House Consumer Protection, Technology and Utilities Committee Chair Danilo Burgos and Republican Chair Carl Walker Metzgar.

In February, companion legislation was introduced in the state Senate by Sens. Devlin Robinson (R-37) and Nick Miller (D-14).

Banned around the world

Paraquat is among the most acutely toxic herbicides on the market. More than 70 states, including China, have banned its use – but it’s still allowed in the U.S.

The Pennsylvania bill’s advancement follows months of advocacy by health experts, environmental organizations and individuals living with Parkinson’s disease who have urged state lawmakers to take action.

“Farmworkers and agricultural communities deserve protection from chemicals known to threaten their long-term health,” said Horsfield.

“By moving this legislation forward, Pennsylvania lawmakers are sending a clear message that public health must come before the interests of pesticide manufacturers,” he added.

EWG and other advocates are now calling on legislative leaders to bring the measure to a vote in both chambers and urging Shapiro to sign it if it reaches his desk.

“This vote demonstrates growing momentum nationwide to phase out paraquat and transition to safer alternatives,” Horsfield said. “Pennsylvania has an opportunity to protect current and future generations from a toxic chemical that has no place in U.S. agriculture.”

Several other states have introduced bills to ban paraquat, and California is considering new regulatory restrictions. These efforts are clear signs of escalating concern over the chemical’s well-documented health risks.

###

Areas of Focus

Paraquat

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

June 23, 2026

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: BHT

rcoleman — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 15:35:54 +0000

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: BHT rcoleman June 22, 2026

Dayna de Montagnac, MPH

David Andrews, Ph.D.

Sydney Evans, MPH

Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D.

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

Jump to:

What is BHT and why is it added to foods?

Where is BHT found in foods?

What is the regulatory status of BHT?

Are foods containing BHT ultra-processed?

Is BHT allowed in organic foods?

What are the potential health harms associated with BHT?

Uncertainties and the need for more research

Other product use categories

Cited resources

June 22, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

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

BHT is shown in multiple studies to cause damage to cells through production of metabolites and oxidative stress (Xu et al., 2021). These are mechanisms associated with a number of diseases including cancer. BHT is not a listed carcinogen, but some data have shown that it does cause cancer in animals. In high dose studies in animals it has been linked to hepatic toxicity, and the promotion of tumors in the liver, bladder, and lungs (Liu & Mabury, 2020; Xu et al., 2021). BHT has been shown to cause developmental effects and thyroid changes in animals, suggesting that it may be able to disrupt endocrine signaling (European Food Safety Authority,2012).

In certain high exposure scenarios, EFSA noted that children's dietary intake of BHT could exceed its acceptable daily intake, or ADI.

Science analysis

What is BHT and why is it added to foods?

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

Where is BHT found in foods?

BHT is typically added to breakfast cereal, frozen pizza and chewing gum.

BHT is used in 2,974 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

Top 15 food and drink categories with products containing BHT, organized by supermarket shelf

^{Source: EWG’s Food Scores. Label created between January 1, 2023 and October 10, 2023.}

What is the regulatory status of BHT?

The Food and Drug Administration approved BHT for use in food in 1954 and it was deemed “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, in 1959 for certain uses.

An ADI of 0.3 mg/kg was set for BHT by WHO in 1996. The European Union’s Scientific Committee on Food originally set the ADI to 0.05 mg/kg in 1987, based on reproduction, thyroid and hematological effects observed in rodent studies. The EFSA reevaluated BHT in 2012 and found the chemical to be of less concern, raising the ADI to 0.25 mg/kg.

Also, if BHT as a food contact material is added to food additive intake estimates, children would ingest more than the ADI at both the mean and high-consumption levels. The EFSA concluded that typical dietary exposures were within the ADI.

As of February 2026, the FDA plans to reassess the safety of BHT in food.

Are foods containing BHT ultra-processed?

Yes, BHT 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).

Under a recent California law defining UPF, BHT would qualify as a UPF ingredient based on its property as a flavor enhancer and flavoring agent/adjuvant. (California Assembly Bill 1264).

Is BHT 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 BHT?

The breakdown of BHT in the body into metabolites produces reactive intermediates that may pose risks to human health. While the cytotoxicity of BHT has long been recognized, recent studies published after its major regulatory evaluations have further clarified the precise mechanisms behind this cellular damage.

The tumor-promoting effects of BHT are mainly influenced by production of quinone methylation metabolites such as BHT-QM (Xu et al., 2021). Its metabolites are electrophilic, which means they bind well to cellular proteins and DNA (Lanigan and Yamarik, 2002).

Like BHA, its metabolite production causes oxidative stress, DNA damage and cell death (Castro et al., 2017). While BHT is not considered a carcinogen by IARC, its mechanisms are related to carcinogenesis.

High-dose animal studies have linked BHT exposure to hepatic toxicity, endocrine disruption and the promotion of tumors in the liver, bladder, and lungs (Liu & Mabury 2020; Xu et al., 2021). Oral studies in rats showed renal and hepatic damage at acute doses of 0.5 to 1.0 g/kg (Lanigan and Yamarik 2002). Subacute exposure at lower doses was linked to liver toxicity in rats (Moon et al., 1987).

BHT has been found in human cord blood (Du et al., 2019), breast milk (Zhang et al., 2020), serum (Liu & Mabury 2018), urine (Liu & Mabury 2018) and adipose tissue (Collings & Sharratt, 1970).

An exposure study conducted in 2019 found that U.S. residents had some of the highest levels of BHT, compared to other countries, with the highest exposures exceeding the ADI (Wang & Kannan, 2019).

Uncertainties and the need for more research

There are data gaps for multiple routes of BHT exposure and how well it is absorbed, as well as health effects of co-exposure with other synthetic phenolic antioxidants (Liu & Mabury, 2020).

More details about BHT

BHT is also added as an antioxidant in consumer products such as polyurethane, which is used in mattresses, plastics, carpets and printing inks. From these products, it can migrate into the air and settle in house dust.

Although food is the most significant source of BHT exposure, dust has been reported to be an important source indoors (Liu & Mabury 2020), especially in children, who ingest more dust, on average (Wang et al 2015).

Other product use categories

BHT is also added to cosmetic products as a preservative. As of publication, the ingredient scores a 5 in EWG’s Skin Deep® database and is not allowed in EWG Verified® products.

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

Abstract for TR-150. (June, 17, 2025). National Toxicology Program. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/reports/tr/tr150
WHO, JECFA (n.d.) https://apps.who.int/food-additives-contaminants-jecfa-database/Home/Chemical/2142
EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS). (2014). Scientific opinion on the re‐evaluation of propyl gallate (E 310) as a food additive. EFSA Journal, 12(4), Article 3642. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3642
Office of the Commissioner. (February 10, 2026). FDA launches assessment of BHA, a common food chemical preservative. U.S. Food And Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-launches-assessment-bha-common-food-chemical-preservative

Comprehensive reviews and frameworks

Xu, X., Liu, A., Hu, S., Ares, I., Martínez-Larrañaga, M.-R., Wang, X., Martínez, M., Anadón, A., & Martínez, M.-A. (2021). Synthetic phenolic antioxidants: Metabolism, hazards and mechanism of action. Food Chemistry, 353, Article 129488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129488
Lanigan, R.S., & Yamarik, T.A. (2002). Final report on the safety assessment of BHT(1). International journal of toxicology, 21 Suppl 2, 19–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10915810290096513
Monteiro, C.A., Cannon, G., Levy, R.B., Moubarac, J., Louzada, M.L., Rauber, F., Khandpur, N., Cediel, G., Neri, D., Martinez-Steele, E., Baraldi, L.G., & Jaime, P.C. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980018003762
Castro LdS, Bracht L, Comar J.F., Peralta R.M., Bracht A.A. reappraisal of the proposed metabolic and antioxidant actions of butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) in the liver. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 2017;31:e21924. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbt.21924
Liu, R., & Mabury, S.A. (2020). Synthetic Phenolic Antioxidants: A review of environmental occurrence, fate, human exposure, and toxicity. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(19), 11706–11719. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05077

Legislation

Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, A.B. 1264, Chapter 467, Cal. Stat. (2025).https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264

Specific health impact and biomonitoring studies

Moon, C., Lee, S., Park, K., Hwang, G., Mock, M., Chung, D., Kim, D., & Min, S. (1987). In vivo immunotoxicities of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) in male mice. Archives of Pharmacal Research, 10(4), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02857744
Du, B., Zhang, Y., Lam, J.C.W., Pan, S., Huang, Y., Chen, B., Lan, S., Li, J., Luo, D., & Zeng, L. (2019). Prevalence, Biotransformation, and Maternal Transfer of Synthetic Phenolic Antioxidants in Pregnant Women from South China. Environmental science & technology, 53(23), 13959–13969. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04709
Zhang, Y., Du, B., Ge, J., Liu, L., Zhu, M., Li, J., & Zeng, L. (2020). Co-occurrence of and infant exposure to multiple common and unusual phenolic antioxidants in human breast milk. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 7(3), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00104
Liu, R., & Mabury, S.A. (2018). Unexpectedly High Concentrations of a Newly Identified Organophosphate Ester, Tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl) Phosphate, in Indoor Dust from Canada. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(17), 9677–9683. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03061
Collings, A.J.; Sharratt, M. The BHT content of human adipose tissue. Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 1970, 8(4), 409−412.
Wang, W., & Kannan, K. (2019). Quantitative identification of and exposure to synthetic phenolic antioxidants, including butylated hydroxytoluene, in urine. Environment International, 128, 287-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.04.028
Soubra L., Sarkis D., Hilan C., Verger P. (2007). Dietary exposure of children and teenagers to benzoates, sulphites, butylhydroxyanisol (BHA) and butylhydroxytoluen (BHT) in Beirut (Lebanon). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 47(1):68-77. https://doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.07.005.
Wang, W., Asimakopoulos, A. G., Abualnaja, K. O., Covaci, A., Gevao, B., Johnson-Restrepo, B., Kumosani, T. A., Malarvannan, G., Minh, T. B., Moon, H., Nakata, H., Sinha, R. K., & Kannan, K. (2015). Synthetic Phenolic Antioxidants and Their Metabolites in Indoor Dust from Homes and Microenvironments. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(1), 428–434. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04826

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: BHT

Iris Myers — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 14:40:07 +0000

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: BHT Iris Myers June 22, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing BHT.

BHT has not been formally classified as a carcinogen, but studies have linked it to tumor promotion in animals. BHT and its breakdown products may cause oxidative stress, which occurs when highly reactive molecules accumulate and damage cells. This process can disrupt cellular function, damage DNA and interfere with the body’s hormonal system.

What is BHT?

BHT, or butylated hydroxytoluene, is a preservative that prevents oxidation, extending the shelf life of fats and oils in packaged foods. BHT is also added to some cosmetic products and a range of consumer goods as a preservative and antioxidant.

Which foods contain BHT?

BHT is commonly added to breakfast cereal, frozen pizza and chewing gum. It is also used in many other processed foods containing fats and oils, including cookies, candy and other packaged snacks.

Look for BHT in product ingredient lists, usually below or next to the nutrition facts panel, on the back of the package. It may also appear as “butylated hydroxytoluene.” BHT may also be added to food packaging, which companies are not required to disclose.

How is BHT regulated?

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing food additives and other ingredients. The FDA approved BHT for use in food in 1954 and deemed it generally recognized as safe for certain uses in 1959.

In early 2026, the FDA announced it would reassess the safety of BHT in food. Pointing to decades of evidence raising health concerns, EWG has long called for regulatory action on BHT.

In the European Union, the European Food Safety Authority reevaluated BHT in 2012 and raised the acceptable daily intake level to 0.25 mg/kg, reflecting lower concern about the chemical. The authority concluded that typical dietary exposures were within the new acceptable daily intake, though some high-end exposure scenarios – particularly in children and from multiple sources – approached or exceeded that level in modeling estimates.

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

What does the science say about BHT?

When BHT breaks down in the body, it produces reactive byproducts that cause oxidative stress, damaging DNA and cellular proteins. This is associated with cancer and other diseases in laboratory studies.

Animal studies have linked BHT to liver toxicity and tumor promotion in the liver, bladder and lungs. BHT has also caused developmental and thyroid changes in animals, which suggests it may disrupt hormonal signaling.

BHT has been detected in human cord blood, breast milk, blood, urine and body fat. A 2019 study found that U.S. residents had some of the highest BHT levels globally, with the highest exposures exceeding safety limits.

Exposure to BHT can come from many sources, not just food. It may be found in mattresses, plastics, carpets and printing ink, from which it can migrate into indoor air and settle in house dust.

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to BHT – and the full EWG Dirty Dozen^TM 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.

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

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

Areas of Focus

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Food Chemicals

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

June 22, 2026