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

Newsom signs landmark bill to track and disclose PFAS pesticide use in California

Monica Amarelo — Tue, 22 Sep 2026 13:41:51 +0000

Newsom signs landmark bill to track and disclose PFAS pesticide use in California Monica Amarelo September 22, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed groundbreaking legislation that takes a first step in addressing the widespread use of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” pesticides on California produce.

The new law, AB 1603, authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), requires the state to monitor and disclose PFAS pesticide use. State agencies do not track the concerning use of toxic PFAS on crops – but that will change now that the Environmental Working Group has raised concerns.

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

EWG’s research also found PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of non-organic peaches, nectarines and plums tested by the state, as well as in local waterways and sediment.

“I want to thank Gov. Newsom for recognizing that families deserve to know what’s being sprayed on their food,” said Schultz.

“Signing AB 1603 into law is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation. Tracking and monitoring is the crucial first step. You can’t fix what you can’t see,” he added.

“We’re grateful to Gov. Newsom for highlighting PFAS pesticide use and signing this bill into law,” said Susan Little, EWG California legislative director.

“Now, for the first time, we’ll have a comprehensive picture of where these chemicals are being sprayed and in what quantities.

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

Along with EWG, other sponsors of the new law include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

Defining PFAS pesticides

The new law establishes a class-based definition of PFAS pesticides, consistent with other California laws and regulations already addressing these chemicals. That definition matters: It ensures tracking and disclosure requirements can’t be sidestepped with chemical-by-chemical loopholes.

The definition would also lay the groundwork for action that avoids “regrettable substitutions” – PFAS replacements that can also have health concerns.

Though thousands of PFAS are used today, comprehensive toxicity data is available about very few. But what is known is alarming: The health harms linked to the most well-studied PFAS, including cancer, suppression of the immune system and reproductive and developmental harm, show up at doses far lower than regulators once considered safe.

The tracking and disclosure law Newsom signed is narrower than what Schultz first proposed, following almost $900,000 in agricultural and chemical industry lobbying.

That included roughly $179,000 from the American Chemistry Council and more than $20,000 from PFAS pesticide maker Syngenta, both targeting AB 1603 specifically. The spending also paid for meals and gift baskets for lawmakers, according to state campaign finance disclosures reviewed by Inside Climate News.

Why tracking and monitoring matter

Despite the narrowing, the law still requires first-time Department of Pesticide Regulation systematic tracking and public disclosure of PFAS pesticides use in the state.

“Because of their chemical structures, all PFAS share the core characteristics of extreme environmental persistence and potential harm to immune and reproductive systems,” said Varun Subramaniam, EWG science analyst. “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using PFAS pesticides on food crops.

“Thanks to Gov. Newsom, we’re finally telling it like it is, so farmers, regulators and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this hidden PFAS use. This kind of tracking and monitoring has to come first, before we can talk about what comes next,” said Subramaniam.

Collecting reliable, ongoing tracking data will end the long-running gap in data about PFAS pesticide use in the state. Access to this data will help build a foundation for action that could include use restrictions, farmer transition support, water monitoring and more.

“The United States depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now that produce is being seasoned with chemicals that never break down,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.

“We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops. Getting a handle on where and how much is being used is the essential first step,” she said.

States leading on regulation

The federal Environmental Protection Agency regulates and approves pesticides for national use, but states aren’t required to follow suit.

California operates its own approval system: Its Department of Pesticide Regulation must independently evaluate and authorize each chemical before farmers can use it. That gives the state the power to protect its residents – authority Newsom has now put to greater use with this new tracking and disclosure requirement.

That authority matters more than ever because of federal developments. The EPA has continued to approve new PFAS pesticides at an accelerating pace, greenlighting three more in July. Many carry documented health harms, including links to cancer and reproductive toxicity.

With the EPA fast-tracking approvals, it’s necessary for California to take the lead in informing the public and local officials about the pesticides that do contain PFAS, while monitoring the pesticide use.

Banning PFAS pesticides

While California remains one of the world’s largest users of PFAS pesticides, other jurisdictions have moved to restrict or ban them. In 2023, Maine enacted the nation’s first ban on PFAS pesticides, starting in 2030. In the same year, Minnesota banned nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, phasing them out by 2032.

Other countries are also acting. The European Union has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides heavily used in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet.

With AB 1603 now law, California joins these other states and jurisdictions in laying the groundwork for the nation’s salad bowl to once again be a public health leader.

“California has been a public health bellwether for decades, from car emissions to chemical safety,” said Del Chiaro. “This new law is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food.

“It’s the foundation for everything,” she added.

###

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

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

The Center for Environmental Health believes everything people consume, from the water they drink to the toys their children handle, should put health first. We insist on laws and policies that protect the public from harm, work to make communities more aware of risks, and push to transform corporate behavior. CEH advances environmental health and justice for the greater good, from the courtroom to the boardroom.

Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN) North America, is the North America Regional Center for the international PAN network. We work with those on the frontlines to tackle the pesticide problem and reclaim the future of food and farming from the pesticide and biotech corporations that have, for far too long, dictated how we grow food, placing the health and economic burdens of pesticide use on farmers, farmworkers and rural communities.

Areas of Focus

Food

Farming & Agriculture

Pesticides

PFAS Chemicals

California

New transparency law will reveal ‘forever chemicals’ sprayed on the state’s produce

Press Contact

Monica Amarelo

monica@ewg.org

(202) 939-9140

September 28, 2026

What California’s paraquat phaseout means for your state

Anthony Lacey — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 12:21:40 +0000

What California’s paraquat phaseout means for your state Anthony Lacey September 21, 2026

When California regulators asked the pesticide industry for more information about the toxic chemical paraquat, the companies abandoned the state instead of providing the data.

It’s a telling sign that every state should heed – not just because California is the second state to phase out paraquat but because of what the industry’s behavior revealed.

California regulators sought data to determine whether the health and safety risks of paraquat were fully understood and whether they could be controlled after new studies linked exposure to paraquat to thyroid damage and birth defects.

If the paraquat companies had proof the chemical was safe to use, submitting that information might have kept them in the largest paraquat market in the country.

Instead, they walked away from California entirely.

That’s the clearest signal a company can send that no fix exists. When managing health and environmental risks from pesticides is possible, California regulators tend to allow the industry to propose mitigation plans because it’s the cheaper, more profitable and politically palatable path.

When industry chooses to ditch an entire market instead, that’s a strong indication the risk sits beyond what regulators assume they can address by merely restricting how it’s used.

Failing to turn over safety data

A 2024 California law required the state’s pesticide regulators to reevaluate paraquat’s risks to public health and the environment. As questions arose, regulators called on the paraquat companies for missing safety data.

California’s regulators sought additional data from industry after their own scientists publicly reviewed studies linking paraquat to preterm birth, congenital heart and limb defects, low birth weight, hypothyroidism and lower thyroid hormone levels.

The state also requested a study on field volatility. Field volatility studies monitor how far a pesticide travels through the air after it's applied, which regulators use to estimate exposure risks to nearby workers and communities.

That request followed new data submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Syngenta, the world’s largest paraquat distributor at the time. The data indicated that paraquat vapor may travel more than 2.7 miles from the field where it's applied, based on early estimates from computer models.

When regulators ask for this information, what they really want to see is if they can keep the product on the market, not pull it. If the answer had been, “it travels a manageable distance, and here's how buffer zones or application changes address the risks,” paraquat might have been allowed to stay in use in California under new restrictions.

The companies shared some data, but ultimately decided to pull their products from California rather than provide the requested data about birth defects, thyroid damage and field volatility.

Instead of complying with the state’s request, all seven paraquat manufacturers chose to walk away from their largest market. And it wasn’t just one or two major companies who could afford to take the hit. Every company had the chance to provide data when the regulators began their process, but all chose to back out.

Their decision triggered a so-called “voluntary” end to the sale of paraquat in California, which the state’s pesticide regulatory program announced in August.

The word “voluntary” is somewhat misleading. The inability or unwillingness to prove that the ongoing use of paraquat is safe belies the industry’s “voluntary” action.

Why 2.7 miles is a mitigation problem, not just a statistic

The paraquat regulations currently in place in California and across the country were implemented under the assumption that only people working directly with the chemical were at risk of breathing it in.

The new 2.7-mile estimate from the Syngenta data means that people living around areas where it’s used are not protected by those regulations.

That distance matters because it falls largely outside what standard regulatory tools can fix. That is why both California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation and the EPA asked pesticide companies to monitor how far paraquat actually moves in the air away from the application site.

Industry left California, rather than submit that data to DPR.

Regulators often use buffer zones to protect nearby workers and communities when they believe a risk is contained to a few hundred feet. Application timing restrictions are implemented when the danger is tied to specific conditions, like wind speed on the day of applying. But a vapor that can potentially travel multiple miles after application isn't something a buffer zone or a limited application schedule can reliably contain.

There are no obvious restrictions that manage a risk of that magnitude for paraquat, which may be exactly why the companies were unable to successfully propose one.

Paraquat health risks

Paraquat is one of a small number of chemicals with a clear link to Parkinson's disease. Chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing the disease by reducing the number of neurons in dopamine-producing parts of the brain.

Exposure to the chemical is also linked to thyroid cancer, childhood leukemia, kidney cancer, lung damage and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

More than 70 countries have already banned it, along with the state of Vermont.

The risk isn't abstract. In March, a truck spilled 60 gallons of paraquat on a highway in Dorris, a small town in Northern California, forcing roughly 600 residents, including students at a nearby elementary and high school, to shelter in place. Ten people were hospitalized.

The companies had every reason to address the problems and didn't.

Despite the risks, paraquat manufacturers had a straightforward business incentive to keep selling in California: it was their biggest U.S. customer base. Over the past 10 years, paraquat use peaked in the state at around 11 million pounds in 2018. It has since declined to roughly 370,000 pounds in the most recently available year of data (2023).

That decline suggests farmers have effective alternatives. But that’s still a massive amount of paraquat.

If mitigating these risks had been possible, proposing a plan would have cost far less than walking away from the nation’s biggest market entirely.

The pesticide companies didn't contest DPR's initial concerns about potential health effects, nor did they propose ways to mitigate the human safety risks. They simply left, and DPR canceled every paraquat product registered in the state, a step so rare in California that it almost never happens.

Why this matters regardless of your state’s regulatory tools

Not every state has California’s regulatory authority to reevaluate and cancel a pesticide's registration.

But what happened in the state makes one thing clear: when given the chance to demonstrate that paraquat's risks could be managed, the industry that profits most from paraquat could not do it.

States like Michigan and Maine have utilized their pesticide regulatory authority to cancel the registration of dacthal and ban chlorpyrifos, respectively.

Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, and several other states have restricted other high-risk pesticides through legislation, without needing California's specific reevaluation process. Other states have recently attempted to ban or restrict the use of paraquat through legislation.

California's story strengthens the case for state action, regardless of the route a state must take. In the face of unknown exposure and health risks that cannot be controlled or mitigated, the only answer is to cancel paraquat.

What you can do

Areas of Focus

Farming & Agriculture

Family Health

Paraquat

California

The decision highlights safety risks that regulations can’t address

Authors

Emily Bryson, MPH

September 21, 2026

Newsom signs landmark California transparency bill, creating ‘non-ultraprocessed’ label for food

Anthony Lacey — Sat, 19 Sep 2026 17:35:55 +0000

Newsom signs landmark California transparency bill, creating ‘non-ultraprocessed’ label for food Anthony Lacey September 19, 2026

SACRAMENTO – In a historic victory for consumers, California Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed a trailblazing law that gives shoppers in the grocery store an easy way to spot less harmful processed foods.

Assembly Bill 2244, introduced by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), received bipartisan support from legislators in the state Assembly and Senate.

The Environmental Working Group co-sponsored the bill.

“While Washington D.C. is paralyzed by inaction, Republicans and Democrats in California are joining forces to empower consumers to avoid harmful ultra-processed foods,” said Gabriel.

“Like the USDA Organic label, this new seal will provide consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. Parents shouldn't need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids.

“California began this movement three years ago by banning the most dangerous food additives, and with Governor Newsom’s continued leadership we are taking another big step forward today,” he added.

The new law directs the state to create a standardized label bearing the phrase “non-ultra-processed certified.” Products will not be permitted to carry the new label if California law classifies them as ultra-processed food, or UPF.

Only products that meet these requirements can display the seal. A food will not qualify for the label if it contains substances or additives, including dyes, flavor enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners or processing aids, used to manipulate the taste or quality of foods, making them hyperpalatable or irresistible.

Raising the bar

AB 2244 builds on AB 1264, a 2025 landmark law, also authored by Gabriel. AB 1264 created the first U.S. legal definition of UPF and banned the worst of the worst from K-12 public schools.

The California Department of Public Health will oversee certification of products that meet the state’s non-UPF standard, approving and accrediting third-party certifiers to conduct product certifications. The products must be recertified at least every three years. The law directs the department to accredit these third-party certifiers no later than June 1, 2029.

“Today California raised the bar for what we consider healthy food,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. “Consumers deserve labels they can trust, and with Gov. Newsom’s signature, families now have a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory.”

“AB 2244 creates a state-verified seal for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that have come to define the modern American diet,” she added.

“California is once again leading where Washington has stalled – and this new law gives millions of families a fighting chance to shop with confidence.”

Transparency and accountability for the food system

The law includes these strong oversight and transparency measures:

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

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

Making healthier choices easier in stores

In addition to creating the label, the law requires large food retailers to display certified products so consumers can easily identify them, for instance, through special signage or physical separation within the store.

This requirement applies to grocery stores that sell more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified products and brings in more than $10 million in annual sales.

Addressing the rise of UPF

UPF are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products often made with additives widely used in cosmetics and used in food to enhance taste, texture, appearance and shelf life.

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

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

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

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

Help for consumers

Despite these concerns, consumers have no clear, standard labeling system to help them identify foods that are not UPF.

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

The new law builds on California’s leadership in addressing harmful food chemicals and improving transparency for consumers.

“Because companies are not required to disclose an ingredient’s purpose, it can be really difficult even for experts, even for people like me who have a doctoral degree in nutrition, to look at a food package and determine whether a food is ultra-processed or not,” said Alyssa Moran, ScD, MPH. Moran is deputy director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

“And from a behavioral science perspective, we also know that people seldom use information on the back of food packages to make food decisions,” Moran said. “So that is exactly why clear, science-backed labels on the front of food packages can be so influential in helping people to make better choices.

“If we want to meaningfully curb disease, we need a suite of complementary policies that limit the availability of ultra-processed foods while promoting non-ultra-processed alternatives. I firmly believe this is the only way we’ll make progress,” she added.

Consumers can consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products that are less processed. Food Scores also flags unhealthy ultra-processed food and drinks and can help identify alternatives.

###

Areas of Focus

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

California

Press Contact

Monica Amarelo

monica@ewg.org

(202) 939-9140

September 28, 2026

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: Aspartame

rcoleman — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 15:30:38 +0000

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: Aspartame rcoleman September 17, 2026

Dayna de Montagnac, MPH

Sydney Evans, MPH

Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D.

Jump to:

What is aspartame and why is it added to food?

Where is aspartame found in foods?

What is the regulatory status of aspartame?

Are foods containing aspartame ultra-processed?

Is aspartame allowed in organic foods?

What are the potential health harms associated with aspartame?

Uncertainties/where more research is needed

Cited resources

September 17, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

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

Aspartame poses specific risks to vulnerable populations, such as individuals with phenylketonuria.

While scientific consensus remains limited, some research in animals and humans has suggested associations between aspartame consumption and certain cancers. Oxidative stress, which aspartame can produce, has been proposed to play a role in carcinogenesis. Based on limited evidence, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies aspartame as Group 2B (“possibly carcinogenic to humans”).

The World Health Organization (WHO) advised against using non-sugar sweeteners (like aspartame) for weight control. Their review concluded that long-term use does not help with reducing body fat in the long run and is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.

Science analysis

What is aspartame and why is it added to food?

Aspartame is a low-calorie sweetener about 200 times sweeter than sugar. It is commonly used as a dietary sugar substitute.

Where is aspartame found in foods?

Aspartame is typically added to diet beverages, powdered drinks and sugar-free chewing gums.

Aspartame is used in 919 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

The 15 food categories with the most products containing aspartame (by supermarket shelf):

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

What is the regulatory status of aspartame?

As of February 2026, the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, was re-evaluating the safety of the mixture aspartame and acesulfame, a sweetener commonly used with aspartame. In the last EFSA evaluation, in 2013, it concluded aspartame was not a safety concern at its acceptable daily intake, or ADI, of 40 mg/kg per body weight per day.

In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration requires food containing aspartame to state the additive is not for use as a sugar substitute in cooking or baking because it is not heat stable.

The FDA also requires any food containing aspartame to have the label: “Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine.”

Are foods containing aspartame ultra-processed?

Aspartame and other synthetic sweeteners are common ingredients in ultra-processed foods, or UPF. As an industrially synthesized ingredient and artificial sweetener, it falls into the NOVA framework as a UPF ingredient (Monteiro et al., 2019).

Under a recent California law defining UPF, food served in schools containing aspartame is considered UPF because of aspartame’s property as a non-nutritive sweetener and flavor enhancer (Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, 2025).

Is aspartame allowed in organic foods?

Under Department of Agriculture organic standards, synthetic substances such as aspartame are prohibited in certified organic foods.

What are the potential health harms associated with aspartame?

In 2023, the IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on limited evidence in humans of hepatocellular carcinoma, a type of liver cancer.

A 2026 meta-analysis found that dietary sources of each common non-nutritive sweetener (NNS), including aspartame, and total NNS were associated with higher risk of type 2 diabetes and that total NNS and certain types were associated with some cardiovascular disease outcomes (Wang et al. 2026). Using computer modeling, Yang et al. (2025) showed that aspartame can bind to key proteins in the body, potentially triggering the chronic inflammation and cell damage that could lead to heart disease. Zhang et al (2025) found that aspartame might worsen ischemic stroke by latching onto core targets in the body that control blood flow, clotting, and neuroinflammation. Using animal models, Wu et al (2025) found that aspartame can trigger an insulin spike that causes a specific protein to trap passing immune cells on blood vessel walls, accelerating the arterial plaque buildup that leads to heart disease.

A large population-based cohort study conducted in France found an association between cancer risk, specifically breast and obesity-related cancers, and aspartame and acesulfame-K (Debras et al 2022). Some studies have also observed carcinogenesis in animal models (Landrigan & Straif 2021). But comprehensive safety reviews did not find this link (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources 2014; National Toxicology Program, 2005).

A 2025 systematic review of studies of human consumption of aspartame observed an increased incidence of clinical depression, high irritability and spatial orientation impairment at levels below the ADI (Fogel et al 2025). This review also found that those with preexisting neurocognitive deficits or metabolic disorders were more vulnerable to the neurocognitive effects of aspartame (Amin, Hassan & Rashed 2018; Ediga et al., 2023).

Parallel rodent studies monitoring subchronic doses at or below the ADI reported alterations in brain function, such as changes in neurotransmitter activity (Onaolapo et al 2017), as well as decreases in learning and memory deficits (Iyaswamy et al., 2018).

Aspartame breaks down in the body into phenylalanine, aspartic acid and trace amounts of methanol. The re-evaluation of aspartame by the EFSA, in 2013, determined that aspartame can pose risks to people with phenylketonuria (PKU), or high levels of phenylalanine in the blood. Therefore, the ADI does not apply to these individuals.

Phenylalanine can become neurotoxic at elevated concentrations, such as those observed in those with PKU, where it competes with other large neutral amino acids for transport across the blood-brain barrier and may disrupt neurotransmitter precursor availability. Dar et al. (2024) proposed that aspartame-derived phenylalanine could contribute to altered neurotransmitter balance; however, whether this mechanism occurs at typical dietary exposure levels remains uncertain (Dar, 2024).

Aspartic acid, a metabolite of aspartame, can overstimulate nerve cells at high concentrations (Dar, 2024). Excessive stimulation of nerve receptors can contribute to neuronal injury, although the relevance of this mechanism to typical aspartame exposure is uncertain (Zhao & Danbolt, 2014).

This mechanism may also affect microglia, or immune cells within the brain, which can contribute to inflammation. Neuroinflammation is associated with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease (Bonte et al., 2021).

An acute rodent study observed rats that were given a dose of aspartame 1.5 times higher than the allowable daily intake led to detectable levels of blood methanol for 24 hours and increased lipid peroxidation level in multiple brain regions (Ashok et al., 2015). Methanol breaks down further into other toxic byproducts, such as formate and formaldehyde, a probable carcinogen.

One rodent study found alterations in the structure, growth and function of the placenta of pregnant mice that consumed aspartame (Huang et al., 2023).

Uncertainties/where more research is needed

Because of its flavor profile, aspartame is rarely used in isolation. In commercial products it is frequently paired with other non-nutritive sweeteners like acesulfame-K or sucralose (Basson et al., 2021). More high-quality human research is needed that accurately isolates the long-term health outcomes of independent aspartame exposure from these broader sweetener mixtures (Choudhary & Singh, 2025). Further study on multiple appetite-regulating hormones is also needed (Boxall et al 2025).

Findings in cancer studies remain inconsistent. While some rodent studies show dose-related increases in tumors, epidemiological studies in humans have yet to establish a definitive link (Shaher et al., 2023; Doueihy et al., 2025).

The exact mechanisms by which aspartame causes disease are still largely theoretical (Dar 2024). More empirical evidence in humans is needed to establish a causal link.

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food (ANS). Scientific Opinion on the Re-Evaluation of Aspartame (E 951) as a Food Additive. EFSA J. 2013, 11, 3496.
National Toxicology Program (NTP). NTP Report on the Toxicology Studies of Aspartame in Genetically Modified Mice; Department of Health and Human Services: Research Triangle Park, N.C., USA, 2005.
World Health Organization. (2023). Summary of findings of the evaluation of aspartame at the international agency for research on cancer (IARC) monographs programme’s 134th meeting, and the joint FAO/WHO Expert committee on food additives (JECFA) 96th meeting. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. (2023). Use of non-sugar sweeteners: WHO guideline. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240073616

Comprehensive reviews and frameworks

Amin, S.N., Hassan, S.S., & Rashed, L.A. (2017). Effects of chronic aspartame consumption on MPTP-induced Parkinsonism in male and female mice. Archives of Physiology and Biochemistry, 124(4), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/13813455.2017.1396348.
Basson, A.R., Rodriguez-Palacios, A., & Cominelli, F. (2021). Artificial Sweeteners: History and New Concepts on Inflammation. Frontiers in Nutrition, 8, 746247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.746247.
Bonte, M., Idrissi, F. E., Gressier, B., Devos, D., & Belarbi, K. (2021). Protein network exploration prioritizes targets for modulating neuroinflammation in Parkinson’s disease. International Immunopharmacology, 95, 107526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107526.
Boxall, L.R., Eskandari, F., Wallis, J., Bielat, A.D., & Appleton, K. M. (2025). The Effects of aspartame on glucose, insulin, and Appetite-Regulating hormone responses in Humans: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. Advances in Nutrition, 16(7), 100449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100449.
Choudhary, A.K., & Singh, N. (2026). Neurotoxic and metabolic effects of chronic aspartame consumption in rodent models: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15376516.2026.2662931.
Dar, W. (2024). Aspartame-induced cognitive dysfunction: Unveiling role of microglia-mediated neuroinflammation and molecular remediation. International Immunopharmacology, 135, 112295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2024.112295.
Doueihy, N.E., Ghaleb, J., Kfoury, K., Khouzami, K.K., Nassif, N., Attieh, P., Ghadieh, H.E., Azar, S., Kanaan, A., & Harb, F. (2025). Aspartame and Human Health: A Mini-Review of Carcinogenic and Systemic Effects. Journal of Xenobiotics, 15(4), 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/jox15040114.
Fogel, M.N., Khalil, A., Khaled, S.F., Rodriguez, E.M., Payne, K.M., Blount, J.R., Petschke, M., Nizamuddin, R.A., Jeidel, F., Riven, V., & Petrosky, S. (2025). Aspartame and its potential neurocognitive effects in humans. Nutrition Reviews, 84(5), 1026-1038. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuaf103.
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.
Nam, T. (2011). Lipid peroxidation and its toxicological implications. Toxicological Research, 27(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.5487/tr.2011.27.1.001.
Shaher, S. A.A., Mihailescu, D.F., & Amuzescu, B. (2023). Aspartame Safety as a Food Sweetener and Related Health Hazards. Nutrients, 15(16), 3627. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15163627.
Wang, M., Wu, O. Y., Wallen, O. G., & Mozaffarian, D. (2026). Artificial and other non-nutritive sweeteners, the microbiome, and cardiometabolic health. Current Atherosclerosis Reports. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-026-01429-9
Xiao L., Xian M., Zhang C., Guo Q. and Yi Q. (2024) Lipid peroxidation of immune cells in cancer. Front. Immunol. 14:1322746. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1322746
Zhou, Y., & Danbolt, N. C. (2014). Glutamate as a neurotransmitter in the healthy brain. Journal of Neural Transmission, 121(8), 799-817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-014-1180-8.

Legislation

21 CFR 172.804 – Aspartame. (n.d.). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-172/subpart-I/section-172.804.
Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, Assemb. Bill 1264, Chapter 467 (Cal. 2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264.

Health impact studies

Ashok I, Sheeladevi R, Wankhar D. Acute effect of aspartame-induced oxidative stress in Wistar albino rat brain. J Biomed Res. 2015 Sep;29(5):390-6. doi: 10.7555/JBR.28.20120118. Epub 2014 Jan 12. PMID: 26445572; PMCID: PMC4585433.
Debras, C., Chazelas, E., Srour, B., Druesne-Pecollo, N., Esseddik, Y., De Edelenyi, F. S., Agaësse, C., De Sa, A., Lutchia, R., Gigandet, S., Huybrechts, I., Julia, C., Kesse-Guyot, E., Allès, B., Andreeva, V. A., Galan, P., Hercberg, S., Deschasaux-Tanguy, M., & Touvier, M. (2022). Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk: Results from the NutriNet-Santé population-based cohort study. PLoS Medicine, 19(3), e1003950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003950.
Ediga, M. G., Annapureddy, S., Salikineedy, K., & Nimgampalle, M. (2023). Aspartame consumption causes cognitive impairment in streptozotocin-induced diabetic Wistar rats. Biologia, 78(9), 2393–2407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-023-01363-0.
Huang, S. Y., Sun, R., Chen, Y. C., Kang, L., Wang, C. T., Chiu, C. F., & Wu, H. T. (2023). Aspartame consumption during pregnancy impairs placenta growth in mice through sweet taste receptor-reactive oxygen species-dependent pathway. The Journal of nutritional biochemistry, 113, 109228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutbio.2022.109228.
Iyaswamy, A., Kammella, A. K., Thavasimuthu, C., Wankupar, W., Dapkupar, W., Shanmugam, S., Rajan, R., & Rathinasamy, S. (2017). Oxidative stress evoked damages leading to attenuated memory and inhibition of NMDAR–CaMKII–ERK/CREB signalling on consumption of aspartame in rat model. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis, 26(2), 903–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2017.11.001.
Landrigan, P. J., & Straif, K. (2021). Aspartame and cancer - new evidence for causation. Environmental health : a global access science source, 20(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00725-y.
Onaolapo, A. Y., Onaolapo, O. J., & Nwoha, P. U. (2017). Aspartame and the hippocampus: Revealing a bi-directional, dose/time-dependent behavioural and morphological shift in mice. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 139, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2016.12.021.
Wu, W., Sui, W., Chen, S., et al. (2025). Sweetener aspartame aggravates atherosclerosis through insulin-triggered inflammation. Cell Metabolism, 41(x). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2025.01.006
Yang, T., Luo, J. Z., Zhang, L., Li, H., & Wang, J. (2025). Aspartame and cardiovascular disease: Unraveling potential molecular mechanisms through integrative network toxicology, molecular docking, and dynamics simulation. Medicine, 104(47), e46012. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000046012
Zhang, T., Wang, T., Yu, K., Huang, C., & Bao, K. (2025). Aspartame and ischemic stroke: Unraveling the molecular link through network toxicology and molecular docking analysis. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 23871. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08898-z

Betraying MAHA, Senate GOP farm bill would erase progress on regenerative agriculture

Anthony Lacey — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 04:00:01 +0000

Betraying MAHA, Senate GOP farm bill would erase progress on regenerative agriculture Anthony Lacey September 17, 2026

Anne Schechinger, M.S.

September 17, 2026

Overview

Regenerative agriculture is part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda that top Trump administration officials often tout.
Conservation funding for regenerative practices from one program decreased by over $400 million in 2025.
House and Senate Republicans are trying to cut conservation funding in the farm bill, which would lead to even less money for regenerative agriculture.

Leaders in the Make America Healthy Again movement like to tout their support for regenerative agriculture as a way to cut farm pollution and pesticide use, among other benefits.

But Senate Republicans’ farm bill includes drastic funding cuts that would stall progress made by farmers adopting regenerative agriculture practices, undermining MAHA’s goal.

The practices include cover crops and riparian buffers. These efforts can help decrease air pollution, including nitrous oxide emissions, and increase farm resilience and profitability, while also improving the environment. Although they need reform, these programs help reduce agriculture’s climate emissions and water pollution, add to farm resilience and improve food safety.

Considerable progress had been made in farmers adopting regenerative agriculture practices, thanks to increased funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA. But that progress had already started to slide backward when conservation funding for regenerative practices from just one program decreased by over $400 million between 2024 and 2025.

The Senate bill would make a bad situation even worse. 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 conservation practices on their land, including regenerative practices.

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

Kennedy continues to highlight the benefits of regenerative agriculture and why these conservation programs are successful.

Instead, Senate Republicans’ farm bill joins the House counterpart in committing to cuts in funding for these programs – despite their growing popularity.

If the cuts became law, there would be considerably fewer regenerative practices on farms and fewer environmental and climate benefits – and thousands of farmers would be turned away from conservation funding.

Progress is being undone

Much more funding went to farmers for regenerative practices in 2023 and 2024, thanks to the IRA. But that decreased substantially in 2025, during the Trump administration, and will continue to go down if the farm bill cuts are adopted.

The 2022 IRA established almost $20 billion in new funding for farmers through multiple conservation programs. This conservation funding was required to go to farmers for regenerative agriculture. Because of the additional funding, total EQIP obligations to farmers went up, from $1.1 billion in 2022 to $1.5 billion in 2023, and then even higher, to $2.5 billion in 2024.

Many of the climate-smart practices that farmers received IRA funding for in 2023 and 2024 were regenerative agriculture practices like cover crops, reduced or no tillage, and nutrient management.

EWG has identified a list of 43 regenerative agriculture EQIP practices that lessen climate emissions from farming and help farmers become more resilient to extreme weather.

In the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, congressional Republicans retained the extra conservation funding from the IRA, but removed the requirement that it be spent on regenerative practices. Now lawmakers are going back on this promise and attempting to cut conservation funding.

EQIP obligations for regenerative practices on EWG’s list went up in 2023 and 2024 but then dropped in 2025. The USDA under the Trump administration designated significantly less total EQIP money in 2025 at $1.8 billion.

Obligations for regenerative practices went from $415.9 million in 2022 to $546.0 million in 2023 then all the way to $1.18 billion in 2024, before decreasing to $773.6 million in 2025. That means regenerative funding fell over $400 million between 2024 and 2025. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. EQIP funding for regenerative practices went up in 2023 and 2024 before decreasing in 2025.

Source: EWG, from USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, Financial Assistance Program Data

Additionally, the number of regenerative practices that were among the top 10 that received the most money went up in 2023 and 2024 but down in 2025. Four of the top 10 practices were regenerative in 2023, while five were regenerative in 2024, and only four were regenerative in 2025.

Farmers received more funding in 2023 than they did in 2022 for 29 of the regenerative practices on EWG’s list. Then in 2024, farmers received more money for 33 practices than they had in 2023. But that dropped in 2025 – farmers only collected more money for 16 of the practices in 2025 than in 2024, meaning that 60% of the regenerative practices lost money in 2025 compared to 2024.

Funding for some of the regenerative practices declined steeply in 2025. Cover crops were the top paid EQIP practice every year from 2022 through 2025. But spending for cover crops went down by half, from $352.7 million in 2024 to $176.3 million in 2025.

There were also three regenerative practices that didn’t get any funding at all in 2025: strip cropping, contour buffer strips, and herbaceous wind barriers. And four other practices got less than $100,000 each nationally: contour orchard and other perennial crops, filter strips, riparian herbaceous cover, and salinity and sodic soil management.

As EWG has found, among all conservation practices, some of these unfunded and low-funded practices have the biggest potential for reducing climate emissions.

The majority of states also lost money for regenerative EQIP practices in 2025. There were 54 states and territories that got payments for regenerative practices in 2025, but of those, 43 had less funding for regenerative practices in 2025 than in 2024. Only 11 states had more money in 2025 than in 2024. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2. The 10 states with the biggest losses in regenerative EQIP funding between 2024 and 2025.

Source: EWG, from USDA, NRCS Financial Assistance Program Data

MAHA’s pilot program won’t have much of an impact

While the Trump administration claims to care about regenerative agriculture, this analysis shows that funding for regenerative practices actually went down during the first year of the administration.

The administration’s only real action to support regenerative agriculture was establishing the Regenerative Pilot Program, or RPP. But the program prioritizes a small amount of conservation funding to regenerative practices, without providing any new funding for them.

The RPP prioritizes EQIP and CSP funding for regenerative practices, with $400 million going to regenerative practices through EQIP and $300 million through CSP. However, RPP only includes 15 primary regenerative practices funded through EQIP, which is much fewer than the 43 practices on EWG’s regenerative list.

And $400 million for regenerative practices may not actually change how any of the EQIP funding is spent. Over $400 million already went to farmers for these practices in previous years: $775.9 million for the 15 primary RPP practices in 2024, and $470.8 million for those practices in 2025.

Assigning $400 million to a list of practices that were already receiving over $400 million a year means the program won’t increase funding for these practices at all.

The House and Senate Republican farm bills even block the implementation of the RPP as it was designed by prohibiting funding from going to testing soil health or whole-farm planning. Farmers and ranchers looking to access the regenerative market would have to pay for their own testing, rather than get help from the federal government.

USDA conservation funding must be protected

When federal conservation programs have adequate funding, more farmers sign up and put the money toward the most environmentally beneficial and cost-effective regenerative agriculture practices. But the House and Senate Republican farm bill proposals would further reduce funding for the EQIP and CSP.

The Senate Republican farm bill, which recently passed out of the Agriculture Committee along party lines, would leave more than 56,500 valid farmer applications unfunded by EQIP over the next few fiscal years. Many of those unfunded applications would be for regenerative practices.

The bill would undermine efforts to advance regenerative agriculture, running counter to the MAHA agenda.

The farm bill instead must maintain conservation funding, especially for regenerative practices. Farmers and ranchers have been promised this money – Congress shouldn’t take it away.

Restoring funding for EQIP and CSP would not only reduce agriculture’s environmental and climate impact. It would also provide reliable support to tens of thousands of farmers and potentially reduce the costs of ad hoc disaster assistance and crop insurance payouts covered by American taxpayers.

Big Tobacco made Lunchables to hook kids on highly processed food

Anthony Lacey — Thu, 17 Sep 2026 01:16:33 +0000

Big Tobacco made Lunchables to hook kids on highly processed food Anthony Lacey September 16, 2026

Lunchables have been popular since the 1980s, giving kids a quick meal on the go.

But most parents don’t know who had a hand in creating them and getting kids hooked: Big Tobacco. The make-your-own lunch kits were developed by Kraft General Foods, then owned by Philip Morris. And Philip Morris brought more than money to the table.

The tobacco giant also brought the insight and strategies it had used to sell cigarettes, according to recent research. And it applied the marketing tools and formulation savvy it had developed over decades to making food more enticing.

Tobacco expands into the food industry

The tobacco industry consolidated in the 1980s through a series of strategic mergers and acquisitions of huge food companies.

In 1985, Philip Morris purchased General Foods. Three years later, it acquired Kraft. And in 1989, the two companies were merged into Kraft General Foods. Around the same time, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company acquired Nabisco.

In a recent study in the American Journal of Public Health, previously undisclosed internal Philip Morris documents revealed the purpose of the company’s food acquisitions: to create new ways to profit in the food business using classic tobacco industry tactics.

Creating products with pleasure and appeal

According to researchers, Philip Morris focused on two specific ideas.

The first was prioritizing products for consumer pleasure and appeal. The company called this “consumer-driven product development.”

To sell cigarettes, the company used consumer research to refine their taste, sensation and delivery – and make them so enjoyable people would want to buy them again and again.

When it came to selling food, the brand’s product developers started by asking what consumers wanted most. Focus groups found that kids wanted “control over their lunch” and “permission to play with their food,” while busy parents wanted a “last-minute lunch” that was “better than junk food.” Lunchables checked all the boxes.

Over time, new product lines like “Lunchables with Pizza” were engineered to maximize pleasure, novelty and overall appeal.

Providing options for health-conscious consumers

Philip Morris’ second idea was what study authors described as a “better for you” strategy.

In 1964, cigarette sales dropped after the surgeon general linked smoking to lung cancer, chronic bronchitis and emphysema.

In response, Philip Morris introduced filtered and lower-tar cigarettes. The goal was to regain public trust by providing a product that spoke to consumer concerns about health and made some cigarettes seem safer than they actually were.

The company later applied the same playbook to Lunchables. In 1995, the company introduced Low-Fat Lunchables and marketed them as a “healthier” choice to consumers who were concerned about childhood obesity. Parents who may have said no to regular Lunchables suddenly had fewer reasons to turn them down.

But making Low-Fat Lunchables wasn’t as simple as removing fat. To preserve the flavor kids expected, Philip Morris added artificial chemicals – and an “all natural” label to ease any concerns.

The company also enlisted tobacco scientists with expertise in flavor and consumer research and used sophisticated brain-wave testing, called electroencephalography, to study how people responded to different foods.

As one researcher put it, Philip Morris used “cigarette science” to design its foods.

Same playbook, different industry

Eventually, Big Tobacco faced lawsuits and public scrutiny over the harms caused by cigarettes. But by then, researchers say, its product development and marketing strategies had already helped shape today’s ultra-processed food, or UPF, landscape.

Today, evidence linking UPF to poor health continues to grow. Studies have linked diets high in these foods to conditions including Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cancer and even dementia.

With UPF making up an estimated 73% of the food supply, they are not easy to avoid. And the food industry has only become more advanced in creating and marketing products with appeal. Research shows that some UPF even have addictive properties.

This puts parents in a tough spot at the grocery store – especially when they’re tempted to reach for convenient options they know their kids will actually eat.

Policies are needed to protect public health

Public attitudes toward UPF have begun to shift, much as attitudes toward cigarettes did decades ago.

Yet the Food and Drug Administration continues to delay releasing its definition of UPF, due in part to industry pressure. A legal definition would open the door for policies like front-of-package labels or school nutrition standards that could help people eat healthier.

In the absence of federal action, states are stepping up.

Last year, California enacted a landmark law removing the most harmful UPF from school meals. Now a bill awaits the governor’s signature that would create a non-ultra-processed-certified seal to help shoppers spot less-processed foods at the grocery store.

What you can do now

Avoiding UPF altogether isn’t realistic for most people – the food industry has made sure of that. But it can help to understand what’s behind the marketing so you can make informed choices for your family.

Labels like “low-fat” or “all natural” don't always tell the full story. Check ingredient lists and nutrition facts, usually found on the back of food packages. Look for more whole foods and avoid longer lists of additives and chemicals you probably wouldn’t find in a home kitchen.

EWG’s Food Scores can help make that easier. The database lets you compare more than 150,000 foods and beverages using ratings based on nutrition, ingredient concerns and degree of processing. If you’re on the go, you can use EWG’s Healthy Living™ App.

Nicole Pajer is a freelance journalist.

Areas of Focus

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Children’s Health

Food Chemicals

Guest Authors

Nicole Pager (for EWG)

September 17, 2026

EWG statement on EPA rollback of PFAS water permit discharge guidance

Monica Amarelo — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 17:35:34 +0000

EWG statement on EPA rollback of PFAS water permit discharge guidance Monica Amarelo September 16, 2026

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency has rescinded critical guidance that helped states use the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, to monitor and limit toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” discharges into wastewater.

The move undermines an important tool for preventing PFAS pollution from reaching the nation’s waterways, where it can persist for decades and become a costly, long-term contamination problem.

For wastewater treatment plants, industrial facilities and state permitting authorities, the change raises questions about whether and how PFAS monitoring and discharge limits will be maintained in NPDES permits.

The agency claims its rollback is an effort to address “confusion” and “inconsistent application” across states. But it creates a glaring contradiction in federal policy: If the EPA continues to defend PFAS monitoring requirements in individual permits, including in a recent settlement involving a Massachusetts wastewater treatment plant, why is it withdrawing guidance that helped states implement those protections?

That question matters because PFAS are exceptionally persistent and difficult to remove once they enter the environment. PFAS have been linked to kidney, liver, pancreatic and testicular cancers; as well as immune system suppression, thyroid disease, reduced vaccine efficacy, reproductive and developmental harm, low birth weight, increased cholesterol, weight gain in children and dieting adults, and a growing list of serious health effects.

Preventing these chemicals from entering waterways in the first place is critical to reducing exposure and avoiding the long-term costs of contamination and cleanup.

The following is a statement from Melanie Benesh, Environmental Working Group vice president for government affairs.

Let’s call this what it is: The EPA is doing corporate polluters’ dirty work at the expense of public health.
The EPA has abandoned its mission, choosing to protect industrial polluters rather than the families forced to drink companies’ toxic runoff.
By stripping away Clean Water Act guidance for PFAS discharges, the agency is deliberately blinding state regulators and giving chemical manufacturers permission to pollute without fear of oversight. The EPA is actively tearing down the guardrails that keep PFAS out of our drinking water.
Hiding behind bureaucratic excuses about “process” and “confusion” is insultingly weak. If the EPA was genuinely concerned about procedure, they would finalize binding, enforceable standards today, not erase the only thin line of defense that communities have left.
Families living downstream don’t get a polite administrative memo when cancer-causing chemicals poison their drinking water. They just get the contamination, the medical bills and decades of forever chemicals in their blood.
At a moment when the science on PFAS harm has never been clearer, the EPA is signaling loud and clear to industry that corporate convenience matters more than clean water.
That’s not regulatory housekeeping. That’s putting industry profits over public health.

###

Areas of Focus

Agency removes critical tool for limiting ‘forever chemicals’ pollution

Press Contact

Monica Amarelo

monica@ewg.org

(202) 939-9140

September 16, 2026

Newsom signs landmark law requiring full disclosure of diaper chemicals

Monica Amarelo — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 15:58:47 +0000

Newsom signs landmark law requiring full disclosure of diaper chemicals Monica Amarelo September 15, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Gavin Newsom today signed into law a bill that will give parents more information to protect their babies from harmful chemical exposures. The first-in-the-nation law requires manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose their ingredients on product packaging and online.

Assembly Bill 1901, authored by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), was co-sponsored by the Environmental Working Group, Consumer Reports, Children Now and the Center for Environmental Health.

“As new parents, my wife and I were shocked to see the lack of transparency about the ingredients used in the one product that is touching our son’s skin every hour of every day for the first few years of his life – his diapers,” said Berman.

“By requiring diaper manufacturers to disclose the ingredients they use, AB 1901 creates a new industry-wide standard of transparency for children’s diapers.

“Thanks to Governor Newsom signing AB 1901 into law, parents in California will now have the information they need to make the best choice for their child.” Berman added.

Newborns and toddlers especially vulnerable

The average child wears diapers for their first two to three years of life – without interruption for the first year or more – resulting in more than 8,000 diaper changes. Yet the federal government does not require disposable diapers to carry ingredient labels of any kind.

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

A Consumer Reports examination of 37 diaper products found that seven disclosed little to no ingredient information at all, underscoring the size of the problem AB 1901 is designed to address.

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

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

“Now diapers will include ingredient labels that are similar to labels required of other baby products,” Swanson said.

Chemicals found in diapers

Actress and activist Hilary Swank, who lobbied for AB 1901 alongside EWG, said she was moved to act after learning while pregnant with her twins that just because a product is marketed as safe doesn’t guarantee it actually is.

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

Research shows that quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, sometimes used in wetness indicators, are linked to reproductive effects, skin irritation and asthma, as well as dyes and bleaching agents that can cause allergic reactions or skin and respiratory irritation.

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

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

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

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

“We thank Gov. Newsom for prioritizing children’s health and signing this bill. California parents shouldn’t need a chemistry degree to buy a diaper. They deserve to know exactly what is touching their child’s skin, and disclosure is the essential first step to getting them that,” said Little.

Making baby products safer

California has already shown that more transparency about what’s in baby products can help spur changes that reduce hazardous ingredients and their health threats.

After the state required public disclosure of results of heavy metal tests of baby food, in 2025, manufacturers responded by reducing heavy metal contamination levels in many product categories.

AB 1901 applies that same principle to diapers while giving parents and caregivers more informed choices. With Newsom’s signature, it is now a landmark law requiring full diaper ingredient transparency. Online disclosure will begin on January 1, 2029, and disclosure on the package will begin July 1, 2029.

The new California law goes further than any existing state: New York’s 2023 law requires ingredient disclosure only on the package, while California’s new law requires manufacturers to disclose each ingredient's name, its Chemical Abstract Service number and its specific function, both online and on packaging.

The New York law that requires on-label disclosure of all diaper ingredients shows that greater transparency is achievable.

“Stronger regulation and full disclosure are needed, and that’s why we’re grateful this bill is now law to protect children’s health,” said Little.

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

###

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

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

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

Areas of Focus

Household & Consumer Products

New law will require companies to reveal what’s really in the diapers touching babies’ skin

Press Contact

Monica Amarelo

monica@ewg.org

(202) 939-9140

September 28, 2026

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

Anthony Lacey — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 14:01:23 +0000

EWG opposes rewrite of proposed ASTM standard that could still classify hazardous amphibole particles as non-asbestos Anthony Lacey September 15, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments to ASTM International opposing a second proposed standard for classifying elongate amphibole particles. EWG remains concerned that the method’s binary classifications may obscure health-relevant particle characteristics, exclude particles counted by established methods and produce results inconsistent with existing asbestos-counting approaches.

File Download

astm-comments2.pdf

Areas of Focus

Asbestos

Authors

Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D.

September 10, 2026

EWG statement on UN confirming PFAS contamination is a global human rights crisis

Monica Amarelo — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 19:04:17 +0000

EWG statement on UN confirming PFAS contamination is a global human rights crisis Monica Amarelo September 14, 2026

WASHINGTON – The United Nations Human Rights Council today presented a landmark report saying the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS are found in the blood of nearly every person on the planet, posing health threats that justify phasing out non-essential uses of PFAS.

The report, presented at the council’s ongoing 63rd session, in Geneva, also calls for a legally binding global strategy to ultimately stop using the entire chemical class of PFAS. It also says governments should adopt stronger domestic protections and advocates for urgent medical monitoring and remedies for frontline communities living in “PFAS sacrifice zones.”

The report is unambiguous that PFAS contamination prevention, not cleanup, has to be the goal.

The Environmental Working Group stands with North Carolina’s Clean Cape Fear, the National PFAS Contamination Coalition, and communities across the U.S. and around the world in urging governments to act on the report’s findings without delay.

But rather than strengthening protections, the Environmental Protection Agency is rolling back drinking water limits for several PFAS. At the same time, the agency is fast-tracking approval of new PFAS pesticides, with the current administration greenlighting five in less than two years. That’s despite EPA data showing serious, unresolved questions about the pesticides’ health and environmental risks.

The following is a statement from Melanie Benesh, EWG’s vice president for government affairs:

The United Nations report confirms what frontline advocates and scientists have known for decades: Toxic PFAS contamination is a global human rights crisis.
PFAS are everywhere, because that’s exactly how the industry designed them. These forever chemicals were engineered never to break down, and they spread across water, soil, food and the bodies of virtually every person alive today.
The science on the harm they cause is clear: PFAS have been linked to kidney, liver, pancreatic and testicular cancers; as well as immune system suppression, thyroid disease, reduced vaccine efficacy, reproductive and developmental harm, low birth weight, increased cholesterol, weight gain in children and dieting adults, and a growing list of serious health effects.
PFAS pollution crosses borders. For decades, U.S. regulators have let industry set the pace on PFAS. Communities pay the price, like in North Carolina, where Emily Donovan’s group Clean Cape Fear is leading the fight to make polluters pay.
The United States helped create this crisis. It has a responsibility to help end it.
The world cannot filter its way out of the forever chemicals crisis. Drinking water treatment helps, but it puts the burden of a problem industry created onto the communities and utilities left to clean it up.
Real accountability means stopping non-essential PFAS production at the source. That requires the international community to finally treat this chemical class the way the evidence has demanded for years: as a single, urgent problem, not a chemical-by-chemical negotiation industry can slow-walk for another generation.
The world’s governments now have a UN report telling them exactly what needs to happen. The only question left is whether they’ll act on it. We must stop making the problem worse and ensure that polluters – not contaminated communities – pay for the damage.