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

EWG statement on California Supreme Court declining to hear rooftop solar case

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 21:11:09 +0000

EWG statement on California Supreme Court declining to hear rooftop solar case Anthony Lacey June 10, 2026

SACRAMENTO – California’s Supreme Court in a brief order today declined to hear an appeal by the Environmental Working Group and allies of an appeals court decision that threatens the future of affordable rooftop solar in the state.

The high court’s decision means the lower court’s ruling stands. The California Court of Appeals in March upheld a California Public Utilities Commission policy sharply scaling back the state’s once-thriving rooftop solar program, known as net energy metering.

The state’s monopoly utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison – sought the policy, seeing rooftop solar as their main competition and their regulator went along with them.

EWG, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Protect Our Communities Foundation in April petitioned the state Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s ruling.

The advocates have argued that the appeals court, in upholding the policy, gave too much deference to the commission’s decision-making.

They also said both the policy and ruling ignored the California State Legislature’s clear directives on how to value rooftop solar. Specifically, they said the ruling ignored many benefits of small, distributed solar systems, which help lower costs and make energy more affordable for everyone at a time of sky-high energy bills.

The following is a statement from Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California:

This is a deeply disappointing decision that sets California back on its clean energy goals. The net metering policy is fundamentally flawed and has had disastrous effects in causing rooftop solar installations to plummet, with significant job losses in the once-thriving solar industry.
At a time when Californians struggle to pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country, it makes no sense to leave in place a policy that is anti-affordability, anti-clean energy and will further complicate the state’s ability to meet its clean energy goals.
EWG will continue to advocate for sensible, pro-renewable policies that promote reliable, clean power like solar and that can help with lowering the cost of energy in California.

###

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

Areas of Focus

Energy

Renewable Energy

California

Decision leaves in place harmful policy undermining cost-saving clean energy

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

June 10, 2026

California Assembly utilities committee advances bill cutting red tape for ‘balcony solar’

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:30:18 +0000

California Assembly utilities committee advances bill cutting red tape for ‘balcony solar’ Anthony Lacey June 10, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today applauds the state Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee for advancing a bill that will help Californians tackle sky-high energy bills by installing small “balcony solar” systems in their homes.

The Plug and Play Solar Act, SB 868, would cut the red tape blocking these affordable systems from being placed in apartments, condos and single-family homes. The bill would also ensure the systems meet strict safety standards.

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network. The legislation cleared the Senate last month. The Assembly Appropriations Committee will debate it in August.

“Balcony solar lets California residents place a small solar panel on a sunny patio or balcony, plug it into a regular wall outlet and start saving on their electricity bill right away,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.

Balcony solar already thrives in Europe, with over 4 million systems installed in Germany alone. And efforts to ease their deployment continue to gather steam in other countries.

But in the U.S., regulatory barriers have kept this technology out of reach for many. SB 868 removes those barriers while setting statewide safety standards.

Other states are also taking steps to make these systems more accessible, including in New York, where a balcony solar bill now sits on Gov. Kathy Hochul’s desk.

‘Powerful cost-cutting tool’

“Installing balcony solar is as simple as plugging an appliance like a toaster into a standard wall outlet,” said Del Chiario. “At a time when many struggle to pay their energy bills, balcony solar is a powerful cost-cutting tool.”

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

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

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

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

###

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

Areas of Focus

Energy

Renewable Energy

California

Affordable plug-in systems can generate savings on monthly electricity bills

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

June 10, 2026

What’s the difference between processed and ultra-processed foods?

Ketura Persellin — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 14:43:07 +0000

What’s the difference between processed and ultra-processed foods? Ketura Persellin June 9, 2026

Ultra-processed foods. Highly processed foods. Processed foods. All terms we’re hearing more often as research continues to link ultra-processed food, or UPF, to diseases like cancer, depression and even dementia.

Sometimes, it even seems like the terms are used interchangeably – but they’re not the same.

When it comes to our health, processed food isn’t the problem. For many of us, food processing is what makes healthy eating possible.

UPF are different. They’re often designed to make people eat more than they need, and they’re associated with less healthy diets and worse health outcomes.

Here’s how to tell them apart.

Most foods are processed – and that’s fine

Almost all of the food we eat is processed in some way – whether it’s cut, canned, heated, frozen, or a combination of these technologies. Processing makes food safer to eat and easier to transport, store and cook. It’s often essential to getting the nutrition we need.

These are just a few examples of processed food:

Bananas that are washed, sorted and shipped in temperature-controlled containers before they’re ripened and sold in stores.
Milk that gets tested for pathogens, separated by fat content, heated or pasteurized, and homogenized before being packaged into cartons or bottles. Yogurt can also be made from milk and active bacteria cultures.
Nuts like almonds, cashews and walnuts whose shells are removed before they are dried and sorted. Some varieties are also roasted before being packaged and can be ground into peanut butter containing just peanuts and salt.

You might also hear these foods described as “minimally processed.”

The problem is UPF

Food and beverages that are ultra-processed are typically made in industrial settings with ingredients you wouldn’t find in a home kitchen. UPF also often contain high amounts of sugar, salt or fat. These food items are designed to make people want to eat more of them – an effect so powerful it resembles addiction.

Experts now point to UPF as one of the leading drivers of chronic disease.

Many UPF fit the definition of what people typically think of as junk food:

Baked goods like packaged cookies, cakes and doughnuts
Drinks like soda, energy drinks and heavily sweetened ice teas
Salty snacks like potato chips, cheese puffs and flavored crackers
Sweets like candy bars, sour candies and ice cream

This category of food also includes many foods and drinks that use artificial sweeteners to advertise themselves as “low calorie” or “zero sugar” alternatives.

But sometimes UPF don’t look like junk food at all. Household staples like bread, breakfast cereal, yogurt and frozen meals can be ultra-processed, too.

When you’re not sure, it can help to take a closer look at the ingredient list for UPF flags.

Bread. A basic minimally processed bread contains flour, water, yeast and salt. Many store-bought breads are UPF, because they use additives like dough conditioners, emulsifiers and sweeteners, which aid in large-scale industrial processing. They’re also often made with enriched or refined flour that is stripped of key nutrients like fiber.
Breakfast cereal. Many types of breakfast cereal – particularly those marketed to kids – contain artificial colors and flavors and are high in added sugar. Cereal can also contain preservatives like BHA and BHT and texturizers or emulsifiers to make it crispy or crunchy. Like bread, breakfast cereal is often made with highly processed grain.
Yogurt. Plain, minimally processed yogurt typically contains cultured milk or milk and active bacteria cultures. Many flavored yogurts, including those marketed as “zero sugar,” contain additives used to add color, taste and texture, as well as added sugar or artificial sweeteners.
Frozen meals and snacks. Frozen and prepared meals often contain multiple additives that help them keep their color, smell, texture and taste when they’re reheated. These products can also contain high amounts of sodium and saturated fat.
Processed meat. Hot dogs, sausages and deli meats are almost always UPF, but they remain a staple ingredient of many sandwiches, pastas, pizzas and other main dishes – despite evidence they are linked to higher cancer risk. They’re also typically high in salt and may contain additives like sodium nitrite or sodium nitrate.
Spreads, sauces and condiments. Ketchup and barbecue sauce, creamy store-bought dressings, and cheese sauces and dips are often ultra-processed. Ingredient lists can include artificial colors and flavors, natural flavors, emulsifiers and thickeners, as well as added sugar or artificial sweeteners.

For most people, it isn’t realistic to completely cut out ultra-processed foods. You can see some health benefits by starting with small shifts in your diet.

Choosing less processed food

In the absence of federal action, some non-UPF certifications are emerging to help consumers identify less processed alternatives to UPF.

States are also weighing options for tackling UPF. Last year, California enacted a law to remove the most harmful UPF from school meals.

In the meantime, there are some practical steps consumers can take to shop more confidently.

One approach is to check ingredient lists and nutrition facts, typically located on the back of food packaging. Here are three things you can usually see at a glance:

Ingredients. Shorter lists of ingredients you might find in your kitchen
Nutrition. Preferably less than 5% to 10% of your daily value, also called DV on food packaging nutrition labels, for saturated fat, added sugar and sodium
Serving size. An amount you’ll realistically eat in one sitting.

For more guidance, EWG’s Food Scores is a useful resource, rating more than 150,000 foods and beverages based on nutrition, ingredients and level of processing. Food Scores also flags UPF and can point shoppers toward healthier alternatives.

Those shopping on the go can turn to EWG's Healthy Living app.

Areas of Focus

Ultra-Processed Foods

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

June 10, 2026

Why factory farms are a major threat to food safety

Anthony Lacey — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 16:02:49 +0000

Why factory farms are a major threat to food safety Anthony Lacey June 5, 2026

Every week, federal investigators track between 17 and 36 foodborne illness outbreaks that can cause extreme sickness and even death. Industrial livestock farming, also known as factory farming, is a main cause.

In 2019, the most recent year with complete data, the U.S. saw almost 10 million cases of foodborne illnesses, including almost 1,000 deaths, from E. coli, salmonella and other bacteria, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The harmful bacteria can contaminate raw produce like cantaloupe, lettuce, and onions or more highly processed foods like meat, poultry and ice cream.

One cause is the way large factory farms operate, including their management of the waste they generate, says the Food and Drug Administration.

Livestock waste can harbor many different types of bacteria, including a strain of E. coli that is particularly dangerous for humans. When bacteria from animal waste contaminate nearby fruit and vegetable crops, the people who eat them can get seriously sick.

Bacteria in wildlife waste and human waste sludge can also contaminate food.

Stronger FDA policies could reduce the number of foodborne illness outbreaks and better protect the health of us all.

Animal waste is more than a nuisance

Factory farms are large, concentrated facilities and feedlots that produce livestock for meat, eggs and dairy products.

In the U.S., over 90% of farm animals are raised in these facilities. If you have eaten meat in this country, you’ve almost certainly consumed some from a factory farm. Hundreds, sometimes thousands, of cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys and other animals are raised in large buildings called barns, or open feedlots for cattle.

Lots of animals produce lots of manure. EWG found in 2020 that the animals in Iowa’s largest livestock facilities alone produced nearly 70 times the amount of fecal waste Iowa’s entire 3 million human population generated in the same period.

That waste is more than an inconvenience. It contains hormones, heavy metals and bacteria, including fecal coliform, E. coli, salmonella and listeria. It can also contain pathogens like giardia and pharmaceuticals such as antibiotics.

How factory farms can cause foodborne illness

There are two main ways bacteria from factory farms ends up on the fruits and vegetables we eat.

First, manure can contaminate the irrigation canals that run past feedlots, either by washing directly into the water or by blowing in contaminated dust particles from the feedlot through the air.

Without knowing whether the water is contaminated, produce farmers use it in the canals to irrigate their crops or mix it with pesticides before spraying it on crops.

Second, bacteria-laden dust from feedlots can drift onto nearby fields and settle directly on crops. Though this pathway seems to be less common, it is especially alarming, because dust particles can travel many miles through the air.

Once harvested, contaminated produce can get shipped almost anywhere in the U.S. and beyond – then sold and eaten.

Deadly E. coli outbreak in Arizona

A striking example of how a factory farm likely triggered a major outbreak: the deadly 2018 E. coli contamination of romaine lettuce from Yuma County, Ariz. Five people died and many more were sickened after eating lettuce grown in the region.

The FDA found that the E. coli strain that originated on lettuce from 36 fields on 23 farms was also found in an irrigation canal near one cattle feedlot: McElhaney Feedyard, a facility located close to much of Yuma County’s lettuce farmland.

A pool of cattle manure and wastewater at the feedlot sat within just a few feet of an irrigation canal (represented by the blue line), creating a contamination risk. (See Image 1.)

Image 1. A manure and wastewater pit that is very close to an irrigation canal at McElhaney Feedyard

Source: EWG, from Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Imagery Program, 2021 imagery

The problem isn’t limited to factory farms in Arizona.

It’s a risk wherever these facilities exist, especially in states that grow much of the produce consumed in the U.S. – like California, where farmers cultivate more than one-third of the nation’s vegetables and three-fourths of its fruit.

A recent EWG analysis found that 42% of California’s large factory farms are located within a quarter-mile of a waterway commonly used for irrigation. Some are only feet away. One cattle feedlot was situated just 35 feet from a canal.

What the FDA can do to make food safer

Protecting yourself is harder than it sounds. Bacteria can contaminate both organic and conventionally grown produce. And studies show that washing lettuce, for example, does not significantly reduce E. coli – so even careful consumers can still get sick.

That’s why it’s so important for the FDA to protect people from bacterial outbreaks on food.

A practical first step would be to require tests of irrigation water to catch harmful bacteria and prevent it from getting onto crops.

After a series of E. coli outbreaks linked to leafy greens in the early 2000s, the FDA was required to set water safety standards for farms. While these rules, finalized in 2024, require farmers to assess the risks to their irrigation water, they don’t mandate water testing. This gap in oversight leaves farmers to mitigate their risk themselves.

Other federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, could also more rigorously monitor farm manure management.

Foodborne illness is not inevitable. It’s a public health problem the FDA and EPA have the tools to address, preventing millions of illnesses and saving lives.

Areas of Focus

Food & Water

Farming & Agriculture

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

June 9, 2026

Dirty Dozen Food Chemicals: BHA

rcoleman — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 19:38:16 +0000

Dirty Dozen Food Chemicals: BHA rcoleman June 4, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing BHA.

BHA has been classified as a possible carcinogen, or cancer-causing chemical. Studies have shown BHA to produce oxidative stress, which occurs when highly reactive molecules build up and damage cells in the body. This can disrupt cellular function, damage DNA and interfere with the body’s hormonal system.

What is BHA?

BHA, or butylated hydroxyanisole, is a preservative that prevents oxidation, extending the shelf life of fats and oils in packaged foods. BHA is also added to cosmetic products as a preservative.

Which foods contain BHA?

BHA is commonly added to frozen pizza and other frozen meals and appetizers. It is also found in processed meat, including deli meat, bacon, hot dogs and sausage and packaged snacks containing oil, such as cookies and biscuits.

Look for BHA 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 hydroxyanisole.” BHA may also be added to food packaging, which companies are not required to disclose.

How is BHA regulated?

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing food additives and other ingredients. BHA was generally recognized as safe in 1958 and approved for use in food by the FDA in 1961.

In early 2026 the FDA identified BHA as a top priority for review of chemicals already in the food supply and requested public feedback on BHA’s use and safety.

In response, EWG described the FDA move as a plan to plan rather than the agency taking decisive action. EWG in its public comment letter on the plan pointed the agency to the abundance of evidence of BHA risks accumulated over decades.

BHA is classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. The National Toxicology Program concluded BHA was “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

It is also on California’s Proposition 65 list of substances known to cause cancer.

In 2025, West Virginia banned BHA from all food sold in the state, beginning in 2028.

What does the science say about BHA?

When BHA breaks down in the body it can cause an imbalance between unstable molecules and protective molecules, a process called oxidative stress.

Oxidative stress can lead to damaged cells and result in structural damage to DNA and cellular proteins, which is associated with cancer and other diseases in humans. Animal studies have observed DNA damage in tissues like the colon and glandular stomach, organs that are found in the human body.

A study of breast cancer cells has also linked BHA to endocrine disruption, or interference with the body’s hormones. Prolonged exposure to BHA in one rodent study reduced testicular function in mice.

BHA can also interact with other food chemicals of concern, like propyl gallate, to cause hormone disruption, producing both estrogenic and anti-estrogenic effects.

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to BHA – and the full EWG Dirty Dozen list of food chemicals – on EWG’s research page.

EWG’s Food Scores provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing concerns, and flags unhealthy ultra-processed foods to help you identify alternatives.

BHA 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 & Water

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Toxic Chemicals

Food Chemicals

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

June 4, 2026

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: BHA

rcoleman — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 19:35:51 +0000

EWG evaluation of food chemicals: BHA rcoleman June 4, 2026

David Andrews, Ph.D.

Sydney Evans, MPH

Dayna de Montagnac, MPH

Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D.

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

Jump to:

What is BHA and why is it added to foods?

Where is BHA found in foods?

What is the regulatory status of BHA?

Are foods containing BHA ultra-processed?

Is BHA allowed in organic foods?

What are the potential health harms associated with BHA?

Uncertainties and need for more research

Other product use categories

Cited resources

June 5, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

BHA is an ingredient of concern. EWG suggests limiting consumption of foods with this ingredient.

The National Toxicology Program in 1991 classified BHA as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” It has been listed as a known carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65 since 1990.

BHA is also shown to produce oxidative stress, which can disrupt cellular function and damage DNA and cells (Esazadeh et al. 2024; Ousji & Sleno, 2020; Sasaki et al 2002). These mechanisms are associated with cancer development.

Multiple animal studies have identified BHA as an endocrine-disrupting chemical, affecting reproductive health through estrogenic and androgenic activity (Pop et al 2018; Ham et al 2020).

Science analysis

What is BHA and why is it added to foods?

BHA, or butylated hydroxyanisole, is a preservative that prevents oxidation, extending the shelf life of fats and oils in processed foods.

Where is BHA found in foods?

BHA is typically added to packaged and frozen foods like frozen pizza, meats, biscuits and other processed goods that contain oil.

BHA is used in 1,726 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

Top 15 food categories with the most products containing BHA (by supermarket shelf)

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

What is the regulatory status of BHA?

The Food and Drug Administration classified BHA as GRAS in 1958 and approved it for use in food in 1961.

It is commonly added to food as an antioxidant, with the limitation that the total antioxidant content not exceed 0.02% of the total fat or oil content of the food.

In early 2026, the FDA identified BHA as a top priority for review of chemicals currently in the food supply and issued a request for information on its use and safety. EWG has also issued a statement and comment letter in response to this request.

BHA was first evaluated for use in food in the European Union in 1989, following the international safety benchmark established that same year by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. Both that committee and the EU Scientific Committee for Food set an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.5 mg/kg body/day.

In 2011, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) re-evaluated BHA and established an ADI of 1.0 mg/kg bw/day. This change occurred because the safety authority concluded that the forestomach tumors observed in rodent studies were not relevant to human risk assessment, since humans do not possess a forestomach.

However, EFSA noted data gaps, including questions about BHA’s potential for endocrine effects.

Recent research shows that BHA’s risks extend beyond the forestomach. Studies have shown DNA damage in human-relevant organs like the glandular stomach and significant endocrine-disrupting effects on reproductive health (Sasaki et al., 2002; Pop et al., 2018).

BHA is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 2B carcinogen, and the National Toxicology Program concluded it was “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”

BHA is also on the state of California’s Proposition 65 list of substances known to cause cancer.

In 2025, West Virginia banned BHA from all food sold in the state beginning in 2028.

Are foods containing BHA ultra-processed?

BHA 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, BHA would qualify as a UPF based on its property as a flavor enhancer. (California Assembly Bill 1264).

Is BHA allowed in organic foods?

Under Department of Agriculture organic standards, synthetic substances like BHA are prohibited in certified organic foods.

What are the potential health harms associated with BHA?

As an antioxidant, BHA protects food from spoilage. But its breakdown in the body into metabolites can trigger production of reactive oxygen species, which causes oxidative stress and subsequent cell damage. Oxidative stress is associated with cancer and numerous other diseases.

Research also stresses the potential of BHA to cause genotoxicity at high concentrations, resulting in structural damage to DNA and cellular proteins (Xu et al 2021; Zhang et al 2023).

DNA damage was observed in vivo within animal tissues, the colon and glandular stomach, which are shared by humans, whereas the forestomach (the site of BHA-induced tumors in earlier rodent studies) is not (Sasaki et al 2002).

Furthermore, a study in breast cancer cells has linked BHA to endocrine disruption, exhibiting both estrogenic and androgenic activities (Pop et al 2018). Prolonged exposure to BHA in one rodent study reduced testicular function in mice (Ham et al 2020).

There is potential for BHA to work additively with other food chemicals of concern, like propyl gallate, to induce anti‐estrogenic activity (Pop et al 2018).

Uncertainties and need for more research

BHA can metabolize into TBHQ, another EWG Dirty Dozen food additive (Ousji & Sleno, 2020).

Biomonitoring studies of TBHQ and examination of exposure through consumption of foods containing BHA are needed to see whether typical intake is higher than the acceptable daily intake.

BHA has been detected in human breast milk (Zhang et al 2020), the placenta (Du et al 2019), and adipose tissue (Conacher et al 1986), indicating a need for improved safety assessments of BHA.

Older studies observed the development of cancer cells in the forestomachs of rats exposed to BHA (Ito et al 1983; Ito et al 1986; Hirose et al 1987). But research on humans has been limited. (Zhang et al 2023; Botterweck 2000; Hasenböhler 2026).

More studies are needed on the cumulative effects of BHA and similar antioxidant preservatives, such as BHT and TBHQ (Hasenböhler 2026).

Other product use categories

BHA is also used as a preservative in cosmetic products. The ingredient scores a 7 in EWG’s Skin Deep® database and is not allowed in EWG Verified® products.

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

Office of the Commissioner. (2026, February 10). FDA launches assessment of BHA, a common food chemical preservative. U.S. Food And Drug Administration. FDA Launches Assessment of BHA, a Common Food Chemical Preservative.
The National List | Agricultural Marketing Service. (n.d.). The National List | Agricultural Marketing Service.
National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Report on Carcinogens, Fifteenth Edition. In National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services [Report]. Report on Carcinogens, Fifteenth Edition - Butylated Hydroxyanisole.
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. (1989). Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants: thirty-third report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives. WHO Technical Report Series, (776), 1-64. https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/c4ccf354-a21d-428e-87fe-4b0fa9f810df/content.
EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS). (2011). Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) (E 320) as a food additive. EFSA Journal, 9(10), 2392 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2392.

Legislation

21 CFR 182.3169 – Butylated hydroxyanisole. (n.d.). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-182/subpart-D/section-182.3169.
Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, A.B. 1264, Chapter 467, Cal. Stat. (2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264.
Banning certain products from food in West Virginia, House Bill 2354, (2025). https://legiscan.com/WV/text/HB2354/id/3177443.

Comprehensive review and frameworks

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.
Xu, X., Liu, A., Hu, S., Ares, I., Martínez-Larrañaga, M., Wang, X., Martínez, M., Anadón, A., & Martínez, M. (2021). Synthetic phenolic antioxidants: Metabolism, hazards and mechanism of action. Food Chemistry, 353, 129488. Synthetic phenolic antioxidants: Metabolism, hazards and mechanism of action - ScienceDirect.
Zhang, X., Diao, M., & Zhang, Y. (2023b). A review of the occurrence, metabolites and health risks of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 103(13), 6150–6166. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.12676
Pop, A., Kiss, B., & Loghin, F. (2013). Endocrine disrupting effects of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA - E320). Clujul Medical, 86(1), 16–20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26527908/.
Esazadeh, K., Dolatabadi, J. E. N., Andishmand, H., Mohammadzadeh‐Aghdash, H., Mahmoudpour, M., Kermanshahi, M. N., & Roosta, Y. (2024). Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of tert‐butylhydroquinone, butylated hydroxyanisole and propyl gallate as synthetic food antioxidants. Food Science & Nutrition, 12(10), 7004–7016. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.4373.
Ousji, O., & Sleno, L. (2020). Identification of in vitro metabolites of synthetic phenolic antioxidants BHT, BHA, and TBHQ by LC-HRMS/MS. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(24), 9525. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21249525.

Health-impact studies

Ham, J., Lim, W., You, S., & Song, G. (2019). Butylated hydroxyanisole induces testicular dysfunction in mouse testis cells by dysregulating calcium homeostasis and stimulating endoplasmic reticulum stress. The Science of the Total Environment, 702, 134775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134775.
Pop, A., Drugan, T., Gutleb, A. C., Lupu, D., Cherfan, J., Loghin, F., & Kiss, B. (2018). Estrogenic and anti‐estrogenic activity of butylparaben, butylated hydroxyanisole, butylated hydroxytoluene and propyl gallate and their binary mixtures on two estrogen responsive cell lines (T47D‐Kbluc, MCF‐7). Journal of Applied Toxicology, 38(7), 944–957. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.3601.
Sasaki, Y. F., Kawaguchi, S., Kamaya, A., Ohshita, M., Kabasawa, K., Iwama, K., Taniguchi, K., & Tsuda, S. (2002). The comet assay with 8 mouse organs: results with 39 currently used food additives. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 519(1-2), 103-119.
Ito, N., Fukushima, S., Hagiwara, A., Shibata, M., & Ogiso, T. (1983). Carcinogenicity of butylated hydroxyanisole in F344 rats. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 70(2), 343-352.
Ito, N., Fukushima, S., Tamano, S., Hirose, M., & Hagiwara, A. (1986). Dose response in butylated hydroxyanisole induction of forestomach carcinogenesis in F344 rats. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 77(6), 1261–1265.
Hirose, M., Masuda, A., Tsuda, H., Uwagawa, S., & Ito, N. (1987). Enhancement of BHA-induced proliferative rat forestomach lesion development by simultaneous treatment with other antioxidants. Carcinogenesis, 8(11), 1731–1735. https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/8.11.1731.
Botterweck, A. A. M., Verhagen, H., Goldbohm, R. A., Kleinjans, J., & van den Brandt, P. A. (2000). Intake of butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene and stomach cancer risk: results from analyses in the Netherlands Cohort Study. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 38(7), 599-605. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-6915(00)00042-9.
Hasenböhler, A., Javaux, G., Payen de la Garanderie, M., Szabo de Edelenyi, F., Yvroud-Hoyos, P., Agaësse, C., De Sa, A., Huybrechts, I., Pierre, F., Audebert, M., Coumoul, X., Julia, C., Kesse-Guyot, E., Allès, B., Deschamps, V., Hercberg, S., Chassaing, B., Srour, B., Deschasaux-Tanguy, M., & Touvier, M. (2026). Intake of food additive preservatives and incidence of cancer: results from the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. The BMJ, 392, bmj-2025-084917. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-084917.

Biomonitoring Studies

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
Conacher, H. B., Iverson, F., Lau, P. Y., & Page, B. D. (1986). Levels of BHA and BHT in human and animal adipose tissue: interspecies extrapolation. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association, 24(10-11), 1159–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-6915(86)90302-9
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

New research: It’s time to treat ultra-processed foods like tobacco

Ketura Persellin — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 20:49:45 +0000

New research: It’s time to treat ultra-processed foods like tobacco Ketura Persellin June 3, 2026

A special health journal issue on ultra-processed food, or UPF, calls for bold policy action to address the growing public health crisis – and that efforts focused solely on personal responsibility are likely to fail.

The collection of 17 studies and editorials, just published in the American Journal of Public Health, brings together breaking research on the health harms of UPF.

The issue also sheds light on the tobacco industry’s lasting negative impact on today’s food landscape. It also shows why it might be time to start treating UPF with the same public health concern as tobacco, and shares policy and legal strategies that can help.

Health harms of UPF keep piling up

These studies add to a robust body of evidence linking UPF to chronic diseases like cancer, depression, Type 2 diabetes, and heart, kidney and gastrointestinal diseases.

One study provides new evidence that UPF could contribute to cognitive decline in older adults. It found that people who consumed the highest amount of UPF were at 58% higher risk of dementia, compared to those who consumed the lowest amount of UPF.

Researchers also call out the threats to public health from the UPF industry, which drives global plastic pollution, environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions.

Get your free guide: EWG's Guide to Food Additives

Tobacco research reshaped the U.S. food system

Multiple studies published in the special issue reviewed internal tobacco industry documents to reveal how it transformed the U.S. food system – for the worse.

In the 1980s, major tobacco companies like R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris acquired food and beverage giants like Kraft, Del Monte and Nabisco, bringing their research and technology with them to develop harmful UPF.

The new studies show that the tobacco industry used consumer research on cigarettes to help with developing new ultra-processed products for kids, including Lunchables. Food companies created “king size” and “light” versions of snack foods, mimicking “king size” and “slim” cigarettes.

The tobacco industry also revived its playbook for fighting public health protections.

When experts began to sound the alarm about the health risks of smoking, the tobacco industry responded with what would become its signature script: deny harm, manufacture uncertainty with biased research and use political influence to prevent government action.

Some of the biggest producers of UPF are now using these tactics in seeking to block state food chemical laws.

It’s not you – it’s the UPF

An unhealthy diet is often framed as a personal failure. But in fact, many structural factors impact our ability to eat well.

The journal issue authors argue that ultra-processed foods are prominent in our diets because they are widely available, relatively affordable and highly palatable.

UPF make up an estimated 73% of the U.S. food supply, and a new study from the special issue finds our food landscape is not changing for the better. During the past 20 years, the growth of restaurants and fast-food locations in so-called “food swamps” has far outpaced the growth of healthy grocery retailers.

Ultra-processed foods also tend to be more affordable than less processed alternatives. As a result, avoiding UPF may take more time, money and careful planning. These expectations are unrealistic, if not impossible, for households already experiencing food insecurity or concerned about the cost of groceries.

As several authors write, some UPF should be considered addictive. One study found that 90% of food with addictive potential were ultra-processed, and new polling shows that 70% of people believe UPF are addictive. These qualities likely stem from the “consumer-driven product development” the tobacco industry used to create foods with maximum pleasure and appeal.

Policies for less processed food

Based on the parallels between UPF and tobacco, the path forward is policy – not personal responsibility.

The study authors recommend a range of interventions, including:

A clear and scientifically supported federal definition of UPF, based on the NOVA classification system, that works for practical policy applications
Front-of-pack labeling requirements and marketing restrictions, with a focus on child-targeted marketing
Legal action by state attorneys general against food companies on behalf of the public, with settlement funds directed to health initiatives
Institutional procurement and other policies that limit UPF and provide more minimally processed foods in places like schools.

Meaningful progress may be possible. A national survey featured in the special journal issue found broad bipartisan public support for a range of governmental and legal interventions to address the health harms of UPF.

What you can do now

Solving our UPF problem requires large, systemic change. In the meantime, people still need help shopping for their families.

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.

For extra help, take a look at EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help with identifying healthier alternatives.

Shoppers on the go can also use EWG’s Healthy Living app.

Finally, follow Fed UP! – a new coalition of scientists, researchers and public health advocates dedicated to exposing the harms of UPF and showing how our food system shapes our health.

Areas of Focus

Ultra-Processed Foods

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

June 3, 2026

In major win for U.S. consumers, FDA approves first new sunscreen ingredient in 25 years

Iris Myers — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:48:51 +0000

In major win for U.S. consumers, FDA approves first new sunscreen ingredient in 25 years Iris Myers June 3, 2026

WASHINGTON – In a landmark decision for public health and consumer protection, the Food and Drug Administration today finalized its approval of the first new ultraviolet filter in more than 25 years deemed a safe and effective active ingredient in U.S. sunscreens.

The chemical, bemotrizinol, also known as BEMT, will give American consumers access to a level of ultraviolet A protection that has until now been unavailable on U.S. store shelves. The regulatory review process leading up to this approval took more than two decades.

Bemotrizinol offers a stable non-mineral option that doesn’t break down in the sun, unlike one of two previously approved UVA filters, avobenzone.

Sunscreen products formulated with non-mineral active ingredients are often the consumer’s preference. That’s because mineral-based sunscreens often leave a white cast on the skin, a quality that doesn’t work for many people, especially people of color.

The Environmental Working Group, which since 2019 has urged the agency to allow bemotrizinol to be added to sunscreens, hailed the decision a monumental victory for health and wellness.

Closing the UVA gap

“This is a great day for American consumers and everyone who has fought to improve sunscreen options and close the UVA protection gap in U.S. sunscreens,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., chief science officer at EWG.

“For decades, Americans have used outdated sunscreen tech while the rest of the world moved forward. The approval of bemotrizinol will help change that. The FDA’s go-ahead will finally bring more effective, safer sun protection to American store shelves.

“This is a win that has been a long time coming,” said Andrews.

What sunscreens deliver

Traditional U.S. sunscreens excel at blocking the radiation that causes visible sunburns, ultraviolet B rays. But they routinely fail to shield against deep-penetrating UVA rays, which drive premature aging, suppress the immune system and are the primary contributor to skin cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.

Skin cancer is the mostly commonly diagnosed cancer in the U.S., claiming more than one life every hour, with estimates of over 200,000 cases of both types of melanoma predicted in 2026, according to the Melanoma Research Foundation.

EWG’s peer-reviewed research found U.S. sunscreens deliver on average just 24% of the UVA protection implied by their sun protection factor, or SPF, labels. Most Americans reaching for high-SPF products get just a fraction of the protection they believe they’re buying.

Today’s approval is the most significant step in a generation toward fixing that problem.

“For too long, American consumers have been applying sunscreen and believing they were fully protected, not knowing that their product was delivering far less UVA protection than the label implied,” said Alexa Friedman, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG.

“Bemotrizinol changes the calculus of sun care. It is highly photostable, meaning it won’t break down when hot summer sun hits your skin – unlike avobenzone, currently the only non-mineral filter in the U.S. that provides meaningful UVA coverage,” she said.

“And it provides strong, stable broad-spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB radiation. Better yet, unlike the older non-mineral filters, it can be combined with zinc oxide to provide strong broad spectrum protection with less white cast.

“American consumers deserve access to the best available sun protection. Today they’re finally getting closer to it,” added Friedman.

What is bemotrizinol and why is it better?

Bemotrizinol has been used safely in sunscreens across Europe and Asia since 1999 under brand names including Tinosorb® S by BASF and Parsol® Shield by DSM. The ingredient has amassed a 27-year safety track record abroad, though some of those jurisdictions have weaker data requirements than the U.S.

The original application for FDA approval was filed in 2005 under a regulatory process that has since been discontinued. One company, DSM, submitted its most recent request to the FDA in 2024, under an updated regulatory process established by the CARES Act. It has taken more than two decades of regulatory review to reach today’s approval.

Data submitted to the FDA confirms that at concentrations up to 6%, bemotrizinol is minimally absorbed through the skin, with average absorption levels below the concentration the FDA considers indicative of systemic exposure. Compare that to oxybenzone, which was detected in blood at 515 times the FDA’s threshold of concern after a single weekend of application. Bemotrizinol does not meaningfully enter the bloodstream.

The FDA’s review also included a two-year animal study that found no evidence of cancer-causing effects when bemotrizinol is applied to skin. A multigenerational reproductive study found no harmful effects on reproductive outcomes or offspring development.

Skin irritation tests found bemotrizinol was not irritating at permitted concentrations.

The European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety reached the same conclusions as far back as 1999.

Crucially, bemotrizinol solves problems current U.S. sunscreen ingredients cannot.

Zinc oxide and avobenzone are the only two UV filters in U.S. sunscreens that provide meaningful UVA protection. But avobenzone is chemically unstable – it breaks down in sunlight, reducing its effectiveness precisely when it is needed most. Avobenzone’s breakdown products have been linked to allergic reactions.

Zinc oxide, for all its ability to provide the most stable, balanced broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection, leaves a white cast after it’s been applied.

Until today, the FDA had proposed that only sunscreens containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide – both mineral ingredients – would be generally recognized as safe and effective.

What comes next

Today’s approval of bemotrizinol triggers 18 months’ exclusive marketing rights in the U.S. of Parsol Shield, a proprietary bemotrizinol formulation.

After that period, other manufacturers may use it in their formulations, driving broader availability and more competitive pricing.

Consumers shopping for sunscreen with bemotrizinol should look for “bemotrizinol” or “BEMT” in the active ingredients list or the trade name Parsol Shield on product packaging. It may also be listed by its internationally standardized name, bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine.

EWG will update its Guide to Sunscreens as products with bemotrizinol reach the market.

In the meantime, EWG’s top recommendation for daily use remains mineral sunscreens formulated with zinc oxide, which provide the most stable and balanced broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection currently available on U.S. shelves.

Good news – but a broken system remains

Today’s approval is cause for genuine celebration. It is also a reminder of how far the U.S. regulatory system still has to go.

Even with bemotrizinol added to the mix, U.S. sunscreen formulators will have access to 16 approved UV filters. European formulators have access to approximately 30.

In 2019 and again in 2021, the FDA proposed meaningful reforms to sunscreen regulation that included stronger UVA standards, SPF value limits, better labeling and updated safety data requirements. None of those reforms has been finalized.

Other sunscreen manufacturers have so far been unwilling to produce the safety data the FDA needs to approve additional new filters.

“This approval is a triumph of consumer advocacy, but it also shines a harsh spotlight on a federal system stuck in neutral,” said Melanie Benesh, EWG’s vice president for government affairs.

“Meanwhile, sunscreen manufacturers are refusing to provide the FDA with safety data for other UV filters, prioritizing corporate secrecy over public health. American consumers are then left with fewer options than people in Europe and Asia have had for decades.

“Congress must step in. We need binding deadlines for chemical testing and real enforcement to pull non-compliant, unsafe products from the market entirely. American families have waited long enough.

“Companies must also do more. Manufacturers of additional sunscreen filters available internationally should request market access from the FDA and provide the FDA with the necessary data so consumers have more options,” Benesh added.

How to navigate store shelves

While bemotrizinol products make their way to store shelves, the best sunscreen is the one that actually gets used. Here’s how to choose strong sun protection today:

Prioritize zinc oxide. Mineral sunscreens with zinc oxide provide the most stable, balanced broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection available and are EWG’s top recommendation for daily use.

For non-mineral sunscreens, look for products formulated with 3% avobenzone and check EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens for options that meet EWG’s safety and efficacy standards.

Avoid oxybenzone and octinoxate, which are linked to hormone disruption, and skip products with undisclosed “fragrance.”

Be wary of high SPF numbers. SPF 50 blocks 98% of UVB rays. SPF 100 blocks just 1% more. The negligible difference can create a false sense of security, since high-SPF products often provide no better UVA protection than lower-SPF alternatives.

Use EWG’s tools. Shoppers can search the 2026 Guide to Sunscreens, use the EWG Healthy Living app to scan products while they shop, and look for the EWG Verified® mark, which requires sunscreens to exceed both U.S. and European UVA protection standards.

###

Areas of Focus

Personal Care Products

Sunscreen

Bemotrizinol offers stronger UVA protection, closing decades-old protection gap with sunscreens sold abroad

Press Contact

Iris Myers

iris@ewg.org

(202) 939-9126

June 9, 2026

With New York Legislature adjourning June 4, advocates urge swift passage of bill to ban Parkinson’s pesticide

Anthony Lacey — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 19:36:48 +0000

With New York Legislature adjourning June 4, advocates urge swift passage of bill to ban Parkinson’s pesticide Anthony Lacey June 2, 2026

ALBANY, N.Y. – Ahead of New York’s legislative session ending June 4, environmentalists and other advocates are urging state lawmakers to pass a bill banning paraquat, a widely used herbicide with links to Parkinson’s disease, childhood leukemia and other serious health harms.

At a virtual briefing Tuesday, representatives from the Parkinson’s Foundation, American Parkinson Disease Association, Environmental Working Group and allied advocates called for lawmakers to back the legislation, A.10074A/S.9094A. A medical expert and a person living with Parkinson’s disease also talked about the urgent need to pass the bill.

If enacted, it would make New York the second state to prohibit the toxic weedkiller, after Vermont last month enacted its landmark ban on the use of paraquat.

The bill, led by Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal (D,WF-Assembly District 67) and Sen. Pete Harckham (D,WF-40th Senate District), would deliver critical protections for farmworkers and rural communities who face the greatest exposure risk from paraquat. It would represent a significant step in shielding future generations from the crop chemical.

‘Very challenging disease’

More than 70 countries – including China, where most paraquat is produced – have already banned paraquat, yet it remains legal and widely used in the U.S. New Jersey and Pennsylvania are among other states now weighing similar restrictions.

During the virtual briefing, Rebecca Gilbert, M.D., Ph.D., chief mission officer of the American Parkinson Disease Association, described the full burden of the disease and the urgency of acting on preventable risk factors, like exposure to paraquat used on U.S. farm fields. She said:

As a doctor, I see people with Parkinson’s, and I can tell you that it is a very challenging disease to live with. . . . And the disease may be famous for causing tremor, which can be very challenging, but there’s much more than that.
“There’s stiffness, slowness, falls and then a lot of symptoms that are not related to movement at all, like depression or anxiety, sleep, problems, hallucinations, problems with cognition.
In laboratory studies, paraquat can very clearly damage the very brain cells that die in Parkinson’s disease. . . . And so putting paraquat onto cells in a laboratory can basically recreate the disease.

Forever changing lives

Gilbert continued:

It’s a disease that steals independence and it slowly steals it in a way where the person with the disease feels that they can’t control what it’s stealing from them and that is a situation that’s very difficult to be in. And it affects not just the person diagnosed but the entire family with the care partner responsibilities, financial stress and social isolation.
. . . I want to highlight that Parkinson’s is not just a disease of the elderly, as it is often thought of, because there is such a thing as young onset Parkinson’s that can be diagnosed in those under the age of 50, people in their 30s and 40s, sometimes even in their 20s.
And these individuals are given this news when they’re raising their children, building their careers, and the diagnosis then forever changes the trajectory of their lives.
So, when evidence mounts that there’s a known and preventable environmental exposure that contributes to the risk of Parkinson’s, we all have a responsibility to act, because we can do better.
Banning paraquat is something that we can do as a community to protect ourselves. So this is not about politics. This is about public health.

Protecting public health

At the press event, Mike Mooney, a former landscaper and resident of Pittsford, N.Y., who is living with Parkinson’s disease, spoke about his diagnosis. He explained why he believes a ban is a straightforward public health decision:

[A]fter diagnosis . . . one of the first things I did was get the genetic testing that’s available to see if you have any known genetic links to Parkinson’s. And for me, it’s not really a unique story from that standpoint because only 12.5 percent or so of people with Parkinson’s have any genetic link . . . so 80-plus percent, or more . . . have no known genetic link. . . . It’s crazy.
So when I see countries like China producing this [paraquat], but they banned it for their people . . . I just ask the question, what are we doing? It makes no sense.
My view, the number one role of the government should be to the people. And there’s no public trust right now. Nobody knows what is going on with these chemicals. They don’t know. . . .
It’s like Russian roulette . . . but we know that one sip of paraquat will kill you. And it just seems like a no-brainer for us to ban this chemical.

New York can be a leader

Jessica Hernandez, legislative director at EWG, warned that inaction this session would leave New Yorkers exposed for years to come.

“New York has an opportunity to lead on this issue and help prevent future cases of Parkinson’s disease,” she said. “We hope New York will be the second state in the nation to ban paraquat and urge the legislature to pass the Rosenthal-Harckham bill this session.”

###

Parkinson’s patients, medical experts and environmental health groups unite in calling for New York to become second state to prohibit toxic weedkiller paraquat

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

June 2, 2026

5 viral – but problematic – TikTok tanning trends

JR Culpepper — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:12:01 +0000

5 viral – but problematic – TikTok tanning trends JR Culpepper June 2, 2026

With the days getting warmer, many are tanning or being outside more. Time in the sun is fun, as long as you protect yourself – and that usually means wearing sunscreen.

But some recent TikTok trends are discouraging people from using sunscreen.

The sun’s ultraviolet, or UV, rays can be damaging, so sunscreen is essential to reducing the health risks of prolonged sun exposure, like skin cancer.

Even if you already apply sunscreen regularly, check EWG’s 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens to see whether your products provide adequate sun protection and are free from ingredients linked to health harms.

The guide includes thousands of sunscreen products and found nearly 80% of them do not meet EWG’s criteria for top-rated products, because they provide inadequate sun protection or contain harmful ingredients.

Here are five viral sunscreen trends, the myths behind them, and how to stay safe from their potentially harmful effects.

1. DIY sunscreen

Homemade sunscreen proponents say it’s a safe, affordable and simple option. But it may create more problems than it solves. DIY sunscreens often provide ineffective protection against UV radiation, since they almost always fail to achieve even a sun protection factor, or SPF, of 6.

2. “Base tans” and “Base burns”

Some people avoid wearing sunscreen in order to build up a “base burn,” or tan.

This is dangerous because any tan is evidence of skin damage – and sunburn is even more so. Tanning can increase your risk of skin cancer, even if you don’t burn.

3. Sun “contouring”

This practice involves strategically applying sunscreen to some parts of the face, to enhance a tan in specific areas. Sounds great, right? Instant summerlong highlights and contours, achieved without makeup.

But “sun contouring” is dangerous – it encourages people to damage their skin intentionally by applying lower SPF sunscreen to or leaving some parts of their face entirely unprotected.

The long-term effects of this method may ultimately make you look older. In addition to preventing sunburn, sunscreen prevents premature aging and reduces the risk of skin cancer.

Instead of contouring your sunscreen, choose a contoured makeup look – and don't forget to apply sunscreen afterward

4. Sun tattoos

This is just a bad idea that requires you to overexposure your body to UV rays.

If you develop skin cancer on one part of your body, it can spread to other areas of your skin and metastasize to other parts of the body. To reduce the risk of skin cancer, make sure to apply sunscreen everywhere your body will be exposed to the sun.

5. Treatment for acne

Tanning beds as a solution to skin problems? Not happening.

In fact, tanning beds are classified as a known carcinogen – they can increase the risk of skin cancer. Research links the beds to a higher risk of melanoma, especially when first use occurs before age 30.

The Food and Drug Administration has long warned that children and teens should never use tanning beds because of their health concerns. But the Trump administration quietly killed a pending FDA rule that would have banned anyone under 18 from using the beds.

Tips for sun safety

Here are a few tips to help you get the most out of your time in the sun.

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

Getting outside for some sun is good for you – in moderation. Just ignore the fleeting trends and stick to the tried and tested: Wear sunscreen to protect yourself, and wear it daily.

EWG’s mission in the 20 years we’ve produced the Guide to Sunscreens has been to ensure that whenever you use sunscreen, the SPF products you trust to protect your family are free from ingredients of concern, backed by science and effective at reducing the effects of UV radiation.

Areas of Focus

Personal Care Products

Sunscreen

Guest Authors

Grant Pacernick, Communications Intern

June 2, 2026