Environmental Working Group

Adding folic acid to food can save newborn babies. A misleading food 'safety' bill could block that Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026

• The “FRESH” Act would block states from regulating chemicals in food or requiring folic acid fortification, proven to reduce birth defects
• The food industry group Americans for Ingredient Transparency is pushing the bill that could gut states’ food safety authority
• Congress should reject the FRESH Act. EWG is rallying against it in Washington, D.C., on September 15 with partners and supporters.

Food companies are pushing a bill in Congress, the FRESH Act, as a food safety measure. It isn’t.

The bill, if enacted, would block state laws regulating chemicals in food, known as preemption. And its preemption provisions are so broad it could harm public health far beyond the chemicals the measure would allow in food, according to a new Harvard Law School analysis. 

The FRESH Act would make the Food and Drug Administration the sole regulator of food additives, stripping states of the authority to pass or enforce their own food chemical laws. 

In practice, Harvard’s analysis finds the bill’s preemption language covers almost anything that could become a “component” of food. That means the FRESH Act’s threats to the food supply are twofold: It would erase state bans on harmful food chemicals – and might roll back a range of other public health protections with it.

One consequence of the bill would be blocking state laws that require folic acid to be added to certain foods – a practice the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention called one of the greatest public health achievements in recent decades.

Benefits of folic acid fortification

The addition of folic acid to food – also known as folic acid fortification – is a public health measure designed to prevent neural tube defects in infants. Conditions like spina bifida can develop in the first weeks of pregnancy, often before someone even knows they’re pregnant.

The U.S. has required folic acid fortification in enriched grain products like bread and cereal since 1998. This policy may have helped to reduce the rate of neural tube defects by between 25% and 50%.

Many Latino communities benefit less from the federal fortification mandate, because they eat more tortillas and tamales – foods not captured in national fortification requirements. So some states, including Alabama and California, have extended that mandate to include corn masa flour. Florida introduced a similar bill to address health disparities, though it failed in committee.

The FRESH Act would wipe away those existing state laws and prevent any other state from pursuing future similar measures. 

Harvard’s analysis warns that the FRESH Act’s preemption language is broad enough to block new folic acid fortification laws from ever taking effect, and to erase the ones already on the books in Alabama and California.

Despite its industry backers calling the bill a way to ensure consistent food safety nationwide, it could also frustrate other public health measures. For example, it would likely block state allergen labeling requirements and lead and arsenic limits in baby food.

Stopping state food chemical laws

A group called Americans for Ingredient Transparency, which is backed by major multinational food corporations, is pushing the bill.

Their goal is simple: make the FDA the only regulator that matters when it comes to food additives, effectively shutting state efforts down.

But the FDA’s system for evaluating food chemical safety is effectively broken.

Under current law, food companies can add chemicals to food through a provision called GRAS, or “generally recognized as safe.” It is a regulatory loophole that has allowed thousands of chemicals into our food supply – some of which the chemical companies never even notified the FDA about. 

And a recent GRAS “reform” proposal from the FDA fails to fix the broken system. Although it would require companies to tell the FDA about new chemicals, it sets no deadlines for notification, allows companies to use new chemicals before the FDA has reviewed them, and fails to guarantee those chemicals are safe. 

It also permits existing GRAS chemicals to stay on the market without submitting any safety data to the FDA. 

The absence of federal leadership on food safety prompted many states to step up. In many cases, states are the sole line of defense against food chemicals that may harm our health. In 2025 alone, more than 30 states introduced nearly 120 bills addressing food chemical safety.

What needs to change – and what you can do now

Congress should reject the FRESH Act – and in the meantime, states should continue passing and defending their own food safety laws.

Join EWG in Washington, D.C., on September 15 for our Toxics Off the Table! rally to fight the FRESH Act and protect state food safety laws. Visit our website for more information.

Until there are enough policies in place to protect public health, EWG’s tools can help you navigate the food supply.

EWG’s Dirty Dozen™ Guide to Food Chemicals breaks down the most concerning additives currently allowed in our food. 

And our Food Scores database lets you search for more than 150,000 products rated on nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns. Use EWG’s Healthy Living™ App on the go.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Food Chemicals Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN September 2, 2026

EWG letter objecting to the EPA's chlormequat tolerances Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026

Attached are EWG’s objections to the Environmental Protection Agency’s final rule setting chlormequat tolerances. EWG urges the agency to retain the tenfold children’s safety factor required by law.

File Download Document ewg-objections_to_chlormequat_tolerances_epa-ha-opp-2021-0290.pdf Areas of Focus Pesticides Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. August 31, 2026

EWG comments on EPA's proposed sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments to the Environmental Protection Agency on its proposed sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule.

File Download Document ewg_ucmr6comments.pdf Areas of Focus Water Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Authors Varun Subramaniam, M.S. Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. David Andrews, Ph.D. August 31, 2026

Agriculture’s climate emissions are rising but fully funding conservation can slow them Anthony Lacey September 2, 2026 Anne Schechinger, M.S. September 2, 2026 Overview

• Agriculture produces around 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the sector’s emissions are rising.
• Under current policies, that 10% could jump to between 18% and 41% by 2050.
• The next farm bill should prioritize and fully fund regenerative agriculture practices to stop the sector from becoming the largest source of emissions.

Agriculture could become the nation’s leading producer of greenhouse gases by 2050.

Most other sectors of the economy, especially transportation and electricity, are expected to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions dramatically in the coming decades. That decline is mostly due to voluntary industry efforts and changing technology.

Agriculture’s climate pollution is driven overwhelmingly by nitrous oxide and methane. Nitrous oxide accounts for 52% of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, while methane accounts for another 46%. And the sector’s emissions keep rising – they’re projected to go up a quarter of a percent every year through mid-century.

That should be a wake-up call for Congress. 

Agricultural conservation practices – like riparian forest buffers, tree establishment, diversified crop rotations and nutrient management – can help reduce climate emissions or store carbon, so agriculture doesn’t become the biggest source of emissions. 

These practices also have other benefits, such as reducing air pollution and protecting waterways. 

But the billions of dollars both the House and Senate farm bills propose to cut from federal conservation programs would make it harder for farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Congress, through the farm bill, should maintain conservation program funding, and prioritize the money for regenerative practices, instead of continuing to send so much money to structural practices that bring little, if any, climate emissions reductions. 

Agriculture’s growing share of emissions

Agriculture is responsible for at least 10% of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. When combined with emissions from fertilizer production, the sector’s share is even higher.

Climate models show that if the sector’s emissions increase slightly while emissions from other sectors fall, as projected, agriculture’s share of U.S. emissions will grow.

Agriculture ranks fourth among U.S. economic sectors for greenhouse gas emissions, behind transportation, industry and electricity and ahead of buildings and “other” sources.

But that ranking is unlikely to last.

Under policies in place today, agriculture’s share of emissions is expected to almost double by 2050, from 10% to 18%. Agriculture would move up to being the third largest greenhouse-gas-producing sector, after industry and transportation.

But the U.S. has previously made international climate commitments, including through the Paris Agreement, that have led to federal rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gases from most other sectors, including industry and transportation. 

Even though the Trump administration – in both the first and second terms – withdrew from the Paris climate pact, the industry and transportation sectors are still rapidly reducing their emissions.

There are no broad federal greenhouse gas rules in place to force cuts in agriculture’s emissions. As industry, transportation and other sectors lower their overall emissions, agriculture’s share rises – unless the sector also acts to cut emissions. 

Under the scenario in which the U.S. reduces total emissions to levels agreed on in the Paris Agreement, the agriculture sector would make up 41% of total U.S. emissions in 2050. In this scenario, agriculture would be the economic sector producing the most greenhouse gas emissions, because the other sectors would severely cut their emissions. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. U.S. emissions by economic sector in 2026, and predicted emissions in 2050 under two scenarios

Image

Source: EWG, using data from Energy Innovation’s Energy Policy Simulator.

Agriculture must reduce its emissions to avoid becoming the No. 1 source of U.S. climate emissions. (See Figure 2.) Scientists warn that if emissions from agriculture don’t go down, the worst impacts of the climate crisis will be inescapable.

Figure 2. If the U.S. follows its international commitments in other sectors, agriculture could top 40% of emissions by 2050

Image

Source: EWG, using data from Energy Innovation’s Energy Policy Simulator.

Nitrous oxide and methane are agriculture’s main climate emissions

Agricultural soil management is the main driver of the sector’s nitrous oxide emissions, particularly the widespread use of fertilizer on crops like corn. Microbes in soil turn nitrogen from fertilizer and manure into nitrous oxide.

Even though nitrous oxide makes up a small share of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, it is a potent greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for over 100 years and has a global warming potential 273 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Global nitrous oxide emissions grew by 40% between 1980 and 2020, and they are expected to increase another 30% between 2020 and 2050. Corn production makes up over half of all nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture.

Nitrous oxide does not just contribute to climate change; it also depletes the ozone layer. And ammonia nitrous oxides can form with other compounds to create particulate matter, with exposure leading to premature deaths. 

Methane makes up the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. agriculture. Most agricultural methane emissions come from livestock. Enteric fermentation from beef and dairy cattle – their natural digestion process – accounts for about 25% of total U.S. methane emissions. 

Manure management also contributes to both methane and nitrous oxide emissions, making up 9% of total U.S. methane emissions and 4% of total nitrous oxide emissions. 

Methane does not stay in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide or nitrous oxide, but it has a global warming potential 28 times that of carbon dioxide over 100 years. 

Regenerative agriculture practices can reduce emissions

Conservation practices implemented on farm fields can help to lower agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.

A 2022 report from the Boston Consulting Group and the Walton Family Foundation found that practice changes could slash greenhouse gas emissions from farming by almost 22%. 

The report showed emissions could go down as a result of changes in fertilizer applications, tillage practices, grazing management, the use of cover crops, livestock feed additives, soil amendments and the targeted use of trees, among other practices. 

EWG found in a 2025 analysis that many conservation practices can reduce farming’s greenhouse gas emissions. Even if they are adopted on only a small number of acres, they can have a big climate impact. 

The conservation practices applied to Midwest corn acres that would most lower climate emissions are riparian forest buffers, tree or shrub establishment, hedgerow planting and windbreak establishment.

Other practices, including no-tillage, cover crops, and diversifying crops so there is a conservation crop rotation, would also reduce climate emissions. 

But federal conservation program funding needs to be prioritized for practices that help farmers reduce climate emissions and adapt to extreme weather conditions tied to intensifying climate change. 

EWG has identified a list of regenerative agriculture practices that decrease a farm’s greenhouse gas emissions and increase climate resilience. 

Farmers can receive funding to implement these regenerative practices from the Agriculture Department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, one of the largest federal conservation programs. 

But EQIP spending must be reformed. In 2025, only $660.9 million from EQIP, or 39% of all payments from the program, went to farmers for practices on EWG’s regenerative practice list. Only four of the top 10 paid practices were regenerative: cover crops, brush management, forest stand improvement, and pasture and hay planting. 

Prioritizing funding

Six of the 10 most funded practices that were not regenerative were structural, building or equipment practices, which together received $427.1 million. These are practices like irrigation pipelines and animal waste storage facilities, which rarely benefit the climate.

Farmers collected hardly any money for some of the conservation practices that are the best at reducing emissions. Two practices that would generate substantial emissions reductions on Midwest corn acres – riparian forest buffer and hedgerow planting – received only $423,000 and $735,000 from EQIP nationally in 2025, respectively. 

More conservation funding must be prioritized for regenerative practices that have climate benefits. Adoption of more of these practices could slow the growth of agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions so the sector does not produce the largest share of U.S. emissions by 2050.

The versions of the farm bill proposed by the House and Senate cut conservation spending by billions of dollars, including reducing funding for EQIP. 

If these cuts were to go into effect, they would hurt farmers and the climate. 

California bill to require full disclosure of diaper chemicals heads to Gov. Newsom for signature Monica Amarelo August 26, 2026

SACRAMENTO – California’s Legislature today passed a bill that would, if enacted, require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in the state to fully disclose their ingredients on the product’s packaging and online. 

Assembly Bill 1901, by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature. The Environmental Working Group, Consumer Reports, Children Now and the Center for Environmental Health are co-sponsoring the bill.

“As a new dad, I have a new appreciation for how important it is for parents to make informed decisions when it comes to the health and wellness of their children,” said Berman.

“We all want the best for our children, but the lack of transparency around diaper ingredients prevents us from knowing what ‘the best’ is when buying the one thing that is touching our baby’s skin every minute of their lives for years,” he said. 

“I’m proud to author AB 1901 to give parents greater transparency about the chemicals in their children’s diapers so that they can make the right choice for their family,” Berman added.

Newborns and toddlers especially vulnerable

Babies spend much of their first two to three years of life in diapers. 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 them. Instead, they can hide dozens of chemicals behind umbrella terms like “fragrance” or “colors” – potentially toxic mystery cocktails. This situation leaves parents with no way of knowing what chemicals sit against their baby’s skin day after day.

“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.

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

“AB 1901 isn’t asking for anything radical. It’s asking for diapers to contain ingredient labels that are similar to labels required of other baby products,” Swanson said.

Chemicals found in diapers

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

Tests have also found diapers containing quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, used in wetness indicators and 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.” 

“California parents shouldn’t need a chemistry degree to buy a diaper. They deserve to know exactly what is touching their child’s skin. Caregivers want this information,” 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 January 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. If enacted, it would be a first-in-the-nation law requiring such full diaper ingredient transparency. The bill would require online disclosure to begin on January 1, 2029, and disclosure on the package to begin July 1, 2029. 

“Stronger regulation and full disclosure are needed, and that’s why this bill is so important to protect children's health,” said Little. 

And AB 1901 is something manufacturers can comply with – a 2023 New York law that requires on-label disclosure of diaper ingredients shows that greater transparency is achievable.

EWG has created a Guide to Safer Diapers to help parents 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.

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.

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 Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy California Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 August 27, 2026

Landmark California bill that would track and disclose PFAS pesticide use heads to Newsom’s desk Monica Amarelo August 26, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Groundbreaking legislation that would address the widespread use of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” pesticides on California produce today passed the state Legislature. 

It now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature.

If enacted, Assembly Bill 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would require the state to monitor and disclose PFAS pesticide use. State agencies were not tracking the concerning use of toxic PFAS on crops until the Environmental Working Group raised concerns.

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

EWG research 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.

“As a father, I don’t want my kids eating strawberries contaminated with chemicals that will stay in their bodies for decades,” said Schultz. 

“AB 1603 is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation, not by the accumulation of toxic PFAS in our soil and water,” he added. 

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

“The state cannot act on this newly revealed PFAS problem if it ignores the issue and pretends it doesn’t exist,” said Susan Little, EWG California legislative director. 

“Right now, the state has no comprehensive picture of where these chemicals are being sprayed or in what quantities,” she added.

The bill would also establish 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.

Other AB 1603 sponsors include Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network.

Why tracking and monitoring matter

If enacted, AB 1603 will require the Department of Pesticide Regulation to begin systematically tracking and publicly disclosing PFAS pesticide use across the state, marking the first time California has required this level of visibility about where the chemicals are applied.

“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.”

“We need to stop spraying our produce with toxic ‘forever chemicals.’ With this bill, we are telling it like it is, so farmers and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this hidden PFAS use,” 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,” 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 authority to protect its residents – power it has largely chosen not to use when it comes to PFAS pesticides.

That authority matters more than ever because of what is happening at the federal level. The EPA has continued to approve new PFAS pesticides at an accelerating pace, greenlighting three more in July. 

With the EPA fast-tracking approvals, California taking the lead in informing the public and local officials about the pesticides that do contain PFAS, while monitoring the pesticides’ use, is necessary.

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.

AB 1603, if enacted, will put California in line with these other states and jurisdictions, 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. “But we’ve been silent on PFAS pesticides, even though we are one of the biggest users.

“AB 1603 can begin to change that. This is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food,” she added.

###

The Environmental Working Group (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 Farming & Agriculture Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California Transparency legislation would reveal ‘forever chemicals’ sprayed on the state’s produce Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 August 26, 2026

California lawmakers pass bill to create landmark ‘non-ultra-processed’ food label Iris Myers August 26, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Today the California Legislature took a major step toward protecting public health by passing a first-of-its-kind bill to create a certified “non-ultra-processed” food label intended to make it easier for consumers to choose less-processed foods in the grocery store.

Assembly Bill 2244, authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would develop a state certification program for products that are not ultra-processed, or UPF. If enacted, it would create a new standardized and government-backed seal for non-UPF foods.

It would also require some of the largest grocery stores to highlight these products in store so they’re easier for shoppers to identify. 

The Environmental Working Group is cosponsoring the bill, which now heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature.

“Parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids,” said Gabriel. 

“AB 2244 will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. This new seal doesn’t limit consumer choice, it just makes informed choice possible,” he added.

A new standard for healthier food

Under AB 2244, the state would create a standardized label bearing the phrase “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified.” Products would not be permitted to carry the new label if they are classified as UPF under state law. 

Some types of food, such as substances or additives used to manipulate taste and quality, would not qualify for the new label. These food chemicals, such as dyes, flavor enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners and processing aids, are used to make food hyperpalatable and irresistible. 

AB 2244 builds on a precedent-setting earlier law by Gabriel. AB 1264 set the first U.S. legal definition of UPF and banned the worst UPF from K-12 public schools. 

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

AB 2244 would direct the department to accredit these third-party agents no later than June 1, 2029. It would also require product recertification at least every three years.

“This is about setting a higher bar for what we consider healthy food and helping consumers make wise choices,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. 

“Consumers deserve labels they can trust. And families deserve a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory.”

“If enacted, the bill would establish a state-verified seal for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that have come to define the modern American diet,” she added.

Transparency and accountability

The bill includes these strong oversight and transparency measures:

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

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

Making healthier choices easier

In addition to creating the label, the bill would require large food retailers to display certified products carrying the label in a way that’s easy for consumers to identify, such as through special signage or physical separation within the store.

This requirement would apply to any grocery store that sells more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified product types 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 harmful additives 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, particularly soda, are engineered to trick people into consuming more than they want.

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

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

Help for consumers

Despite these concerns, consumers have no clear, standard labeling system to help them identify UPF.

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

AB 2244 builds on California’s leadership in addressing harmful food chemicals and improving transparency for consumers. 

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

Moran is deputy director of the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.

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

“If we want to meaningfully curb disease, we need a suite of complementary policies that limit 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.

###

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 Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals California UPF labeling legislation now heads to Gov. Newsom’s desk Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 August 28, 2026

California Legislature approves bill easing access to clean, affordable ‘balcony solar’ Anthony Lacey August 25, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today applauds the California Legislature for passing a bill that will help Californians invest in clean energy while also tackling sky-high energy bills by making it easier to install small, affordable “balcony solar” systems.

Senate Bill 868, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, would eliminate red tape that has kept these systems from being placed in apartments, condos and single-family homes. The legislation would also ensure the systems comply with strict safety standards.

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network. SB 868 heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature.

“This is the most exciting clean energy idea around,”  said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “With this bill, California is poised to fling its doors wide open to a real, tangible affordability solution for everyday consumers.

“Solar energy is a no-brainer for California and we applaud Sen. Wiener and his legislative colleagues for their hard work to put this critical clean energy solution on the governor’s desk,” she added. 

Balcony solar is thriving in Europe – in Germany more than 4 million systems have been installed. Efforts to ease their deployment are gathering steam in other countries.

But in the U.S., regulatory barriers keep this technology out of reach for many. If enacted, SB 868 would remove those barriers while ensuring the systems meet safety standards. 

Homeowners and renters could then buy portable balcony solar panels from retailers and plug them in without first having to get an interconnection agreement from their utility. The cost and time involved with getting that agreement has been a barrier to greater deployment of these systems. 

The Assembly amended the bill with a provision sunsetting the interconnection exemption on Jan. 1, 2030 – language sought by the utilities – but SB 868 gives the market four years to take off and the Legislature has the opportunity to remove the sunset in the future. 

Solving an urgent public health problem 

EWG this month released a report showing that California is experiencing more frequent and dangerous heat days, with extreme heat events up 55% statewide threatening public health and safety without access to cooling. But soaring utility bills mean millions of people can’t afford the air conditioning that could keep them safe. 

Balcony solar is one solution, helping lower electricity costs and making it cheaper to run vital cooling. With 2027 shaping up to be the hottest year on record, it can’t come soon enough. 

That’s why EWG is calling on policy makers to prioritize solutions like customer-sited solar energy that can drastically lower or eliminate annual utility costs for air conditioning.  If it becomes law, SB 868 would help millions of families tackle air conditioning costs.

“These small, easy-to-use solar panels will give everyone, including renters, the relief they desperately need on our outrageous energy bills,” said Wiener. “Electricity costs have reached ridiculous levels here in California and the Plug and Play Solar Act provides a much-needed tool to provide relief. It’s time to put money back in the pockets of Californians.”

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.

And the systems are easy to use. “Installing balcony solar is as simple as plugging an appliance like a toaster into a standard wall outlet,” said Del Chiaro. 

“At a time when many struggle to pay their energy bills, balcony solar is a powerful cost-cutting tool that also helps the state meet its clean energy goals,” she added.

SB 868 would also ensure 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 AC units.

California is not the first state to remove barriers to balcony solar. Utah became the first in 2025, and so far, eight other states have enacted laws to do the same. 

With today’s vote, California joins New York as another state with a balcony solar bill sitting on the governor’s desk. Newsom has 30 days to take action on SB 868. The California Assembly and Senate both gave the bill strong bipartisan support, with over 90% approval in both chambers.

“California may not be the first out of the gates but we are the biggest prize,” said Del Chiaro. “If Gov. Newsom signs this bill into law, the size of our market will radically transform and accelerate the adoption of this brilliant new way to tackle both climate change and energy affordability.” 

###

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 SB 868 would end red tape blocking millions from utility bill savings Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 August 25, 2026

Industry says food safety costs more. Some store brands show it doesn’t need to. Ketura Persellin August 24, 2026

Food industry lobbyists argue that food safety laws drive up grocery prices. EWG’s review of the shelf tells a different story – retailers are already proving that removing chemicals of concern from food doesn’t cost consumers a dime, and often costs them less. 

Grocery “store brands” like Walmart’s Great Value tend to be less expensive than famous name brands like Kraft and Kellogg. Grocers save money when they work directly with manufacturers and they pass some of those savings along to you. 

But store brands can sometimes also have fewer chemicals of concern while saving consumers money, proving that “healthier” and “cheaper” aren’t in conflict. Reformulating products while cutting the price shoppers pay is possible, and already being done.

Many retailers have created lists of chemicals they no longer use in their store brands, including Albertsons, H-E-B, Meijer, Hy-Vee, Kroger, Harris Teeter, Publix, ShopRite, Trader Joe’s, Walmart and Wegmans.

Some of these retailers have removed more than 100 chemicals of concern from their own store brands. For example, Albertsons list 117 substances that are not used in their “Open Nature” store Brand. H-E-B includes 203 that are free from their “Select Ingredients” line of products. These chemicals include BHT and TBHQ, preservatives that have been linked to tumor promotion in animals and immune dysfunction. 

That’s not only good news for consumers. It also undercuts the false claims food companies are making right now to fight food safety bills in Congress.

Affordable foods with fewer harmful chemicals

EWG looked at the name and store brands of common grocery items sold by several national chains that have store brands that have committed to not use select food chemicals of concern, such as those found on EWG’s Dirty Dozen™ Food Chemicals. 

A few examples:

• Aldi Fruit Rounds, Mom’s Best Fruity Rings and Wegmans Frosted Fruit O’s are all cheaper alternatives to Kellogg’s Froot Loops – and are free of synthetic dyes.
• Trader Joe’s version of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups leave out the TBHQ.
• WalMart’s store brand, Great Value, has a version of Cheez-It that’s free from TBHQ and costs less than the name brand version.

Source: EWG review of retailer websites accessed July 28, 2026

Store brands are often cheaper than name brands. Soda is one product type where the store brand can be less expensive and contain fewer toxic chemicals. For example, Whole Foods’ lemon-lime soda is more than $1 less than Mountain Dew.  

This doesn’t mean that every store brand food is healthy. Sugary cereals, soda and candy are still full of sugar. But when consumers choose to enjoy these foods as part of a healthy diet, they should know that foods free of harmful chemicals don't require paying more for it. 

Yet that’s exactly what food companies have been telling Congress.

Industry deception

Some of your favorite food companies are telling lawmakers that removing toxic chemicals from food and food packaging will drive up the cost of food. 

Their industry front group falsely claims that state laws making our food safe would increase food prices. Food lobbyists have even hired “experts” who worked for chemical manufacturers like Dow to argue that food chemical ban bills would raise costs for consumers. 

But their math makes bogus assumptions about how consumers actually shop. And it ignores affordable alternatives sitting on the same shelf. In fact, it’s also contradicted by another food industry report that found two-thirds of all grocery retailers are reformulating brands to meet consumers’ demand for cleaner products. 

If reformulation were as costly as industry claims, retailers wouldn’t be doing it voluntarily, at scale, while keeping prices flat or lower. Their math simply does not add up. 

States are leading on food safety laws

States have banned many toxic chemicals from food and food packaging, including chemicals linked to cancer. 

The Food and Drug Administration, by contrast, has banned just two – and only after states had done so. So far, the second Trump FDA has not banned a single chemical of concern. Without state action, there is little hope that the worst food chemicals will be off our plates any time soon. 

We need the states to protect us. 

When it comes to the toxic chemicals in our food, the FDA has a long history of failure. It has largely allowed food chemical companies to decide which food chemicals are safe and permitted these companies to add new chemicals to food without the FDA’s knowledge. Proposals to narrow these loopholes are still just that: proposals. 

Some members of Congress now want to make things even worse.

They would block states from keeping our food safe, and would do so both retroactively and prospectively. This isn’t just about stopping states from passing new food safety protections. Their bill would also retroactively wipe out laws already in effect. 

In all, the proposal in Congress could preempt more than 100 state laws that keep our food safe from chemicals, contaminants and pathogens like cyclospora. 

Retailers are doing their part – removing many of the worst chemicals from their own store brands. But consumers shouldn’t have to worry about which brands they can trust every time they go to the grocery store. 

For consumers who want to find out more about what’s in their food, EWG’s Food Scores rates more than 150,000 foods and beverages based on nutrition, ingredients and level of processing. Food Scores also flags ultra-processed food and can point shoppers toward healthier alternatives.

Areas of Focus Food Authors Scott Faber August 27, 2026

‘The Great Reformulation’: How some grocery giants are cutting back on food chemicals Ketura Persellin August 24, 2026

Many grocery stores are meeting consumer demand by taking food chemicals off their shelves. 

More than 70% of U.S. adults are concerned about chemicals in their food and water – and they deserve better consumer protections than the federal government has given them.

Due to a legal loophole, almost 99% of all new food chemicals introduced in the past 20 years have been approved by companies themselves, rather than the Food and Drug Administration. The Trump administration recently took a step toward amending that loophole – but it may be years before people see changes in their shopping carts as a result.

Some grocery giants aren’t waiting to act on potentially harmful food chemicals.

Whole Foods is a leader, with a longstanding commitment to ban a lengthy list of ingredients throughout its store. H-E-B, the largest chain in Texas, has banned more than 200 ingredients of concern from its store brand products. Albertons, Kroger, Target and Wegmans have each removed around 100 food chemicals from their store brand items.

Food chemicals are just one feature of a food system that favors industry and leaves the public with too few options for eating well. But understanding how retailers are responding shows how the food landscape is shifting and can help point shoppers in the right direction.

Grocery stores have more control over store-brand products

The products at most grocery retailers fall into one of two categories: name brand goods like Cheerios, and store brand or “private label” goods like Kroger Toasted O’s. 

Private label brands make up close to 25% of most retail sales. Shoppers used to associate more affordable private label brands with lower quality. But that’s changing. More than half of consumers now say they can’t justify spending more on name brands when private label products meet their needs.  

But retailer pledges usually focus on these in-house brands because they own the product lines and have control over the supply chains, so they have more sway here than over manufacturers of brand name products.

‘The Great Reformulation’

Many major grocers are now capitalizing on consumer demand by removing ingredients or reformulating products – a trend one publication calls the Great Reformulation. Many stores’ restrictions and bans focus on ingredients like artificial colors, flavors, preservatives and sweeteners, and some include a much wider range of additives.

Here’s where some of the other top grocery retailers stand.

Retailers with clear commitments and results

Albertsons. The company has removed 110 ingredients from its private label brand, Open Nature. The brand is available in the company’s 20 grocery subsidiaries, including Jewel-Osco and Safeway.

H-E-B. The Texas staple’s store brands feature their Select Ingredients seal, indicating products are free from more than 203 ingredients.

Kroger. Kroger’s Simple Truth and Simple Truth Organic store brands date back more than a decade. As of 2021, its product lines were free of more than 101 ingredients.

Target. Target’s private label brand, Good & Gather, is free of more than 100 ingredients of concern. In 2026, Target announced it would remove synthetic dyes from all cereal sold in its stores.

Wegmans. Wegmans launched its Food You Feel Good About line in 1991, with restrictions on artificial colors, flavors, preservatives and sweeteners. Its website currently lists close to 100 ingredients of concern that are not used in its private label products.

Whole Foods. Whole Foods has had storewide standards for colors, flavors and preservatives since it opened its doors in 1980. Today a list of 300 banned or restricted chemicals is easy to find on the Whole Foods website. 

Retailers with commitments and some signs of success

Aldi. Aldi removed 13 ingredients, including artificial colors, from its store brand line more than a decade ago. This year, Aldi announced it would ban 44 more chemical ingredients from all of its private label foods, vitamins and supplements by December 2027. 

Trader Joe’s. Trader Joe’s inventory is dominated by its private label products. The store generally commits to no artificial colors, flavors or preservatives in their product – with some exceptions – but doesn’t offer a full list of banned ingredients.

Walmart. Last year, Walmart pledged to eliminate synthetic dyes and 30 other ingredients from its Great Value brand. Sam’s Club, which is owned by Walmart, has already removed more than 40 ingredients of concern from its Member’s Mark products.

Retailers with pledges but few signs of progress

Ahold Delhaize USA. In 2018, Ahold Delhaize USA – owner of Giant, Hannaford’s, Food Lion and Stop and Shop – pledged to remove all synthetic colors, artificial flavors, artificial preservatives, sweeteners, MSG and high fructose corn syrup from private label products by 2025. But their 2025 annual report made no mention of the initiative, and no updates have been issued since.

Retailers without public pledges

Costco. The company has yet to announce any commitment to remove ingredients of concern from its product line, Kirkland Signature. A proposed class-action lawsuit earlier this year accused Costco of falsely advertising “no preservatives” in its rotisserie chicken.

States are stepping in to regulate chemicals of concern 

States are also leading efforts to fill gaps in federal regulation.

A 2023 California law banned four toxic chemicals from food products manufactured, distributed or sold in the state, and a 2024 law banned six food chemicals from food served in public schools. 

Other states have since launched efforts to restrict ingredients in food sold in their stores. As of August, more than 150 bills had been introduced and 20 signed into law. Take a look at EWG’s interactive food legislation map to find out more.

When it comes to harmful chemicals in food and packaging, states are often better – and faster – at providing consumer protections than the federal government. State laws have been so effective that they’re now being targeted by the food and beverage industry, which is backing legislation that would erase many state consumer protections.

What to look for when you shop

For many families, it can be hard to eat healthy. Avoiding food chemicals of concern is one challenge among many others, including affordability, access and the addictive nature of many highly processed foods.

That’s why EWG pushes for policies that can make healthy eating easier for everyone. In the meantime, there are a few tools that can help you navigate the grocery store:

• Take a look at EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals™, which highlights some of the most concerning chemicals still allowed in the U.S. food supply.
• Consult EWG’s Food Scores to find out what’s in your food. Food Scores also flags unhealthy ultra-processed foods and can help you identify less-processed alternatives.
• Use our label reading guide. It helps you scan ingredient lists for items you wouldn’t have in your home kitchen, and make sure to check how much added sugar, salt and saturated fat is in your food.
• And when you’re on the go, check our Healthy Living app to find products.

Areas of Focus Ultra-Processed Foods Authors Ketura Persellin Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN August 25, 2026

Should ‘city slickers’ receive farm subsidies? Anthony Lacey August 24, 2026

Farm subsidies should go only to people living or working on a farm. 

That’s what Senate Agriculture Committee members Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) agreed on when the panel debated the farm bill earlier this month. Grassley, a long-time advocate for ensuring farm subsidy recipients are “actively engaged” on a farm, and Welch both said subsidies for people living in the country’s largest cities makes little sense. 

EWG has long held the same position. 

For years we’ve tracked the billions of dollars paid out in farm subsidies to people who don’t live or work on farms. We recently found that more than 92,000 “city slickers” living in some of the biggest metropolitan areas in the U.S. took in more than $2.6 billion in farm subsidies between 2020 and 2025.

Although it seems no one believes paying these city slickers makes sense, Republicans at the recent Senate farm bill hearing voted against doing anything about it.

‘Actively engaged’

Welch proposed a series of amendments to the pending farm bill that would ensure that people who collect subsidies live or work on a farm. They would also lower payment limits on those subsidies and address fraud in two of the largest farm subsidy programs. 

If adopted and enacted, these changes would help taxpayers and family farmers. 

One of his amendments would have simply required an audit of some farm subsidy recipients when a subsidy program has a high “error rate,” which indicates farmers may have been paid too much.

Welch suggested subsidies should go to people “on tractors” and offered the amendment to audit certain farms.

Grassley agreed, saying, “You and I believe that people who are actively engaged are the only ones who should be receiving farm payments.” 

Grassley also said runaway farm subsidies are driving up the cost of farming, making it harder for family farmers to compete with their larger, more heavily subsidized neighbors. “We should be helping those farmers who can’t help themselves,” not the biggest corporate farms collecting the lion’s share of farm subsidies, he said. 

When Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, in 2025, lawmakers enlarged loopholes that make it easier for the largest farm operations to get more money. 

The bill allowed every member of a farm partnership to collect up to $155,000, so long as the farm is organized as a pass-through entity, such as a joint venture, S corporation, or limited liability corporation.

Since the new law was enacted, the number of “city slickers” collecting farm subsidies has increased by 13,000 – even if some of those recipients never step foot on a farm. 

One of Welch’s amendments would have only required an audit when the “error rate” for two farm subsidy programs exceeded 6%. Agriculture Department studies show that the error rate for the two programs topped 6% in 2022 and 8% in 2023, resulting in more than $567 million in improper payments. 

Republicans have insisted that states should share more of the cost of anti-hunger programs when the error rate exceeds 6 percent, so simply requiring an audit when farm subsidy program error rates exceed 6 percent seems reasonable, right? 

Wrong. 

Grassley and other committee Republicans voted against Welch’s audit amendment. Democrats refuse to support the GOP farm bill in part because it fails to address deep funding cuts to anti-hunger programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP. 

So Grassley said he would not be able to support any amendments Democrats offer.

Dairy farm subsidies

Even Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) seemed to agree that farmers – or at least Welch’s dairy farmers – should have to live or work on farms if they receive farm subsidies. 

Unlike other farm subsidy programs – which can make a payment regardless of whether the “farmer” actually harvests a crop – dairy subsidies are automatically terminated if a dairy receiving them stops producing milk. 

Welch said that the principle – of subsidies going only to people who truly live and work on farms – should apply to all farmers, no matter what they produce.

He said, “Whether it’s the SNAP program or it’s a [farm] support program, the intention of Congress is that the actual farmer that gets the money or the actual person who is in need of nutrition gets the nutrition aid.” 

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Farm Subsidies Authors Geoff Horsfield August 24, 2026

EWG statement on decision upholding EPA ‘hazardous substances’ designation for two PFAS Monica Amarelo August 21, 2026

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court in a unanimous ruling this week rejected industry groups’ lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s  “hazardous substances” designation for two “forever chemicals” known as PFAS. 

The lawsuit, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, challenged the Biden EPA’s 2024 rule that, for the first time, designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the federal Superfund law, formally known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA. PFOA and PFOS are two of the most studied PFAS.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit, including one judge nominated by former President Barack Obama and two nominated by President Donald Trump, issued the Aug. 18 ruling. They found that the EPA acted within its CERCLA authority in making the designation. The court also found that holding polluters accountable for cleanup costs is a core purpose of the Superfund law.

The Environmental Working Group and a broad coalition of environmental, health and community advocates welcomed the designation when the EPA first proposed it, in 2022, and again when the agency finalized it, in 2024. 

The rule was long overdue, considering the scale of PFAS contamination nationwide. It gives the agency new tools to address PFOA and PFOS contamination at sites throughout the U.S.

The ruling means polluters, not taxpayers, will remain on the hook for cleanup costs at sites with PFOA and PFOS contamination – something EWG and its allies have long called for.

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

For decades, chemical giants like DuPont and 3M knew PFOA and PFOS were poisoning communities and covered it up anyway. This week, the D.C. Circuit made it clear: Companies don’t get to buy their way out of that legacy through litigation.

This ruling shuts the door on industry’s last-ditch attempt to dodge cleanup costs for two of the most notorious forever chemicals.

The science on PFAS harms has been clear for years. These chemicals are linked to weakened vaccine response, higher risk of certain cancers, thyroid disruption and harm to the developing reproductive system, even at extremely low levels.

The court didn’t just uphold a regulation. It upheld the basic principle that polluters, not taxpayers or contaminated communities, should pay to clean up the mess they make.

This isn’t the end of the fight.

With this precedent, the EPA has a clear legal path to designate the more hazardous PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances, and it should move quickly to do so.

###

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 Toxic Chemicals Chemical Policy PFAS Chemicals Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 August 21, 2026

Thanks to state laws, Dollar Tree is pledging to remove ‘forever chemicals’ from its shelves Monica Amarelo August 20, 2026

If you’ve ever wondered whether state chemical safety laws actually change what ends up on store shelves, Dollar Tree just answered: yes – and faster than consumers might think.

For years, the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS have turned up in personal care products, food packaging, children’s toys and household cleaners sold at dollar stores and everywhere else. Dollar Tree, which operates more than 8,000 stores in the U.S. and Canada, has now pledged to get PFAS out of its products.

Get Your FREE Copy of EWG's Guide To Avoiding PFAS Chemicals

In its chemical management policy, the retailer committed to restricting forever chemicals in its private-label food packaging, children’s products and toys, and formulated products like cleaning supplies and personal care items. By the end of 2027, Dollar Tree suppliers must be able to declare in writing that PFAS haven’t been intentionally added.

Dollar Tree didn’t just decide one day on its own to get tougher on chemicals. It made the change in part because states took decisive action. 

States led, retailers followed

Dollar Tree’s policy explicitly follows restrictions “already adopted in some states.” That’s not a coincidence. It’s exactly how state chemical safety laws are designed to work.

• 13 states now ban PFAS in food packaging, starting with Washington, in 2022.
• 9 states restrict PFAS in children’s products and toys, from California (since 2023) through Illinois (phasing in by 2032).
• 12 states restrict PFAS in cosmetics and personal care products
• 6 states restrict PFAS in household cleaners specifically

For more information on states’ regulation of PFAS as a class in consumer products, visit Safer States. The organization tracks the compliance year for each law, category by category.

Nearly every category in Dollar Tree’s new policy corresponds to one or more specific state laws. 

One retailer’s policy has a national impact

State chemical safety laws typically exert an influence that extends beyond their own borders. 

When a state bans PFAS in one product category, national retailers face a choice: Maintain two (or more) separate supply chains, one complying with a specific state’s law and one that doesn’t and is sold everywhere else, or simplify their production lines by using the safer version only.

Increasingly, companies choose to streamline. It’s cheaper to run one supply chain than two. 

And once a retailer builds the infrastructure to screen out a chemical for California, Maine or Minnesota, it’s fairly straightforward, and good business, to apply that standard nationwide. 

So a law enacted by one state can ultimately protect shoppers in every state, whether or not other states’ lawmakers act.

This is precisely the ripple effect EWG and our state group partners have been fighting for, bill by bill, state by state, targeting toxic chemicals, including PFAS.

Tackling additional chemicals

Other chemicals of concern, such as bisphenols, formaldehyde and parabens, are on Dollar Tree’s list to remove from its private-label products. The retailer’s updated policy lays out real deadlines, not just intentions:

• Formaldehyde-releasing chemicals will be phased out of private-brand formulated products by the end of 2028.
• Two parabens – propylparaben and butylparaben – are already restricted. Four more will be added by 2028, bringing the total to six restricted parabens, all linked to hormone disruption.
• Bisphenol A and bisphenol S, chemicals of concern in food-contact materials, will be restricted from food packaging by 2028.

Within two years, Dollar Tree will also cut in half – as measured against a 2026 baseline – the number of household cleaners and air fresheners containing restricted chemicals.

Starting in 2027, the company has committed to reporting publicly on its progress, including the share of its private-label formulated products that can be fully screened for chemicals of concern, and the share of the screened assortment that’s free of them. 

PFAS exposure health risks

States are targeting PFAS in particular because they don’t break down in the environment or in the human body, so even low, repeated doses build up over time – that’s why they’re called forever chemicals. 

Research links exposure to weakened vaccine response, higher risk of certain cancers, thyroid disruption and harm to the developing reproductive system.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies. The chemicals cross the placenta and have been detected in umbilical cord blood, confirming that exposure can begin before birth.

That’s the health backdrop behind the categories Dollar Tree’s policy targets first: children’s products and toys, food packaging and formulated products such as cleaning supplies and personal care items.

What this means if you shop at Dollar Tree

Dollar Tree’s intentions are clear, and states pushed the company toward them. But not every product on its shelves will be PFAS-free tomorrow. These are phased-in commitments with multi-year timelines, not an overnight transformation. 

You don’t have to wait until 2027 to shop smarter. Here’s are a few things you can do now:

• Check the Healthy Living™ app before you buy. Search a cleaning or personal care product by name, or scan its barcode in the store, for its EWG rating and the science behind the score. Then compare options side by side to choose with confidence.
• Look for the EWG Verified® mark. Products carrying it already meet strict standards to avoid intentionally added PFAS and other chemicals of concern. You don’t need to wait for retailers.
• Use Food Scores for packaged food. Check ingredients, whether or not it’s an ultra-processed food and packaging concerns where available, before it goes in your cart.

Areas of Focus Food Personal Care Products Cosmetics Household & Consumer Products Cleaning Supplies Cookware & Food Containers Family Health BPA PFAS Chemicals Your wallet and your family’s health will both benefit Authors Monica Amarelo August 20, 2026

Restoring cuts to two USDA programs will help more farmers adopt regenerative agriculture Anthony Lacey August 20, 2026

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 these programs are in danger of even more cuts.

House and Senate Republicans are floating farm bill proposals that would further reduce funding for the Agriculture Department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, and Conservation Stewardship Program, or CSP. 

The bill as written would leave more than 56,500 valid farmer applications unfunded by EQIP over the next few fiscal years. The key states set to be hit hardest by estimated cuts and unfunded valid contracts are:

• Arkansas – $81.6 million and 2,232 contracts
• Alabama – $35.9 million and 2,171 contracts
• Kansas – $51.6 million and 1,593 contracts
• West Virginia – $17 million and 661 contracts 
• Georgia – $62.8 million and 2,411 contracts
• Colorado – $56.5 million and 822 contracts

Regenerative agriculture practices such as cover crops and riparian buffers can help increase farm resilience and profitability while also improving the environment. Although they need reform, these programs help reduce agriculture’s air and water pollution, and add to farm resilience. 

Independent analysis has found between 70% and 120% higher profitability for farms that adopt regenerative agriculture practices and a return on investment of 15% to 25% over 10 years. Restoring funding for EQIP and CSP could help more farmers adopt practices that should also help secure their future financial stability.

Preventing those cuts could provide tens of thousands of farmers with continued support for vital conservation projects. Two amendments to the draft farm bill, offered by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), would restore funding to the programs.

If Congress adopts either amendment, significantly more farmers would receive EQIP and CSP support than they would under the current Republican bill. 

EQIP and CSP funding

In 2024, nearly $1.9 billion in USDA conservation support went to practices that increase regenerative agriculture. But as available funding shrank, in 2025, federal support for those regenerative practices dropped by more than $1 billion.

As money for these popular programs disappears, fewer and fewer farmers are able to receive the support they need. In contrast, when funding is available for these programs, existing participants put more funding into good practices and more farmers are able to take part.

The EQIP and CSP are two of the largest federal conservation programs. They are vital to helping farmers adopt regenerative agriculture practices. 

The White House’s own Make America Healthy Again strategy highlighted the importance of expanding the two programs: 

Empowering farmers and keeping solutions voluntary by expanding programs like the Environmental Quality Incentive Program and Conservation Stewardship Program, all while avoiding burdensome mandates; [and] keeping decision-making local and practical with solutions from the farm, not Washington, D.C.

Despite the Trump administration strategy, the House-passed farm bill and the Senate version under consideration would cut the two programs by over $2.4 billion.  

The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, included billions more dollars for EQIP and CSP as an opportunity for farmers and ranchers.

Before the IRA funding, just 31% of applicants received an EQIP contract, leaving a backlog of thousands of farmers and ranchers. Following the IRA funding, 43% of farmers received EQIP funding for 2024. 

States had made progress with the IRA funding in  eliminating a backlog of applications – and the additional funding inspired more farmers to apply. 

All farmers and ranchers, regardless of what they grow or where they live, are eligible for conservation funding. That means the farmers who grow fruits and vegetables – the food that the dietary guidelines for Americans and doctors tell us to eat – are more likely to get this money than traditional subsidies. 

Farmers of color, beginning farmers and women are also much more likely to receive EQIP and CSP funds than farm subsidies. If Congress wants to support these farmers and ranchers, conservation programs have an outsized role to play. 

Regenerative agriculture funding went down in 2025

EWG found that EQIP obligations to farmers were $1.82 billion across all practices for fiscal year 2025. Of this pot of money, 43%, or $790.6 million, went to farmers for practices that were on EWG’s list of regenerative practices.

Due to the additional funding from the IRA, total EQIP obligations in fiscal year 2024 were $2.6 billion. Of this, $1.88 billion, or 45%, went to practices that were regenerative. Funding for these practices greatly decreased between 2024 and 2025. 

Through public records requests, EWG received data for USDA obligations made in 2025.  We used data from the USDA’s Financial Assistance Program Data Dashboard for 2024 obligations. 

Farm bill conservation cuts would hurt farmers

The upcoming farm bill must maintain conservation funding, especially for regenerative practices. 

Farmers and ranchers have been promised this money – Congress shouldn’t take it away. The stakes are too high. 

Restoring funding for the two USDA programs would not only reduce agriculture’s environmental and climate impact. It could 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.  

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Conservation Authors Geoff Horsfield August 20, 2026

We checked 12 fast food chains for ultra-processed ingredients. Only one had none Anthony Lacey August 20, 2026

Fast food chains – think popular places like KFC, McDonald’s and Pizza Hut – can be quick and easy places to grab a meal. And many of us do.

U.S. families get almost a third of their calories from somewhere other than home.

But if you’re looking to eat less ultra-processed food, or UPF, eating out can be a challenge. 

Diets high in UPF have been linked to many poor health outcomes, including Type 2 diabetes, depression, heart disease and even early death. 

Unlike companies that sell packaged food, restaurants aren't required to post ingredient lists. And the food industry has pressured the government to delay a much-needed definition of UPF, which could support policies that help people make healthier choices.

EWG took a closer look at the menus from 12 of the top fast food spots in the U.S. to help families on the go find less-processed options:

• Arby’s
• Burger King
• Chick-fil-A
• Chipotle
• Dominos
• KFC
• McDonald’s
• Panera
• Pizza Hut
• Subway
• Taco Bell
• Wendy’s

There was one surprising standout: Chipotle’s food menu contains no ultra-processed ingredients.

Some of the other places offer a few non-UPF options, if you know how to look for them.

53 ingredients, none ultra-processed

Because fast food chains aren’t required to make ingredient lists public, our review was limited to the most recent information available online. It isn’t a comprehensive look at all fast food – but it does suggest that some chains, like Chipotle, are better than others when it comes to ultra-processed food.

Every menu item at Chipotle is made from some combination of 53 total ingredients. That includes the flour used to make tortillas, vegetables for guacamole and salsa, and seasonings to prepare beans, rice, meat and poultry. It also includes the rennet and cultures used to make cheese. 

That doesn’t mean you should make every meal a burrito bowl. Depending on which ingredients you choose, nutrients like sodium and saturated fat can quickly climb above the average adult’s recommended daily limit. 

But if you keep those caveats in mind, you can get a good amount of nutrients, vitamins and minerals from whole food sources.

Other less-processed options

At most other fast food restaurants, it’s harder to find a meal that isn’t ultra-processed.

That’s because industrial ingredients are a cheap way to mass produce flavorful foods with long shelf lives. They also help create consistency – the reason a Big Mac in Los Angeles tastes the same as a Big Mac in Kansas City.

But some options are better than others:

Soups, salads and grain bowls that aren’t built on highly processed breads

Most burger buns, pizza crusts and sandwich breads at fast food chains are made with highly processed, enriched flour with low nutritional value. They may also contain potentially harmful chemicals like azodicarbonamide, or ADA, potassium bromate and TBHQ.

Chicken, fish and tofu that hasn’t been breaded – or beans

Sandwich meat and pizza toppings like pepperoni or sausage are ultra-processed and have been strongly linked to higher cancer risk. Most breaded or fried chicken and fish fillets at fast food restaurants are ultra-processed because of the way they’re prepared.

Basic dressings and seasonings like olive oil, vinegar, salt and pepper

Dressings, dips and sauces are common sources of artificial colors, flavors, emulsifiers, stabilizers, thickeners and other additives. Chick-fil-A’s fat-free honey mustard dressing alone has more than 20 different ingredients. You can also try just using less.

Some sides and breakfast items

Many restaurants also offer minimally processed sides like applesauce, fruit, corn on the cob and house or side salads (not including dressing).

Panera’s breakfast menu offers Greek yogurt with berries and steel-cut oats with strawberries and pecans, made mostly of minimally processed foods, though each has added sugar.

Drinks like water, black coffee, and unsweetened iced teas

Most sodas and other sweet drinks – including specialty coffee drinks – are either high in added sugar or contain artificial sweeteners like aspartame or sucralose. Taco Bell’s dirty sodas can have more than 100 grams of added sugar, which is double the recommended daily limit.

When it comes to food, being basic is a good thing. When in doubt, look for foods you recognize and flavors you could probably create in your own kitchen.

For some help eating healthier

It’s not practical for people to avoid every ultra-processed food. There’s a reason our food supply is full of them: They’re widely available, affordable, appealing for consumers and extremely profitable for companies. 

The Food and Drug Administration isn’t helping – at least not yet. It has repeatedly failed to regulate ultra-processed foods and has delayed an official definition of UPF. Instead, in August it sent a white paper on defining UPF for White House pre-publication review, several steps removed from a formal definition that could support policies like front-of-package labeling and school nutrition standards.

But you can start simple by making a few healthier swaps. Check if your favorite restaurants post ingredient lists and nutrition facts. Look for more whole foods and avoid longer lists of ingredients you wouldn’t find in a home kitchen.

When it comes to grocery shopping, you can check EWG's Food Scores, which rates more than 150,000 products on nutrition, ingredients and processing, and flags UPF for you. 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.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN Guest Authors Adam Levin (EWG communications intern) August 20, 2026

EWG: California’s extreme heat, soaring utility bills make cooling unaffordable for millions Anthony Lacey August 19, 2026

SACRAMENTO – California is experiencing more frequent and dangerous heat days, but sky-high utility bills mean millions of people can’t afford to run air conditioning that could keep them safe, a new Environmental Working Group report finds. 

EWG is calling on policy makers to prioritize solutions like customer-sited solar electric devices that can drastically lower or eliminate annual utility costs for air conditioning. 

Heat advisory days defined as “extreme” or “major” – those threatening the health of anyone without cooling or hydration – jumped an average of 55% statewide over the last two decades, the report shows. Increases in the number of these days ranged from 30% to 145% depending on the region.

At the same time, California families are spending $4 billion a year on home air conditioning, adding$95 to $800 to annual utility bills. Almost 7 million ratepayers are already in some form of utility debt and paying some of the highest electricity bills in the U.S.

The result is an impossible choice for many households: Either risk the harmful effects of exposure to extreme heat or get needed cooling relief and fall further behind on utility bills.

“California is getting hotter and many families throughout the state can’t afford to stay safe from the heat because electricity is so expensive,” said Josh Wink, EWG fellow and report co-author. “Californians shouldn’t have to pick between making ends meet or suffering the health threats of extreme heat, but that’s the situation millions are now in.”

Heat risk is rising fast

EWG found California counties averaged 191 days, or 52.3%, of the year that the National Weather Service defines as experiencing major or extreme heat risk. 

These days put people at risk of heat stroke, severe dehydration, mental health challenges, and other forms of heat injury. Even “minor” hot days can threaten the safety of heat-sensitive people, although the major and extreme days are of the biggest concern.

The increase in these days over the last 20 years includes:

• San Francisco: 145% increase
• Sacramento County: 111.4% increase
• Santa Clara County: 100% increase
• Riverside County: 58.1% increase
• Fresno: 54.6% increase
• San Diego County: 40.2% increase
• Los Angeles County: 30.8% increase

Rising heat isn’t just an inland problem. Traditionally mild coastal regions are also seeing steep jumps in major and extreme heat days, though the range varies significantly. For example, San Francisco saw 2 days on average compared to 42 days in San Bernardino County, with other areas falling somewhere between both ranges.

While coastal communities experience less frequent extreme heat, they are also the least equipped to cope with the soaring heat. Only 70% of these communities have home air conditioning compared to 92%in inland counties, according to U.S. Census data. In some areas, like San Francisco, it’s as low as 35%.

Renters also lack equal access to air conditioning. Statewide, 64% of two- to four-bedroom apartment units have air conditioning, EWG found, compared with 80% of single-family homes statewide. 

“The negative effects of climate change, such as extremes of heat, wildfire smoke, and air pollution are associated with early pregnancy loss, preterm births, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and stillbirth,” said Dr. Hayley Miller, an assistant professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at University of California, San Francisco.

“Heat stress symptoms in pregnant patients do overlap with common pregnancy complications like nausea, muscle cramps, rashes, nosebleeds, dehydration, even contractions similar to preterm labor symptoms,” Miller added.

Access to a vital resource

“We often hear from our partners who do home visits for asthma about families having to choose between opening their windows to cool their homes but allowing the smoke in and impacting their child's asthma or keeping their windows closed so their child can breathe, but suffering from unsafe temperatures in the house,” said Brandon Kitagawa, Senior Policy Associate with Regional Asthma Management & Prevention, a project of the Public Health Institute. 

“To be clear, making homes resilient to extreme heat will be difficult. It will require significant investment in building retrofits and eliminating barriers to implementation, but the benefits for our communities’ health and wellbeing is worth it. 

“We will need every tool at our disposal to address this challenge, so we are happy to see the state considering steps to make the adoption of balcony solar easier in California, as it would reduce the cost of using air conditioning, particularly when it is most needed,” added Kitagawa.

According to U.S. Census data, 78.61% of California households statewide have access to air conditioning devices at home, but that prevalence varies widely by dwelling type and region. 

“No matter where someone lives in California, they are facing heat risks that would have been unimaginable two decades ago. Many are in homes not built for this kind of heat,” said Wink.

Even though home cooling is a vital resource, ever-increasing utility bills mean some residents opt against using air conditioning to prevent making the bills even worse. An estimated 7 million Californians are behind on their bills.

Clean, reliable solar power can help

Customer-sited solar electric generating devices – whether rooftop solar or smaller balcony solar systems – are a proven way to bring down or even fully cover cooling costs, EWG’s research shows. 

A typical residential rooftop solar system generates enough electricity to cover a home’s central air conditioning needs for a year. Even a balcony plug-in solar system can help, producing enough power to offset the electricity that a window air conditioning unit needs.

But red tape makes it hard for many Californians to access solar. That’s why EWG is supporting SB 868, introduced by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). If enacted, it would cut through those barriers and make it easier for renters and homeowners to get these systems. The bill cleared the Senate in May and is pending in the Assembly.

“Access to balcony solar is a no-brainer in terms of lowering people's costs, increasing generation of clean, renewable energy, and just giving people the ability to control at least part of their energy future,” said Wiener. “So it's really important and I'm really excited that we're almost at the finish line.”

EWG recommends that state policymakers prioritize expanding access to residential solar of all types and sizes in response to the extreme heat.

NOTE: EWG hosted a virtual press briefing on the new analysis featuring Josh Wink, Dr. Hayley Miller, Brandon Kitagawa and Sen. Scott Weiner. The recording of the event can be found here.

###

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

Areas of Focus Energy Renewable Energy Family Health California Balcony and rooftop solar could cover home cooling costs, if policy makers prioritize access Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 August 19, 2026

California’s rising heat and soaring utility bills make vital cooling unaffordable for many Anthony Lacey August 19, 2026 Bernadette Del Chiaro Rooftop and balcony solar systems can help provide immediate relief Josh Wink (EWG fellow) August 19, 2026 Overview

• California’s total number of hot days ranging from “moderate” to “extreme” heat has risen 12.9% over the past 20 years
• Depending on the region, the state now experiences 2 to 42 days a year of dangerous “major” or “extreme” heat — a 55% average increase over the last two decades
• To cope with California’s heat, consumers spend $4 billion per year on air conditioning, ranging from $95 to $800 annually per family
• Electricity from customer-sited rooftop and balcony solar can fully offset these costs, addressing affordability and reducing strain on the electric grid on hot, summer days

California has always been warm but climate change is driving up “major” and “extreme” heat advisories between 30% and 145% in parts of the state, new EWG research finds. Yet soaring electricity costs make home cooling unaffordable for millions, threatening public health.

This dynamic creates an impossible choice for many Californians struggling with affordability: suffer during hazardous heat or default on electricity bills.

The National Weather Service defines what qualifies as a certain heat day, and EWG’s report relies on those definitions. Even “minor” heat days can threaten the safety of heat-sensitive people. “Major” and “extreme” heat days threaten everyone’s health if people can’t get hydration and/or cooling. These latter two types of days put everyone at risk of heat stroke, severe dehydration, mental health challenges and other forms of heat injury.

On average, California saw a 55% increase in the number of heat advisory days classified as major or extreme over the last 20 years, EWG found. Certain counties saw higher numbers of days classified as major or extreme heat than others.           

CountyPercentage increase (2006-2015 vs. 2016-2025)Average major and extreme heat risk days (2015-2024)San Bernardino61.2%42Riverside58.1%34Los Angeles30.8%33San Diego40.2%21Fresno54.6%13San Francisco145%2

And it’s not just major and extreme heat days on the uptick. The total number of days deemed anywhere from “moderate” to “extreme” rose by 12.9% over the last two decades.

Air conditioning can bring much-needed relief, but EWG’s research found that home access to cooling in the state varies widely between traditionally hotter climates versus cooler climates, as well as by housing type. 

According to U.S. Census data, 92% of Californians living in inland counties, for example, have access to an air conditioner inside the home, compared to just 70% in coastal areas. And all along the Central and Northern coast, including San Francisco, community-wide rates are as low as 35%. Furthermore, just 64% of two- to four-bedroom unit apartments statewide have access to air conditioning, EWG found. 

This means the jump in major and extreme events in these areas creates a unique public health threat that many families lack the equipment to manage. 

But access to an air conditioner is only half the equation – being able to afford to run it is the other half. California consumers spend $4 billion per year on residential air conditioning. These costs amount to $95 to $800 in extra utility bill costs annually per family.

Almost 7 million California households are behind in their utility bill payments. Many of these families may be forced to choose to go without air conditioning rather than risk adding to their already sky-high charges. This can create public health risks for these families. People shouldn’t have to choose between affordability and their health.

Policymakers need to look for solutions that tackle both the heat and utility bills. One step is doing more to expand consumer access to distributed generation devices, such as rooftop solar or balcony solar, that can help power electricity-hungry air conditioners more cost effectively and without contributing to climate change or adding strain to the electric grid.  

A hot state gets hotter

EWG used NWS data to calculate heat risk across the state, using the NWS definitions for types of heat (see Table 1): 

Table 1. NWS heat risk definitions

Heat classificationDescriptionMinorPrimarily affects those who are extremely sensitive to heat and without cooling/hydrationModerateAffects those who are sensitive to heat, especially those without cooling/hydration, and some health systems and industriesMajorAffects anyone without cooling/hydration as well as health systems and industriesExtremeRare and/or long-duration extreme heat with no overnight relief affecting anyone without cooling/hydration as well as health systems, industries, and infrastructure

California is a hot state. Over the last decade, California counties averaged at least 191 days per year, or 52.3% of the days, experiencing some level of heat risk. 

On these days, air conditioning is desirable for people’s comfort and productivity. Indoor cooling can also be a public health necessity on even moderate heat days for sensitive populations, such as infants, young children, seniors, pregnant women and those with medical conditions.   

Major and extreme heat risk is also on the rise in California, with the state seeing a greater increase in the proportion of days that fall into these two categories over the last two decades. On these days, anyone without cooling or hydration is at risk of injury from the heat.

From 2006 to 2015, the state averaged 3.12% of days defined as major or extreme heat risk. This ticked up to an average of 4.81% of days from 2016 to 2025. While this is just a 1.69 percentage point increase, it represents a startling 54.2% spike in the proportion of major or extreme heat risk days in California (see Figures 1 and 2). This amounts to a growth from 11 days per year to 17.5 days per year labeled as major or extreme. 

Figure 1. Proportion of heat risk days reaching “major” or “extreme” levels     

Image

Dark red represents three-year moving average, solid black represents the overall trend and gray represents the annual data

Figure 2. Proportion of heat risk days reaching “moderate” levels

Image

Orange line represents three-year moving average of moderate days, solid represents the overall trend and gray represents the annual data

Different regions are seeing a greater rise in major and extreme heat than others although nearly every region in the state is seeing some level of uptick of extreme heat.  

CountyPercentage increase (2005-2014 vs. 2015-2024)Average major and extreme heat risk days (2015-2024)San Bernardino61.2%42Riverside58.1%34Los Angeles30.8%33San Diego40.2%21Fresno54.6%13Sacramento111.4%10Santa Clara100%5Santa Barbara36.8%4Sonoma36.7%4San Francisco145%2Importance of air conditioning

As more Californians face increased extreme heat, access to air conditioning becomes more important.

According to U.S. Census data, 78.61% of California households statewide have access to air conditioning devices at home, but that prevalence varies widely by dwelling type and region. 

Statewide, 80% of single-family homes have air conditioning, whereas only 64% of two- to four-bedroom apartments have air conditioning. 

EWG’s research also found that while 92% of all households in inland counties have air conditioning, that number drops to 70% in coastal counties. Many coastal counties, like San Francisco, see air conditioning rates less than half those of their inland neighbors (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Air conditioning prevalence across California counties

Image

AC access rate represents the percent of occupied households with functional ai conditioning access

Further elevating the challenges with rising heat is the fact that more of the state’s population is staying home than ever before. Today, 13% of Californians work from home. Many Californians are also primarily at home during the hot summer months due to many reasons ranging from seasonal work schedules, school breaks, and being permanently at home due to health issues.      

Affordability and sky-high utility bills

With major and extreme heat on the rise combined with the fact that California has the second highest average electricity rates in the nation, California faces the dual problem of public health threats from heat and energy affordability. 

This general upward trend in heat adds to California’s cost of living challenges. Consumers in the state collectively spend $4 billion per year on residential air conditioning, which can only be expected to go up as the state continues to get hotter and air conditioning becomes a greater necessity for more Californians.     

For individual households, based on peak summer rates for the least and most expensive utility service territories, the cost of running home air conditioners in California breaks down to: 

• $95 to $529 per year for an average 1-bedroom apartment, depending on the utility service territory.

• $450 to $800 per year for an average sized single-family home, depending on the utility service territory. 

Not everyone can afford to pay their utility bill even if they have access to an air conditioning device inside their home. Almost 7 million California ratepayers are in some form of utility debt (see Figure 4).

The investor-owned utility service territories with the highest arrears are mostly in the Central Valley, which also has the highest rates of air conditioning prevalence and high heat.

Figure 4. Q3 2024 utilities arrears in California by ZIP code

Image

Map represents total count of customers more than 30 days in arrears. Note: This map does not include customers in publicly owned utility territories.

Solar solutions can provide relief

With temperatures continuing to rise, California policymakers should do more to increase access to customer-sited solar energy solutions that can help make cooling more affordable, along with other solutions like energy efficiency.

Self-generation of electricity, either from a rooftop solar system or from a smaller balcony solar system, are two proven methods for reducing home energy bills while powering necessary air conditioning, reducing strain on the electric grid and helping fight climate change. 

There are different ways for consumers to get access to cost-saving solar energy technologies. 

The most common are professionally-installed solar photovoltaic systems. Over two million systems are located on residential properties throughout California, including hundreds of multi-family apartment buildings. These systems are hard-wired into the building and typically located on roofs but can also be built on elevated canopies over parking lots. 

These rooftop solar systems can fully cover air conditioning costs and power needs. A central air conditioning system in an average sized single-family home requires 1,372 kilowatt-hours per year according to the California Energy Commission. This is an average number. Single-family homes located in hotter regions will likely use much more electricity for cooling. 

The average residential rooftop solar system has a capacity of 6,000 watts. In California, a 6,000-watt system can be expected to generate 9,000 kilowatt hours of electricity saving families an average of $3,120 per year. Full details of EWG’s justification for the estimated costs, savings and power generation of solar systems are in the report's methodology.

When combined with home energy efficiency upgrades, these systems dramatically reduce home energy costs and allow residents to cool their homes without worrying about going into debt with their electricity bills just to stay safe during major or extreme heat events.

Benefits of balcony solar

Balcony solar, also known as plug-in solar, is another emerging form of customer-sited solar energy.  It uses the same technology found on roofs but these systems are smaller, portable and easy to install by residents.

Over the course of a year, even the smallest balcony solar system will offset the electrical costs of running a window air conditioning unit during the hot summer months.

For example, a small 180-watt balcony solar system could generate 284 kilowatt hours in a year. A small window air conditioner unit requires 289 kilowatt hours in a year, so a balcony solar system could offset that unit’s electricity needs throughout the year. This would help keep people cool in the summer without adding to their annual budget.

A larger plug in solar system that is 1,200 watts in size could generate 1,892 kilowatt-hours in a year, enough to offset a large central air conditioning system which consumes 1,372 kilowatt-hours on average. These balcony solar systems could save consumers anywhere from $95 to $800 per year on utility bill savings depending on size and location.

SB 868, a bill introduced in the California Senate by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), would open up opportunities for California consumers to access balcony or plug-in solar systems. EWG is sponsoring the legislation because it offers an environmentally-friendly financial lifeline at a time of high utility bills.

For those who live or work from home, access to solar-powered air conditioning is obvious. For those who work outside the home, pre-cooling the home or apartment during the day can also help lower electric bill costs. 

Additionally, adding a battery to either a rooftop or balcony system can enhance savings and give consumers greater flexibility in deciding when to run air conditioners. 

Need for quick action

California has always been one of the hottest states in the country. Due to climate change, the heat facing the state is getting more severe. This increased heat means increased need to run air conditioners which, given rising electricity prices, creates a dual problem for consumers. 

The state must take the lead on implementing helpful policy solutions that make it easier for Californians to access money-saving balcony and rooftop solar systems. With no foreseeable end to the rising temperatures or utility rates, this leadership is vital for both energy affordability and for public safety.

Four EWG-sponsored California consumer choice, safety bills clear key spending committees JR Culpepper August 13, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Four bills sponsored by the Environmental Working Group this week cleared appropriations committees in the California Legislature, sending the legislation for full floor votes as state lawmakers enter their final voting stretch before adjournment.

The bills target some of the most pressing consumer health and affordability issues facing Californians: toxic “forever chemical” pesticides, undisclosed chemicals in baby diapers, America’s addiction to ultra-processed foods and sky-high electricity bills. 

“Sacramento lawmakers have a chance this month to prove, once again, why California continues to reshape the national marketplace on health and safety,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG's senior vice president for California. 

“Each of these bills reflects something simple: people deserve transparency, and they deserve affordable options that don't compromise their health,” she added.

Using solar to lower sky-high electricity bills (Senate Bill 868)

SB 868, the Plug and Play Solar Act, would cut the red tape blocking affordable balcony solar systems from being placed in apartments, condos and single-family homes, while ensuring the systems meet strict safety standards. The bill sustained some extensive amendments in the Assembly Appropriations Committee that have yet to be reviewed and analyzed. 

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network, and now heads for an Assembly floor vote.

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

“We have yet to see the amendments to the bill and can’t yet comment on their significance,” she added.

California electricity rates have nearly doubled over the past decade, leaving the state with the nation's second-highest energy prices. 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, EWG expects SB 868 would enable broader adoption of the systems, making them more accessible to low-income households.

Balcony solar already thrives in Europe, with more than 4 million systems installed in Germany alone, and efforts to expand deployment continue to gather steam in other countries. 

In the U.S., regulatory barriers have kept the technology out of reach for many – barriers SB 868 would remove while setting statewide safety standards. 

Other states are moving in the same direction, including New York, where a balcony solar bill now awaits Gov. Kathy Hochul's signature.

Widespread use of PFAS pesticides (Assembly Bill 1603)

AB 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would address the use of toxic "forever chemicals" pesticides allowed for use in California. It now heads to the Senate floor.

More than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to California crops each year, contaminating produce, soil and water. EWG research found PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of peaches, nectarines and plums tested by the state.

As introduced, AB 1603 would have banned the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides statewide by 2035, paused new state approvals immediately, phased out by 2030 the PFAS pesticides not permitted in Europe, and required public disclosure of PFAS pesticide use.

Under pressure from the pesticide industry and agricultural interests, the bill's author agreed to remove the ban provisions and other restrictions, in order to keep the legislation moving.  

Even in its amended form, AB 1603 is an important step forward as it represents growing legislative concern about regulating PFAS as a class of chemicals, and it marks the first time California has required the state to systematically track and disclose PFAS pesticide use, information state agencies didn't have before EWG's research brought it to light.

“We need to stop spraying our strawberries and peaches with toxic forever chemicals,” said Susan Little, EWG's California legislative director.  “We are contaminating our food and water supplies and it needs to stop.”  

“With this bill, we are calling a spade a spade so that farmers and the public alike can be aware of the extent of this problem and we can continue to address it,” she added.

Of the thousands of PFAS used in commerce, very few have comprehensive toxicity data, but what we do know is alarming: the health harms linked to the most well-studied PFAS, including cancer, immune suppression, and reproductive and developmental harm, show up at doses far lower than regulators once considered safe. 

Baby diapers made of mystery chemicals (Assembly Bill 1901)

AB 1901, by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), would require manufacturers of children's diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose all intentionally added ingredients, both on product packaging and online.

EWG is co-sponsoring the bill alongside Consumer Reports, the Center for Environmental Health and Children Now. AB 1901 now heads to a full Senate floor vote.

Babies spend much of their first two to three years of life in diapers. Yet disposable diapers are exempt by the federal government from carrying ingredient labels of any kind, and manufacturers are not required to inform regulators about the chemicals used to make them.

Today, manufacturers can hide dozens of chemicals behind umbrella terms like “fragrance” or “colors,” potentially toxic mystery cocktails that leave parents with no way of knowing what chemicals sit against their baby's skin day after day.

“A newborn can't choose what touches their skin, and right now, neither can their parents because manufacturers have made sure of it,” said EWG’s Little. 

“Every hour of every day, an infant's skin is absorbing whatever industry decided not to tell us about. Parents can read a nutrition label or a shampoo label but not this. AB 1901 isn't asking for anything radical. It's asking for diapers to contain ingredient labels that are similar to labels  required of other baby products,” she added.

Recent tests have found diapers may contain volatile organic compounds; phthalates, linked to hormone disruption and reproductive and developmental harm; quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, used in wetness indicators and linked to reproductive effects, skin irritation and asthma; and 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 these exposures.

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

What is and isn't ultra-processed food (Assembly Bill 2244)

AB 2244, by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would create a first-of-its-kind state certification program allowing shoppers to easily identify foods that are not ultra-processed, or UPF. These foods make up more than two-thirds of children's diets and more than half of the typical adult diet in the U.S., and have been linked to serious health harms including cancer, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders and mental health issues.

If enacted, the bill would establish a standardized “Non-Ultraprocessed Certified” label. Products could carry the new label if they are classified as “not UPF” under state law. The legislation will next get a full Senate floor vote.

The California Department of Public Health would oversee accreditation of independent certification agents, with products subject to recertification at least every three years. Certification agents would be required to register with the state, disclose all certified products, and submit to state audits at any time, with a public online list of certified products and enforcement against misuse of the label.

“Parents shouldn't need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they're feeding their kids,” said Del Chiaro. “AB 2244 will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives like flavors. This new seal doesn't limit consumer choice, it just makes informed choice possible.”

 “Consumers deserve labels they can trust. And families deserve a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory,” she added.

The bill would also require large food retailers, those selling more than 25 individual non-UPF-certified product types and generating more than $10 million in annual sales, to display certified products in a way that's easy for shoppers to identify, such as through special signage or physical separation in stores. 

What's next

If lawmakers pass the bills, they would head to Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk for his signature.

“California has an opportunity, once again, to show the rest of the country what real consumer protection looks like,” Del Chiaro said. “We're urging lawmakers to finish the job on all four of these bills.”

###

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.

Legislation covers diaper chemicals, PFAS pesticides, solar and ultra-processed food Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 August 13, 2026

EWG applauds California’s phase-out of toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s and other diseases Anthony Lacey August 10, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today applauded the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s announcement that all manufacturers of pesticide products containing paraquat-dichloride have voluntarily cancelled their registrations that allow them to sell paraquat in the state.

The decision starts the phase-out of one of the most toxic weedkillers in use in California agriculture. It’s a major step toward protecting farmworkers, agricultural communities and the environment from a highly toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease, thyroid disease, childhood leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and birth defects.

“California is sending a powerful message that there is no place for paraquat in modern agriculture,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “The fact is, farmworkers and nearby communities have been unprotected from the health threats of paraquat making this decision long overdue. 

“That, along with the tragic spill in Dorris put the writing on the wall that paraquat’s days were numbered,” said Del Chiaro. 

In March, a large container of paraquat fell from a truck in the northern California town Dorris, spilling roughly 60 gallons of the chemical onto a major roadway and into the surrounding community. Citing the risk of exposure to airborne paraquat releases, officials ordered a lockdown affecting about 600 residents, including those at a local elementary school. 

Del Chiaro praised the California Legislature, in particular former Assemblymember and now Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Calif.) and leading voices like Dolores Huerta that ultimately led to today’s announcement through the enactment of AB 1963 in 2004. EWG sponsored the legislation, which required DPR to prioritize the scientific reevaluation of paraquat.

Using paraquat is banned in more than 70 countries, and earlier this year Vermont became the first U.S. state to prohibit its use. 

“Paraquat is bad news for farmers, farmworkers and public health,” said Del Chiaro. “We applaud today’s announcement and urge other states to follow the lead of California and Vermont and ban this toxic crop chemical once and for all.” 

###

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

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Family Health Toxic Chemicals Paraquat California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 August 10, 2026

EWG statement on FDA’s new GRAS proposal Iris Myers August 7, 2026

WASHINGTON – Today the Food and Drug Administration proposed a new rule to amend the “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, food chemicals loophole. 

The GRAS regulatory loophole has, for years, allowed companies to add new, potentially harmful chemicals and other substances to snacks, drinks and more without first undergoing FDA safety review.

When Congress created the GRAS loophole in 1958, it was meant to apply largely to ingredients widely recognized as safe, such as salt, yeast and chicken broth.

But the loophole means that now almost all chemicals added to food are greenlighted by the food industry, not the FDA. Since 2000, nearly 99 percent of food chemicals added to commerce came into the market through the loophole, a 2025 Environmental Working Group analysis found. 

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

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is correct that the GRAS system is broken and in urgent need of reform. And eliminating the pathway that allows companies to self-certify chemicals as “generally recognized as safe” without notifying the FDA is the first step toward meaningful reform.

But true GRAS reform requires more than mandatory notification. It must also include strong, science-based safety standards and thorough, independent FDA review before chemicals are allowed in our food. And it must address the thousands of substances already on the market that have not been meaningfully reviewed in decades.

Americans deserve a system where food safety decisions are made by independent experts at the FDA – not by the companies that profit from selling these chemicals.

###

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 Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 August 10, 2026