You are here
Environmental Working Group
Washington recognizes EWG Verified® as higher standard for safer salon products
WASHINGTON – In a first-of-its-kind pilot project, Washington is recognizing products with the EWG Verified® mark in its Safer Salons Partnership, which reimburses independent hair stylists, barbers and small salon businesses for switching to safer beauty products.
The program, led by Washington’s Department of Ecology, says EWG Verified meets the criteria for the highest reimbursement level. This is reserved for certifications that ban a broad range of harmful chemicals and assess the health hazards of ingredients and impurities. More than 2,700 products have earned the EWG Verified mark.
“EWG is proud to be recognized by Washington State's Safer Salons Partnership,” said Clive Davies, vice president of EWG Verified. “This is a watershed moment for the beauty industry. Washington State is putting safer product choice directly in the hands of the workers who need it most, with the money on the table to help make it happen.
“By recognizing EWG Verified at the highest level, the state is sending a clear message to manufacturers: Designing safer products is not only possible, it’s preferred. EWG is proud to be part of making that happen,” he added.
Protecting the workers most at riskSalon workers face some of the highest occupational exposures to toxic chemicals in the beauty industry.
Hair straighteners, dyes and styling products can contain formaldehyde, phthalates and other chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption and reproductive toxicity. Unlike consumers, salon workers breathe them in and absorb them through their skin for hours at a time every single working day.
“For too long, we’ve expected salon workers to deliver high-performance results without assurance that the products they use are safe,” said Lauren Sweet Duffy, Ph.D., senior director of EWG Verified. “They shouldn't need a chemistry degree to know whether the products they use every day are safer.
“When a stylist sees the EWG Verified mark, the guesswork is gone. It means the product has been rigorously reviewed, meets high standards for ingredient safety and transparency, and is free from the hidden chemicals that have put salon workers’ health at risk for decades. That is not a small thing. We are thrilled to work with Washington state and help amplify these positive impacts,” she added
Washington targets toxic cosmeticsWashington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, enacted in 2023, is a model for what meaningful cosmetic ingredient reform looks like in practice. The law not only bans a broad range of harmful chemicals from cosmetic products sold or distributed in the state but also offers financial support for small businesses.
The European Union and other countries have banned or limited more than 1,600 chemicals from personal care products while the U.S. prohibits just nine for safety reasons.
States have stepped in to ban dozens of other chemicals. Washington’s Department of Ecology recently finalized a new rule under the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act that will ban formaldehyde and 25 specific formaldehyde-releasing chemicals from cosmetic products beginning January 1, 2027.
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen commonly used in hair-smoothing treatments and also linked to respiratory disease and skin sensitization, risks that fall most heavily on the salon workers who apply these products daily.
The state is piloting the Safer Salons Partnership with several Washington salon professionals and barbershops. In addition to EWG Verified products, some other beauty products are eligible for the program.
A full directory of EWG Verified products eligible for reimbursement during the pilot is available at ewg.org/ewgverified. More information about the Safer Salons Partnership is available at ecology.wa.gov/safer-salons.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Family Health Women's Health Toxic Chemicals Phthalates State’s pilot reimburses salon workers, barbers for buying items with EWG Verified mark Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 21, 2026What is the sunscreen filter bemotrizinol?
For the first time in over 25 years, the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to approve a new sunscreen ultraviolet, or UV, filter for the U.S. market: bemotrizinol, or BEMT.
It’s a UV filter that since 1999 has been used in sunscreens in other countries, offering greater protection against harmful ultraviolet A, or UVA, rays.
UVA radiation is the sun wavelength that penetrates deepest into the skin, leads to premature skin aging, suppresses the immune system and increases risk of skin cancers, like melanoma. The sunscreens most Americans use do not provide enough UVA protection.
For decades, Americans have had access to fewer sunscreen ingredients than consumers in Europe and Asia. In some cases the sunscreen sold in the U.S. offers UVA protection that is much worse than the sunscreens sold overseas.
EWG’s own peer-reviewed research found that U.S. sunscreens deliver on average just 24% of the UVA protection implied by their SPF labels.
But that might be about to change.
Proposal could improve sunscreen optionsIn late 2025, the FDA proposed to add BEMT to the U.S. list of active ingredients allowed in sunscreens. The proposal allows for use up to 6%.
If the agency finalizes its decision, BEMT will be the first new UV filter approved for the U.S. market in over 25 years.
BEMT could be widely adopted into sunscreen formulations, since it will be allowed for use in combination with almost all currently approved active ingredients.
The only restriction on using the filter would be a ban on combining it with two other UV filters: para-aminobenzoic acid, or PABA, and trolamine salicylate. In 2019 and again in 2021, the FDA proposed these two filters are not “generally recognized as safe and effective,” or GRASE, for use in sunscreens sold in the U.S.
In the European Union, BEMT is sold by numerous companies under trade names that include Tinosorb® S, Parsol® Shield, AakoSun BEMT, and Escalol™ S. The chemical company CIBA Speciality Chemicals invented the filter and applied for FDA approval in 2005, so it has already had more than two decades of regulatory review. CIBA was acquired by BASF, which manufactures and markets BEMT internationally.
DSM, a pharmaceutical company, has been leading calls for FDA approval of its version of BEMT, sold as PARSOL® Shield. If the FDA finalizes its approval, DSM would have 18 months of marketing exclusivity.
After that period, other manufacturers would be able to use BEMT in their formulations, which should expand the range of products available to consumers.
Data submitted to the FDA about products with BEMT at concentrations up to 6%, led the agency to propose the ingredient as safe and effective.
Similarly, European Union Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety 1999 findings report that at levels up to 10%, BEMT does not irritate the skin and is not associated in animal studies with harm to the reproductive system.
A step forward in UVA protectionThe most important use of BEMT would be closing the UVA protection gap that has plagued American sunscreens for decades.
In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs, and the FDA oversees sunscreen safety. The agency said in 2019 and 2021 only two of 16 ingredients on the market – zinc oxide and titanium – are GRASE.
Due to safety concerns, the FDA has flagged PABA and trolamine salicylate as not GRASE.
The 12 other ingredients on the U.S. market are also not GRASE. But that status is primarily due to insufficient data. The agency has requested additional safety data on these ingredients, although they are still allowed for use in products sold in the U.S.
Problems with existing filtersThe best sunscreens are those that provide broad spectrum protection – from both UVA and ultraviolet B, or UVB, rays.
UVA rays don’t easily burn the skin. But they can cause it to age, suppress the immune system and contribute to the development of skin cancer.
Zinc oxide and avobenzone are the only two UV filters in U.S. sunscreens today that are effective at reducing UVA rays significantly.
Avobenzone is chemically unstable and must be paired with other ingredients to prevent it from breaking down in sunlight. Breakdown products of avobenzone have also been shown to cause allergic reactions.
BEMT solves these problems. According to the FDA review, it provides strong broad-spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB radiation.
It is more stable in sunlight than avobenzone and – unlike avobenzone – can be combined with zinc oxide to provide greater UVA protection. It also has more safety data than any non-mineral filters on the U.S. market.
Minimal health concernsData suggests that most available non-mineral UV filters may have safety concerns.
The FDA’s proposed approval of BEMT includes extensive scientific review requiring data on absorption into the body and likelihood of irritation and sensitization, as well as animal studies of carcinogenicity and potential to harm reproduction or development.
Minimal skin absorption
Documents submitted to the FDA report that BEMT at concentrations up to 6% is minimally absorbed into the body and the amount that does absorb is below the concentration FDA considers to be indicative of systemic exposure after application.
Compared to the other 12 ingredient chemical filters on the U.S. market, BEMT has robust data for safety and does not absorb into the skin.
FDA studies in 2019 and 2020 showed that a one-time application of six other chemical actives – oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, avobenzone and octinoxate – were absorbed through the skin at levels above 0.5 nanograms per milliliter, the maximum concentration the FDA says may be found in blood without potential safety concerns.
One ingredient, oxybenzone, was detected at 258.1 nanograms per milliliter in blood after multiple lotion applications – 515 times the FDA’s threshold of concern.
No evidence of carcinogenicity
In a two-year long animal study, BEMT was applied to the skin of rats. The results indicated that BEMT did not cause abnormal, unregulated growth on the skin. This suggests that BEMT is likely not cancer-causing when applied to skin.
No reproductive harm
The FDA also reviewed a multi-generational reproductive study and concluded that there were no harmful reproductive effects on the rats giving birth or the survival and development of their offspring.
Not irritating
Data submitted to the FDA also included a repeated insult patch test and cumulative irritation patch test, a photo-allergenicity test and a phototoxicity test. Results suggest BEMT was not irritating to the skin.
More options are still neededApproving BEMT is a meaningful step forward, but it doesn’t solve every problem with the U.S. sunscreen market.
For over 20 years, companies have submitted some safety data to the FDA in hopes of adding BEMT to the U.S. market. Even with the addition of avobenzone in 1999, the U.S. has been left with fewer options because the FDA’s approval process has been so slow.
In sunscreens sold in Europe and elsewhere worldwide, BEMT is formulated with other active ingredients that are not approved for use in the U.S.
Sunscreens are often formulated with a mixture of active ingredients and, even with the addition of BEMT, the U.S. sunscreen market, would still lag behind the EU market.
In the U.S., 16 active ingredients are permitted and in the EU, about 30 filters are available for formulation.
With a law known as the 2020 CARES Act, the FDA’s rules for over-the-counter drugs were modernized. The law restructured the regulation of all OTC monograph drugs and replaced the legacy rulemaking process with a streamlined administrative order system. This change simplified the regulatory process.
If the FDA finalizes the addition of BEMT, it’ll be the first new sunscreen active ingredient allowed in the U.S. in nearly 30 years. Other sunscreen companies could also submit applications to allow additional sunscreen ingredients on the market.
But, so far, these manufacturers seem unwilling to produce the safety data that the FDA requests.
Tips for sun safety- Cover up and wear sunglasses. Shirts, hats, shorts and pants provide the best protection from UV rays. Good shades protect your eyes from UV radiation, which may cause cataracts.
- Find shade or make it. Picnic under a tree, read beneath an umbrella or take a canopy to the beach. Keep infants in the shade, because they are still developing the tanning pigments, known as melanin, that protect skin.
- Wear sunscreen. EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens evaluates the safety and efficacy of SPF-rated products, including sunscreens for recreational use and SPF-rated daily-use moisturizers and lip products. The best ratings are for products that provide broad spectrum protection formulated with ingredients that pose fewer health concerns when absorbed by the body.
- Look for EWG Verified®. Consumers can also shop for EWG Verified sunscreens, making it easier to find products that are safer and effective.
‘Balcony solar’ bill to cut energy costs clears California Senate
SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group applauds California’s Senate for passing a bill today that would let residents install small, portable “balcony solar” systems in apartments, condos and single-family homes, bringing them relief from sky-high electricity bills.
Senate Bill 868, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, cleared the Senate in a 35-1 vote, with four abstensions. It now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.
The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network.
“EWG commends the Senate for advancing this proposal, a major step forward for energy affordability and consumer choice,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California.
A 400-watt balcony solar system can cut monthly utility bills for the average apartment dweller by up to $250 per year. Small balcony solar systems start at $500 today, but broader adoption enabled by SB 868 could drive prices down and give renters and low-income households more access to clean energy.
“These systems are simple, practical and proven. They give people the ability to plug into clean energy savings immediately,” said Del Chiaro.
Balcony solar systems are as simple as plugging in a toaster or other electrical appliance at home. But red tape means the systems aren’t widely used. SB 868 would eliminate those barriers.
“We strongly encourage the Assembly to promptly take up and pass the balcony solar bill, ensuring that as we head into a hot summer, millions of Californians can look forward to having access to this technology and begin to see meaningful reductions in their energy bills,” Del Chiaro added.
Consumer-friendly cost-saving toolCalifornia’s electricity rates have climbed dramatically in recent years, leaving the state with some of the nation’s highest energy costs.
SB 868 would give Californians a practical, consumer-friendly tool to take greater control over their energy bills. System size is capped at 1,200 watts, enough to power everyday appliances like fridges, lights, Wi-Fi routers or an air conditioning unit.
The bill includes strict safety requirements modeled on internationally recognized standards. All systems must be certified by UL, or Underwriters Laboratories, the global independent safety science organization, or an equivalent nationally recognized testing laboratory.
The legislation also requires that balcony solar systems have automatic shutoff protections that are triggered within seconds if the grid goes down, helping protect utility workers.
Balcony solar is already thriving in Europe, with over 4 million systems installed in Germany alone. But in California, regulatory barriers have kept this technology out of reach for many.
SB 868 would remove those barriers while establishing statewide safety standards that do not currently exist.
###
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Areas of Focus Energy Renewable Energy California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 19, 2026EWG’s 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens finds market progress, a promising new ingredient but a stubborn UVA protection gap
WASHINGTON – The Environmental Working Group today released its 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens, and after evaluating nearly 2,800 SPF products, the most comprehensive review in the guide’s history, the news is mixed.
The sunscreen market is measurably better. Finding a safer and more effective sunscreen that works for your skin and your routine remains important in making sun protection a lifelong habit. The product you will actually use is the right one.
“The market has improved. The number of harmful ingredients like oxybenzone has nosedived, the percentage of products that are mineral sunscreens has nearly tripled and consumers are more informed than ever,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., chief science officer at EWG.
“But the fundamental problem remains unsolved: Most American sunscreens fail to deliver adequate UVA protection, critical for reducing skin cancer risk, including melanoma.
“That is not a marketing problem but a failure of sunscreen companies to develop the data showing their ingredients are safe,” said Andrews.
Twenty years ago, most Americans had no independent, science-based resource to consult when buying sunscreen. The market was flooded with harmful chemicals, misleading SPF claims and products that offered little meaningful protection against the radiation most responsible for skin cancer.
This year, 550 of the 2,784 SPF products EWG evaluated meet its criteria for both ingredient safety and balanced UV protection.
Sixty-two sunscreens bear the EWG Verified® mark. To qualify, they must:
- Meet EWG’s highest standards for safety and ingredient transparency
- Satisfy EWG’s standard for ultraviolet A, or UVA, and ultraviolet B, or UVB protection
- Surpass both U.S. and European requirements for UVA protection.
In total 130 SPF products, including moisturizers and lip balms, are EWG Verified.
20 years of measurable progress“Wearing any sunscreen at all is key to reducing health concerns about excess UV exposure,” said Andrews.
“But not all sunscreens are created equal. EWG’s guide is a trusted, science-based resource that consumers can turn to every year to find the sunscreens that offer the strongest broad-spectrum protection without concerning ingredients.”
When EWG launched the first Guide to Sunscreens, in 2007, oxybenzone – a chemical linked to hormone disruption and environmental harm – appeared in 70% of non-mineral sunscreens on the market. Today it’s an ingredient in just 5%.
Vitamin A, which can degrade in sunlight and potentially accelerate rather than prevent skin damage, has plummeted from 41% of sunscreens to just 2%.
Mineral sunscreens using zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, the only active sunscreen ingredients the Food and Drug Administration has proposed as generally recognized as safe and effective, have grown from 17% to 47% of products EWG reviews.
These are not small victories. They represent a sea change in how an entire industry formulates its products, driven in significant part by consumers armed with better information.
A promising new ingredient on the horizonFor the first time in more than a quarter-century, EWG has cause for optimism about what is coming to U.S. sunscreen shelves. In late 2025, the FDA proposed classifying bemotrizinol, a UV filter used safely since 1999 in European and Asian sunscreens, as safe and effective for the U.S. market.
“Bemotrizinol is the most significant development in American sunscreen regulation in 25 years, and EWG is proud to have pushed for its inclusion in U.S. products for more than a decade,” said Alexa Friedman, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG.
Bemotrizinol provides several advantages, including:
- strong broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection
- greater stability in sunlight than avobenzone, currently the only chemical filter in the U.S. that provides meaningful UVA protection
- minimal skin absorption
- potential for combination with zinc oxide for even greater UVA coverage, unlike avobenzone.
If the FDA finalizes its proposal, American consumers who prefer non-mineral sunscreens will have a better option for the first time in nearly three decades.
“But one new ingredient does not fix a marketplace that has been stuck in neutral for a generation,” said Melanie Benesh, EWG vice president of government affairs.
“The FDA proposed meaningful reforms to sunscreen regulation in 2019 and again in 2021 – stronger UVA standards, SPF value limits, better labeling, updated safety data requirements.
“None of those reforms have been finalized, and sunscreen manufacturers have failed to provide the FDA with the safety data it needs to approve better UV filters,” she said.
“Congress must force the issue by setting enforceable deadlines for companies to submit the required data and empower the FDA to remove noncompliant ingredients from the market,” Benesh added.
Most sunscreens still fail on UVAProgress is real. But the gap in American sun protection has not closed.
EWG’s peer-reviewed research, published in Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine, tested 51 U.S. sunscreens and found that products delivered on average just 59% of their labeled UVB protection and only 24% of the UVA protection implied by their SPF labels.
UVA radiation penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB, is a driver of melanoma and photo-aging, and causes damage year-round through car and office windows, on cloudy days and at high altitudes.
Melanoma cases are projected to rise 10.6% this year, according to the American Cancer Society. The rate of new melanoma cases has tripled since the 1970s.
The problem is compounded by misleading high-SPF marketing.
In perfect laboratory conditions, an SPF 50 product blocks 98% of UVB rays. SPF 100 blocks 99%. The difference is negligible, yet manufacturers continue to push SPF 70, 80 and 100+ products using chemical boosters that may inflate the number without improving UVA protection.
SPF tests triggered a regulatory reckoning in Australia, where independent tests found that one product labeled SPF 50+ tested at just SPF 4. The scandal triggered government investigations and mass product recalls. The U.S. has the same testing inconsistencies, but the FDA has not acted.
Europe adopted more accurate, objective laboratory testing protocols in 2024.
The U.S. still relies on subjective in vivo tests, which involves technicians visually judging skin redness on human subjects, a method so inconsistent that the same formula can produce results of SPF 51 at one lab and SPF 28 at another.
“The SPF number on your sunscreen bottle doesn’t tell you the whole story,” said Friedman. “Consumers who reach for the highest SPF because they want maximum protection are often getting the least reliable UVA coverage of all.
“That is a public health problem, and the FDA has the authority and the obligation to fix it,” she added.
Undisclosed “fragrance” in 36% of SPF productsMore than one in three sunscreens EWG evaluated in 2026 list undisclosed “fragrance” on the label. That word can conceal hundreds of chemicals, including allergens, hormone disruptors and carcinogens.
For daily sunscreen users, those exposures accumulate. A 2025 peer-reviewed paper found the cumulative health effects of repeated fragrance ingredient exposure remain poorly understood and inadequately regulated. Congress set a 2024 deadline for the FDA to address fragrance allergen labeling in cosmetics, a rule that would have covered moisturizers with SPF. The agency missed it.
There is no equivalent fragrance disclosure requirement for sunscreens, so consumers have no way to know what is hidden behind that word on a product label.
“‘Fragrance’ on a sunscreen label doesn’t describe a single ingredient,” said Jilly Senk, science analyst at EWG Verified.
“When you apply that product every day – to your face, your children’s skin, year after year – those undisclosed exposures add up. The EWG Verified mark exists precisely because the law does not require the transparency consumers deserve,” she said
How to find a sunscreen that works for youThe 2026 Guide to Sunscreens also offers important lists, including a selection of the top-rated recreational sunscreens, the safest for kids and babies, moisturizers with SPF and lip balms. They’re the products EWG scientists ranked the highest for their overall protection from UVA and UVB rays and other factors.
EWG also recommends “12 Bang for Your Buck Kids Sunscreens,” all priced at less than $20.
Here is EWG’s guidance for choosing a sunscreen that works and that you will use:
Choose mineral protection. Look for zinc oxide, which provides stable, balanced UVA and UVB coverage. EWG also recommends titanium dioxide for daily use.
Choose lotions or sticks over sprays. Sprays raise concerns about inhalation and often result in uneven coverage, especially in wind.
Skip high SPF numbers. Stick with SPF 50 or lower. Products with SPF 70, 80, or 100+ may not provide better UVA protection and can create a dangerous false sense of security.
Avoid chemicals of concern and undisclosed fragrance. Ingredients like oxybenzone and octinoxate are linked to hormone disruption and environmental harm. Undisclosed fragrance masks potentially harmful chemicals.
Use EWG’s tools. Search EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens, use the EWG Healthy Living app to scan products while you shop, and look for the EWG Verified mark, which requires sunscreens to exceed both U.S. and European UVA protection standards.
Finding a safer and more effective sunscreen that works for your skin and your routine is the final step in making sun protection a lifelong habit. The time of year does not matter. The weather does not matter. Every day is a sunscreen day – and the right product you will actually use.
###
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Sunscreen Family Health Children’s Health 80% of almost 2,800 reviewed SPF products rate poorly for skin protection or concerning ingredients Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 19, 2026EPA is undoing PFAS protections. How can you remove ‘forever chemicals’ from tap water?
“Do I have PFAS in my tap water? How can I get rid of PFAS in drinking water?”
If you’re asking these questions, you’re not alone. The Environmental Protection Agency formally proposed to undo enforceable limits for four toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in drinking water: PFNA, PFHxS, GenX and PFBS.
The agency is stripping protections from millions of Americans whose tap water is already contaminated, an unprecedented and likely unlawful move.
The EPA is leaving in place PFAS limits for the two most notorious and well-studied forever chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, which will help reduce levels of those chemicals in drinking water.
But the agency is also proposing to delay by two years the deadline water systems have to comply – until 2031, for utilities that ask. That risks continuing the PFOA and PFOS contamination in communities that have already waited decades for clean water.
The alarming move to scrap the four other PFAS limits may leave millions of people exposed to tap water chemicals linked to cancer, immune suppression and many other risks.
EWG estimated in 2020 that 200 million Americans could have PFAS in their tap water. The EPA’s latest national tap water data update says the number is at least 176 million.
So far, that’s all bad news.
Here’s the good news: You can take steps that may help to reduce the amount of PFAS in your home’s tap water.
EWG is here to guide you through your options.
Are PFAS in my tap water? How to find out.First, find out whether your tap water contains PFAS. Here are two tools:
- EWG’s Tap Water Database lets you enter your ZIP code, showing you the most up-to-date information about PFAS and other contaminants in your community's tap water. It contains data from water systems across the country, showing you exactly which chemicals have been detected and at what concentrations.
- EWG’s interactive PFAS map shows where forever chemicals have been detected below and above the EPA’s first-time tap water limits. The map was updated with the EPA’s most recent national PFAS test data from March 2026, and includes communities, military bases and other locations.
If you rely on a private well, your water is not monitored or tested by any public utility. If you live near a military base, industrial facility, airport or area with known PFAS contamination, consider getting your water tested.
How do I remove PFAS from my tap water?“PFAS are in my tap water. Can I do anything about it?”
The simple answer is yes; there is something you can do – find and use a home filter designed to reduce PFAS in your drinking water. There are many brands and varieties available, at a range of prices. Not all filters remove PFAS effectively. Do not assume a filter removes PFAS unless it specifically states that it does.
There are a few different ways to filter water for PFAS.
EWG’s guide to countertop water filters helps you navigate through some other accessible choices. EWG reviewed 10 of the leading brands and models, telling you which filter is most effective at removing PFAS, how much it costs, how quickly the filter parts must be replaced, and how easy it is to use, among other important considerations.
What’s key is the right PFAS filter option will depend on your budget and preferences:
- Carbon-based. Absorbs contaminants like PFAS as water flows through granular-activated carbon or a carbon block. Used in pitchers, under-sink filters and faucet-mounted filters, it’s often the most accessible and affordable option.
- Reverse osmosis. Pushes tap water through a semi-permeable membrane that separates particles from water molecules, cutting PFAS and other contaminants. It is typically installed under a sink, but some new counter top models are available. Reverse osmosis is a highly effective option for reducing PFAS in drinking water.
- Ion exchange. Exchanges contaminants in the water for less-harmful ions to trap certain contaminants. Not as common in home filters and sometimes used in whole-house filtration systems, so often ends up being more expensive than point-of-use systems like filters you attach to a faucet.
- Whole-house filtration. These systems are often more expensive than other options. They’re not necessary for most homes – they’re typically just used by those with the worst contamination.
Renters may prefer counter-top, faucet-mounted or pitcher-type filters, technologies that don’t require changes to a property’s plumbing and can be easily removed when they move out.
The best filter is the one that’s most suitable for your situation and that you will use.
Tell the EPA not to roll back PFAS standardsEWG strongly opposes the EPA’s rollback of four PFAS limits. The move could violate the Safe Drinking Water Act, the law that the agency used to first develop the standards.
If you’re also alarmed, you can make your voice heard.
Tell the agency to keep PFAS protections in place. Preserving the limits for PFAS in water will protect health, save lives and clean up drinking water.
The EPA is taking public comment on the proposal through July 16. Use docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2025-1742 or EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654 to tell the agency who you are, where you live and whether PFAS are in your water. Let the regulators know why these protections matter to you and your family.
Personal stories from affected community members carry significant weight. The agency needs to hear from concerned Americans to understand just how misguided its plan is.
You can also contact your members of Congress and urge them to investigate whether the EPA’s rollback of PFAS regulations violates the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Areas of Focus Water Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Authors Anthony Lacey May 18, 2026Protein is everywhere – it probably isn't making us healthier
Protein used to be the domain of bodybuilders and fitness fanatics. Now it’s everywhere: high-protein claims on Doritos chips, Dunkin’ Donuts lattes, breakfast toaster pastries and even pints of ice cream.
There is even, somehow, “high performance man cereal” packed with protein.
The protein powder market has become a more than $20 billion dollar industry, and demand for whey protein is so high that food and beverage companies may soon face a shortage.
But more isn’t always better. And not all protein sources are the same.
Despite mountains of marketing claims suggesting otherwise, we are not all walking around with protein deficits. In fact, some protein products being sold as a silver bullet for better health may pose their own risks.
American diets have a problem – but it’s not proteinMany of us don’t need to worry about getting more in our diets. The average U.S. adult’s consumption exceeds daily protein recommendations.
But some groups may benefit from a protein boost, including older or postmenopausal adults, pregnant or lactating individuals, athletes engaging in resistance or endurance training and, potentially, people taking GLP-1 medications.
Foods like beans, lentils, nuts, seeds and whole grains can provide protein, along with another nutrient few people get enough of: fiber. More than 90% of women and 97% of men fall short of recommended daily fiber intake, around 25 to 38 grams per day. Diets low in fiber are linked to higher risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer.
A bonus of foods high in both protein and fiber: They are often more affordable than traditional protein sources. For example, a cup of cooked lentils contains about 18 grams of protein and 16 grams of fiber – often for less than a dollar per serving.
Concerns about supplements’ safetyMuch of the protein boom is driven by the marketing of protein powders.
These are classified as dietary supplements, so the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t regulate them the same way as food and drinks. Companies themselves are responsible for verifying the health and safety of their products.
Potential contamination of protein powders is also a significant concern. A 2025 Consumer Reports investigation found detectable lead in nearly every sample of protein powder and shake tested. Some single servings contained enough lead to cause a woman of childbearing age to exceed the FDA’s recommended daily limit for lead from food.
Another study revealed that nearly half of protein supplements tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for lead, cadmium, mercury or arsenic.
Many brands also contain artificial food dyes, sweeteners and other highly processed ingredients that offer no nutritional value and may be linked to other health harms.
Ultra-processed protein productsNew products boasting added protein should also give you pause.
Many snacks, drinks and desserts now boasting protein claims – from chips to cereals to flavored coffee drinks – are ultra-processed.
Ultra-processed foods, or UPF, are industrially manufactured products that contain colors, additives or ingredients not commonly found in home kitchens. In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet.
Leading health experts now consider UPF a key driver of chronic disease, including Type 2 diabetes, depression, and heart, kidney and gastrointestinal diseases.
Extra protein in an ultra-processed product doesn’t reduce any of these risks. It’s also unlikely to provide other beneficial nutrients, like fiber, found in minimally processed or whole foods.
What you can doConsumers shouldn’t have to figure all of this out alone.
Companies should be required to routinely test supplements like protein powders and disclose the results, including any findings of heavy metals in powders, shakes and bars.
States like California have already successfully adopted these requirements for baby food. By reducing contamination levels in many product categories, they showed that transparency drives cleaner sourcing and safer manufacturing.
Last year, California also signed landmark legislation to ban the most harmful UPF from public schools. Now, California lawmakers are considering a state-run non-UPF certification program to make grocery shopping easier for concerned consumers.
In the meantime, people looking to learn more about their protein sources can use EWG’s Food Scores to identify nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns in more than 150,000 foods. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives.
Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information in your pocket while you shop.
Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 18, 2026Four EWG-backed California bills clear key appropriations panels, advancing protections
SACRAMENTO – Stronger safeguards for families and the environment are moving forward after four bills sponsored by the Environmental Working Group cleared California Legislature spending committees. The bills address consumer protection, food safety and clean energy.
“Today is a great day for California families,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “Four bills that would make a real and lasting difference in people's lives just cleared a major hurdle.”
Three of the bills are pending in the Assembly and must now pass a floor vote by May 29 to proceed to further debate and approval before getting sent to the governor.
One bill is pending in the Senate and faces the same deadline for a floor vote ahead of further action.
The bills address some of the most urgent and unresolved threats to California consumers:
- The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS used on produce as pesticides
- Mystery ingredients in baby diapers
- No clear way for consumers to identify harmful ultra-processed food, or UPF
- Electricity bills that are straining California ratepayers’ pocketbooks
“Californians are being exposed to toxic chemicals in their food, their baby products, and their water. And their electricity bills are bleeding them dry,” said Del Chiaro.
“The legislature has a historic opportunity to act on all of these urgent issues this year. We are calling on every legislator to vote yes on each of these four bills,” she said.
“The clock is ticking,” said Susan Little, EWG director of California legislative affairs. “These bills now go to the full Assembly and full Senate for votes that will determine whether California continues to lead the nation on consumer protection or lets the moment slip away.
“EWG will be fighting for every vote between now and May 29,” she added.
Potential for groundbreaking change for consumers
Assembly Bill 1603: Banning PFAS pesticides
California, which grows half the nation’s produce, applies more than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides to crops every year, contaminating fruit and vegetables, soil and water. State test results have already found PFAS pesticide contamination on nine out of 10 samples of non-organic peaches, nectarines and plums grown in California.
AB 1603 would ban the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides used on crops statewide by 2035. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would immediately pause new state approvals of these pesticides, set a 2030 deadline for phasing out use in the state of PFAS pesticides not allowed in Europe and require public disclosure of all PFAS pesticide applications.
“Consumers have no idea that PFAS pesticides are being deliberately sprayed on California crops, contaminating produce soil and water,” said Del Chiaro.
“California grows food for the entire country. When forever chemicals are so pervasive on produce, that is not a California problem. That is a national food safety problem.”
Assembly Bill 1901: Baby diaper ingredient disclosure
Parents and caregivers have a right to know what chemicals sit against their baby’s skin 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the first years of life.
Authored by Assemblymember Mark Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1901 would set a first-in-the-nation requirement for manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose all ingredients on the product packaging and online.
Recent tests found diapers can contain potentially harmful ingredients like phthalates, which are linked to hormone disruption, and bleaching agents linked to skin and respiratory irritation.
Infants and toddlers are especially vulnerable, because their bodies are still developing and their skin absorbs chemicals more quickly.
“A baby wears a diaper every minute of every day for years, yet parents are forced to make purchasing decisions with zero information about what’s in them,” said Little.
“AB 1901 is the most straightforward consumer protection bill you can imagine. It just requires manufacturers to tell parents what is in their product,” she added. “There is no good reason to vote against it.”
California already proved with baby food that this approach works. When the state required disclosure of heavy metal test results, manufacturers lowered levels in the food.
Assembly Bill 2244: Ultra-processed food certification seal
Ultra-processed food makes up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half of the typical adult diet in the U.S. Research consistently links high UPF consumption to obesity, metabolic disease and other serious health harms.
But it’s hard for consumers to know what is and isn’t UPF at a grocery store or supermarket.
AB 2244, authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would establish a California certification system for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, artificial dyes and flavors that characterize UPF.
This system would be based on the state’s trailblazing UPF definition enacted last year. Products meeting the standard could carry a certification seal, a clear, at-a-glance tool to help consumers make healthier choices.
“Parents are trying to feed their kids better, but the food industry has made it nearly impossible to know what you are actually buying,” said Del Chiaro.
“AB 2244 gives consumers a simple, trusted signal at the point of purchase – no chemistry degree required.”
“California already defined ultra-processed food. Now it is time to bring that definition to the grocery aisle. This bill could change how millions of American families shop for food, starting in California,” she added
Senate Bill 868: Balcony solar
California ratepayers face some of the highest electricity bills in the country, as well as some of the worst air pollution. Solar energy can help solve both problems.
Small, portable balcony solar panels offer a practical, affordable alternative that is especially suitable for renters because they’re not permanently fixed to a home. But complex rules make the systems largely unavailable in the U.S., even as balcony solar markets thrive in Europe.
Authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), SB 868 would streamline and accelerate access to balcony solar by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers while establishing consumer safety standards.
Setup is simple – comparable to plugging a small appliance into a wall outlet – and affordable enough that most consumers could recoup their investment within a few years.
“Electricity bills are crushing California families’ finances, and the solution could be sitting not just on rooftops but also on balconies and patios across the state,” said Del Chiaro.
“Balcony solar puts clean, affordable energy within reach of millions of California consumers. SB 868 removes the red tape standing between California families and lower electricity bills. There is every reason to make clean energy easier to access for everyone,” she added.
Protein bill fails to advanceAnother EWG-backed bill, to require manufacturers to disclose levels of heavy metals in their protein supplement products, failed to advance after the Senate Appropriations Committee held it in suspense.
Millions of Californians consume protein shakes, powders and bars every day but don’t know whether the products contain dangerous levels of lead, cadmium, mercury or arsenic.
SB 1033, authored by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), would have followed similar ingredient transparency state laws for baby food and prenatal vitamins.
A recent study found about half of protein supplement products tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for heavy metals. These substances are potent toxins, and even at low levels, repeated exposure can cause lasting and irreversible harm, particularly to pregnant people and the developing fetus.
Next steps for remaining billsThe four remaining EWG-backed bills must pass their respective chambers – the three Assembly bills in a full Assembly floor vote and the Senate bill in a full Senate floor vote – by May 29.
Following floor passage, the bills would be sent to their respective other chambers for committee hearings and votes before heading to Newsom’s desk for signature in September.
EWG is urging all California Assembly and Senate members to vote yes on all four bills.
Californians can contact their state legislators directly at legislature.ca.gov to urge a yes vote on the bills: AB 1901, AB 1603, AB 2244 and SB 868.
###
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 Ultra-Processed Foods Energy Renewable Energy Children’s Health Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California Legislation targets PFAS pesticides, energy affordability and more Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 14, 2026Vermont passes first-in-the-nation bill to ban toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease
In a historic show of bipartisan leadership, Vermont lawmakers today approved a bill to ban the highly toxic herbicide paraquat. It’s the first time a state legislature has passed legislation to phaseout paraquat, a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease.
House Bill 739 would, if enacted, end Vermonters’ exposure to one of the most dangerous pesticides still in use.
The Environmental Working Group is urging Gov. Phil Scott to sign the legislation and set a first-in-the-nation precedent for banning paraquat. The vote also comes as 12 other states have introduced bills to ban or restrict the chemical and California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation is re-reviewing paraquat.
Paraquat has been linked not only to Parkinson’s disease but also to other serious health harms, including cancer. More than 70 countries have banned paraquat due to these health concerns, yet it remains used in the U.S.
“With today’s vote, Vermont is making history and putting the health of its residents first,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at EWG. “This is the first time any legislative body in the country has passed a bill to fully ban paraquat, sending a powerful signal that the days of tolerating this dangerous chemical are numbered.
“Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike have made clear that safeguarding farmers, rural communities and children must take precedence over continued use of one of the most hazardous pesticides still on the market.” he added. “Now that the House has passed this landmark bill, we urge Gov. Scott to sign it.”
State Rep. Esme Cole (D-Windsor) and state Sen. Martine Gulick (D-Chittenden-Central District) championed their chambers’ versions of the bills.
In addition to EWG, groups supporting the paraquat ban bill include the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, The Michael J. Fox Foundation, Parkinson’s Foundation, the American Parkinson Disease Association, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and others.
“No one, including farmers, farmworkers, families or children, should be exposed to a chemical with such well-documented risks,” added Horsfield.
Once Scott signs the legislation, it would mark a major milestone in the fight to eliminate paraquat use in the U.S. and could accelerate efforts in other states.
###
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and education, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.
Areas of Focus Paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 13, 2026Food industry claims state chemical laws will spike grocery bills, but that doesn’t add up
In a page straight out of the industry playbook, a powerful group of U.S. food companies has funded a “study” claiming consumers will pay more if harmful chemicals are labeled or banned.
The industry front group, which represents food giants Nestlé and General Mills, among many others, is also backing other efforts to quash states’ ability to enact stricter food chemical laws.
The Policy Navigation Group, a lobbying and consulting firm whose clients include Dow Chemical and Snack International, published the so-called study. It says food chemical laws in Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia would increase household grocery spending by 12%, or $860, per year.
Louisiana and Texas enacted laws requiring a simple label or QR code be added to a food products packaging if it includes select ingredients of concern, such as certain artificial dyes and preservatives. West Virginia’s law bans food products containing potentially harmful ingredients like propylparaben, Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40 and Yellow Dye No. 5 from being sold in the state.
Federal regulatory failures have driven dozens of states to introduce similar laws targeting dyes, additives and other ingredients of concern.
But the study has serious flaws. From faulty data to bad math and poor logic, scrutinizing the claims makes clear they don’t add up.
Flawed grocery price analysisThe study uses highly selective examples, false assumptions and outdated models to drive up the cost estimates.
The study’s central assumption is that consumers who see a warning label on food will waste valuable time searching for an alternative that is more expensive. That’s because the study’s authors looked at only a handful of selected retailers who possibly charge more for products with fewer ingredients of concern.
But that’s not how most Americans actually shop.
Many major grocery chains, including Kroger, Publix, ShopRite and Wegmans, already offer affordable store-brand products that are free of many of the chemicals states are targeting with new food safety laws.
ShopRite, for instance, designed its Wholesome Pantry store brand to be free of artificial additives at competitive prices.
The study largely fails to account for these affordable, available alternatives – a limitation the researchers themselves acknowledge, noting that their focus on particular retailers likely led them to overlook some products and introduce bias in their results.
Texas, where H-E-B dominates the grocery business, is a heavy focus of the study. Under market pressure, H-E-B has already removed more than 175 synthetic ingredients from its store-brand line. That’s most of the ingredients targeted by Texas’ food chemical labeling law.
The study didn’t disclose the products and brands it analyzed. But its retailer of choice, Amazon, also owns Whole Foods, so it’s possible many of the pricier alternatives the study identified were Whole Foods products, not the kind of everyday substitutes most shoppers reach for.
According to a separate food industry report from February, two-thirds of all grocery retailers are reformulating brands to meet consumers’ desire for cleaner products. This includes removing artificial dyes and additives while maintaining affordability.
Faulty math skews study's outcomesThe study’s flaws don’t stop there.
Most significantly, it claims to be a cost-benefit analysis yet it fails to include the benefits of food chemical labels. This is not a minor methodological oversight but a fundamental failure.
Lower consumer exposure to chemicals of concern would benefit public health, yielding significant healthcare savings. Increased consumption of ultra-processed food, or UPF, is linked to higher rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes, dementia and reproductive harm.
And the study’s calculations included the 14% of consumers who said they would ignore warning labels. This inflates estimates in consumer spending by assuming cost increases among consumers whose behavior would not actually change.
It also relied on consumer behavior data that is more than 16 years old, a limitation the researchers themselves flagged as a source of unknown bias.
Rather than use the lowest available prices for label-free alternatives, as a budget-conscious shopper would likely do, the study used average prices, further overstating the real cost to consumers.
Further, industry representatives and lawmakers sympathetic to them have misused the results to claim that labeling laws would increase by 12% the prices we see on store shelves. The study doesn’t predict that individual grocery items will get more expensive. It actually – and inaccurately – predicts some people will choose to buy more expensive groceries to avoid ingredients of concern. Those are not the same thing.
Helping shoppers make more informed choices is a public health benefit, not a burden. But the study frames labeling requirements as financial harm only.
Real-world effects of changing food labelsFaulty studies and overinflated price claims are tired industry responses to requests for greater food ingredient transparency.
In 2022, a federal rule took effect requiring labels on products made with genetically modified ingredients. Industry-funded studies predicted major price increases when products made with GMO ingredients were required to bear labels.
But the new labels didn’t drive prices up. Many brands simply chose to include the new symbol on their existing labels while other household staples like Cheerios and Grape Nuts were reformulated at no extra cost to consumers.
Consumer Reports found similar industry-funded studies overstated the costs of GMO labeling by nearly a factor of 10. The most realistic industry estimate was around $66 per family of four per year, compared to the original estimate of nearly $500, and even that lower figure was likely inflated.
Food companies update their labels regularly for seasonal promotions and rebranding, without consumers switching to pricier products. Ingredient disclosure labels would be no different.
A label change would cost a company as little as $205, an amount too small to show up on store shelves, according to the Agriculture Department in 2024.
Clearer labels mean more confident consumersThe study’s authors are correct about one thing: Shoppers’ time is valuable.
Right now, consumers who want to make better food purchases have to read fine-print ingredient lists on every product. Clear labels designed to identify chemicals of concern make it easier and faster for them.
While states push for better public health protections, EWG has tools to help you shop with confidence.
At home, consumers can check EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals, which highlights top food chemicals to avoid due to health and safety concerns.
For more guidance, search EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives.
Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information at your fingertips while you shop.
Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Jared Hayes Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 13, 2026EWG on FDA’s request for information on SPF and UV protection values
Attached are EWG’s comments asking the Food and Drug Administration consider moving away from SPF testing in people in favor of in vitro UV protection testing, and for the agency should consider replacing the SPF value with a UV protection value that equally weights the entire UV spectra.
File Download Document fda-1978-n-0018-15844_attachment_1.pdf Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Sunscreen Toxic Chemicals Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. Carla Burns Emily Spilman November 1, 2021EWG on FDA’s request for information on butylated hydroxyanisole in food
Attached are EWG’s comments asking the Food and Drug Administration to remove BHA from food. submitted in response to the agency’s request for information.
File Download Document ewg-s-final-comments-on-bha-to-fda-4_13_2026-1-1.pdf Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. May 13, 20266 reasons why the toxic weedkiller paraquat must be banned now
The agricultural chemical paraquat – potentially fatal, if ingested – stands out as one of the pesticides that are most urgent to ban.
California regulators are weighing whether to prohibit paraquat, a toxic weedkiller linked to a greater risk of developing Parkinson’s disease and other health harms. A recent paraquat spill in the state, leading to shelter-in-place orders, shows a ban is long overdue.
Beyond California, 13 states have introduced legislative efforts to prohibit paraquat. At least 70 countries have banned paraquat due to its health concerns, including China, which manufactures the bulk of the world’s supply of the toxic pesticide.
But at the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency has a long history of delay. Since the EPA is not acting to protect us, states are poised to take the lead.
Here are six reasons why paraquat is uniquely terrible, and why a ban is long overdue.
1. The most notorious Parkinson’s pesticideParaquat stands out among the handful of agricultural chemicals linked to Parkinson’s disease. Chronic exposure to paraquat increases the risk of developing the disease by reducing the number of neurons in dopamine-producing parts of the brain.
Researchers have used paraquat exposure in animals to study Parkinson’s disease.
A study using data from the National Institutes of Health found people who sprayed paraquat were more than twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s as those who applied other pesticides. And a meta-analysis of 13 studies found a 64% increase in the likelihood of paraquat exposure leading to the disease.
2. Other serious health harmsExposure to paraquat is linked to greater risk of several other serious health problems, not only Parkinson’s disease.
Some other pesticides, when they cause health harms, can affect one organ in particular. Paraquat’s toxicity is more pernicious, since its effect is broader, damaging the lungs, kidneys and brain simultaneously.
Other health problems linked to paraquat include thyroid disease and cancer, childhood leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
3. Potential harm to farmers and farmworkersParaquat is mostly used to clear fields before farmers plant corn, soybeans, cotton, almonds, peanuts, wine grapes and other crops. And the farmworkers applying the weedkiller are exposed to its health threats, largely by inhaling paraquat vapor.
An EWG investigation found growers and spray companies often permit farmworkers to use the harmful chemical in ways that could endanger themselves and those around them.
The investigation shows companies fail to provide emergency supplies for their workers, allow application without the correct equipment, and even permit spraying by untrained and underprepared employees.
EWG’s findings align with studies showing off-label use is common – further highlighting why existing restrictions on paraquat aren’t enough. The only way to ensure safety is to stop using it.
4. Risks to the public from vaporIt’s not just farmers and farmworkers who face health risks. Most recently, findings from UCLA researchers show that people living or working within 500 meters, or about 1,640 feet, of paraquat application could more than double their odds of developing Parkinson’s.
Paraquat doesn’t stay where it’s applied. While much of it ends up in the soil for years, the chemical can also travel through the air.
An EPA review of new test data indicates that paraquat can volatilize more than previously measured and the screening model indicates the potential for exposure to people up to and over 2.7 miles away, much farther than previously thought.
The EPA has requested additional testing data to measure how far paraquat can travel as a vapor volatilization – but action is years away.
5. Danger of accidental spillsIn March, a large container of paraquat fell from a truck in the northern California town of Dorris, spilling roughly 60 gallons of the chemical onto a major roadway and into the surrounding community.
Citing the threat of exposure to airborne paraquat releases, officials ordered a lockdown affecting about 600 residents, including those at a local elementary school.
The local sheriff’s department noted paraquat is “a highly toxic herbicide that can be fatal if inhaled or ingested. This chemical can be an airborne risk.”
In 2024, paraquat from a Louisiana farm spilled into a rural water system, prompting a “do not use” warning for the water for about 200 people living nearby.
Communities near farm fields shouldn’t have to worry whether an accidental spill of paraquat will force them to stay in their homes if they want to avoid the chemical’s health risks.
State bans on paraquat could eliminate the danger of spills.
6. Threat of accidental or deliberate ingestion“One sip can kill” – that’s the EPA’s message about paraquat, which dedicates a site to warning against accidentally or deliberately ingesting the chemical.
Data from 1998-2008 in California found more than 1,400 cases of accidental poisoning because of improper paraquat storage in unmarked bottles, cups and other containers. These poisonings caused at least 50 deaths, with 12 definitively linked to improper storage.
It’s long past time to ban paraquatThe EPA is reviewing the risks of paraquat use. But a final decision by the agency about whether to restrict it, and how, is likely years away.
And the EPA has a long history of failing to act. No wonder eight former EPA pesticide officials recently urged states to ban paraquat.
Even major countries where paraquat is made have banned it. But not the U.S. Waiting for the EPA to act leaves Americans unnecessarily exposed to the toxic herbicide.
That’s why California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation should act swiftly to prohibit paraquat use in the state, and why the 13 states considering legislative bans must push ahead.
The reasons for banning paraquat are clear. Now it’s time to act.
Areas of Focus Paraquat Authors Anthony Lacey May 12, 2026MEDIA ADVISORY
ALBANY, N.Y. – State lawmakers and public health advocates will hold a rally at the New York Capitol on Wednesday, May 13, from 1 to 2 p.m. EST, to urge passage of legislation to ban the use of the toxic herbicide paraquat, a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease.
Momentum for the bill is building in the New York Legislature. The Assembly version of the paraquat ban bill, A.10074A, was reported to the floor calendar last week. The identical Senate version, S.9094A, is slated for consideration by the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee soon.
WHO
Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal (D/WF-Assembly District 67), bill sponsor
Sen. Pete Harckham (D/WF-40th Senate District), bill sponsor
Dr. Rebecca Gilbert, Ph.D., chief mission officer, American Parkinson Disease Association
Mike Mooney, former landscaper living with Parkinson’s disease
Wes Gillingham, organic farmer, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York
Sarah Teale, an Emmy-nominated documentary filmmaker and farm owner, who discovered that 36 of her neighbors and her husband, Gordon Chaplin, had Parkinson’s disease. They are all from a small farming community in Hebron, N.Y., where paraquat was widely used.
Jud Eson, an artist living with Parkinson’s disease and member of the Albany Parkinson’s disease community involved at the Capital District YMCA
Nancy Eson, wife and care partner of Jud Eson
Representatives from the Environmental Working Group, The Michael J. Fox Foundation and the Parkinson’s Foundation will emcee the event.
WHAT
Rally urging passage of legislation to ban paraquat in New York.
WHEN
Wednesday, May 13, from 1 to 2 p.m. EST
WHERE
3rd floor staircase, outside of the Assembly Lobby, inside New York State Capitol, Albany, N.Y.
WHY
Paraquat is one of the most toxic herbicides still in use in the U.S. and has been associated with a significantly increased risk of Parkinson’s disease.
The chemical has been banned in more than 70 countries over its outsize risks to human health, including in China, where most of it is produced. Advocates and lawmakers urge swift legislative action to protect public health, farmworkers and communities across New York.
###
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 Paraquat Lawmakers, advocates to rally at New York Capitol supporting ban on toxic Parkinson’s pesticide Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 11, 2026FDA finds toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in baby formula but won’t set enforceable limits
WASHINGTON – The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS were found in baby formula sold across the U.S., according to test data recently released by the Food and Drug Administration.
The findings underscore an urgent and long-overdue need for legal limits on PFAS in food. One year ago, the Environmental Working Group urged the FDA to develop action levels for PFAS in food.
Monitoring without action does not protect children. A PFAS action level would let the FDA take legal action to remove products from the market if they exceed that limit.
The FDA tested 312 infant formula samples from 16 brands for 30 PFAS compounds as part of its Operation Stork Speed initiative. Five PFAS compounds were detected.
PFOS was most commonly detected, found in half of all samples at concentrations ranging from 0.51 to 6.0 parts per trillion. PFOS is one of the most toxic and well-studied PFAS and the Environmental Protection Agency says it’s likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
The FDA characterizes these levels as low and concludes the infant formula supply is safe.
“No safe level of PFAS exposure has been established, and that is especially true for infants,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., EWG chief science officer.
“PFOS bioaccumulates in the body and it damages the immune system, including reducing the effectiveness of vaccines in babies and children. Detecting it in half of all formula samples and characterizing these findings as a proof of safety is not a conclusion the science supports,” said Andrews.
“Formula is the sole nutrition source for millions of American infants and toddlers. The FDA’s safety claim is not acceptable, given these detections of a known cancer-causing chemical. The agency must set enforceable PFAS action levels for food, as other nations already have done."
“Congress gave the FDA the authority to set limits on contaminants in infant formula. The agency has chosen not to use it,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at EWG.
“Every day the FDA delays setting enforceable PFAS limits is another day American infants are exposed to toxic PFAS with zero legal protection. That is a policy choice, and it is the wrong one,” he said.
Not just trace contaminationPFOS was phased out of U.S. manufacturing under pressure from the EPA after evidence emerged of significant health hazards. It was used in 3M’s Scotchgard and widely deployed in firefighting foam at military bases and airports, contaminating groundwater systems across the country.
EWG’s PFAS contamination map documents PFOS in the drinking water supply of nearly half the nation’s water systems.
The EPA regulates PFOS in drinking water at a maximum contaminant level of just 4 parts per trillion, set because of PFOS’s classification as a carcinogen.
The FDA has established no equivalent limit for infant formula, so infants and toddlers may continue to be exposed to PFOS in food, as well as in tap water.
“Most of the formula samples the FDA tested were powdered, and most parents mix powdered formula with tap water,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG. “Depending on where you live, your tap water may be contaminated with PFAS.
“That means babies could be getting a double dose – PFAS already present in the formula powder, and additional PFAS from the water used to prepare it. That compounding exposure is exactly why we need enforceable limits, not just monitoring,” she added.
The FDA findings closely mirror Consumer Reports’ 2025 investigation, which found PFAS in almost all of the 41 popular baby formula brands it tested, including Enfamil, Similac and Bobbie.
Consumer Reports also identified PFOS as the most concerning compound detected.
Two independent investigations, the same alarming result – and still no enforceable federal standard for PFAS in food.
Food may be the primary route of PFAS exposureFor millions of Americans, food – not drinking water – is the main route of PFAS exposure. These chemicals enter the food supply through multiple pathways federal regulators have failed to close.
“PFAS are clearly infiltrating our entire food system as a direct result of regulatory failure,” said Andrews.
“PFAS-containing pesticides are being applied to crops. Biosolids contaminated with PFAS are being spread on farm fields. Contaminated water is being sprayed on food crops. Every one of these pathways is preventable, and every one of them remains legal,” said Andrews.
“We need to ban all nonessential uses of PFAS, starting with these agricultural applications, before the contamination gets any worse,” he added.
Stakes are highest for the most vulnerablePFAS exposure, with its health stakes, begins before birth.
PFAS are toxic at extremely low levels. They are known as forever chemicals because once released into the environment, they do not break down and can build up in the body. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies.
PFAS readily cross the placenta and have been detected in umbilical cord blood, confirming that the developing fetus faces direct prenatal exposure.
When PFAS are detected in the infant formula that millions of American babies depend on as their sole source of nutrition, the exposure does not begin at the first feeding. For many infants, it has already been accumulating for months.
A recent study also links prenatal PFAS exposure to premature birth, low birth weight and infant mortality. The full range of documented harms extends further still: thyroid disruption, harm to the male reproductive system, pregnancy-induced high blood pressure, reduced fertility and shorter duration of breastfeeding.
Very low doses of PFAS have been linked to suppression of the immune system. Studies show exposure to PFAS can also increase the risk of cancer, harm fetal development and reduce vaccine effectiveness.
The impact on infants and toddlers is especially pronounced. “Babies are not small adults when it comes to chemical exposure – they are categorically more vulnerable,” said Stoiber.
“Babies’ bodies are smaller, their organs are still developing, and their immune systems are not yet fully formed. When PFAS accumulate in an infant’s body, the proportional impact is far greater than it would be in an adult exposed to the same amount.
“Parents are often limited in the type of formula that is available to them and the FDA’s testing did not disclose the brand names tested. The FDA must act to protect all children,” she added.
“The administration says it wants to make America healthy again,” said Faber. “Here is a straightforward way to start: Set enforceable limits on PFAS in baby formula today.
“The science is clear, the authority exists and the harm has been documented. American families cannot wait any longer for the federal government to do its job,” he added.
What parents can do right nowNo parent should have to navigate this alone. Until the FDA establishes enforceable PFAS standards in infant formula, here are practical steps to reduce your baby’s exposure:
- Use filtered water when preparing powdered formula. A reverse osmosis system provides the most effective PFAS filtration. Countertop pitcher filters have also shown meaningful effectiveness in EWG testing.
- Check EWG’s PFAS contamination map to see whether your local water supply has documented PFOS or other PFAS contamination.
- Make your voice heard. Contact the FDA and your elected representatives and demand enforceable PFAS limits in infant formula. The FDA’s Operation Stork Speed is an ongoing testing program. Sustained public pressure from parents is one of the most effective ways to accelerate the regulatory action.
###
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 & Water Food Children’s Health PFAS Chemicals Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 5, 2026Peer-reviewed EWG study finds produce washing options can reduce pesticide residue
- All methods of washing fruits and vegetables reduced pesticide residues, but effectiveness varied widely and depends on the pesticide, produce and method.
- Soaking produce in a solution of baking soda or vinegar solution was more effective than soaking or rinsing in water, on average.
- EWG scientists recommend improvements to how pesticides are monitored in food and in people to further reduce exposure.
WASHINGTON – Affordable, simple household practices can reduce pesticide levels on fruits and vegetables and help consumers lower their daily dietary exposure to potentially harmful farm chemicals, a new peer-reviewed study by Environmental Working Group scientists finds.
The study builds on EWG’s pesticide consumer guidance in the annual Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™ and its comprehensive research on pesticides exposures.
“Fruits and vegetables are essential to a healthy diet, but they can also increase exposure to pesticides,” said Dayna de Montagnac, M.P.H., associate scientist at EWG and lead author of the study.
“Our findings reinforce the effectiveness of safe and accessible ways to reduce pesticide exposure while highlighting necessary improvements in research and monitoring to further reduce it,” she said.
Pesticide residues on produceThe review, published recently in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Health, analyzed data from 47 peer-reviewed studies of 23 produce items and 79 pesticides. The findings point to safe and effective methods consumers can use at home to reduce pesticide residues and provide a starting point for more research and monitoring in this area of study.
Last year, EWG published peer-reviewed research showing how the consumption of fruits and vegetables with higher pesticide residues is linked to measurable levels of pesticides in urine. Other recent publications have investigated the growing problem of PFAS pesticides, chlormequat and glyphosate.
Studies of the general population show exposure to pesticides is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, hormone disruption and neurotoxicity in children.
Residues of these chemicals are often detected on produce and frequently appear in mixtures on every type of produce, except potatoes, with an average of four or more pesticides detected on individual samples, according to EWG’s recent analysis of Department of Agriculture pesticide testing data.
Key findingsEWG scientists reviewed data that recorded pesticide concentrations of fruits and vegetables before and after rinsing or soaking them with water, baking soda or vinegar. Experiments where scientists rinsed their produce for more than two minutes were excluded to better reflect how people likely wash their produce at home.
Among the key findings:
- All washing methods reduced pesticide residues, but effectiveness varied widely.
- Rinsing with water showed modest reductions, with a median of 30.2%, although reductions ranged from 0% to 94%.
- Soaking in plain water performed slightly better than rinsing, with reductions from 0.6% to over 99% and a median of 33.7%.
- Baking soda soaking substantially improved removal, achieving reductions from 0.2% to over 99%, with a median of 50.9%.
- Vinegar, or acetic acid, soaking was the most effective method overall, with reductions ranging from 8.6% to over 99% and a median of 54.2%.
- Baking soda and vinegar treatments outperformed plain water by more than 15 percentage points in median pesticide reduction across studies, likely because of how certain pesticides break down in alkaline or acidic environments.
- Real-world effectiveness may be lower than what EWG’s study showed, since many studies used higher concentrations of baking soda or vinegar than a typical household would.
- Key factors influencing pesticide removal included the chemical properties of the pesticide, the washing method used, and the type and surface characteristics of the produce.
These findings confirm the role washing produce can provide in moderately lowering pesticide levels.
Where more work is neededThe study’s authors recommend that government agencies make it a priority to monitor stubborn pesticides, those that remain on produce even after household washing.
They also suggest expanding biomonitoring of fruits and vegetables to include pesticides frequently detected in the U.S. food supply.
Future research should explore what proportion of pesticide residues remain within specific produce items and to what extent these residues increase exposure.
The authors also suggest study designs that are more realistic, such as testing for the effect of rinsing for just a few seconds as a baseline. Further experiments could then show how adding baking soda or vinegar, with incremental increases in concentrations and washing times, can compare to the baseline method.
What consumers can doEWG recommends regularly washing and eating plenty of fruit and vegetables.
Washing produce in any way will always be better than no washing in reducing exposure to pesticide residues. The USDA’s Pesticide Residue Program rinses produce samples with cold water for 15 to 20 seconds before testing produce, reflecting the assumption that consumers do basic washing at home.
A quick rinse or soak works in a pinch. When feasible, the addition of baking soda or vinegar to soaking solutions can further reduce residues. Refer to EWG’s guide on washing produce for more guidance.
When possible, EWG recommends prioritizing organic produce for the most pesticide-heavy produce listed in its Shopper’s Guide. The guide features the Dirty Dozen™ list of the produce with the highest pesticide residues detected and the Clean Fifteen™ list of items with the lowest residues.
###
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 Food Family Health Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 5, 2026Vermont Senate advances landmark ban on Parkinson’s pesticide
Vermont’s Senate today gave its initial approval to landmark legislation that would ban the use and sale of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat, bringing the state to the cusp of becoming the first in the nation to enact such a prohibition.
The legislation, H. 739, would end Vermonters’ exposure to paraquat, an extremely dangerous weedkiller linked to serious health harms, including Parkinson’s disease. Despite these risks, the U.S. still allows its use, even though more than 70 countries have banned it.
Vermont’s House passed a nearly identical measure in March and must now vote to concur with the Senate’s version, before sending the bill to Gov. Phil Scott (R).
“With today’s vote, Vermont is on the verge of making history by becoming the first state to ban paraquat,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at the Environmental Working Group. “Lawmakers in both chambers have recognized the urgent need to protect public health. The House should act swiftly to send this bill to the governor’s desk.”
Horsfield thanked Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike for their work on the bill, led by Rep. Esme Cole (Windsor-6) and Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick (Chittenden-Central District). “They have made clear that safeguarding farmers, rural communities and children must take precedence over continued use of one of the most hazardous pesticides still on the market,” he added.
Paraquat has been extensively studied for its links to Parkinson’s disease and other serious illnesses, and even small amounts of exposure can pose significant health risks, including death. The chemical can travel through the air for more than two miles and persist in the environment, raising concerns for rural communities and agricultural workers alike.
If enacted, the legislation would position Vermont as a national leader at a moment of growing momentum to phase out paraquat. At least 12 other states have introduced similar bans, and California is considering new regulatory restrictions. These efforts are clear signs of escalating concern over the chemical’s well-documented health risks.
“If signed into law, this bill will prevent needless exposure to a chemical tied to a devastating disease and set a powerful precedent for states across the country to follow,” Horsfield said.
###
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 Farming & Agriculture Paraquat Vote puts state on brink of being first-in-nation to prohibit toxic herbicide paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 6, 2026Going full glam with EWG Verified®
.has--background.block-content--type-curated-block-list { padding-top: 3rem; padding-bottom: 3rem; }
Crafting the perfect look for any occasion takes laser-like focus, patience and the right products. The last thing on your mind should be whether a product is safe to use.
When you're getting ready for an important occasion, whether a wedding, prom or graduation, you don't want any stress over what’s in your cosmetics.
This spring, EWG is making sure those worries won’t interrupt your makeup flow state. We’ve put together a list of products to help reach your full glam look. This list includes lipsticks, mascaras, eyeliners, eyeshadows and foundations.
The best part? Every product below is EWG Verified®. That means it has been reviewed by our scientists and meets our strictest standards for safety and ingredient transparency.
If you’re looking for other ideas or products, check out our Skin Deep database.
Lips CRUNCHI Everluxe® Lip Crayon View details Counter Lined and Primed Lip Defining Pencil View details Maia’s Mineral Galaxy Liquid Lipstick View details Mascara Well People Expressionist Curling Mascara View details Counter Think Big Mascara View details Rejuva Minerals Pur Lash Volumizing Mascara View details Eyeliner Well People Fresh Lines Eye Pencil View details Maia's Mineral Galaxy Mineral Eye Liner View details CRUNCHI Highliner® Pencil View details Eyeshadow CRUNCHI Shadow Bar® Enchanted Neutrals View details Rejuva Minerals Eyeshadow Multi Purpose Powder View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Eyeshadow View details Brows DIME Boost Duo View details Well People Expressionist Brow Pencil View details Foundation Well People Supernatural Complexion Stick Foundation + Concealer, Light Medium Warm View details ATTITUDE Oceanly Foundation, Cream View details Counter Skin Twin Featherweight Foundation View details Highlighter/bronzer ATTITUDE Oceanly Highlighter View details Well People Supernatural Stick Highlighter View details Counter Velvet Cream Bronzer View details Authors EWG Communications Team April 30, 2026FDA abandons stricter tanning bed standards, leaving teens at risk
Tanning beds can increase the risk of skin cancer, and the Food and Drug Administration has long warned that children and teens should never use them. Yet the agency has quietly killed a rule that would have banned anyone under 18 from using these devices.
The FDA first proposed the rule over a decade ago, along with other restrictions on the use of tanning beds and requiring that they carry warning labels. If finalized, the rule would have brought the federal government in line with dozens of states that have already restricted teens’ access to the beds.
Instead, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s FDA recently issued a notice scrapping the proposal. The agency justified the move by claiming industry groups and others raised “scientific and technical concerns” about the plan. It also asserted that withdrawing the proposal doesn’t prevent it from crafting new tanning bed rules in the future.
That leaves minors without any federal protection from an industry that has long targeted teenage girls. It’s hardly going to “Make America Healthy Again.”
At least 23 states, along with most of Canada, the European Union and Australia have already banned minors from tanning beds due to their serious health risks. The FDA’s decision is a clear case of burying its head in the sand while leaving teens in harm’s way.
What the science saysThe science on tanning bed risks isn’t emerging or uncertain.
A large scientific body of evidence links tanning bed use to serious health harms, with cancer often occurring decades after first exposure. The FDA’s withdrawn rule was based on these findings, proposing a plan to protect minors across the country from these harms.
In 1999, the National Toxicology Program classified tanning beds as known carcinogens. It cited the link between the ultraviolet, or UV, radiation the beds produce and the risk of developing both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers.
Nearly a decade later, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, placed tanning beds in its highest risk category: a known human carcinogen. This classification is the same given to tobacco and asbestos, based on a 75% increased risk of melanoma for women who start using tanning beds before the age of 30.
A large body of epidemiological evidence also links use of sunbeds to higher melanoma risk, especially when first use occurs before age 30.
The IARC review also found that tanning bed usage increased the risk for other skin cancers including, squamous cell carcinoma, as well as caused serious, lasting eye damage.
Agency avoids actionDespite the evidence, the FDA spent decades avoiding any real action.
When initially faced with evidence showing rising melanoma rates in young women, the agency proposed in 2013 a warning label. That label advised that tanning beds should not be used by people under the age of 18. But there was no way to enforce it to guarantee the labels were used, and no restriction on minors using the beds.
It was a gesture, not a safeguard.
The ultraviolet A, or UVA, radiation inside a tanning bed is very different from the natural sunlight your body encounters outdoors.
Tanning beds are deliberately engineered to maximize UVA radiation, the wavelength responsible for tanning the skin, while minimizing ultraviolet B, or UVB, rays responsible for sunburn. It’s a design choice to keep customers coming back by removing the most immediate, visible consequences of overexposure.
But suppressing the burn doesn’t suppress the damage. UVA radiation penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB and is linked to skin aging, skin immune harm and plays an important role in the development of skin cancer.
Some proponents of tanning beds point to modest, short-lived increases in the body’s vitamin D levels as a justification for use. But researchers are clear. No brief vitamin D boost is worth the added cancer risk, especially when there are safer alternatives, such as dietary changes.
Ineffective sunscreen carries its own risksThe tanning bed problem doesn’t stop at the salon door.
Consumers might think wearing sunscreen while sunbathing protects them from harmful UVA exposure. But many sunscreens primarily block the rays that cause sunburn, UVB, while providing far weaker protection against UVA. The result is UV exposure that closely resembles a tanning bed.
Researchers calculated that a two-week vacation spent using a sunscreen with poor UVA protection, even with frequent reapplication and no visible sunburn, delivers the same solar exposure as 10 trips to a tanning salon.
That’s why EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens® places heavy weight on strong UVA protection in the product rankings. And it’s why we’ve worked for decades to urge the FDA to require stronger UVA standards and set a limit on sun protection factor, or SPF, values for U.S. sunscreen.
The gap between what sunscreens promise with their often high SPF labels and what they actually deliver on UVA is well documented.
When EWG tested sunscreens in 2021, we found that, on average, UVA protection was just one-quarter of the SPF level advertised on the label.
FDA researchers reached the same conclusion in their own sunscreen testing, finding that many U.S. sunscreens lack adequate UVA protection. The agency flagged a particular concern that high SPF numbers often mask weak UVA coverage.
EWG Verified® sunscreens go one step further. These products must undergo additional testing to confirm that their UVA protection exceeds the requirements in both the U.S. and in Europe – not just meet them. They’re also free from EWG’s chemicals of concern, so you know you’re buying a safer and more effective sunscreen for you and your family.
The sun is both a major cause of skin cancer and the body’s primary source of vitamin D, an essential nutrient that forms when skin is exposed to intense sunlight.
But generating vitamin D needs only a few minutes of sun exposure per week during summer for people with less melanated skin. Major medical associations advise against deliberate, prolonged sun exposure as a strategy for boosting vitamin D levels. The health risks outweigh the returns.
What you can doThe science on tanning beds, sunscreens and UV risks is clear, even if federal policy is not.
EWG provides actionable consumer advice to minimize the potential for long-term harm:
- Avoid tanning beds entirely. There is no safe level of use, especially for minors. The risk increases the younger that someone starts using them.
- Use sunscreen. High SPF numbers don’t always guarantee UVA protection. It’s important to find a sunscreen that works for you.
- Check out EWG’s tools. Search EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens™ and EWG's Healthy Living App to find top-rated products that provide balanced UVA/UVB protection without ingredients of concern.
- Cover up. Wear protective clothing, hats and UV-blocking sunglasses.
- Seek shade. Find or create your shade with an umbrella or canopy.
- Time your outdoor activities. UV radiation is strongest between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. Plan your outdoor time around the sun's peak hours when you can.
Go outside. Have fun. Don’t get burned. A tanning bed isn’t worth the risk.
Areas of Focus Sunscreen Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Agency withdraws decade-old plan for protecting minors from skin cancer Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. May 1, 2026Your favorite brands might be in the fight against stricter food safety laws
More than a dozen states have enacted laws to protect consumers from harmful food chemicals and ultra-processed foods. Your favorite food brands may be tied up in efforts to erase them.
A draft bill known as the “FRESH” and Affordable Foods Act, introduced last week by Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.), would take an unprecedented step in food policy by undoing many state laws aimed at strengthening food safety. States would also lose authority to regulate food chemicals in the future.
If enacted, the bill would make it dramatically easier for the food industry to add new chemicals to the food supply without meaningful review by the Food and Drug Administration – and would make it harder for the public to get information about these substances.
The bill closely mirrors previous proposals advanced by Americans for Ingredient Transparency, or AFIT. This is a front group lobbying for the interests of the largest food manufacturers and trade associations in the country.
Names you might recognize on AFIT’s website include the Coca Cola Company, General Mills, Hormel Foods, Ken’s, Keurig Dr Pepper, Kraft Heinz, McCormick & Company, Nestlé, Ocean Spray, PepsiCo, Sargento and Tyson Foods.
While AFIT isn’t officially backing the bill, the clear parallels between its wishlist and the legislation make its involvement appear likely.
Brand favorites are tied up in the food fightThe companies belonging to AFIT own thousands of popular U.S. food and drink brands, whose products could be sitting on your shelves or in your fridge right now.
Below are just a few brands – many of which are known for promoting healthy or kid-friendly foods – owned by companies who are members of the front group AFIT.
General Mills is known for classic cereal brands like Cheerios. It also owns Cascadian Farm, EPIC protein bars, Larabar, Nature Valley and Yoplait.
Nestlé is the parent company of a range of brands, from Gerber baby and toddler foods to San Pellegrino waters to Orgain protein powders and nutritional supplements.
Keurig Dr Pepper owns the Mott’s brand, which caters to kids and families with its applesauce, juice and other snack lines. It also owns multiple flavored water brands, including Bai and Core Hydration.
PepsiCo is the parent company of multiple brands marketing nutrition supplements and healthier beverage options like Bubly, Poppi and Lifewater. Its products also include Sabra hummus, PopCorners chips, and Quaker oats, bars and cereals.
The complete list of foods owned by member companies of AFIT spans products found in virtually every grocery aisle. It includes a wide range of popular meat and poultry items, cookies and crackers, chips and snacks, energy and sports drinks, canned food, condiments, spices and seasonings, and prepared and frozen meals.
The FRESH Act makes food less safeThe retroactive reach of the FRESH Act – undoing existing state food safety laws – is its most radical feature and the one that has received the least attention.
California’s Food Safety Act, which bans Red Dye No. 3, brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate and propyl paraben from food sold in the state, would be nullified.
Similar laws in Arkansas, Texas and Utah banning the same chemicals would be void. Taken together, these state laws represent years of effort, public advocacy and the democratic process, which would all be eliminated overnight by one single federal bill.
The FRESH Act would also make it easier for companies to add chemicals to food without FDA approval. Food chemicals already approved, including those considered “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, would not receive additional FDA review.
But GRAS chemicals aren’t necessarily safe chemicals. That’s because nearly 99% percent of the chemicals approved as GRAS since the year 2000 have been greenlighted by industry, not the FDA.
The FRESH Act would undermine an already weak system for approving new chemicals. It would allow food chemical companies to submit even less information to the FDA on the chemicals they use.
The bill would also let companies enlist industry-funded expert panels to decide food chemicals are safe, as long as they are added to an FDA database. Experts could also continue to have conflicts of interest as long as they are “managed.” If the FDA doesn’t respond to a request to add a new chemical to the GRAS list in 90 days, it would be added by default.
Under the FRESH Act, even if the FDA does ban a food chemical due to health and safety risks, the chemical of concern would still be allowed in food for two years. Companies may also ask the FDA to hide safety information from the public or delay chemical restrictions indefinitely by requesting hearings.
Everything the bill aims to achieve is a striking contrast to the agenda of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Under his signature “Make America Healthy Again,” Kennedy has called out food dyes, ultra-processed foods and the GRAS loophole as targets for reform.
What consumers can do nowIn the absence of federal action, states have stepped up to protect our health by removing toxic chemicals from our food. The FRESH Act would strip states of that power and place food safety in the hands of chemical companies instead.
Contact your representative and urge them to preserve critical public health protections by rejecting the FRESH Act. This is a direct attack on states rights and food safety. Your call carries weight.
At home, shoppers can check EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals, which highlights top food chemicals to avoid due to health and safety concerns.
For some extra help, take a look at EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives.
Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information in your pocket while you shop.
The food industry, including some of your favorite brands, is hoping consumers aren’t paying attention to this fight. Let’s prove them wrong.
Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN April 30, 2026EWG applauds House passage of Luna amendment to protect public from toxic pesticides
WASHINGTON — House lawmakers today passed a farm bill amendment, led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), that removes a controversial liability shield for pesticide manufacturers.
The successful 280-142 vote scraps a provision that would have given the companies sweeping immunity from liability for illnesses linked to their products.
The vote also preserves states’ authority to adopt stronger health warnings for pesticides.
The following is a statement from EWG’s Legislative Director Geoff Horsfield:
EWG strongly supports the House’s adoption of Rep. Luna’s amendment to the farm bill. By striking provisions that would have shielded pesticide manufacturers from accountability and undermined state and local protections, the House has taken an important step to safeguard public health.
At a time when communities nationwide are increasingly concerned about the risks associated with pesticide exposure, lawmakers should be strengthening – not weakening – the ability of states and local governments to act.
Preserving these protections ensures that communities, especially farmworkers and children, are not left vulnerable from exposure to harmful farm chemicals.
EWG commends the House for rejecting efforts to erode state and local authority and urges Congress to maintain this critical language as the farm bill advances. Protecting people from toxic pesticides must remain a top priority.
###
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 Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 April 30, 2026Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.