Fil d’Actualités

6 real policies to help people eat real food Ketura Persellin March 12, 2026 Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. kicked off the “Eat Real Food” campaign last month, promising a series of food and nutrition policy changes to “Make America Healthy Again.”So far, it has failed to act, instead providing a dog and pony show that distracts from policy decisions undermining public health at every turn. Talking the talkFrom the release of its 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans to a heavily scrutinized Superbowl ad featuring Mike Tyson, the administration has made its nutrition agenda clear: It wants Americans to eat “real food.”Its actions suggest otherwise.The Food and Drug Administration relaxed rules that prevent food companies from claiming “no artificial colors” in their products. President Donald Trump signed an executive order securing a steady supply of herbicides containing glyphosate – a toxic pesticide previously targeted by Kennedy for its known health harms. And in 2025, the Agriculture Department delivered the largest funding cut in history to the nation’s most essential food assistance program.Walking the walkIt’s one thing to tell people to choose real food. It’s another thing entirely to make sure those choices are within reach for everybody. The factors that determine our diets include cost, convenience and culture – not to mention the power and influence of companies that profit from producing highly processed foods or harmful pesticides used on U.S. crops.If the Trump administration wants to help people eat real food, it should start by addressing structural barriers. These are six policies that would actually help people eat real food:1. Reform food chemical policy, including processes for reviewing chemical safety. Food safety should be the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration. But a regulatory loophole has allowed companies to make the final call. Almost 99% of new food chemicals introduced to the market since 2000 have been approved by the food and chemical industry without federal safety review. Narrowing the “generally regarded as safe,” or GRAS, loophole should be a top priority for any administration seeking to remove harmful chemicals from food.2. Improve regulation and disclosure of ultra-processed food. An estimated 73% of the U.S. food supply is made up of ultra-processed food, or UPF. Produced in industrial settings, UPF typically contain multiple additives, artificial colors and flavors or non-sugar sweeteners, and are lower in nutritional value than less processed foods. Research has identified UPF as a leading contributor to chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, depression and heart, kidney and gastrointestinal diseases. But the FDA has yet to define UPF or require front-of-package disclosures, making it difficult for consumers to identify these foods.3. Fully fund local and regional food programs. Since 2013, the USDA Farm to School Program has improved local food access for more than 22 million children around the country. The popular program was reinstated this year after being canceled, along with the Local Food for Schools and Child Care Program, in 2025. The Farm to School Program is critical for sourcing more real food for kids, who get as much as half of their daily calorie needs met at school, and requires continued funding and support for projects meeting local needs.4. Make sure all kids have access to healthy school meals. Participation in school meals has been linked to benefits such as better overall diet quality, attendance and test scores. State policies providing school meals to all kids at no cost have been associated with reduced food insecurity, particularly among households living on lower income. Now, dozens of states around the country are also taking steps to remove harmful chemicals from school meals or take UPF off the menu entirely. To make real food available to all students, the administration must keep pace with state progress.5. Expand initiatives to make healthy food available everywhere. In too many places around the U.S., real food is hard to come by. Supermarkets and other stores with fresh produce are not in every community. Programs like the Healthy Food Financing Initiative are designed to fill these grocery gaps by encouraging private financing for more grocery stores, farmers markets, food coops and other sources of fresh food.The program is currently operating under an extension of the 2018 Farm Bill and requires reauthorization and full funding.6. Protect SNAP from funding cuts or changes to eligibility. For the one in seven households that don’t always have enough to eat, food choices can be limited. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, improves food security and helps level the playing field for people who qualify – a majority of whom are either children, elderly or adults living with a disability. Protecting SNAP benefits also means restoring funding for SNAP Education, or SNAP-Ed, which helped make healthy choices easier for families on limited budgets. This program was eliminated last fall. Real food needs real commitmentsWithout meaningful action, the “Eat Real Food” campaign is just rhetoric.In the coming months, the administration has the opportunity to put its priorities into practice by closing regulatory loopholes, strengthening local and regional food systems and making sure every child has enough healthy food to thrive. But judging by its recent actions, it seems poised to leave the opportunity on the table. Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN March 12, 2026

New findings shed light on a widespread gap in the geologic record, where more than a billion years of Earth’s history appear to have been erased.

Leading health and environmental groups urge N.Y. lawmakers to ban toxic herbicide paraquat JR Culpepper March 11, 2026 Albany, N.Y. – A coalition of leading public health and environmental organizations sent a letter today urging swift passage of the Prohibit Paraquat Act, which would ban the use, sale and distribution of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat in the state. The letter, sent to New York State Assembly Speaker Carl E. Heastie and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, urges the legislature to take action on A10074 / S9094 this session. Paraquat is commonly used on crops such as corn, soybeans, strawberries, pears, grapes and apples. A growing body of peer-reviewed studies confirms that paraquat exposure directly increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, a disorder that affects tens of thousands of Americans. It has also been linked to other severe health risks such as thyroid disorders, kidney damage, childhood leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Scientific research shows that even small exposures through air drift or contaminated dust can accumulate over time and pose significant threats to human health.Despite these well-documented risks, paraquat continues to be used in ways that endanger farmworkers, their families and nearby communities, including aerial spraying without sufficient safety buffers.“The human cost of paraquat is severe,” the groups wrote. “Peer-reviewed research shows that exposure to paraquat, particularly when sprayed within 500 meters of homes or workplaces, more than doubles a person’s risk of developing Parkinson’s disease – a progressive, incurable neurological disorder that is on the rise.”Organizations signing the letter include The Michael J. Fox Foundation, Environmental Working Group, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, American Parkinson Disease Association, Parkinson’s Foundation, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter and many others.Paraquat has been banned in more than 70 countries, including China, where much of the herbicide is produced. Yet many of these countries successfully grow the very same crops that are being sprayed with paraquat in the U.S. Lawmakers in at least a dozen other states are considering similar bans.The coalition urged lawmakers to pass the Prohibit Paraquat Act, A10074/S9094, sponsored by Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal (D/WF-Assembly District 67) and state Senator Pete Harckham (D/WF-40th Senate district). The bill would protect New Yorkers from this highly toxic chemical that’s already been banned in much of the world.###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. Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 March 11, 2026

Is green beer safe to drink? Your guide to a happier, healthier St. Patrick’s Day JR Culpepper March 10, 2026 This weekend, bars across the country will serve their booze with a festive twist: beer dyed green in honor of St. Patrick’s Day. If you choose to drink alcohol, you may already be comfortable with a certain level of risk. Alcohol use increases the risk of several types of cancer and other chronic diseases, and experts agree that drinking less is almost always better for your health. Then there’s the matter of dyeing beer green. It carries its own health risks, which may be of lesser concern than alcohol consumption.It’s also worth taking a closer look at popular St. Patrick’s Day dyed treats like green-frosted cupcakes or shamrock cookies. Kids typically consume more artificial dye in their daily lives than adults do, and they’re more vulnerable to potential health effects. What’s in green food coloringGreen beer and other St. Patrick’s Day treats, like green Jell-O, cookies and icing, usually get their color through a mix of blue and yellow dyes, especially Blue Dye No.1 and Yellow Dye No. 5. In a two-year study that reviewed extensive research on food dyes, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, found that dyes such as Yellow 5 pose significant risks to children when their brains are in a critical stage of development. A 1994 study published in Australia and reviewed in the OEHHA report showed that exposure to just one milligram of Yellow 5 can cause irritability, restlessness and disturbed sleep for children. EWG’s Food Scores, which lists nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns for more than 150,000 food and drink products, lists the level of concern for Yellow 5 in food as moderate. Possible concerns for Blue 1 include neurobehavioral effects observed in an animal study published in 2012. According to an analysis published by Center for Science in the Public Interest, Blue 1 is also linked to skin irritation. EWG included both Blue 1 and Yellow 5 in our list of the top 12 food chemicals to avoid, citing the effects they can have on development and their link to behavioral difficulties in children. Regulatory state of playThese synthetic dyes are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, under the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, and are two of the seven colors they currently authorize. The FDA has announced its intent to begin “voluntarily” phasing out petroleum-based artificial food dyes like Blue 1 and Yellow 5 as early as 2026, though it has yet to take any regulatory action toward this goal. West Virginia enacted a state-wide ban on these colors last year. Some food companies have begun making plans to remove synthetic food dyes from their products in response to these state-wide bans of food colors. Other states are considering statewide bans on the distribution and sale of artificial colors including Yellow 5 and Blue 1.Arizona, California, Utah, and Virginia have banned artificial dyes in food served in their schools because of the health risks they pose to children.Safer alternativesIf you’re looking to ditch the dyes but still want to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day in style, pistachio, matcha and mint are healthier alternatives – they’ll give your creations a green color with added flavor. Instead of green beer, mix up this frozen mint lemonade to keep the holiday spirit alive, while avoiding toxic dyes and chemicals. Or consider food that is naturally green, like this green goddess salad. Check EWG’s Food Scores to see what’s in the food you’re purchasing, including any food dyes, as well as how healthy the product is for you or your children. As always, making informed decisions is about weighing risks. One green treat – whether a pint for the adults or cookies for kids – is unlikely to have a lasting impact on your health. Nonetheless, with green dye in treats for all ages, St. Patrick’s Day is a sober reminder to check ingredients in products you don’t want to make a habit of eating or feeding your children.  Guest Authors Grant Pacernick, Communications intern March 10, 2026

New data shows 176M exposed to ‘forever chemicals’ as Trump EPA rolls back drinking water limits JR Culpepper March 10, 2026 WASHINGTON – About 176 million people in the U.S. drink tap water contaminated by the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, according to new test data released by the Environmental Protection Agency. That’s four million more Americans exposed to PFAS in drinking water than EPA found in previous tests. The total keeps moving closer to EWG’s 2020 estimate that PFAS is in the water of 200 million Americans.At the same time as the known number of exposed people has gone up, the Trump administration is moving to roll back federal limits designed to protect their drinking water.  The 2.3% increase underscores the seriousness of the intensifying PFAS contamination crisis. It also makes the EPA’s plan to weaken drinking water protections even more alarming. “The EPA’s own data proves the known extent of PFAS contamination is getting worse,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., acting chief science officer at the Environmental Working Group. “In 2020, we estimated PFAS were in the water of 200 million Americans. This new data confirms what we feared: PFAS are widespread in Americans’ drinking water,” he added. “Yet the Trump administration is preparing to abandon protections by rolling back limits on four PFAS that can be detected in water. Delaying, weakening or abandoning PFAS limits is a public health betrayal.”The EPA’s new findings come from tests of the nation’s drinking water supply conducted as part of the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, or UCMR 5, which requires U.S. water utilities to test drinking water for 29 individual PFAS compounds.Protections under threatIn 2024, the EPA finalized first-time limits on six PFAS in drinking water.In a reversal last May, the EPA announced plans to roll back limits on four PFAS – GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS – leaving those chemicals unregulated. The agency plans to retain the standards for the two most notorious chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, at 4 parts per trillion. But it also wants to extend the compliance deadline to 2031. The limits, called maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs, set enforceable standards for the amount of contaminants allowed in drinking water. The EPA’s plan to reverse the four MCLs also likely contradicts an anti-backsliding provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act. That law requires any revision to a federal drinking water standard to “maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons.”“The EPA is abandoning science-based protections at the exact moment its own tests prove we need them most,” said Melanie Benesh, EWG’s vice president for government affairs. “This isn’t just a regulatory rollback. It’s a deliberate exposure of American families to chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health issues,” she added.Americans are experiencing a crisis of confidence in chemical safety. About 70% of U.S. adults fear for the safety of family members’ exposure to chemicals in drinking water, according to a new national survey by Pew Charitable Trusts. More than four out of five people, or 83%, believe the government must do more to protect people from harmful substances. Widespread PFAS pollution Even if the PFOA and PFOS MCLs remain in force, scrapping the four other limits will make it harder to hold polluters responsible for endangering millions of Americans by releasing toxic forever chemicals into U.S. waterways. The EPA’s toxicity assessments of GenX and PFHxS — replacements for PFOA and PFOS — found that exposure to even extremely small doses could similarly pose serious health risks.  If finalized, the EPA’s new rule would no longer enforce limits on GenX and PFHxS in tap water.EWG estimates nearly 30,000 industrial polluters could be discharging PFAS into the environment, including into sources of drinking water. Restrictions on industrial discharges would lower the amount of PFAS ending up in drinking water sources.“Addressing the problem of widespread drinking water contamination means stopping chemicals at the source. For PFAS, that’s industrial sites, chemical plants and any manufacturers unnecessarily using these chemicals in consumer products,” said Andrews. Health risks of PFAS exposurePFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because once released into the environment, they do not break down, and they 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. 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. For over 30 years, EWG has been dedicated to safeguarding families from harmful environmental exposures, holding polluters accountable and advocating for clean, safe water.“Consumers should be able to get clean water straight from the tap,” Andrews said. “With 176 million people now exposed to PFAS in their drinking water, government regulators must step up to ensure utilities have the resources to remove these toxic forever chemicals. Safe, clean drinking water should be guaranteed.”“While the cost of removing PFAS from drinking water should not fall on consumers, there are home filters that can help,” he added.For people who know of or suspect the presence of PFAS in their tap water, a home filtration system is the most efficient way to reduce exposure. Reverse osmosis and activated carbon water filters can be extremely effective at removing PFAS. EWG researchers tested the performance of 10 popular water filters to evaluate how well each reduced PFAS levels detected in home tap water. ###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 Water Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Four million more Americans than previously known are drinking PFAS-contaminated water Press Contact JR Culpepper jr.culpepper@ewg.org (202) 779-9990 March 10, 2026