Fil d’Actualités

Valentine’s Day: Showing love for you or another with the perfect fragrance gift Anthony Lacey February 5, 2026 Fragrance is a longtime favorite Valentine’s Day gift, and for good reason: Some pleasing smells can trigger the release of dopamine and serotonin, contributing to feelings of happiness and well-being. Choosing a fragrance isn’t just about how it smells, but also about what is actually in the bottle. Some can contain chemicals of concern, but knowing which ingredients to avoid can help you make a safer choice.The association between February 14 and love reaches back to an ancient Roman fertility festival. It intensified in the 19th century, when sentimental traditions like personalized, fancy, often scented cards grew in popularity. Fast forward to the 2020s: Total U.S. spending on fragrance for the big day is estimated to top $25 billion this year. So many choices – how to choose?There are thousands of fragrance brands, so no matter who you’re shopping for, the options abound. There’s just one hitch: Most fragrance is a mystery cocktail of chemicals. The lack of transparency is troubling – leaving consumers guessing about what they're putting on their skin. It makes fragrance shopping tricky, and it’s why knowing what is in a scent matters just as much as how it smells. Fragrance producers often provide limited transparency about the ingredients in their product mixtures, hiding behind claims of confidential business information. Only partial disclosure rules exist, such as California’s requirement to disclose hazardous ingredients and allergens in fragrance. At the federal level, the Food and Drug Administration won expanded authority to set standards for fragrance allergen labeling requirements in a 2022 update to a cosmetics safety law. But the FDA is late in releasing those standards.Potential health consequences Some fragrance chemicals are not benign. Exposure can lead to a range of health problems, including hormone disruption. Certain fragrance chemicals are phthalates, which can harm the reproductive system. Another fragrance chemical, styrene, is linked to cancer. The lack of disclosure of fragrance chemicals can also cause allergic reactions in kids and adults. Fragrance chemicals are also bad for the environment: Chemical vapors in fragrance, called volatile organic compounds, can contribute to ozone pollution and form fine particulates, according to one study.Thirty-five percent of participants in a 2023 EWG-commissioned survey use fragrance daily – exposure that adds up over time.Here’s how to chooseEWG can help you sift through the seemingly infinite number of fragrance options. Start with our free, searchable database, Skin Deep®, which rates about 130,000 products based on their hazards. Products with a rating of 1 or 2 are considered low hazard.Concerns about  transparency in fragrance are one reason EWG created EWG Verified®. When you see the EWG Verified mark on a product, you can be sure it’s free from chemicals that our scientists have determined to be hazardous, and that the product meets our strictest standards for your health.EWG Verified scents are not only made with safer ingredients, they also contain fewer ingredients, lowering the risk of toxicity.The first brand to earn the mark was Henry Rose. Like other brands and scent websites, Henry Rose offers a “find your scent” quiz designed to help you identify your favorite fragrance type.Today several other brands have earned the EWG Verified mark, including:DIME’s 7 Summers, with top notes of “juicy pear,” vanilla orchid and “blonde woods.”Qet, with rosewood and jasmine botanical nectars.Rosy & Earnest, available in a discovery set.Uncommon James’ Hard Feelings, whose top notes are pink pepper and bergamot.Layermore’s Amal, with floral, amber and musk notes.Just the Goods’ fragrance, in a handful of individual scents.The Golden Secrets Signature Blend Essential Oil Perfume.The packaging and presentation of these scents more than hold their own against traditional fragrance. And these products offer the added benefit of helping you reduce exposure to hazardous chemicals.A gift of fragrance should feel like an act of care, not a leap of faith. Choosing scents made with  ingredients fully disclosed to EWG and reviewed to ensure they contain none of our chemicals of concern helps protect your loved ones and yourself from unnecessary chemical exposure. Romance should not come with hidden risks. The best Valentine’s Day gifts are the ones that come from the heart while also safeguarding health and well-being. Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Family Health Women's Health Toxic Chemicals Phthalates Authors Ketura Persellin February 5, 2026

Kennedy’s FDA retreats from pledge to ban artificial food dyes Anthony Lacey February 5, 2026 WASHINGTON – Despite repeated pledges to crack down on artificial food dyes, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. today announced that the Food and Drug Administration will ease enforcement of federal food additive rules.The move will make it easier for food manufacturers to claim their products are free of artificial dyes.The following is a statement from the Environmental Working Group's President and co-Founder Ken Cook: This latest retreat on synthetic food dye regulations is another broken promise from Secretary Kennedy and President Donald Trump. They pledged outright bans on dangerous food chemical additives to their “Make America Healthy Again” base.Instead, states are doing the hard work to protect families, while Kennedy settles for handshake deals with Big Food and chemical companies – agreements with no real accountability and no guarantee they’ll be honored.There are more than 25 states where legislation is being considered that would ban synthetic food dyes and other food chemical additives linked to ADHD and hyperactivity in children, among other health harms.###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 Ultra-Processed Foods Family Health Children’s Health Food Chemicals Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 February 5, 2026

Pennsylvania lawmakers, health advocates rally at Capitol to ban toxic weedkiller paraquat Anthony Lacey February 5, 2026 HARRISBURG, Pa. – A bipartisan group of Pennsylvania lawmakers joined farmers and public health advocates at the Capitol this week to call for swift passage of House Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 1158. The legislation would prohibit the use of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat statewide and protect Pennsylvanians from future exposure to the chemical.The House bill, introduced last year by state Reps. Natalie Mihalek (R-Allegheny/Washington) and Melissa Shusterman (D-Chester County), would amend the Pennsylvania Pesticide Control Act of 1973 to ban all uses of paraquat across the commonwealth, starting in 2027.If enacted, it would bring the Keystone State in line with more than 70 countries that have already outlawed the weedkiller, including China, Brazil and the European Union.This week, companion legislation was introduced in the state Senate by Sens. Devlin Robinson (R-37) and Nick Miller (D-14), who joined their House colleagues at the event at the Capitol. Research shows that people who work in or live near fields where paraquat is sprayed face significantly higher risks of developing Parkinson’s disease, with some studies showing the risk may double. One study, using data from the National Institutes of Health, found that people who applied paraquat on farm fields were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as those who handled other agricultural chemicals.Paraquat exposure has also been associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, kidney cancer, thyroid disorders and – particularly in rural communities – a higher risk of childhood leukemia linked to prenatal exposure.“Paraquat is so toxic that even small exposures can be deadly, yet it remains legal in the United States while much of the world has already banned the notorious herbicide,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at the Environmental Working Group. “The House and Senate bills are commonsense steps to protect farmers, farmworkers and rural communities from a chemical that science has clearly shown poses unacceptable risks,” he added.“If links to cancer and Parkinson's aren't enough to drive change in Washington D.C., then we have to take action here in Pennsylvania,” Mihalek said. "If my bill were to become law, the Commonwealth would be blazing a path for 49 other states to also prohibit paraquat from being used.”“Over 70 countries no longer permit the use of paraquat,” said Shusterman. “It’s embarrassing that the U.S. is so far behind. We have enough data, we have enough research, and we have enough knowledge. With the federal government unwilling to move to protect us, I believe that now is the time for states to act.”“The dangers of paraquat to human health are well established through numerous scientific studies; more than 70 countries have banned its use, including the entire EU and China, where paraquat is made,” said Robinson. “It’s very telling that the country that produces the product won’t even allow its own citizens to use or be exposed to it. Syngenta, the company that manufactures paraquat, has already paid millions in settlements to those it has harmed with this unsafe pesticide,” he added.“Bottom line – exposure to paraquat is extremely hazardous and sometimes even fatal. This is why I am proud to partner with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Reps. Natalie Mihalek and Melissa Shusterman, the Parkinson Foundation Western Pennsylvania, The Parkinson Council, and many other passionate advocates to support legislation to protect our farmers, agriculture workers, and Pennsylvanians from this dangerous pesticide,” said Robinson.The press conference coincided with a day of advocacy at the Capitol, as farmers, medical professionals and leaders from public health organizations met with lawmakers to urge support for the legislation and immediate action to advance both bills. ###The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action. Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Farm Pollution Family Health Paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 February 5, 2026

EWG comments on California DTSC's 2025 microplastics in consumer products research rcoleman February 4, 2026 Attached are EWG’s comments in support of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s 2025 microplastics in consumer products research. File Download Document ewg-comments-to-ca-dtsc-on-microplastics-1-30-2026.pdf Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Nanomaterials Regional Issues California Authors Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. Samantha Romanick, Ph.D. Bernadette Del Chiaro Susan Little January 30, 2026

‘Forever chemicals’ in drinking water: How exposure can impact infant health Anthony Lacey February 4, 2026 Exposure through drinking water to the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS can harm infant health before birth, a recent study finds. The risks of exposure can include premature birth, low birth weight and even infant mortality. University of Arizona researchers found that babies born to people living downstream from a PFAS-contaminated site were far more likely to give birth before 28 weeks and give birth to infants weighing under 2 pounds, compared to people whose drinking water sources were upstream of the site.The research examined data on PFAS in drinking water and birth outcomes from over 11,000 births from 2010 to 2019 in New Hampshire.Premature birth and low birth weight are key factors linked to infant mortality in the first year. The study also found that living downstream from the site was tied to an increase in infant mortality of 191%. A science review by EWG found that PFAS are routinely detected in umbilical cord blood, crossing the placenta and reaching the developing fetus during pregnancy. The New Hampshire study results add to the large body of evidence that exposure to PFAS can harm infants' health before birth. Exposure to PFAS is also linked to increased risks of certain cancers – most notably kidney and testicular cancer – as well as adverse effects on the immune system, thyroid function, liver and kidneys.  Get Your FREE Copy of EWG's Guide To Avoiding PFAS Chemicals Lasting harmPregnancy is a critical window of health vulnerability, especially when it comes to exposure to chemicals like PFAS, which can affect infants and children in the long term. The New Hampshire study is unique for having a strong methodology designed to examine the impact of exposure to PFAS from drinking water. All the participants lived within about 3 miles of a PFAS-contaminated site. The only difference between the control and study groups was whether the drinking water source was upstream or downstream of the contaminated site. The pregnant people with the highest exposures and worst health harms were from more socioeconomically advantaged groups. Because premature birth is usually linked to economic hardship and limited access to health care, this finding strengthens the case that the PFAS exposure, rather than economic or social factors, played a major role in the poor birth outcomes.   The health effects in young children come at a steep cost. If extended to the larger U.S., the medical costs associated with PFAS-related harms total $8 billion annually. That’s more than double the Environmental Protection Agency’s estimated annual costs of about $3.8 billion to treat PFAS in drinking water under its new regulations. The rules set the first limits on the forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS and other PFAS.Despite these important benefits of tackling PFAS contamination, the EPA is trying to scale back the historic drinking water regulations. Even considering reproductive health benefits alone, the public health gains from cleaning up PFAS-contaminated drinking water could justify the costs of treatment. These gains strengthen the case that the EPA’s drinking water standards for PFAS would benefit  public health, even before accounting for benefits beyond children’s health.EWG research shows that PFAS contamination often occurs alongside multiple other chemicals, not in isolation – and properly designed filtration can reduce many of these contaminants at the same time.Harms even at low levels of PFASAnother study from 2025 further supports the case for regulations. It showed that not only are many people exposed to low levels of PFAS but that a detection of PFAS in a public drinking water supply is likely linked to increased levels in blood. EWG has been mapping PFAS contamination of drinking water since 2015. The new study emphasizes the importance of eliminating that contamination from drinking water.As part of a study of data collected between 2018 and 2020,  California state scientists analyzed  the ways in which PFAS in drinking water affected the levels in Southern Californians’ blood. At least one type of PFAS was detected in the water of more than half the study participants.  Participants had 30% higher blood levels for the PFAS perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, or PFHxS, when they had at least one detection of PFHxS in their untreated source water. Examining detections in final treated drinking water, blood levels were higher for PFHxS by 80%, PFOA by 30%, PFOS by 31% and total PFAS by 42% when there were detections in the water. This demonstrated stronger associations with finished water at the tap.Necessary protective stepPFAS blood levels in study participants were lower than national averages, and much lower, one-thousand fold, than people in highly contaminated communities. Nonetheless, 86% had levels linked to potential health harms, according to 2022 PFAS clinical follow-up guidance from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.If drinking water containing PFAS, even at low levels, changes the levels of these chemicals in our blood, and those levels potentially harm infant health, the cost of remediating public water systems is no longer just an infrastructure expense. It’s a necessary public health protection running into the billions of dollars.Even in communities that are not highly contaminated, drinking water can contribute significantly to PFAS in blood. But the level of contamination could be lowered.Neither the Southern California nor the New Hampshire study examined other known routes of exposure to PFAS, diet and indoor dust,  Ultimately, the Southern California data serves as a model for a national challenge: PFAS are not just an industrial zone problem where the pollution occurs but an everywhere problem. It’s urgent that we address contamination at the source as well as treating drinking water.Reducing exposure to PFAS The EPA finalized its groundbreaking regulations for PFAS in drinking water in 2024, but the agency has moved to scale back those regulations and delay compliance deadlines to 2031. Eleven states have set their own legal standards for drinking water, but a national standard is needed to protect all communities. The cost of an individual filtration system that can reduce or remove PFAS from tap water at home may not suit every budget. But in any event, the cost of cleaning up our drinking water should be paid by those who created the contamination.In the meantime, there are ways you can help reduce your exposure PFAS:Find out what’s in your tap water using EWG’s Tap Water database to look up your water system by postal code or EWG’s interactive map of PFAS in drinking water.Use a reverse osmosis or carbon filter to reduce PFAS in your water.Tell your elected officials drinking water is important to you and your family’s health and that PFAS regulations are important.PFAS are everywhere, not just in our drinking water. If you're looking for other ways to reduce exposure in your home and daily life, consider these tips: Use cast iron, stainless steel and glass cookware.Avoid purchasing clothing or textiles marketed as “stain resistant” or “wrinkle resistant.”Reduce household dust with frequent vacuuming and dusting.Use EWG’s Skin Deep® database to avoid cosmetics with PFAS.  Areas of Focus Water Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Authors Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. February 4, 2026