Fil d’Actualités

A recipient of the Stanley Park Climate Finance Scholarship, Soria hopes to help countries finance their conservation and climate goals.

Even if global temperatures plateau, glaciers worldwide will continue to melt.

‘Poison pill’: How Section 453 could block vital state pesticide protections JR Culpepper August 28, 2025 Some members of Congress are trying to sneak language into a must-pass funding bill that would effectively block state and local pesticide protections. These important safeguards  protect children and homes from the risks of pesticide spraying. Pesticides have been linked to serious health harms, including cancer, neurotoxicity and harm to development and reproduction. Because of their developing bodies and brains, children are especially susceptible to potential health problems. Citing these risks, many states, cities and counties have adopted practical standards to limit pesticide use, restrict spraying near schools, or require notifications when pesticides are used near daycares, parks and other areas the public may gather.  These local ordinances and restrictions are often added as supplemental information to pesticide labels, along with what the Environmental Protection Agency requires. Courts have long upheld that states may add this supplemental information and warnings as long as they don’t conflict with federal law. More than 30 states – including Georgia, Kentucky and Texas – have adopted tough standards limiting how and when pesticides can be sprayed near schools. California and Texas lawmakers, for example, require school officials to use low-risk pesticides. Alabama and North Carolina ban crop dusting near schools. Many other states – including Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan and New Hampshire – have also placed buffer zones for pesticide spraying around schools. Other states, including Georgia and New Mexico, limit the times when pesticides can be sprayed near schools.Illinois and other states require that alerts be posted on school grounds to warn students before or after spraying. Some states, including Kentucky, Minnesota and Nevada, require that parents be notified about spraying. Some, like Louisiana and Pennsylvania, require schools to track students who are sensitive to pesticides.A “poison pill” rider (an accurate use of the term if there ever was one), Section 453, in the fiscal year 2026 House Interior-Environment bill would undo this longstanding state and federal partnership for regulating pesticide spraying. The provision would bar states from regulating pesticides in a way that better fits their local environments and that best protects their communities. States, companies, or other federal agencies would no longer be able to add anything to pesticide labels other than what the EPA requires. Shielding foreign chemical manufacturersSection 453 would be a gift to chemical companies that make pesticides, boosting their efforts to avoid legal liability for health problems caused by exposure to their products.When courts have looked at farmers and workers who have been injured by pesticides, they have relied on state laws to understand those harms more clearly – and to pursue justice. Research continues to show that many of the pesticides can cause cancer and other diseases. That includes RoundUp, which contains glyphosate, and Gramoxone, which contains paraquat.If this poison pill becomes law, crop chemical makers could avoid paying millions in liability cases to people sickened by exposure, while continuing to shield potential harms and what they may have known from the public. Blocking states and localities from more stringent protections – through more strongly worded warnings and labels – would let companies off the hook. It would let them downplay their liability for victims’ health problems.And it would help pesticide manufacturers protect their bottom lines.Handcuffing the EPASection 453 would also handcuff the EPA’s authority to assess the risks of pesticides. The provision would hamstring the agency’s ability to respond to the most recent data about pesticides’ health risks. It would do this by requiring the EPA to rely on human health risk assessments alone. The agency is only required to complete those human health risk assessments every 15 years and often fails to do so. For example, a state, pesticide maker or the EPA may find new information showing a pesticide causes harm or requires additional protections when applying. This would require an update to the label, forcing the EPA to undergo another new human health risk assessment, which could take years to complete. In the meantime, people would continue to be exposed to the chemical and suffer health harms.The EPA would also have to research pesticide cancer risks itself instead of using existing experts and data. Many federal agencies rely on the International Agency for Research on Cancer to identify probable and likely carcinogens. But the EPA would be forbidden from using such data and classifications. If the Department of Health and Human Services were to determine that a pesticide is a carcinogen, Section 453 would ban the EPA from using that data.The EPA is just beginning to address the widespread use of toxic pesticides. Tying its efforts to potentially outdated assessments that may not reflect the best science will impair its ability to take swift and necessary action to protect public health. The battle is just beginningHouse Republicans refuse to remove the harmful provision from the EPA’s funding bill. Instead of protecting the public and listening to health advocates, Republicans are acting at the behest of foreign chemical companies, like Bayer-Monsanto and ChemChina’s Syngenta, and the former pesticide lobbyists at the EPA. This poison pill is just another Republican effort to undo state and local pesticide laws and protect chemical companies, whether through EPA actions or the upcoming farm bill.Advocates are pushing back. Over 140 mayors, lawmakers and other officials from more than 30 states are standing together to urge Congress to reject legislation that would limit longstanding state and local pesticide safety rules. They’re joined by hundreds of members of Congress and 185 environmental, health and agricultural organizations, including EWG. Congress should heed these calls and reject legislative proposals to block state and local laws put in place to safeguard communities. Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Pesticides Authors Geoff Horsfield August 28, 2025

California lawmakers vote to advance EWG-backed food reforms and vital chemical safety bills JR Culpepper August 28, 2025 SACRAMENTO – In a victory for public health, today three bills targeting harmful ultra-processed food and hazardous chemicals in consumer products cleared the California Assembly and Senate appropriations committees.The legislation includes a bill that, if enacted, would make California the first state to adopt new standards for ultra-processed food, or UPF. The second bill would require consumer disclosures for prenatal vitamins. The third would limit the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in consumer products, including cleaners and dental floss.The Environmental Working Group is co-sponsoring all three bills.“From classrooms to kitchens, California is taking concrete steps to reduce everyday exposures to toxic chemicals and protect public health and the environment,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.“These bills reflect growing momentum in California to close dangerous loopholes in chemical safety,” added Del Chiaro. “Lawmakers are standing up for parents, children and all communities by moving forward protections that should have been in place long ago.”In the Senate The Senate Appropriations Committee approved Assembly Bill 1264, the groundbreaking UPF bill, advancing it to the Senate floor.The bill, authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would phase out certain “particularly harmful” UPF from meals served in public schools. If signed into law, it would also create a first-in-the-nation legal definition for UPF.“Processed food can have a place in a healthy diet, but Americans – especially children – consume too many ultra-processed foods, which is contributing to increased rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and behavioral issues in children and diabetes,” said Del Chiaro.  “AB 1264 takes an important step toward protecting children’s health by identifying and removing the most harmful ultra-processed foods from California public schools,” she added. “We commend Assemblymember Gabriel and all of the bill’s co-authors for taking commonsense steps toward better protection of the well-being of California’s children,” she said. In the AssemblyThe Assembly Appropriations Committee considered and approved the other two EWG-backed bills.SB 646, authored by Sen. Dr. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-San Diego), would require prenatal vitamin manufacturers to test for and publicly disclose levels of potentially harmful heavy metals in their products.If the bill is signed into law, California would lead the way on stronger maternal health protections nationwide. The measure would require manufacturers to regularly test a representative sample of their products and post results online, beginning in 2027.“Expecting mothers deserve transparency about the ingredients in the supplements they take to support their health and their baby’s growth,” said Susan Little, EWG’s California legislative director. “It’s alarming to find heavy metals in prenatal vitamins. “This bill is a critical step toward giving consumers the facts and pushing supplement companies to make safer products.”SB 682, authored by Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), would ban the sale or distribution of many consumer products with intentionally added PFAS – including cookware – starting in 2028.PFAS are often used in nonstick coatings and can leach into food during cooking, contributing to serious health risks like suppression of the immune system, increased risk of cancer, harm to fetal development and reduced vaccine effectiveness. The bill also applies to cleaning products, dental floss, plastic food packaging, ski wax and many other products. It would also create a regulatory program to enforce these bans.“No one should be exposed to toxic PFAS just from cooking dinner or cleaning the kitchen afterward,” said Little. “This bill is a bold step toward protecting Californians from unnecessary exposure to ‘forever chemicals’ in everyday products.”###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 Family Health Children’s Health Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 August 28, 2025

EWG urges Rachael Ray to reconsider opposition to California non-toxic cookware bill JR Culpepper August 28, 2025 SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group is urging celebrity chef Rachael Ray to drop her opposition to a California bill that would eliminate toxic cookware in the state. EWG is calling on Ray to support the legislation, now being debated in the state Senate.The legislation, Senate Bill 682, would ban the sale of cookware in the state containing the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS. One of the PFAS covered by the bill is polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE.In a recent letter to state lawmakers on behalf of the cookware industry, Ray defended PTFE as “safe and effective” when used responsibly. EWG sent an August 27 letter to Ray strongly disagreeing with this claim. EWG cites independent science and regulatory bodies in the U.S. and abroad that classify PFAS, including PTFE, as harmful and highly persistent in the environment. These chemicals are linked to cancer, hormone disruption, reduced fertility, developmental harm, liver disease and weakened immunity.EWG is calling on Ray to leverage her platform to champion safer alternatives and demand corporate accountability – not to defend PTFE.“As one of the most trusted public figures in cooking, Rachael Ray has a unique opportunity to lead the industry toward safe, sustainable cookware,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president, California. “We urge her to support SB 682 and protect families from unnecessary exposure to toxic PFAS.“Californians deserve cookware that’s genuinely safe, not coated with chemicals tied to cancer, hormone disruption, developmental damage and weakened immunity,” said Del Chiaro. “Rachel Ray has the influence to help make that a reality for millions of families across the state.”Exposure to PTFEPFAS from PTFE-coated pans can end up in food and the air.  As pans wear down, the coating can flake or degrade into PFAS-laden microplastics, which researchers have detected in human urine and semen and which have been linked to health harms, including reduced sperm count. When overheated, PTFE releases fumes so toxic that manufacturers warn owners not to keep pet birds in the kitchen. These same fumes can sicken people. Hundreds of suspected cases of “Teflon flu” were reported last year alone, noted EWG in its letter to Ray. PFAS contamination has already polluted the drinking water of an estimated 25 million Californians, and the public will pay for the exposure and cleanup, through higher water and health care bills.In the Golden State alone, health care costs tied to PFAS exposure are estimated between $5.5 and $8.7 billion annually.###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 Cookware & Food Containers Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 August 28, 2025