Fil d’Actualités

6 reasons to reject the bad House farm bill Anthony Lacey April 21, 2026 Next week, House lawmakers will vote on the farm bill, which sets food and farm policy. The partisan House farm bill proposed by Agriculture Committee Republicans would fail to help family farmers, lock in historic cuts to the nation’s biggest anti-hunger program, cut regenerative agriculture programs, weaken safeguards against pesticides, and roll back animal welfare and other environmental protections. It would also do nothing to address food prices or food safety or support healthy diets – priority issues – or protect the people who feed us. No wonder groups fighting to support family farms, hungry people, farm and food workers, public health and farm animals are united in their opposition. The farm bill has not been renewed since 2018 and may not be reconsidered until 2032 or later. The upcoming debate over the bill is a rare opportunity to push for resetting policies that currently mostly benefit the largest, most successful farm businesses and do little or nothing for the rest of us. A good farm bill would ensure that family farmers are supported and that hungry people have enough to eat, that we invest in regenerative agriculture, protect the people who feed us, and ensure that food is safe, healthy and affordable. A bad farm bill, like the House Republicans’ plan, would enshrine the status quo. Here are six reasons members of Congress should reject the bad bill that will be considered next week. The bill:Fails to feed hungry people. Last year, the Republican Congress passed the biggest cut ever to anti-hunger programs, but the partisan House farm bill does nothing to help people struggling simply to have enough to eat. Fails family farms. More than 100,000 family farms have gone out of business in recent years, and President Donald Trump’s tariffs and wars have made farm inputs more expensive, worsening the problem. But the partisan House farm bill will do nothing to help our family farms, including those owned by young farmers.Cuts regenerative agriculture funding. Regenerative agriculture programs help farmers adopt practices like cover crops – popular Agriculture Department programs that are badly oversubscribed. But the partisan House farm bill would cut these programs’ funding for farmers by more than $1 billion.Weakens pesticide protections. Pesticides can threaten our health, especially our children’s health. But the partisan House farm bill would repeal local pesticide protections, especially safeguards near schools and parks. It would also grant legal immunity to pesticide companies.Weakens animal welfare protections. State laws ensure that farm animals are raised humanely. But the partisan House farm bill would repeal state farm animal welfare laws. Does nothing to address food prices or food safety. The partisan House bill takes no action to address food prices and food safety, support healthy diets or protect the people who feed us. It also fails to fund access to healthy food.  Areas of Focus Food Farming & Agriculture Pesticides Authors Scott Faber April 21, 2026

Three Climate School experts weigh in on the success of New York City's congestion pricing program.

New York lawmakers pass pivotal food safety bill JR Culpepper April 21, 2026 ALBANY, N.Y. – Lawmakers in New York state today passed legislation protecting New Yorkers from toxic food chemicals, advancing the bill for the governor’s signature. The New York Assembly’s 106-32 vote to pass the bill today was the final step needed after the state Senate approved the legislation March 23 in a unanimous 60-0 vote.The Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act (A.1556F/S.1239F) would, if enacted, ban three harmful substances from food manufactured, distributed or sold in the state. It would also require companies to make new disclosures about chemicals added to food without stringent review. “New York is stepping up where Washington has slowed down,” said Jessica Hernandez, Environmental Working Group’s legislative director. “This bill will increase transparency and protect consumers from toxic chemicals in New York’s food supply. Without federal action, it’s up to the states to keep us safe from harmful additives in the foods we eat and feed to our families,” she added.Assemblymember Anna Kelles, Ph.D. (D-Assembly District 125), and state Sen. Brian Kavanagh (D-Senate District 27) are the prime sponsors of the bill. If enacted, it would create a state-level ban of three harmful food chemicals and reform the “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, loophole.“Today, in spite of an onslaught of misinformation from the food industry, we are taking a critical step toward protecting New Yorkers from having to guess what potentially harmful chemicals might be lurking in the food they eat,” said Kavanagh.“Since processed foods are produced and distributed nationally, we hope and expect that the public disclosure required by this legislation for foods sold in New York will reverberate across the United States, as Americans increasingly demand safety and accountability. “I thank Assemblymember Dr. Anna Kelles for her tenacious advocacy and expertise, Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Speaker Carl Heastie, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and the many national and state advocates, scientists, doctors, faith leaders and community organizations whose determination and support were integral to this effort— as well as the many New Yorkers who just want safer, healthier food for themselves and their families,” he added.The bill would also require companies to disclose to the state when they add to food and drinks chemicals they determine are GRAS.“New Yorkers are worried and frustrated at how much control they have lost over their health. People are trying to make informed choices, but they cannot do that if they do not know what is in their food or what the health impacts may be,” said Dr. Kelles. “The history here matters. The GRAS concept was created in 1958 to exempt common ingredients like salt and vinegar from unnecessary review. It was never intended to allow new, synthetic chemical additives into the food supply without oversight or transparency. Over time, through [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] rulemaking, companies were allowed to determine on their own that a chemical is safe without notifying the FDA or making the evidence public. As a result, chemicals are often identified years or even decades after they are already in our food, through independent research or after health concerns emerge. “This legislation restores transparency to that process. It requires companies to make public the safety analysis they already completed under federal standards before a food containing that chemical can be sold in New York, allowing regulators, researchers, and the public to evaluate those determinations. It also removes specific chemicals from the food supply that have established links to cancer, hormone disruption, and organ damage. This is a measured, evidence-based approach that reflects bipartisan agreement that the public has a right to know what is in their food and the basis for its safety. “With a federal government that is averse to regulations that restrict corporate profits, and an FDA with constrained resources that relies heavily on industry self-determination, it is up to states to protect public health. I look forward to working with my Assembly and Senate colleagues and the governor to see this bill into law,” she said.Supporters of the bill include the EWG, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumer Reports, Clean + Healthy New York, Interfaith Public Health Network and others.Stepping in where the FDA hasn’tAt the federal level, nearly 99% of new food chemicals introduced since 2000 were greenlit by the food and chemical industry, not the FDA, the agency tasked with ensuring our food supply is safe.While many of the chemicals added to food are likely safe to eat, the three chemicals the bill targets pose a threat to public health:Potassium bromate has been linked to cancer but has not been meaningfully reviewed for safety by the FDA since 1973. It has been banned from use in processed food in the European Union since 1990. That same year it was also added to California’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that may cause cancer.Propyl paraben has not been thoroughly reviewed for safety by the FDA since 1977. It has been linked to harm to the hormone and reproductive systems, including decreased sperm counts. It has been prohibited from use in food in the EU since 2006 but is still used as a preservative in the U.S.Red Dye no. 3 has been linked to cancer and behavioral problems in children. It is found in more than 2,000 food products, including many types of candy, cookies and other food marketed to children. In 1990, the FDA banned Red 3 in cosmetics, citing cancer risks, but didn’t ban it from food until 2025. Since 1994, the EU has allowed Red 3 to be used in candied and cocktail cherries only.Closing the loopholeFollowing passage of many state food safety laws, companies have already begun to reformulate their products to remove harmful food chemical ingredients, with no impact on consumers. But New York would be the first to hold companies accountable by requiring them to show their work and provide the state with evidence of the safety of any “secret” GRAS substances. The GRAS loophole allows companies to decide, without independent FDA oversight, which substances are safe. The FDA’s notification system is completely voluntary, so companies can decide whether to tell the FDA if they deem a substance GRAS or not. They may put the chemical in food even if they don’t disclose it to the FDA.The Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act fixes that problem. It represents the most important reform to the U.S. food chemical review process in decades. It will not only protect New Yorkers but also position the state as a food safety leader by exposing safety oversights in the GRAS loophole for all. Media note: additional quotes from expertsBrian Ronhom, director of food policy, Consumer ReportsPress contact: michael.mccauley@consumer.org The FDA’s system for ensuring the safety of food additives is fundamentally broken. For too long, food manufacturers have exploited a loophole in federal law that enables them to secretly introduce new additives into their products without undergoing any review by the FDA. This bill will help protect the public by requiring greater transparency when new chemicals are introduced into our food without FDA review. Consumer Reports commends Senator Kavanagh and Assemblymember Kelles for their leadership on this critical food safety issue.Jensen Jose, Center for Science in the Public Interest Senior Regulatory Counsel Press contact: lflores@cspi.orgThe Center for Science in the Public Interest commends the New York State Legislature for guarding public health and leading the nation in GRAS reform. As federal regulators continue to fall short, Albany lawmakers are setting an example our country and other states can and should follow. After decades of corporate self-interest overriding public safety, this bill represents a monumental step toward a food environment New Yorkers can trust. We urge the governor to sign the bill into law immediately.Karla Sosa, Ph.D., Environmental Defense Fund manager for New York state affairsWe deserve to know that the food we put on our tables won’t make our families sick. For too long, a broken system has stood in the way of that basic assurance. New York isn’t waiting. This bill brings transparency and accountability to a system that has operated in the dark for decades, and it puts pressure on federal regulators to catch up. We commend the legislature on this bill’s passage and urge the governor to sign it into law.Todd Wagner, co-founder of FoodFight USAThis landmark New York legislation sets the U.S. on the right track toward cleaning up our tainted food supply, and we hope that other states and the federal government will soon follow. The GRAS loophole has allowed more than 10,000 chemicals into our food system. This is a uniquely American problem—no other country gives companies this kind of power to self-regulate. In much of the world, regulatory systems rely on independent scientific review, require pre-market approval, and account for cumulative effects. As a result, approved additives are in the hundreds, not thousands. It’s time for the U.S. to catch up by requiring public disclosure.Bob Pezzolesi, convener, Interfaith Public Health NetworkOn behalf of the faith partners and public health professionals in our network, we at IPHN celebrate the passage of the Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act as an important step toward a safer and healthier food system in New York. In fact, the first-of-its-kind transparency required by this legislation will benefit all Americans. We are grateful to Senator Kavanagh and Assemblymember Dr. Kelles for their tireless leadership in getting this across the finish line.###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 Regional Issues Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 April 21, 2026

EWG sues EPA for 7-year inaction on glyphosate in oats, citing risks to children’s health Anthony Lacey April 21, 2026 WASHINGTON – The Environmental Working Group today filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the Environmental Protection Agency is unlawfully delaying a response to the group’s petition seeking stricter limits in oats on the notorious herbicide glyphosate. The petition also asks for a ban on use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest drying agent. In its suit, EWG urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to compel the EPA to respond to the petition, which has languished at the agency for seven years.EWG argues the agency’s inaction violates federal law, which requires a timely response to petitions. The delay leaves millions of Americans – especially infants and young children – potentially exposed to unsafe levels of the weedkiller in many foods marketed to kids.“The EPA has a clear legal duty to act on this petition, and it has simply refused to do so,” said Caroline Leary, EWG’s general counsel and COO. “This kind of delay has real consequences for families who rely on the agency to ensure children are not exposed to toxic farm chemical residues like glyphosate,” she added.The suit comes ahead of oral arguments in the Supreme Court on April 27 in a case centered on allegations that Monsanto – which sold the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup – failed to warn consumers about the health risks linked to exposure to the product.That case could have sweeping implications for whether farmers and consumers can keep pursuing lawsuits for harms linked to glyphosate, and whether states can require warning labels on glyphosate products.History of EWG’s requestEWG first filed its petition in 2018, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, later amending it in 2019.The petition presents scientific evidence that the EPA’s current “tolerances” – or allowable levels – of glyphosate on oats do not adequately protect children’s health. It also calls for an end to the practice of spraying glyphosate shortly before harvest, known as pre-harvest dessication, which greatly increases residue levels in final food products.In 2018, two rounds of EWG-commissioned laboratory tests found widespread glyphosate contamination of oat-based foods. In the first round of tests, glyphosate was detected in nearly all non-organic oat products tested, with most samples exceeding EWG’s health benchmark of 160 parts per billion for children.The second round of tests focused on popular kids’ cereals and found glyphosate in 100% of samples, again with the majority above EWG’s health benchmark. Together the findings point to pervasive low-level exposure in everyday foods and raise concerns about current federal safety standards.Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. and around the world. While commonly applied to control weeds in farm fields, it is also used late in the growing season on crops like oats to accelerate drying before harvest. This practice leaves little time for the chemical to break down, resulting in higher residues in foods such as oat cereals, granola bars and snacks kids often eat.Cancer riskEWG’s petition and supporting data say oat-based foods are a major source of dietary exposure to glyphosate, particularly for infants and toddlers. Because young children eat more food relative to their body weight than adults, they can face disproportionately higher exposure levels.“Parents shouldn’t have to second-guess whether everyday foods like cereal and snack bars are putting their children at risk of cancer,” said EWG President and co-Founder Ken Cook. “The EPA’s silence leaves families in the dark and falls far short of its responsibility to protect public health.”Under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, the EPA must ensure that pesticide residue limits in food are “safe” – that there’s a reasonable certainty of no harm, with special protections for infants and children. The Administrative Procedure Act also guarantees the public the right to petition the agency and receive a timely, reasoned response. EWG contends that the EPA’s prolonged inaction violates both requirements.The EPA avoiding responsibilityEWG further argues that the agency’s delay prevents judicial review of a final decision on the group’s requests, and undermines accountability. By failing to issue a final decision, the agency is falling short of its legal obligations while also blocking courts from evaluating whether those obligations have been satisfied.“This is exactly the kind of situation where courts are meant to step in,” said Leary. “The EPA cannot avoid its responsibilities simply by doing nothing.”EWG’s petition also raises concerns about how current glyphosate tolerance levels were established. The allowable limit for glyphosate on oats has increased dramatically over time, from 0.1 parts per million, or ppm, in the early 1990s, to 30 ppm today. According to the petition, those increases were driven not by new safety data but by efforts to align U.S. standards with international trade standards.At the same time as the EPA has increased the tolerance levels, scientific debate over glyphosate health effects has persisted. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” citing evidence from animal studies and limited human data. While the EPA has reached different conclusions in some assessments, it has acknowledged data gaps and internal disagreements about the chemical’s potential risks.‘Stop stalling’EWG’s lawsuit does not ask the court to determine whether glyphosate is safe or unsafe.But it does seek a court order requiring the EPA to respond to the petition by a firm deadline, make the safety determination and explain its reasoning, as the law requires.EWG argues that further delay would continue to expose families to potential risks. More inaction would also deny them transparency and accountability from an agency whose purpose is to protect the public from toxic chemicals like glyphosate.“For seven years, the EPA has left this critical issue unresolved,” Cook said. “It’s time for the agency to stop stalling and do its job.”###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 Farming & Agriculture Family Health Children’s Health Glyphosate Lawsuit aims to force the agency to act on petition seeking to protect kids from weedkiller Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 April 21, 2026

EWG seeks California Supreme Court review of anti-rooftop solar, anti-affordability ruling Anthony Lacey April 20, 2026 SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group, along with its allies, is asking the California Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision that threatens the future of clean energy in the state.EWG, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Protect Our Communities Foundation on April 17 petitioned the high court to review the California Court of Appeal’s March ruling upholding a California Public Utilities Commission policy sharply scaling back the state’s once-thriving rooftop solar program, known as net energy metering. The state’s three monopoly utilities sought the policy, seeing rooftop solar as their main competition.The coalition has argued that, in upholding the policy, the appeals court gave too much deference to the commission’s decision-making, ignoring the California State Legislature's clear directives. They also say the policy failed to account for the many benefits of small, distributed solar systems, which help lower costs and make energy more affordable for everyone.The following is a statement from EWG Senior Vice President for California Bernadette Del Chiaro:Many Californians struggle to pay their ever-increasing electricity bills, and the commission’s ill-conceived policy will only make matters worse. Putting clean, reliable rooftop solar financially out of reach for millions of renters and homeowners makes no sense.An affordability crisis is the time to promote efforts to reduce energy costs and save people money – not reward the monopoly utilities by throttling their competition.If the Supreme Court agrees to hear our case, we’ll make clear how the commission’s anti-solar policy fails on every front. It’s unlawful, undermines efforts to lower electricity bills and harms Californians and our environment.###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 Utilities Renewable Energy California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 April 20, 2026