Fil d’Actualités

EWG's comments on the FDA’s Development of an Enhanced Systematic Process for the Food and Drug Administration’s Post-Market Assessment of Chemicals in Food rcoleman March 28, 2025 Please find EWG's comments on the FDA’s Development of an Enhanced Systematic Process for the Food and Drug Administration’s Post-Market Assessment of Chemicals in Food. File Download Document ewg-comment-fda-post-market-review.pdf Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Disqus Comments March 28, 2025

U.N. delegates and glaciologists convened to address the profound impacts of accelerating glacial melting, particularly for freshwater resources, mountain communities and small island states.

14 food chemical actions RFK Jr. can take to ‘Make America Healthy Again’ rcoleman March 28, 2025 The food we eat should be nourishing and safe. But thousands of chemicals, some of which may be toxic, are allowed in a wide range of products, such as snacks, bread and more.  For too long, the Food and Drug Administration has allowed chemical companies to self-declare their chemicals safe for use in food.  Earlier this year, the FDA finally took a step in the right direction by banning Red Dye No. 3 from use in food. But that’s just the start. Many other toxic chemicals can still be added to food and food packaging, and the FDA should move swiftly to ban them. If Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is committed to his pledge of “making America healthy again,” here are 14 actions he can take to make that goal a reality – banning 13 harmful food chemicals and closing a regulatory loophole allowing companies to claim their chemicals are safe. Priority candidates for FDA bans Concerning substances remain in food sold throughout the U.S. Here are 13 chemicals added to food and food packaging that the FDA should immediately ban.  PFAS The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS increase the risk of cancer and heart disease, but the FDA still allows some uses of PFAS in food manufacturing and cookware. The FDA first understood the risks posed by PFAS in food in the 1960s. EWG and others filed a petition in 2021 asking it to ban these uses, but the agency has yet to respond. In 2024, the FDA said it was considering a ban on food uses of the PFAS chemical fluorinated polyethylene, but so far it has declined to act. BPA  As with PFAS, the harms of bisphenol A, better known as BPA, are well documented, leading other nations to ban its use in food packaging. BPA can harm the immune and reproductive systems at levels far below those currently allowed by the FDA.  A petition asking the FDA to ban BPA, filed by EWG and others, has been pending since 2022.  TCE and three other solvents  The Environmental Protection Agency just banned all uses of the solvent trichloroethylene, or TCE, citing harms ranging from cancer to fetal heart defects. But the FDA continues to allow the use of TCE and the solvents benzene, methylene chloride and ethylene chloride in the production of decaffeinated coffee, spices and hops for beer.  The National Toxicology Program says these chemicals cause cancer in animals. Petitions filed by EWG and others asking the FDA to ban these solvents in food have been pending since early 2024.  BHA and BHT The FDA has doubted the safety of butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA, since 1978. In 1990, a doctor petitioned the FDA to ban the chemical from use in food, citing its link to cancer. Thirty-four years later, the agency is still considering whether to go ahead with a ban.  Since the 1970s, the case for a ban has grown stronger, including in the National Toxicology Program’s 2021 conclusion that BHA is “reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen.”  Despite its own science, the petition and the 2021 report, the FDA continues to consider BHA to be “generally recognized as safe.”  Like BHA, butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, has been linked to serious health harms, including damage to the hormone system. But the FDA keeps insisting both chemicals are safe.  Titanium dioxide Food companies in the European Union were no longer allowed to use titanium dioxide once scientists warned it could build up in the body and damage DNA. But the FDA keeps insisting it’s safe in food.  A petition filed by EWG and others asking the agency to ban the chemical has been pending since 2023.  Propyl paraben and potassium bromate  California, China and the EU have all banned food uses of propyl paraben, a preservative, and potassium bromate, a leavening agent. Propyl paraben has been linked to harms to the reproductive and hormone systems, and potassium bromate has been linked to cancer.  While the FDA added both chemicals to a list for a fresh review, it has made no progress. Perchlorate An anti-static agent used in food packaging, perchlorate blocks the thyroid from absorbing iodide. Children and the developing fetus are most vulnerable to harm from perchlorate, because their brains are still developing, and their bodies are sensitive to small changes in iodide levels.  In 2022, a court upheld the FDA’s decision to reject a petition filed by EWG and others asking it to ban the chemical’s use. Since then, new data has shown the harms of perchlorate in food packaging. Phthalates  Public health advocates first asked the FDA in 2016 to ban the use of phthalates in food packaging. They cited decades of scientific evidence linking phthalates to birth defects, infertility, preterm birth, damage to children’s brain development, and other serious health harms. The FDA failed to respond for six years, and in the end rejected the coalition’s demand to reevaluate phthalate safety.  After years of inaction, in 2021 public health advocates sued the FDA, forcing it to respond. In 2022, the agency denied the petition and upheld its decision in late 2024. So these hormone-distrupting chemicals remain permitted to leach into our food.  Action on other chemicals  Now that the FDA has banned Red 3 from food, the agency should move quickly to ban these chemicals and reconsider others linked to health harms, including concerning synthetic sweeteners such as aspartame.  The FDA should also immediately ban sodium benzoate in food that also includes vitamin C, citric acid or ascorbic acid – a combination that can create cancer-causing benzene.  And the FDA should work with the Department of Agriculture to end the use of synthetic colors in food, as California, Virginia and West Virginia have done.  Evading safety review For decades, the FDA has allowed chemical companies to decide whether most food chemicals are safe. EWG recently found nearly 99 percent of food chemicals developed since 2000 were reviewed for safety by industry scientists, not the FDA.  In the rare instances when the FDA reviews chemicals for safety before they enter the market, the agency often does not review old decisions, even in light of new research. It hasn’t reviewed the safety of potassium bromate and propyl paraben in almost half a century.  The EPA must review some chemicals, such as pesticides, every 15 years. But the FDA doesn’t face a similar requirement for substances added to food. So most chemicals people consume every day – in a host of foods and beverages – have not been reviewed for safety for decades, if ever. The FDA has pledged to conduct more “post market” reviews of chemicals used in food and collected comments on this plan until earlier this year.  Some states aren’t waiting for the FDA to act. California enacted not only its 2023 law banning four chemicals from all foods sold in the state but also its 2024 law banning six toxic dyes from food served in the state’s public schools. Since 2024, many other states have also introduced bills to ban toxic chemicals in food.  Close the GRAS loophole The GRAS loophole puts public health at risk by leaving the responsibility of food safety to manufacturers. To protect the safety of our food supply, the FDA must close it. Some in Congress are already working toward that goal. Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) introduced the Ensuring Safe and Toxic-Free Foods Act in 2023. If enacted, it would require food manufacturers to inform the FDA of new GRAS designations. The bill would also ban conflict of interests among experts conducting safety evaluations, prohibit novel substances from claiming GRAS status, and require the FDA to assess certain GRAS substances for safety.  A recent HHS announcement on reviewing the GRAS system falls short of what’s needed. It simply pledges to “take steps to explore” changing a system that has been broken for more than 60 years – that’s not the change consumers rightly expect.  The FDA should take real action to put itself in charge of food chemical safety. Until it does, this announcement is best seen as a “plan to plan,” not real progress toward making food safer.  What you can do  In the meantime, if you want to lower your intake of harmful food ingredients, you can:  Consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products made without toxic food chemicals such as those state bills are targeting. On the go, check EWG’s Healthy Living app for products free from problematic substances. When possible and affordable, limit your intake of ultra-processed foods. Many contain concerning ingredients. Choose packaged foods that are certified organic, whenever possible. These products must meet strong standards that protect consumers from exposure to potentially harmful additives.  Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Disqus Comments Authors Iris Myers March 28, 2025

Tap water truths: Your questions, our answers rcoleman March 27, 2025 We know how important it is to feel confident about the water coming from your tap. That’s why EWG on social media asked you to share your top questions and concerns about drinking water quality.  You responded with thoughtful, insightful queries, asking about everything from hidden contaminants and filtration options to water safety regulations and test kits.  We’ve compiled clear, practical answers to help you better understand what’s in your tap water, how to protect your health and how to advocate for stronger water safety standards. Let’s dive in. What are some other chemicals being found in water systems that aren’t getting talked about enough (chemicals other than lead and PFAS)? What to do if your municipality’s annual water quality report or consumer confidence report is missing key contaminants, such as nitrate? Could PFAS from military bases surrounding Washington, D.C., seep into the city water, or is the city water supply too far away from the source to become contaminated? I was concerned that Mansfield, Ohio, water has 21 contaminants in it. What should I do? If we live in Houston, how can we know whether the tap water is safe? What are the affordable water filter options? Is Zero Water an effective product? Is Brita an effective filter? What are its advantages and disadvantages? If you share a water tank, how can you filter all your water? Can you recommend a shower head filter? What do water softeners do? How can we make laws about water safety more strict? What is a good test kit for drinking water? What are some other chemicals being found in water systems that aren’t getting talked about enough (chemicals other than lead and PFAS)? While lead and the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS get a lot of attention, many other potentially hazardous contaminants are also common in tap water: Disinfection byproducts: These chemicals are formed when disinfectants like chlorine or chloramine interact with organic matter. They are linked to cancer and pregnancy complications. A simple carbon filter can reduce disinfection byproducts in your tap water. Nitrate: Nitrate contamination is widespread, especially in agricultural areas due to runoff of fertilizer and manure. It’s linked to cancer and reproductive issues. Reverse osmosis filtration systems effectively remove nitrate from tap water. Heavy metals: Arsenic and hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6, which are linked to cancer, can leach into water from natural deposits or industrial pollution. Reverse osmosis filters are best for removing heavy metals. Radiological contaminants: Radium and uranium, from natural deposits or mining, can increase cancer risk and cause pregnancy harm. Ion exchange or reverse osmosis filters reduce concentrations of these radioactive contaminants. Volatile organic compounds, or VOCs: Industrial chemicals like trichloroethylene, or TCE, can contaminate tap water, raising cancer and birth defect risks. Activated carbon filters can remove many VOCs, including TCE. VOCs can also be inhaled when washing dishes or showering, so a whole-house system may be needed in some cases.  What to do if your municipality’s annual water quality report, or consumer confidence report, is missing key contaminants, such as nitrate? If key contaminants like nitrate are not listed in your consumer confidence report:   It could be because of the size of the system and the levels of the contaminants. Smaller systems require less testing. Check EWG’s Tap Water Database. This tool compiles data from U.S. utilities and includes multiple years of test results that may not be included in your local water quality report. Ask for more information. Contact your water utility if you are concerned about specific contaminants in your area. Test independently. If you have a private well, you won’t know what’s in your water unless you test, as consumer confidence reports don’t include information about private wells. Consider sending a sample to a certified lab for a full contaminant analysis. While mail-in lab kits are expensive – ranging from $195 to over $1,000, depending on the scope – they provide accurate, lab-certified results. Advocate for stronger protections to help prevent contamination at the source. Urge local and state officials to prioritize investment in drinking water treatment as well as source water protection measures. Push for transparency. Tell your representatives that safe drinking water is important for your community. Ask them to push for stricter reporting standards and more comprehensive tests. Even if your water meets federal standards, it may still contain harmful contaminants. It’s important for all of us to advocate for better drinking water and to let our officials know safer, cleaner tap water is a priority. Could PFAS from military bases surrounding Washington, D.C., seep into the city water, or is the city water supply too far away from the source to become contaminated? It’s possible for PFAS from military bases to contaminate nearby water supplies, even from some distance. PFAS are highly mobile in water and do not easily break down, allowing them to travel long distances through groundwater and surface water. Most of the drinking water in Washington, D.C., comes from the Potomac River, which could be affected by upstream contamination. However, some areas in Northern Virginia get water from the Occoquan Reservoir, which may be more vulnerable to pollution because of its proximity to military sites. In 2021, a firefighting foam spill from Manassas Regional Airport, located in the Occoquan River basin, raised PFAS contamination concerns. Aqueous film-forming foam containing forever chemicals was used for decades on military bases, including some in Northern Virginia. D.C. Water regularly tests for PFAS and other contaminants. While PFAS contamination from nearby military bases is possible, ongoing tests help monitor and address potential risks. I am concerned that Mansfield, Ohio, water has 21 contaminants in it. What should I do? If your local water contains numerous contaminants: Identify which contaminants are present in your tap water and their potential health effects. If possible, invest in a water filter certified to reduce the specific contaminants found in your water supply. Often a simple carbon filter can effectively reduce disinfection byproducts that are common in many systems. EWG’s Tap Water Database can suggest the best filter to use based on your location. Join or support local advocacy groups pushing for improved water quality standards and stricter regulation of contaminants. If we live in Houston, how can we know whether the tap water is safe? Use EWG’s Tap Water Database to search for your ZIP code to see the latest water quality report.  For Houstonians, your water shows 14 contaminants exceeding EWG's health guidelines. For example: Arsenic, linked to cancer, was found at 2.06 parts per billion, or ppb, well above EWG’s health guideline of 0.004 ppb (516 times higher than the guideline). Chromium-6, also linked to cancer, was found at 0.747 ppb, exceeding EWG’s health guideline of 0.02 ppb by 37 times. There is no national legal limit for chromium-6, despite the known health risks. Haloacetic acids, which can cause cancer, measured 36 ppb, above EWG's health guideline of 0.06 ppb. While a small number of haloacetic acids are regulated as a group of disinfection byproducts, many more are not. Total trihalomethanes, another group of disinfection byproducts, were detected at 30.4 ppb, more than 200 times higher than EWG’s guideline of 0.15 ppb. The tap water is sourced from surface water and serves over 2.2 million people. While the water utility complies with federal lead regulations, the 2023 test results showed lead was detected in about 39 percent of the homes tested, a concerning finding, especially for children. Houston residents may want to filter their water to remove or reduce contaminants, some of which are carcinogens and others that are linked to additional health harms. What are the affordable water filter options? Affordable and effective water filter options include: Water pitchers. Countertop filters that can reduce common contaminants such as disinfection byproducts, chlorine, lead and some PFAS. These pitchers are relatively easy to use and a popular option for kitchens. Costs. A pitcher’s cost usually includes the filter, with replacement filters available separately. The price varies by brand, but typically, you can expect to spend between $20 and $40 for a basic pitcher. Filters must be changed regularly for the filter to remain effective. Effectiveness. EWG tested 10 countertop pitcher filters and found they vary in how well they remove contaminants such as PFAS and chromium-6. Faucet-mounted filters. These are similar in cost to pitchers, depending on the brand. They attach directly to your faucet and provide filtered water on demand.  Under-sink filters: These filters, usually reverse osmosis types, cost more initially but are more cost-effective over time. They remove a broader range of chemicals and are often more effective than pitchers and faucet-mounted filters. No matter the filter type, you must replace it regularly. With use, filters can become saturated and less effective, potentially causing contaminants to leach back into your water. Always follow the manufacturer’s replacement schedule for the best results. For more details about how the countertop filters we tested performed for removing specific contaminants like PFAS, check out EWG’s guide to water filters. Is ZeroWater an effective product? What are its advantages and disadvantages? ZeroWater pitchers are effective at removing dissolved solids, heavy metals and some PFAS, making them a good option for improving water quality.  Their initial cost is low – about $24.99 – and according to EWG’s tests, they removed 100 percent of PFAS from tap water in a study that measured 25 PFAS.  But the filters need frequent replacement – about every 10 days or 20 gallons – which can add up to a steep annual cost of nearly $650 for a family, factoring in the initial purchase and 37 filter replacements.   While they’re great for removing PFAS, and one of the only countertop pitchers that EWG tested that reduced nitrate, they’re less effective at removing other contaminants, such as chromium-6 and disinfection byproducts.  Over all, ZeroWater is a good choice for those focused on PFAS and nitrate removal, but the ongoing filter replacement can be costly. Is Brita an effective filter? What are its advantages and disadvantages? EWG scientists tested two different Brita water pitcher filters. Brita filters are affordable and easy to use, making them a popular choice for many. However, while they do reduce some contaminants, they aren't the most effective option in their price range. Brita Filter Pitcher, 6-Cup Pros: Low initial and ongoing costs, simple to use. Cons: Small pitcher requires frequent refills. It doesn’t fully remove the PFAS. It removes about two-thirds. So it’s better than nothing, but not ideal. Brita Elite Filter Pros: Easy to use and replace. Cons: The pitcher still needs frequent refills. This filter only removes 22 percent of PFAS, and our tester found it didn't seal well, leading to leaks and likely reducing the efficiency. Any filter is better than no filter, but the most crucial step is understanding which contaminants are in your water.  Choose a filter certified to remove those specific contaminants. A filter needs to address the exact issues in your tap water, so don’t rely on a general solution like Brita if your water contains harmful substances that require a more targeted filter.  On the other hand, a highly specialized filter at a higher cost may not be necessary if you only need to reduce disinfection byproducts, for which Brita works fine. While Brita is a budget-friendly option, it may not be effective for removing contaminants like PFAS. Always consider your water’s specific needs before choosing a filter. If you share a water tank, how can you filter all your water? If you’re sharing a water tank and want to filter all the water in the home, there are a couple of options: Point-of-use filters. If you’re mainly concerned about your drinking water, you can use filters like water pitcher systems or faucet-mounted filters. These are effective for removing specific contaminants directly from the water you use for drinking and cooking.  Whole-house filtration systems. For filtering all the water in your home, including for bathing, cooking and drinking, a whole-house filtration system is the best choice. While more expensive up front, these systems filter all the water coming from your shared tank. If you install a whole-house filter, be sure to clean it regularly. To maintain optimal performance, replace the filters according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Can you recommend a shower head filter? The primary water safety concern is generally for drinking water, and therefore limited to the filtration of kitchen taps. But a handful of contaminants, such as TCE, may warrant more protection. Shower head filters may be useful if you have contaminants such as VOCs or radon in your water. These could pose an inhalation risk during activities like showering and bathing, when warm water is likely to evaporate into the air. But most households don’t need shower head filters or whole-house filters unless you have significant contamination that affects both drinking water and air quality in your home. And these filters should be maintained carefully to avoid issues like Legionella bacteria contamination. EWG has not tested or evaluated the research on the efficacy of shower head filters to reduce contaminants. What do water softeners do? A water softener removes calcium and magnesium from your water through ion exchange, addressing and preventing issues caused by hard water, like clogged pipes, dry skin and hair, and improving the efficacy of soaps, shampoos and detergents.  It boosts the life span of appliances, makes cleaning easier and helps prevent hard water scale buildup.  While water softeners use ion exchange, which can reduce the concentrations of some contaminants, not all water softeners are designed for this. The process can increase sodium levels, which may concern those with high blood pressure.  Hard water is generally safe to drink, but softening water may be especially beneficial for homes whose water is especially hard. That can reduce the need for extra detergent and make skin and hair feel softer. How can we strengthen laws and regulations about water safety? To bolster water safety laws, we need to push for updates to outdated federal regulations.  The Environmental Protection Agency regulates only about 90 contaminants in drinking water, and many of its rules haven’t been updated since the 1990s. The process for setting safety standards is slow and, as we’ve seen with the delayed regulation of PFAS, often influenced by cost, not health concerns.. Last year, the EPA took an overdue step and set unprecedented new limits on six PFAS in drinking water. These are among the most protective health limits on PFAS in drinking water in the world. Rolling back or weakening these standards – as some are urging the agency to do – would remove protections for millions of Americans.  States have stepped in with stricter standards, particularly for emerging contaminants. California, for example, has introduced a bill to mandate new water limits for PFAS that would align with the new federal standard. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is also helping modernize water systems, though setbacks remain. Additionally, water pollution needs to be addressed at the source – we need to put a stop to it entering our sources of drinking water in the first place. With detailed guidelines and permitting, the federal government and certain state governments have the power to set limits for releases of hazardous contaminants from industrial facilities. To ensure safer water, we must advocate for stronger regulations and timely updates to maximum contaminant levels based on current science and greater accountability for polluters.  We must also urge state and federal regulators and legislators to uphold existing health-protective standards, like the federal PFAS drinking water standard, and reject any efforts to weaken them. Public pressure is key to improving water safety at local, state and federal levels. What is a good test kit for drinking water? If you’re concerned about your water quality, especially for well water, you have a few testing options, depending on your budget and the level of detail you need. Home test kits. These are affordable and easy to use, available online or at hardware stores. They can check for common issues like bacteria, nitrates, pH and iron, but they don’t detect more hazardous contaminants, such as PFAS, heavy metals or VOCs. Mail-in lab kits, Tests for the full range of potential pollutants can be quite expensive, often costing hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Often they will require multiple tests or samples to cover the broadest range of possible contaminants.  For thorough and reliable testing, you can use a mail-in lab kit, which lets you send a sample to a certified lab for detailed analysis. These kits are available for a wide range of contaminants, including heavy metals, PFAS and industrial chemicals.  But even the most comprehensive kits may not cover all of the most common contaminants detected in tap water, so make sure to understand what each kit tests for before purchasing. Prices typically range from $195 to over $1,000. State-certified labs. For specific concerns, like proximity to industrial sites or real estate needs, you can contact a state-certified lab for professional analysis. Some counties also offer free or discounted tests. These labs can provide a detailed, accurate test customized to local risks. Contact your state health or environmental department for more information.  Before purchasing a test, it’s helpful to review your local water quality report or check EWG’s Tap Water Database to understand common contaminants in your area, especially if you rely on well water. This can guide you in selecting the right test and avoiding unnecessary costs. Areas of Focus Food & Water Water Toxic Chemicals Disqus Comments Authors Monica Amarelo March 27, 2025

RFK Jr.’s reckless cuts to HHS put American lives at risk rcoleman March 27, 2025 WASHINGTON – Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. today announced devastating staff cuts to federal public health agencies within HHS, eliminating more than 10,000 jobs. Most of the job losses are at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.As first reported by The Wall Street Journal, the cuts include:3,500 FDA employees, representing roughly 19 percent of its total workforce.2,400 CDC workers, roughly 18 percent of its staff.1,200 NIH personnel, equivalent to approximately 6 percent  of its workforce.The following is a statement from EWG President Ken Cook:This isn’t about fiscal responsibility – it’s a deliberate attack on science to fund massive tax giveaways for billionaires like Donald Trump and Elon Musk. The FDA, CDC and NIH are essential to protecting public health, from safeguarding our food to advancing critical disease research. These agencies do the important public health work that the private sector can’t or won’t do, because there isn’t any profit to be made. Rebuilding what RFK Jr. and Trump are destroying will take a generation or longer to rebuild – if ever. ###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 & Water Food Water Toxic Chemicals Disqus Comments Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 March 27, 2025