Fil d’Actualités

California Senate health panel advances bill to test protein powders for heavy metals Monica Amarelo March 25, 2026 SACRAMENTO – Today the state Senate Health Committee approved a first-in-the-nation bill to mandate tests for toxic heavy metals in protein powders and shakes consumed daily by millions of people in the state. If enacted, Senate Bill 1033 would require powder and shake manufacturers to publicly disclose levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic in their products.State Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego) authored SB 1033 in response to mounting evidence that some protein products contain levels of heavy metals high enough to raise serious public health concerns, particularly for teens and frequent users. “The rapidly expanding protein industry is putting untested and, in some cases, unsafe products onto store shelves,” said Padilla. “We need to put commonsense guardrails in place to hold manufacturers accountable, require proper testing, and ensure families can trust that the products they buy won’t put their health at risk,” he added.The Environmental Working Group and Consumer Reports are cosponsoring the legislation.The bill now moves to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Big exposure, little oversightProtein shakes and powders – added to everything from salads to coffee – have become a daily staple for millions of Californians, consumed by athletes, teens, pregnant people and those using appetite-suppressing medications. These products can boost muscle recovery, provide an easy portable source of protein and help in weight management. Despite their widespread use, these products face no routine tests or public disclosure requirements for toxic heavy metals, unlike baby food and prenatal vitamins.Independent tests have repeatedly found cause for concern.A Consumer Reports investigation last year found detectable lead in nearly every protein powder and shake tested. Some single servings contained enough lead to cause a woman of childbearing age to exceed the recommended daily limit for lead from food by the Food and Drug Administration.“When a single scoop of protein powder can push someone past recommended limits for lead, it’s a clear sign the system is failing consumers, especially those who are pregnant or using protein products every day,” said Susan Little, EWG’s California legislative director.Another study from last year discovered that nearly half of the tested products exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for lead, cadmium, mercury or arsenic. For 21% of products the study analyzed, a single serving contained more than twice California’s Proposition 65 limit for lead. Follow-up tests found that some brands contained significantly lower heavy metal levels, demonstrating that safer sourcing and manufacturing are possible.Widespread contamination“Our tests have found that toxic heavy metal contamination in protein powder is widespread and has gotten worse since we first analyzed these products 15 years ago,” said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports. “No one should have to worry that their protein shake could expose them to dangerous levels of lead and other contaminants. This bill will help Californians make healthier buying decisions and create a strong incentive for protein powder manufacturers to get lead and other toxic elements out of their products. We commend Sen. Padilla for his great work on this bill,” Ronholm added.Federal standards also fall short of protecting frequent users. The FDA’s limits for lead are based on exposure that would come from a full day of typical food consumption. Its recommendations do not apply to concentrated products like protein powders, which many consumers ingest multiple times daily.“Many people have two, three or even four servings of protein powders a day,” Little said. “Without routine tests and public disclosure, consumers have no way to assess their risk.”Serious health risksHeavy metals are potent toxins, and even low-level, repeated exposure can cause lasting and irreversible harm. “Every effort should be made to limit lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic contamination of food,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D. a senior scientist at EWG. “Testing and verifying that lead levels are as close to zero as possible is necessary, especially when people consume these products day after day.” Public health experts warn that heavy metals are well-established neurotoxins that can damage the brain and nervous system, particularly in children. But adults are also at serious risk. Chronic exposure to lead has been linked to cardiovascular disease and long-term neurological damage, while cadmium, mercury and arsenic can harm the heart, kidneys, immune system and digestive system, and cancer.Risks are highest for pregnant people and the developing fetus, where exposure has been associated with low birth weight, preterm birth, birth defects and lasting neurodevelopmental effects.Transparency drives safer productsCalifornia has already proven that sunlight works when it comes to revealing what’s actually in popular products. After the state required heavy metal testing and public disclosure for baby food, manufacturers responded by reducing contamination levels in many product categories, demonstrating that transparency drives cleaner sourcing and safer manufacturing.SB 1033 would extend that proven model to protein powders, shakes and bars. Beginning in 2027, manufacturers would be required to:Regularly test representative product samples for lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenicPublicly post test results onlineDisclose the name and concentration of each detected metalDirect consumers to the results through product labeling “Once companies are required to show their data, contamination drops – it’s that simple,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “Protein powders have flown under the radar for far too long.”“This bill forces the industry to clean up its act and gives Californians the power to see exactly what they’re being asked to swallow,” she said.A national precedent If enacted, SB 1033 would make California the first state in the nation to require routine testing and public disclosure of heavy metals in protein powders, shakes and bars, a move expected to reshape industry practices nationwide and pressure federal regulators to follow suit.“Right now, there’s no federal requirement even to test protein powders for heavy metals, let alone inform the public,” Little said. “That’s unacceptable.”“SB 1033 replaces secrecy with accountability and gives people the clarity and peace of mind they deserve,” said Little. ###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. Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports has a mission to create a fair and just marketplace for all. Widely known for our rigorous research and testing of products and services, we also survey millions of consumers each year, report extensively on marketplace issues, and advocate for consumer rights and protections around safety as well as digital rights, financial fairness, and sustainability. CR is independent and nonprofit. Areas of Focus Food Toxic Chemicals Arsenic Mercury Lead California Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 March 25, 2026

California bill requiring full disclosure of chemicals in diapers clears first hurdle Monica Amarelo March 25, 2026 SACRAMENTO – The California Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee on March 24 passed a bill that would give parents a complete list of what’s in their baby’s diaper. If enacted, Assembly Bill 1901 would require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose their ingredients on the product’s packaging and online. The bill now moves to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.Assemblymember Mark Berman (D-Menlo Park) authored the bill, which is co-sponsored by Environmental Working Group, Consumer Reports and Children Now.“As a new dad, I have a new appreciation for how important it is for parents to make informed decisions when it comes to the health and wellness of their children,” said Berman.“We all want the best for our children, but the lack of transparency around diaper ingredients prevents us from knowing what ‘the best’ is when buying the one thing that is touching our baby’s skin every minute of their lives for years,” he said. “I’m proud to author AB 1901 to give parents greater transparency into what chemicals are in their children’s diapers so that they can make the right choice for their family,” Berman added.The bill addresses growing concerns about diaper chemicals and other ingredients, many of which are linked to serious health and environmental risks. The stakes are high, and the timeline is urgent. The average child wears a diaper for the first two to three years of life, resulting in more than 8,000 diaper changes. Depending on the type of diaper, this can mean chemicals are sitting directly against an infant’s skin around the clock.Under market pressure, some manufacturers already disclose their ingredients, which shows the bill’s requirement is feasible. If enacted, the law would ensure transparency throughout the industry. Newborns and toddlers especially vulnerable to chemical exposures Babies are not simply small adults when it comes to chemical exposure. “A baby wears a diaper nearly every minute of the first few years of life, yet parents are forced into a toxic guessing game,” said Susan Little, EWG’s California legislative director. Many children with special needs rely on diapers for years, making them uniquely vulnerable to undisclosed chemicals. When manufacturers hide their ingredients, caregivers may feel fearful and sidelined. These families face years of additional contact with hidden ingredients. “Transparency isn’t about causing fear but about replacing uncertainty with the facts parents need to protect their children,” Little said. “And because an infant’s thin skin absorbs chemicals more easily, hidden ingredients like phthalates can trigger a lifetime of health challenges.” “California parents shouldn’t need a chemistry degree to buy a diaper. They deserve to know exactly what is touching their child’s skin. Parents want this information,” she added.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that infants’ thinner, more permeable skin absorbs chemicals more readily than adult skin and the biological systems that would normally process and eliminate those chemicals are still developing.Recent test results show many diapers are made with ingredients that can cause health and environmental problems, including phthalates, which are linked to hormone disruption, and bleaching agents, which can cause skin and respiratory irritation. Volatile organic compounds, also often used in diapers, can include hazardous air pollutants like toluene and xylene, which are associated with respiratory and other health harms. “Parents shouldn’t have to worry about potentially harmful chemicals in baby products, especially diapers. However, manufacturers are not required to be fully transparent with that information,” said Gabe Knight, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports. “This bill would help ensure that parents and caregivers have the information they need to make informed decisions about which products are best for their baby. “Consumer Reports is pleased to support this bill and commends Assemblymember Berman for his work on this issue,” Knight said.Certain wetness indicators and colorful designs may contain harmful compounds, heavy metals and dyes that can cause allergic contact dermatitis. “Children, especially infants and toddlers, are not little adults. They are more susceptible and experience more significant health impacts from exposures to environmental health hazards than adults,” said Cara Cook, M.S., R.N., deputy director of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. “Infants and toddlers are especially vulnerable to harmful chemicals, because their bodies and skin are still developing. Unfortunately, some diaper ingredients and chemicals, such as phthalates, are linked to health risks in children,” she added. Diapers can also use “undisclosed fragrance,” an umbrella term that obscures many potentially harmful chemicals used in scent mixtures. Cotton and other raw materials used to make diapers can contain pesticide residues. “Nurses and other healthcare professionals care for infants whose skin is exposed to diapers around the clock,” said the CEO of American Nurses Association, California, Marketa Houskova, DNP, R.N. “Manufacturers should fully disclose all ingredients used in these products so families and clinicians can make informed decisions to better protect children’s health,” she said.Commonsense solution to a transparency void AB 1901 would help families make more informed purchasing decisions about products that sit directly against a baby’s skin. If it becomes law, AB 1901 would set a January 1, 2028, deadline for the manufacturer of any children’s diaper sold, distributed or manufactured in California to list intentionally added ingredients publicly online. They would also have to provide details about the function or purpose of each ingredient. One year later, the company would be required to disclose complete ingredient information online. After that, diapers that didn’t comply would be banned in the state. Record of transparency making baby products saferCalifornia has already shown that sunlight lowers the hazards of ingredients in baby products.After the state required public disclosure of heavy metal tests results of baby food in January 2025, manufacturers responded by reducing contamination levels in many product categories. AB 1901 applies that same principle to diapers while giving parents and caregivers more informed choices. “Parents and caregivers should be able to feel confident about the products they choose to keep their babies and toddlers clean and dry,” said Ted Lempert, Children Now’s president. “AB 1901 is a ‘pro-kid’ bill that makes transparent information about diapers easily accessible, so families can make informed choices for their little ones.” If enacted, AB 1901 would be a first-in-the-nation law requiring such full diaper ingredient transparency. AB 1901 follows a 2023 New York law that requires on-label disclosure of diaper ingredients. “Stronger regulation and full disclosure are needed, and that’s why this bill is so important to protect children's health,” said Little. ###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.Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports has a mission to create a fair and just marketplace for all. Widely known for our rigorous research and testing of products and services, we also survey millions of consumers each year, report extensively on marketplace issues, and advocate for consumer rights and protections around safety as well as digital rights, financial fairness, and sustainability. CR is independent and nonprofit.Children Now harnesses collective power to achieve transformational and systemic results for California’s kids as one of the country’s most impactful kids’ nonprofits. Led by experienced policy and government relations teams spanning health, education, early childhood, child welfare, and a range of other areas, Children Now learns from kids and families where they need support and lift up solutions to policymakers with the power to act.  Areas of Focus Household & Consumer Products Family Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals California Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 March 25, 2026

California bill would create first-in-nation ‘not ultraprocessed food’ label for consumers Iris Myers March 25, 2026 SACRAMENTO – A trailblazing California bill would give shoppers a way to identify less harmful processed foods.Assembly Bill 2244, introduced March 24 byAssemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), aims to create a first-of-its-kind state certification program for products that are not ultraprocessed food, or UPF. If enacted, the bill would establish a new “California Certified” seal for non-UPF.“Parents shouldn’t need a Ph.D. in chemistry to understand what they’re feeding their kids,” said Gabriel. “AB 2244 will empower consumers with clear, trustworthy information and make it easier for them to locate healthier foods that are free from harmful additives. This new seal doesn’t limit consumer choice, it just makes informed choice possible,” he added.The Environmental Working Group is co-sponsoring the bill. The Assembly Committee on Health will hear the bill in mid-April.A new standard for healthier foodUnder AB 2244, the California Department of Public Health, or DPH, would oversee a certification system allowing approved, independent agents to verify which products meet the state’s UPF standards and qualify to use the California Certified label.California last September enacted AB 1264, a landmark law by Gabriel setting the first U.S. legal definition of UPF. Under the law, known as the Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, food is considered UPF if it is high in saturated fat, added sugar or sodium and contains a food additive such as flavor, color, emulsifier or a thickening agent. The law also tasks DPH with identifying UPF “of concern” to phase out from schools’ food.AB 2244 would not let products carry the California Certified non-UPF label if they are classified as UPF. They’d also be disqualified if they were already on the list of foods restricted in public schools in the state. Certified products would be required to undergo recertification at least every three years. The state would create a standardized label bearing the phrase “California Certified Not Ultraprocessed Food Standard.”Only products that meet these requirements could display the seal.“This is about setting a higher bar for what we consider healthy food,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. “Consumers deserve labels they can trust. And families deserve a simple way to tell which foods are closer to what comes from a kitchen rather than a factory.“If enacted, the bill would establish a state-verified seal for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that define the modern American diet,” she added.Bringing transparency and accountability to the food systemThe bill includes strong oversight and transparency measures:Certification agents must register with the state and disclose all certified productsThe state can audit certification records at any timeThe state would maintain a public, online list of certified productsMisuse of the label would be illegal and subject to enforcementThese provisions are designed to ensure the label remains credible.Making healthier choices easier in storesIn addition to creating the label, the bill would require large food retailers to make certified “not ultraprocessed” products more visible within the store.If a grocery store sells more than 25 non-UPF-certified products and has more than $10 million in annual sales overall, it would be required to display California Certified products prominently, for instance, at checkout or store entrances. Addressing the rise of ultra-processed foodsUltra-processed foods are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products that are often filled with harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance and shelf life. These foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet in the U.S.Experts say ultra-processed food and drinks are engineered to trick people into consuming more of them than they want, especially soda.Scientific research has linked diets high in UPF to serious health harms, including cancer, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders (such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease) and mental health issues.Obesity is chief among the health problems linked to UPF. Rates of obesity in the U.S. and globally have skyrocketed in tandem with the rising consumption of ultra-processed foods.Help for consumersDespite these concerns, the U.S. offers consumers no clear, standard labeling system to help them identify UPF.With federal regulators slow to update oversight of food additives and processing, states are increasingly taking action to protect public health.AB 2244 builds on California’s leadership in addressing harmful food chemicals and improving transparency for consumers. It would direct the state health department to accredit third-party certification agents, no later than June 1, 2028, to evaluate and certify products as California Certified.“Consumers genuinely want to avoid ultra-processed foods, but the reality is, it’s nearly impossible to tell what’s what when you’re standing in a grocery aisle trying to make a quick decision,” said Maria Menounos, Emmy Award-winning journalist and actress. “We’ve created a system where even the most well-intentioned shopper can’t easily distinguish between ultra-processed foods and healthier processed options. That confusion isn’t helping anyone live better, it's just holding people back.“That’s why I believe a voluntary non-UPF seal could be a game changer. Something simple, clear and trustworthy that helps busy consumers instantly identify better choices without needing a nutrition degree. It’s about meeting people where they are and making health feel accessible, not complicated,” she added.###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 Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals California Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 March 25, 2026

Intensifying droughts and extreme heatwaves are having a profound impact on olive quality, quantity and price, according to recent research.

Five ways to reduce microplastics in your food JR Culpepper March 23, 2026 While scientists are still uncovering information about microplastics and their potential to affect human health, one thing is certain: They’re making their way into our bodies. EWG recently reviewed the ways that microplastics are getting consumed through food and we've got five tips to cut down on your exposure.. The science around microplastics is not settled. We still have much to learn about where the particles come from and how they infiltrate places they certainly should not be, such as the brain.  Exposure levels can be drastically different from person to person. Our review found a few common routes that microplastics can take via the food we eat.  What we know  Some of the findings may be surprising: Ultra-processed foods, or UPF, typically contain higher levels of plastics than less processed food. That’s the conclusion of EWG scientist Samantha Romanick, Ph.D., who investigated microplastics contamination in food. She analyzed peer-reviewed studies that used spectroscopic techniques to identify plastic particles by type, size and shape, in food items on store shelves.  Romanick presented these findings in a scientific poster in February 2026 [add link when online - can host poster directly until we have a dedicated page] at the University of New Mexico’s Microplastics Exposure and Human Health conference.  Why are microplastics in my food? Microplastics can contaminate food through a range of production, processing, cooking and preparation methods. Think of bits of plastic from conveyor belts, tubes and packaging that could end up in what you eat.  Studies also show that food workers’ personal protective equipment, such as hair nets, aprons and gloves, can shed particles that get into food during production.  Most ingredients in UPF are produced through industrial processes. The more stages of processing food goes through, the more opportunities for microplastics to sneak in.  In addition to physical processing, UPF ingredients may already be contaminated with additives, including artificial flavors, colors, sweeteners, emulsifiers, thickening agents and other food chemicals.  These substances are manipulated and combined with other additives. Many are designed to be “hyper palatable” and have been linked to health harms such as Type 2 diabetes, cancer, heart disease and other conditions. It may not be possible to eliminate microplastics completely, since they’re so widespread and there are so many variables. Consumption of microplastics in food depends on factors such as the food’s brand, geographical location where it was produced and sold, and how it was handled.  So the plastics problem isn’t going to be solved overnight. In the meantime, these tips can help lower your exposure to microplastics in food. 1. Take care with hot drinks Studies have shown hot beverages served in single-use paper or plastic cups or with plastic tea bags release more plastic particles than non-plastic alternatives.  Consider bringing your own container to the coffee shop to lower your exposure to microplastics from this source. If you have time, sip from the cafe’s ceramic mug.  Or save time and money by making your drink at home. Paper tea bags are better than plastic mesh, but your best option is brewing loose leaf tea rather than using packaged tea.  2. Avoid bottled water  You may have heard this one before, but it bears repeating: If you frequently drink from disposable plastic bottles, consider safer alternatives. In a 2022 study, French scientists found microplastics in seven out of nine bottled mineral waters tested.  Other studies have found that just one twist of the cap on a single plastic bottle can produce up to 500 microplastic particles. And a more recent study found millions of nano-sized plastic particles originating from the bottle, cap and even the nylon filters in reverse osmosis systems. Filtered water in a reusable bottle is the better choice whenever possible. If you have no choice, try to keep plastic bottles out of the sun and in a cool, dry environment to avoid the degradation that heat can cause.  3. Wash your rice One study tested the plastic content in various rice, including white, brown, basmati and jasmine. Researchers also compared dry to instant cooked varieties. The study showed that the instant cooked rice contained more plastic particles, likely from the cooking and food preparation processes, compared to packaged dry rice varieties.  The study also found that washing rice prior to cooking removed plastic contaminants, regardless of what material the rice was packaged in. As a bonus, it also removes other contaminants, in addition to starches.  4. Select seafood carefully When shopping for seafood, go for the raw fish rather than breaded or pre-cooked options. One study looked at 16 protein sources, including fresh-caught seafood, store-bought seafood, poultry, beef, pork and vegan meats. More processed meat, meaning meat that undergoes more processes such as breading, packaging and mixing, typically has more microplastics. Breaded shrimp had the most plastic particles, while wild-caught Alaskan seafood had the least.  5. Food preparation at home  Try to avoid heating or freezing food in plastic containers. One study showed that when there’s a big temperature swing of any kind, plastic can degrade, especially if the container wasn’t designed for microwaves or freezers.  Although many plastic containers claim to be microwave- or dishwasher-safe, that just means they won’t melt, not that the plastic won’t degrade into your food.  Glass containers help you avoid this possibility. But many people use plastic containers to preserve their leftovers, since they’re cheaper and much more readily available. If possible, put your food on a plate before heating it in the microwave. And hand wash the plate with warm water rather than using the dishwasher. Not only does this gentler treatment keep microplastic leaching to a minimum, but it also increases the container’s lifespan.  Cutting with a knife on plastic cutting boards can also cause microplastics to shed, so using non-plastic boards may help with reducing your exposure. Areas of Focus Food Toxic Chemicals Authors JR Culpepper Samantha Romanick, Ph.D. March 23, 2026