Fil d’Actualités

New research further highlights the harms of ultra-processed food Anthony Lacey November 25, 2025 Four new research papers are calling attention to the rising health risks of ultra-processed foods, or UPF. Together they paint a picture of a food landscape flooded with UPF, flagging an urgent need for a more powerful policy response.Three of the papers were published as a series in the Lancet, a leading international medical journal, by a group of more than 40 prominent health experts and pioneers in the field. They conclude that UPF are a leading contributor to chronic disease.The widespread sale and consumption of UPF creates large corporate profits while making people sick. The researchers offer policy solutions for shifting our food systems toward healthier diets, and identify the role the food industry plays in preventing such progress.A fourth paper finds that younger women who eat more UPF, including highly processed bread, breakfast food and soda, may be more likely to develop colorectal cancer. The study, published earlier this month JAMA Oncology, was led by a team from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and relies on a robust data set representing nearly 30,000 nurses.The study’s findings add to a host of health problems already associated with UPF, including Type 2 diabetes, depression, and heart, kidney, and gastrointestinal diseases.The problem with ultra-processed foodMost of the food we eat is processed in some way, whether it’s chopped, canned, heated or frozen. These types of processing can actually help us create healthy diets by making some food safer to eat or easier to store and cook.Ultra-processed food is different.A wide range of foods are considered UPF, from certain snack bars, packaged desserts and soda to frozen dinners, salad dressings and breakfast foods. UPF are typically made in industrial settings and contain one or more artificial colors or flavors, non-sugar sweeteners, or additives like emulsifiers and thickeners. Food companies use these ingredients, often in combination with large amounts of fat, sugar or salt, to create UPF, which are extremely appealing, if not downright addictive.And it works. The U.S. is among the biggest consumers of UPF in the world. UPF currently make up more than half of what U.S. adults eat on a daily basis, and two-thirds of what kids and teens eat. The evidence, the Lancet authors argue, is now clear and compelling: The more UPF we eat, the higher our risk of diet-related diseases.What’s more, UPF are frequently more affordable than less-processed foods or fresh produce. The low cost and wide availability of UPF may drive health disparities among populations who already face hunger, undernutrition and higher rates of chronic disease.Ultra-processed food drives company profitsThere is a simple fact behind the proliferation of UPF: They are extremely profitable for the companies that make them. This is true not just in the U.S. but around the world. Global UPF sales grew from $1.5 trillion in 2009 to $1.9 trillion in 2023. This model works because big businesses take relatively cheap inputs, such as corn, wheat, soy and palm oil, and turn them into food products people can’t seem to stop eating. The more successful these companies are in selling UPF, the more they profit and the more powerful they become.The Lancet authors highlight the many tools the food industry has to prevent public health action on UPF. These strategies include lobbying government officials, taking legal action to block regulations, and casting doubt about credible research findings.Policies need to put people firstIf we are to counter food industry influence, we must frame UPF as a global health priority, and countries should work together to develop a coordinated response. The Lancet authors offer a suite of policy solutions that aim to help people eat more fresh and minimally processed foods. These include food labels or warnings for certain UPF, restrictions on marketing UPF to children, stricter regulation of companies that produce UPF, and even the restructuring of certain farming and environmental policies that contribute to the proliferation of UPF.The U.S. government has largely failed to develop such measures. On the contrary, nearly all new chemicals used in food – 99% – have been approved by the chemical industry, rather than the Food and Drug Administration, during the past 25 years.In the absence of federal action, states are stepping in. Earlier this year, California signed a historic new law to legally define UPF and phase out the most harmful from public school meals. Lawmakers in dozens of other states have introduced or passed bills targeting harmful chemicals in the food supply. How to find less-processed foodsUntil we achieve the changes our food system needs, there are a few actions consumers can take to avoid UPF. You can often find less-processed alternatives to many common foods. Instead of yogurt with added flavors, artificial colors or zero-calorie sweeteners, you might look for a yogurt with simple ingredients: cultured milk and fruit.The key to identifying these products is reading ingredient lists and nutrition facts, which are (for now) usually found on the back of food packages, looking for more whole foods and fewer chemicals. This may also mean looking beyond marketing claims on the front of packages, which can include phrases, colors or symbols intended to mislead consumers about what’s inside.For some extra help, take a look at EWG’s Food Scores, which provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives. Or if you’re on the go, use EWG’s Healthy Living app. Authors Sarah Reinhardt November 25, 2025

It can be hard to eat, drink and be merry when the food waste epidemic is on the table.

FDA withdraws rule on tests for cancer-causing asbestos in talc-based cosmetics Anthony Lacey November 25, 2025 WASHINGTON – The Food and Drug Administration today abruptly said it is withdrawing its proposed rule to establish approved test methods for detecting and identifying cancer-causing asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 required the FDA to develop the rule. The Trump administration’s decision to scrap the regulation will be published in the November 28 Federal Register. Asbestos is a deadly human carcinogen for which there is no safe level of exposure. Repeated contamination of talc-based products has raised serious public health concerns.The following is a statement from Environmental Working Group Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber:The FDA’s decision to withdraw its proposed rule requiring standardized testing for asbestos in talc-based cosmetics is dangerous and irresponsible.Needlessly exposing people to asbestos in personal care products will not make Americans healthy again. Thousands of products that contain talc can be contaminated with asbestos, one of the world’s deadliest substances. Tests for the presence of asbestos are the only way to ensure products made with talc are safe.Today’s action is also illegal. Congress clearly required the FDA to mandate tests for talc in cosmetics.In 2020, EWG-commissioned laboratory tests of talc-based cosmetics  found asbestos in nearly 15% of samples. The analysis, published in Environmental Health Insights, highlighted the outdated methods currently used to screen talc for asbestos. The cosmetics industry’s inadequate test methods leave consumers at risk.Cosmetics companies have known since the 1950s that asbestos can contaminate talc, and the public was alerted in the early 1970s. But the industry persuaded the FDA to allow companies to rely on test methods that can detect some, but not all, asbestos fibers.“Inhaling even the tiniest amount of asbestos in talc can cause mesothelioma and other deadly diseases, many years after exposure,” said Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG. “How much talc is inhaled, and how much is contaminated with asbestos, is difficult to know, but it only takes a single asbestos fiber lodged in the lungs to cause mesothelioma decades later.”Exposure to asbestos is linked to asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung and ovarian cancers. Even brief exposures can trigger disease years later. Studies estimate that more than 60% of mesothelioma cases in women are likely attributable to non-occupational asbestos exposure.Talc is commonly used in cosmetics to improve texture, absorb moisture, or as an inexpensive filler, a practice that continues to expose consumers to potentially deadly asbestos.###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 Personal Care Products Cosmetics Family Health Women's Health Toxic Chemicals Asbestos Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 November 25, 2025

We cannot afford to focus solely on short-term fixes, while ignoring the long-term drivers of disaster risk.

California violated state law when it gutted rooftop solar program, EWG claims in legal brief Anthony Lacey November 23, 2025 SAN FRANCISCO – California utility regulators violated state law by approving policy changes pushed by monopoly utilities that severely throttled a once-thriving rooftop solar market, the Environmental Working Group and its allies claim in a new legal filing.The November 21 filing, in the California Court of Appeal, makes the case for how the California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, “failed to proceed in a manner required by law” in approving the policy changes. EWG filed the brief along with the Center for Biological Diversity and the Protect Our Communities Foundation.The brief says that, following a recent Supreme Court ruling, the appeals court must now independently interpret statutes that direct CPUC actions and determine whether the commission failed to proceed as the law requires. This means the court must apply its independent judgment “de novo” to determine the meaning of the Legislature’s express statutory directives, the filing says. The court must then determine whether the CPUC followed those directives, and not simply give a “strong presumption” of validity to the CPUC’s decisions, as has happened in the past. “Those freewheeling days are over,” the brief says.The filing is the latest salvo in a long-running legal battle that could greatly influence the future growth of rooftop solar in California. “To put it simply, the CPUC flouted and subverted the law in their 2022 decision to disastrous effect,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “As a result, consumers have fewer choices for getting out from underneath rising electricity bills and California is falling further behind its clean energy goals.” The state attorney general, on behalf of the CPUC, and the state’s three investor-owned monopoly utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – also filed briefs November 21. They defended the CPUC’s actions.History of solar lawsuitThe state’s rooftop solar program was once thriving. It helped slash consumers’ electricity bills that are already some of the highest in the U.S., lower costs for new energy technologies, and help drive the state’s clean energy goals. The program gave consumers, mostly low- and middle-class families, an alternative and more affordable way to power their air conditioners and other electronic devices while reducing strain on the electric grid. The program also helped reduce the state’s reliance on environmentally harmful forms of power. But the CPUC’s 2022 decision severely damaged the program, making rooftop solar more expensive for consumers and triggering a sharp drop in installations. This led to tens of thousands of solar worker layoffs and widespread solar company bankruptcies. It also knocked the state off its path toward 100% clean energy. All this, the brief filed by EWG and its allies declares, happened in violation of state law. “The utilities don’t like this program because it hurts their bottom line,” explained Del Chiaro. “They see rooftop solar as their biggest competitive threat and want to halt its growth, using the CPUC to achieve that end.” The CPUC mostly rubber stamps whatever the utilities want, even if it hurts ratepayers’ pocketbooks. And it greenlighted the companies’ push for dismantling the solar program.EWG and its allies challenged the 2022 “NEM 3.0” decision through the regulatory process but the CPUC rejected it in 2023. The groups then sued in the California Court of Appeal. The appellate court sided with the CPUC and the investor-owned utilities, basing their decision on an outdated legal precedent that gave the Commission broad deference. EWG and its allies appealed to the California Supreme Court in 2024, arguing that the lower court used the wrong standard of review and gave the CPUC too much deference. The Supreme Court justices in August 2025 agreed with EWG and its allies that the proper standard of review is a much stricter one, set by the California Legislature in 1998. The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision, sending the case back for a fresh review.Note: Del Chiaro is available for interviews upon request.###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 Federal & State Energy Policy Renewable Energy California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 November 24, 2025