Fil d’Actualités

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

M.S. in Climate student Allison Karabu reflects on the importance of community-based initiatives and finding the right questions to ask to effect real change.

Vermont House approves bill to ban toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease Iris Myers March 20, 2026 WASHINGTON – The Vermont House on Friday took decisive action to protect public health, passing a bill that would ban the use and sale of the highly toxic herbicide paraquat in the state.House Bill 739 would end Vermonters’ exposure to the chemical, an extremely dangerous weedkiller linked to serious health harms, including Parkinson’s disease. Despite this and other risks, it remains legal to use in the United States, even though more than 70 countries have banned it.“This bipartisan vote sends a powerful message that Vermonters’ health comes first,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at EWG. “Paraquat is one of the most toxic pesticides still used in the U.S., and no one, including farmers, farmworkers, families or children, should be put at risk of exposure to a pesticide linked to Parkinson’s disease,” he said.“If this bill becomes law in Vermont, it will prevent needless exposure to a chemical that has been linked to Parkinson’s,” said Horsfield.The legislation now moves to the Senate, where lawmakers have an opportunity to build on the House’s leadership and make Vermont a national model for protecting people from toxic pesticides linked to Parkinson’s disease.“We urge the Senate to act quickly to pass H.739 and send it to the governor’s desk,” Horsfield said. “Vermonters deserve nothing less than strong, commonsense protections from dangerous chemicals like paraquat.”Momentum is building nationwide to phase out paraquat. At least a dozen other states are considering similar legislation to ban the herbicide, and California is considering new regulatory restrictions – clear signs of escalating concern over the chemical’s well-documented health risks.###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 Toxic Chemicals Paraquat Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 March 20, 2026

This research identifies a diverse set of molecules released by marine phytoplankton that fuel microbial life and help drive Earth’s carbon cycle.

California bill would ban toxic ‘forever chemical’ pesticides contaminating nearly 40% of state-grown non-organic produce Monica Amarelo March 20, 2026 SACRAMENTO – A bill introduced today in the Assembly would ban the toxic “forever chemical” pesticides that contaminate nearly two in five California-grown non-organic fruits and vegetables, increasing the risk of cancer and other serious health conditions.The bill comes on the heels of test results that showed contamination of nine out of 10 samples of peaches, nectarines and plums tested.Assembly Bill 1603, introduced by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would ban the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides in California beginning in 2035. For the 23 of these PFAS pesticides that are already prohibited by the European Union, the ban would begin earlier, in 2030.The bill would also immediately place a pause on state approvals and require public disclosure of PFAS pesticides.AB 1603 is cosponsored by the Environmental Working Group, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Pesticide Action Network, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network.Nearly 70 pesticides that are PFAS are registered with the federal Environmental Protection Agency. They account for about 14% of all active pesticide ingredients. Fifty-three of those 70 are registered for use in California, representing 5% of all state-registered active pesticide ingredients. But they account for 15% of the pesticide residues detected on California-grown produce.“The country depends on California for its fruits and vegetables, but right now they’re being seasoned with chemicals that never break down,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “We cannot claim to lead the world in public health while allowing millions of pounds of toxic PFAS to be deliberately sprayed on our most iconic crops,” she said.A growing crisis in California fields “As a father, I don't want my kids eating strawberries contaminated with chemicals that will stay in their bodies for decades,” said Schultz. “AB 1603 is a vital step toward ensuring California’s agricultural legacy is defined by health and innovation, not by the accumulation of toxic PFAS in our soil and water. We are providing a clear, responsible road map for our farmers to transition away from these persistent chemicals while re-establishing California as a global leader in food safety,” he said.An EWG analysis shows that PFAS pesticide use is widespread in California agriculture, averaging 2.5 million pounds annually in all 58 counties. Over six years, from 2018 to 2023, farmers applied 15 million pounds of these chemicals, with the highest concentrations in Fresno, Imperial, Kern and San Joaquin counties. Much of this spraying targets some of the state’s most valuable crops, including almonds, pistachios, wine grapes and tomatoes. Many PFAS are already notorious for contaminating the drinking water of millions of Americans, an issue drawing increased scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers. The PFAS pesticide residues on California produce are a sober reminder of the continued identification and presence of PFAS in our environment, and they suggest an urgent need to phase out their use. Ingesting toxic PFAS pesticide chemicals And PFAS contamination is making its way from the field to the dinner table. More than a third, or 37%, of 930 samples of non-organic California-grown fruits and vegetables contained traces of PFAS pesticides, according to an EWG analysis of state data. In total, just over half, or 51%, of the 78 individual types of produce tested had at least some detectable residue.“The scale of this contamination is staggering,” said Susan Little, EWG’s legislative director in California. “Millions of pounds of PFAS are used on everyday California crops without any plan to phase them out.”“AB 1603 provides that road map. By immediately banning new state approvals, requiring full transparency starting next year, and phasing out these chemicals as of 2030, we are finally putting public health ahead of the chemical industry,” she added.Why PFAS are in pesticidesPFAS are a group of thousands of human-made chemicals used in a wide range of consumer, industrial and electronic products, in addition to pesticides. They are called “forever chemicals” because of their extreme environmental persistence: Their carbon-fluorine bond is among the strongest in chemistry, making them resistant to complete breakdown in the environment and in the human body.The contamination doesn’t stop there. As these chemicals partially break down over time, they can form other harmful compounds, including trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA, which is increasingly being detected in the environment, wildlife and people. One study estimates that PFAS pesticide use in California could generate between 185,000 and 616,000 pounds of TFA each year. Emerging research links TFA to reproductive harm and immune suppression, raising growing concerns about its spread and potential health risks.A recent EPA analysis noted that 36 PFAS pesticides – 25 of which are registered in California – lack updated developmental and reproductive toxicity tests. Immunotoxicity studies are routinely waived in pesticide applications, despite growing evidence that PFAS chemicals are particularly harmful to the immune system.“By the time these PFAS residues reach our plates, they have become part of a toxic cocktail that can suppress the immune system and harm reproductive health,” said Varun Subramaniam, EWG science analyst. “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using these chemicals on food crops.”“The most troubling part is how little we know about their safety. We’re spraying millions of pounds of chemicals on food without understanding their full health impacts or considering what little we do know. It’s unconscionable,” he added.PFAS can also be found in pesticides as inactive ingredients, which means they don’t address pests directly but can enhance how well a pesticide works. Manufacturers aren’t required to disclose individual inactive PFAS in their products, so it’s difficult to know how much of a role they play in the effects of pesticides that are sprayed.“The chemical industry's insatiable greed has turned all of our bodies into sacrifice zones, especially in predominantly Latino farmworking communities, for profit-driven motives,” said Sakereh Maskal, policy and advocacy director of the Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network. “Given that 98% of American bodies contain some level of PFAS, it’s clear that the chemical industry will stop at nothing to prioritize profit over people.”Health risks of PFAS exposureOnce released into the environment, PFAS do not fully break down and they can build up in the body. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99% of Americans, including newborn babies. Very low doses of PFAS have been linked to suppression of the immune system. Studies show exposure to PFAS can also increase the risk of cancer, harm fetal development and reduce vaccine effectiveness. California’s agricultural PFAS use means residents of the Golden State get hit twice – through contaminated food and through contaminated water. PFAS pesticides leave residues on fruits and vegetables, and the chemicals leach into groundwater that becomes drinking water.“Farmworker communities already face unacceptable exposure from toxic pesticides, and now PFAS - forever chemicals that persist in our water, land and bodies,” said Angel Garcia, co-director of the statewide coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform. “We don’t yet understand the long-term health risks, and they’re not even being recorded as PFAS by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.” “That’s not being health-protective. It’s allowing permanent pollution in already overburdened communities. That’s why AB 1603 is so important,” added Garcia.States leading on regulationThe EPA approves pesticides for national use, but states aren’t required to follow suit. California operates its own approval system: The state’s Department of Pesticide Regulation must independently evaluate and authorize each chemical before farmers can use it.That gives California enormous power to protect residents – power the state has largely chosen not to use when it comes to PFAS pesticides.While California has remained one of the world’s largest users of PFAS pesticides, other jurisdictions have moved to restrict or ban them.In 2021, Maine enacted the nation’s first statewide PFAS pesticide ban on their use, sale and manufacture, starting in 2030. In 2023, Minnesota passed a broad ban on nonessential PFAS uses, including pesticides, phasing them out by 2032.Denmark banned six PFAS pesticide ingredients in 2025. And the EU has prohibited 23 of the PFAS pesticides heavily used in California, including bifenthrin, trifluralin and flufenacet, chemicals California regulators continue to allow. The newly proposed legislation, AB 1603, would bring California in line with these other states and jurisdictions, making the nation’s “bread basket” once again a public health leader and helping ensure what we are putting on America’s kitchen table is free from PFAS pesticides. AB 1603 key provisions:2027. Immediately halt new state approvals of PFAS pesticides2027. Require transparency and public reporting on PFAS pesticide use2030. Ban 23 PFAS pesticides already prohibited by the EU2035. Ban use, sale and manufacture of all PFAS pesticides“California has been a public health bellwether for decades, from car emissions to chemical safety,” said Del Chiaro. “But we've been silent on PFAS pesticides, even though we’ve become one of the biggest users.”“AB 1603 changes that. Within a decade, ‘California Grown’ will mean grown without PFAS pesticides, which is the least we can do for families and communities struggling to contain widespread PFAS contamination in our soil, air, water and food,” she added.AB 1603 has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials and will likely be heard in mid-April. ###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 Farming & Agriculture Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California AB 1603 would phase out PFAS pesticides by 2035 and require public disclosure on 2.5M pounds of chemicals used each year Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 March 20, 2026