Fil d’Actualités

The EPA’s TCE ban saves lives — Congress must protect it rcoleman March 20, 2025 No one should have to worry that their home or workplace exposes them to harmful chemicals, yet millions of Americans are exposed to cancer-causing trichloroethylene, or TCE. A recent federal TCE ban aims to save lives – but now some in Congress want to undo it. If they succeed, the consequences will be devastating: more cancer cases, more babies born with fetal heart defects and more families burdened with lifelong suffering, all from preventable TCE exposure. The chemical, which is found in drinking water and air, is also proven to cause liver and kidney cancer and increase the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  Why the EPA’s ban matters The EPA finalized its long-overdue ban on most uses of the chemical in 2024, estimating it will save millions of dollars each year by preventing illnesses linked to TCE exposure. The financial benefits include: $23 million per year in healthcare savings over the next 20 years Lower medical bills, fewer hospitalizations and reduced need for lifelong treatment Less financial hardship for families dealing with TCE-related illnesses Even with cautious estimates, the TCE ban will save at least $9 million each year in healthcare costs by reducing cancer cases and related treatments.  It also means fewer families losing loved ones to cancer, fewer infants facing lifelong health complications, and fewer cases of reproductive harm and neurological disorders. Protecting workers and pregnant women  The TCE ban will have an immediate impact on the health of workers and their families. Every year, tens of thousands of workers in manufacturing, cleaning and metal degreasing industries are exposed to TCE on the job – including more than 1,100 pregnant women every year. TCE in the bloodstream can cross the placenta and exposure during the first few weeks of pregnancy -- when a baby’s heart is forming -- can more than double the risk of severe heart defects.  The financial burden of caring for infants with TCE-related cardiac issues is staggering. According to the EPA, each hospital stay for a baby with a severe heart defect costs an average of $41,000 - and for more critical cases, the cost climbs to nearly $80,000. Families also face years of specialist visits, therapies and medications. The emotional toll can be far worse: no parent should have to watch their child struggle with a preventable condition caused by avoidable chemical exposure. By banning TCE, the EPA is sparing families from both financial hardship and emotional heartbreak -- costs that cannot be easily quantified but are nonetheless profound. Preventing chronic diseases The agency’s ban will also prevent thousands of Americans from developing a range of other serious health issues like neurodegenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, the fastest-growing neurological disease that robs individuals of their mobility. Studies show that people exposed to TCE are up to six times more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease. Even two years of heavy exposure to TCE can increase the risk by 70 percent.  Beyond Parkinson’s, TCE is associated with neurological damage, including headaches, dizziness and cognitive decline. It is also linked to reproductive harm, like reducing sperm density and quality, and may also affect hormone levels, potentially contributing to infertility.   Millions are exposed every day TCE is widespread, putting millions of Americans at risk without their knowledge. Over 17 million people have TCE in their tap water, and in some areas, toxic vapors seep into homes, contaminating indoor air. Industrial releases affect hundreds of communities, especially in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Tennessee.  Military bases are particularly affected, with the Department of Defense confirming TCE contamination at 1,400 bases, including Camp Lejeune, where generations of service members and their families were unknowingly exposed. Safer alternatives are available  Safer alternatives to TCE, like alcohol- and water-based cleaners, are already in use and have caused no disruption to industries that once relied on the toxic chemical. When Minnesota banned TCE in 2020, over 130 companies switched to safer options without disruption. The European Union phased out TCE by 2016. In the U.S., TCE use is already declining, with industrial releases dropping by over 60 percent in the last decade. Repealing the ban would be a step backward, exposing people to a chemical that can easily be replaced.      What you can do Some lawmakers are trying to overturn the EPA’s ban, prioritizing corporate profits over human health. We can’t let profit-driven politics put millions of lives at risk. The fight to protect the TCE ban is far from over. Here’s how you can help: Contact your senators and representatives: Urge them to oppose any resolution that would weaken or repeal the TCE ban. Raise awareness: Use your social media platforms to raise awareness about TCE’s dangers and the public health consequences of reversing the ban. Share the facts about TCE’s dangers with your family, friends and community. Support advocacy groups: Organizations like EWG and The Michael J. Fox Foundation are defending the ban to protect public health. The TCE ban is a public health issue, not a partisan one.   Repealing the ban would be a callous betrayal of public safety, exposing millions to a toxic chemical linked to cancer, birth defects and chronic illness. Congress must stand with the EPA and keep this vital protection in place. Hearts and lives depend on it. Areas of Focus Household & Consumer Products Cleaning Supplies Family Health Disqus Comments Authors Monica Amarelo March 20, 2025

EWG testimony to the Virginia Legislature on bill to ban synthetic food dyes in schools JR Culpepper March 20, 2025 The following is January 14 testimony from Scott Faber, the Environmental Working Group’s senior vice president for government affairs, to the Virginia Legislature’s K-12 Education Subcommittee on H.B. 1910, a bill to ban synthetic dyes from food served in schools:Thank you. My name is Scott Faber, and I’m with the Environmental Working Group. I also teach food law at Georgetown University Law Center. Before joining EWG, I worked for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the food industry’s trade association.I’d like to make five points. One, the overwhelming evidence shows that these dyes are making it harder for some of our kids to learn by making microscopic changes to their brains and by changing how their brains transmit signals. Two, the [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] has not thoroughly reviewed these dyes since the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, long before studies could detect their effects on behavior and our kids’ brains.Three, we conducted an analysis for California legislators, and found that banning these colors will have no impact on our school food professionals. Only 3 percent of the foods sold “on the tray,” and only 2 percent of foods sold a la carte have these colors.Finally, the FDA has no plans to reconsider the safety of these chemicals and is not required to do so. In fact, 99 percent of new food chemicals are reviewed by the chemical companies for safety, not the FDA.Five, industry can quickly change the few products which use these dyes to comply with H.B. 1910. How do we know? They have already done so in other nations.Industry will tell you these dyes have been reviewed by the FDA and that banning foods from schools with these dyes will increase costs. As someone who once represented these companies, I know that these claims are false.Please, let’s do what our scientists, not the food and chemical companies, say is best for our kids and end the use of these toxic chemicals in food offered at school.  Areas of Focus Food Chemicals Disqus Comments Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 March 20, 2025

California lawmakers introduce landmark bill to phase out harmful UPF from school meals rcoleman March 20, 2025 SACRAMENTO, Calif. – On Wednesday, California Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) introduced a first-in-the-nation bill, A.B. 1264, to phase out “particularly harmful” ultra-processed food, or UPF, from school meals served in the state by 2032.If enacted, the bill would – if task state scientists to work with University of California experts on identifying UPF to ban based on scientific research linking them to cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, neurological or behavioral issues, and other health harms. “Our public schools should not be serving students ultra-processed food products filled with chemical additives that can harm their physical and mental health and interfere with their ability to learn,” said Gabriel. The bill has bipartisan support, including from state Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-East Nicolaus) and Progressive Caucus Chair Alex Lee (D-San Jose).“In California, Democrats and Republicans are joining forces to prioritize the health and safety of our children and we are proud to be leading the nation with a bipartisan, science-based approach. This new legislation will ensure that schools are serving our students the healthy, nutritious meals they need and deserve,” said Gabriel.Health threats of UPFUltra-processed foods are industrially manufactured, chemically modified products that are often filled with harmful additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance, and durability.Experts say ultra-processed food and drinks trick people into eating more of them than they want – that the products, especially soda, are engineered to evoke a desire to consume more.Scientific research has linked UPFs to serious health harms, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, metabolic disorders (such as Crohn’s disease and fatty liver disease), reproductive harm, neurobehavioral harm, 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.“Ultra-processed foods aren’t just unhealthy — they’re engineered for overconsumption. Like addictive substances, they hijack the brain’s reward system, making it difficult for people to cut back, even when facing serious health consequences,” said Ashley Gearhardt, Ph.D. and professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan.“America’s diet is now dominated by ultra-processed foods, many of which were shaped by the same corporate strategies that once hooked people on cigarettes. The result? Rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and diet-related diseases, especially in children,” added Gearhardt.Food companies have consistently opposed efforts to regulate UPFs and market and sell these products to California consumers without disclosing their potential harms.Landmark UPF legislationA.B. 1264 would, if signed into law, establish a first-ever statutory definition for UPFs. It would also direct California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment – in cooperation with leading experts from the University of California – to identify a subcategory of “particularly harmful” UPFs that should be phased out of school meals by 2032.“Processed food can be part of a healthy diet, but Americans, especially our kids, are eating too many ultra-processed foods, leading to higher rates of cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes,” said Scott Faber, the Environmental Working Group’s senior vice president for government affairs.“By identifying and phasing out the most harmful UPF from California’s school food, A.B. 1264 will send the right signal to the companies selling food to our schools. EWG applauds Assemblymember Gabriel for once again making the health of California’s kids his top priority,” added Faber.The bill would charge state scientists with determining whether a product qualifies as a “particularly harmful” UPF based on the following factors:Whether the product includes additives that are banned, restricted, or subject to warnings in other jurisdictions.Whether, based upon scientific research, the product or ingredients in the product are linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, developmental harms, reproductive harms, obesity, type 2 diabetes, or other health harms.Whether the product or ingredients in the product contribute to food addiction,Whether the product is high in fat, sugar, or salt. California schools are projected to provide over 1 billion meals this school year. A.B. 1264 would protect students from harmful, addictive chemicals and ensure that all children – including those from disadvantaged backgrounds – can access healthy and nutritious foods.“Healthy school meals are the fastest, most powerful way to create a healthier future for our children and our nation,” said Nora LaTorre, CEO of EatReal.orgCalifornia leads the wayIn recent years, California has helped to change the national conversation about food safety and school nutrition. Over the past two years, the state has passed two landmark food laws authored by Gabriel with strong bipartisan support.The California School Food Safety Act, signed into law in 2024, bans six harmful food dyes from being served in public schools. It came on the heels of a 2023 state-wide ban on the manufacture, distribution or sale of food containing the chemicals Red Dye No. 3, propyl paraben, brominated vegetable oil and potassium bromate.California has long been a bellwether state. Now similar actions are sweeping the country, with food chemical bills introduced, debated and in some cases enacted in states from Arizona to Vermont, including Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York.Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in January directing California agencies to look for new ways to minimize the harms of UPF consumption and reduce the purchase of soda, candy and other types of UPF, including foods that contain artificial dye.“Poor nutrition in childhood, predominantly due to processed foods which are high in added sugars and low in nutrient quality, is a major and modifiable factor contributing to life-long risk for chronic diseases including obesity, type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and heart disease and also affects learning and classroom performance,” said Michael Goran, Ph.D and program director for nutrition and obesity at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and professor and vice chair for research with the Department of Pediatrics at Keck School of Medicine of USC.###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 & Water Food Family Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Disqus Comments Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 March 19, 2025

An M.S. in Sustainability Science graduate reflects on the pros and cons of running marathons—for people and the planet.

How to test your well water for contaminants rcoleman March 19, 2025 If you rely on a private well for drinking water, testing it regularly is one of the most important things you can do to protect your family’s health. Unlike public water systems that have to meet federal water quality rules, private wells are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, so it’s up to you to ensure your water is safe.The Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend testing well water at least once a year, typically in spring. More frequent testing might be wise if you live near farmlands, industrial sites or landfills– or if someone in your home is pregnant or immunocompromised.You should also test your well if the water’s taste, smell or color changes, after flooding or repairs, or following reports of local contamination. Contaminants vary by regionSince contaminants vary by region, it’s a good idea to check local water quality reports, also known as Consumer Confidence Reports. Contaminants in private wells often mirror those found in nearby small water systems. Check EWG’s Tap Water Database to get an idea of potential risks in your area. If nearby communities struggle with water pollution, chances are your well could be at risk too. Areas near farmlands, airports, factories, mines or landfills, are more prone to contamination.Stay informed through local news, talk to neighbors and consult county health departments to learn what to watch for in your area and water issues they may have. The EPA regulates about 90 contaminants in public drinking water, but private well owners must conduct tests themselves to ensure their own water safety.Here are six commonly detected contaminants in drinking water to watch for: Disinfection byproducts. These form when chlorine or chloramine treat water. Linked to cancer and fetal harm, exposure comes from drinking, cooking and bathing.Nitrates. These come from fertilizer runoff, especially dangerous for infants. Test during pregnancy and a baby’s first six months, ideally after heavy rain in spring or summer.Heavy metals. Arsenic and chromium-6, both carcinogens, leach from natural deposits and industrial pollution.PFAS. These toxic “forever chemicals” pollute the water of more than 143 million people and are linked to immune issues and cancer.Radiological contaminants. Radium and uranium from natural deposits or mining. Even low levels may increase cancer risk and pregnancy complications.Volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. Chemicals like trichloroethyleneare tied to cancer and birth defects.How to test your well water Everyone deserves access to safe, clean drinking water – it’s a basic human right. Yet for the millions of people who rely on private wells, ensuring their water is safe falls entirely on their shoulders. Unlike public water systems, private wells don’t have regular testing or oversight, leaving them vulnerable to hidden contaminants. Tests for the full range of potential pollutants – like the six common contaminants that threaten drinking water – can be shockingly expensive, often costing hundreds or even thousands of dollars. This puts comprehensive tests out of reach for many families, even though the responsibility shouldn’t fall to them in the first place. No one should have to choose between their health and the cost of water quality tests. If you are able to invest in testing, there are three main options. The choice you make will depend on your budget and how thorough you want the results to be.1. Home test kitsBasic home test kits, available online and at hardware stores, are an affordable and easy way to check for common water issues like bacteria, nitrates, pH, hardness and iron. However, they don’t detect contaminants like PFAS, heavy metals or VOCs.2. Mail-in lab kitsFor more thorough tests, mail-in kits allow you to collect a water sample and send it to a certified lab for detailed analysis. These tests detect a wider range of contaminants, including heavy metals, PFAS and industrial chemicals. But even the most comprehensive test kits may not cover all the major contaminants of concern. Even the most expensive option only covers some disinfection byproducts, does not test for PFAS and measures total chromium only, not the more hazardous hexavalent form. To avoid costly surprises, make sure you understand what each kit covers before purchasing.Before purchasing a test, check your local utility’s water quality report. Even though you’re on well water, nearby public water systems can give you a sense of what contaminants are common in your area. This can help you decide which chemicals are most important to test for, so you don’t spend thousands of dollars on multiple tests. While mail-in lab kits are more expensive –- ranging from $195 to $1,000, depending on the scope – they provide accurate, lab-certified results.  Click here to purchase a well water test kit. Use the discount code EWG10 at checkout to get $10 off orders of $100 or more.* 3. State-certified labsIf you have specific concerns, such as proximity to industrial sites or a need for test results for real estate transactions, contact a state-certified lab for professional analysis. Some counties offer free or discounted tests, so check with your local authorities first. State-certified labs offer detailed, accurate tests and can customize them according to local risks. You may need professional help for sample collection.What to do if tests detect contaminants  If your well water contains harmful pollutants, installing a water filter is often the simplest solution. Carbon filters are effective at removing VOCs and disinfection byproducts. Reverse osmosis systems can remove contaminants like nitrates, PFAS and heavy metals. Treatment of more serious contamination may require whole-house filters or UV treatment for bacteria.EWG’s Tap Water Database can tell you about contaminants found in testing of public water supplies nearby, and provide advice on the best filters for getting them out of drinking water. EWG's Guide to Safer Drinking Water Reduce your exposures to common drinking water pollutants with EWG's handy tipsheet! Take action to stay safe Individual well owners shouldn’t be responsible for ensuring their drinking water is safe. It’s a public health failure that private well testing is left entirely to homeowners, many of whom can’t afford the expensive test kits needed to detect hazardous chemicals. Reliance on individual well owners to identify dangerous contaminants is unrealistic and leaves millions at risk. But until stronger, systemic regulations are in place, regularly testing well water is one of the most important steps you can take to safeguard your family’s health. These tests, combined with proper treatment and an awareness of local risks, help reduce your exposure to harmful pollutants. For region-specific guidance, consider reaching out to local experts, such as your state’s environmental or health department. * This coupon code is provided as a benefit to our readers and does not constitute an endorsement of any company, product, or service. The offer is subject to availability and may be modified or discontinued at any time without notice. The coupon code has no cash value, is non-transferable, and may not be combined with other offers. EWG is not responsible for the quality, fulfillment, or terms of any third-party product or service associated with this promotion. Areas of Focus Food & Water Water Toxic Chemicals Disqus Comments Authors Monica Amarelo March 19, 2025