Fil d’Actualités

Experts warn viral TikTok skincare trends may expose kids and teens to harmful ingredients rcoleman June 30, 2025 TikTok is full of influencers’ “get ready with me” videos showcasing glossy creams and trendy serums. Kids and teens watch these and then start their own complex skincare routines, sometimes filming them for their own TikToks. But some of the the products featured in these videos could expose children and teens to ingredients that damage delicate, developing skin, according to a new study. Researchers at Northwestern University reported many of the skincare products young TikTok users see in videos posted by other kids and teens contain irritants and allergens. Algorithms drive this kind of content to young users. When a child or teen interacts with one skincare video, more show up in their personalized feeds. Seeing so many multistep skincare routines can make kids see them as normal and popular. The lengthy routines shown in the study’s videos are not uncommon. According to a 2023 EWG-commissioned study, 38% of Gen Z use skincare products daily, and another 23% do so weekly. Per the same study, Gen Zers are more likely to get product safety information from social media than from the product labels themselves. Higher risks for children The conversational style of these videos can instill trust and a sense of connection in many young viewers about the various products being used. But that faith is without good reason, since product safety is rarely part of the conversation. Kids and teens are particularly susceptible to the health harms some skincare products can cause. Children’s skin is thinner, more permeable and more vulnerable to damage than adult skin. Products that can bring anti-aging or skin brightening benefits to older users – like retinol, vitamin C and exfoliating acids – can break down younger users’ skin barrier and possibly redden, irritate or dry it out. The same can be true for products used by teens. Parents may not realize the risks until a rash or reaction appears. What the study found For the study, published in the Pediatrics journal in June, the researchers recreated the experience of a young TikTok user to see what kind of skincare content they’re exposed to from creators around their age. They created two TikTok profiles and reported being 13 years old to simulate a young viewer’s “For You” tab, which displays content most relevant to the user. The team reviewed 100 videos featuring skincare routines made by users between 7 and 18. They recorded 260 products that appeared in the videos, seeing whether any items were made using any of 38 potentially problematic ingredients for kids and teens. They found 20 such ingredients across the various products. Many of the most frequently used products contained at least one contact allergen. The videos with the most views often portrayed skincare routines that included several potentially irritating active ingredients in multiple products. One video had products with as many as 21 such ingredients. Ingredients of concern Active ingredients in some over-the-counter drug products, such as acne creams, are designed to target particular skin issues and are tested for safety and efficacy. But some can be harmful when used in high concentrations or on sensitive skin. And most personal care product ingredients are not required to undergo any premarket safety review. The most common active ingredients in products reviewed by the researchers were alpha hydroxy acids, or AHAs. Citric acid, an AHA, was found in 29% of the products featured in the TikToks. Although its hazards are minimal, citric acid can sometimes irritate more sensitive skin or worsen existing skin conditions. Many routines combined different products with the same active ingredients – mainly AHAs – which can increase the risk of skin irritation like redness, itching or burning. Product combinations can also put teens at risk of unintentionally creating chemical mixtures that can cause greater harm than exposure to just one chemical. The most common ingredient – found in over half of the products – was fragrance, a mix of chemicals that companies aren’t required to disclose. Often labeled simply “fragrance” or “parfum,” these mystery blends may contain any number of potentially harmful ingredients. Several featured products also contained ingredients known to increase sun sensitivity, but only one-fourth of the videos included sunscreen, suggesting some youth may not use daily sun protection. What you can do EWG’s Skin Deep® database can help you find products that are safer for skin of any age. To find healthier options, look for products with lower scores, which have fewer hazardous ingredients and restrictions on how they can be used. To find products that meet our strictest health and safety standards, look for those that bear the EWG Verified® mark, which signals the product has been carefully reviewed by our scientists and manufacturers disclose all ingredients on the label. For sun protection products, consult EWG’s annual Guide to Sunscreens, which rates sunscreens on their effectiveness and whether they contain harmful ingredients. To get this info on the go, use EWG’s Healthy Living app, which puts product and ingredient ratings at your fingertips. Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Cosmetics Family Health Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Guest Authors Zoe Kolenovsky, Communications Fellow June 30, 2025

Drawing academics, policymakers and practitioners from around the world, the conference addressed themes of climate mobility, adaptation and wellbeing.

MAHuh? Trump taps pesticide industry insider to regulate pesticides, abandoning MAHA promises JR Culpepper June 30, 2025 WASHINGTON– In a move that starkly contradicts campaign pledges to crack down on toxic pesticides, President Donald Trump has appointed longtime agriculture lobbyist Kyle Kunkler to serve as the nation’s top pesticide regulator at the Environmental Protection Agency, according to a report in E&E News.Kunkler is a former lobbyist for the American Soybean Association and the Biotech Innovation Organization. He will now lead the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, despite years of advocating against restrictions on farm chemicals such as glyphosate and atrazine. These are the very pesticides singled out in Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s, “Make America Healthy Again” report for their potential links to chronic illness in children.“The appointment of Kyle Kunkler sends a loud, clear message: Industry influence is back in charge at the EPA,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “It’s a stunning reversal of the campaign promises Trump and RFK, Jr., made to their MAHA followers – that they’d stand up to chemical giants and protect children from dangerous pesticides.“To those who genuinely believed the MAHA movement would lead to meaningful change on toxic exposures: We understand the hope,” he said. “But hope doesn’t regulate pesticides. People with power do. And this pick all but guarantees the status quo will remain untouched.“This is but the latest example of the Trump administration’s sweeping betrayal of environmental protection and public health,” added Cook. The MAHA Commission, chaired by Kennedy and at least rhetorically supported by Trump, warned just weeks ago about the risks of chemical industry capture. The commission called for more independent science on pesticide safety. Yet Kunkler, who proudly defended pesticides in response to that report, will now oversee the agency’s decisions about whether those same chemicals remain in use. On Friday, the CEO of CropLife America, the leading trade and lobbying group for the pesticide industry, sent a letter to Kennedy, obtained first by Politico. The letter urged him and the MAHA Commission to abandon their stance against crop chemicals like glyphosate and instead champion the use of toxic herbicides and pesticides in conventional agriculture. The industry letter comes a little more than a month before the commission is expected to release its final report and policy recommendations, on August 12.  ###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 Farming & Agriculture Pesticides Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 June 30, 2025

EWG comments to California Department of Pesticide Regulation on the process to identify priority pesticides rcoleman June 30, 2025 EWG submitted comments to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation on the agency's proposed process for pesticide prioritization. File Download Document ewg_comments-to-dpr-on-pesticide-prioritization_050825.pdf Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Pesticides Regional Issues California Authors Alexis Temkin, Ph.D. Bernadette Del Chiaro May 8, 2025

Minnesota farmers would not gain much from GOP budget farm subsidy proposals rcoleman June 29, 2025 The House and Senate budget reconciliation bills are packed with loopholes that will send tens of billions more dollars in subsidies to the largest farms. But most farmers in Minnesota would not benefit much, if at all, from these proposed changes. The bills include proposals that would raise total national spending on farm subsidies by: Increasing crop price guarantees by 10% to 20%Making 30 million additional acres of farmland eligible for subsidy paymentsRaising payment limits from $125,000 to $155,000 per personAllowing every member of a farm organized as a pass-through entity, including corporate farms, to collect an amount up to the new payment limit. But most farmers in Minnesota don’t get money from commodity farm subsidy programs – and this wouldn’t change much under the budget bills. According to the Department of Agriculture’s Census of Agriculture, Minnesota is home to over 65,000 farms. And yet in 2024, only 4,662 received funding from federal commodity subsidy programs. The House has passed its version of the bill, and the Senate is considering its version.How size mattersFarm subsidy programs are set up so that the more acres a farmer owns or operates, the more they get in payments. So most of the money from these programs goes to the largest and wealthiest farmers. In Minnesota, the average farm size is only 388 acres – smaller than the average U.S. farm size, which is 463 acres. Minnesota’s small farms stand to gain little or nothing from the farm subsidy provisions in the bills.Of the Minnesota farmers who do get farm subsidies, only a small percentage of wealthy farmers receive large payments. In 2024, the top 10% of farm subsidy recipients collected 55% of commodity payments. These 466 recipients got $10,640,779 in total, with an average payment of $22,834 that year. The payments are even more concentrated in the top 1% of farm subsidy recipients. Just 46 recipients collected 17% of payments in 2024, and together collected $3,380,329, or an average of $73,485 per recipient. Map of the top 1% of Minnesota farm subsidy recipients in 2024Source: EWG, from EWG’s Farm Subsidy DatabaseMost Minnesota farmers who take in farm subsidies get small payments. In 2024, the bottom 80% of recipients collected only 28% of commodity subsidies. These 3,730 recipients together got $5,496,093, an average payment of just $1,473 per recipient. The budget bills would also send the largest farm subsidy payments to growers of rice, peanut and cotton, because the legislation would increase the price guarantees for these crops the most out of all commodities. But Minnesota’s main crops are corn and soybeans, which make up over 60% of total farmed acres in the state. And farmers of those crops won’t benefit from the subsidy changes nearly as much as rice, peanut and cotton farmers.The bills would also allow every member of a farm organized as a pass-through entity, including joint ventures, S corporations or limited liability corporations, to collect up to $155,000 a year each. But only 3,803 farms are set up as corporations out of over 65,000 total farms in Minnesota. This is a small share of the over 100,000 total farms in the U.S. organized as corporations. Farm subsidies and food assistance It’s clear Minnesota farmers will not benefit much from the farm subsidy provisions of the budget bills. But the food assistance cuts in the same bills would devastate Minnesotans. A previous EWG analysis of the House bill found that in Minnesota, only 29 counties could gain more funding in farm subsidies than they would lose in cuts to SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. That means 58 Minnesota counties could lose more money than they would gain by the House proposal. And the state’s net loss in total funding could reach almost $2 billion. Few Minnesota farmers would benefit significantly from higher farm subsidies. Lawmakers should not cut desperately needed food assistance to help finance more payouts to relatively few farmers. An increase in these payments at the expense of hungry people would seriously harm millions of people nationwide while benefiting few farmers. Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Farm Subsidies Regional Issues Midwest Authors Anne Schechinger June 30, 2025