G1. Progressive Green

3 ways the House farm bill threatens your health Anthony Lacey May 26, 2026

The farm bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation most of us have never heard of – and Congress is negotiating it right now.

This sweeping bill affects everyone, even those who have never stepped foot on a farm. A good farm bill would help families buy groceries, support the farmers growing our food, guide agricultural practices protecting our water supply, even expand access to infrastructure like broadband internet. 

But the Republicans’ House farm bill, the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026, passed last month with a focus on slashing many beneficial programs.

The Senate is soon to follow with its farm bill. If the final legislation looks anything like the House bill, it would lead to far-reaching public health harms, from pesticide exposure to longer food pantry lines to widespread water pollution. 

How? Here are three ways the House farm bill may be harmful to your health.

1. Increasing exposure to toxic pesticides 

Exposure to pesticides like glyphosate and paraquat can be devastating to a person’s health, leading to cancer and Parkinson’s disease, among other harms. 

The federal government has the power to protect us – but it hasn’t done so. Instead, the Trump administration signed an executive order to support companies in producing a steady supply of glyphosate-based herbicides, rolled back regulations intended to keep our water safe from the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS and even approved new pesticides containing PFAS.

So states and local governments are enacting their own pesticide protections. 

Some of these safeguards would limit the use of these harmful chemicals on fields near schools and public parks, where children – who are most vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure – spend their time. 

But the Senate farm bill could include a provision to replace, or “preempt,” strong state or local pesticide protections with far weaker federal rules. 

A similar provision in the House bill – removed at the 11th hour – would have erased dozens of state laws and given pesticide chemical companies sweeping immunity from liability for the illnesses linked to their products.

Even with the defeat of that troublesome language, there are still several provisions in the House farm bill that favor pesticide makers, not public health, by:

• Excluding many hazardous agricultural chemicals from existing health and safety reviews
• Making it easier for polluters to ignore health and environmental safeguards
• Delaying new reviews of certain potentially harmful pesticides until 2031
• Failing to protect people from PFAS in pesticides and biosolids.

2. Erecting barriers to healthy eating 

There are already many barriers to eating healthy in the U.S. Our food system is flooded with ultra-processed food, a leading cause of chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, depression and multiple forms of cancer. Recent research shows that foods that cost less often contain more food additives and higher amounts of sugar and sodium.

More than half of adults in the U.S. say they worry about affording food for their families, and about one in seven households can’t always get enough food for everyone at home.  

Study after study has linked food insecurity and lack of healthy food access to a greater risk of diet-related diseases and poorer health outcomes.

Rather than taking action to help people eat healthier diets, the partisan House farm bill could make these problems far worse. President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act included large cuts to funding for vital nutrition programs, and the House farm bill would make those cuts permanent.

The House farm bill would kneecap nutrition programs that more than 40 million people rely on, almost 40% of whom are kids. These cuts will cause an estimated 5 million people to lose access to food assistance over the coming years and could spell trouble for small grocers who rely on their spending. 

3. Failing to protect food safety and a clean water supply

The House farm bill would cut funding to a popular Department of Agriculture conservation program that supports practices that help reduce water pollution.

Our drinking water is being polluted by factory farms – large-scale animal production facilities where about 90% of U.S. farm animals are raised – which produce enormous amounts of manure. 

This manure can harbor a lot of bacteria, including a strain of E. coli that is particularly dangerous for humans. When bacteria from animal waste spread to nearby fruit and vegetable crops, the people who eat that produce can get seriously sick.

Manure can also pollute the water with nitrogen and phosphorus, as can runoff from commercial fertilizer. Nitrogen can become nitrate in water, and nitrate in drinking water poses serious public health risks. A recent EWG analysis found nitrate in the drinking water of 1 in 5 U.S. households. Exposure to nitrate increases the risk of cancer, including colorectal and bladder cancer, thyroid disease and birth defects in infants.

Decreasing funding for the USDA’s program and other conservation programs would increase farming-related pollution of drinking water and air, putting families at risk downstream. 

The farm bill should promote public health

Americans deserve a better farm bill – one that would:

• Protect farmworkers, families and children from toxic chemicals, including PFAS forever chemicals, present in the pesticides and fertilizers used to grow our food
• Ensure all families have access to the safe and nutritious foods they need to live healthy lives
• Help farmers protect the critical natural resources we all rely on, like clean water and air 
• Prevent foodborne illnesses caused by bacteria that come from factory farms.

What you can do

While Congress debates the farm bill, consumers can use EWG tools to make informed choices. You can: 

• Follow EWG to get the latest updates about farm bill negotiations
• Consult our Tap Water Database to find out about the quality of your drinking water. If necessary, learn what type of water filter will work best in your home
• Choose organic produce when possible. Non-organic fruit and vegetables are typically grown with toxic pesticides that organic farmers are not permitted to use
• Check our Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™, which identifies the non-organic fruit and vegetables that have the most and least pesticide residues
• And tell your representatives in Congress not to cave to corporations like Bayer-Monsanto, which are trying to strip state and local pesticide protections in the 2026 Farm Bill. Preserving these powerful state and local safeguards means protecting our farmworkers, families and children. 

Areas of Focus Food & Water Farming & Agriculture Family Health Pesticides Authors Ketura Persellin Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 26, 2026

HB 134 is officially law. HB 134 is a fake “Keep Georgia Forested Act.” Now Governor Kemp has put Georgia’s forests and communities at greater risk. This bill helps the […]

The post Statement: Kemp’s Last Strike Against Georgia Forests first appeared on Dogwood Alliance.

De la extracción a la regeneración: hacia transiciones justas para las personas y el planeta YLNM Documento de posición, 2025 Resumen: qué significa una transición justa para YLNM

Una transición justa no consiste en sustituir los combustibles fósiles por minerales para la transición. Se trata de transformar el sistema que ha hecho que la extracción parezca inevitable. 

Para Sí a la Vida No a la Minería, una transición verdaderamente justa debe ser popular e inclusiva. Debe basarse en el derecho a decir no y en el derecho a elegir otras formas de vida no extractivas. Para que la transición sea justa se debe centrar en la soberanía indígena, la autodeterminación comunitaria y los derechos de la naturaleza. Esto incluye la promoción de alternativas a la minería y al extractivismo, así como el impulso de nuevos paradigmas de justicia global que restablezcan el equilibrio entre los pueblos y la Tierra. Porque no podemos resolver la crisis climática  con más minería, pero sí podemos construir otros futuros post-extractivos que sustenten la vida con dignidad para todas las personas y los derechos inherentes de la Naturaleza a existir, prosperar y regenerarse en todas partes.

CONTENTS

1. Introducción

2. Los discursos sobre la transición verde: una falsa dicotomía

– La apropiación del mercado de la acción climática por parte de la industria minera
– Los «minerales de transición» no son lo mismo que los «minerales críticos»

3. Sí a la vida: Sí a las transformaciones basadas en la justicia y el cuidado

– ¿Qué entendemos por una verdadera transición justa?
– El derecho a decir que no

– Alternativas al crecimiento
– Derechos de la naturaleza
– Buen Vivir

4. Conclusión: Hacia transiciones justas para las personas y la naturaleza

1. Introducción

Treinta años después de la primera Conferencia de las Partes (COP) de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC), y treinta y tres desde la Cumbre de la Tierra celebrada en Río de Janeiro, Brasil, las emisiones globales de gases de efecto invernadero a la atmósfera siguen aumentando, y la sexta extinción masiva de especies continúa acelerando en un vertiginoso ritmo. Cada vez hay más indicios que confirman la posibilidad de superar el alarmante umbral de 1,5 °C de calentamiento global, y de que podríamos estar cerca, o incluso haber superado, puntos de inflexión planetarios que antes se consideraban remotos o lejanos.

En todo el mundo, en estos tiempos, los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades de base están liderando soluciones, campañas y movimientos alternativos para hacer frente a la crisis climática. 

En vez de ser reconocidas, las comunidades de base suelen ser blanco de ataques desproporcionados por parte de quienes se benefician a través del extractivismo y buscan mantener el ‘status quo’. Los movimientos sociales y socioambientales de base se han considerado durante mucho tiempo como una amenaza para las estructuras de poder capitalistas y colonialistas. Se utilizan herramientas neoliberales para justificar la opresión estatal en nombre de la protección de la inversión y el crecimiento económico. Tanto en el norte como en el sur global, los defensores indígenas y socioambientales son señalados y/o acusados como «terroristas» por los gobiernos estatales y las empresas, así como también son amenazados con acciones legales por oponerse a los proyectos extractivos.

Las organizaciones multilaterales mundiales y los marcos internacionales de mitigación del cambio climático no abordan las violaciones de los derechos humanos cometidas en nombre de la transición hacia las energías «verdes» debido a una dinámica de poder arraigada y globalizada que favorece al norte global industrializado y a sus intereses económicos. La creación de «zonas de sacrificio» se considera un efecto secundario aceptable del modelo empresarial a gran escala de mitigación del cambio climático, donde las personas que defienden sus tierras son vistas como obstáculos para los Estados y las empresas que desean beneficiarse del vasto sistema lucrativo que es el mercado de las energías  «verdes».

Esta profunda desigualdad de poder es evidente en las diversas cumbres anuales de la COP. En la reciente COP30 celebrada en Belém, Brasil, a los pueblos indígenas solo se les concedió una presencia simbólica en el interior, mientras que el escenario estaba dominado por los defensores del mercado verde y los grupos de presión de los combustibles fósiles. En el exterior, los defensores de la tierra que protestaban en busca de una verdadera justicia climática fueron repelidos por la policía militar. Mientras tanto, a los poderosos bancos y corporaciones transnacionales no solo se les concedió un lugar central para difundir su «greenwashing», sino que financiaron en gran medida el evento. Vale recordar que la tercera empresa minera más grande del mundo fue uno de los principales patrocinadores de la COP30, mientras que los organizadores del evento guardaron un silencio inquietante sobre el catastrófico historial de la empresa en materia de medio ambiente y derechos humanos, que incluye la muerte de 270 personas en el colapso de la presa de Brumadinho en Brasil en 2019 y de 19 personas en Mariana en 2015.

La COP30 celebrada en Belém en 2025 contó además con la mayor participación hasta la fecha de grupos de presión del sector de los combustibles fósiles, así como con una presencia desmesurada de empresas cómplices de la destrucción de la Amazonía o que la están destruyendo activamente. Es evidente que esto no representa el tipo de acción en favor de la justicia climática que el mundo necesita para hacer frente al calentamiento global descontrolado. 

En ese sentido, los movimientos de base y los defensores de la tierra tienen mucho trabajo por delante, ya que deben librar no solo luchas localizadas contra la minería y el extractivismo, sino también contra sus gobiernos (desde el nivel local hasta el nacional), los sistemas jurídicos, las empresas transnacionales, los acuerdos comerciales multilaterales y todo el sistema global del capitalismo neoliberal. Las comunidades más afectadas por la expansión minera en busca de «minerales de transición» son, en su mayoría, aquellas que ya llevan mucho tiempo marginadas por el capitalismo y el colonialismo: las comunidades indígenas y las del Sur Global.

Debemos cuestionar esta narrativa dominante que presenta como inevitable la expansión de las actividades extractivas y el crecimiento económico en nombre del «desarrollo y el progreso». Una forma clave de lograrlo es garantizar que las comunidades del Sur Global y los pueblos indígenas sean los líderes de la acción climática y los que definan el discurso de la transición ecológica. Esto implica dar mayor visibilidad a las alternativas a la minería y al extractivismo, y potenciar los paradigmas pos-extractivos de justicia global.

2. Los discursos sobre la transición verde: una falsa dicotomía

Las pruebas son claras. Los fundamentos científicos que relacionan la emisión de dióxido de carbono con el calentamiento del planeta ya se establecieron en el siglo XIX. Éstos datos  están disponibles desde la década de los sesenta, y el consenso científico público sobre el calentamiento global se alcanzó hacia 1980. Ya en la década del cincuenta, algunas empresas eran muy conscientes de los posibles efectos de los combustibles fósiles en particular, a lo que respondieron con décadas de encubrimiento, negación y retrasos, que continúan hasta el día de hoy. Las grandes empresas y las entidades estatales no solo se han opuesto activamente y han bloqueado las medidas necesarias, sino que han aprovechado este tiempo para expandir sin descanso la extracción y llevar a la Tierra al borde del abismo. Mientras tanto, somos testigos de una sucesión cada vez mayor de «fenómenos meteorológicos extremos» —de hecho, fenómenos meteorológicos amplificados por el cambio climático— que atestiguan que ya nos encontramos en una crisis climática.

Conceptos y definiciones sobre el cambio climático

Es importante distinguir conceptualmente entre emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI) y emisiones de carbono  (CO₂). Las primeras se refieren al total de emisiones antropogénicas de gases a la atmósfera que contribuyen al calentamiento global (IPCC 2021). Actualmente, el 76 % de las emisiones globales de GEI son de dióxido de carbono. El gas de efecto invernadero con la segunda mayor concentración en la atmósfera es el metano, con un 19 % (C2ES). La producción de metano está relacionada con la ganadería, la producción de combustibles fósiles y los residuos, mientras que el CO₂ se libera al quemar combustibles fósiles y mediante el uso extractivo de los bosques y el suelo.

Las emisiones de CO₂ están relacionadas con la mayoría de los sectores más importantes de la sociedad moderna, entre los que se incluyen la producción de energía, el transporte, las tecnologías de la información y la defensa. Los sucesivos informes del IPCC han dejado claro que las emisiones antropogénicas de gases de efecto invernadero son el principal factor del calentamiento global y, por lo tanto, la mayor parte de los esfuerzos en materia de política climática se centran en reducir estas emisiones con el fin de mantener el calentamiento global por debajo del objetivo de 1,5 °C establecido en 2015 durante el Acuerdo de París.

Tanto históricamente como en la actualidad, la distribución desigual de las emisiones de carbono entre los países es abrumadora, y la brecha es aún mayor si se tiene en cuenta el nivel de ingresos. En 2023, China, Estados Unidos y la India representaron conjuntamente el 42,6 % de las emisiones mundiales. Los patrones de las emisiones acumuladas de carbono a lo largo de la historia coinciden en gran medida con las potencias coloniales e imperialistas, y solo la rápida expansión de China en el siglo XXI se ha acercado a las de Estados Unidos y los países de la UE. Aún más dramática es la distribución desigual de las emisiones por consumo en función de los ingresos, donde se estima que las emisiones de carbono del 1 % más rico equivalen a más del doble que las de la mitad más pobre de la humanidad. Los multimillonarios más ricos del mundo pueden emitir más carbono en 90 minutos que una persona media en toda su vida. Muchos de estos ultrarricos están presionando activamente o vendiendo sus propias «soluciones climáticas», mientras siguen emitiendo personalmente cantidades exorbitantes de carbono. La influencia indebida que muchas de estas personas ejercen sobre los gobiernos está quedando al descubierto.

En julio de 2025, la Corte Internacional de Justicia emitió un dictamen consultivo en el que se establece que los Estados no sólo están obligados a proteger el planeta de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, sino que también pueden ser considerados legalmente responsables si no lo hacen, lo que incluye denuncias por pérdidas y daños, así como indemnizaciones. 

Si bien es objetivamente cierto que necesitamos descarbonizar nuestra economía, hacerlo con el fin de defender y mantener el status quo de un reducido y privilegiado grupo, en lugar de hacerlo como un imperativo moral para cumplir los objetivos del Acuerdo de París es muy problemático. Nos encontramos ante una situación en la que el objetivo central de la descarbonización no es salvar el planeta para las generaciones futuras. El objetivo de las actuales estrategias hegemónicas de «transición» para alcanzar el cero neto es, ante todo, mantener el crecimiento económico y las condiciones para que prosperen las grandes empresas.

La mayoría de las negociaciones en las recientes cumbres de la COP y la financiación asociada se centran en soluciones tecnológicas y en el desarrollo de tecnologías con bajas emisiones de carbono, es decir, en la mitigación del cambio climático dentro del modelo de «seguir como hasta ahora». Esta es la vía preferida y más financiada por los Estados, los bancos y las empresas, y se considera la forma de acción climática de mayor prioridad. Por el contrario, se destina relativamente poca financiación internacional a la adaptación (medidas para gestionar el riesgo y facilitar el ajuste a los impactos climáticos actuales y futuros, como los fenómenos meteorológicos extremos, el aumento del nivel del mar y la inseguridad alimentaria). Tanto es así que, ¡El Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente estima que la adaptación recibe entre 10 y 20 veces menos financiación de la necesaria! Aunque cuenta con el respaldo financiero, la vía de mitigación que se baraja no cuestiona el sistema económico y, de hecho, no hace más que reforzarlo al mercantilizar la acción climática.

Las narrativas dominantes sobre la acción climática se basan, por tanto, en la suposición de que el crecimiento económico y la expansión material son los principales objetivos sociales y de desarrollo. Estas suposiciones se fundamentan en modelos de escasez de recursos, es decir, los recursos que antes pertenecían a toda la población ahora deben ser acaparados y controlados por un sistema jerárquico en cuya cúspide se encuentran los más poderosos. Las narrativas de la llamada «transición verde» fueron creadas por instituciones con sede en el Norte Global para orientar el acaparamiento de los recursos globales finitos con el fin de mantener el crecimiento económico y los estilos de vida de los más ricos del mundo.

Esto, a su vez, ha dado lugar a la narrativa dominante actual de que necesitamos extraer grandes cantidades de los denominados «minerales críticos», como el litio, el cobre, el níquel, el cobalto y las tierras raras, para impulsar la transición hacia las cero emisiones netas de carbono. Esto ha desencadenado una fiebre extractiva en el sector minero por poner en marcha y ampliar proyectos.

Nos están haciendo creer que nos enfrentamos a una disyuntiva clara: combustibles fósiles o «minerales críticos». Más concretamente, resolver la crisis climática implica sustituir los combustibles fósiles por energías renovables, y para ello necesitamos extraer cada vez más minerales y «eliminar gradualmente» los combustibles fósiles. En pocas palabras: para salvar el planeta, ya devastado por siglos de explotación, tenemos que sacrificar más comunidades y más naturaleza.

Actualmente nos encontramos en un máximo histórico de consumo de combustibles fósiles (1). Mientras tanto, y al amparo de esta falsa narrativa sobre la acción climática, la extracción de metales y minerales también ha ido aumentando continuamente, incluso a un ritmo más rápido que el de los combustibles fósiles. Las empresas dedicadas a la extracción y el procesamiento de combustibles fósiles y minerales siguen obteniendo enormes beneficios a pesar de la crisis climática y, de hecho, gracias a ella (2). Por lo tanto, podemos ver que la extracción de minerales para la «transición hacia la energía verde» no está sustituyendo a los combustibles fósiles; de hecho, es un complemento: combustibles fósiles más energía renovable.

Esto se puede observar al examinar la lista de los mayores emisores de gases de efecto invernadero (3). A pesar de que el mayor porcentaje de las emisiones de carbono excedentes corresponde a los grandes productores de petróleo y gas, muchos de los puestos, entre los 100 principales emisores acumulados, los ocupan empresas consideradas de extracción de metales y minerales debido a su explotación del carbón (por ejemplo, Anglo American, Rio Tinto, Vale, Glencore). Mientras tanto, la mayoría de estas empresas siguen operando a pleno rendimiento y se proclaman «esenciales» para la transición. 

Aún más llamativo es que las cadenas de suministro de las grandes empresas metalúrgicas y mineras también son la causa de importantes emisiones debido a materiales cuya extracción y procesamiento consumen mucha energía, como el hierro, el cobre, el litio, el aluminio/bauxita, etc. Y estos análisis no tienen en cuenta la plétora de otros impactos ambientales y comunitarios asociados a la minería. Las grandes empresas mineras han sido y siguen siendo «líderes» en el colapso climático, en contraposición a la acción climática, que es lo que sus campañas de relaciones públicas quieren hacernos creer.

 

La apropiación del mercado de la acción climática por parte de la industria minera

La idea de que la minería es esencial para la acción climática es una mentira difundida sobre todo por las empresas y el sector que las respalda. La expansión de la minería en nombre de la «transición ecológica» no está motivada, en realidad, por el altruismo ni por una preocupación genuina por las personas y el medio ambiente, sino por factores de mercado, concretamente el aumento del valor de los minerales clave y la competencia geopolítica por el control de las cadenas de suministro. 

La mayoría de los metales clave necesarios para la electrificación de la producción energética (por ejemplo, el litio, el cobre, el níquel, el cobalto y las tierras raras —los llamados «metales de batería» para vehículos eléctricos)— han experimentado rápidas subidas en el precio de sus acciones en los últimos años. La minería de la «transición verde» es lucrativa, y esto ha alimentado tácticas generalizadas de «greenwashing» en la industria. A medida que las empresas buscan cadenas de suministro e inversores en las industrias de energía verde, sus sitios web se llenan de declaraciones grandilocuentes que promueven su compromiso con el abastecimiento de minerales para soluciones de energía verde. Las empresas transnacionales de seguros como BlackRock buscan ahora activamente inversiones en cadenas de suministro de energía verde, mientras que grandes empresas mineras como Rio Tinto y BHP se han reinventado a sí mismas como productores clave de minerales de «transición» de alto valor, como el litio y el cobre.

Las campañas de relaciones públicas de las empresas mineras suelen centrarse en los criterios «medioambientales, sociales y de gobernanza» (ESG) que, lejos de orientar la conducta de las empresas sobre el terreno, tienden a servir como herramientas de «greenwashing» para atraer a los inversores y favorecer agendas políticas. Si bien existen algunos esfuerzos simbólicos por parte de la industria para supervisar los impactos ambientales y sociales en las cadenas de suministro de minerales, estos han dado lugar a iniciativas como los sistemas de «estándares de certificación» que, lejos de aumentar la diligencia debida, pueden justificar aún más el lavado verde de las empresas al tiempo que ocultan sus actividades injustas y destructivas a la vista del público. Además, las políticas gubernamentales que se pusieron en marcha para acompañar la transición energética se están debilitando y revirtiendo, en consonancia con las tendencias de reducción de las competencias estatales (4).

Los «minerales de transición» no son lo mismo que los «minerales críticos»

El término «minerales críticos» se confunde a menudo con «minerales de transición», y ambos se utilizan indistintamente en los medios de comunicación. Sin embargo, existe una diferencia: «Minerales de transición» se refiere específicamente a los minerales utilizados en tecnologías renovables, incluidos los vehículos eléctricos. Por su parte, «minerales críticos» es un término más amplio que hace referencia a los minerales a los que los gobiernos o las instituciones multilaterales dan prioridad debido a su uso en tecnologías y en otros sectores que tienen una importancia económica clave en un lugar determinado, en un momento determinado.

Solo una cantidad limitada de «minerales críticos» se destina a las denominadas tecnologías bajas en carbono. Más de la mitad de los minerales considerados críticos en el Reino Unido «no desempeñan un papel importante» en la transición energética, mientras que uno de cada cinco «no desempeña ningún papel» ni siquiera en el escenario de cero emisiones netas de la AIE; de hecho, no se necesita ninguna actividad minera adicional para mantener el calentamiento del planeta por debajo de 1,5 °C.

Las estrategias y políticas gubernamentales sobre «minerales críticos» están dando cada vez más prioridad a los minerales destinados a la defensa y la seguridad nacional —en otras palabras, a la guerra— frente a las medidas climáticas reales. El litio, el cobalto, el níquel y los metales de tierras raras se utilizan en la fabricación de armas, incluidos misiles, submarinos y aviones de combate. Esto supone no solo devastación y muerte para las poblaciones afectadas por guerras y genocidios, sino también enormes beneficios para la industria armamentística mundial. En 2023, la industria armamentística obtuvo 632 000 millones de dólares estadounidenses de ganancia, sin contar el beneficio económico que obtuvo con el genocidio en Gaza, los conflictos en Ucrania, Yemen, Sudán, la República Democrática del Congo y otros lugares, así como el aumento impulsado por Trump para que los países de la OTAN puedan elevar su porcentaje de gasto del PIB en «defensa y seguridad» al 5 %.

 

Para más información, consulte el documento de posición de YLNM sobre la minería y la militarización.

 

En resumen, la minería no es una medida contra el cambio climático, la extracción de minerales no sustituye a los combustibles fósiles y los minerales extraídos no se destinan, en su mayoría, a tecnologías de energía renovable, sino a armas de guerra y otras iniciativas lucrativas del sistema capitalista. El resultado de esta dinámica es el desempoderamiento, e incluso el silenciamiento, de las voces de las comunidades que dicen «No» a los proyectos mineros debido a los impactos y riesgos que las actividades extractivas tienen sobre sus tierras, el agua, la salud y los medios de vida.

 

3. Sí a la vida: Sí a las transformaciones basadas en la justicia y el cuidado ¿Qué entendemos por una verdadera transición justa?

Las Naciones Unidas definen la transición justa como un marco «para garantizar que nadie se quede atrás en el cambio hacia una economía baja en carbono» (UNEPFI), centrándose principalmente en la protección de los trabajadores y las comunidades afectadas por la transición que supone el abandono de los combustibles fósiles. Si bien este enfoque reconoce la necesidad de la protección social y la creación de empleo, pasa por alto una verdad fundamental: la crisis a la que nos enfrentamos no es simplemente una crisis energética, sino de extracción y explotación. Una transición justa no puede limitarse a sustituir un conjunto de industrias extractivas por otro —por ejemplo, cambiar los coches de combustibles fósiles por motores eléctricos—. La definición anterior de «transición justa» acaba, de hecho, perpetuando la lógica colonial del extractivismo verde, justificando la apropiación de tierras indígenas, el desplazamiento de comunidades, el envenenamiento del agua y la erosión de la biodiversidad en nombre del progreso económico.

Transiciones justas

Recordamos que el concepto de «transición justa» surgió del movimiento sindical en la década del ochenta, con el objetivo de proteger el bienestar y la salud a largo plazo de los trabajadores y sus comunidades. Desde entonces, y mucho antes de su incorporación a las políticas climáticas y gubernamentales, ha sido objeto de debate, revisión y ampliación continua por parte de diversos movimientos sociales. Al margen de la reunión de la COP30 celebrada en Belém do Pará en noviembre de 2025, varias reuniones dieron forma a sus propios llamamientos globales sobre cómo debería ser una transición justa.

La Cumbrea de los Pueblos (Cúpula dos Povos) reunió a cientos de movimientos locales, nacionales e internacionales, pueblos indígenas y campesinos, y activistas socioambientales, que se unieron en una declaración a favor de una «transición energética justa, popular e inclusiva, con soberanía, protección y reparación para los territorios». Una campaña iniciada y liderada por las organizaciones y pueblos indígenas de la Amazonía brasileña y de otros países de la cuenca así como de todo el mundo reclamó una «transición justa y soberana que anteponga la vida al lucro». La Vía Campesina, en su Manifiesto para la COP30, situó la agroecología campesina y la soberanía alimentaria en el centro de la transición justa, afirmando que los países del Sur Global tienen derecho a una transición en sus propios términos.  En la reunión del Foro Social Temático sobre Minería y Economía Extractiva (TSF) celebrada en Belém –en la que YLNM participó como aliada y miembro– se lanzó un llamamiento para rechazar las falsas soluciones «verdes» y construir juntos una profunda transformación socioecológica y sistémica que supere el extractivismo en todas sus formas.

«Sí a la vida, no a la minería» se hace eco y se suma a estos llamamientos en favor de una transición que debe ser popular, inclusiva y verdaderamente justa. Esto significa una transición configurada por los pueblos y las comunidades, y no impuesta a estos. Debe centrarse en el derecho a decir «no» a los proyectos destructivos y en el derecho a la autodeterminación sobre los territorios, los medios de subsistencia y los modos de vida. Una transición justa también debe respetar los derechos de la naturaleza, reconociendo que los ecosistemas no son bancos de recursos para uso humano, sino parientes vivos cuyo bienestar determina el nuestro.

El derecho a decir que no

Las comunidades deciden decir «no» a la minería por muchas razones; consulte nuestro documento de posición «Por qué decimos NO a la minería» para obtener más detalles y ejemplos. Todas las comunidades tienen derecho a decir «no» a la minería. Todas las comunidades tienen derecho a defender sus territorios, sus medios de vida y el bienestar de las personas y de la tierra. 

Nos solidarizamos con las comunidades locales que se resisten al extractivismo y defendemos su derecho a decidir sobre todas las cuestiones que afectan a sus tierras, aguas y futuro. Esto incluye la autonomía, la autodeterminación y la soberanía territorial de los pueblos indígenas de todo el mundo, y reafirmamos el derecho de todas las comunidades a proteger y cuidar sus territorios de acuerdo con sus propios valores y sistemas de conocimiento.

Alternativas al crecimiento

Uno de los elementos fundamentales de la crisis socioambiental que se ha señalado es la insistencia del capitalismo en un crecimiento económico desenfrenado. El concepto del Producto Interior Bruto (PIB) como motor clave del «desarrollo» económico y político ha sido criticado por generaciones de activistas y académicos, en particular por aquellos arraigados en el Sur Global. En el Sexto Informe de Evaluación del IPCC se dedica un espacio a debatir sobre economías alternativas poscrecimiento, y hasta la Agencia Europea de Medio Ambiente ha tomado nota de ello. Estos giros se producen tras una importante investigación que critica la idea de «desvincular» el crecimiento de los impactos ambientales negativos, es decir, el «crecimiento verde».

Partiendo del legado de la crítica al desarrollo y de la economía ecofeminista, han ido surgiendo un número cada vez mayor de propuestas como el decrecimiento, el poscrecimiento y el posdesarrollo. El debate sobre el decrecimiento, en particular, es amplio y variado, e incorpora una gran diversidad de estrategias y propuestas; podría decirse que se trata de un espacio fundamental para el debate y la coordinación entre los movimientos del Sur y del Norte globales. Esto es significativo, ya que el concepto de «decrecimiento» se basa en una perspectiva internacionalista centrada en la justicia y pone especial de relieve la necesidad de que las regiones y clases más prósperas del mundo reduzcan su (sobre)consumo y aborden el «intercambio ecológico desigual» (extracción) de materiales y mano de obra de las regiones más pobres del mundo.  Dado que el concepto de decrecimiento supone un claro desafío a la lógica económica hegemónica del Norte Global, se mantiene prácticamente ausente de los debates políticos, tanto locales como internacionales, en torno a la mitigación y la adaptación al cambio climático, allí donde estos existen. Mientras tanto, los movimientos de base toman la iniciativa en su promoción.

Lamentablemente, el movimiento por el decrecimiento se ha enfrentado a críticas por parte de la corriente dominante, que sostiene que el concepto suena negativo o evoca la privación. Se trata, sin duda, de un malentendido o incluso de una interpretación errónea deliberada; sin embargo, para contrarrestar esto, han surgido conceptos que plantean una economía alternativa en términos más explícitamente positivos. Por ejemplo, la Wellbeing Economy Alliance define la economía del bienestar como aquella que «sitúa nuestras necesidades humanas y planetarias en el centro de sus actividades, garantizando que todas estas necesidades se satisfagan por igual, de forma predeterminada». El Gobierno escocés ha sido un defensor de este tipo de economía y ha elaborado un conjunto de herramientas para la economía del bienestar. 

La Construcción de Riqueza Comunitaria (CWB) es otro concepto que se basa en instituciones arraigadas localmente (por ejemplo, el servicio de salud) y fomenta la contratación de pequeñas empresas y cooperativas locales, manteniendo la riqueza circulando dentro de la economía local. El empleo justo y los mercados laborales justos, así como la propiedad plural de la economía y las finanzas justas, son algunos de los principios de la CWB. Actualmente se está implementando a nivel local y regional en varios continentes, principalmente en el Norte Global.

La idea de la economía del “donut”, con un «suelo social» y un «techo ecológico», fue desarrollada por primera vez por Kate Raworth. El suelo garantiza que se satisfagan las necesidades de todas las personas, mientras que  el techo asegura que no sobrepasemos  ecológicos ni desestabilicemos los sistemas que sustentan la vida en la Tierra. La economía del “donut” ha adquirido una gran influencia gracias a su representación simplificada de un mundo socialmente justo y ecológicamente sostenible; sin embargo, el concepto  ha sido ampliamente desarrollado y profundizado desde entonces. Un principio particularmente relevante para nuestro tema es: aspirar a prosperar en lugar de crecer.

Nunca se insistirá lo suficiente en que el decrecimiento pone de manifiesto que los puntos de partida para las transiciones justas son profundamente desiguales. Siglos de expoliación del trabajo, los recursos y las vidas han empobrecido y subordinado a muchas regiones del Sur Global. Por ello, la transferencia financiera y tecnológica es clave para cualquier camino basado en la justicia. Por ejemplo, basándose en décadas de trabajo sobre la «deuda ecológica», el movimiento Deuda por el Clima exige la cancelación de la deuda ilegítima en el Sur Global como una condición esencial para un futuro justo y sostenible. Incluso a nivel de la CMNUCC, gracias al liderazgo de la Alianza de Pequeños Estados Insulares, se ha establecido un Fondo para Pérdidas y Daños. Aunque actualmente su alcance financiero es bastante limitado, representa un reconocimiento formal y moral de la deuda de las partes más ricas del mundo.

Derechos de la naturaleza 

El movimiento por los Derechos de la Naturaleza se basa en el reconocimiento de que la Naturaleza es «una comunidad viva e indivisible de seres interrelacionados e interdependientes con derechos inherentes» (Barlow 2024). El concepto atrajo la atención mundial en 2008, cuando Ecuador definió en su Constitución a la naturaleza como un ser vivo (Pachamama) con derechos a «existir, persistir y prosperar». A pesar de los retos, las innovadoras leyes de Ecuador se han aplicado con éxito en varios casos, siendo quizás el más trascendental una sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional de 2021 que prohibió a una empresa minera canadiense operar en la reserva forestal de Los Cedros tras una intensa campaña local e internacional (Sí a la Vida, No a la Minería, 2025). El caso de Los Cedros fue el primero en Ecuador en impugnar las leyes constitucionales relativas al derecho a la protección jurídica de las empresas y las inversiones. En un nivel más profundo, la victoria judicial a favor del bosque afirma que la naturaleza tiene un valor intrínseco, independientemente de si puede monetizarse o no.

El movimiento por los Derechos de la Naturaleza se extiende actualmente por 40 países y defiende visiones y herramientas que cuestionan la hegemonía del poder extractivo colonial tanto en el Sur como en el Norte Global. En Ecuador, la autoridad indígena kichwa de Sarayaku ha formalizado la declaración Kawsak Sacha (Bosque Viviente), que define al bosque como una entidad viva unitaria con derechos (Kauffman et al., 2025). Esto se reconoce como un modelo fundamental de jurisprudencia ecológica que ha ayudado al pueblo sarayaku a defender sus tierras de la explotación petrolera y ha proporcionado herramientas para las luchas en otros lugares. Por su parte, en Australia, los conceptos de los Derechos de la Naturaleza están siendo replanteados por las Primeras Naciones con el fin de definir cómo podría ser una relación correcta con la Tierra para los colonos, y de respetar las leyes de los pueblos de las Primeras Naciones y su custodia ecológicamente sostenible de la tierra y el mar a lo largo de milenios (Australian Earth Laws Centre, 2025).

Los derechos de la naturaleza, junto con otras formas de jurisprudencia ecológica, como las leyes sobre ecocidio, se están convirtiendo en una parte integral de una transición justa. Según la Red de Mujeres por el Medio Ambiente y el Clima, «integrar los derechos de la naturaleza en la visión, la estructura y la práctica de una transición justa es fundamental para abordar las causas profundas de la crisis climática, rechazar las soluciones falsas y restablecer relaciones armoniosas con la Tierra» (WECAN, 2025).

En diciembre de 2022, los derechos de la naturaleza se incluyeron en el Marco Mundial para la Diversidad Biológica de Kunming-Montreal, un acuerdo internacional adoptado para detener y revertir la pérdida de biodiversidad (GBF, 2022). En mayo de 2025, se incorporaron en un dictamen consultivo de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos sobre el cambio climático y los derechos humanos, solicitado por Colombia y Chile —países en los que tanto la crisis climática como la respuesta industrial de la «transición verde» han afectado de manera desproporcionada a los pueblos indígenas en particular—. En ella se afirma: «El reconocimiento del derecho de la naturaleza a mantener sus procesos ecológicos esenciales contribuye a la consolidación de un modelo de desarrollo verdaderamente sostenible que respete los límites planetarios y garantice la disponibilidad de recursos vitales para las generaciones presentes y futuras».

En la COP30, la Alianza Global por los Derechos de la Naturaleza (GARN) celebró la tercera sesión de su 6º Tribunal Internacional, que concluyó con la presentación del documento de políticas, Un nuevo compromiso con la Madre Naturaleza, en el que se reclama justicia para la Tierra y sus defensores. Esto siguió a un evento celebrado en 2024 en Toronto bajo el lema Los impactos de la minería y la era pos-extractiva, que tuvo lugar al mismo tiempo que la gran feria comercial de la Asociación de Prospectores y Desarrolladores de Canadá (PDAC). La yuxtaposición de eventos fue deliberada: para poner de relieve el daño causado por las empresas mineras canadienses, con el objetivo de desafiar la hegemonía que mantiene la impunidad de estas empresas y así trazar una hoja de ruta hacia una visión pos-extractiva (GARN, 2025).

Los derechos de la naturaleza en Europa: dos ejemplos de la red YLNM

Los Sperrins, Irlanda

En una isla cuyas principales amenazas ecológicas son el extractivismo (la minería y la explotación de canteras) y la agricultura industrial (que también puede entenderse como una forma de extractivismo), los defensores de la tierra y los protectores del agua comenzaron a ver el potencial de las leyes sobre los derechos de la naturaleza para hacer frente a estas amenazas de forma sistemática y a largo plazo, en lugar de tener que librar una batalla tras otra para mantener a las excavadoras alejadas de sus puertas. La creciente energía de un nuevo movimiento dio lugar a una oleada de mociones en los municipalidades y a una recomendación de la Asamblea Ciudadana para incluir los Derechos de la Naturaleza en la Constitución irlandesa. Sin embargo, también se dieron cuenta de que no podían esperar a que se adoptara oficialmente una nueva (o antigua) forma de ver el mundo, por lo que también comenzaron a declarar los derechos de sus biosferas locales. Un ejemplo de ello es la Declaración de los Derechos de las Comunidades y la Naturaleza de las montañas de Sperrin, una cordillera de ecosistemas y pueblos amenazados por la minería de oro. Así que, mientras siguen resistiendo, también trabajan para arraigar y hacer realidad el «dúchas», un concepto irlandés de pertenencia, o «conexión con la tierra». Es comunitario y ecológico, y apunta a una identidad moldeada por el lugar.

Las controvertidas ampliaciones mineras en Serbia

En Serbia, varias organizaciones están impugnando proyectos mineros y recurriendo al Convenio del Consejo de Europa sobre la conservación de la vida silvestre y los hábitats naturales de Europa (conocido como Convenio de Berna). Estas denuncias no solo tratan de recurrir a este mecanismo internacional para detener los proyectos mineros —dado que las vías legales son muy limitadas en el actual contexto jurídico-político de Serbia—, sino que también solicitan que se incorporen los Derechos de la Naturaleza al Convenio de Berna, basándose en el hecho de que este ya reconoce el «valor intrínseco» de la flora y la fauna silvestres. Las denuncias afirman además que, debido a las deficiencias de otros marcos jurídicos, los Derechos de la Naturaleza son «necesarios» para proteger las especies y sus hábitats. La denuncia para proteger las montañas de Homolje de la minería de oro, presentada ante el Convenio de Berna, también se ha debatido como un caso en el Tribunal de la GARN, lo que ha dado lugar a un veredicto contra el Estado y la empresa por posible ecocidio y violación de los Derechos de la Naturaleza.

Estas iniciativas en Europa contrastan radicalmente con la evolución de las políticas. Desde hace ya varios años, la Comisión Europea viene tomando medidas para debilitar la normativa medioambiental con el fin de facilitar la expansión de la minería y la intensificación de la militarización, acelerando la concesión de permisos, aceptando revisar la directiva clave sobre el agua, flexibilizando la notificación de la contaminación y abriéndose a revisar la Directiva sobre aves y hábitats. Parece irrelevante cómo estas desregulaciones van a conciliarse con los compromisos en materia de biodiversidad global, protección del medio ambiente, derechos humanos fundamentales e incluso acción climática. Este «Pacto Verde» de la Unión Europea está dispuesta a sacrificar la naturaleza y las comunidades, tanto dentro del bloque como en el resto del mundo a través de acuerdos comerciales y asociaciones, a cambio de soluciones rápidas para la economía y la seguridad nacional.

Buen Vivir

El Buen Vivir, o Sumak Kawsay, es una filosofía indígena andina que propugna vivir en armonía con el mundo viviente. El Buen Vivir, o «vivir bien» (sumak kawsay en kichwa/quechua), es una filosofía indígena andina que propugna vivir en armonía con el mundo viviente. Otros pueblos tienen conceptos similares: Ñandereko, Küme Mongen, Suma Qamaña, Ubuntu, Swaraj, relación correcta.

El filósofo latinoamericano pos-extractivista Eduardo Gudynas describe el Buen Vivir como una postura radicalmente biocéntrica, que reconoce los valores intrínsecos del medio ambiente y desmonta el concepto fundamental de dualidad entre los seres humanos y la naturaleza que sustenta las economías extractivas. 

En América Latina, el Buen Vivir ha surgido de diversas formas en los movimientos indígenas, políticos y sociales de varios países, entre ellos Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Chile y Perú. Los principios del Buen Vivir han sido consagrados en las constituciones de Ecuador y Bolivia. En Bolivia, se trata de un marco ético arraigado en los conceptos indígenas aimaras de vida armoniosa. En Ecuador, el concepto se traduce en un conjunto de derechos constitucionales, que fueron incorporados a la Constitución de 2008 por una Asamblea Nacional en la que estaban representadas las naciones indígenas y los movimientos sociales de izquierda.

Podría decirse que las expresiones de las economías alternativas y los Derechos de la Naturaleza son formas modernas de expresar formas antiguas de ser. Sin embargo, necesitamos traducir la «relación correcta» a nuestros propios contextos para poder realizar una transición justa hacia un mundo que nutra a las personas, los lugares y el planeta.

.

Conclusión: Hacia transiciones justas para las personas y la naturaleza

Nos solidarizamos con las comunidades que afirman que no podemos salir de la crisis climática mediante la minería. El extractivismo, ya sea de combustibles fósiles o de minerales, es incompatible con la justicia, el cuidado y la regeneración. Las soluciones reales residen en las economías pos-extractivas: aquellas basadas en la reciprocidad, la gestión colectiva, los sistemas de conocimiento indígena y la restauración de las tierras y aguas dañadas. Una transición justa, en este sentido, no consiste en mantener el modelo de crecimiento industrial, sino en mantener la vida.

Por último, nos hacemos eco del llamamiento lanzado por las comunidades indígenas y tradicionales de la Amazonía desde Belém do Pará a todas las personas que luchan por la justicia en todo el mundo: «A Resposta Somos Nós» (La respuesta somos nosotros). Poner fin a este sistema destructivo y transformar socioecológicamente nuestras sociedades será una tarea liderada por las comunidades afectadas que están en la primera línea, en el respeto de los Derechos de la Naturaleza y el Buen Vivir, liberándonos de la economía basada en el crecimiento; de lo contrario, estas transiciones no serán ni justas ni sostenibles. Las falsas transiciones son y serán firmemente rechazadas y combatidas. Nuestro «no» es claro, y defendemos el derecho a que se respete. Pero hay muchos «síes», muchas transiciones y muchas transformaciones. Damos espacio para que esos «síes» existan, persistan, se regeneren y prosperen.

Endnotes/Notas al final

1. En 1980, cuando los gobiernos y la industria empezaban a tomar conciencia de los efectos de la quema de combustibles fósiles en nuestro planeta, el consumo anual de carbón, petróleo y gas se situaba en 70 683 TWh (TWh = un teravatio-hora, o un billón de vatios-hora). En 2024, tras 29 conferencias de la COP sobre el clima y tras el Acuerdo de París, el consumo anual no solo se había mantenido, sino que había vuelto a aumentar en la misma cantidad, hasta alcanzar la enorme cifra de 142 421 TWh (Our World In Data).

2. En 2025, la industria minera (incluidos los metales y el carbón) obtuvo unos beneficios globales colosales de 863 000 millones de dólares estadounidenses.

3. Se ha estimado que el 71 % de todas las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero en el periodo 1988-2015 pueden atribuirse a tan solo 100 entidades corporativas y gubernamentales.

4. Esto ha ocurrido, por ejemplo, en los últimos días en la Unión Europea, con la Ley de la Cadena de Suministro (Directiva sobre la Diligencia Debida en materia de Sostenibilidad Corporativa, CSDDD, y Directiva sobre la Presentación de Informes de Sostenibilidad Corporativa, CSRD), apenas unos meses después de su aprobación; en Argentina, con las leyes que amenazaban con derogar la protección de los glaciares para permitir la minería; en Nueva Zelanda, con nuevas leyes de vía rápida que eliminan la necesidad de consultar a las comunidades indígenas y locales, y en muchos otros lugares del mundo.

Washington recognizes EWG Verified® as higher standard for safer salon products Anthony Lacey May 21, 2026

WASHINGTON – In a first-of-its-kind pilot project, Washington is recognizing products with the EWG Verified® mark in its Safer Salons Partnership, which reimburses independent hair stylists, barbers and small salon businesses for switching to safer beauty products.

The program, led by Washington’s Department of Ecology, says EWG Verified meets the criteria for the highest reimbursement level. This is reserved for certifications that ban a broad range of harmful chemicals and assess the health hazards of ingredients and impurities. More than 2,700 products have earned the EWG Verified mark.

“EWG is proud to be recognized by Washington State's Safer Salons Partnership,” said Clive Davies, vice president of EWG Verified. “This is a watershed moment for the beauty industry. Washington State is putting safer product choice directly in the hands of the workers who need it most, with the money on the table to help make it happen.

“By recognizing EWG Verified at the highest level, the state is sending a clear message to manufacturers: Designing safer products is not only possible, it’s preferred. EWG is proud to be part of making that happen,” he added.

Protecting the workers most at risk

Salon workers face some of the highest occupational exposures to toxic chemicals in the beauty industry. 

Hair straighteners, dyes and styling products can contain formaldehyde, phthalates and other chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption and reproductive toxicity. Unlike consumers, salon workers breathe them in and absorb them through their skin for hours at a time every single working day.

“For too long, we’ve expected salon workers to deliver high-performance results without assurance that the products they use are safe,” said Lauren Sweet Duffy, Ph.D., senior director of EWG Verified. “They shouldn't need a chemistry degree to know whether the products they use every day are safer.

“When a stylist sees the EWG Verified mark, the guesswork is gone. It means the product has been rigorously reviewed, meets high standards for ingredient safety and transparency, and is free from the hidden chemicals that have put salon workers’ health at risk for decades. That is not a small thing. We are thrilled to work with Washington state and help amplify these positive impacts,” she added

Washington targets toxic cosmetics

Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, enacted in 2023, is a model for what meaningful cosmetic ingredient reform looks like in practice. The law not only bans a broad range of harmful chemicals from cosmetic products sold or distributed in the state but also offers financial support for small businesses.

The European Union and other countries have banned or limited more than 1,600 chemicals from personal care products while the U.S. prohibits just nine for safety reasons.

States have stepped in to ban dozens of other chemicals. Washington’s Department of Ecology recently finalized a new rule under the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act that will ban formaldehyde and 25 specific formaldehyde-releasing chemicals from cosmetic products beginning January 1, 2027. 

Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen commonly used in hair-smoothing treatments and also linked to respiratory disease and skin sensitization, risks that fall most heavily on the salon workers who apply these products daily.

The state is piloting the Safer Salons Partnership with several Washington salon professionals and barbershops. In addition to EWG Verified products, some other beauty products are eligible for the program.

A full directory of EWG Verified products eligible for reimbursement during the pilot is available at ewg.org/ewgverified. More information about the Safer Salons Partnership is available at ecology.wa.gov/safer-salons.

###

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 Personal Care Products Family Health Women's Health Toxic Chemicals Phthalates State’s pilot reimburses salon workers, barbers for buying items with EWG Verified mark Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 21, 2026

EWG: PFAS pesticides contaminate half of California surface water and sediment tests Anthony Lacey May 21, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Pesticides that are the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS are showing up in roughly half of surface water and sediment tests throughout California, a new Environmental Working Group analysis finds, underscoring the need to phase out the use of PFAS pesticides.

The analysis, which examined surface water and sediment test data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the U.S. Geological Survey collected between 2020 and 2024 found that bifenthrin, a PFAS pesticide potentially linked to cancer, was detected in nearly half of all surface water samples and in over half of the sediment samples. 

In San Luis Obispo and Stanislaus counties, the chemical was found in over 80% of surface water samples. The data was collected from ten counties across the state, including Santa Barbara and Monterey counties. 

“What we are finding in California’s waterways should alarm every Californian, and every American who eats California-grown food,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California.

“If we’re seeing PFAS pesticides show up this often even in limited surface water and sediment tests, the true scale of this contamination is almost certainly even greater. We need to stop deliberately spraying these toxic chemicals on our crops,” she added.

Millions of Californians are already being exposed to harmful PFAS through pesticide applications on produce grown in the state. EWG’s analysis shows that exposure through surface water and sediment could also be of concern. 

More than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied to California farmland annually. EWG also found frequent detections of these chemicals on produce grown in the state, and that feeds not only California but the rest of the U.S.

Since PFAS never fully break down in the environment, exposure through these two environmental pathways may persist for generations through PFAS’ breakdown products.

Overall sampling data were limited in size and scope, so PFAS contamination from pesticide use is likely more widespread than the data currently suggest. For instance, the data did not include samples from Fresno or Kern Counties, the counties that use the most PFAS pesticides in the state.

“The fact that we are finding potentially carcinogenic chemicals at high rates is a profound public health concern,” said Varun Subramaniam, M.S., EWG science analyst and co-author of the analysis.

“There are data gaps that likely mean PFAS contamination in sediment is underestimated currently. With more frequent and geographically diverse sampling, as well as testing for a wider variety of PFAS, detections would almost certainly rise,” he added.

Breakdown products are concerning

The contamination documented in this analysis may represent only a fraction of the actual PFAS burden in California’s waterways. Many PFAS pesticides transform in the environment into a highly persistent, short-chain form called trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA. Research has linked TFA exposure with reproductive and developmental risks. There are also concerns about TFA’s ability to persist in the environment for an extremely long time.

It remains unknown how long it takes PFAS pesticides to degrade into TFA. It varies according to pesticide types and environmental conditions. 

“Since PFAS never fully break down, exposure through surface water and sediment could persist for generations,” said Subramaniam. “In the absence of comprehensive monitoring for TFA and PFAS pesticide breakdown products, we are underestimating how widely these chemicals have spread in the environment and how they are affecting our health.”

This new analysis is a significant step forward in trying to capture the many ways we are exposed to PFAS. And it builds on EWG’s growing efforts to highlight the worrisome broad use of PFAS pesticides in the state that continues unchecked.

A ban would protect people

“We already know that PFAS are toxic chemicals that can harm people in a number of serious ways,” said Susan Little, EWG’s California legislative director. “The state needs to move swiftly to phase out PFAS pesticides for agricultural uses.”

EWG is sponsoring a bill moving through the California State Legislature, AB 1603, which would ban the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides used on crops statewide by 2035. 

“Ending the use of PFAS pesticides would safeguard our food and water systems and prevent PFAS pesticide buildup in the environment,” said Little.

###

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 Farming & Agriculture Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California ‘Forever chemicals’ may expose millions to potential health concerns Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 27, 2026

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, in the Beni region of North Kivu province, activists from local climate justice group Extinction rebellion Rutshuru held a peaceful rally at the end of February 2026 supported by Stay Grounded’s Global Action Pot. With airport expansion projects and aviation growth experiencing an immense boost in the Central African country, they called for an end to the…

Source

California’s surface water and sediment are often contaminated with PFAS pesticides rcoleman May 20, 2026

Pesticides that are part of the family of toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS contaminate surface water and sediment in agricultural areas across California, an EWG analysis finds.

PFAS pesticides were found in up to 50% of California surface water samples, and in about 45% to 55% of sediment samples. These chemicals – fungicides, herbicides and insecticides – do not just end up on produce that feeds the nation. These findings suggest pesticides could also be exposing millions of Californians to PFAS through water and soil. 

What’s worse, exposure may persist for generations, since PFAS never fully break down in the environment. 

To reduce water and soil contamination from PFAS pesticides, California should phase out their use, sale and manufacture for agricultural uses.

Potential health concerns

PFAS pesticides are those whose active ingredients meet the internationally recognized definition of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. These active ingredients have the carbon-fluorine bond characteristic of PFAS chemicals, which makes them highly persistent in the environment and resistant to complete breakdown.

EWG recently revealed over 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are applied on California farmland annually, and also found frequent detections of these chemicals on produce grown in the state.

Exposure to PFAS pesticides could harm the immune system. Yet EWG’s published research highlighted an important oversight gap: Review of studies of immune system toxicity – a key outcome observed in several studies of PFAS exposure – is routinely waived as part of PFAS pesticide approvals.

Many PFAS pesticides also transform in the environment into a highly persistent, short-chain form called trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA. Early research has linked TFA exposure with reproductive and developmental risks. There are also concerns about TFA’s ability to persist in the environment for an extremely long time.

We don’t know how long it takes for PFAS pesticides to degrade into TFA. It varies according to pesticide types and environmental conditions. 

In the absence of comprehensive monitoring for TFA and PFAS pesticide breakdown products, current exposure estimates don’t fully account for the range of how these chemicals can harm our environment and health.

EWG’s new analysis is a significant step forward in trying to capture the many ways we are exposed to PFAS.

Studying surface water

Our analysis of sampling results found multiple PFAS pesticides were detected in California surface water. 

To quantify the extent of PFAS pesticide contamination of California surface waters near agricultural areas, EWG compared four subsets of data. The number of PFAS pesticide samples for each dataset is denoted by n in the list below.

1. 2025 Surface Water Database, or SURF (n = 4,158): Surface Water Monitoring Studies 304, 301 and 321 with results spanning 2020-2023, from the California DPR, obtained from the 2025 DPR SURF Release:

Counties sampled: Butte, Colusa, Imperial, Merced, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo.

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Alamo River, Butte Creek, Clarks Ditch-Colusa Basin Drain, Ingram Creek, Lower Logan Creek, New River, Salinas River, Santa Maria River, South Slough-Deadman Creek, Tembladero Slough, Town of Hilmar-San Joaquin River, Willow Creek.

2. 2026 Study 310 (n = 298): Summary data from DPR Study 310, published in a January 7, 2026, report, with pesticide monitoring data on near-agricultural areas for Northern California in 2024:

Counties sampled: Butte, Colusa, Merced, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo 

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Butte Creek, Clarks Ditch-Colusa Basin Drain, Ingram Creek, Lower Logan Creek, South Slough-Deadman Creek, Town of Hilmar-San Joaquin River, Willow Creek

3. 2026 Study 321 (n = 548): Summary data from DPR Study 321, published in a January 1, 2026, report, with pesticide monitoring data on near-agricultural areas for the Central Coast and Southern California in 2024:

Counties sampled: Imperial, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara 

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Alamo River, New River, Oso Flaco Creek, Salinas River, Santa Maria River, Tembladero Slough

4. USGS (n = 580): Data from Table S4 of Woodward et al. (2026), with 2024 pesticide sampling data collected from agricultural streams in California, conducted by the USGS:

Counties sampled: Butte, Merced, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Yolo

Waterbody/watershed sampled: Butte Creek, Colusa Basin Drainage Canal, Del Puerto Creek, French Camp Slough, Ingram Creek, Mustang Creek, Orestimba Creek, Reclamation Drain, Snake River, Sweeney Creek

Because the data underlying Study 310 and Study 321 for samples collected in 2024 were not available within the SURF database as of the publication of this article, EWG’s analysis utilized summary statistics from DPR within the preliminary reports published in early 2026.

Information on PFAS pesticide detection frequencies from these data sources is summarized in Table 1, below. Data for the 10 most frequently detected PFAS pesticides between 2020 and 2023 in California SURF data are shown.

Table 1. Multiple PFAS pesticides detected in California surface water. 

PFAS Pesticide Detection Frequency Detection frequency (%) in surface water

PFAS pesticide

Top 10 from SURF

SURF

(n=4,158)
2020-2023

Study 310

(n=298)
2024

Study 321

(n=548)
2024

USGS

(n=580)
2024

Bifenthrin45.830.431.615.0Oxyfluorfen41.0ND26.320.0Lambda-cyhalothrin26.536.8  Sulfoxaflor19.9ND2.1 Fludioxonil12.1ND20.4 Trifloxystrobin6.3ND12.2 Indoxacarb5.9ND13.65.0Trifluralin3.5ND30.0 Fipronil1.2NDND Benefin1.1   

Gray cells indicate no testing for corresponding PFAS pesticide. ND = not detected.

Detection frequencies differed by region and study design. For example, oxyfluorfen detections varied by 21% across the data. But all four studies in Table 1 found evidence of PFAS pesticide contamination of surface water near agricultural areas.

Similar detection frequencies for bifenthrin – about one in three samples – were observed in both study regions, showing widespread bifenthrin contamination of state surface waters.

Data for the PFAS pesticides oxyfluorfen and lambda-cyhalothrin also showed frequent detections in state agricultural waterways both in SURF data (range: 12.1% to 41%) and within the 2024 results in Study 321 (range: 20.4% to 36.8%). 

Some county-level patterns in PFAS pesticide detections were observed from SURF data. Between 2020 and 2023, pesticide monitoring of near-agricultural surface water showed higher overall detection frequencies in San Luis Obispo (mean detection frequency = 23%) and Monterey (22%) counties than the other eight counties covered. 

Bifenthrin was detected in all 15 samples from San Luis Obispo, and in 88% of samples from Stanislaus County. In Butte and Colusa counties, all 10 PFAS pesticides shown in Table 1 were detected in under 10% of samples. 

The number of PFAS pesticides detected in surface water by county varied, with 10 detected in Monterey County, compared to just one in each of Sutter and Merced counties.

Notably, data for Fresno and Kern counties, where PFAS pesticide applications are the highest in the state, were not reported in the agricultural surface water or sediment monitoring studies within SURF. This suggests a concerning gap in the state of California’s testing of PFAS in surface water. 

Assessing sediment

EWG’s analysis found that both PFAS pesticides that were tested for in California sediment were frequently detected.

SURF data were subsetted to the same three datasets on pesticide monitoring in agricultural areas, and summary data were extracted from the 2026 Study 310 and Study 321 reports. The USGS dataset did not report concentrations for sediment and was not included.

Altogether, sediment data were far sparser than surface water data, with a much smaller set of pesticides sampled. 

In the 2020-2023 subset of SURF data and in the 2026 Study 310 data, only seven pesticides were sampled in total, while eight were sampled in the 2026 Study 321 data. 

Across all three datasets, just two of the sampled chemicals – bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin – were PFAS pesticides. 

Table 2. Bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin were frequently detected in California sediment.* 

PFAS Pesticide Detection Frequency in Sediment Detection frequency in sediment (%)PFAS pesticide

SURF

(n=152)

2020-2023

Study 310 

(n=10)

2024

Study 321

(n=26)

2024

Bifenthrin56.620.025.0*Lambda-cyhalothrin47.420.030.0*

Number of PFAS pesticide samples denoted by n.

*Due to a testing error in the 2026 Study 321 results, no sediment data were available from the Imperial Valley, a major agricultural region in southeastern California. The report notes this lack of data "significantly impacted 2024 results" and resulted in a drop in the detection frequency for lambda-cyhalothrin in sediment, from 80% in 2023 to 30% in 2024.

Between 2020 and 2023, SURF data indicated both bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin were more frequently detected than the other five non-PFAS pesticides.

The sediment analysis is far more limited due to smaller sample sizes, limited pesticide coverage and testing errors (see Table 2 footnote). 

Only two PFAS pesticides were tested for, despite several more being applied to crops, detected on produce and frequently found in nearby surface waters. 

These data gaps almost certainly lead to underestimated PFAS contamination in sediment. With more frequent and geographically diverse sampling, as well as consideration of a wider variety of chemicals, detections would likely rise. These limitations also hinder geographic comparisons of sediment.

Nevertheless, the findings in Table 2 indicate that, at minimum, bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin have both contaminated sediment in areas near agricultural land in California. 

Need for more comprehensive monitoring

Our analysis looked at surface water and sediment test results from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, or DPR, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Bifenthrin, a PFAS pesticide that may be linked to cancer, was detected in almost half of all surface water samples and in over half of the sediment samples between 2020 and 2023.

Overall sampling data are limited in size and scope, so PFAS contamination from pesticide use is likely more widespread than the data currently suggest. This report emphasizes the need for much more extensive environmental monitoring. 

Current test panels don’t sample for all PFAS pesticides or the chemical breakdown products that can form in the environment, so the full picture of contamination remains unclear. But EWG’s findings, based on current data only, highlight ample reason for concern.

Addressing PFAS pesticides

To eliminate the concerns over PFAS pesticides and their presence on produce, sediment and surface water, California should move to phase out the use of these chemicals on crops. Ending the use of PFAS pesticides would safeguard our food and water systems and prevent PFAS pesticide buildup in the environment.

Furthermore, current monitoring of both surface water and sediment looks at individual pesticides only, not the highly concerning PFAS byproducts that can form from their partial breakdown.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Water Farming & Agriculture Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Regional Issues California Authors Varun Subramaniam, M.S. David Andrews, Ph.D. May 27, 2026

Today we woke up to the news that, once again, Israeli forces have kidnapped members of the Global Sumud Flotilla. Among them is our comrade in international struggles, Beatriz Moreira (Bia), a member of the Movement of People Affected by Dams (MAB) and the Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR), who played an important role in the operational secretariat of the Peoples Summit toward COP30 in Belém, Brazil.

We cannot allow Israel to continue carrying out these illegal detentions without taking into account that these individuals are not at war, and that their only weapon is the defense of life. The kidnapping in international waters violates international law and the principles of humanitarian action.

Therefore, we call on the Government of Brazil, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty), other governments, as well as the international community as a whole, to do everything possible to guarantee the release, safety, and free passage of the Flotilla to its destination.

We, the organizations, networks, and social movements that organized the Peoples Summit in Belém during COP30, express our support for Beatriz Moreira, our comrade, and for all the crew members of the Flotilla, and we demand their immediate release!

In accordance with what was stated in the final declaration of the Peoples Summit, we reaffirm that: “For more than 80 years, the Palestinian people have been victims of  genocide perpetrated by the Zionist state of Israel, which has bombed the Gaza Strip, forcibly displaced millions of people and killed tens of thousands of innocent people, mostly children, women and the  elderly. We totally repudiate the genocide perpetrated against Palestine. We offer our support and  solidarity to the people who bravely resist…”

WE WILL CONTINUE THE INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE UNTIL THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLES ARE FREE!

Download the statement in Español, Português, Türkçe

SIGNED BY

• AIP – Articulação Internacional dos Povos
• Alba Movimentos
• AMA – Assembleia Mundial pela Amazônia
• AMB – Articulação de Mulheres Brasileiras
• ANA – Articulação Nacional de Agroecologia
• APIB – Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil
• APMDD – Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development
• CAN – Climate Action Network
• Climate Justice Coalition – Turkey
• Coalizão Negra por Direitos
• COIAB – Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira
• Comitê Brasileiro de Defensores de Direitos Humanos e Terra de Direitos
• CONAQ – Coordenação Nacional de Articulação das Comunidades Negras Rurais Quilombolas
• CONJUCLIMA
• CONTAG – Confederação Nacional dos Trabalhadores Rurais Agricultores e Agricultoras Familiares
• CSA – Confederación Sindical de las Américas
• CUT – Central Única dos Trabalhadores
• DCJ – Demand Climate Justice
• Engajamundo
• FASE – Solidariedade e Educação
• FBOMS – Fórum Brasileiro de ONGs e Movimentos Sociais para o Meio Ambiente e o Desenvolvimento
• FOEI – Friends of the Earth International
• FONSANPOTMA – Forum Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional dos Povos Tradicionais de Matriz Africana
• FOSPA – Fórum Social Pan-Amazônico
• Fossil Fuel Treaty
• GCB – Grupo Carta de Belém
• GFC – Global Forest Coalition
• GGJ – Grassroots Global Justice
• GTA – Grupo de Trabalho Amazônico
• GIMCC- Perú Grupo Impulsor de Mujeres y Cambio Climático
• Iniciativa Internacional de Mulheres de Corpo Territorio (já existente)
• Iniciativa internacional de mujeres en defensa de cuerpos y territorios
• IPB – International Peace Bureau 
• Jornada Continental por la Democracia y contra el Neoliberalismo
• LVC – La Via Campesina / CLOC
• MAR – Movimiento de Afectados por Represas 
• MAB – Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens
• MAM – Movimento pela Soberania Popular na Mineração
• MICQB – Movimento Interestadual das Quebradeiras de Coco Babaçu
• MMM – Marcha Mundial de Mulheres
• MNU – Movimento Negro Unificado
• MPA – Movimento dos Pequenos Agricultores
• MST – Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra
• MTST – Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem Teto
• OC – Observatório do Clima
• Peoples Dialogue
• Peoples’ Climate Summit 2026, Beyond COP 31, Antalya
• PICS – Palestinian Institute for Climate Strategy
• PLACJC – Plataforma Latinoamericana por la Justicia Climática
• Pororoka
• REBEA – Rede Brasileira de Educação Ambiental
• Rede PCTs
• REPAM – Rede Eclesial Pan-Amazônica
• STC – Seed the Commons 
• TUED – Trade Union for Energy Democracy
• TSF-Mining – Thematic Social Forum in Mining and Extractive Economy
• UNE – União Nacional dos Estudantes
• WFFP – World Forum of Fisher Peoples
• WMW – World March of Women
• WoW – War on Want

DECLARACIÓN DE SOLIDARIDAD CON LA FLOTILLA GLOBAL SUMUD

Today we woke up to the news that, once again, Israeli forces have kidnapped members of the Global Sumud Flotilla. Among them is our comrade in international struggles, Beatriz Moreira (Bia), a member of the Movement of People Affected by Dams (MAB) and the Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR), who played an important role in the operational secretariat of the Peoples Summit toward COP30 in Belém, Brazil.

We cannot allow Israel to continue carrying out these illegal detentions without taking into account that these individuals are not at war, and that their only weapon is the defense of life. The kidnapping in international waters violates international law and the principles of humanitarian action.

Therefore, we call on the Government of Brazil, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty), other governments, as well as the international community as a whole, to do everything possible to guarantee the release, safety, and free passage of the Flotilla to its destination.

We, the organizations, networks, and social movements that organized the Peoples Summit in Belém during COP30, express our support for Beatriz Moreira, our comrade, and for all the crew members of the Flotilla, and we demand their immediate release!

In accordance with what was stated in the final declaration of the Peoples Summit, we reaffirm that: “For more than 80 years, the Palestinian people have been victims of  genocide perpetrated by the Zionist state of Israel, which has bombed the Gaza Strip, forcibly displaced millions of people and killed tens of thousands of innocent people, mostly children, women and the  elderly. We totally repudiate the genocide perpetrated against Palestine. We offer our support and  solidarity to the people who bravely resist…”

WE WILL CONTINUE THE INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE UNTIL THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLES ARE FREE!

DECLARAÇÃO DE SOLIDARIEDADE COM A GLOBAL SUMUD FLOTILLA

Hoje amanhecemos com a notícia de que, novamente, forças israelenses sequestraram integrantes da Global Sumud Flotilha, entre elas está a nossa companheira de lutas internacionais, Beatriz Moreira (Bia), membro do Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens (MAB) e do Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR), que desempenhou um importante trabalho na secretaria operativa da Cúpula dos Povos rumo à COP30, em Belém, no Brasil.

Não podemos permitir que Israel siga realizando detenções ilegais sem levar em conta que eles e elas não estão em guerra, que sua única arma é a defesa da vida. O sequestro em águas internacionais viola o direito internacional e as premissas de ação humanitária.

Portanto: exigimos do Governo do Brasil e ao Ministério de Relações Exteriores (Itamaraty), dos demais países, bem como do conjunto da comunidade internacional que façam todo o possível para garantir a libertação, a segurança e o livre trânsito da Flotilha até o seu destino.

Nós, as organizações, redes e movimentos sociais que organizaram a Cúpula dos Povos em Belém, durante a COP30, manifestamos nosso apoio a Beatriz Moreira, nossa companheira, e a todas e todos os tripulantes da Flotilha, e exigimos sua liberdade imediata!

De acordo com o exposto na declaração final da Cúpula dos Povos, reafirmamos que: “Há mais de 80 anos, o povo palestino tem sido vítima de genocídio praticado pelo Estado sionista de Israel, que bombardeou a faixa de Gaza, deslocou pela força milhões de pessoas e matou dezenas de milhares de inocentes, a maioria crianças, mulheres e idosos. Nosso repúdio total ao genocídio praticado contra a Palestina. Nosso apoio e abraço solidário ao povo que bravamente resiste…”

CONTINUAREMOS A LUTA INTERNACIONAL ATÉ QUE O POVO PALESTINO SEJA LIVRE!

KÜRESEL SUMUD FİLOSU İLE DAYANIŞMA AÇIKLAMASI

Bugün, İsrail güçlerinin bir kez daha Küresel Sumud Filosu üyelerini kaçırdığı haberiyle uyandık.

Aralarında, uluslararası mücadelelerdeki yoldaşımız, Barajlardan Etkilenen Halklar Hareketi (MAB) ve Movimiento de Afectados por Represas (MAR) üyesi ve Brezilya’nın Belém kentinde düzenlenen COP30’a Doğru Halkların İklim Zirvesi’nin operasyonel sekreterliğinde önemli bir rol oynayan Beatriz Moreira (Bia) da bulunmakta.

Bu kişilerin savaşta olmadıklarını ve tek silahlarının hayatlarını savunmak olduğunu hesaba katmadan, İsrail’in bu yasa dışı gözaltıları gerçekleştirmeye devam etmesine izin veremeyiz. Uluslararası sularda yapılan kaçırma, uluslararası hukuku ve insani eylem ilkelerini ihlal etmektedir.

Bu nedenle, Brezilya Hükûmetini, Dışişleri Bakanlığını, diğer hükûmetleri ve bir bütün olarak uluslararası toplumu, Filo’nun serbest bırakılması, güvenliği ve varış noktasına özgürce ulaşması için mümkün olan her şeyi yapmaya çağırıyoruz.

Biz, COP30 esnasında Belém’de Halkların Zirvesi’ni düzenleyen örgütler, ağlar ve sosyal hareketler olarak, yoldaşımız Beatriz Moreira’ya ve Filo’nun tüm mürettebat üyelerine desteğimizi ifade ediyor ve derhal serbest bırakılmalarını talep ediyoruz!

Halkların Zirvesi’nin nihai bildirisinde yazdıklarımıza uygun olarak yineliyoruz: “Filistin halkı 80 yılı aşkın süredir, Gazze Şeridi’ni bombalayan, milyonlarca insanı zorla yerinden eden ve çoğunluğu çocuk, kadın ve yaşlı olmak üzere on binlerce masum insanı öldüren Siyonist İsrail devleti tarafından gerçekleştirilen soykırımın kurbanı olmuştur. Filistin’e karşı işlenen soykırımı tamamen kınıyoruz. Cesurca direnen halka desteğimizi ve dayanışmamızı sunuyoruz…”

FİLİSTİN HALKLARI ÖZGÜR OLANA KADAR ULUSLARARASI MÜCADELEYE DEVAM EDECEĞİZ!

The post DECLARATION OF SOLIDARITY WITH THE GLOBAL SUMUD FLOTILLA appeared first on Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

What is the sunscreen filter bemotrizinol? Iris Myers May 19, 2026

For the first time in over 25 years, the Food and Drug Administration is proposing to approve a new sunscreen ultraviolet, or UV, filter for the U.S. market: bemotrizinol, or BEMT. 

It’s a UV filter that since 1999 has been used in sunscreens in other countries, offering greater protection against harmful ultraviolet A, or UVA, rays.

UVA radiation is the sun wavelength that penetrates deepest into the skin, leads to premature skin aging, suppresses the immune system and increases risk of skin cancers, like melanoma. The sunscreens most Americans use do not provide enough UVA protection. 

For decades, Americans have had access to fewer sunscreen ingredients than consumers in Europe and Asia. In some cases the sunscreen sold in the U.S. offers UVA protection that is much worse than the sunscreens sold overseas.

EWG’s own peer-reviewed research found that U.S. sunscreens deliver on average just 24% of the UVA protection implied by their SPF labels. 

But that might be about to change.

Proposal could improve sunscreen options

In late 2025, the FDA proposed to add BEMT to the U.S. list of active ingredients allowed in sunscreens. The proposal allows for use up to 6%.

If the agency finalizes its decision, BEMT will be the first new UV filter approved for the U.S. market in over 25 years. 

BEMT could be widely adopted into sunscreen formulations, since it will be allowed for use in combination with almost all currently approved active ingredients.

The only restriction on using the filter would be a ban on combining it with two other UV filters: para-aminobenzoic acid, or PABA, and trolamine salicylate. In 2019 and again in 2021, the FDA proposed these two filters are not “generally recognized as safe and effective,” or GRASE, for use in sunscreens sold in the U.S.

In the European Union, BEMT is sold by numerous companies under trade names that include Tinosorb® S, Parsol® Shield, AakoSun BEMT, and Escalol™ S. The chemical company CIBA Speciality Chemicals invented the filter and applied for FDA approval in 2005, so it has already had more than two decades of regulatory review. CIBA was acquired by BASF, which manufactures and markets BEMT internationally.

DSM, a pharmaceutical company, has been leading calls for FDA approval of its version of BEMT, sold as PARSOL® Shield. If the FDA finalizes its approval, DSM would have 18 months of marketing exclusivity. 

After that period, other manufacturers would be able to use BEMT in their formulations, which should expand the range of products available to consumers. 

Data submitted to the FDA about products with BEMT at concentrations up to 6%, led the agency to propose the ingredient as safe and effective. 

Similarly, European Union Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety 1999 findings report that at levels up to 10%, BEMT does not irritate the skin and is not associated in animal studies with harm to the reproductive system.

A step forward in UVA protection

The most important use of BEMT would be closing the UVA protection gap that has plagued American sunscreens for decades.

In the U.S., sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs, and the FDA oversees sunscreen safety. The agency said in 2019 and 2021 only two of 16 ingredients on the market – zinc oxide and titanium – are GRASE.

Due to safety concerns, the FDA has flagged PABA and trolamine salicylate as not GRASE. 

The 12 other ingredients on the U.S. market are also not GRASE. But that status is primarily due to insufficient data. The agency has requested additional safety data on these ingredients, although they are still allowed for use in products sold in the U.S.

Problems with existing filters

The best sunscreens are those that provide broad spectrum protection – from both UVA and ultraviolet B, or UVB, rays. 

UVA rays don’t easily burn the skin. But they can cause it to age, suppress the immune system and contribute to the development of skin cancer. 

Zinc oxide and avobenzone are the only two UV filters in U.S. sunscreens today that are effective at reducing UVA rays significantly. 

Avobenzone is chemically unstable and must be paired with other ingredients to prevent it from breaking down in sunlight. Breakdown products of avobenzone have also been shown to cause allergic reactions. 

BEMT solves these problems. According to the FDA review, it provides strong broad-spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB radiation. 

It is more stable in sunlight than avobenzone and – unlike avobenzone – can be combined with zinc oxide to provide greater UVA protection. It also has more safety data than any non-mineral filters on the U.S. market.

Minimal health concerns 

Data suggests that most available non-mineral UV filters may have safety concerns.

The FDA’s proposed approval of BEMT includes extensive scientific review requiring data on absorption into the body and likelihood of irritation and sensitization, as well as animal studies of carcinogenicity and potential to harm reproduction or development. 

Minimal skin absorption 

Documents submitted to the FDA report that BEMT at concentrations up to 6% is minimally absorbed into the body and the amount that does absorb is below the concentration FDA considers to be indicative of systemic exposure after application.   

Compared to the other 12 ingredient chemical filters on the U.S. market, BEMT has robust data for safety and does not absorb into the skin. 

FDA studies in 2019 and 2020 showed that a one-time application of six other chemical actives – oxybenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, avobenzone and octinoxate – were absorbed through the skin at levels above 0.5 nanograms per milliliter, the maximum concentration the FDA says may be found in blood without potential safety concerns. 

One ingredient, oxybenzone, was detected at 258.1 nanograms per milliliter in blood after multiple lotion applications – 515 times the FDA’s threshold of concern. 

No evidence of carcinogenicity 

In a two-year long animal study, BEMT was applied to the skin of rats. The results indicated that BEMT did not cause abnormal, unregulated growth on the skin. This suggests that BEMT is likely not cancer-causing when applied to skin. 

No reproductive harm

The FDA also reviewed a multi-generational reproductive study and concluded that there were no harmful reproductive effects on the rats giving birth or the survival and development of their offspring.

Not irritating

Data submitted to the FDA also included a repeated insult patch test and cumulative irritation patch test, a photo-allergenicity test and a phototoxicity test. Results suggest BEMT was not irritating to the skin. 

More options are still needed

Approving BEMT is a meaningful step forward, but it doesn’t solve every problem with the U.S. sunscreen market.

For over 20 years, companies have submitted some safety data to the FDA in hopes of adding BEMT to the U.S. market. Even with the addition of avobenzone in 1999, the U.S. has been left with fewer options because the FDA’s approval process has been so slow. 

In sunscreens sold in Europe and elsewhere worldwide, BEMT is formulated with other active ingredients that are not approved for use in the U.S.

Sunscreens are often formulated with a mixture of active ingredients and, even with the addition of BEMT, the U.S. sunscreen market, would still lag behind the EU market. 

In the U.S., 16 active ingredients are permitted and in the EU, about 30 filters are available for formulation. 

With a law known as the 2020 CARES Act, the FDA’s rules for over-the-counter drugs were modernized. The law restructured the regulation of all OTC monograph drugs and replaced the legacy rulemaking process with a streamlined administrative order system. This change simplified the regulatory process. 

If the FDA finalizes the addition of BEMT, it’ll be the first new sunscreen active ingredient allowed in the U.S. in nearly 30 years. Other sunscreen companies could also submit applications to allow additional sunscreen ingredients on the market.

But, so far, these manufacturers seem unwilling to produce the safety data that the FDA requests.

Tips for sun safety

• Cover up and wear sunglasses. Shirts, hats, shorts and pants provide the best protection from UV rays. Good shades protect your eyes from UV radiation, which may cause cataracts.
• Find shade or make it. Picnic under a tree, read beneath an umbrella or take a canopy to the beach. Keep infants in the shade, because they are still developing the tanning pigments, known as melanin, that protect skin.
• Wear sunscreen. EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens evaluates the safety and efficacy of SPF-rated products, including sunscreens for recreational use and SPF-rated daily-use moisturizers and lip products. The best ratings are for products that provide broad spectrum protection formulated with ingredients that pose fewer health concerns when absorbed by the body. 
• Look for EWG Verified®. Consumers can also shop for EWG Verified sunscreens, making it easier to find products that are safer and effective.

Areas of Focus Cosmetics Sunscreen Household & Consumer Products Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. David Andrews, Ph.D. May 19, 2026

‘Balcony solar’ bill to cut energy costs clears California Senate Anthony Lacey May 19, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group applauds California’s Senate for passing a bill today that would let residents install small, portable “balcony solar” systems in apartments, condos and single-family homes, bringing them relief from sky-high electricity bills.

Senate Bill 868, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, cleared the Senate in a 35-1 vote, with four abstensions. It now heads to the state Assembly for consideration.

The bill is authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by EWG and the Abundance Network.

“EWG commends the Senate for advancing this proposal, a major step forward for energy affordability and consumer choice,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG senior vice president for California. 

A 400-watt balcony solar system can cut monthly utility bills for the average apartment dweller by up to $250 per year. Small balcony solar systems start at $500 today, but broader adoption enabled by SB 868 could drive prices down and give renters and low-income households more access to clean energy. 

“These systems are simple, practical and proven. They give people the ability to plug into clean energy savings immediately,” said Del Chiaro.

Balcony solar systems are as simple as plugging in a toaster or other electrical appliance at home. But red tape means the systems aren’t widely used. SB 868 would eliminate those barriers.

“We strongly encourage the Assembly to promptly take up and pass the balcony solar bill, ensuring that as we head into a hot summer, millions of Californians can look forward to having access to this technology and begin to see meaningful reductions in their energy bills,” Del Chiaro added.

Consumer-friendly cost-saving tool

California’s electricity rates have climbed dramatically in recent years, leaving the state with some of the nation’s highest energy costs. 

SB 868 would give Californians a practical, consumer-friendly tool to take greater control over their energy bills. System size is capped at 1,200 watts, enough to power everyday appliances like fridges, lights, Wi-Fi routers or an air conditioning unit.

The bill includes strict safety requirements modeled on internationally recognized standards. All systems must be certified by UL, or Underwriters Laboratories, the global independent safety science organization, or an equivalent nationally recognized testing laboratory. 

The legislation also requires that balcony solar systems have automatic shutoff protections that are triggered within seconds if the grid goes down, helping protect utility workers.

Balcony solar is already thriving in Europe, with over 4 million systems installed in Germany alone. But in California, regulatory barriers have kept this technology out of reach for many. 

SB 868 would remove those barriers while establishing statewide safety standards that do not currently exist.

###

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 Renewable Energy California Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 19, 2026

The ongoing expansion of airports in Uganda is being opposed by community-led advocacy campaigns which put the struggles of communities facing displacement front and centre. Here Ayebaze Moreen explains how the campaign developed. The expansion of Uganda’s aviation infrastructure – including projects at Entebbe International Airport, Anai Airport in Lira, Arua Airport…

Source

The Stay Grounded Network has launched a new project: The Red Lines for Airports project aims to unite groups across Europe – and beyond – in their struggle against airport expansion projects. As part of this, we’re also running a European Tour, going directly to local struggles, building connections, and supporting with workshops and skillshares. Here, Charlène Fleury, explains how people came…

Source

EWG’s 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens finds market progress, a promising new ingredient but a stubborn UVA protection gap Monica Amarelo May 18, 2026

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Working Group today released its 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens, and after evaluating nearly 2,800 SPF products, the most comprehensive review in the guide’s history, the news is mixed.

The sunscreen market is measurably better. Finding a safer and more effective sunscreen that works for your skin and your routine remains important in making sun protection a lifelong habit. The product you will actually use is the right one.

“The market has improved. The number of harmful ingredients like oxybenzone has nosedived, the percentage of products that are mineral sunscreens has nearly tripled and consumers are more informed than ever,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., chief science officer at EWG.

“But the fundamental problem remains unsolved: Most American sunscreens fail to deliver adequate UVA protection, critical for reducing skin cancer risk, including melanoma. 

“That is not a marketing problem but a failure of sunscreen companies to develop the data showing their ingredients are safe,” said Andrews.

Twenty years ago, most Americans had no independent, science-based resource to consult when buying sunscreen. The market was flooded with harmful chemicals, misleading SPF claims and products that offered little meaningful protection against the radiation most responsible for skin cancer.

So EWG built a guide.

This year, 550 of the 2,784 SPF products EWG evaluated meet its criteria for both ingredient safety and balanced UV protection. 

Sixty-two sunscreens bear the EWG Verified® mark. To qualify, they must:

• Meet EWG’s highest standards for safety and ingredient transparency
• Satisfy EWG’s standard for ultraviolet A, or UVA, and ultraviolet B, or UVB protection 
• Surpass both U.S. and European requirements for UVA protection. 

In total 130 SPF products, including moisturizers and lip balms, are EWG Verified.

20 years of measurable progress

“Wearing any sunscreen at all is key to reducing health concerns about excess UV exposure,” said Andrews.

“But not all sunscreens are created equal. EWG’s guide is a trusted, science-based resource that consumers can turn to every year to find the sunscreens that offer the strongest broad-spectrum protection without concerning ingredients.”

When EWG launched the first Guide to Sunscreens, in 2007, oxybenzone – a chemical linked to hormone disruption and environmental harm – appeared in 70% of non-mineral sunscreens on the market. Today it’s an ingredient in just 5%.

Vitamin A, which can degrade in sunlight and potentially accelerate rather than prevent skin damage, has plummeted from 41% of sunscreens to just 2%.

Mineral sunscreens using zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, the only active sunscreen ingredients the Food and Drug Administration has proposed as generally recognized as safe and effective, have grown from 17% to 47% of products EWG reviews.

These are not small victories. They represent a sea change in how an entire industry formulates its products, driven in significant part by consumers armed with better information.

A promising new ingredient on the horizon

For the first time in more than a quarter-century, EWG has cause for optimism about what is coming to U.S. sunscreen shelves. In late 2025, the FDA proposed classifying bemotrizinol, a UV filter used safely since 1999 in European and Asian sunscreens, as safe and effective for the U.S. market. 

“Bemotrizinol is the most significant development in American sunscreen regulation in 25 years, and EWG is proud to have pushed for its inclusion in U.S. products for more than a decade,” said Alexa Friedman, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG.

Bemotrizinol provides several advantages, including:

• strong broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection
• greater stability in sunlight than avobenzone, currently the only chemical filter in the U.S. that provides meaningful UVA protection 
• minimal skin absorption
• potential for combination with zinc oxide for even greater UVA coverage, unlike avobenzone.

If the FDA finalizes its proposal, American consumers who prefer non-mineral sunscreens will have a better option for the first time in nearly three decades.

“But one new ingredient does not fix a marketplace that has been stuck in neutral for a generation,” said Melanie Benesh, EWG vice president of government affairs.

“The FDA proposed meaningful reforms to sunscreen regulation in 2019 and again in 2021 – stronger UVA standards, SPF value limits, better labeling, updated safety data requirements.

“None of those reforms have been finalized, and sunscreen manufacturers have failed to provide the FDA with the safety data it needs to approve better UV filters,” she said. 

“Congress must force the issue by setting enforceable deadlines for companies to submit the required data and empower the FDA to remove noncompliant ingredients from the market,” Benesh added.

Most sunscreens still fail on UVA

Progress is real. But the gap in American sun protection has not closed.

EWG’s peer-reviewed research, published in Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine, tested 51 U.S. sunscreens and found that products delivered on average just 59% of their labeled UVB protection and only 24% of the UVA protection implied by their SPF labels.

UVA radiation penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB, is a driver of melanoma and photo-aging, and causes damage year-round through car and office windows, on cloudy days and at high altitudes. 

Melanoma cases are projected to rise 10.6% this year, according to the American Cancer Society. The rate of new melanoma cases has tripled since the 1970s.

The problem is compounded by misleading high-SPF marketing.

In perfect laboratory conditions, an SPF 50 product blocks 98% of UVB rays. SPF 100 blocks 99%. The difference is negligible, yet manufacturers continue to push SPF 70, 80 and 100+ products using chemical boosters that may inflate the number without improving UVA protection.

SPF tests triggered a regulatory reckoning in Australia, where independent tests found that one product labeled SPF 50+ tested at just SPF 4. The scandal triggered government investigations and mass product recalls. The U.S. has the same testing inconsistencies, but the FDA has not acted.

Europe adopted more accurate, objective laboratory testing protocols in 2024. 

The U.S. still relies on subjective in vivo tests, which involves technicians visually judging skin redness on human subjects, a method so inconsistent that the same formula can produce results of SPF 51 at one lab and SPF 28 at another.

“The SPF number on your sunscreen bottle doesn’t tell you the whole story,” said Friedman. “Consumers who reach for the highest SPF because they want maximum protection are often getting the least reliable UVA coverage of all. 

“That is a public health problem, and the FDA has the authority and the obligation to fix it,” she added.

Undisclosed “fragrance” in 36% of SPF products

More than one in three sunscreens EWG evaluated in 2026 list undisclosed “fragrance” on the label. That word can conceal hundreds of chemicals, including allergens, hormone disruptors and carcinogens.

For daily sunscreen users, those exposures accumulate. A 2025 peer-reviewed paper found the cumulative health effects of repeated fragrance ingredient exposure remain poorly understood and inadequately regulated. Congress set a 2024 deadline for the FDA to address fragrance allergen labeling in cosmetics, a rule that would have covered moisturizers with SPF. The agency missed it.

There is no equivalent fragrance disclosure requirement for sunscreens, so consumers have no way to know what is hidden behind that word on a product label.

“‘Fragrance’ on a sunscreen label doesn’t describe a single ingredient,” said Jilly Senk, science analyst at EWG Verified. 

“When you apply that product every day – to your face, your children’s skin, year after year – those undisclosed exposures add up. The EWG Verified mark exists precisely because the law does not require the transparency consumers deserve,” she said

How to find a sunscreen that works for you

The 2026 Guide to Sunscreens also offers important lists, including a selection of the top-rated recreational sunscreens, the safest for kids and babies, moisturizers with SPF and lip balms. They’re the products EWG scientists ranked the highest for their overall protection from UVA and UVB rays and other factors.

EWG also recommends “12 Bang for Your Buck Kids Sunscreens,” all priced at less than $20.

Here is EWG’s guidance for choosing a sunscreen that works and that you will use:

Choose mineral protection. Look for zinc oxide, which provides stable, balanced UVA and UVB coverage. EWG also recommends titanium dioxide for daily use.

Choose lotions or sticks over sprays. Sprays raise concerns about inhalation and often result in uneven coverage, especially in wind.

Skip high SPF numbers. Stick with SPF 50 or lower. Products with SPF 70, 80, or 100+ may not provide better UVA protection and can create a dangerous false sense of security.

Avoid chemicals of concern and undisclosed fragrance. Ingredients like oxybenzone and octinoxate are linked to hormone disruption and environmental harm. Undisclosed fragrance masks potentially harmful chemicals.

Use EWG’s tools. Search EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens, use the EWG Healthy Living app to scan products while you shop, and look for the EWG Verified mark, which requires sunscreens to exceed both U.S. and European UVA protection standards.

Finding a safer and more effective sunscreen that works for your skin and your routine is the final step in making sun protection a lifelong habit. The time of year does not matter. The weather does not matter. Every day is a sunscreen day – and the right product you will actually use.

###

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 Personal Care Products Sunscreen Family Health Children’s Health 80% of almost 2,800 reviewed SPF products rate poorly for skin protection or concerning ingredients Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 19, 2026

EPA is undoing PFAS protections. How can you remove ‘forever chemicals’ from tap water? JR Culpepper May 18, 2026

“Do I have PFAS in my tap water? How can I get rid of PFAS in drinking water?”

If you’re asking these questions, you’re not alone. The Environmental Protection Agency formally proposed to undo enforceable limits for four toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in drinking water: PFNA, PFHxS, GenX and PFBS. 

The agency is stripping protections from millions of Americans whose tap water is already contaminated, an unprecedented and likely unlawful move.

The EPA is leaving in place PFAS limits for the two most notorious and well-studied forever chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, which will help reduce levels of those chemicals in drinking water.

But the agency is also proposing to delay by two years the deadline water systems have to comply – until 2031, for utilities that ask. That risks continuing the PFOA and PFOS contamination in communities that have already waited decades for clean water.

The alarming move to scrap the four other PFAS limits may leave millions of people exposed to tap water chemicals linked to cancer, immune suppression and many other risks.

EWG estimated in 2020 that 200 million Americans could have PFAS in their tap water. The EPA’s latest national tap water data update says the number is at least 176 million.

So far, that’s all bad news. 

Here’s the good news: You can take steps that may help to reduce the amount of PFAS in your home’s tap water.

EWG is here to guide you through your options.

Are PFAS in my tap water? How to find out.

First, find out whether your tap water contains PFAS. Here are two tools:

• EWG’s Tap Water Database lets you enter your ZIP code, showing you the most up-to-date information about PFAS and other contaminants in your community's tap water. It contains data from water systems across the country, showing you exactly which chemicals have been detected and at what concentrations. 
• EWG’s interactive PFAS map shows where forever chemicals have been detected below and above the EPA’s first-time tap water limits. The map was updated with the EPA’s most recent national PFAS test data from March 2026, and includes communities, military bases and other locations. 

If you rely on a private well, your water is not monitored or tested by any public utility. If you live near a military base, industrial facility, airport or area with known PFAS contamination, consider getting your water tested.

How do I remove PFAS from my tap water?

“PFAS are in my tap water. Can I do anything about it?”

The simple answer is yes; there is something you can do – find and use a home filter designed to reduce PFAS in your drinking water. There are many brands and varieties available, at a range of prices. Not all filters remove PFAS effectively. Do not assume a filter removes PFAS unless it specifically states that it does.

There are a few different ways to filter water for PFAS. 

EWG’s guide to countertop water filters helps you navigate through some other accessible choices. EWG reviewed 10 of the leading brands and models, telling you which filter is most effective at removing PFAS, how much it costs, how quickly the filter parts must be replaced, and how easy it is to use, among other important considerations.

What’s key is the right PFAS filter option will depend on your budget and preferences:

• Carbon-based. Absorbs contaminants like PFAS as water flows through granular-activated carbon or a carbon block. Used in pitchers, under-sink filters and faucet-mounted filters, it’s often the most accessible and affordable option.
• Reverse osmosis. Pushes tap water through a semi-permeable membrane that separates particles from water molecules, cutting PFAS and other contaminants. It is typically installed under a sink, but some new counter top models are available. Reverse osmosis is a highly effective option for reducing PFAS in drinking water. 
• Ion exchange. Exchanges contaminants in the water for less-harmful ions to trap certain contaminants. Not as common in home filters and sometimes used in whole-house filtration systems, so often ends up being more expensive than point-of-use systems like filters you attach to a faucet.
• Whole-house filtration. These systems are often more expensive than other options. They’re not necessary for most homes – they’re typically just used by those with the worst contamination.

Renters may prefer counter-top, faucet-mounted or pitcher-type filters, technologies that don’t require changes to a property’s plumbing and can be easily removed when they move out. 

The best filter is the one that’s most suitable for your situation and that you will use.

Tell the EPA not to roll back PFAS standards

EWG strongly opposes the EPA’s rollback of four PFAS limits. The move could violate the Safe Drinking Water Act, the law that the agency used to first develop the standards.

If you’re also alarmed, you can make your voice heard. 

Tell the agency to keep PFAS protections in place. Preserving the limits for PFAS in water will protect health, save lives and clean up drinking water.

The EPA is taking public comment on the proposal through July 16. Use docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2025-1742 or EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654 to tell the agency who you are, where you live and whether PFAS are in your water. Let the regulators know why these protections matter to you and your family. 

Personal stories from affected community members carry significant weight. The agency needs to hear from concerned Americans to understand just how misguided its plan is.

You can also contact your members of Congress and urge them to investigate whether the EPA’s rollback of PFAS regulations violates the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Areas of Focus Water Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Authors Anthony Lacey May 18, 2026

Protein is everywhere – it probably isn't making us healthier JR Culpepper May 18, 2026

Protein used to be the domain of bodybuilders and fitness fanatics. Now it’s everywhere: high-protein claims on Doritos chips, Dunkin’ Donuts lattes, breakfast toaster pastries and even pints of ice cream. 

There is even, somehow, “high performance man cereal” packed with protein. 

The protein powder market has become a more than $20 billion dollar industry, and demand for whey protein is so high that food and beverage companies may soon face a shortage.

But more isn’t always better. And not all protein sources are the same.

Despite mountains of marketing claims suggesting otherwise, we are not all walking around with protein deficits. In fact, some protein products being sold as a silver bullet for better health may pose their own risks.

American diets have a problem – but it’s not protein

Many of us don’t need to worry about getting more in our diets. The average U.S. adult’s consumption exceeds daily protein recommendations.

But some groups may benefit from a protein boost, including older or postmenopausal adults, pregnant or lactating individuals, athletes engaging in resistance or endurance training and, potentially, people taking GLP-1 medications.

Foods like beans, lentils, nuts, seeds and whole grains can provide protein, along with another nutrient few people get enough of: fiber. More than 90% of women and 97% of men fall short of recommended daily fiber intake, around 25 to 38 grams per day. Diets low in fiber are linked to higher risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer.

A bonus of foods high in both protein and fiber: They are often more affordable than traditional protein sources. For example, a cup of cooked lentils contains about 18 grams of protein and 16 grams of fiber – often for less than a dollar per serving.

Concerns about supplements’ safety

Much of the protein boom is driven by the marketing of protein powders. 

These are classified as dietary supplements, so the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t regulate them the same way as food and drinks. Companies themselves are responsible for verifying the health and safety of their products.

Potential contamination of protein powders is also a significant concern. A 2025 Consumer Reports investigation found detectable lead in nearly every sample of protein powder and shake tested. Some single servings contained enough lead to cause a woman of childbearing age to exceed the FDA’s recommended daily limit for lead from food.

Another study revealed that nearly half of protein supplements tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for lead, cadmium, mercury or arsenic.

Many brands also contain artificial food dyes, sweeteners and other highly processed ingredients that offer no nutritional value and may be linked to other health harms.

Ultra-processed protein products

New products boasting added protein should also give you pause.

Many snacks, drinks and desserts now boasting protein claims – from chips to cereals to flavored coffee drinks – are ultra-processed.

Ultra-processed foods, or UPF, are industrially manufactured products that contain colors, additives or ingredients not commonly found in home kitchens. In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet. 

Leading health experts now consider UPF a key driver of chronic disease, including Type 2 diabetes, depression, and heart, kidney and gastrointestinal diseases.

Extra protein in an ultra-processed product doesn’t reduce any of these risks. It’s also unlikely to provide other beneficial nutrients, like fiber, found in minimally processed or whole foods.

What you can do

Consumers shouldn’t have to figure all of this out alone.

Companies should be required to routinely test supplements like protein powders and disclose the results, including any findings of heavy metals in powders, shakes and bars.

States like California have already successfully adopted these requirements for baby food. By reducing contamination levels in many product categories, they showed that transparency drives cleaner sourcing and safer manufacturing.

Last year, California also signed landmark legislation to ban the most harmful UPF from public schools. Now, California lawmakers are considering a state-run non-UPF certification program to make grocery shopping easier for concerned consumers.

In the meantime, people looking to learn more about their protein sources can use EWG’s Food Scores to identify nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns in more than 150,000 foods. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives. 

Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information in your pocket while you shop.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 18, 2026

In March the world’s largest tourism trade fair took place again in Berlin and was met with resistance from Berlin to Mexico. As the event put the spotlight on the upcoming FIFA World Cup, campaigners called out the deadly impact the tournament and a profit-driven model of tourism have on human rights. Here Asamblea Berlin explain the action they took at the fair to denounce the industry.

Source

Four EWG-backed California bills clear key appropriations panels, advancing protections Ketura Persellin May 14, 2026

SACRAMENTO – Stronger safeguards for families and the environment are moving forward after four bills sponsored by the Environmental Working Group cleared California Legislature spending committees. The bills address consumer protection, food safety and clean energy.

“Today is a great day for California families,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. “Four bills that would make a real and lasting difference in people's lives just cleared a major hurdle.”

Three of the bills are pending in the Assembly and must now pass a floor vote by May 29 to proceed to further debate and approval before getting sent to the governor. 

One bill is pending in the Senate and faces the same deadline for a floor vote ahead of further action.

The bills address some of the most urgent and unresolved threats to California consumers:

• The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS used on produce as pesticides 
• Mystery ingredients in baby diapers
• No clear way for consumers to identify harmful ultra-processed food, or UPF
• Electricity bills that are straining California ratepayers’ pocketbooks

“Californians are being exposed to toxic chemicals in their food, their baby products, and their water. And their electricity bills are bleeding them dry,” said Del Chiaro. 

“The legislature has a historic opportunity to act on all of these urgent issues this year. We are calling on every legislator to vote yes on each of these four bills,” she said.

“The clock is ticking,” said Susan Little, EWG director of California legislative affairs. “These bills now go to the full Assembly and full Senate for votes that will determine whether California continues to lead the nation on consumer protection or lets the moment slip away. 

“EWG will be fighting for every vote between now and May 29,” she added.

Potential for groundbreaking change for consumers 

Assembly Bill 1603: Banning PFAS pesticides 

California, which grows half the nation’s produce, applies more than 2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides to crops every year, contaminating fruit and vegetables, soil and water. State test results have already found PFAS pesticide contamination on nine out of 10 samples of non-organic peaches, nectarines and plums grown in California. 

AB 1603 would ban the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides used on crops statewide by 2035. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would immediately pause new state approvals of these pesticides, set a 2030 deadline for phasing out use in the state of PFAS pesticides not allowed in Europe and require public disclosure of all PFAS pesticide applications.

“Consumers have no idea that PFAS pesticides are being deliberately sprayed on California crops, contaminating produce soil and water,” said Del Chiaro. 

“California grows food for the entire country. When forever chemicals are so pervasive on produce, that is not a California problem. That is a national food safety problem.”

Assembly Bill 1901: Baby diaper ingredient disclosure  

Parents and caregivers have a right to know what chemicals sit against their baby’s skin 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the first years of life.

Authored by Assemblymember Mark Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1901 would set a first-in-the-nation requirement for manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose all ingredients on the product packaging and online.

Recent tests found diapers can contain potentially harmful ingredients like phthalates, which are linked to hormone disruption, and bleaching agents linked to skin and respiratory irritation. 

Infants and toddlers are especially vulnerable, because their bodies are still developing and their skin absorbs chemicals more quickly.

“A baby wears a diaper every minute of every day for years, yet parents are forced to make purchasing decisions with zero information about what’s in them,” said Little. 

“AB 1901 is the most straightforward consumer protection bill you can imagine. It just requires manufacturers to tell parents what is in their product,” she added. “There is no good reason to vote against it.”

California already proved with baby food that this approach works. When the state required disclosure of heavy metal test results, manufacturers lowered levels in the food.

Assembly Bill 2244: Ultra-processed food certification seal 

Ultra-processed food makes up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half of the typical adult diet in the U.S. Research consistently links high UPF consumption to obesity, metabolic disease and other serious health harms. 

But it’s hard for consumers to know what is and isn’t UPF at a grocery store or supermarket.

AB 2244, authored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), would establish a California certification system for foods free from the additives, emulsifiers, artificial dyes and flavors that characterize UPF. 

This system would be based on the state’s trailblazing UPF definition enacted last year. Products meeting the standard could carry a certification seal, a clear, at-a-glance tool to help consumers make healthier choices.

“Parents are trying to feed their kids better, but the food industry has made it nearly impossible to know what you are actually buying,” said Del Chiaro. 

“AB 2244 gives consumers a simple, trusted signal at the point of purchase – no chemistry degree required.”

“California already defined ultra-processed food. Now it is time to bring that definition to the grocery aisle. This bill could change how millions of American families shop for food, starting in California,” she added

Senate Bill 868: Balcony solar  

California ratepayers face some of the highest electricity bills in the country, as well as some of the worst air pollution. Solar energy can help solve both problems.

Small, portable balcony solar panels offer a practical, affordable alternative that is especially suitable for renters because they’re not permanently fixed to a home. But complex rules make the systems largely unavailable in the U.S., even as balcony solar markets thrive in Europe.

Authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), SB 868 would streamline and accelerate access to balcony solar by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers while establishing consumer safety standards. 

Setup is simple – comparable to plugging a small appliance into a wall outlet – and affordable enough that most consumers could recoup their investment within a few years.

“Electricity bills are crushing California families’ finances, and the solution could be sitting not just on rooftops but also on balconies and patios across the state,” said Del Chiaro. 

“Balcony solar puts clean, affordable energy within reach of millions of California consumers. SB 868 removes the red tape standing between California families and lower electricity bills. There is every reason to make clean energy easier to access for everyone,” she added.

Protein bill fails to advance

Another EWG-backed bill, to require manufacturers to disclose levels of heavy metals in their protein supplement products, failed to advance after the Senate Appropriations Committee held it in suspense.

Millions of Californians consume protein shakes, powders and bars every day but don’t know whether the products contain dangerous levels of lead, cadmium, mercury or arsenic. 

SB 1033, authored by Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), would have followed similar ingredient transparency state laws for baby food and prenatal vitamins.

A recent study found about half of protein supplement products tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for heavy metals. These substances are potent toxins, and even at low levels, repeated exposure can cause lasting and irreversible harm, particularly to pregnant people and the developing fetus.

Next steps for remaining bills

The four remaining EWG-backed bills must pass their respective chambers – the three Assembly bills in a full Assembly floor vote and the Senate bill in a full Senate floor vote – by May 29. 

Following floor passage, the bills would be sent to their respective other chambers for committee hearings and votes before heading to Newsom’s desk for signature in September.

EWG is urging all California Assembly and Senate members to vote yes on all four bills.

Californians can contact their state legislators directly at legislature.ca.gov to urge a yes vote on the bills: AB 1901, AB 1603, AB 2244 and SB 868.

###

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 Ultra-Processed Foods Energy Renewable Energy Children’s Health Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California Legislation targets PFAS pesticides, energy affordability and more Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 14, 2026

Vermont passes first-in-the-nation bill to ban toxic herbicide linked to Parkinson’s disease Anthony Lacey May 13, 2026

In a historic show of bipartisan leadership, Vermont lawmakers today approved a bill to ban the highly toxic herbicide paraquat. It’s the first time a state legislature has passed legislation to phaseout paraquat, a chemical linked to Parkinson’s disease.

House Bill 739 would, if enacted, end Vermonters’ exposure to one of the most dangerous pesticides still in use. 

The Environmental Working Group is urging Gov. Phil Scott to sign the legislation and set a first-in-the-nation precedent for banning paraquat. The vote also comes as 12 other states have introduced bills to ban or restrict the chemical and California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation is re-reviewing paraquat.

Paraquat has been linked not only to Parkinson’s disease but also to other serious health harms, including cancer. More than 70 countries have banned paraquat due to these health concerns, yet it remains used in the U.S.

“With today’s vote, Vermont is making history and putting the health of its residents first,” said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at EWG. “This is the first time any legislative body in the country has passed a bill to fully ban paraquat, sending a powerful signal that the days of tolerating this dangerous chemical are numbered. 

“Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike have made clear that safeguarding farmers, rural communities and children must take precedence over continued use of one of the most hazardous pesticides still on the market.” he added. “Now that the House has passed this landmark bill, we urge Gov. Scott to sign it.”

State Rep. Esme Cole (D-Windsor) and state Sen. Martine Gulick (D-Chittenden-Central District) championed their chambers’ versions of the bills. 

In addition to EWG, groups supporting the paraquat ban bill include the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, The Michael J. Fox Foundation, Parkinson’s Foundation, the American Parkinson Disease Association, the Vermont Natural Resources Council and others.

“No one, including farmers, farmworkers, families or children, should be exposed to a chemical with such well-documented risks,” added Horsfield.

Once Scott signs the legislation, it would mark a major milestone in the fight to eliminate paraquat use in the U.S. and could accelerate efforts in other states. 

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and education, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 May 13, 2026

Food industry claims state chemical laws will spike grocery bills, but that doesn’t add up Ketura Persellin May 13, 2026

In a page straight out of the industry playbook, a powerful group of U.S. food companies has funded a “study” claiming consumers will pay more if harmful chemicals are labeled or banned.

The industry front group, which represents food giants Nestlé and General Mills, among many others, is also backing other efforts to quash states’ ability to enact stricter food chemical laws.

The Policy Navigation Group, a lobbying and consulting firm whose clients include Dow Chemical and Snack International, published the so-called study. It says food chemical laws in Louisiana, Texas and West Virginia would increase household grocery spending by 12%, or $860, per year. 

Louisiana and Texas enacted laws requiring a simple label or QR code be added to a food products packaging if it includes select ingredients of concern, such as certain artificial dyes and preservatives. West Virginia’s law bans food products containing potentially harmful ingredients like propylparaben, Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40 and Yellow Dye No. 5 from being sold in the state.

Federal regulatory failures have driven dozens of states to introduce similar laws targeting dyes, additives and other ingredients of concern.

But the study has serious flaws. From faulty data to bad math and poor logic, scrutinizing the claims makes clear they don’t add up.

Flawed grocery price analysis

The study uses highly selective examples, false assumptions and outdated models to drive up the cost estimates.

The study’s central assumption is that consumers who see a warning label on food will waste valuable time searching for an alternative that is more expensive. That’s because the study’s authors looked at only a handful of selected retailers who possibly charge more for products with fewer ingredients of concern. 

But that’s not how most Americans actually shop.

Many major grocery chains, including Kroger, Publix, ShopRite and Wegmans, already offer affordable store-brand products that are free of many of the chemicals states are targeting with new food safety laws. 

ShopRite, for instance, designed its Wholesome Pantry store brand to be free of artificial additives at competitive prices.

The study largely fails to account for these affordable, available alternatives – a limitation the researchers themselves acknowledge, noting that their focus on particular retailers likely led them to overlook some products and introduce bias in their results.

Texas, where H-E-B dominates the grocery business, is a heavy focus of the study. Under market pressure, H-E-B has already removed more than 175 synthetic ingredients from its store-brand line. That’s most of the ingredients targeted by Texas’ food chemical labeling law. 

The study didn’t disclose the products and brands it analyzed. But its retailer of choice, Amazon, also owns Whole Foods, so it’s possible many of the pricier alternatives the study identified were Whole Foods products, not the kind of everyday substitutes most shoppers reach for.  

According to a separate food industry report from February, two-thirds of all grocery retailers are reformulating brands to meet consumers’ desire for cleaner products. This includes removing artificial dyes and additives while maintaining affordability.

Faulty math skews study's outcomes

The study’s flaws don’t stop there. 

Most significantly, it claims to be a cost-benefit analysis yet it fails to include the benefits of food chemical labels. This is not a minor methodological oversight but a fundamental failure.

Lower consumer exposure to chemicals of concern would benefit public health, yielding significant healthcare savings. Increased consumption of ultra-processed food, or UPF, is linked to higher rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes, dementia and reproductive harm. 

And the study’s calculations included the 14% of consumers who said they would ignore warning labels. This inflates estimates in consumer spending by assuming cost increases among consumers whose behavior would not actually change. 

It also relied on consumer behavior data that is more than 16 years old, a limitation the researchers themselves flagged as a source of unknown bias. 

Rather than use the lowest available prices for label-free alternatives, as a budget-conscious shopper would likely do, the study used average prices, further overstating the real cost to consumers.

Further, industry representatives and lawmakers sympathetic to them have misused the results to claim that labeling laws would increase by 12% the prices we see on store shelves. The study doesn’t predict that individual grocery items will get more expensive. It actually – and inaccurately – predicts some people will choose to buy more expensive groceries to avoid ingredients of concern. Those are not the same thing.

Helping shoppers make more informed choices is a public health benefit, not a burden. But the study frames labeling requirements as financial harm only.  

Real-world effects of changing food labels

Faulty studies and overinflated price claims are tired industry responses to requests for greater food ingredient transparency. 

In 2022, a federal rule took effect requiring labels on products made with genetically modified ingredients. Industry-funded studies predicted major price increases when products made with GMO ingredients were required to bear labels. 

But the new labels didn’t drive prices up. Many brands simply chose to include the new symbol on their existing labels while other household staples like Cheerios and Grape Nuts were reformulated at no extra cost to consumers.

Consumer Reports found similar industry-funded studies overstated the costs of GMO labeling by nearly a factor of 10. The most realistic industry estimate was around $66 per family of four per year, compared to the original estimate of nearly $500, and even that lower figure was likely inflated. 

Food companies update their labels regularly for seasonal promotions and rebranding, without consumers switching to pricier products. Ingredient disclosure labels would be no different.

A label change would cost a company as little as $205, an amount too small to show up on store shelves, according to the Agriculture Department in 2024.

Clearer labels mean more confident consumers

The study’s authors are correct about one thing: Shoppers’ time is valuable.

Right now, consumers who want to make better food purchases have to read fine-print ingredient lists on every product. Clear labels designed to identify chemicals of concern make it easier and faster for them.

While states push for better public health protections, EWG has tools to help you shop with confidence. 

At home, consumers can check EWG’s Dirty Dozen Guide to Food Chemicals, which highlights top food chemicals to avoid due to health and safety concerns. 

For more guidance, search  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, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information at your fingertips while you shop.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Jared Hayes Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 13, 2026

EWG on FDA’s request for information on SPF and UV protection values rcoleman May 13, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments asking the Food and Drug Administration consider moving away from SPF testing in people in favor of in vitro UV protection testing, and for the agency should consider replacing the SPF value with a UV protection value that equally weights the entire UV spectra.

File Download Document fda-1978-n-0018-15844_attachment_1.pdf Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Sunscreen Toxic Chemicals Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. Carla Burns Emily Spilman November 1, 2021