Environmental Working Group

Two chemicals with safety concerns are still in your food. EWG is urging the FDA to act. Iris Myers July 24, 2026

Two additives, known as ADA and BHT, are found in cereal, baked goods and other processed food millions of Americans enjoy. They’re also linked to potential health harms such as cancer and hormone disruption, so EWG is reiterating calls for banning their use in food.

Even though research on the two chemicals is ongoing, studies so far in animals or humans have already found their potential to cause health problems. These concerns justify the Food and Drug Administration revoking its approval for use of the two additives, EWG said in a pair of letters submitted to the agency earlier this month.

Safer alternatives to ADA and BHT are available, allowing manufacturers to achieve the same functions without relying on these chemicals. Some retailers – including major chains like Pizza Hut and Whole Foods Market – have already taken steps to get one or both of the additives out of their products. 

It’s time for the regulatory system to catch up with the science and food companies’ voluntary actions.

Ongoing FDA review

The comments follow the FDA’ s request for information, or RFI, about the two chemicals in food earlier this year – ADA, or azodicarbonamide, and BHT, or butylated hydroxytoluene. 

It’s part of the agency’s new program to reevaluate the safety of food chemicals.

The RFI only gathers input – it isn’t any kind of policy action. But the comments it receives on the request could eventually be used to guide decisions about allowing the additives in food.

That’s why EWG weighed in with written comments highlighting our concerns. The deadline to submit comments on BHT has been extended to August 13. The comment period for ADA closed on July 13.

What is ADA?

ADA was greenlighted for use in food in 1962 by the FDA as “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS. It’s added to baked goods as a dough conditioner. 

ADA breaks down during breadmaking, and two of its breakdown products, semicarbazide and urethane, have been shown to cause cancer. Urethane can also damage the reproductive system.

Because of these concerns, ADA is not permitted as a food additive in Australia or the European Union. International evaluations have also identified kidney effects in laboratory animals exposed to ADA.

Despite these concerns, the FDA has not thoroughly reexamined ADA’s safety in light of newer research on its potential health effects.

Lawmakers in New York and Texas introduced legislation to remove ADA from food sold in their states, but neither bill passed.

Several food retailers, including Whole Foods, Aldi and Walmart, have voluntarily removed or restricted ADA in their products. A 2025 survey by the American Bakers Association found that nearly 95% of its member companies already don’t use ADA.

Given the evidence of health risks – and how few companies still use the chemical – the FDA should take decisive action to end the use of ADA in food.

What is BHT?

The FDA approved BHT for use in food in 1954 and deemed it GRAS in 1959. The chemical is commonly added to breakfast cereal, frozen pizza, chewing gum and other processed foods, acting as a preservative, extending the shelf life of fats and oils. 

While it has not been formally classified as a carcinogen, studies have linked it to tumor promotion in animals. It has also been linked to damage to DNA and hormonal disruption.

A 2019 study found that U.S. residents had some of the highest exposure levels of BHT globally, with some exposure estimates exceeding safety limits. The chemical has been detected in human cord blood, breast milk, blood, urine and body fat.

Some states have already acted on concerns about BHT’s health effects, and several major food retailers and manufacturers, including Whole Foods and General Mills, have voluntarily removed the chemical from many products. 

Given the already available evidence showing the potential health risks of BHT, the FDA should act to immediately revoke approval for its use in food.

The trouble with GRAS

Both BHT and ADA remain on the market, thanks to their GRAS status.

When Congress created the GRAS exemption, in 1958, it was intended to apply to ingredients whose safety was beyond dispute, such as salt, water, yeast and vinegar.

But in the decades since, GRAS has expanded far beyond that intent. Since 2000, nearly 99% of new food chemicals have entered the market through the GRAS loophole, according to a 2025 EWG analysis. This lets scores of food chemicals reach store shelves with little government oversight, leaving food safety in the hands of manufacturers.

To protect the safety of our food supply from harmful chemicals like BHT and ADA, the FDA must close the GRAS loophole.

In March 2025 the Department of Health and Human Services, of which the FDA is part, announced a plan to review GRAS, originally slated for October 2025. That timeline has since been delayed to December 2026. The announcement could eventually lead to changes in the GRAS rule, but without firm proposals, there’s no real progress on food safety.

In the absence of enforceable federal action on GRAS, New York passed a bill that would ban use of three harmful food chemicals statewide – Red Dye No. 3, potassium bromate and propyl paraben – and reform the GRAS loophole at the state level. The bill awaits Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature.

What you can do

While we wait for the FDA to act on BHT and ADA and amend the GRAS loophole, consumers can minimize exposure to harmful food chemicals with these tips.

• Check ingredient labels and avoid food products that contain BHT and ADA. Food companies must list these on packaged food labels if they’re added as a food ingredient.
• Consult EWG’s Food Scores database to find products without BHT, ADA and other concerning ingredients. When you’re on the go, use EWG’s Healthy Living™ app to find products without toxic chemicals.
• Whenever possible, look for packaged foods that are certified organic. These products must meet strong standards that protect consumers from exposure to potentially harmful additives.
• Reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods when possible. Many contain ingredients of concern that could harm your health.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Authors Iris Myers July 24, 2026

EWG names former California pesticide regulator Emily Bryson senior policy director Anthony Lacey July 23, 2026

SACRAMENTO – The Environmental Working Group today announced that Emily Bryson, a veteran environmental scientist and former senior leader at the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, has joined the organization as senior policy director for California.

At EWG, Bryson will help lead the organization’s California regulatory agenda, with a particular focus on pesticides, public health and advancement of stronger protections for farmworkers, consumers and communities.

Bryson brings to EWG nearly a decade of experience at the nation’s leading pesticide regulatory agency. In that role she helped develop science-based policies to reduce pesticide exposure, strengthen protections for agricultural workers and guide the state’s response to emerging technologies.

“Emily’s experience is exactly what EWG needs as we continue to push for stronger protections from harmful chemicals across California,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president for California. 

“She understands the science, regulatory process and real-world impacts toxic chemicals have on workers, communities and consumers. Emily’s expertise strengthens an already strong EWG team, particularly as California continues to lead the nation on public health policy.”

Protecting agricultural workers

Bryson most recently served as a supervising senior environmental scientist in the DPR’s Worker Health and Safety Branch. While there, she managed a team of scientists conducting pesticide exposure studies and developing regulations to better protect agricultural workers. 

During her tenure, she led initiatives to modernize pesticide mitigation efforts, supervised scientific research measuring occupational pesticide exposure, and worked with stakeholders across government, academia, agriculture, labor organizations and public health.

She also founded and chaired DPR’s Emerging Technologies Workgroup and represented the department on numerous state and federal advisory committees addressing pesticide safety, agricultural innovation and worker protections.

Earlier in her career, Bryson authored studies evaluating pesticide exposure among agricultural workers, helped develop worker safety regulations and conducted outreach to farmworkers and agricultural communities throughout California. Her public health research has also examined links between environmental pesticide exposure and autoimmune diseases in children.

Safeguards against harmful pesticides

“I've spent my career working to ensure pesticide policies are grounded in sound science and protect the people most at risk from exposure,” said Bryson. “EWG has been a leading voice for healthier food, safer farming and stronger protections from harmful chemicals for decades. 

“I'm excited to join such an outstanding team and help advance policies that better protect workers, families and the environment,” she added.

Bryson earned a master’s degree of public health in environmental health from San Diego State University and a bachelor’s degree in anthropology from California State University, Long Beach.

###

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. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.

Areas of Focus California Veteran scientist brings nearly a decade of experience protecting farmworkers and advancing pesticide safeguards Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 July 23, 2026

How Iowa’s many factory farms may be harming health and the environment Ketura Persellin July 22, 2026

If you’ve eaten sausage or ham – or any kind of pork product – there’s a good chance it came from Iowa. 

The Hawkeye State raises about a third of all hogs in the U.S. – more by a wide margin than any other state, along with some poultry and beef. 

Iowa also has a high – and rising – rate of cancer. It’s one of only three states where cancer is rising. Those two things may be related.

Manure from all that livestock may well be partly responsible, because it can end up in drinking water, exposing people to a greater risk of cancer.

 A new EWG analysis finds Iowa has over 15,000 factory farms – thousands more than state data shows. These animals produce a staggering amount of manure: 107 million tons a year.

The average human produces about 12 tons of solid waste over the course of an entire lifetime. Iowa’s factory farms annually generate more waste than the entire population of New York City, enough to fill more than 38,000 Olympic-size swimming pools.

How factory farms pollute water

To be disposed of, the manure is spread – untreated – on nearby farm fields, fulfilling two purposes – disposal and, because of the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus, fertilizer for neighboring cropland. 

But those fields can’t always absorb all the nutrients – if the ground is frozen, for instance, or if the growing crops already have enough nitrogen or phosphorus. The excess manure or nutrients may run off fields or get into tile drains below fields, flowing into water, or leach through soil into groundwater, contaminating the drinking water supply. 

Once nitrogen enters the water, it can become nitrate, which is harmful at different levels in drinking water. 

Research links nitrate – found in manure and commercial nitrogen fertilizer – in drinking water to an increased risk of colorectal, bladder, kidney, ovarian and thyroid cancers. It’s also linked to adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight and spina bifida. 

Many Iowans are affected by exposure to nitrate. Results of tests for nitrate showed that 146 Iowa community water systems – serving 1.2 million people – between 2021 and 2023 had elevated levels of the contaminant, EWG found.

Outdated nitrate limit

That means 1.2 million Iowans are being served water with elevated levels of nitrate and being exposed as a result to elevated risks of cancer and birth defects. 

Eighty-one water systems, serving almost 800,000 people, served water that tested even higher. Eight systems, serving 56,000 people, exceeded the federal nitrate legal limit.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s limit on nitrate in drinking water, set in 1962, aimed to prevent a potentially fatal condition in infants sometimes called “blue baby syndrome.”

Recent research links nitrate exposure at levels well below the legal limit to a higher risk of colorectal and other cancers, thyroid disease and birth defects. 

Iowa already has the second-highest rate of new cancer cases in the country, a trend researchers have connected to a number of environmental factors, like water contamination, although other factors are also at play.

It’s not just Iowans who are affected. Nitrate contamination travels through surface water and groundwater aquifers, and the food raised on treated land moves through the food supply. 

So anyone who eats or drinks items connected to industrial agriculture has a stake in how well this waste is managed.

Threat to the environment 

Manure contamination of water also contributes to other problems affecting public health and the environment. Phosphorus and nitrate in excess can affect aquatic ecosystems and contribute to algae blooms.

Industrial-scale meat production also contributes to climate change. Excess nitrogen can break down into nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere. Extreme weather events, such as drought followed by heavy rain, can lead to higher nitrous oxide emissions from farming. 

The problem keeps getting worse

The number of the largest animal facilities in Iowa grew nearly 13% between 2019 and 2025, climbing to 4,444 operations, the new EWG analysis found.

But it’s not just sheer growth in the number of these operations that causes an issue. It’s also the consequences of growth. 

Large operations make up less than a third of all farms in the state, which are mostly smaller and mid-size operations. But because of the sheer quantity of animals they house, they produce 60% of the manure. 

As livestock production consolidates into bigger, more concentrated operations, the waste problem intensifies along with it, becoming more difficult to manage, whether to spread as fertilizer without triggering runoff or to transport it longer distances.

Policy failures

Federal policy failures that could control and manage industrial farms’ growth are at least partly to blame. 

For purposes of federal oversight, factory farms are defined by their size. An operation may be too small to qualify as a large farm subject to stricter permitting and planning rules, even if they  produce virtually the same amount of manure. That’s the case with over 3,200 Iowa operations, which fall under the large threshold by at most 50 animals.

Federal funding paid through farmer subsidies effectively promotes factory farm expansion rather than programs intended to promote a safer, more climate-resilient farming system. Instead of protecting water quality or the climate, taxpayers’ money supports the expansion of factory farming.

What you can do

You can’t personally fix a state’s water quality, but everyday choices add up and send a signal to the market. 

Eating less meat, or choosing meat that wasn’t raised on a factory farm, reduces demand for the kind of large-scale, concentrated production driving this problem. Consult our meat and dairy label decoder for guidance.

In the grocery store, look for labels on meat and poultry like Animal Welfare Approved, Certified Humane (paired with “grass-fed” or “pasture-raised”), or Global Animal Partnership’s more stringent standards. These labels indicate the animals were raised in better conditions, with more space and less concentration of waste than is typical of a factory farm.

Beyond the grocery store, consumer advocacy is also critical. Encourage local, state and federal officials to strengthen oversight of manure application and push for change in the priorities of federal expenditures.  

Areas of Focus Factory Farms Authors Ketura Persellin July 22, 2026

EWG applauds Senate vote on UPF disclosure bill Iris Myers July 22, 2026

WASHINGTON – Senate lawmakers today advanced a bill, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), that addresses the harms caused by ultra-processed food, or UPF. 

S. 5026, the Childhood Diabetes Reduction Act, would require a disclosure on front of the package of food that’s UPF. The bill cleared the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee today, advancing the bill to the full Senate. 

The following is a statement from the Environmental Working Group’s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs, Scott Faber. 

Defining UPF and requiring a front-of-package disclosure is long overdue. 

Diets high in UPF are a driver of chronic disease, linked to everything from diabetes to depression to dementia. The United States leads the world in UPF consumption, and kids now get more than 60% of their calories from these foods. 

We applaud senators for advancing legislation to help consumers identify and avoid UPF.

For more information about UPF, visit: https://www.ewg.org/areas-focus/food-water/ultra-processed-foods

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 July 22, 2026

Update on EWG-sponsored California bills to boost consumer safety, choice and transparency Ketura Persellin July 20, 2026

California, the world’s fourth-largest economy, could soon prove – once again – its status as a leader in environmental and public health policy that helps reshape the U.S. marketplace. 

When Sacramento lawmakers return from recess next month, they’ll consider four EWG-sponsored bills that address key issues: energy affordability, “forever chemicals” pesticides, toxic chemicals in diapers and ultra-processed foods, or UPF. 

If enacted, these bills would help consumers lead cleaner, healthier lives through transparency, commonsense safety regulations and choice. They face further votes in the Legislature in August before being sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his signature. 

1. Using solar to lower sky-high electricity bills (Senate Bill 868)

The average California ratepayer faces electricity bills higher than those of most Americans. “Balcony solar” could help.

SB 868 would make it easier for everyone, including renters, apartment and condo dwellers, as well as owners of single-family homes, to plug into the sun using balcony solar systems – small, portable solar panels that can easily be set up on a patio or balcony and taken along when the owner moves. 

The systems are inexpensive enough that ratepayers can recoup their investment within a couple of years, putting solar – and savings – within reach of more people. And the costs should decline as the market grows. 

But complex rules make accessing balcony solar unnecessarily hard, if not impossible for many.

That’s why EWG is sponsoring this bill, known as the Plug and Play Solar Act, authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). If enacted, it would ensure that balcony solar systems meet strict safety standards and remove hurdles for Californians who want to take more ownership over their utility bills.

SB 868 passed in the California Senate in May, and through the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee in June. No major amendments have been added to this bill and the next step in the process is review by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. 

2. Widespread use of PFAS pesticides (Assembly Bill 1603)

This bill would address the use of the toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS that are currently being allowed to be used as pesticides in California.

Over 2.5 million pounds of these chemicals are applied to crops each year within the state, contaminating not just produce but soil and water too.

The bill follows EWG research showing state test results finding PFAS pesticides on nine in 10 California-grown samples of peaches, nectarines and plums. It’s critical to address this source of toxic pollution in the state that grows about half the country’s produce.

Our interactive map shows the California fields where PFAS pesticides are applied. 

As introduced, AB 1603, by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank), would have banned the use, sale and manufacture of PFAS pesticides statewide beginning in 2035. It would have also immediately paused state approvals, phased out by 2030 the PFAS pesticides not allowed in Europe, and required public disclosure of PFAS pesticide uses. 

AB 1603 passed the Assembly in May and went on to pass through two Senate policy committees in June, Environmental Quality and Agriculture, where it was heavily amended. The Senate Appropriations Committee will next review the bill, followed by a full Senate vote.

The bill has been modified to no longer prohibit the sale or use of PFAS pesticides. It requires disclosure only. Still, that’s an important first step in addressing the use of these chemicals.

AB 1603 also maintains a categorical approach – viewing PFAS as a class of chemicals, rather than regulating them one at a time. 

3. Baby diapers made of mystery chemicals (Assembly Bill 1901)

Many categories of personal care products are a virtual black box, their ingredients a mystery. 

That’s especially true for baby diapers, since infants and toddlers wear them constantly for at least a couple years. Their developing bodies make them particularly vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure. 

AB 1901, by Assemblymember Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), would require manufacturers of children’s diapers sold, distributed or manufactured in California to fully disclose their ingredients on product packaging and online.

Recent tests have found diapers may contain phthalates, linked to hormone disruption, bleaching agents associated with skin and respiratory irritation, and volatile organic compounds, including hazardous air pollutants like toluene and xylene.

Parents and caregivers deserve to know what chemicals sit for years on their child’s body 24/7.

AB 1901 passed the California State Assembly and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. In August, the bill heads, with no major changes, to the Senate Appropriations Committee for review. 

4. What is and isn’t ultra-processed food (Assembly Bill 2244)

UPF make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half of the typical adult diet in the U.S. 

AB 2244 addresses the confusion shoppers face in distinguishing ultra-processed from less processed food, with the intent of helping to rein in skyrocketing and harmful UPF consumption. 

If enacted, the bill would establish a system for certifying qualifying foods as free from the additives, emulsifiers, food dyes and flavors that often characterize UPF. It would tie that system to California’s first-in-the-nation definition of UPF, which was adopted last year as the result of an earlier bill, also intended to stem the consumption of UPF.

Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) is the lawmaker behind this bill and several other pioneering laws addressing food safety, especially for kids. His work has helped galvanize a national movement to address food chemicals. 

AB 2244 passed the Assembly in May, when it was revised to give grocers more flexibility in how they display products sporting the UPF label. The Senate health and judiciary committees have passed the bill, and the Senate appropriations panel will consider it next.

Protein powder bill falls short

EWG also sponsored a fifth bill, which aimed to require manufacturers of protein powder and shakes to disclose levels of heavy metals in their products. 

Millions supplement their protein intake in various forms every day. But they have no way to know whether the shakes, powders and bars they consume contain concerning levels of harmful contaminants: lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic. One recent study showed about half the products tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for these contaminants.

The fifth bill, SB 1033, would have required manufacturers to disclose levels of heavy metals in their products. Its author, state Sen. Steve Padilla (D-San Diego), sought to make manufacturers accountable for a product that is under-regulated by federal standards.

This bill would have brought greater transparency to protein products, much like an earlier law, which holds producers of baby food to a safety standard for heavy metal. But the legislation did not advance out of the Senate.

Areas of Focus Ultra-Processed Foods Children’s Health Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California July 23, 2026

Safe food depends on the states Iris Myers July 20, 2026

The recent outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a food-borne illness, has shown we can’t count on the federal government to make sure our food is safe. 

States have always played a central role in the safety of our food, tracking pathogens and inspecting food manufacturing facilities, farms and restaurants. 

The states have become even more important in recent years, as the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that have been underfunded for decades, have laid off experienced food safety experts, conducted fewer inspections, tracked fewer pathogens,including cyclospora, and delayed efforts to trace the source of foodborne illnesses. 

The states are especially important for the safety of food chemicals. 

While states have acted to ban many toxic chemicals from food and food packaging, including chemicals linked to cancer, the FDA has banned just two – and only after states had done so. Some food chemicals have been under review by the FDA for decades.

When it comes to the toxic chemicals in our food, the FDA has a long history of failure. 

It has largely allowed food chemical companies to decide which food chemicals are safe and  permitted these companies to add new chemicals to food without the FDA’s knowledge. 

Now, on behalf of the food industry, some members of Congress want to make things even worse. 

It would block states from keeping our food safe, and would do so both retroactively and prospectively. This isn’t just about stopping states from passing new protections. It would also wipe out laws already in effect. In all, the proposal in Congress could preempt more than 100 state laws, including state and local regulations that keep restaurant food safe. 

Food companies want to block state laws that: 

• Ban PFAS from food packaging and cookware
• Ban BPA and phthalates from food packaging
• Ban synthetic dyes from school foods and lead from lunch boxes 
• Define and remove ultra-processed food from school food. 
• Require testing and reporting on toxic metals in baby foods. 

State and local food labeling laws that apply to food packages and menus, such as allergen warnings, could be blocked. State laws that exempt entrepreneurs who make food at home for sale at farmers markets could be in jeopardy. Enforcement of state laws could also be blocked by the food industry’s proposal, including state laws that allow consumers to sue food companies when they have been injured. 

Even state pet food laws could be invalidated. 

Blocking our states from keeping our food safe – during the nation’s worst food safety outbreak in years – would be hard to stomach. After four recent food safety failures, including the 2024 McDonald’s e. Coli outbreak and three infant formula recalls, we should be making our food safety laws stronger, not weaker. 

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Food Chemicals Authors Scott Faber July 20, 2026

EWG mourns the passing of David Baker, longtime board member and environmental justice leader Anthony Lacey July 16, 2026

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Working Group is deeply saddened by the death of David Baker, the second longest-serving member of its current board of directors. 

In his role – a position he held for more than two decades – he provided wise counsel, principled leadership and a constant reminder that environmental protection is fundamentally about protecting people. 

Baker was also a leader in the environmental justice movement. His unwavering commitment to equity, public health and community advocacy helped shape EWG.

As founder and executive director of Community Against Pollution, in Anniston, Ala., Baker dedicated his life to holding powerful polluters accountable. He fought for families whose communities had been burdened by toxic contamination. 

His work became a model for grassroots environmental justice advocacy nationally and inspired generations of advocates to stand up for clean air, clean water and healthy communities.

“David never let us lose sight of who this work is really about,” said EWG President and co-founder Ken Cook. “He brought the voices of communities living with pollution into every board meeting and every conversation. 

“His courage and wisdom made EWG a stronger organization and all of us better advocates,” Cook added.

Advocate for the unheard

Throughout his life, Baker was a fearless ally of people who too often went unheard. 

His leadership in Anniston exposed the devastating legacy of the chemical giant Monsanto polluting the small community with PCB contamination from the company’s chemical plant there. His work helped bring environmental justice into the national conversation. 

Baker understood that low-income communities and communities of color too often bear the greatest burden of pollution. He spent his life demanding accountability, transparency and justice.

“David was a force of nature – courageous, compassionate and deeply committed to doing what was right,” Cook said. 

Beliefs that guided his life’s work 

“He never sought the spotlight. He simply believed that people deserve clean air, clean water and a fair chance at a healthy life. That belief guided his life’s work and inspired everyone who had the privilege of knowing him,” Cook added.

Baker was a longtime member of the NAACP and the Coalition for Black Trade Unionists. 

Baker earned a degree in labor management from Cornell University. He received an honorary doctorate from the Alabama Legislature, in 2003. 

He was recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency with awards for outstanding leadership and contributions to the advancement of environmental justice. 

His work was also featured in Dennis Love’s book, “My City Was Gone.” 

“The Environmental Working Group extends its deepest condolences to David’s family and all who loved him. We are profoundly grateful for his decades of service, his friendship and the example he set for all of us,” said Cook.

###

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. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.

Areas of Focus Family Health Toxic Chemicals Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 July 16, 2026

Study: Pregnant women routinely exposed to chemicals of concern, some linked to poor birth outcomes Anthony Lacey July 16, 2026

Potentially harmful but commonly used chemicals were widely detected in urine samples of pregnant people, according to a new study. At least 45 individual of these chemicals were found in half of the study’s participants. 

The authors measured the presence of over 100 different chemicals, choosing those that people are commonly exposed to and that have a high probability of leading to poor birth and child health outcomes. 

This group of chemicals include those often found in personal care products, food, drinking water and household items, including phthalates, pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. 

The lead researchers are affiliated with the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina, Stanford University School of Medicine and the Woods Institute for the Environment. 

For the study, published in JAMA Network Open, scientists collected urine samples from over 5,300 pregnant women across the U.S. Of the 113 specific chemicals tested for, all but three were detected in at least one sample. 

Samples were collected on average in the second trimester at multiple research sites in 14 states between 2000 and 2021. 

Links to worse birth outcomes

Exposure to many of these chemicals, but especially phthalates and PAHs, were associated with shorter gestation and lower birth weights. The findings are concerning because these factors are linked to poorer long-term health and development in children.

Phthalates help make plastic flexible and stabilize fragrances in products. Commonly used phthalates and their replacements were associated with earlier delivery and increased risk of preterm birth. 

PAHs make up a large class of chemicals that are produced when coal, oil, gas, wood or tobacco are burned. Car exhaust, grilling and cigarette smoke are all potential sources of exposure. 

The study reported that higher levels of PAHs were associated with increased risk of lower birth weight adjusted for gestational age. This means that even when accounting for how early or late a baby was born, mothers who were exposed to higher levels of PAHs during pregnancy had babies that weighed less than expected at birth.

UNC professor of epidemiology Jessie Buckley, Ph.D. led the research. She says: “Our study underscores the importance of reducing harmful chemical exposures during pregnancy. Even small differences in birth weight or gestational age can have significant impacts on children’s health.”

‘Regrettable substitutions’ linked to same effects

The urine samples in this study were collected from participants over two decades. During that time, several chemicals found more widespread use while others were phased out, including some “high concern” phthalates banned by states or regulatory agencies for use in children’s products or food packaging. 

But in these circumstances, manufacturers often replaced the concerning chemicals with structurally similar alternatives, effectively perpetuating exposures that pose similar health harms.

For example, as concern rose about exposure to one phthalate, di-2-ethylhexylphthalate, or DEHP, manufacturers replaced it with diisononyl phthalate, or DiNP.

Researchers found the replacements for common phthalates were detected in the urine samples and were associated with the same health risks as the banned substances they replaced.

One of the stronger links to shorter gestation, or earlier delivery, was driven by this replacement ingredient. For example, DiNP was significantly associated with a 16% increase in risk of preterm birth.

Today, DiNP has been phased out again in favor of other structurally similar, but different, phthalate replacements that are likely to have the same impacts on health. DiNP may still be present in products, even though the levels are heavily restricted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Reducing your exposure to chemicals

The study findings highlight that exposure to harmful chemicals during pregnancy can affect birth outcomes, which may in turn influence children’s health long term. Some of the chemicals linked to birth and children’s health outcomes include phthalates found in personal care products or food packaging.

Consumers seeking safer products can read labels and consult ingredient-checking tools such as EWG’s Skin Deep® database or use EWG’s Healthy Living™ app, which includes Skin Deep.  

Phthalates used in personal care products might not always show up on the label if they are part of a fragrance blend. Avoid products that do not disclose their fragrance. The umbrella term “fragrance” or “parfum” can be a blend of up to 100 ingredients, some of which may be chemicals associated with health harms. 

Consumers can also choose cleaning and personal care products bearing the EWG Verified® mark, which are free from EWG’s chemicals of concern and meet strict standards for health. 

Consumers who want to reduce exposure to pesticides from food residues can consult EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™ and download EWG’s guide to washing produce.

Efforts to reduce exposure do not require replacing everything at once. Even a small change, such as swapping out one product for a safer alternative, can be a simple way to start reducing exposure to harmful chemicals. 

Areas of Focus Women's Health Toxic Chemicals Pesticides Phthalates Authors Alexa Friedman, Ph.D. July 16, 2026

‘Triple dipping’ taxpayer dollars: Trump eyes billions more in subsidies for wealthy farms Anthony Lacey July 16, 2026

The Trump administration is asking Congress to send another $11 billion to farmers through taxpayer-funded farm subsidies, even though many would-be recipients are wealthy farms that already receive billions through several farm subsidy programs.

If Congress approves the request, it would be on top of the $12 billion currently allotted to farmers through the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program this year. 

Farmers also already receive payments from two other categories: commodity programs and the federal Crop Insurance Program, new EWG research finds. According to data in EWG’s recently updated Farm Subsidy Database, farmers last year received a staggering $29.5 billion by “triple dipping” into three categories of farm subsidies. 

The administration’s request, combined with these other payouts, would make payments swell to over $50 billion in 2026. This will place an even greater burden on taxpayers whose median income and wealth remain well below those of the average farm household. Total payments would make up a third of farm income this year.

Many smaller farmers are facing legitimate financial challenges, including lower commodity prices, higher input costs and uncertainty driven by President Donald Trump’s tariffs and the war with Iran. But America’s farm subsidy system overwhelmingly rewards the nation’s largest and wealthiest operations, not the family farms most in need of assistance.

Trump’s latest $11 billion bailout plan is largely the result of self-inflicted problems: a farm economy troubled due to the tariffs and war, which he started and which created instability in the global export markets. Rather than addressing those underlying policy choices, the administration is once again asking taxpayers to foot the bill.

Neither the House farm bill passed this spring nor the Senate farm bill now under consideration would make any much-needed changes to federal farm subsidy programs. Reform is vital to limit – not increase – the many billions taxpayers are paying to lucrative farms every year. These farms already benefit from multiple programs – they don’t need more support.

Triple dipping happens each year

EWG identified three sources of the billions in Department of Agriculture 2025 payments: crop insurance and traditional commodity farm subsidy programs that pay out every year, and ad hoc programs approved by Congress.

Six individual programs are covered by the three USDA farm support payment categories:

• An indemnity payment from the taxpayer-subsidized federal Crop Insurance Program.
• A payment from one of two traditional commodity subsidy programs tied to crop prices or revenues: the Price Loss Coverage program, or PLC, and the Agricultural Risk Coverage program, or ARC.
• Payments from three ad hoc programs established by Congress: the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program to help farmers with increased costs and reduced crop prices, and the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program and the Emergency Livestock Relief Program designed to support farmers through weather and climate disasters.

Farmers collected $29.5 billion in 2025 from the three types of payments. The largest share of payments were made in the ad hoc category. Together the three ad hoc programs accounted for $16.3 billion, representing over half of all payments. (See Figure 1.)

Crop insurance paid out 37% of total payments from all programs in 2025, or $11 billion. Payments from the ARC and PLC commodity programs made up the smallest share, at $2.1 billion, or 7% of total payments. 

But ARC and PLC payments will increase from 2025 levels in future years due to higher subsidies established in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, which Republicans pushed through Congress last year.

Figure 1. Ad hoc farm subsidy programs were by far the largest source of payments to farmers in 2025

Image

Source: EWG, from the USDA Risk Management Agency, Summary of Business data, and Farm Service Agency, Payment Files Information

Farmers in 3,053 counties across the country received payments from at least one of the three farm support categories. In a total of 2,320 counties, or 76%, farmers collected payments from all three. 

The ad hoc programs had the largest reach, with farmers in 98% of the counties receiving payments. 

Just under half of all payments from the three payment categories – $14 billion in taxpayer dollars – went to farmers in just seven states, in descending order of largest payments: Texas, Minnesota, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota and Illinois.

The payments were very highly concentrated in just a few states, with farmers in Texas, Minnesota and Kansas alone accounting for 25% of all payments. 

Farmers and taxpayers pay into crop insurance premiums every year. Taxpayers shoulder 63% of the cost, on average, and indemnity payments are made from total premiums collected. 

Taxpayers foot all – 100% – of the cost of traditional commodity farm subsidy programs and the ad hoc subsidy programs. An increase in ad hoc subsidies, as the administration is requesting, would send considerably more taxpayer money to farmers.

The largest farms benefit the most

The push for another bailout comes as some farmers are struggling financially given increased costs for critical supplies like such as fuel and fertilizer, 

And it’s a jarring request at a time when millions of hardworking Americans across the country are also grappling with everyday living costs. Incomes are not keeping up with the rising cost of living, and almost half of Americans cannot afford basic living expenses like food, rent and healthcare.

Trump’s bid to send even more taxpayer money from an additional ad hoc program to farmers would benefit the largest and wealthiest farms the most. 

In 2025, the top 10% of farms received 59% of all commodity subsidies. At the same time, the smallest 80% of recipients only got 22% of payments. 

Most farm subsidies go to growers of commodity crops like corn and soybeans. Very little funding goes to farms that grow food like the fruits and vegetables millions of Americans eat, referred to as “specialty crops.”

Farm household income and wealth are also significantly higher than the average U.S. household. In 2024, the median farm household income was $102,748, much greater than the median U.S. household income of $83,730. 

Just 2% of all family farm households had levels of wealth below the median American wealth. 

Farmers qualify for commodity and ad hoc subsidies as long as their annual income is not above $900,000 per person, or $1.8 million for a farmer and his or her spouse. But the Crop Insurance Program does not have an income limit, so farmers who make above that level still qualify for premium subsidies and indemnity payments.

No need for more payments

The Trump administration’s latest proposal comes a year after enactment of the OBBBA, which expanded farm subsidies while paying for those increases by making deep cuts to nutrition assistance for hungry Americans.

By expanding subsidies at the expense of hungry people, the law increases the likelihood of farmers’ triple dipping into multiple farm support programs. It causes serious harm to millions while benefiting relatively few farmers.

Reform of the farm subsidy program to prevent triple dipping and make other much-needed fixes to these massive payouts is long overdue. But the House-passed farm bill and Senate farm bill under consideration won’t rein in farm subsidies.

Mostly large and wealthy commodity crop growers already receive billions of dollars from multiple farm subsidy programs every year. These farmers do not need even more taxpayer support from another new Trump-driven ad hoc farm subsidy program.

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Farm Subsidies Authors Anne Schechinger, M.S. July 16, 2026

Drowning in manure: How livestock farms threaten Iowa’s drinking water and public health rcoleman July 14, 2026 Ethan Bahe Anne Schechinger, M.S. July 14, 2026 Overview

• EWG found 15,309 Iowa factory farms producing over 107 million tons of manure a year.
• The number of large animal facilities increased by 13% between 2019 and 2025.
• The state’s livestock produce significant amounts of manure that pollute drinking water and recreational water, leading to public health harms like cancer.
• Because of inadequate oversight, polluted drinking water results from all sizes of facilities.

Iowa – the nation’s top hog producer – had more than 15,000 factory farms in 2025 producing over 107 million tons of manure, a first-of-its-kind EWG analysis finds. This waste can pollute water, exposing people to serious health risks like cancer.

EWG mapped every livestock facility across Iowa to uncover the massive scale of the farms and their manure. The waste generated would weigh the same as over 53 million Ford F150 pickup trucks, and would account for 33 tons of manure each year for every person in Iowa.

And the problem isn’t limited to Iowa. 

A third of all pork raised in the U.S. is produced in Iowa, which is by far the largest hog-producing state. Minnesota, the runner-up, makes up only 12% of total U.S. hog production. If you’ve eaten pork, it’s very likely that you've eaten pork from hogs raised in Iowa. The consequences of huge Iowa hog farms extend far beyond the state borders.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources tracks the number of hog and other animal feeding operations and their locations, with a data file showing just under 11,000 facilities.

In contrast, EWG’s well-established methodology located thousands more facilities that are not included in the state’s dataset. This analysis found more than 15,000 factory farms on the ground from aerial and satellite imagery, providing the most comprehensive picture yet of Iowa’s enormous industrial livestock footprint. 

This investigation updates a 2020 EWG analysis that mapped the state’s largest animal operations only. That study found there were 3,936 large factory farms in the state in 2019. Our latest research found a 12.9% increase in large facilities, to 4,444 in 2025.

The vast amounts of manure these facilities generate are often applied to nearby farm fields as a fertilizer, since it contains nitrogen and phosphorus, nutrients that feed crops. But manure and its components can wash off farm fields, leach through soil into drainage systems that empty into nearby rivers, streams and lakes, and get into groundwater. 

Nitrogen can form in drinking water as nitrate, and consuming this contaminated water can increase the risk of birth defects and cancer. Iowa is the state with the second-highest rate of new cancer cases. 

Manure runoff can also create potentially toxic algae blooms in recreational waters when more nutrients are applied than crops can absorb. EWG has reported on algae toxins in bodies of water throughout Iowa.

To help reduce the environmental and public health damages caused by livestock raised in these facilities, consumers can choose to eat less meat or eat meat not raised in a factory farm. And federal and state-level policies must change to improve public health and the safety of water for Iowans. 

Iowa produces huge amounts of manure

Animal feeding operations are concentrated facilities and feedlots that produce livestock for meat, eggs and dairy products. Hundreds and even thousands of cattle, swine, chickens, turkeys and other animals are raised in large buildings or, in the case of cattle, in open feedlots. Over 90% of U.S. livestock are raised in factory farms. 

EWG found that Iowa had 15,309 such facilities in 2025. Hogs made up the vast majority of facilities in the state, at 66%. 

There were 10,172 facilities housing 33.4 million hogs, 336 poultry facilities housing 178.6 million turkeys and chickens, and 4,801 operations that contained 2.7 million cattle.

Together these facilities produced 107.6 million tons of manure in 2025.

Two-thirds of all factory farms produced swine last year. They also produced the largest share of manure. (See Figure 1.) 

Figure 1. Hog facilities generated over 64% of total manure in Iowa. 

Image

Source: EWG, with data from Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Imagery Program and Iowa DNR 

The five Iowa counties with the most animal feeding operations in descending order were Sioux, Lyon, Plymouth, O’Brien and Washington. These counties contained 3,095 factory farms, or one in five of all facilities in the state. 

Water quality problems are especially prevalent in the counties with the most operations. This map shows the locations of all the state’s 15,000-plus factory farms:

Interactive map Iowa livestock facilities in 2025

EWG mapped every livestock facility in the state using aerial and satellite imagery, uncovering a much greater industrial footprint than Iowa’s own data suggests.

View map here Large operations have increased since 2019

Iowa has seen a substantial increase in the number of large animal facilities in just the past few years. The largest operations generate the most manure, exacerbating manure storage issues. It becomes increasingly difficult to manage waste without applying excessive amounts to nearby farmland, where it contributes to water pollution and other environmental problems.

For this analysis, EWG used the Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, to determine farm size. According to the EPA, small facilities have fewer than 300 “animal units,” medium facilities have between 300 and 999, and large facilities have 1,000 or more animal units. 

An “animal unit” is defined as an animal that’s equivalent to 1,000 pounds of live weight. For example, a single animal unit would be one 1,000-pound beef cattle, 2.5 hogs or 125 chickens. Large CAFOs house at least 1,000 beef cattle or 2,500 hogs or 125,000 chickens – a lot of animals generating an enormous amount of manure.

The number of large swine operations increased the most between 2019 and 2025, at over 400 facilities.

The largest facilities produced a disproportionate amount of manure. The 4,444 large facilities accounted for 29% of all facilities but generated 60% of all manure.

Medium-size facilities made up 51% of operations but only 35% of the manure. Small farms accounted for only 20% of facilities and 5% of the manure. 

This expansion between 2019 and 2025 reflects the continued consolidation of livestock production into larger, more intensive facilities with greater waste management and drinking water challenges.

Sioux, Kossuth and Hamilton counties were the three with the greatest number of large animal feeding operations, where manure application in these counties likely has a big impact on water quality. 

Existing regulatory requirements

There were also thousands of factory farms just below the “large” size designation. These operations generate significant amounts of manure but are not required by the EPA to get a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, water permit.

To obtain the required permits, large animal feeding operations submit applications that include manure management plans identifying the fields where manure will be applied each year. 

Management plans aim to prevent multiple facilities from applying manure to the same fields or applying manure above the agronomic rate. 

Animal facilities that have more than 500 animal units but under 1,000 need to submit a manure management plan to the Iowa DNR, but they do not have to get a NPDES permit. 

Although manure management plans are an important safeguard, they are often incomplete and inconsistently enforced. In 2025, there were only 745 inspections of manure management plans for Iowa facilities that had over 500 animal units. 

Operations with fewer than 1,000 animal units are exempt from many of the permit requirements faced by larger facilities, despite generating enough manure to pose water quality and public health risks similar to the risks of waste generated by large facilities. And those under the 1,000 animal unit threshold with manure management plans are only infrequently inspected.

A total of 3,276 operations had between 950 and 999 animal units – just 50 animal units short of the large CAFO designation. These facilities represented 21% of all facilities in the state and produced a lot of manure, but they are not regulated the same way as operations with 1,000 or more animal units are. 

Threat to water and public health

Human waste usually goes through a multistage treatment process before being released back into the environment. 

But the more than 100 million tons of manure produced annually by Iowa’s animal operations are typically spread, untreated, on nearby agricultural fields as a fertilizer. It’s the most common disposal option because the waste contains nitrogen and phosphorus, which feed the crops.

But once spread, the nitrogen in manure gets into groundwater, leaches through soil into drainage systems that empty into nearby waterways, and runs off fields to contaminate lakes and streams.

EWG recently released an analysis of nitrate levels in drinking water served by community water systems across the U.S. The report found that, in Iowa, 822 community water systems tested for nitrate between 2021 and 2023. 

Of those systems, 146 provided drinking water to almost 1.2 million Iowans and had at least one nitrate test at or above 3 milligrams per liter, or mg/L. During that time, 81 community water systems serving just under 800,000 people tested at or above 5 mg/L, and eight systems serving over 56,000 people tested at or above 10 mg/L.

Nitrate contamination in drinking water poses significant risks both to public health and the environment, with the potential harms varying based on the amount of nitrate (see Figure 2).  

The EPA’s legal limit for nitrate in drinking water – known as the maximum contaminant level, or MCL – is 10 mg/L. This standard was set based on 1960s science to guard against “blue baby syndrome,” a potentially fatal condition that starves infants of oxygen if they ingest too much nitrate. 

More recent research shows strong evidence of an increased risk of colorectal and other cancers, thyroid disease and birth defects at 5 mg/L and other levels far below the woefully outdated federal legal limit for nitrate in drinking water. 

Figure 2. Levels of nitrate in drinking water and their associated health risks. 

Image

Source: EWG, Drinking water of almost 1 in 5 Americans contains nitrates linked to cancer and birth defects

These findings are especially concerning in Iowa, which has the second-highest incidence of cancer cases in the nation and continues to experience rising cancer rates. 

Considerable evidence connects nitrate consumption to increased risk of bladder cancer and colorectal cancer. Emerging research also links kidney, ovarian, thyroid and pediatric cancers with consumption of nitrate in drinking water at levels below the MCL. 

The risks of negative birth outcomes for infants also go up when pregnant people drink water contaminated with nitrate, even at levels far below the MCL – preterm birth, low birth weight and birth defects, including neural tube birth defects like spina bifida.

Beyond its impacts on human health, excessive fertilizer and manure application contribute to climate change. Nitrogen from commercial fertilizers and livestock manure is converted in soil into nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas nearly 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. 

Agriculture is one of the largest sources of nitrous oxide emissions, making improved nutrient management critical for protecting both water quality and the climate.

How consumers and policymakers can help

Consumers

Iowa is the largest producer of pork in the U.S., and swine facilities are the largest contributors of manure in the state. Consumers can choose to eat less meat or eat meat not raised in a factory farm, in turn helping to reduce the environmental and public health damages caused by raising livestock in these facilities. EWG’s Meat and Dairy Label Decoder helps users decipher what individual meat and dairy labels mean about how the livestock generating those food products were raised. 

The decoder suggests consumers look for these labels on meat packages at the grocery store to avoid factory-farmed meat: 

• Animal Welfare Approved by AGW
• Certified Humane, if the package also includes “grass fed” or “pasture-raised” 
• Global Animal Partnership, if the steps are 4, 5 or 5+. 

Pictures of EWG’s recommended meat labels are provided below. 

Image

These labels can help consumers choose products from animals raised on pasture, not in factory farms. Pasture-raised animals cause much less of a manure problem.

Policymakers

Changes to federal conservation policy could help reduce one of the largest sources of water contamination in Iowa. Millions of dollars from the Agriculture Department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, support infrastructure that compounds the problems of industrial livestock production rather than practices that protect water quality, one of the stated goals of the program. 

That is, this money subsidizes infrastructure that supports factory farms. 

According to EWG’s Conservation Database, two of the top most-funded EQIP practices in Iowa between 2017 and 2024 were animal manure storage facilities, and roofs and covers for them. Together these two practices received $44.7 million in federal funding during that period, representing 17% of all EQIP dollars awarded to Iowa farmers. 

Instead, federal conservation funding should prioritize proven conservation practices that reduce nutrient runoff, improve soil health and protect drinking water. Funding should be prioritized so it goes to practices that improve water quality, like those on EWG’s list of regenerative agriculture practices.

Iowans should also press their state officials to create policy changes that would reduce the amount of manure that gets into water. 

The amount of manure that animal feeding operations produce, and where the manure is applied, could be better regulated with a number of policy changes. Many of these policy updates could reduce the risk of cancer Iowans currently face.

One idea that could attract bipartisan support would be to shift the regulation of animal feeding operations to counties. Iowa’s DNR currently manages how livestock facilities operate and expand, as well as the application of manure to farm fields. 

Shifting that decisionmaking authority to county governments would give a greater voice to the people who live and work near animal facilities and are most likely to experience the health outcomes tied to the operations. 

With this change, county officials would decide whether to approve proposals for building new facilities or expanding existing ones. These officials would also manage the amount of manure that is produced and where it is applied. 

Taken together, these achievable federal and state policy changes, along with consumer calls for action and changes to their eating preferences, could make a welcome difference to Iowans’ health.

EWG: Iowa’s 15,000+ factory farms produce over 107M tons of manure, risking public health Anthony Lacey July 14, 2026

MINNEAPOLIS – Iowa has 15,309 livestock farms that generated 107.6 million tons of manure in 2025, polluting the state’s water and putting Iowans’ health at risk, a landmark Environmental Working Group mapping project finds.

For this comprehensive report, EWG mapped every livestock facility in the state using aerial and satellite imagery, uncovering a much greater industrial footprint than Iowa’s own data suggests. The state Department of Natural Resources tracks just under 11,000 facilities – a significant undercount, compared to the 15,000-plus EWG found.

Much of the manure generated ends up applied – untreated – to nearby farm fields, where it can leach into groundwater or run off into rivers, streams and lakes, polluting tap water.

When manure leaves the fields it is applied to, the nitrogen it contains can form nitrate in drinking water. Research links nitrate – found in manure and commercial fertilizer – in drinking water to an increased risk of colorectal, bladder, kidney, ovarian and thyroid cancers, as well as adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight and spina bifida. 

Iowa has the second-highest rate of new cancer cases in the nation, and its cancer rates continue to rise.

“Iowa is drowning in manure from factory farms,” said report co-author Anne Schechinger, EWG’s senior director of agriculture and climate research. “The health threats of manure ending up in recreational and drinking water are well known and need to be addressed.”

The manure generated by Iowa’s factory farms is equivalent to 33 tons of waste for every person in the state each year – the same weight as over 53 million Ford F-150 pickup trucks

Many large factory farms

Hog operations dominate Iowa’s factory farm landscape, accounting for 66% of all facilities, EWG’s mapping found. Iowa produces a third of all U.S. pork, so the pollution problems linked to the large-scale factory farming of hogs aren’t limited to the Hawkeye State. 

Minnesota, the second-largest pork producer, accounts for just 12% of U.S. production.

The number of large animal facilities – those with 1,000 or more “animal units” – increased by nearly 13% between 2019 and 2025, from 3,936 to 4,444. Those large facilities represent just 29% of all operations but generate 60% of all manure.

EWG also found 3,276 operations with between 950 and 999 animal units – just below the threshold that triggers Environmental Protection Agency requirements for water permits and manure management plans. These facilities produce large amounts of manure but are not regulated as stringently as larger operations, leaving nearby communities without adequate protection.

Nitrate pollution associated with the application of these facilities’ manure to fields is alarming. EWG recently released an analysis of nitrate levels in drinking water provided by community water systems across the U.S. It revealed that in Iowa, 146 community water systems had elevated levels of nitrate at some time between 2021 and 2023. 

Manure runoff from farm fields also fuels toxic algae blooms in recreational waters, posing additional risks to public health.

“Science increasingly links this waste to serious health harms, including cancer. We can’t keep ignoring the problem – real policy changes can help and are overdue,” added Schechinger. 

Potential policy solutions

The federal government spends billions annually on farm conservation programs. But EWG’s analysis of the Agriculture Department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, finds that federal dollars are not being directed to where they could make the most difference.

Two of the most-funded EQIP practices in Iowa between 2017 and 2024 were waste storage facilities and manure storage structure covers – infrastructure that supports factory farming. Together those two practices received $44.7 million in federal funding, representing 17% of all EQIP dollars awarded to Iowa farmers.

“Federal money subsidizes the very practices that drive this water pollution problem. That has to change,” said Ethan Bahe, the report’s other co-author and EWG senior GIS analyst.

EWG recommends redirecting conservation funding to practices proven to reduce nutrient runoff and protect drinking water, including those on EWG’s list of regenerative agriculture practices. Expansion of permitting requirements to cover more facilities would also ensure greater oversight of factory farms, which should include more local authority over them.

Consumers can also help by choosing to eat less factory-farmed meat, which could reduce the market demand that leads to the proliferation of facilities in Iowa and across the country. EWG’s Meat and Dairy Label Decoder helps consumers identify products from animals raised outside industrial operations.

###

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. Visit www.ewg.org for more information.

Areas of Focus Water Farming & Agriculture Factory Farms Farm Pollution Midwest Number of large facilities jumped 13% since 2019 Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 July 14, 2026

For 41 years in a row, USDA sent taxpayer-funded payouts to roughly 9,000 farmers, totaling $10.6B Anthony Lacey July 13, 2026

For more than four decades, almost 9,000 farmers have received taxpayer money every year through Agriculture Department payments totaling about $10.6 billion, a new EWG analysis finds.

These massive payouts – farm subsidies and disaster relief between 1985 to 2025 – went in many cases to large and successful farm operations. At the same time, a sizable number of small and specialty crop farms continue to struggle with increasing costs, industry consolidation pressures and soaring bankruptcies.

Farmers can keep getting farm subsidies or disaster payments, even if they have collected a payment for each of the 41 years that EWG reviewed – with some receiving millions of dollars annually.

President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, pushed through last year by Republicans in Congress, changed policy to increase these payouts for a select few farmers. 

The law also capped assistance for those who most need it, such as recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program food benefits, also known as SNAP. More than half of all SNAP participants leave the program after just a single year of assistance.

USDA data show a total of 8,839 recipients collected farm subsidy payments every year between 1985 and 2025, EWG found. The average amount collected annually, $29,000 per year over the 41-year period.

The top 10 repeat farm subsidy recipients collected between $9 million and $22 million each during this period (see Table 1). 

Table 1. The 10 largest recipients of consecutive federal farm payments annually between 1985 to 2025

Recipient

Location

Subsidy total from 1985 to 2025

Frische Brothers

Dumas, Texas

$22,364,716

Molitor Brothers

Cannon Falls, Minn.

$21,919,684

D.L. Robey Farms

Adairville, Ky.

$20,067,473

Fann Farms

Salemburg, N.C.

$14,429,630

Four Oaks Farms

Morganza, La.

$13,588,489

VIP Farms

Thatcher, Ariz.

$11,751,820

Wiggins Farm

Andalusia, Ala.

$10,466,936

Kohler Farms Partnership

Valley City, N.D.

$10,319,263

Adams Farms

Combes, Texas

$10,300,846

Cole Farms & Ranch

Natalia, Texas

$9,699,479

Source: EWG, from USDA data

Some subsidy recipients who received payments for 41 consecutive years neither work nor live on a farm, EWG also found. In fact, 38 of the 8,839 repeat payment recipients live in some of the nation’s largest cities, despite the USDA requirement that farm subsidy recipients be “actively engaged in farming.”

Between 1985 and 2025, farm subsidy programs paid farmers when crop prices fell below price guarantees set in the farm bill or when crop revenues fell below averages. Between 1996 and 2014, farmers also received “direct” subsidy payments linked to historic crop production. 

Disaster relief has been paid through annual spending bills and both temporary and permanent disaster programs. 

A recent report from the Government Accountability Office examined improper payments made to the agriculture industry. The report found that a tariff relief program started under the first Trump administration had an improper payment rate of 19.3%. The GAO also found that a USDA disaster program had an error rate of 45.2%.

EWG did not obtain data on subsidies distributed before 1985. Farmers are also eligible for crop insurance premium subsidies, but federal law prevents the USDA from disclosing information about the recipients of individual crop insurance subsidies.

Increasing dependency on farm subsidies

Trump’s OBBBA was filled with farm subsidy loopholes and other provisions that will increase farmers’ dependence on federal support. These conditions mean the vast majority of payments are going to the largest, most successful farms. At the same time, they drive up costs for farms, including small farms, which are facing increased likelihood of bankruptcy.

When the largest operations capture most of the money, they can outbid their neighbors for land, inflating rents and land prices for the smaller and beginning farmers, who are already closest to the financial edge.

Only 40% of farms grow crops eligible for payments linked to government-set price guarantees, known as reference prices, and the top 10% of those farmers collected nearly three-quarter of all payments. 

But Trump’s law increased the prices guaranteed to those farmers by 10% to 20%. As a result, more farmers – not fewer – will become permanently dependent on subsidies. 

The law increased price guarantees so much that most cotton, rice and peanut farmers are all but guaranteed to receive a payment every year.

And the law hiked payment limits, from $125,000 to $155,000 per person, while allowing every member of a farm organized as a joint venture, S corporation or limited liability corporation to collect up to $155,000 a year. 

The OBBBA also let farmers who grow “covered commodities” like peanuts, rice and cotton to collectively add 30 million additional acres of farmland to qualify for farm subsidy payments. That’s an 11% increase in the number of eligible acres.

New bailouts will repeat the pattern

The Senate is considering a Farm Bill 2.0 this month but it doesn’t contain much-needed changes to subsidy programs. 

Instead, the emergency bailouts stacked on top of the OBBBA are following the same script as previous payouts.

In March last year, the Trump administration began issuing $10 billion in “one time” economic relief for farmers. These congressionally authorized payments were available only for covered commodities such as corn, soybeans, cotton and rice. Fruit, vegetable, dairy and livestock producers were largely shut out.

In December, the Trump administration announced another $12 billion “one time” so-called bridge payment, with $11 billion again flowing to farmers of covered commodities only. If the trend from the past three farm bailouts continues, most of the funding will go once again to some of the largest and most successful operations.

This June, the White House asked Congress for an additional $11 billion in farm aid, this time bundled inside an $87.6 billion supplemental request to pay for the war with Iran. Much of the distress these payments are intended to address traces back to the administration’s own trade wars and the war with Iran. Those actions are driving farmers’ fertilizer, fuel and other input costs even higher.

As EWG’s analysis underscores, each round of farm aid has flowed the same way as the subsidies before it: The biggest operations take the largest share year after year, while struggling small and mid-size farms closest to bankruptcy see the least.

Areas of Focus Farming & Agriculture Farm Subsidies Authors Jared Hayes July 13, 2026

Tiny tick bites can cause big health problems – these tips can help Anthony Lacey July 10, 2026

Tick bites are on the rise, and so are the health issues they can cause.

In April all but one region in the U.S. saw the highest level of tick-related emergency room visits since 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Blacklegged ticks can cause Lyme disease, leaving some individuals with lingering brain fog, long-term fatigue, anxiety and depression. Lone star tick bites can lead to alpha-gal syndrome, a lifelong allergy to meat and sometimes dairy products or medicines. 

Avoiding getting bitten while you’re outdoors this summer is critical – EWG is here to help you find bug sprays that can maximize safety and effectiveness, while also providing you with important details about ingredients in these products and any health concerns.

Study labels for active ingredients 

EWG’s guide to bug repellents suggests three active ingredients as the most effective for keeping ticks (and other insects) at bay.

The guide also gives the safest and most effective concentration levels for different tick and bug repellents, measured as the percentage of active ingredient for different repellents.

DEET (under 30% concentration)

DEET acts as a sensory disruptor for mosquitoes and ticks, repelling both smell and taste receptors. When applied correctly, it has very little health risk. In a 2014 review, the Environmental Protection Agency found that DEET was associated with only low health risks, including to children. 

In rare cases, DEET may irritate the skin, usually with highly concentrated formulas – above 75% – and repeated application.

IR3535 (20% concentration)

IR3535 acts much like DEET, repelling insects through its odor. A 2008 study found that 20% IR3535 can offer effective protection against ticks for up to 12.2 hours and mosquitoes for up to 10.3 hours. When used according to label directions, IR3535 has a low risk of causing harmful health effects.

Picaridin (20% concentration) 

Picaridin also mimics the effects of DEET, and most evidence suggests it lasts for a similar amount of time – although a Consumer Reports study found it had a slightly shorter window of effectiveness. Like the other ingredients, it’s also relatively safe when used as instructed. 

The best of these three ingredients is the one in a product that you’re most likely to use. One study found concentrations exceeding 20% of DEET, IR3535 or picaridin repelled more than 90% of ticks from crossing treated bands on volunteers over a 12-hour period.

If you’re looking for alternatives, oil of lemon eucalyptus at 30% to 40% concentration and 2-undecanone at about 7% concentration have also been shown to be effective – but for less time than the other options. 

Apply according to directions

While the risks of any of these chemicals are low in comparison to the risk of tick-borne or mosquito-borne illness, as with any chemical, how you are exposed matters. 

With DEET especially, there is some risk of irritation from incorrect use – for example, applying it under clothing, on the face or broken skin, in enclosed areas, or near or on food. Swallowing or overapplying might lead to excessive absorption, which can occur in rare cases and cause harm to the nervous system. 

Avoid using any of these repellent chemicals on children under 6 months old.

Apply to clothing

Applying the insecticide permethrin (at 0.5 concentration) to clothing, along with the use of bug spray on your skin, can effectively reduce the number of tick bites. Some outdoor retailers even sell clothing pre-treated with permethrin. 

Permethrin can easily incapacitate ticks that land on the clothing and even kill young ticks within a minute of exposure. But there is some human health risk: While exposure is unlikely to cause any significant acute or chronic symptoms, it is highly toxic to the environment. The EPA classifies it as a likely carcinogen when ingested.

When wearing synthetic clothing, including spandex, or other plastic accessories, like sunglasses, avoid applying DEET or IR3535 to areas near the clothing. Because of their solvent properties, both chemicals can dissolve, stain or permanently cloud certain plastics. Picaridin does not damage plastic. 

Wear light-colored clothing

If you plan to spend time outdoors, keep in mind that wearing light-colored clothing makes ticks much easier to spot and remove.

Check daily 

Bug spray is never 100% effective at repelling ticks. If you’re in a tick-friendly area, checking daily for ticks is one of the best ways to avoid tick bites. 

Ticks usually need to stay attached for a day or two to transmit Lyme disease, and despite their small size, they are usually both visible and detectable by touch.

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Bug Repellent Family Health Women's Health Children’s Health Guest Authors Adam Levin (EWG communications intern) July 10, 2026

EWG testimony to the California Senate Committee on Agriculture on AB1603 to increase the transparency and reporting of PFAS pesticides usage rcoleman July 9, 2026

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is David Andrews and I am the Chief Science Officer for the Environmental Working Group.

I hold a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Northwestern University and have been a co-author on ten peer-reviewed publications on PFAS, including a paper on PFAS pesticides.

PFAS—or "forever chemicals"—pose serious health risks, including cancer, reproductive problems, harm to the thyroid and immune system, liver and kidney disease and more. 

2.5 million pounds of PFAS pesticides are used each year in California.

40% of non-organic produce grown in California had at least one PFAS pesticide, some with many. 

PFAS pesticides are widespread in water and soil in California.

PFAS should be regulated as a class - we do not want one problematic chemical substituted for another. 

California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control has stated that all PFAS share the core hazard trait of extreme environmental persistence. 

PFAS pesticides fall into a regulatory blind spot.

The US EPA’s and the California Department of Pesticide Regulations’ current have been inadequate with respect to immune system harm, or the cumulative impacts of the very small PFAS.

TFA, or trifluoroacetic acid, is one of the small PFAS contaminants that result from PFAS pesticide usage and levels are increasing in our water, food and environment.

North Carolina ground water testing found TFA in nearly all of their samples, and it is estimated that PFAS pesticide use in California creates up to 600,000 pounds of TFA.

Earlier this month, ECHA's scientific committee concluded TFA should be classified as toxic to reproduction, and also very persistent and very mobile.

With the increasing evidence of harm from PFAS we are disappointed that the legislature is not acting more decisively on PFAS pesticides but we support this step to catalogue usage.

Thank you.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. June 30, 2026

EWG testimony to the California Senate Committee on Environmental Quality on AB1603 to restrict and ban the use of PFAS pesticides rcoleman July 9, 2026

Good morning,

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Varun Subramaniam and I am a Science Analyst at the Environmental Working Group.

I hold a graduate degree in health data science as well as a degree in environmental health.

I coauthored recent reports which found that, each year, millions of pounds of PFAS pesticides are being applied to, and detected in high frequencies on, fruits and vegetables grown in California. 

PFAS pesticides are also often found in surface water and soil near agricultural areas.

PFAS in any form pose serious, well-documented health and environmental risks that warrant strict limitations of their use and regulation as a class. 

Exposure to PFAS is linked to liver and kidney disease, reproductive problems, child development delays, cancer, weakened thyroid function, and reduced vaccine effectiveness in children. 

Additionally, all PFAS share the core characteristic of a carbon-fluorine bond that results in extreme environmental persistence; they do not fully break down in the environment.3

This drastically increases the timeframe of exposure, with today’s contamination potentially harming health for decades.

These PFAS pesticides fall into a regulatory blind spot.

Current regulatory evaluations of PFAS pesticides do NOT adequately account for potential immune system harm or the impacts of very small forms of PFAS that form from many PFAS pesticides, including trifluoroacetic acid or TFA.

Immunotoxicity is one of the most critical health effects for PFAS risk assessments, so we are overlooking key, not fringe, information by not considering studies of immune effects.4,5

In addition, TFA, which is linked to reproductive harm, has been detected in nearly all water and human serum samples, where tested.

Fortunately, farmers have options that are not PFAS. 

Of the roughly 1,000 active pesticide ingredients currently approved for use in California, 95% are not PFAS. And other states, like Maine and Minnesota, have already announced planned phase-outs for these chemicals.

The health and environmental risks of PFAS exposure are significant. 

Scientists across the world agree that we must act swiftly to halt this multigenerational cycle of contamination.

Thank you.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Authors Varun Subramaniam, M.S. June 24, 2026

EWG testimony to California Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials on AB1603 to restrict and ban the use of PFAS pesticides rcoleman July 9, 2026

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

My name is David Andrews, and I am the Acting Chief Science Officer at the Environmental Working Group. I hold a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Northwestern University and have been a co-author on ten peer-reviewed publications on PFAS, including a 2024 paper that identified EPA-approved PFAS pesticides.

PFAS—often called "forever chemicals"—pose serious, well-documented health risks. 

Exposure to this class of chemicals is linked to altered immune and thyroid function, liver and kidney disease, reproductive problems, child development delays, cancer and more. 

The Department of Toxic Substances Control has stated that all PFAS share the core hazard trait of extreme environmental persistence.

And what may surprise you is that our food is a primary, under regulated route of exposure.

PFAS pesticides fall into a regulatory blind spot.

The EPA’s and the California Department of Pesticide Regulations’ current regulatory evaluation of PFAS pesticides have NOT adequately evaluated the pesticides’ potential for immune system harm, or fully assessed the impacts of the very small PFAS, including trifluoroacetic acid or TFA, that form from PFAS pesticides. 

Levels of these small PFAS are increasing in our water, food and environment and exposure to them is linked to reproductive and immune toxicity.

North Carolina ground water testing found TFA in 95% of their samples, and it is estimated that PFAS pesticide use in California creates up to 600,000 pounds of TFA each year. These findings should alarm California, which will likely find similar contamination when official tests are done.

In regard to food, EWG recently found that nearly 40% of all non-organic produce grown right here in California contains traces of at least one PFAS pesticide. For some agricultural staples such as peaches, plums and nectarines, the numbers are even higher.

Fortunately, farmers have options that are not PFAS. Of the roughly 1,000 active pesticide ingredients currently approved for use in California, only 53 are PFAS. 

Thank you.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Authors David Andrews, Ph.D. April 14, 2026

EWG testimony to Vermont House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry on H.911 to prohibit PFAS in pesticides and packaging rcoleman July 9, 2026

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. 

My name is Varun Subramaniam, and I am a Science Analyst at the Environmental Working Group. 

I hold a master's degree in health data science from the George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health and a degree in environmental health science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health.

My professional work involves applying data science techniques to issues of environmental health, with attention to chemical exposures. 

EWG is a national environmental organization that has, for several decades, investigated the impacts of PFAS on public health and tracked PFAS detections in tap water. 

EWG has published multiple peer-reviewed studies on PFAS exposure sources, including a 2024 peer-reviewed paper on PFAS pesticides. 

Last month, we published a new analysis on the presence of PFAS on fruits and vegetables in the United States.

The growing threat of PFAS

PFAS pose serious health risks to the public.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, PFAS exposure may lead to increased cholesterol, decreased fertility, developmental harm including low birth-weight, interference with the body’s natural hormones and harm to the immune system.

The agency also reports that PFAS have been linked to an increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers. 

PFAS exposure for children is particularly concerning due to increased sensitivity to the harmful effects of chemicals such as PFAS.

PFAS overexposure

We know from recent research that everyone is overexposed to PFAS. 

In 2022, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine assessed PFAS concentrations in human blood samples.

They found that 98% of samples had PFAS levels that warranted exposure reduction and screenings for various health disorders, including hypertension during pregnancy and breast cancer.

PFAS are frequently found in our tap water. 

Food as a Primary Route of Exposure

What may surprise you is that our food, not our water, might be an even bigger source of PFAS exposure. 

The general scientific consensus is that our food is a significant, if not primary, route of exposure.

A 2020 study in Environment International concluded that dietary exposure from the ingestion of food and drinks was the “predominant exposure pathway” to PFAS.

How PFAS enters our diets

PFAS contaminates our food in many, overlapping ways. 

First, PFAS that is used in food packaging can migrate into our food. 

Second, sewage sludge that is contaminated with PFAS and used as a fertilizer can contaminate our food and the farm animals who are fed contaminated feed. 

Third, irrigation water that is contaminated with PFAS can also be absorbed by crops and contaminate our food. 

Fourth, and perhaps most directly, pesticides either made with PFAS as an ingredient or stored in containers that are lined with PFAS can contaminate our food. 

PFAS pesticides on produce

The presence of PFAS pesticides on our food is widespread.

Last month, EWG released a new study of PFAS residues on produce. 

We analyzed testing data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and found 31 different PFAS pesticides were detected on 30% of non-organic U.S. fruit and vegetables.

The most commonly detected pesticide on U.S. produce was fludioxonil–a PFAS fungicide.

Fludioxonil was found on 14% of all produce samples and on nearly 90% of peach and plum samples.

Peer-reviewed literature has linked fludioxonil exposure to hormonal disruption and has found evidence of reproductive toxicity.

Why are PFAS used in pesticides?

You might ask: why is PFAS used in pesticides?

PFAS can modify the attributes of pesticides, mainly conferring increased molecular stability on the chemical. This means that the pesticides can’t be broken down easily and are highly heat-resistant.

PFAS are also known to increase membrane permeability, meaning that pests absorb the chemical faster and can be immobilized more efficiently11.

Alternatives to PFAS pesticides

Farmers have alternatives to pesticides made with PFAS. 

There are effective options available to manage insects and weeds without relying on PFAS pesticides.

Biological controls, such as biopesticides or those derived from entirely biological sources, are popular alternatives to PFAS pesticides.

The menu of pesticides available to farmers is large and ever-growing, with new pesticide active ingredients and products coming to the market each year. 

There are more than 90,000 pesticide products registered with the EPA, comprising over 800 active ingredients. Of these, about 350 active ingredients are approved for use on food crops.

Just 66 of these active ingredients are PFAS. 

According to U.S. Geological Survey, less than 1% of all the pesticides, by volume, used in the state of Vermont are pesticides that include PFAS as an ingredient.

The Hidden PFAS around us

Another concerning characteristic of these chemicals is that most PFAS pesticides ultimately break down into other PFAS like trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA. 

TFA can persist in the environment for hundreds of years and levels are increasing in soil, water, plants, plant based foods, and human bodies.

It’s not just the PFAS pesticides that can last for years and harm health – they are also precursors to other chemicals that will outlast us by centuries.

Conclusion

In summary, we are all exposed to PFAS. Many of us have levels of PFAS in our blood that pose serious health risks. 

Our food is a significant source of our exposure to PFAS. 

The food we eat is contaminated through: PFAS used in food packaging, PFAS in sewage sludge used as fertilizer, contaminated irrigation water, and pesticides either made with PFAS or stored in containers lined with PFAS. 

Most pesticides are made without PFAS, and new, better-studied pesticides are routinely approved for use by the EPA.

Less than 1% of the pesticides, by volume, used in Vermont are pesticides made with PFAS. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today about PFAS pesticides.

I am happy to answer any questions.

Areas of Focus Toxic Chemicals Pesticides PFAS Chemicals Authors Varun Subramaniam, M.S. April 9, 2026

Statement on FDA’s delay of GRAS amendment proposal Iris Myers July 9, 2026

WASHINGTON – The Food and Drug Administration’s plan to amend the “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, regulatory loophole for food chemicals is slipping to December.

The agency originally planned to propose the amendment in October 2025. In December, it sent a draft rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget for pre-publication review, where it’s still pending. The administration then last week released its updated regulatory plan with timelines for upcoming agency rules, including the GRAS delay.

GRAS is a loophole that for years has allowed companies to add new, potentially harmful chemicals and other substances to snacks, drinks and more without undergoing the FDA’s safety review. 

When Congress created the GRAS loophole, in 1958, the exemption was intended to apply largely to ingredients widely recognized as safe, such as salt, water, yeast and vinegar.

But in the intervening years, GRAS has expanded to apply to much more. Since 2000, nearly 99% of food chemicals were introduced into the market as a result of  the GRAS loophole, according to a 2025 analysis from the Environmental Working Group. This allows scores of food chemicals to be approved for use with little government oversight.

The threat of preemption

A draft House bill would, if enacted, further hobble the already broken food safety review process. 

The bill is known as the FDA Review and Evaluation for Safe, Healthy and Affordable Foods, or FRESH and Affordable Foods Act. It would gut rules on the information companies must provide the FDA when submitting a notice that a food chemical is GRAS.

The following is a statement from Melanie Benesh, EWG vice president for government affairs: 

The federal government’s decision to push back its timeline for proposing changes to the broken GRAS system is yet another reminder that consumers cannot afford to wait for Washington to act.

For years, the FDA has failed to adequately oversee food chemicals, leaving states to fill the void by passing commonsense protections against harmful food chemicals linked to serious health risks. 

A delay in this long-promised rulemaking only reinforces why states must continue leading the way.

Congress should not respond by tying states’ hands. 

Lawmakers should reject misguided preemption proposals like the FRESH Act, which would strip states of their ability to protect families while weakening, not strengthening, federal oversight of food chemicals.

The federal government is taking longer to close the GRAS loophole. But the last thing Congress should do is block the states that are already taking action. Americans deserve stronger protections from harmful food chemicals, not more delays and fewer safeguards.

###

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Food Ultra-Processed Foods Toxic Chemicals Food Chemicals Press Contact Iris Myers iris@ewg.org (202) 939-9126 July 9, 2026

‘City slicker’ payments swell to $2.6B with Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill and farm bailouts Anthony Lacey July 8, 2026

More than 92,000 “city slickers” living in some of the biggest metropolitan areas in the U.S. took in over $2.6 billion in farm subsidies between 2020 and 2025, even though many of these people don’t live or work on farms, a new EWG analysis finds.

The soaring payouts went to 13,000 more city slickers compared to last year’s analysis, that looked at payments through 2024, EWG found. At the same time, farm bankruptcies have recently reached new heights.

EWG analyzed Department of Agriculture data and found that between 2020 and 2025, $2.6 billion in farm subsidies went to 92,766 residents of Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York and 197 other major metro areas – with many never setting foot on farmland.

These payments averaged more than $28,000 per person between 2020 and 2025, or just over $4,700 each per year, EWG’s analysis found.

Even more taxpayer funds are going to city recipients this year after Republicans in Congress pushed through President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The law enlarged loopholes that make it easier to qualify for the payouts and get more money.

It hiked payment limits from $125,000 to $155,000 per person, letting every member of some farms collect up to $155,000 a year each, even if they don’t live or work on a farm, as long as it is organized as a pass-through entity, such as a joint venture, S corporation or limited liability corporation.

EWG compiled a list of the 200 biggest metro areas, along with the number of urban recipients and the total farm subsidies they received between 2020 and 2025, including many new recipients in those areas possibly benefiting from the expanded loopholes:

200 largest metro areas with city slicker subsidy recipients

Image Record subsidy amounts

The U.S. is reaching record levels of agricultural industry bailouts, exceeding $25 billion since early 2025, with even more taxpayer-funded handouts still being requested. And these latest bailouts follow payouts from multiple disaster programs in the first and second Trump administrations.

The subsidy increases were paid for with cuts to Medicaid totaling nearly $1 trillion and $187 billion in cuts to hunger assistance programs. These reductions have led to hospital closings and the loss of hunger assistance for over 4 million Americans, including more than 800,000 children. 

As more and more funding is made available for farm subsidies, many recipients benefit from rules that allow people not involved in day-to-day life on the farm to collect payments.

Farm subsidy recipients must be “actively engaged” in farming. 

But it’s very easy to qualify as “actively engaged,” even for someone who never lives or works on a farm. The farm bill’s loopholes allow urban residents to get farm subsidies, even if they do not live or work on a farm. The Government Accountability Office in 2018 found that roughly one-fourth of farm subsidy recipients do not contribute any personal labor to farms.

Another GAO report, issued last month, examined improper payments made to the agriculture industry. It found that a tariff relief program from Trump’s first term had an improper payment rate of 19.3%. A USDA disaster program made improper payments at a rate of 45.2%.

The White House recently requested $11 billion to once again bail out the agricultural industry over the rising costs of fertilizer and fuel from Trump’s war with Iran. This would drive up total farm safety net spending to over $55 billion in 2026 alone.

The proposed “Farm Bill 2.0” making its way through the Senate this month will do nothing to fix these problems. Instead it will maintain the status quo and send billions of dollars in subsidies to city slickers who have nothing to do with farming.

Locating city slickers

For the analysis, EWG identified city slickers living in ZIP codes in the 200 most populous metro areas. Using existing datasets, EWG identified city slicker subsidy recipients as those living in areas with a population density greater than 3,000 people per square mile within census-designated metro areas. 

To rule out non-urban areas, the methodology looked at places the USDA doesn’t consider rural as well as ZIP codes that are outside a distance to a city center dictated by the city’s population size. The methodology also looked at other metrics to determine an area's rural status.

This analysis updates and builds on previous EWG estimates of city slickers, which included only recipients who lived within city limits. The updated methodology seeks to capture urban sprawl, which has changed how certain areas are defined, and to foster a better understanding of how many subsidy recipients live in urban areas.

Areas of Focus Farm Subsidies Over 13,000 more urban-area residents took in farm subsidies in 2025 than in 2024 Authors Jared Hayes July 9, 2026

EPA quietly unleashes three toxic ‘forever chemical’ pesticides onto America’s food supply Monica Amarelo July 2, 2026

WASHINGTON – Under the radar, the Environmental Protection Agency has approved three new PFAS “forever chemical” pesticides for use on crops, including one EPA scientists flagged as having “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.”

There was no warning to the farmworkers who will handle these chemicals or the families who will eat the food they’re sprayed on. The EPA published the fast-tracked approvals in the Federal Register in recent days. The hazardous new herbicides – trifludimoxazin, diflufenican and epyrifenacil – can now be sprayed directly on major food crops, including wheat and citrus.

 “The EPA’s hands-off approach to pesticide mixtures is leaving families exposed to a cocktail of forever chemicals on their food,” said Varun Subramaniam, a science analyst at the Environmental Working Group.

“We know ultra-short-chain PFAS like TFA [trifluoroacetic acid] are accumulating in the environment and pose potential reproductive risks, yet regulators assess these hazards one by one and without considering the full range of potential health harms.

“The science shows combined chemical exposure can amplify health harms, but the EPA is consistently failing to enforce the extra safety protections legally required to safeguard children during pregnancy and early life,” he added.  

The Trump administration is greenlighting forever chemical pesticides at an alarming, unprecedented rate. In less than two years, the EPA has authorized five PFAS pesticides – including cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram – effectively quintupling the pace of the previous administration, which approved just one over four years.

This isn’t just a policy shift; it’s a direct threat to the food supply.

Approved despite the EPA’s own warning signs

Despite the EPA’s internal data linking these chemicals to animal tumors and persistent water contamination, it quietly posted the approvals without informing the press or the public.

“Allowing an avalanche of new PFAS pesticides onto our fields will never make America healthy again,” said Jared Hayes, senior policy analyst at EWG. 

“Contaminating our agricultural fields with persistent forever chemicals does nothing to help the farmers who work tirelessly to feed us. By prioritizing corporate chemical approvals over public health, the EPA is actively undermining both our long-term food security and the very farming communities we rely on,” said Hayes.

Trifludimoxazin is cleared for everyday staples like oats, wheat and fruit. That’s despite EPA data showing the chemical breaks down into 12 persistent PFAS variants and shows “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.”

Not content with three new approvals, the EPA wrapped up its overnight blitz by expanding uses for the notorious water-pollutant bifenthrin: a PFAS pesticide already classified as a “possible human carcinogen” by the agency.

In March 2026, EWG found residue of the PFAS pesticide fludioxonil was in 14% of all produce samples and in nearly 90% of peaches and plums, with fluopyram and bifenthrin also ranking among the top 10 most detected chemicals.

Peer-reviewed studies link pesticide exposure to hormone disruption and nervous system harm, potentially undermining the cardiovascular and fertility benefits of a fresh produce diet.

Even with the use of PFAS pesticides on crops, EWG stresses that consumers should eat plenty of fruits and vegetables. Despite the mounting risk from exposure to these chemicals, the answer isn’t fearing produce – it’s fixing a regulatory system that fails to protect people.

“A diet rich in fruits and vegetables is essential,” said Subramaniam. “Families should enjoy the significant health benefits of consuming produce while making informed choices to reduce pesticide exposure, particularly for children, without sacrificing nutrition."

This week the EPA also proposed adding six new PFAS, including TFA and other compounds that form from PFAS pesticide use, to the sixth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. PFAS pesticides are likely a major source of this contamination but the required nationwide testing would not begin until 2028.

What are ‘forever chemicals’?

PFAS are a group of thousands of human-made chemicals used in a wide range of consumer, industrial and electronic products, in addition to pesticides.  

As these chemicals partially break down over time, they can form other harmful compounds, including trifluoroacetic acid, or TFA, which is increasingly being detected in the environment, wildlife and people. One study estimates PFAS pesticide use in California could generate between 185,000 and 616,000 pounds of TFA each year. 

Emerging research links TFA to reproductive harm and immune suppression, raising growing concerns about its spread and potential health risks.

Regulators are largely flying blind  

An EPA analysis noted that 36 PFAS pesticides – 25 of which are registered in California – lack updated developmental and reproductive toxicity tests. Immunotoxicity studies are routinely waived in pesticide applications, despite growing evidence that PFAS chemicals are particularly harmful to the immune system.

“By the time these PFAS residues reach our plates, they have become part of a toxic cocktail that may suppress the immune system and harm reproductive health,” said Subramaniam “That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using these chemicals on food crops.”

“We’re spraying millions of pounds of chemicals on food without understanding their full health impacts or considering what little we do already know. It’s unconscionable,” he added.

A peer-reviewed study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found PFAS pesticides are increasingly contaminating waterways, posing potential threats to health.

Pesticides containing PFAS are used throughout the country on staple foods such as corn, wheat, kale, spinach, apples and strawberries. They are widely used for residential use in flea treatments for pets and in insect-killing sprays.

Health risks of PFAS exposure

Very low doses of PFAS have been linked to suppression of the immune system. Studies show exposure to PFAS can also increase the risk of cancer, harm fetal development and reduce vaccine effectiveness. 

Some of the most sensitive harms from PFAS are to the human immune system, such as weakened antibody response to vaccinations and increased risk of infectious disease. But since 2012 it has been common for the EPA to waive immunotoxicity study requirements for pesticides, which limits the agency’s ability to detect such harms. 

This means the EPA is missing key, not fringe, health effects when considering the harms of PFAS pesticide exposure in regulatory decisions.

States leading on regulation

Some states are stepping up where the federal government is failing to act. 

California – the nation’s “salad bowl” because of the huge amount of produce it grows that feeds Americans – is weighing a bill targeting the rampant use of the PFAS pesticides. Assembly Bill 1603 by Assemblymember Nick Schultz (D-Burbank) would monitor and report the use of PFAS pesticides in the state. EWG is co-sponsoring the bill, along with other health advocacy groups. 

The legislative push follows a damning EWG analysis of state data exposing the sheer scale of the contamination crisis across California:

• Contaminated produce: PFAS pesticide residues were detected on 37% of California-grown non-organic produce samples, including a staggering nine out of 10 samples of peaches, nectarines and plums.
• Polluted waterways: Mirroring the food data, PFAS pesticides were found in up to 50% of California surface water samples and roughly half of all tested sediment samples.
• Massive environmental footprint: Between 2018 and 2023 alone, mega-farms and local growers applied 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides across all 58 California counties.

What needs to happen now

EWG is calling on the EPA to reverse course immediately and stop approving new PFAS pesticides while the science of cumulative, low-dose exposure remains poorly understood. 

Specifically, regulators must:

• Halt new PFAS pesticide approvals until cumulative and immunotoxic risks are fully assessed.
• Mandate immunotoxicity testing for every PFAS active and inert ingredient, no more waivers.
• Treat persistence itself as grounds for regulation, regardless of a chemical’s individual toxicity profile.
• Assess cumulative impacts from the fluorinated byproducts shared across multiple pesticide products.
• Expand environmental and biomonitoring programs to cover all PFAS pesticides, not just a fraction.
• Require full disclosure of “inert” ingredients on all pesticide labels.
• End the practice of fluorinating plastic pesticide containers, a known contamination source.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Food & Water Farming & Agriculture Pesticides PFAS Chemicals California Agency’s decision brings total of PFAS pesticides to five greenlit in under two years    Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 July 2, 2026