Environmental Working Group - Know your environment. Protect your health.

Food-grade synthetic titanium dioxide contains a substantial fraction of nanoscale particles, and although systemic absorption after ingestion is low, absorbed titanium dioxide can distribute to tissues, and studies indicate that tissue elimination may be slow.

In its 2021 assessment of TiO₂, the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, expressed concern about immunotoxicity and inflammation, gastrointestinal effects and neurotoxicity. The EFSA concluded that a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out on the basis of evidence that TiO₂ particles can induce DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage.

Because of these findings and the remaining uncertainties, the EFSA concluded that TiO₂ could no longer be considered safe for use as a food additive (EFSA, 2021). Since TiO₂ is a food color additive, consumers can easily choose products without it.

Science analysis

What is titanium dioxide and why is it added to food?

Titanium dioxide is a synthetically produced white color additive used in some kinds of food to brighten its appearance, create a smooth finish, enhance whiteness and provide opacity for other food colors.

Where is titanium dioxide found in food?

Most commonly used in candy, titanium dioxide can also be found in salad dressing, chewing gum, ice cream, drink mixes and many other food categories.

It is used in 15,483 of the 172,081 foods added to EWG’s Food Scores between 2023 and 2025.

The 15 food categories with the most products containing titanium dioxide (by supermarket shelf)

^{Source: EWG’s Food Scores. Label created between January 2023 and October 2025}^.

What is the regulatory status of titanium dioxide?

In 1973, the Food and Drug Administration authorized titanium dioxide as a food color additive in certain types of food, as long as it does not exceed 1% of the food by weight. But particle size is not limited.

Because of recent safety reviews, in 2023 EWG and other NGOs petitioned the FDA to roll back approval of titanium dioxide.

Titanium dioxide was removed from the EU’s list of approved food additives in 2022 after a 2021 EFSA re-evaluation raised concerns about its potential genotoxicity.

A 2025 Arizona ban on the use of TiO₂ in food sold in schools took effect at the beginning of the 2026-2027 school year.

Are foods containing titanium dioxide ultra-processed?

TiO₂ and other color additives are common ingredients in ultra-processed food, or UPF. As an ingredient synthesized in a laboratory, it falls into the Nova framework as a UPF ingredient. (Monteiro et al 2019).

Under a recent California law defining UPF, food containing TiO₂ qualifies as UPF because of its property as a color and coloring adjunct (Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, 2025).

Is titanium dioxide allowed in organic foods?

Under Agriculture Department organic standards, synthetic substances are prohibited in certified organic foods.

What are the potential health harms associated with titanium dioxide?

Food-grade titanium dioxide contains a nanoscale fraction, and although systemic absorption after ingestion is low, absorbed particles may persist in tissues. EFSA found that TiO₂ particles can accumulate in the body and noted that nanoscale particles showed particularly long half-lives in animal studies (EFSA, 2021).

A study using the food additive TiO₂ in mice found accumulation of TiO₂ in the intestine and liver and evidence of an inflammatory response (Talamini et al., 2019). TiO₂ particles have also been detected in human placenta and meconium, and an ex vivo study using food-grade TiO₂ nanoparticles provided evidence of maternal-fetal transfer (Guillard et al., 2020).

Experimental studies have reported the potential effects of TiO₂, particularly nanoscale forms, on the gastrointestinal, immune, neurological, reproductive and developmental systems. The EFSA identified potential immunotoxicity and inflammation, neurotoxicity, and gastrointestinal effects, including indications that TiO₂ may induce aberrant crypt foci, or ACF, in the colon, a potential marker of preneoplastic change (EFSA, 2021; Bettini et al., 2017). Studies of food-grade TiO₂ nanoparticles have also reported alterations in intestinal microbial populations, brush border membrane functionality, and intestinal morphology (Cheng et al., 2023). But these findings have not been consistently reproduced, and the EFSA found no reproductive or developmental toxicity in its TiO₂ study (EFSA, 2021).

Evidence of the genotoxicity of TiO₂ remains mixed. The EFSA concluded that TiO₂ particles have the potential to cause DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage and that a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out (EFSA, 2021). A 2023 meta-analysis of 26 studies found that TiO₂ nanoparticles were associated with DNA and chromosomal damage in both in vivo and in vitro studies (Cao et al., 2023). In human intestinal cell models, exposure to digested TiO₂ nanomaterials also produced DNA damage, with some effects more pronounced after simulated digestion (Vieira et al., 2022).

In contrast, the World Health Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, or WHO/JECFA, concluded that the available data did not provide convincing evidence of genotoxicity, while noting limitations in current testing methods for poorly soluble particulate materials and nanoparticles (JECFA, 2023).

Uncertainties and where more research is needed

The genotoxicity of titanium dioxide remains uncertain. While the EFSA’s conclusions regarding the possible genotoxicity of TiO₂ leading to its EU ban raise concern, the WHO/JECFA could not make the same conclusions due to study limitations.

Since these assessments, studies have produced mixed findings, with some reporting DNA or chromosomal damage and others finding no evidence of genotoxicity.

Uncertainties remain regarding the mechanisms of potential genotoxic effects, the relevance of experimental findings to human exposure, and the potential genotoxic effects of nanoscale TiO₂ particles.

Human epidemiological evidence is also limited. The JECFA cautioned that available studies do not allow conclusions about associations between dietary TiO₂ exposure and human health effects.

Evidence for carcinogenicity from dietary exposure also remains uncertain. EFSA found no appropriately designed studies evaluating the carcinogenicity of TiO₂ nanoparticles. It observed that TiO₂ may induce ACF in the colon, but did not conclude TiO₂ causes cancer (EFSA, 2021).

The JECFA subsequently concluded that TiO₂ was not carcinogenic in adequately conducted two-year studies in mice and rats and also considered studies investigating the potential initiation or promotion of colon cancer (JECFA, 2023).

More details about titanium dioxide

An exposure analysis found titanium dioxide was most common in candy, chewing gum and other sweets, so children were more likely to consume more titanium dioxide than adults (Weir et al 2012).

In 2015, Dunkin’ announced it was phasing out titanium dioxide from the powdered sugar used on its doughnuts. In 2024 Mars removed titanium dioxide from Skittles sold in the U.S.

TiO₂ is also added to personal care products such as toothpaste and cosmetics and is used as an ultraviolet, or UV, filter in sunscreen products.

It is one of three active UV filters in the U.S. designed as generally recognized as safe and effective. Sunscreen products formulated with titanium dioxide have long appeared on EWG’s best lists. EWG recommends avoiding spray or powder products that contain titanium dioxide because of concerns about risks from inhaling nanoparticles and subsequent health effects.

Cited resources

Global health and regulatory agencies

EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings), 2021. Scientific Opinion on the safety assessment of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive. EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6585, 130 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6585
Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). (2023). Evaluation of certain food additives: Ninety-seventh report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (WHO Technical Report Series No. 1051). World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/jecfa-risk-assessment-of-titanium-dioxide-risk-released-background-information
Food and Drug Administration. (2024). Titanium dioxide as a color additive in foods. https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additives/titanium-dioxide-color-additive-foods

Comprehensive reviews and frameworks

Cao, Y., Chen, J., Bian, Q., Ning, J., Yong, L., Ou, T., Song, Y., and Wei, S. (2023). Genotoxicity Evaluation of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles In Vivo and In Vitro: A Meta-Analysis. Toxics, 11(11), 882. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11110882
Monteiro, C.A., Cannon, G., Levy, R.B., Moubarac, J., Louzada, M.L., Rauber, F., Khandpur, N., Cediel, G., Neri, D., Martinez-Steele, E., Baraldi, L.G., and Jaime, P.C. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936–941. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980018003762
Weir, A., Westerhoff, P., Fabricius, L., Hristovski, K., and Von Goetz, N. (2012). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles in food and personal care products. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(4), 2242–2250. https://doi.org/10.1021/es204168d

Legislation

Arizona Healthy Schools Act, H.B. 2164, 57th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (2025). https://legiscan.com/AZ/text/HB2164/2025
Real Food, Healthy Kids Act, A.B. 1264, Chapter 467, Cal. Stat. (2025). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1264.

Specific health impact studies

Bettini, S., Boutet-Robinet, E., Cartier, C., Coméra, C., Gaultier, E., Dupuy, J., Naud, N., Taché, S., Grysan, P., Reguer, S., Thieriet, N., Réfrégiers, M., Thiaudière, D., Cravedi, J.-P., Carrière, M., Audinot, J.-N., Pierre, F.H., Guzylack-Piriou, L., and Houdeau, E. (2017). Food-grade TiO₂ impairs intestinal and systemic immune homeostasis, initiates preneoplastic lesions and promotes aberrant crypt development in the rat colon. Scientific Reports, 7, 40373. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40373
Cheng, J., Kolba, N., García-Rodríguez, A., Marques, C.N.H., Mahler, G. J., and Tako, E. (2023). Food-grade metal oxide nanoparticles exposure alters intestinal microbial populations, brush border membrane functionality and morphology, in vivo (Gallus gallus). Antioxidants, 12(2), 431. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12020431
Guillard, A., Gaultier, E., Cartier, C., Devoille, L., Noireaux, J., Chevalier, L., Morin, M., Grandin, F., Lacroix, M. Z., Coméra, C., Cazanave, A., de Place, A., Gayrard, V., Bach, V., Chardon, K., Bekhti, N., Adel-Patient, K., Vayssière, C., Fisicaro, P., Feltin, N., de la Farge, F., Picard-Hagen, N., Lamas, B., and Houdeau, E. (2020). Basal Ti level in the human placenta and meconium and evidence of a materno-foetal transfer of food-grade TiO₂ nanoparticles in an ex vivo placental perfusion model. Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 17, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12989-020-00381-z
Talamini, L., Gimondi, S., Violatto, M.B., Fiordaliso, F., Pedica, F., Tran, N.L., Sitia, G., Aureli, F., Raggi, A., Nelissen, I., Cubadda, F., Bigini, P., and Diomede, L. (2019). Repeated administration of the food additive E171 to mice results in accumulation in intestine and liver and promotes an inflammatory status. Nanotoxicology, 13(8), 1087–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/17435390.2019.1640910
Vieira, A., Vital, N., Rolo, D., Roque, R., Gonçalves, L.M., Bettencourt, A., Silva, M.J., and Louro, H. (2022). Investigation of the genotoxicity of digested titanium dioxide nanomaterials in human intestinal cells. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 161, 112841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2022.112841

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: Titanium dioxide

Iris Myers — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 19:40:41 +0000

Dirty Dozen™ food chemicals: Titanium dioxide Iris Myers October 22, 2026

EWG’s recommendation

Avoid or limit foods containing titanium dioxide.

Titanium dioxide is a color additive used to brighten packaged foods. Food-grade titanium dioxide contains a large amount of nanoscale particles that can accumulate in the body.

In 2021, the European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, concluded titanium dioxide could no longer be considered safe as a food additive due to concerns about genotoxicity, inflammation and effects on the immune system and gut.

What is titanium dioxide?

Titanium dioxide is a synthetically produced white color additive. It’s used in some foods to brighten their appearance, enhance whiteness and provide opacity.

Which foods contain titanium dioxide?

Titanium dioxide is most commonly found in candy. It is also used in salad dressings, chewing gum, ice cream, drink mixes and other food.

Look for titanium dioxide in product ingredient lists, usually below or next to the Nutrition Facts panel, on the back of the package.

How is titanium dioxide regulated?

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for overseeing food additives and other ingredients. Titanium dioxide is allowed as a food color additive in the U.S. at up to 1% by weight of the food.

The European Union removed titanium dioxide from its approved food additives list in 2021, determining the chemical could no longer be considered safe for use in food. An Arizona law bans titanium dioxide in food sold in schools, beginning with the 2026-2027 school year.

Titanium dioxide is prohibited in certified organic foods under Department of Agriculture organic standards, which bar synthetic substances.

What does the science say about titanium dioxide?

The health risks of titanium dioxide are closely tied to particle size. Nanoparticles – those smaller than 100 nanometers – are generally more toxic than larger particles. Although food-grade titanium dioxide is not entirely nanoscale, a significant fraction of its particles fall within that range. These nanoparticles can accumulate in tissues, causing oxidative stress and cell damage.

A 2023 meta-analysis found titanium dioxide nanoparticles can cause significant DNA damage in both in vivo and in vitro models. The 2021 EFSA review reached the same conclusion, finding it could not rule out DNA or chromosomal damage.

By contrast, the World Health Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives maintains that as of 2023, the available evidence does not prove titanium dioxide is genotoxic. It isn’t completely clear how titanium dioxide nanoparticles cause genotoxicity, and evidence from studies conducted on humans is limited.

When titanium dioxide nanoparticles accumulate in the digestive tract of animals, they cause gut inflammation and damage to the intestinal lining. They can also cross the placental barrier, with animal studies linking prenatal exposure to developmental and neurological effects in offspring. Animal studies have also reported reproductive harm, including impaired sperm function and disrupted ovarian hormones.

Find out more

Learn more about recommendations relating to titanium dioxide – and the full EWG Dirty Dozen™ list of food chemicals – on EWG’s research page.

EWG’s Food Scores provides ratings for more than 150,000 foods and drinks based on nutrition, ingredients and processing concerns, and flags unhealthy ultra-processed foods to help you identify alternatives.

Titanium dioxide is also added to personal care products, including sunscreens, as a whitener and UV filter. EWG’s Skin Deep® database helps to identify harmful chemicals in personal care and beauty products. Those bearing the EWG Verified® mark meet the strictest criteria for transparency and health.

Titanium dioxide is safe when used on the skin as an ingredient in personal care products. It is classified as potentially hazardous if inhaled from sprays or loose powders, which permit titanium dioxide to reach deep into the lungs. EWG recommends avoiding titanium dioxide products that can be inhaled, such as spray sunscreens and loose powders.

EWG’s Healthy Living™ app lets you take these tools with you on the go.

Areas of Focus

Food

Ultra-Processed Foods

Food Chemicals

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

October 22, 2026

Atrazine taints tap water for millions – California says it causes cancer. EPA’s plan won’t fix it.

Anthony Lacey — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 18:24:59 +0000

Atrazine taints tap water for millions – California says it causes cancer. EPA’s plan won’t fix it. Anthony Lacey October 22, 2026

Three recent developments underscore the health threat posed by atrazine, one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S.

Earlier this month, California’s environmental health agency said it planned to list atrazine as a carcinogen.

A new analysis found roughly one-quarter of the miles of rivers and streams in the U.S. are contaminated by it at levels harmful to aquatic life.

And a separate study said the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed approach to curbing atrazine runoff would do little to resolve the contamination problem.

Prevalence and exposure

Agrochemical giant Syngenta’s atrazine is one of the most widely used herbicides in the U.S., with roughly 70 million pounds applied annually, primarily to cornfields across the Midwest.

Rain washes the chemical off farm fields and into nearby rivers, streams, lakes and groundwater. About 860,000 miles of rivers in the U.S. are contaminated with the weedkiller at levels that can harm aquatic life, according to a new analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity.

The problem isn’t limited to the Midwest. Atrazine is especially prevalent in five hot spots, including the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Okeechobee and Texas’ Gulf Coast. In the Chesapeake Bay, atrazine contaminates more than 5.5 million acres of the watershed at levels higher than those known to harm aquatic ecosystems.

The runoff also pollutes sources of drinking water for millions of Americans. Atrazine is consistently the most frequently detected crop chemical in tap water, according to EWG’s Tap Water Database, which shows that 2,055 water utilities in 36 states detected atrazine, affecting drinking water for about 40 million people.

Of those utilities, 479 in 18 states serving roughly 3 million people reported atrazine levels above EWG’s health guideline of 0.1 parts per billion, or ppb.

The EPA’s own monitoring data repeatedly show atrazine in Midwestern drinking water sources at levels that spike above EPA’s woefully inadequate legal atrazine tap water limit of 3 ppb.

What exposure can do to your health

A growing body of scientific research links atrazine exposure to serious health concerns, including reproductive and developmental harm, such as premature birth and low birth weight, as well as endocrine disruption, which can interfere with the body’s hormone systems.

More recent research has also raised concerns about the connection between atrazine exposure and an increased risk of cancer.

In 2025, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, classified atrazine as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” underscoring the urgent need for the EPA to reassess the chemical’s safety.

But the agency, parroting Syngenta’s talking points, dismissed IARC’s findings. It claimed the science shows exposure does not increase cancer risk.

Federal and state regulation

Set in 1991, the EPA’s outdated atrazine tap water standard fails to reflect the full body of scientific evidence accumulated over the past three decades.

EWG’s health guideline is 0.1 ppb to protect from harm to the developing fetus, harm to the reproductive system and hormone disruption.

A second recent peer-reviewed study by researchers with CBD, published in the Journal of Environmental Quality, concluded that the EPA’s proposed measures to curb atrazine runoff would do little to protect U.S. waterways from the herbicide. The agency in 2024 proposed a contamination-relief plan but is yet to finalize it.

The researchers estimated that just 1% of the 11,248 watersheds contaminated with atrazine would fall below the EPA’s threshold for concentrations that can harm aquatic ecosystems if the plan were implemented.

The CBD, the Center for Environmental Health and the Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network this month sued the Trump EPA for failing to establish Clean Water Act-required water quality criteria for the weedkiller.

The lawsuit comes just as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin considers whether to renew approval of atrazine for another 20 years.

The suit doesn’t seek a ban, but its outcome could eventually shape how states regulate herbicide runoff from farmland.

Recent California action may force the issue.

Earlier this month, the state’s EPA announced its intent to list atrazine as a carcinogen under the state’s Proposition 65 law.

Prop. 65 requires businesses to warn state residents about the health risks of exposure to certain chemicals. A conclusion by the state EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment carries weight among environment and safety advocacy experts.

Government action and inaction

Today more than 60 countries prohibit the use of atrazine. Yet it remains legal in the U.S. and widely applied to agricultural fields, despite widespread water contamination and mounting evidence of its potential harm to human health.

And given the Trump administration’s increasingly industry-friendly approach to pesticides, there is little reason for confidence that the review will result in meaningful restrictions.

The initial report from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again Commission explicitly acknowledged that atrazine “can cause hormone disruption and birth defects” in babies.

But even that limited recognition of the weedkiller’s health risks provoked an intense backlash from the pesticide industry. All references to atrazine and other crop chemicals were subsequently stripped from the final report.

Over the past year, the Trump EPA has approved more than five new pesticides containing “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, while President Donald Trump signed an executive order invoking the Defense Production Act to boost domestic production of glyphosate, the nation’s most widely used weedkiller.

Against this backdrop, the prospect of the EPA taking decisive action to curb atrazine’s use and protect public health remains uncertain.

The bottom line

The growing evidence of atrazine’s potential health risks, its widespread presence in drinking water and waterways, and its classification as probably carcinogenic to humans demand a serious response from federal regulators.

Rather than dismiss independent scientific findings and yield to pesticide-industry pressure, the Trump EPA should thoroughly reassess atrazine, establish more protective water-quality standards and put the health of families over the narrow financial interests of chemical corporations.

Americans should not have to wonder whether the water flowing from their taps contains a pesticide that likely causes cancer and developmental harm to children and that dozens of countries have banned.

What can consumers do to protect themselves?

While stronger federal safeguards are needed to protect everyone from atrazine and other drinking water contaminants, consumers can take steps to learn more about what is in their drinking water.

EWG’s Tap Water Database helps fill critical information gaps by allowing people to search by ZIP code for reports on contaminants detected in their local water supply, the levels found for each and the potential health risks in their drinking water.

The database also offers guidance on water filters that may help reduce contaminants detected in a user’s water supply, helping consumers identify options tailored to their local water-quality concerns.

Areas of Focus

Water

Farming & Agriculture

Guest Authors

Aspen Rosner (EWG communications intern)

October 22, 2026

EWG comments to HHS and FCC on radiofrequency radiation exposure limits

Anthony Lacey — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 14:15:51 +0000

EWG comments to HHS and FCC on radiofrequency radiation exposure limits Anthony Lacey October 22, 2026

Attached are EWG’s comments to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Communications Commission urging joint action to update radiofrequency radiation exposure limits to protect public health and children.

File Download

ewg_comments_to_hhs_and_fcc_october_2026.docx.pdf

Areas of Focus

Cell Phones

October 21, 2026

Best bang for your buck: Halloween edition

JR Culpepper — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 14:36:05 +0000

Best bang for your buck: Halloween edition JR Culpepper October 21, 2026

Finding the perfect finishing touch for your Halloween costume can be tricky, especially when you have to worry about spooky ingredients hiding in makeup and personal care products.

To make Halloween shopping a little simpler for you and your kids, we’ve rounded up lower-hazard options for eyeliner, mascara, hair gel and body art products, including fake blood, glitter and face paint. And what’s more, they’re all $20 or less.

Each product listed rates green on our Skin Deep® database, which identifies ingredients and potential health hazards in personal care products.

Some of the products below are EWG Verified®, which means they have been reviewed by our scientists to ensure they meet strict health and transparency standards and avoid EWG’s ingredients of concern.

Looking for even more options? Use our Healthy Living™ app on the go to scan any product and find out its hazard rating on Skin Deep. Or look for our EWG Verified mark on products at your favorite shop and online.

Mascara

ATTITUDE Oceanly Mascara + Serum, Blue

EWG Verified. Available for $20.58 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Maia's Mineral Galaxy Natural Mascara, Brown

EWG Verified. Available for $20.99 on Maia's Mineral Galaxy.

PURCHASE HERE

View details

The Honest Company Extreme Volume + Bold Lash Primer

EWG Verified. Available for $19.99 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View details

Well People Expressionist Pro Mascara, Pro Black

EWG Verified. Available for $20 on Well People.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details

Eyeliner

Rejuva Minerals Eye & Brow Pencil, Black Sapphire

EWG Verified. Available for $18.95 on Rejuva Minerals.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details

The Honest Company Vibeliner Pencil Eyeliner, Grounded

EWG Verified. Available for $15 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View Details

Well People Fresh Lines Liquid Eyeliner, Black

EWG Verified. Available for $12.60 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View Details

Maia's Mineral Galaxy Mineral Eye Liner, Twilight Green

EWG Verified. Available for $15.49 on Maias Mineral Galaxy.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details

Hair Gel

Fresh Monster Hair Styling Gel, Medium Hold

Rated 1. Available for $13.98 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View Details

Jozi Curls, Strong Hold Styling Gel, Style

Rated 1. Available for $5.99 on Jozi Curls.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details

Original Sprout Natural Styling Balm

Rated 1. Available for $16.99 on Amazon.

PURCHASE ON AMAZON

View Details

Made For Locs Vegan Retwisting Firm Hold Styling Hair Gel

Rated 1. Available for $9.97 on Amazon.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details

Miscellaneous

Black Moon Cosmetics Moon Diamond, Emerald Eclipse

Rated 1. Available for $17 on Emerald Eclipse.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details

Jovy Eyeshadow/Blush, Capri Gold

EWG Verified. Available for $12 on Jovy.

PURCHASE HERE

View Details

Areas of Focus

Personal Care Products

Cosmetics

Guest Authors

Aspen Rosner, Communications intern

October 21, 2026

Five problems with the FDA’s proposed food chemicals rule

Anthony Lacey — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 12:23:19 +0000

Five problems with the FDA’s proposed food chemicals rule Anthony Lacey October 21, 2026

A new EWG analysis finds a Food and Drug Administration proposed food chemicals rule update may represent more bark than bite – its “requirements” could be mandatory in name only, and worse, may weaken the current rule.

The FDA in August proposed to narrow a legal loophole in a food chemicals approval process that’s currently shrouded in mystery.

The food chemicals fall into the category of “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS.

The GRAS loophole allows food and chemical companies, rather than the FDA, to greenlight new food chemicals or new uses of those chemicals – often in secret. Since 2000, the food and chemical industry has greenlighted nearly 99% of food chemicals introduced onto the market without federal safety review, a 2025 EWG analysis found.

Under current law, a company gets to decide for itself whether to notify the FDA after deciding a food chemical is GRAS. Many choose not to inform the agency, leaving it – and consumers – in the dark about what’s in their food.

EWG has identified over 100 of these so-called “secret GRAS” chemicals used in thousands of products. The FDA estimates in the proposed rule that there could be thousands of these secret ingredients.

The FDA rule purports to take the secrecy out of GRAS by mandating companies tell it when they determine a new chemical or use is safe. But EWG’s analysis suggests the proposed rule is toothless and may weaken some existing requirements.

Here are five major problems with the FDA’s proposal.

1. Potentially unsafe chemicals can still go into food before FDA review

The FDA has said its proposed rule will end so-called secret GRAS notifications by requiring companies to notify it when they introduce a new ingredient.

But buried in the rule is a remarkable admission: “a company may reach a GRAS conclusion about a new use of a substance and introduce the substance into interstate commerce before submitting a GRAS notice.”

Worse, there’s no deadline for notifying the FDA. A chemical could be on the market indefinitely before the FDA gets involved. And it’s allowed to remain on the market while the FDA completes its review.

So even if the FDA decides in the end a chemical is not safe, consumers may have already been exposed for years.

2. No incentive to comply

What happens to a company that ignores the notification requirement? Not much, according to the rule.

It states that non-compliance is merely “a factor in FDA’s prioritization of food substances for post-market review.” It doesn’t lead to civil penalties or any requirement to pull the product from shelves.

The FDA’s post-market review program is chronically underfunded and notoriously slow. It took the FDA nearly 35 years to ban Red Dye No. 3 after determining in 1990 the dye causes cancer. The FDA banned brominated vegetable oil 50 years after first raising concerns about its safety. And petitions calling on the FDA to address potentially dangerous chemicals often languish for years.

With the agency sometimes taking decades to work its way through its watchlist, if it ever does, the threat of landing on that list is not a meaningful deterrent.

3. No data? No problem!

The proposed rule streamlines the review process for potentially thousands of chemicals and uses currently on the market. These are chemicals companies have secretly decided should be considered GRAS and never told the FDA about.

To qualify for this process, a company must submit basic information only, including, in addition to its name and its uses, details about how much of it was being used and proof it was being sold in food before the rule took effect.

What isn’t required: safety data. Scientific justification. Not even a short summary of why the company thinks the substance is safe.

The proposed rule states the FDA will post these submissions on a public list, but it also says appearing on the list “does not mean that the FDA has reviewed the GRAS status of the substance.”

How many secret GRAS chemicals or uses could benefit from this “streamlined” process? No one knows, but the FDA estimates it could receive more than 2,400 submissions from more than 900 companies through this track alone.

Some new substances – or new uses of substances already in our food – have never been reviewed by the FDA for safety. And under this rule, they wouldn’t have to be. They’d simply be registered.

This approach contrasts starkly with current law.

Today, when a company submits a notice to the FDA, it must include a list of all the data it relied on to conclude the chemical was safe. All that information must be of the “same quantity and quality of scientific evidence” as would be required by the more rigorous pre-market review process for food additives.

4. Creates perverse incentives to rush potentially unsafe ingredients onto store shelves

Any substance in the food supply before the rule’s effective date can use the streamlined no-safety-data process up to one year after the rule is finalized.

Finalizing a proposed rule can take years. The last time the FDA updated its GRAS process, through a rule proposed in 1997, it took the agency 19 years to finalize.

Now there’s a window when companies can introduce new chemicals – or use chemicals in new ways – by taking advantage of the shorter process.

The proposed rule effectively rewards companies for getting their product on the market quickly, before oversight begins. It gives companies a financial incentive to move quickly, skipping review rather than taking the time for careful scrutiny.

A rule intended to rein in the secret GRAS loophole process may accelerate the very behavior it was meant to stop.

5. Creates a major new loophole for minor amounts of new chemicals

The proposal also expands a fairly obscure exemption, as the Guardian recently reported.

Until recently, the “threshold of regulation” loophole applied only to food contact materials that might leach into food in tiny amounts – 0.5 parts per billion. Any chemical whose dietary exposure falls below that threshold and does not cause cancer is able to evade the normal review process.

Companies have exploited the rules to let some chemicals into the food supply. Perchlorate, a rocket fuel chemical that could harm children’s brain development, can be used in dry food packaging through the loophole.

The proposed rule would extend this exemption to substances added directly to food. That’s a major change.

The FDA’s cancer-centered approach to risk also ignores other important kinds of potential harm. For example, hormone-disrupting chemicals can cause damage at very low doses. So can chemicals that affect fetal development, harm the nervous system or suppress immune function.

The proposed loophole extension also fails to consider the total risk that might come from exposure to the same chemicals from other foods or from non-food sources like personal care products.

This new exemption could allow substances like flavor ingredients, enzymes, solvents, processing aids and fermentation byproducts to skip FDA review altogether.

What we need instead

The FDA’s proposal will not fix the problems with our food chemical review system. Congress can still step in to make our food safer.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) have introduced legislation that would go much further than the proposed rule. It would require pre-market review of new GRAS substances, mandate disclosure of important safety data, and give the FDA the resources it needs to complete the job.

These bills represent the kind of structural reform the GRAS system needs. EWG urges Congress to move the bills forward and calls on the FDA to strengthen its proposed rule.

States stepping up

In the meantime, states have stepped in to fill the FDA’s regulatory gaps. More than 30 states have introduced legislation to make our food safer. Food companies have responded by reformulating products.

New York recently passed a bill requiring companies to disclose their use of GRAS substances, which is awaiting the governor’s signature. Any federal action on food chemicals must preserve these important state protections.

EWG will continue to push for a food safety system that puts consumer health first – not one that creates the appearance of oversight while leaving the door open to unreviewed chemicals.

Areas of Focus

Food

Authors

Melanie Benesh

October 21, 2026

Ultra-processed food affects metabolism and brain activity, even with the same nutrients

Anthony Lacey — Fri, 16 Oct 2026 04:01:00 +0000

Ultra-processed food affects metabolism and brain activity, even with the same nutrients Anthony Lacey October 16, 2026

It’s not just poor nutrition that links ultra-processed food to health harms, a new study finds.

The body’s response is also determined by the amount of processing the food has gone through, which changes the way we get energy from food.

Researchers at Virginia Tech gave 32 study participants two different meals three days apart. The meals had the same amount of calories and nutrients, but one was ultra-processed and the other wasn’t.

Participants had a greater insulin response after eating the ultra-processed meal, meaning their bodies were working harder to regulate their blood sugar. Their brain activity also changed when they looked at pictures of ultra-processed foods, or UPF.

How the study measured UPF metabolism

In the study, published recently in Nature Metabolism, the researchers wanted to find out whether a meal of ultra-processed food would be metabolized, or used for energy, differently than a meal of minimally processed food.

The researchers designed two 300-calorie meals whose nutrition matched: They were nearly identical in calories, carbs, fat, fiber, protein, sodium and water content.

The ultra-processed meal included portions of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, deli turkey, veggie chips, instant mashed potatoes, cereal and a cookie. These foods are not always ultra-processed, but the brands used in this study were.

The minimally processed meal was made from banana, dried cranberries, cheese and egg.

Participants ate the meals three days apart. Before and after each meal, they entered a metabolic chamber – an airtight room that measures calories burned based on the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the chamber.

Researchers found that the ultra-processed meals led to higher insulin, the hormone that regulates blood sugar, and lower use of carbohydrates for energy.

How the study measured brain activity

The study also assessed whether the two meals would activate the brain in different ways.

Researchers later showed participants pictures of ultra-processed and minimally processed foods while they received a specialized brain scan called a functional MRI. Some of the food pictured was the same food used in the study’s meals.

One key finding: Ultra-processed food caused different responses in the area of the brain related to motivation and reward.

That might mean that, in addition to variations in how our bodies use food for energy, the ways the brain thinks about and values food fluctuates depending on how processed it is.

Science is showing that food processing can affect health

Some researchers say nutrition, not processing, makes ultra-processed food harmful to health. It’s true that ultra-processed foods are often high in added sugar and saturated fat, and low in beneficial nutrients like fiber and protein.

But this isn’t the first study to show that processing plays a role. In 2019, the first randomized controlled trial showed that an ultra-processed diet led to greater calorie intake and weight gain than a minimally processed diet – even when they had the same nutritional profile.

What’s more, many researchers who have critiqued the main classification system for ultra-processed food have received food industry funding.

What you can do

It’s not practical for most people to avoid all ultra-processed food – they’re widely available, affordable and appealing for consumers. Research has even shown that food companies took tips from the tobacco industry to create products with maximum pleasure and appeal.

The federal government has failed to regulate ultra-processed food. States like California are taking the lead, recently enacting a law establishing a “non-ultra-processed” label for foods sold in California stores.

Until change comes to your state, you can use EWG’s Food Scores, which rates more than 150,000 products on nutrition, ingredients and processing and flags UPF for you.

Shoppers on the go can also use EWG’s Healthy Living app to find non-UPF options at the grocery store.

Areas of Focus

Ultra-Processed Foods

Family Health

Authors

Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN

October 16, 2026

EWG, Consumer Reports: People demand stronger protections from pesticides

rcoleman — Wed, 14 Oct 2026 04:01:00 +0000

EWG, Consumer Reports: People demand stronger protections from pesticides rcoleman October 14, 2026

WASHINGTON – Consumers deserve to be protected from pesticides, and Congress should reject any pesticide legislation that fails to do so.

Today the Environmental Working Group and Consumer Reports unveiled their Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights to ensure that any federal pesticide legislation protects the public, including children.

Protect consumers from toxic pesticides

Consumers deserve to be protected from toxic pesticides – at home, at school and in the foods they eat. But current pesticide law leaves consumers exposed.

Tell Congress

Consumers too often lack basic information about pesticides used in their homes, communities and in food, and lack meaningful protections when those chemicals put their health at risk.

The Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights declares Americans’ right to:

Warnings on the products people bring into their homes, including the right to know whether a pesticide is linked to cancer and other health harms..
Know if a toxic pesticide that can make people sick is being sprayed nearby.
Know that the food people feed their children is subject to the toughest pesticide safety standards.
Expect that children are protected from toxic pesticides when they are at school or playing in local parks.
Expect that U.S. pesticide regulators will act quickly to review toxic pesticides when other nations ban them.
Be informed about where pesticides have been used, when they’ve been mishandled, and how much is being detected in Americans’ food and water.
Seek justice when pesticides have caused harm.

“Consumers deserve to know if the pesticides we bring into our homes or that have been sprayed nearby might make us sick,” said EWG Legislative Director Geoff Horsfield.

“We should be confident our children are safe when they’re at school and confident their food is subject to the toughest safety standards,” he added.

“Our current pesticide laws fall short of giving consumers the information and protections they need to protect their families,” said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports. “This Bill of Rights is a road map for making the food we eat and the communities we live in safer.”

The Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights addresses long-running gaps in pesticide protection.

Few states require farmers or commercial pesticide companies to publicly notify when they’re spraying these chemicals. Warnings on household pesticide products are often inadequate. And many pesticides found on food children commonly eat aren’t subject to the strictest safety standards.

Only a handful of states require buffers to protect kids at school from exposure to toxic pesticides, and standards vary regarding pesticides that can be used in school buildings or on school grounds.

Many pesticides used in the U.S. have been banned by other nations. But the EPA can take decades to restrict pesticides. Consumers also lack basic information about pesticide use, spills and detections on food and water.

Exacerbating an already problematic situation, the Supreme Court recently acted to limit access to the courts for people harmed by pesticides.

The Consumer Pesticide Safety Bill of Rights tackles many of these issues head-on – and lawmakers may soon have a chance to incorporate it into legislation.

Congress could consider renewing the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act as early as December. The current law, through which the chemical industry negotiates fees that fund EPA’s pesticide reviews, is set to expire next September.

“Congress should reject any new pesticide law that fails to protect consumers,” said Horsfield. “We should expect our kids to be safe from toxic pesticides. We deserve to know when pesticides could make us sick. And we should be able to seek justice in court when pesticides do make us sick.”

“The renewal of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act is a critical opportunity to deliver meaningful protections for Americans, including clearer warnings and greater transparency about where these chemicals are used and when they’re detected in our food and water,” said Ronholm.

###

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.

Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports (CR) has a mission to help build a fair and just marketplace for all. The nonprofit CR is widely known for its rigorous research, testing, and reviews of thousands of products and services. CR advocates for consumer rights and protections, reports extensively on consumer issues, and surveys millions of people every year. CR is nonpartisan and independent, and it accepts no advertising. Learn more at www.consumerreports.org

Areas of Focus

Family Health

Children’s Health

Pesticides

‘Bill of Rights’ seeks to protect consumers as Congress weighs federal pesticide policy law

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

October 14, 2026

EWG statement on California announcing clean energy milestone during 'extreme' heat

Anthony Lacey — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 17:18:07 +0000

EWG statement on California announcing clean energy milestone during 'extreme' heat Anthony Lacey October 13, 2026

SACRAMENTO – California Gov. Gavin Newsom today announced that the state’s power grid met the highest demand for electricity in four years.

The peak demand on the grid, due to “extreme” heat, was on par with the peaks of 2006 and 2017. It was met without having to conserve energy or take emergency steps.

The Environmental Working Group recently released a report finding climate change is driving up “major” and “extreme” heat advisories between 30% and 145% in parts of the state. Yet soaring electricity costs make home cooling unaffordable for millions, threatening public health.

This dynamic creates an impossible choice for many Californians struggling with affordability: Suffer during hazardous heat or default on electricity bills.

EWG is calling for policymakers to find solutions that tackle both the heat and utility bills.

One step is doing more to expand consumer access to distributed generation devices, such as rooftop solar or balcony solar, that can help power electricity-hungry air conditioners more cost-effectively and without contributing to climate change or adding strain to the electric grid.

Newsom last month signed into law an EWG-backed measure that will significantly expand access to balcony solar for millions of Californians. The state needs to take similar actions to continue to lower costs and expand access to solar energy.

The following is a statement from Bernadette Del Chiaro, EWG’s senior vice president, California:

California kept the lights on – but could consumers afford to run their AC?
With the help of even the smallest solar energy systems, such as balcony solar, millions of California families are turning toward the sun to achieve greater energy affordability and beat the heat with solar-powered AC.
California should do more to ease restrictions on customer-sited solar energy, lower upfront costs, and put local solar energy devices in the hands of everyone.

###

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

Renewable Energy

California

Grid met highest electricity demand in four years without emergency measures

Press Contact

Alex Formuzis

alex@ewg.org

(202) 667-6982

October 13, 2026

Study: Hundreds of chemicals linked to breast cancer in lab and animal studies in high use in the U.S.

Anthony Lacey — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 04:01:00 +0000

Study: Hundreds of chemicals linked to breast cancer in lab and animal studies in high use in the U.S. Anthony Lacey October 13, 2026

Breast cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosis among women and cases are on the rise. Anyone can get breast cancer – but it’s most common in women.

A new peer-reviewed study looks at where Americans are exposed to chemicals that may contribute to that rise. Published in Environmental Health Perspectives, the analysis found that hundreds of chemicals tied to breast cancer risk in animal and laboratory studies turn up in everyday products, food, drinking water, pesticides and air pollution.

It was led by scientists at the Silent Spring Institute, with co-authors from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of California, San Francisco.

EWG's Guide to Safer Drinking Water

Reduce your exposures to common drinking water pollutants with EWG's handy tipsheet!

In this study, the researchers found breast-cancer-relevant chemicals in consumer products, food, drinking water and drinking water supplies, pesticide products, medications and building materials.

Many of the chemicals are produced in large amounts. In 2019 alone, 143 were made in or imported to the U.S. in volumes of 1 million pounds or more.

A 2024 analysis by the same authors identified 920 chemicals that caused mammary gland tumors in animal studies or changed hormone activity in ways linked to breast cancer. This study tells us where we could potentially be exposed to those chemicals.

Breast-cancer-relevant chemicals

In their 2024 study, the Silent Spring researchers created the list of 920 chemicals they call breast-cancer-relevant chemicals. A chemical made the list if it did at least one of the following:

Caused mammary gland tumors in rats or mice in at least one study.
Increased estrogen or progesterone production in lab tests using human cells.
Activated the estrogen receptor, the switch inside cells that responds to estrogen.

The researchers also checked whether each chemical can damage DNA, another way chemicals can lead to cancer. Many chemicals on the list do more than one of these things. Chemicals with strong hormone effects that also damage DNA were the most likely to cause mammary tumors in animals.

Presence on this list is not proof that a chemical causes breast cancer in people. It flags chemicals that need more research, especially when many of us are exposed to them every day.

What the authors found

The team combined data from more than a dozen federal databases that track how chemicals are produced, used, released into the environment and measured in people.

Some of the chemicals are well known, including bisphenol A, better known as BPA, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, the solvent dichloromethane and parabens. Others, such as p-cresol and 2,4-dimethylphenol, have received much less attention.

Federal biomonitoring data show many of these chemicals, or the compounds they break down into, are in almost all people. The “breakdown products” of methylparaben, the sunscreen active ingredient oxybenzone, several phthalates and certain pesticides were detected in more than 95% of people tested.

Industrial facilities reported releasing nearly 82 million pounds of these chemicals into the air, water and land in 2024. When the researchers included all sources of air pollution, such as vehicles, wildfires and the burning of fossil fuels, estimated emissions topped 2 billion pounds in 2020.

Consumer products

Most of the breast cancer chemicals, about 500, were present in the consumer products category. Of those, 181 are also hormone disruptors and 88 are genotoxic, meaning they can damage cellular genetic material, which can lead to mutations or cancer.

Among these commonly used ingredients in personal care products are chemicals like parabens, phthalates and bisphenols.

Also on the list are ingredients in hair dyes like resorcinol and p-phenylenediamine, which causes mammary tumors in animal studies. They can also damage DNA and increase production of estrogen and progesterone in lab tests.

Studies have linked hair dye use to breast cancer risk.

Prescription skin-lightening creams can contain hydroquinone, which also increased estrogen and progesterone production in lab tests. The researchers note these products are more likely to be used by women of color, which could add to existing disparities in exposure.

Pesticide products

The study also highlighted pesticide products as an important source of exposure to breast cancer chemicals. People can be exposed to pesticides in multiple ways, including as residues on produce and in drinking water. Pesticides may also be found in products in the home, such as insect repellents, medical treatments and pest control.

The study reported 485 chemicals found in pesticide formulations. But the authors point out that only about one-third of them are currently registered with the Environmental Protection Agency as active ingredients.

In most cases, before a pesticide can be sold, the EPA requires extensive toxicity testing of its active ingredients, including long-term studies of whether they cause cancer.

The other chemicals are classified as inert ingredients – solvents, preservatives and other chemicals that help a product work. Inert ingredients do not require tests as stringent as those for active ingredients. Only sometimes they are required to be on product labels. This means people using these products usually can’t tell which inert ingredients they contain.

Using national biomonitoring data collected between 2017 and 2020, the study reported that organophosphate pesticides (like malathion, which is commonly used on crops) were found in more than 90% of the U.S. population.

This finding adds to existing concerns about widespread “forever chemicals” PFAS pesticide use, including mixtures of pesticide classes frequently detected on produce.

Food and water

The researchers report 462 of these chemicals in food. Of these, 83 are on the Food and Drug Administration’s list of substances added to food, which means they are expected to be there. The others may be present as contaminants that migrate from packaging and processing equipment or be present as contaminants for other reasons, such as pesticide residues.

Others are chemicals formed when meat is cooked at high temperatures and some, such as soy compounds, occur naturally in plants.

People who rely more on packaged and ultra-processed foods may face higher exposure to chemicals from food additives and packaging.

The authors also reported 162 breast-cancer-relevant chemicals, such as pesticides and industrial solvents, likely to be present in drinking water.

Some chemicals form as byproducts when drinking water is disinfected. These disinfection byproducts, or DBPs, emerge when disinfectants such as chlorine react with naturally occurring organic matter in water.

Some DBPs have been linked to cancer and other health concerns.

Among the pesticides linked to breast cancer and reported present in drinking water, 50 have current registrations, but 37 no longer have a current EPA registration.

The data source the authors used to identify chemicals in drinking water, the EPA’s CPDat, reports only whether a chemical has been found in drinking water. It does not report where or how much of it was found or when the detection occurred.

Pharmaceuticals

The researchers also found 142 breast-cancer-relevant chemicals in medications sold in the U.S. Most of the active ingredients fall into a few groups: hormone treatments, chemotherapy drugs, treatments for infections and parasites, anti-inflammatory drugs and blood pressure medications.

This does not mean you should stop taking medication. Many of these drugs treat serious conditions, and some, like hormone therapies, have been shown to interact with the hormone system because they have been designed for that purpose.

Totality of exposures

The study highlights the widespread occurrence of breast-cancer-relevant chemicals. People are not just exposed to one chemical at a time. They’re exposed to hundreds of chemicals from multiple sources over the course of their lives. Even if most are at low levels, exposures add up.

The national biomonitoring data cited in the study show how common these combined exposures are. Research shows that exposure to chemical mixtures, or multiple chemicals that can add up or sometimes interact together to multiply each other’s effects, creates a total health risk that is measurably more harmful than those from the chemicals acting alone.

And in most cases, regulations for chemicals do not take cumulative exposures into account.

What you can do to reduce exposure

Check EWG’s resources for safer products. Use our Healthy Living App, Skin Deep® and Guide to Healthy Cleaning and look for products with low hazard scores or our EWG Verified® mark.
Invest in a home water filter for improving water quality. Consult the EWG Tap Water Database to find out what’s in your water. EWG’s water filter guide can help you find the right filter for your budget. Shop organic, when possible, to reduce pesticide exposure. Consult the EWG Shopper’s Guide Pesticides in Produce™ to find out which fruits and vegetables have the highest and lowest pesticide residues, so you can make the best decisions for your family. And see EWG’s Guide to Washing Produce.
If you have questions about a medication, especially if you have a history or higher risk of breast cancer, talk with your doctor or pharmacist before making changes.

Other actions you can take

Know your family history. If possible, find out whether anyone in your family has had breast cancer. Some genes with mutations increase risk of developing this type of cancer.
Get screened early. Preventive procedures such as regular breast cancer screenings are important to detect breast cancer early, which can also make it easier to treat. As of 2026, experts suggest screening for breast cancer starting at age 40.

Areas of Focus

Authors

Alexa Friedman, Ph.D.

October 13, 2026