States Are Cracking Down on Toxic Food Chemicals — Is Yours One of Them?
When President Donald Trump took office for the second time on January 20, he and his administration took up the task of deleting entire web pages and health information from federal databases — along with axing two critical food safety groups. So it's been difficult to track what's gone, what's changed, and what's potentially new, including when it comes to food laws around the nation. However, there is one wildly useful tool for those looking to stay up to date on how the food they eat may be changing in their state at any given time: an interactive map that tracks food bills across the nation.
"Thousands of chemicals are allowed for use in food sold in this country, and while most of these are likely safe to eat, some have been linked to serious health harms," Iris Myers, the senior communications manager at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), shared with Food & Wine. As Myers added, more than 30 states have introduced individual bills aimed at banning certain chemicals after becoming "frustrated by the federal inaction," which led to EWG creating the handy tracker so you can see where all that legislation stands.
"We created our interactive map in 2024 to help track the progress of this state-level legislation and make it easy for consumers to find information on these important bills," Myers said.
The map was last updated on February 27, though the group is currently working to update it within the next few days and keep it updated weekly moving forward.
Right now, the tracker has 40 active bills up on the board, including New York's Senate Bill S1239A, aka the "Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act," which aims to prohibit "certain food additives and food color additives" and "enforce compliance, the recognition by the federal food and drug administration of any of these substances as safe may not be alleged as a defense; establishes requirements for the reporting of GRAS (generally recognized as safe) substances."
Related: The FDA Just Officially Banned Red Dye No. 3 — Here's What to Expect
It also includes Oklahoma's Senate Bill 4, which aims to prohibit the "use of certain substances in food products, authorizing the State Board of Agriculture to issue certain orders for violation." The bill, authored by state Sen. Kristen Thompson, seeks to ban 21 chemicals, including red dye 40, brominated vegetable oil, and aspartame, a common sweetener in diet sodas.
Many of the bills are also taking aim at the same chemicals, including 22 bills mentioning red dye 40, nine hoping to regulate titanium dioxide (found in everything from gum to pastries), 16 with brominated vegetable oil, and five looking to regulate PFAS — aka forever — chemicals.
"Until the FDA takes action, states should continue to take measures to protect their consumers from these toxic food chemicals," Myers shared.
And while you wait for the FDA or your state to take action, the EWG noted you can always "Consult EWG's Food Scores database to find products that don't use toxic food chemicals like the ones included in these state bills or to try to "choose packaged foods that are certified organic, whenever possible. These products must meet strong standards that protect consumers from exposure to potentially harmful additives." See the complete list of bills and track what's happening in your state at ewg.maps.arcgis.com
Read the original article on Food & Wine
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
30 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Why Trump's Deployment Of Military in California Is So Controversial
President Donald Trump ordered the California National Guard on June 7 to dispatch at least 2,000 soldiers to the Los Angeles area as thousands of people demonstrating against immigration raids clashed with security forces. After vandalism and violence broke out, the Pentagon escalated the federal response by also mobilizing 700 active-duty Marines. The president said on his Truth Social platform that federal agencies were to take 'all such action necessary' to stop what he called 'migrant riots.' The rare move by a president to mobilize military forces to quell domestic unrest was quickly condemned as unnecessary and counterproductive by local authorities, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump is acting like an authoritarian; California's crisis now rests on what he does next
Donald Trump is talking and acting like an authoritarian as he escalates a constitutional clash with California over his migration crackdown. Much now depends on whether he's simply talking tough or if he's ready to take an already-tense nation across a fateful line in his zeal for strongman rule. In a mind-boggling moment, on Monday, the president of the United States — the country seen as the world's top steward of democracy for 80 years — endorsed the arrest of the Democratic governor of the nation's most populous state. 'I think it would be a great thing,' Trump, the only convicted felon ever to serve as president, told reporters as he strode across the South Lawn of the White House. Later, Trump deployed hundreds of active-duty Marines to Los Angeles and authorized the arrival of 2,000 more National Guard reservists after a weekend of unrest that saw clashes with police and burning cars in contained areas of the city. The protests were triggered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps seeking undocumented migrants in a city and state that are epicenters of Democratic power. California and Los Angeles officials reject Trump's claims that they have lost control. On Monday evening, law enforcement officers pushed back demonstrators throwing projectiles with flash bangs. Trump's decision to deploy troops despite the opposition of California Gov. Gavin Newsom represented the latest example of his willingness to flex extraordinary executive power — often on questionable grounds — and marked a break with a first term when he was often talked out of his extreme impulses by establishment officials. For all Trump's multiple previous challenges to the rule of law and democracy, a grave new chapter may be opening. 'The president is forcibly overriding the authority of the governor and mayor and using the military as a political weapon. This unprecedented move threatens to turn a tense situation into a national crisis,' Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said on Monday evening. 'Since our nation's founding, the American people have been perfectly clear: we do not want the military conducting law enforcement on US soil,' Reed said in a statement. California Democratic Rep. Nanette Barragán, whose district encompasses Paramount, just south of Los Angeles, condemned Trump's mobilizations of troops that she said were not justified by the situation. 'This is where I think this is a sign of a dictator,' she told CNN's Jake Tapper. 'And the threat he is making against the governor to arrest him — I mean come on — that is pretty outrageous.' Top Trump administration officials are throwing around words like 'insurrection.' Not surprisingly, many observers have taken such rhetoric as a sign the White House is prepared to invoke the Insurrection Act — a law that would allow the president to activate troops to put down a rebellion in a state. There is no such revolt in California. Trump's claims on Monday that his swift action stopped Los Angeles being obliterated are also not true. The president's border czar Tom Homan, meanwhile, told CNN's Kaitlan Collins that claims by Democratic officials that protests intensified because Trump sent National Guard troops were 'ridiculous.' Joining 'The Source' from Los Angeles, Homan said, 'It all depends on the activities of these protesters— I mean, they make the decisions.' Protesters gathered in large numbers in Los Angeles on Monday night, raising the prospect of another cycle of tension and uncertainty. The trajectory of the crisis could now turn on whether Trump follows through on his dictator's theatrics by crossing lines not approached by modern presidents — notably on the use of troops in a law enforcement capacity. It may also rely on the restraint of protesters, who would play into Trump's hands by taking part in more unrest that creates alarming television pictures that can fuel Trump's dystopian rhetoric. Creating or escalating a law-and-order crisis or threat to public security and then using it to justify the use of the military on domestic soil would mirror the methodology of tyrannical leaders throughout history. And hopes of restraint are hardly supported by Trump's second term so far. The president has, for instance, invoked highly contentious national emergencies on immigration and trade to unlock rarely used executive powers with no pushback from the Republican Congress. He's used presidential authority against what he regards as centers of liberal authority and influence: at Ivy League universities, in the federal government and in the media. And even in his breakup with erstwhile DOGE chief Elon Musk last week, Trump threatened yet another abuse of power by cancelling federal subsidies for the SpaceX boss's firms. The administration is spoiling for a fight as it lays down a marker in California for other Democratic states where leaders are loath to cooperate with Trump's deportation purge. It obviously also perceives a political advantage in the president positioning himself as the guardian of public order in a way that allows Republicans to accuse Democrats of defending softer immigration enforcement. But as ever with Trump, there's a question as to whether he's serious with his threats or is staking out an extreme position to please his voters or even to create some perceived leverage for himself. Homan, for instance, told CNN's Collins that Newsom had 'absolutely not' done anything at this point to justify his arrest. And North Dakota Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer adopted the classic GOP line that not everything that the president says should be taken literally when asked about administration threats to detain Newsom. 'You guys could ask every day if I am comfortable with what he said. He hasn't arrested him. I can't imagine that he is going to arrest Gavin Newsom,' Cramer told CNN's Manu Raju. Cramer also voiced the view of many Republicans that, far from behaving like an authoritarian, Trump is rightfully addressing failures by Democratic leaders on immigration policy and public order. 'There's no question about it: Places like California have thumbed their noses at the American people and decided they want to be sanctuary for criminals,' Cramer said. So far, National Guard reservists mobilized by the president over the head of a state governor for the first time since the Civil Rights era in the 1960s have mostly been used to defend federal buildings in Los Angeles. While the announcement of a deployment of Marines to the city was superficially alarming, their orders prohibit them from conducting law enforcement activities like making arrests without Trump invoking the Insurrection Act. The Marines are expected to be used to bolster National Guard members on the ground while up to 2,000 reservists are mobilized. CNN's Evan Perez, meanwhile, reported on Monday evening that while officials like top White House aide Stephen Miller have been talking about an 'insurrection,' administration lawyers have been working to craft a much less confrontational way of protecting the federal government's ability to carry out immigration enforcement, hoping to avoid further inflaming the situation, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions. This may all signify that the president is not yet ready to push the nation toward an unprecedented authoritarian cliff — even if his personal history, not least over January 6, 2021, suggests that in the heat of the moment he often takes the most reckless course. And Trump may be playing with fire in a city and state where anger over his wild four-month-old presidency is boiling. By inserting troops into such a volatile and tense environment, he's opening the possibility that flashpoints could ignite and even that tragic circumstances could unfold. But then again, maybe that's the point, if the president is seeking a predicate to deploy active-duty troops on the streets of American cities. Another troubling omen is that Newsom — who, like Trump, relishes public fights — has no incentive to cave to the man he would like to replace as president in 2029. Newsom, for example, wrote on social media on Monday that the president was deploying another 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, even though only 300 from his initial 2,000-strong contingent had so far arrived in the city. 'This isn't about public safety. It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego,' the governor said. 'This is Reckless. Pointless. And Disrespectful to our troops.' The state has sued the administration over that initial call-up of reservists. State Attorney General Rob Bonta called Trump's federalization of the state's National Guard troops 'unnecessary, counterproductive, and most importantly, unlawful.' The suit created yet another legal morass around one of Trump's most aggressive power grabs. California has now lodged 24 lawsuits against the administration in 19 weeks. With every day that passes in the California public order crisis, the political incentives seem to be driving toward more confrontation rather than a peaceful resolution. But ultimately it's up to Trump how this ends.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Afghans in Northern Virginia react to first day of travel ban
ALEXANDRIA, Va. () — Monday marks the first day of President Donald Trump's latest travel ban, which includes mostly African and Middle Eastern countries. Over the past few years, thousands of Afghan refugees have come to the D.C. area. Afghanistan is now on that travel ban list. Can you still visit the countries listed under Trump's travel ban? At the Afghan Market in Alexandria, people who spoke with DC News Now discussed a level of disappointment at the ban. 'We are disappointed about the travel ban, especially for those Afghan allies that they left behind,' said Farid Younsei, who lives in Virginia. Younsei said many in the Afghan community in Northern Virginia came to the U.S. during mass evacuations once the Taliban took over, but not all of their family members joined them. 'Most of them are in neighboring countries, like in Pakistan, and in Qatar, and in United Arab Emirates,' he said. Those family members left behind are the people on the minds of those who spoke about the travel ban. 'I kinda worry about them because one day, or maybe another day, they're going to figure it out about them — that they used to work with the embassy, or used to work with the government. And your life would be in danger. 100%,' Fertaos Bakhshi, of Alexandria, said. Trump's rationale for the travel ban is public safety. 'We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm,' the president said in a video on social media. International students confused, anxious about their futures under second Trump term At the market in Alexandria, there's a feeling that the ban can harm those looking for a better and safer life. 'If you compare Afghanistan to United States, it means like you compare hell to paradise,' Bakhshi said. 'The bad and good, now the immigrants, they're getting mixed with each other. So it's kind of difficult to separate them.' The leader of a local organization supporting newly arriving Afghan refugees tells DC News Now it's important to note that the U.S. government is continuing to issue special immigrant visas and is allowing the recipients of the SIVs and their families to travel. However, they also expressed that one of the most significant concerns is that it takes away some of the different tools to help reunite families who have been separated during the initial evacuation, or later due to the visa process. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
