May, 19 2022, 11:32am EDT

FDA Allows Hormone-Disrupting Phthalates in Food Packaging
WASHINGTON
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today denied petitions submitted by health and environmental advocates in 2016 to ban phthalates from food packaging and food production equipment. Studies show that these toxic petrochemicals leach into food and drinks, causing serious harm to human health. Today's decision allows for phthalate contamination of food and drinks--ranging from infant formula to meat, milk, spices, and cooking oils--to continue, despite the fact that Congress determined more than a decade ago that several of these chemicals are too dangerous to use in children's toys. At the same time, FDA acknowledged that its safety assessment for food-contact uses of phthalates is out of date and requested new information from the public.
Phthalates interfere with hormone-regulated processes in the body and are linked to a range of health harms including birth defects, infertility, miscarriage, breast cancer, diabetes, and asthma. Phthalates also harm the developing brain, leading to reduced IQ and attention and behavior disorders in children. Babies and young children are most vulnerable to harm from phthalates and suffer the greatest exposure. People of color in all age groups, as well as economically insecure people, also face higher risks of serious health problems from exposure to phthalates compared to the general population. Safer substitutes for these chemicals are readily available.
"FDA's decision recklessly green-lights ongoing contamination of our food with phthalates, putting another generation of children at risk of life-altering harm and exacerbating health inequities experienced by Black and Latina women," said Earthjustice attorney Katherine O'Brien. "FDA's announcement that it will now start reviewing new data on phthalate safety--six years after advocates sounded the alarm--is outrageous and seeks to sidestep FDA's legal duty."
Federal law prohibits the use of chemical additives in food or food-contact materials, unless the available scientific evidence establishes that the additives are safe, taking into account the cumulative effect of all related chemicals in the diet. FDA is charged with implementing this mandate by evaluating new food additives and reviewing the safety of additives already on the market when new evidence shows that they are not safe.
Given the well-established--and growing--body of studies linking phthalate exposure through food and drinks to serious health harms, a coalition of advocacy groups submitted two related petitions asking FDA to ban phthalates as food additives in March 2016. Despite a legal mandate to make a final decision on the principal petition within 180 days, FDA sat on the petition for years. Advocates sued FDA in federal court in December 2021, forcing the agency to finally make a decision.
FDA today also granted a plastics industry petition to revoke federal approval for multiple phthalates added to food packaging and processing equipment based on industry assertions that those uses have been abandoned. But FDA's decisions leave multiple phthalates--including substances with the most well-developed body of scientific evidence demonstrating their toxic effects--on the market. In addition to food and drinks, phthalates can be found in personal care products, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, cleaning products, building materials, and other consumer products. The cumulative exposure that people experience to multiple phthalates from numerous sources increases their risk of health harms.
The 2016 petitions were submitted by Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Clean Water Action, Consumer Federation of America, Improving Kids' Environment, Learning Disabilities Association of America, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, and Natural Resources Defense Council. Defend Our Health and Alaska Community Action on Toxics joined the litigation to force FDA action on the petitions after years of delay.
Quotes from our clients:
"We submitted these petitions in 2016. The law required a decision several years ago. FDA's failure to act until they were sued is consistent with its broader failings laid bare by Politico last month," said Tom Neltner, Senior Director, Safer Chemicals for the Environmental Defense Fund. "Despite the extra time, FDA has continued to ignore the widespread contamination of food by ortho-phthalates and related chemicals in our food and the cumulative effect these chemicals have on children's health. It's outrageous that FDA decided chemicals banned from children's toys should remain in the food we eat. Families deserve better from FDA."
"Phthalates which put children at risk for lifelong learning challenges, ADHD and lower IQ don't belong in our food supply," said Tracy Gregoire, Director of the Healthy Children Project at the Learning Disabilities Association of America. "FDA has the power and the responsibility to protect children's brain health but is once again failing to protect our children."
"For too long, the FDA has largely remained on the sidelines as concerns have mounted over phthalates in food, exposing all of us to unnecessary risk, especially infants, young children, and Black and Latina women," said Dr. Peter G. Lurie, president of Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). "With today's decision, the FDA is signaling its intent to remain planted on the sidelines, prolonging an already protracted and profound environmental injustice. I fear it's a decision the agency will come to regret as we learn even more about the adverse health impacts of these discredited chemicals on vulnerable members of our society."
"FDA has failed the public by ignoring the growing evidence of phthalates' harmful effects on our health," said Kristina Sinclair, associate attorney at Center for Food Safety. "The agency's refusal to listen to the science and ban phthalates from our food supply will have significant, detrimental health effects on women, children, and other vulnerable populations for years to come."
"We are deeply disappointed with this decision and FDA's continued failure to safeguard public health," said Sue Chiang, Food Program Director at the Center for Environmental Health. "For years we have asked the FDA to ban phthalates in food packaging and food-production materials. We know phthalates migrate into food, and we are particularly concerned about their harmful effects on vulnerable populations like babies and children."
"For far too long, the FDA has failed to protect American families from toxic chemicals in our food; and this decision is yet another example of that failure. As 1 in 8 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime (causing over 44,000 U.S. deaths per year), the FDA must do better to keep breast-cancer linked, toxic ingredients like phthalates out of our food," said Lisette van Vliet, Senior Policy Manager for Breast Cancer Prevention Partners.
"It's inexcusable that the FDA is continuing to allow some of the same chemicals prohibited for use in children's toys over a decade ago to still be in direct contact with our families' food," said Patrick MacRoy, Deputy Director of Defend Our Health. "Fortunately, states, including Maine and Vermont, along with many leading food manufacturers, have already taken action to start reducing our exposure to phthalates in packaging. The fact that the FDA will not just demonstrates how incredibly broken chemical regulation at the agency is."
"The decision of FDA to deny the petitions is unconscionable and flies in the face of the Administration's commitment to environmental justice and science. We know that these chemicals can harm our children and future generations and that our Indigenous Peoples face a disproportionate burden. Environmental justice demands that federal agencies end the cumulative impacts of toxic chemical exposures in our communities." said Margaret Yellow Wolf Tarrant, environmental justice organizer with Alaska Community Action on Toxics.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Military Budget Bill Would Ramp Up Israel Aid to Fill In 'Gaps' When Other Countries Impose Embargoes Over Genocide
The House Armed Services Committee said in September that the measure "combats antisemitism."
Dec 09, 2025
A little-reported provision of the latest military spending bill would direct the US to create a plan to fill the "gaps" for Israel whenever other nations cut off arms shipments in response to its acts of genocide in Gaza.
As Prem Thakker reported Monday for Zeteo, the measure is "buried" more than 1,000 pages into the more than 3,000-page National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which is considered by lawmakers to be “must-pass" legislation and contains a record $901 billion in total spending.
Republicans are shepherding the bill through the US House of Representatives, where—as is the case with most NDAAs—it is expected to pass on Wednesday with Democratic support, even as some conservative budget hardliners refuse to back it, primarily over its $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine.
Since the genocide began following Hamas' attack on October 7, 2023, the US has provided more than $21.7 billion to Israel, including hundreds of millions that have been supplied through NDAAs.
The new NDAA includes at least another $650 million to Israel, an increase of $45 million from the previous one, even though this is the first such bill to be introduced since the "ceasefire" that went into effect in October. This aid from the Pentagon comes on top of the $3.3 billion already provided through the State Department budget.
But this NDAA also contains an unprecedented measure. It calls for the “continual assessment of [the] impact of international state arms embargoes on Israel and actions to address defense capability gaps."
The NDAA directs Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to assess “the scope, nature, and impact on Israel’s defense capabilities of current and emerging arms embargoes, sanctions, restrictions, or limitations imposed by foreign countries or by international organizations,” and “the resulting gaps or vulnerabilities in Israel’s security posture.”
As Drop Site News explains, "this means the US would explicitly use federal law to step in and supply weapons to Israel whenever other countries cut off arms to halt Israel’s ongoing violations across the region."
"The point of this assistance, to be clear, is to make up for any identified insufficiencies Israel may have due to other countries' embargoing it as a result of its ongoing genocide in Palestine," Thakker wrote.
A similar provision appeared in a September version of the NDAA, which the House Armed Services Committee praised because it supposedly “combats antisemitism"—explicitly conflating a bias against Jewish people with weapons embargoes that countries have imposed to stop Israel from continuing its routine, documented human rights violations in Gaza.
Among the nations that have cut off weapons sales to Israel are Japan, Canada, France, Italy, and Spain. Meanwhile, other major backers, such as the United Kingdom and Germany, have imposed partial freezes on certain weaponry.
While official estimates from the Gaza Ministry of Health place the number of dead from Israel's military campaign at over 70,000, with more than 170,000 wounded, an independent assessment last month from the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany and the Center for Demographic Studies in Spain found that the death toll “likely exceeds 100,000." This finding mirrored several other studies that have projected the true death toll to be much higher than what official estimates show.
Embargoes against Israel have been called for by a group of experts mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council, including Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, numerous human rights organizations, including the leading Israeli group B’Tselem, have said Israel’s campaign in Gaza has amounted to genocide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Who Will Be in Charge?’ Sanders Warns of AI Future Dominated by Handful of Billionaires
"Are we comfortable with seeing these enormously wealthy and powerful men shape the future of humanity without any democratic input or oversight?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Dec 09, 2025
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Monday that policymakers in the United States and around the world are at a critical juncture where they must decide whether artificial intelligence will be controlled and exploited by the ultra-wealthy—or utilized for the benefit of all humanity.
In a speech on the floor of the US Senate, Sanders (I-Vt.) said the key question is, "Who will be in charge of the transformation into an AI world?"
"Currently, a handful of the wealthiest people on Earth—people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, and others—and others are investing many, many hundreds of billions of dollars in developing and implementing AI and robotics," the senator said. "Are we comfortable with seeing these enormously wealthy and powerful men shape the future of humanity without any democratic input or oversight?"
Watch the full speech:
Sanders noted that US President Donald Trump "is strongly supporting" billionaire dominance of burgeoning AI technology, including with his plan to sign an executive order aimed at blocking state-level regulations of the artificial intelligence industry.
"Does this elite group of some of the most powerful people on Earth believe that they have the divine right to rule?" the senator asked.
Sanders also emphasized the potentially catastrophic impact of AI technology on workers, as Amazon and other corporate giants seek to replace as many jobs as possible with robots. In October, Sanders released a report estimating that advances in AI technology could supplant nearly 100 million US jobs over the next decade, including 89% of fast food workers and 40% of registered nurses.
"If AI and robotics eliminate millions of jobs and create massive unemployment, how will people survive if they have no income? How do they feed their families, pay for housing, pay for healthcare?" Sanders asked. "That might be an issue that we should be talking about, like, yesterday."
In recent weeks, Sanders has made burgeoning AI technology and its concentration in the hands of a few powerful individuals and corporations a major focus, holding an event with computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton—who is known as the "godfather of AI"—and warning about the promise and peril of artificial intelligence in the pages of major newspapers.
"AI and robotics are revolutionary technologies that will bring about an unprecedented transformation of society," Sanders wrote in a Guardian column last week. "Will these changes be positive and improve life for ordinary Americans? Or will they be disastrous? Congress must act now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Report Estimates Bold Climate Action Would Deliver $100 Trillion in Benefits by 2100
"If we choose to stay on the current path—powering our economies with fossil fuels, extracting virgin resources, destroying nature, polluting the environment—the damages would stack up."
Dec 09, 2025
A new report from the United Nations Environment Program has found that addressing the global climate emergency would deliver major economic benefits, in addition to creating a cleaner and more habitable planet.
The seventh edition of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO), released on Tuesday, estimates that making up-front investments in climate action now would begin to yield global macroeconomic benefits starting in 2050, potentially growing to $20 trillion per year by 2070 and $100 trillion by 2100.
The report, which was the product of nearly 300 multi-disciplinary scientists across more than 80 countries, argues that a total of $8 trillion in annual investment from this year until 2050 would be needed to achieve its climate goals. But, the report stresses, the cost of inaction would be far greater.
"If we choose to stay on the current path—powering our economies with fossil fuels, extracting virgin resources, destroying nature, polluting the environment—the damages would stack up," the report warns. "Climate change would cut 4% off annual global GDP by 2050, claim many lives, and increase forced migration."
Other likely consequences of inaction, warns the report, include "Amazon forest dieback and ice-sheet collapse," along with the loss of "hundreds of millions more hectares of natural lands." The report also projects that global food availability will fall if the climate crisis is not addressed, and that increased air pollution will cause an additional 4 million premature deaths per year.
The report recommends a rapid move away from fossil fuels, as well as a drastic rethinking of agricultural subsidies so that they no longer "directly favor activities that have significant harmful effects on the environment, including on biodiversity."
Robert Watson, a co-chair of the GEO assessment, said in an interview with the Guardian that the climate crisis cannot simply be seen as an environmental issue given that it is now "undermining our economy, food security, water security, human health," and also creating national security problems by increasing "conflict in many parts of the world."
In an interview with BBC, Watson also accused US President Donald Trump's administration of sabotaging the report by refusing to even accept its conclusions about the damage being done by human-induced climate change.
"The US decided not to attend the meeting at all," he explained. "At the very end they joined by teleconference and basically made a statement that they could not agree with most of the report, which means they didn't agree with anything we said on climate change, biodiversity, fossil fuels, plastics, and subsidies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


