A California Superior Court judge has overturned a ruling requiring tuna companies to brand their cans with mercury warning labels under the state's Prop 65 legislation. Prop 65 requires that products that may cause cancer or reproductive harm carry warning labels, but the judge decided that mercury in tuna doesn't qualify, despite tuna's popularity and the clear threat mercury poses to the development of fetuses, infants and children. Read why at the LA Times.
Related News
Continue Reading
Dirty Dozen Food Chemicals: BHA
EWG’s recommendation
Avoid or limit foods containing BHA.
BHA has been classified as a possible carcinogen, or cancer-causing chemical. Studies have shown BHA to produce oxidative stress, which occurs...
What to know about new ‘non-UPF’ certification labels
California is advancing a bill to help shoppers identify alternatives to ultraprocessed foods, or UPF, at the grocery store. If enacted, it would create a first-ever government-run and state-certified...
Protein is everywhere – it probably isn't making us healthier
Protein used to be the domain of bodybuilders and fitness fanatics. Now it’s everywhere: high-protein claims on Doritos chips, Dunkin’ Donuts lattes, breakfast toaster pastries and even pints of ice...
Food industry claims state chemical laws will spike grocery bills, but that doesn’t add up
In a page straight out of the industry playbook, a powerful group of U.S. food companies has funded a “study” claiming consumers will pay more if harmful chemicals are labeled or banned.