Health News Articles

Excerpts of key news articles on

Below are key excerpts of revealing news articles on health from reliable news media sources. If any link fails to function, a paywall blocks full access, or the article is no longer available, try these digital tools.

For further exploration, delve into our comprehensive Health and Food Corruption Information Center.

Note: Explore our full index to revealing excerpts of key major media news articles on dozens of engaging topics. And read excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.

For 40 years the United States Public Health Service has conducted a study in which human beings with syphilis, who were induced to serve as guinea pigs, have gone without medical treatment for the disease and a few have died of its late effects, even though an effective therapy, was eventually discovered. The study was conducted to determine from autopsies what the disease does to the human body. It is too late to treat the syphilis in any surviving participants. The experiment, called the Tuskegee Study, began in 1932 with about 600 black men mostly poor and uneducated, from Tuskegee, Ala., an area that had the highest syphilis rate in the nation at the time. Four hundred of the group had syphilis and never received deliberate treatment for the Venereal Infection. A control group of 200 had no syphilis and did not receive any specific therapy. As Incentives to enter the Program, the men were promised free transportation to and from hospitals, free hot lunches, free medicine for any disease other than syphilis and free burial after autopsies were performed. The Tuskegee Study began 10 years before penicillin was found to be a cure for syphilis and 15 years before the drug became widely available. Yet, even after penicillin became common, and while its use probably could have helped or saved a number of the experiment subjects, the drug was denied them. Senator William Proxmire ... called the study "a moral and ethical nightmare."

Note: Read more about the disturbing history of government and industry experiments on human guinea pigs. For more along these lines, see concise summaries of deeply revealing news articles on government corruption from reliable major media sources.

Have you ever paid more for a product because a brand told you it was good for you and the planet? Many activewear shoppers do exactly this, trusting that the "healthy" image on the label matches what is actually in the fabric. The Texas Attorney General's office has launched a formal investigation into the activewear brand Lululemon. The question: does its activewear contain PFAS, a group of toxic "forever chemicals"? This sits uncomfortably with a brand built on wellness. Lululemon has denied the claims. It says it phased out PFAS in 2023. The case highlights a wider problem: a gap between what fashion brands promise and what is actually in their products. PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are synthetic chemicals used to make fabrics resistant to water, stains and sweat. They earned the name "forever chemicals" because they do not break down easily in the environment or our bodies. Instead, they accumulate over time. The issue first came to wide attention in 2011, when Greenpeace's "Dirty Laundry" investigation named several global giants for links to dumping perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), now broadly classified as PFAS, into Chinese waterways. While most major brands promised to phase out PFAS by 2020, follow-up testing shows they still appear in leggings and sports bras across the sector. Exposure has been linked to serious health risks, including kidney and testicular cancers, hormonal disruption, and immune system damage.

Note: France has banned the use of forever chemicals in cosmetics and apparel. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on health and toxic chemicals.

The Modern Ag Alliance, launched by Bayer in 2024, enables the company to lobby and campaign through an entity that looks like a coalition of farm organizations, not a single giant chemical corporation. MAA represents itself as a "diverse coalition, founded by Bayer, that today represents more than 110 agricultural organizations." But public records suggest it functions as a front group for Bayer's interests. Tax records reveal that a Bayer vice president sits on the board of directors, and nearly all of its budget has gone to a public relations firm that also works for Bayer. Bayer itself describes the MAA as a key part of its lobbying. The company has portrayed the MAA – whose tagline is "Pesticides power America's ag" – as its strategy for "fighting back" against glyphosate concerns and lawsuits. MAA is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, a structure that allows it to raise unlimited funds for advocacy or lobbying while keeping donors secret. Disclosed members of the Modern Ag Alliance include large agribusiness trade groups, and national and state commodity crop growers' groups. Many of these groups have financial relationships with Bayer and other pesticide firms, via sponsorships, partnerships or direct funding, though these ties are often opaque. The MAA lobbies for legislation that ... would make it harder for Americans to use state-law failure-to-warn claims to sue pesticide manufacturers for cancer and other injuries.

Note: Our Substack, "The Pesticide Crisis Reveals The Dark Side of Science. We Have The Solutions to Regenerate," uncovers the scope of Bayer/Monsanto's media propaganda machine and the widespread conspiracy to poison our food, air, and along with the powerful remedies and solutions to this crisis. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on corporate corruption and toxic chemicals.

The single biggest predictor of how happy you are at any given moment isn't your income, your relationship status, your health, your career, or the city you live in. It's whether your mind is focused on what you're doing right now or wandering somewhere else. That's the whole finding. Present equals happy. Absent equals unhappy. Everything else is details. In 2010, Harvard psychologists Matthew Killingsworth and Daniel Gilbert published a paper in the journal Science with a title that sounds like a Buddhist proverb: "A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind." They developed an iPhone app that pinged 2,250 people at random intervals throughout the day, asking three questions: What are you doing? What are you thinking about? How happy are you? People's minds wandered from what they were doing 46.9 percent of the time. And when their minds wandered, they were consistently less happy than when they were focused on whatever was in front of them. This held true regardless of the activity. What you're thinking about matters more than twice as much as what you're doing. You could have the perfect life – the career, the partner, the health, the house – and spend most of it mentally somewhere else, and the somewhere else would make you miserable. We don't struggle with presence during peak experiences. Nobody's mind wanders during their wedding or the birth of their child or the moment they land the job they wanted. Those moments are vivid enough to command attention. They handle presence for you. The problem is that peak experiences make up maybe two percent of your life. The other ninety-eight percent ... is ordinary, and your capacity to be present during ordinary moments determines the quality of your entire existence. That's where happiness actually lives. In the ninety-eight percent. In the ability to be present in an ordinary moment without wishing it were something else.

Note: Explore more positive stories like this in our comprehensive inspiring news articles archive focused on solutions and bridging divides.

Some top US lobbying firms are simultaneously working both sides of the Pfas "forever chemicals" issue, raising serious conflict of interest questions and concerns that their activity is slowing states' efforts to rein in the public health threat. The review of six states' lobbying records conducted by the non-profit F-Minus found a range of scenarios in which firms lobbied both sides. Most common Pfas are linked to cancer. The lobbying firm Holland & Knight works for the American Chemistry Council, which represents the nation's largest Pfas makers, and aggressively opposes most regulations. Simultaneously, Holland & Knight lobbies for the American Cancer Society. The review found 26 healthcare systems, 11 public school systems, 15 wildlife groups and 132 local governments that share lobbying firms with Pfas makers or trade groups, including the American Chemistry Council and Cookware Sustainability Alliance. The lobbyists work across 36 states. The report comes amid a broad effort at all levels of the government that aims to rein in Pfas pollution and exposures. The chemicals are widely used in consumer goods and industry, and are linked to a range of health problems like cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, kidney disease and hormone disruption. The public health effort has drawn an intense lobbying operation in opposition by the chemical industry, which has killed most Pfas legislation in recent years.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on toxic chemicals.

Syngenta, maker of a controversial pesticide linked to Parkinson's disease, said on Tuesday that it would stop making its paraquat weed killer by the end of June. The announcement comes as the company is facing several thousand lawsuits brought by people in the US who allege they developed Parkinson's disease due to their exposure to Syngenta's paraquat products. The company did not mention the litigation in its announcement. Paraquat has been used in the US since 1964 as a tool to kill broadleaf weeds and grasses. Though banned in several countries, including throughout Europe, Syngenta's paraquat-based Gramoxone herbicide brand has remained popular with US farmers for use in growing soybeans, cotton and corn, as well as in growing grapes, pistachios, peanuts and many other crops. Numerous scientific studies have found that paraquat damages cells in the brain in ways that can lead to Parkinson's, and more than 8,000 lawsuits are pending in US courts over the Parkinson's allegations. The New Lede, in conjunction with the Guardian, obtained and revealed many of Syngenta's internal corporate files, which show that not only was Syngenta aware of research linking paraquat to Parkinson's decades ago, but it also sought to secretly influence scientific information and public opinion regarding those links. Lawmakers in multiple states have introduced legislation to ban paraquat, and several federal lawmakers have also called for bans.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on health and toxic chemicals.

Chemicals increasingly used to replace the toxic plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA) may disrupt fertility, fetal development, and reproductive health through many of the same biological mechanisms, according to a narrative review of human, animal and laboratory studies. Concerns about BPA have led some manufacturers to phase it out and replace it with structurally similar compounds, most commonly bisphenol S (BPS), bisphenol F (BPF) and bisphenol AF (BPAF). While BPA exposure has declined, BPS and BPF use is rising, especially in North America and Asia. The review, published this month [February 2026] in Archives of Medical Research, found that these BPA substitutes–widely used in plastics, processed food and food packaging, children's toys, and paper receipts–can interfere with the same hormone systems and gene-regulation pathways that control reproductive development in both males and females. "Although these compounds were originally synthesized to be safe for human use, they have also exhibited endocrine-disrupting activity similar to BPA, which affects reproductive function," the researchers wrote. "These changes can lead to reproductive disorders and negative long-term and transgenerational consequences." The [BPA] substitutes can mimic estrogen or block hormone activity. They also appear to induce epigenetic changes, altering the chemical signals that control how genes are turned on or off.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on health and toxic chemicals.

Jeffrey Epstein may have forced an underage victim to carry his child in a "Nazi"-like effort to create a "superior gene pool," according to documents released by the Department of Justice. Among the more than three million Epstein files released last week is a harrowing diary penned by an alleged victim, who wrote that she was a "human incubator" for Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Minutes after giving birth, she wrote that the child was snatched away from her. The contents of the diary have not been verified, and the woman's accusations against an Epstein associate have been disputed in court. The DOJ has cautioned that the newly published files may contain "fake or falsely submitted" materials. The first-person narrative makes several references to New Mexico, where the deceased sex offender owned a sprawling ranch outside Santa Fe. Epstein planned to use the estate to impregnate women in an effort to "seed the human race with his DNA," The New York Times reported in 2019, citing his acquaintances and public records. The woman claims to have given birth around 2002, when she would have been either 16 or 17 years old. In the entry, she recounts the experience of going into labor, claiming that a doctor and Maxwell were both present, and that her bed was soaked in blood. In her posthumous memoir, Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre also claimed that Epstein and Maxwell asked her to carry their child in 2002.

Note: In our latest Substack, "Epstein Files Pt. 2: Beyond Sex Trafficking–Zorro Ranch and a Darker Scientific Agenda," we explore the diary entries mentioned in this article and how they fit neatly into the larger picture now emerging from the newly-public information. Specifically, Epstein's deep ties to the scientific elite and their active exploration into eugenics, designer babies, human cloning, social engineering, and other ethically questionable human experimentation practices.

Neurable, a consumer neurotechnology startup, has partnered with the Air Force to study whether electrode-studded headphones can track service members' cognitive fitness. The $1.2 million project adds to the Pentagon's growing investment in the $3 billion market for brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) – helmets, earbuds, other wearable devices and medical implants that use artificial intelligence to make sense of brain signals. Now, advances in AI enable BCIs to interpret or change brain activity with unprecedented accuracy and speed. So much so that some scientists and neuroethicists say the capacity to monitor signals that reveal a warfighter's or a veteran's mental states, visual perceptions or inner dialogue may outpace the ability to shield that data from misuse. "One could certainly imagine how enforced use of such devices could create a very dystopian basis for behavioral control," warned James Giordano, director of the National Defense University's Center for Disruptive Technology. Some neuroethicists, however, cautioned that the use of brain wearables may also invade troops' privacy and foster prejudice. "We need to be much more reflective on, much more concerned about and much more focused on the implications of altering a person's brainwaves," through neurofeedback training, "as compared to having them work out more or do more pull-ups," said Jared Genser, a lawyer and co-founder of the Neurorights Foundation.

Note: Read about the Pentagon's plans to use our brains as warfare, describing how the human body is war's next domain. For more, read our concise summaries of news articles on AI, biotech dangers, and mind control.

The World Health Organization's cancer research agency has classified atrazine – the second most widely used herbicide in the United States – as "probably carcinogenic to humans," adding to growing concerns about toxic exposures in the nation's farm belt. The evaluation means the first and second most widely used herbicides in the U.S. – glyphosate and atrazine – are now both considered probable human carcinogens by the world's leading independent cancer-hazard authority. Atrazine is banned in the European Union and other countries due to health and environmental concerns, but remains widely used in the U.S., where it is a common contaminant in drinking water, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Despite these concerns, U.S. regulators allow its continued use. The new assessment by the WHO's cancer agency comes 10 years after the agency's landmark finding that glyphosate, the world's most heavily used herbicide, is also "probably carcinogenic to humans." Both atrazine and glyphosate are also endocrine disruptors, meaning they can disrupt key hormone systems that regulate growth, development and metabolism. Both herbicides are also largely produced by companies outside the United States. Syngenta, owned by ChemChina, produces most of the atrazine used in the U.S., while Bayer, based in Germany, is the dominant producer of glyphosate. The cancer designation for atrazine comes amid reports of rising cancer rates across the U.S. Corn Belt.

Note: It's recently come out that the popular pesticide paraquat probably causes Parkinson's disease. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on health and toxic chemicals.

Ultra-processed food (UPF) is linked to harm in every major organ system of the human body and poses a seismic threat to global health. UPF is also rapidly displacing fresh food in the diets of children and adults on every continent, and is associated with an increased risk of a dozen health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and depression. The findings, from a series of three papers published in the Lancet, come as millions of people increasingly consume UPF such as ready meals, cereals, protein bars, fizzy drinks and fast food. In the UK and US, more than half the average diet now consists of UPF. For some, especially people who are younger, poorer or from disadvantaged areas, a diet comprising as much as 80% UPF is typical. Evidence reviewed by 43 of the world's leading experts suggests that diets high in UPF are linked to overeating, poor nutritional quality and higher exposure to harmful chemicals and additives. A systematic review of 104 long-term studies conducted for the series found 92 reported greater associated risks of one or more chronic diseases, and early death from all causes. One of the Lancet series authors, Prof Carlos Monteiro ... said the findings underlined why urgent action is needed to tackle UPF. "The first paper in this Lancet series indicates that ultra-processed foods harm every major organ system in the human body. The evidence strongly suggests that humans are not biologically adapted to consume them."

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on health and food system corruption.

As the 2025 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans take shape, a serious disconnect threatens public health. Some advocates are calling for higher intake of animal fats and promoting so called ancestral or animal based keto diets, citing traditional wisdom and nutrient density. Diets like Keto often rely on meat and dairy from industrial production systems, where contamination with drugs and chemicals is routine. The promise of healing through meat and fat collapses when those foods carry residues of antibiotics, steroid hormones, synthetic preservatives, arsenicals, cocciodiostats, and pesticides. Many of these toxins accumulate precisely in the fats and organs being celebrated as nutrient rich. A decade ago, as policy director at the Center for Food Safety, I helped publish a report entitled "America's Secret Animal Drug Problem," identifying over 450 animal drugs and feed additives used in U.S. meat production. That number alarmed me then. Today, the Food and Drug Administration has approved nearly 700 veterinary drugs for use in food-producing animals. This figure includes not only growth promoters and antibiotics but also synthetic hormones, beta agonists, coccidiostats, and antiparasitics. Less than 1% of meat and dairy in the United States is produced in regenerative organic systems on pasture. The remaining 99% comes from animals housed in industrial facilities, fed chemically saturated GMO grains.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on factory farming and toxic chemicals.

Everywhere they look, they find particles of pollution, like infinite spores in an endless contagion field. Scientists call that field the "exposome": the sum of all external exposures encountered by each of us over a lifetime, which portion and shape our fate alongside genes and behavior. Plastic is now threaded through the flesh of fish, where it is interfering with reproduction, and the stalks of plants, where it is interfering with photosynthesis, and in much else we place upon our dinner plates and set about eating. There might be plastic in your saliva, and almost certainly in your blood. Plastic has been found in human hearts and kidneys and other organs, in the breast milk expressed by new mothers and on both sides of their placentas. The penetration appears so complete that some researchers have begun to worry that their methods, too, are compromised by ambient contamination and plastic materials in the lab. The buildup inside brain tissue has grown 50 percent in just eight years, and that, as of last year, there might be inside your skull the equivalent of a full plastic spoon – by weight perhaps one-fifth as much polymer as there is brainstem in there. Beyond plastics, there is PFAS, that category of long-lasting industrial compounds often called "forever chemicals." Whole environmental movements of the past have been built on fears of incipient contamination. But what are the lessons when pollution is seemingly everywhere, and in everyone, already?

Note: This article is also available here. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on health and toxic chemicals.

The transparency of donations to the World Health Organization (WHO) Foundation–an independent body that seeks funds from across industry, civil society and governments, and awards grants to the WHO – has plummeted over its first 3 years of operations, a new analysis has found. The analysis found that the majority of donors are not publicly disclosed, including some unnamed gifts as big as $11 million, which raises concerns about the potential "level of outside influence and role of commercial interests in setting WHO priorities," the researchers wrote. In 2020, the foundation was set up to solicit funds from a wider range of donors than the WHO can directly accept, including wealthy individuals and corporations. Some academics and civil society organizations are concerned that accepting donations from industry, such as businesses selling alcohol and infant formula, poses a conflict of interest. Evidence suggests that some companies use donations "as opportunities to distract or reframe product harms.., and assist wider lobbying efforts against public health regulation," wrote the authors of the new analysis. Using a scale to judge transparency in donations developed by Open Democracy, an independent international media platform, the researchers gave the WHO Foundation a D grade. This grade is for organizations that only name a minority of funders and not in a systematic way, putting it on par with some ‘dark money' think tanks.

Note: Concerns about WHO's growing dependence on opaque funding are not abstract. Past investigations show how Purdue Pharma influenced WHO opioid guidelines to expand sales globally and how Coca-Cola–linked consultants shaped WHO's aspartame reviews. Bill Gates' hundreds of millions to WHO now give him outsized influence to prioritize corporate interests under the guise of public health philanthropy, which have led to mass suicides in India, worsening environmental degradation and poverty in Africa, and increasing corporate control over the media.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Wednesday its proposed decision to reregister dicamba, a herbicide widely used on soybean and cotton farms that has been banned twice by federal courts. The EPA originally approved dicamba's use on genetically engineered soybeans and cotton in 2016. Environmental groups sued the EPA over dicamba in 2020 because of its potential drift away from the intended target, especially during warmer temperatures, and harm neighboring crops, nearby ecosystems and rural communities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against the EPA and said the agency "understated the amount of dicamba damage." The court determined that dicamba "caused substantial and undisputed damage" that tore the "social fabric of the farming communities." After the court vacated the herbicide's registration, the EPA re-registered it months later, and was again challenged by environmental groups. A second federal court vacated that registration in 2024 and prohibited the sale of the herbicide. The popularity of dicamba, which was first introduced in 1967, arose from a need to find solutions to Roundup-resistant weeds, also known as "superweeds." Monsanto ... began selling genetically engineered seeds that could survive being doused by dicamba and Roundup in 2016. Between 2016 and 2019, dicamba use across the country nearly quadrupled to an estimated 31 million pounds a year.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on government corruption and toxic chemicals.

In the last decade, private equity firms have been quietly taking control of dental care from behind the scenes, largely through secondary business organizations that push dental practices to cut costs and, in some cases, encourage unnecessary and irreversible dental procedures. In 2024, the dental industry witnessed 161 private equity deals – the highest number of any health care industry, as tracked by the watchdog organization, Private Equity Stakeholder Project. The data reveals that these investment firms are increasingly acquiring dental practices or inserting themselves into clinic management roles, where they then cut corners on patient care. The dental industry is an especially alluring target for private equity firms because it's comprised of thousands of independent clinics, offering investors a fragmented industry to consolidate and streamline. Between 2011 and 2019, private equity firms bought up $4.4 billion worth of dental practices. Dentists at ClearChoice Dental Implant Centers – a dental chain owned by Aspen Dental, one of the largest dental service organizations – were allegedly extracting healthy teeth from patients and replacing them with expensive implants. Experts have warned in various lawsuits against the implant center that this irreversible procedure exposes patients to excessive costs and surgery complications, plus a greater risk of future dental problems like infections and bone loss.

Note: BlackRock and Vanguard manage over $11 trillion and $8 trillion respectively–an unprecedented concentration of financial power. We hear outrage about billionaires and oligarchs, but rarely about private equity firms, who are backed by both political parties and are drastically reshaping our economy, contributing to environmental destruction, and extracting wealth from communities in the US and all over the world. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on health and financial industry corruption.

Since 2000, the food and chemical industry has greenlighted nearly 99% of food chemicals introduced onto the market without federal safety review. This problematic situation happened through companies exploiting a loophole in food chemicals laws allowing them to decide which chemicals are safe to consume. Since 2000, food and chemical companies have petitioned the FDA only 10 times to approve a new substance. By contrast, they have added 863 chemicals, through the "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS, loophole. That's 98.8% of new food chemicals. The loophole lets those companies – not the FDA – decide when a substance is safe. The GRAS loophole was intended to apply narrowly to common ingredients like sugar, vinegar and baking soda. But as EWG's analysis shows, the loophole – not FDA safety review – has become the main way new chemicals are allowed into food. A GRAS determination shows a company believes "the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use." The company can submit a notice to the FDA about its conclusion, through a process that is entirely voluntary. Even Michael Taylor, a former FDA deputy commissioner for food, admitted in 2014 that the FDA "simply do[es] not have the information to vouch for the safety of many of these chemicals."

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on food system corruption and toxic chemicals.

In our first hearing of this Congress titled, "The Corruption of Science and Federal Health Agencies: How Health Officials Downplayed and Hid Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Associated with the COVID-19 Injections," I asked Dr. Joel Wallskog, an orthopedic surgeon injured by the Covid injections, to describe how those suffering from Covid injection injuries felt. His one-word answer: "Abandoned." The passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 ... led to blanket immunity for vaccines through subsequent regulation. An explosion in the number of vaccine doses on the childhood schedule was the result. Prior to 1986, there were 3 routine vaccines totaling 7 injections. Today the CDC's Maternal and Child & Adolescent vaccine schedules include 19 vaccines requiring 76 injections with 94 total doses of antigen. In August 1997, the FDA ... issued draft guidance to allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers beyond print media into TV and radio. According to one estimate, drug companies spent $10 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising in 2024. That amount of spending has paid off handsomely for Big Pharma and its ability to control the narrative and suppress stories of drug and vaccine injuries. But to understand the true reality we face, there is nothing like hearing from those who have suffered the adverse events that are rarely acknowledged by the medical establishment, federal health agencies, and the corporate media.

Note: Watch the full Senate hearing video and read all statements from mothers and scientists who testified at hearing here. For video clips of witness testimonies, click here. Our well-researched and nuanced Substack reveals the undeniable evidence that COVID vaccine injuries and deaths were covered-up and censored. For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on COVID vaccine problems and Big Pharma corruption.

Dozens of companies that make ice cream and frozen dairy desserts announced on Monday that they would remove artificial food dyes from their products by 2028, marking yet another voluntary move away from such food coloring within the food industry. It comes in response to a mission set forth by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to remove the artificial additives. In April, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency would move to eliminate several synthetic dyes by the end of next year. That includes Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1, and Blue 2. Red 3 was set to be banned in food by 2027 because it caused cancer in laboratory rats; the FDA called for that deadline to move up. Artificial dyes are used widely in U.S. foods. In Canada and in Europe – where synthetic colors are required to carry warning labels – manufacturers mostly use natural substitutes. Several states, including California and West Virginia, have passed laws restricting the use of artificial colors in foods. Health advocates have long called for the removal of artificial dyes from foods, citing mixed studies indicating they can cause neurobehavioral problems, including hyperactivity and attention issues, in some children. The FDA has maintained that the approved dyes are safe and that "the totality of scientific evidence shows that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives."

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on food system corruption.

If you've been on social media lately, chances are you've heard about endocrine disruptors. People say they can interfere with your hormones, leading to serious health conditions. There are over 1,000 types of these chemicals, according to some estimates, and we are exposed to them daily: They can be found everywhere from your nonstick pan and canned foods to your shampoo and hair dye. The endocrine system consists of glands that secrete hormones, like estrogen, testosterone and cortisol, that then interact with targets (receptors) in the body to regulate our growth, development, reproduction, metabolism, energy balance and body weight. Chemicals that interfere with this complex communication system are called endocrine disruptors. These chemicals work in a variety of ways, including overstimulating receptors, blocking receptors so that normal hormones can't interact with them and altering hormone production or availability. Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used in the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. It belongs to the larger class of chemicals called bisphenols. The primary exposure for most people is through their diet: BPAs can leach into food or drinks from the protective, internal epoxy resin coatings of canned foods and from consumer products such as polycarbonate tableware, food storage containers and water bottles. Laboratory experiments ... have found that BPAs may cause cancer cell growth.

Note: For more along these lines, read our concise summaries of news articles on health and toxic chemicals.

Important Note: Explore our full index to revealing excerpts of key major media news articles on several dozen engaging topics. And don't miss amazing excerpts from 20 of the most revealing news articles ever published.