Consumer News: These 6 used cars could save you hundreds on car insurance every year

Chevy and Toyota are part of this week's recall roundup

Environmental group warns new approvals could expand exposure concerns nationwide

• The EPA has approved three new PFAS-based pesticides for use on food crops, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

• One of the newly approved pesticides was previously flagged by EPA scientists as having "suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential."

• EWG is urging regulators to pause additional PFAS pesticide approvals while more research is conducted on their long-term and cumulative health effects.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved three pesticides containing PFAS often called "forever chemicals" because they can persist in the environment for long periods according to a recent report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

The nonprofit says the approvals bring the total number of PFAS pesticides authorized by the agency to five all in less than two years.

The newly approved pesticides are trifludimoxazin, diflufenican, and epyrifenacil. The EWG says they can now be used on a variety of food crops, including wheat, citrus, and other agricultural products.

The EPAs hands-off approach to pesticide mixtures is leaving families exposed to a cocktail of forever chemicals on their food, Varun Subramaniam, a science analyst at the Environmental Working Group, said in a news release.

We know ultra-short-chain PFAS like TFA [trifluoroacetic acid] are accumulating in the environment and pose potential reproductive risks, yet regulators assess these hazards one by one and without considering the full range of potential health harms. The science shows combined chemical exposure can amplify health harms, but the EPA is consistently failing to enforce the extra safety protections legally required to safeguard children during pregnancy and early life.

Why is the EWG concerned?

According to the EWG, one of the newly approved herbicides trifludimoxazin was cleared for use despite EPA documents describing it as having "suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential." The group also says the chemical can degrade into multiple persistent PFAS compounds after it is applied.

Beyond the three new approvals, the EWG notes that the EPA also expanded approved uses for bifenthrin, a PFAS pesticide the agency has previously classified as a possible human carcinogen.

The organization's broader concern is that regulators evaluate pesticides individually rather than considering how multiple PFAS chemicals might interact or contribute to overall exposure.

The EWG also says many PFAS pesticides have not undergone updated developmental, reproductive ,or immune-system toxicity testing, and argues that waiving certain studies leaves important questions unanswered. As a result, the group is calling on the EPA to halt additional PFAS pesticide approvals until more comprehensive testing and cumulative risk assessments are completed.

By the time these PFAS residues reach our plates, they have become part of a toxic cocktail that may suppress the immune system and harm reproductive health, said Subramaniam. That raises serious concerns about the long-term health risks of using these chemicals on food crops.

Were spraying millions of pounds of chemicals on food without understanding their full health impacts or considering what little we do already know. Its unconscionable.

What this means for consumers

For shoppers, the EWG says the findings shouldn't discourage people from eating fruits and vegetables.

A diet rich in fruits and vegetables is essential, said Subramaniam. Families should enjoy the significant health benefits of consuming produce while making informed choices to reduce pesticide exposure, particularly for children, without sacrificing nutrition."

Instead, the EWG says consumers should stay informed about PFAS research while regulators continue to study the chemicals' long-term health effects. The group is urging the EPA to require additional testing for PFAS pesticides, evaluate the combined effects of exposure to multiple PFAS compounds, expand environmental monitoring, and require fuller disclosure of pesticide ingredients.

According to the EWG, stronger oversight would help address unanswered questions about how these persistent chemicals behave in the environment and what their long-term impact could be on people and ecosystems.

Allowing an avalanche of new PFAS pesticides onto our fields will never make America healthy again, Jared Hayes, senior policy analyst at the EWG, said in the release.

Contaminating our agricultural fields with persistent forever chemicals does nothing to help the farmers who work tirelessly to feed us. By prioritizing corporate chemical approvals over public health, the EPA is actively undermining both our long-term food security and the very farming communities we rely on, said Hayes.

New study examines retired players in midlife

• Researchers found structural brain differences in some retired professional soccer players compared with people who had no history of repetitive head impacts.

• Former players also reported higher levels of anxiety, depression, and difficulties with thinking and decision-making in daily life.

• The findings do not show cognitive decline, but they highlight the need for more long-term research and monitoring.

Years of playing professional soccer may leave measurable changes in the brain, even before signs of neurodegenerative disease typically appear.

That's according to new research presented at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference (AAIC) 2026, where scientists shared findings from the largest study to date examining brain health in retired elite professional soccer players.

The researchers were interested in understanding how repeated head impacts over the course of a professional career might affect brain health later in life. While previous research has explored this topic, this study focused specifically on retired players in midlife, offering a snapshot of their brain health before diseases such as Alzheimer's would usually be expected to develop.

Importantly, the researchers did not find meaningful differences in objective thinking and memory tests between former players and people who had not experienced repetitive head impacts. However, they did identify other differences that suggest the topic deserves continued study.

These findings suggest there may be measurable effects on brain health in former elite soccer players even in mid-life, before clinically apparent neurodegenerative disease would typically emerge, researcher Caleigh Grace Lynch, M.Sc., said in a news release.

While we did not find significant differences in objective cognitive testing between the groups, we did observe important differences in symptoms and brain structure.

How the study was conducted

The study included 142 retired professional soccer players between the ages of 30 and 60. Most were men who had played professionally for at least three years, while 16 were women who competed in the top levels of professional soccer in the United Kingdom. Their results were compared with 56 healthy adults of similar ages who had not played contact sports, served in the military, or experienced repetitive head impacts or neurological conditions.

Participants completed questionnaires about their mental health and daily thinking abilities, along with standardized cognitive testing. Researchers also performed MRI scans on 124 of the former players to examine brain structure and compare those images with scans from members of the control group.

What the findings could mean

Former soccer players reported higher levels of depression and anxiety than the comparison group, along with more self-reported difficulties planning, focusing, solving problems, and managing everyday tasks.

Brain scans also showed lower gray matter volume in several regions involved in memory, attention, decision-making, and emotional regulation. A neuroradiologist reviewing the scans found that about 2% of former players showed brain shrinkage suggestive of neurodegeneration, although researchers said additional investigation is needed to better understand that finding.

At the same time, the players performed similarly to the control group on objective cognitive tests, meaning the study did not find evidence of measurable cognitive decline.

Researchers say these results underscore the importance of following participants over time to learn whether repeated head impacts influence long-term brain health and to help guide future efforts to make sports safer.

Research like this helps us better understand brain health factors across the lifespan and reinforces the importance of injury prevention and monitoring, researhcer Maria C. Carrillo, Ph.D., said in the release.

These findings can help players, physicians and sports organizations better understand the risks of contact sports and how to participate safely.

New bipartisan proposal would make standard time the default while letting states choose differently

• A bipartisan bill would end the twice-yearly clock change by making standard time the national default.

• States could still choose to observe daylight saving time instead, giving them more local control.

• Medical and sleep health organizations are backing the proposal, citing potential health and safety benefits.

Twice each year, millions of Americans reset their clocks as the country switches between standard time and daylight saving time. Now, a bipartisan group of lawmakers wants to bring that practice to an end.

Congressman Pat Harrigan (R-N.C.) and Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) have introduced the Sunshine for Our Kids Act, legislation that would make standard time the permanent national default while giving individual states the option to adopt permanent daylight saving time if they prefer.

According to the lawmakers, the goal is to replace the current nationwide requirement with a more flexible approach that allows states to decide what works best for their residents.

"It's hard to find anyone who enjoys changing the clocks twice a year, yet Americans have been stuck with the same outdated policy for decades. The Sunshine for Our Kids Act replaces that one-size-fits-all mandate with a smarter approach by making standard time the default while allowing states to decide what works best for their own communities," Congressman Harrigan said in a news release.

What the legislation would do

If enacted, the bill would repeal the federal daylight saving time mandate established under the Uniform Time Act of 1966. Instead, standard time would become the default across the country.

The legislation would not require every state to stay on standard time forever. Rather, states would have the flexibility to adopt daylight saving time on their own. For states that span more than one time zone, the proposal would even allow different time zones within the same state to make separate decisions. Supporters say that approach gives communities greater control over a policy that has traditionally been determined at the federal level.

Backers of the bill also point to statements from physicians and sleep experts who say permanent standard time better aligns with natural circadian rhythms.

Permanent standard time is the healthier choice for all Americans, said Dr. Fariha Abbasi-Feinberg, a board-certified sleep medicine physician in Fort Myers, Florida, and the president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM).

We are grateful to Representatives Scanlon and Harrigan for championing legislation that puts health and safety first and helps ensure that mornings are better aligned with natural light and human circadian rhythms.

What this could mean for consumers

For consumers, the proposal would primarily affect how time is observed throughout the year. If the legislation becomes law, Americans would no longer need to change their clocks twice annually unless their state chooses to adopt permanent daylight saving time.

The measure has drawn bipartisan support in Congress, and according to the bill's cosponsor list, lawmakers from both parties have signed on. Medical and sleep health organizations have also endorsed the legislation, arguing that permanent standard time is the better long-term choice for public health.

"Permanent standard time will lead to a healthier, safer, and more productive America. Natural standard time has a proven track record of improving public health, student performance, and economic output. Permanent standard time ends the harms of clock changes while best aligning with human circadian biology, said Dr. Karin Johnson and Jay Pea, co-chairs of the Coalition for Permanent Standard Time.

For now, however, the Sunshine for Our Kids Act remains a proposed bill. It will need to advance through the legislative process before any changes to the nation's timekeeping system take effect.