(Beyond Pesticides, April 25, 2025) A novel study in Chemosphere finds impacts on male fertility in a bee species (Osmia bicornis) with exposure to sulfoxaflor, a systemic sulfoximine insecticide with similar mechanisms to neonicotinoids. “For the first time, we demonstrate that short-term chronic, field-realistic exposure to a common pesticide reduced pre-copulatory display (36%) and sounds (27%) [courtship behaviors], increased the number of copulations (+110%) and the mating duration (+166%), while finally reducing sperm quantity (25%) and mating success (43%),” the researchers report. They continue, “Our research raises considerable concern on the impact of field-realistic, low sublethal pesticide levels on the fertility and reproductive success of pollinators.”

Mating behaviors and the ability to successfully reproduce determines the survival of species. As the authors state: “Mating disorders may therefore contribute to the recent decline in insect and pollinators’ health worldwide. While the impact of pesticides on pollinators is widely considered as a driving factor for reducing pollinators’ health, their effect on mating behaviour and male fertility remains widely overlooked.”

The red mason bee (O. bicornis) can “provide essential pollination service for both crops and wild plants sustaining food production and biodiversity while serving as a bioindicator of environmental health.” The abundance and diversity of pollinators has been declining globally, as documented in scientific literature, which puts biodiversity and the production of pollination-dependent crops at considerable risk. The researchers also reference mounting evidence (see here, here, here, and here) that “suggests that environmental pesticide pollution can negatively affect insect biomass and diversity, including bees.”

They continue by saying: “Pesticides can cause both lethal and sublethal negative effects on bees, individually or in combination with other stressors. These effects include impairments in learning and memory, decision time, feeding behaviour, ovary development, colony functionality, nesting behaviour, immune response, motor functions and phototaxis, respiratory rhythm, thermoregulation, orientation and navigation, and flight abilities. However, our understanding of how pesticide exposure may affect insect mating, fertility and reproductive physiology remains scarce, in particular for solitary bees.” (See studies here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Within the study, the experiment was conducted over the course of seven weeks and evaluated mating behaviors that include mating choice, pre-copulatory display, pre-copulatory sound, mating success, post-copulatory display, and post-copulatory vibrations, as well as other behaviors such as food consumption. The results highlight that sulfoxaflor exposure alters the pre-mating behaviors of O. bicornis males and subsequent mating success.

By reducing males’ mating displays and sounds, this lowers the likelihood of males being accepted by females. Observed successful mating also requires almost three times longer for the pesticide-exposed males within the experiment, which could endanger the bees and increase the risk of predation during the process.  

The authors report: “Overall, there was a significant negative effect of sulfoxaflor on the mating success of male bees, resulting in 43% fewer successes in the pesticide group (50%) as compared to the control group (87%). Consequently, sulfoxaflor exposure significantly reduced the occurrence of post-copulatory display and post-copulatory vibrations… Our novel results demonstrate that sublethal, field-realistic pesticide exposure can turn mating into a long, risky, and unsuccessful process in solitary bees.”

The data reveals that sulfoxaflor can negatively affect mating behavior, mating success, and male fertility, which is “likely explained by the pesticide altering the central nervous system of bees, thereby impairing their cognitive, sensory, and motor abilities as well as reproductive behaviour and physiology.” (See studies here, here, and here.) The researchers continue, saying: “The observed findings highlight that pesticides can reduce male fitness which may inevitably lead to drastic consequences at the population level. The data offer a plausible mechanistic explanation for the ongoing decline of wild bee populations and underscore the urgent need to find sustainable solutions in agriculture that safeguard pollinators and biodiversity.”

Behavior impairments not specific to reproduction, such as the observed increased hyperactivity and food consumption, are also of concern, as locomotion and coordination are essential for flight ability and the success of foraging. “[T]he behavioural impairments shown here may impact the quality of the pollination service provided by bees. The increased hyperactivity caused by pesticide-treated bees may have consequently increased bee energy –and thus food – consumption,” the researchers postulate.

As a result, the authors conclude by saying: “We reveal that pesticides alter bee behaviours before, during, and after mating. This may translate to wider fitness impairments, including alterations on the ability of bees to forage, defend territories against competing males, and find females.”

Previous research supports these findings, which the researchers reference from the following studies:

• Male bees play a key role in sexual reproduction, with any impacts specifically to males having a significant influence on population dynamics and offspring sex ratios. (See study here.)
• “Sulfoxaflor is a sulfoximine insecticide, acting as an agonist of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR). By disrupting the cholinergic signaling on insect’s central nervous system, even low doses can cause uncontrolled nerve impulses and muscle tremors that can affect behaviour and locomotion.” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• “While sulfoximines and neonicotinoids have both been extensively commercialized for broad pest control and share a similar mode of action (i.e., IRAC group 4), sulfoxaflor was reported as more selective and less toxic on sap-feeding pest insects and non-target organisms. Recent evidence however suggests that sulfoxaflor may be more toxic than certain neonicotinoids, such as acetamiprid and thiacloprid.” (See here, here, here, and here.)
• “[S]ulfoxaflor can cause adverse effects on honey bees (e.g., reduced survival and disrupted metabolism), bumble bees (e.g., reduced reproductive success, egg-laying rate, and colony growth), and solitary bees (e.g., reduced survival, flight and foraging performances, feeding behaviour).” (See here, here, here, and here.)
• Pesticides can cause “detrimental effects on the reproductive physiology and fertility (i.e., the capacity to produce viable sperm in males, and viable offspring in females) of honey bees, and bumble bees.” (See here, here, here, here, and here.)
• “Laboratory and semi-field research have assessed the impact of sublethal pesticide exposure on Osmia females, including alterations of ovary development, fecundity and offspring production, sex ratio, and overall population growth rate.” (See studies here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
• “[P]revious studies revealed that sulfoxaflor increases oxidative stress that can induce apoptosis [cell death] in honey bee sperm cells.” (See here and here.)
• A study of sublethal concentrations of the fungicide fenbuconazole “demonstrated that pesticide exposure significantly reduced the pre-copulatory sounds frequency of modulation (Hz) in O. bicornis, with a subsequent impairment in their mating success.”
• Thiamethoxam and clothianidin, both neonicotinoid insecticides, are “shown to impair male acceptance and mating success, and male fertility in Osmia spp [species]; likely translating to considerable negative effects at the population level.” (See here, here, here, and here.)

“Irrespective of the underlying mechanism, a reduction in sperm quantity will have downstream negative consequences on the number of females a male can successfully inseminate,” the authors explain. “Given fewer inseminated females would yield reduced female offspring, our data provide an additional mechanistic explanation for recently observed declines in wild bee populations.” (See studies here and here.)

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, exposure to pesticides, even at low concentrations, can compromise pollinator health. A multitude of studies find that exposure affects key traits such as survival, reproduction, learning and memory, flight, and foraging, among others. The risk assessments conducted on pesticides by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lack comprehensive data regarding their effects on bees. The limited studies that are performed do not adequately assess the varying impacts throughout all bee species, which display differing levels of sensitivity, nor do they account for the cumulative effects through various routes of exposure to pesticide mixtures. (See more on EPA’s failure to protect pollinators here and here.)

“Considering that reproductive traits underpin individual fitness and ultimately population dynamics, it is rather surprising that these traits remain largely overlooked, in particular for bee ecotoxicology,” the researchers say. They continue: “Our research underscores the urgency to include male bees in ecotoxicological assessments to enhance current risk evaluation frameworks. While most research on pesticide impacts focuses on females, particularly in solitary bees, incorporating the neglected male sex in bee health assessments is essential, as impaired male health will inevitably have far-reaching negative consequences at the population-level.”

As an alternative to harmful chemicals that are improperly regulated and assessed, managing land with organic methods provides a solution with multiple health and environmental benefits. As shared in previous Daily News coverage, studies indicate organic land management “can increase species richness by approximately 34% and abundance by around 50%. Organic farming promotes biodiversity by increasing the abundance and variety of plant and insect species. This, in turn, can lead to enhanced biological control, as more predators can help regulate pest populations,” the authors conclude in a study in Environments.

Promoting ecological balance and restoring biodiversity can be achieved through the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, and with the adoption of organic practices. Studies show that organic farming has five times higher plant biodiversity and 20 times higher insect species richness compared to conventional farming and that higher biodiversity of insects is seen in fields with genetically diverse crops.

Take action to protect biodiversity and keep organic strong by becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides today. You can also become an advocate for organic parks through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program and make The Safer Choice to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source:

Vélez-Trujillo, L. et al. (2025) Romance in peril: A common pesticide impairs mating behaviours and male fertility of solitary bees (Osmia bicornis), Chemosphere. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653525002772.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 24, 2025) As the congressionally created National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) of organic stakeholders meets this week to receive comments from the public on the semi-annual review of standards and allowed and prohibited substances in production and processing, multiple members of Congress are moving to shore up the organic sector for farmers and consumers. (See testimony here.) The current 119^th Congress has brought a wave of bipartisan legislation aimed at improving the U.S. food system, including organic standards and programs.

Organic advocates are pleased to see the introduction of a series of bills supporting organic, including the reintroduction of the Organic Science and Research Investment (OSRI) Act, S.1385, the New Producer Economic Security Act, S.1237, (previously Increasing Land, Security, and Opportunities (LASO) Act, H.R.3955, in 2023-24), and the newly-introduced Organic Imports Verification Act (OIVA), S.1398, among others.

OIVA, introduced by Senators Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Tina Smith (D-MN), and Tim Scott (R-SC), is intended to improve consumer confidence in imported organic goods with support for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Strengthening Organic Enforcement Rule. (See a joint press release by Senators Ricketts and Smith here.)

Amid federal funding freezes and cuts that business leaders say undermine small businesses and domestic supply chains, the Honor Farmer Contracts Act, S.1172/H.R.2396, has been introduced to ensure farmers get paid for previously signed contracts with the USDA.

In the face of uncertainty, congressional Democrats and some Republicans are supporting a $23 million budget for USDA’s National Organic Program that helps to oversee a $70 billion organic industry that includes American farmers and provides consumers with healthy food options.

Organic Science and Research Investment Act (OSRI)

Earlier this month, Senators John Fetterman (PA-D) and Sen. Adam Schiff (CA-D), reintroduced OSRI, S.1385, to ensure “organics research is prioritized at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and [increased] funding for research agencies and universities, [as well as ] provid[ing] much needed support to the organic farming industry,” according to Sen. Fetterman’s press release. The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Peter Welch (D-VT), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Angus King (I-ME).

The core features of this legislation are laid out by OFRF in their press release:

• “Creating the Coordinating and Expanding Organic Research Initiative at the USDA to assess and efficiently expand the agency’s organic research portfolio.
• Increasing funding for the Organic Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) from its current budget of $50 million annually to $100 million by the end of the next Farm Bill.
• Formally authorizing the Organic Transition Research Program to support farmers transitioning to organic practices, and renaming the program to the Researching the Transition to Organic Program (RTOP).
• Doubling Farm Bill support for the Organic Production and Market Data Initiative to improve market transparency, help inform targeted market development investments, and improve risk management tools.
• Directing the USDA’s Economic Research Service to evaluate the full economic, ecological, and community impacts of organic agriculture.”

The USDA Economic Research Service has found that for every dollar invested in agricultural research, $20 is rewarded back to the U.S. economy. See a previous Daily News, The Growth of Organic Production and Supply Chains Emphasizes Importance to the Public, for the local, regional, and national impacts of organic supply chains in the United States. In this moment of federal funding freezes, with dozens of programs in jeopardy, Beyond Pesticides joins 80 other farms, businesses, and organizations to support the reintroduction of OSRI in a joint letter here. (See previous Actions in support of organic research from previous years here, here, here, and here.)

Unsurprisingly, a recent report by New York University researchers identified gaps in various agricultural support systems for organic farmers in a novel analysis, recommending an interagency collaboration through the proposed development of an “Organic Agent Corps.” This would establish permanent positions for experts in various states or regions who are familiar with crop insurance, Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and related programs, as well as organic certification. (See Daily News here.) Given the ramifications of staff freezes and cuts by the billionaire-led Department of Government Efficiency, advocates remain skeptical about any expansion of capacity at this point.

Organic Imports Verification Act (OIVA)

“Fraudulent organic imports hurt American farmers and degrade consumer trust. This must stop,” says Senator Ricketts in a press release announcing this legislation. “By enhancing oversight and enforcing stricter controls, we can better safeguard U.S. organic farmers and maintain consumer trust in organic products. This bipartisan legislation levels the playing field for our domestic organic producers.”

If passed, the Organic Imports Verification Act (OIVA) would require a protocol for residue testing on organic imports shipped in bulk and authorize USDA to stop the sale of the shipment because of their failure to meet the standards set in the Organic Foods Production Act. Beyond Pesticides has covered the importance of a rigorous regulatory framework to identify bad actors and ensure integrity in the system, as well as some notable examples of organic fraud and subsequent corrective actions. (See Daily News here, here, here, and here.)

Most in the organic sector see the passage of OIVA as critical to realizing the goals of the Biden-era Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) Rule, which supports a crackdown on import verification and integrity through additional monitoring requirements for certifiers and producers, processors, and handlers up and down the supply chain. (See Daily News on European Union and U.S. changes to organic standards in 2024 here and here, respectively.)

New Producer Economic Security Act

“Land access is at the root of, and deeply tied to, many of the barriers farmers and ranchers face, including market access, access to operating capital, and day-to-day challenges such as changing weather patterns, mental health, and housing,” said Michelle Hughes, Co-Executive Director of the National Young Farmers Coalition, in a press release announcing this legislation. “The New Producer Economic Security Act comes at a time when farmers need us the most. The bill comprehensively addresses the greatest barriers young and beginning farmers face while elevating local leadership, securing our domestic food system, and delivering material benefits for new producers.”

The sponsors of the legislation include Representatives Nikki Budzinski (D-IL), Zach Nunn (R-IA), Joe Courtney (D-CT), Don Davis (D-NC), Eric Sorenson (D-IL), Jill Tokuda (D-HI), and Gabe Vasquez (D-NM). This bill is a continuation of the previously introduced Increasing Land Access, Security, and Opportunities Act by the same cosponsors in an effort to build on the over $300 million in funds distributed through USDA’s Increasing Land Access, Capital, and Market Access Program made possible through the American Rescue Plan in 2021.

For further analysis on Farm Bill markers from the previous legislative session, see a 2023 op-ed written by senior policy and coalitions associate, Max Sano. While the aforementioned program’s future is unknown, as the Department reviews existing initiatives not codified into law, supporters of the bill are optimistic that these proposals would “be a meaningful opportunity to support young and beginning producers across the country with tangible outcomes for land access, retention, and transition.”

Honor Farmer Contracts Act

In response to frozen USDA funds and breaches of contracts, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) leads a cohort of seventeen Senators and eight U.S. Representatives to introduce the Honor Farmer Contracts Act. This legislation would have a fourfold impact:

1. Unfreeze all funds and implement agreements and contracts;
2. Pay all past due amounts owed to farmers per contractual obligations with the USDA;
3. Prevent USDA from canceling a signed agreement or contract “unless the farmer or entity has failed to comply with the terms and conditions…”; and
4. Prevent closure of offices representing Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or Rural Development Service Centers, without “written notice and justification to Congress” no later than 60 days before the proposed closure.

Beyond Pesticides joins hundreds of other organizations, farmers, food businesses, and concerned parties across the nation in signing on to a letter directed at the Senate and House Agriculture Committees to express our support for this bill. (See here.)

Lawsuits are in motion, with Earthjustice filing a suit against the USDA that challenges the Department’s alleged illegal purging of datasets, resources, and pertinent information that organic farmers rely on to carry out their operations. In combination with unexpected cuts and cancellations, Northeast Organic Farmer Association of New York, as one of the lead plaintiffs, is seeking to stand up to the chaos in support of financial security for all farmers, regardless of organic certification. (See Daily News here.)

Benefits of Organic

There is extensive scientific research on the relationships between organic agriculture and planetary health. The Rodale Institute has conducted the longest-running North American field study comparing organic to chemical-intensive grain-cropping and reported in 2022 impressive productivity and profitability benefits based on four decades of data collection:

1. Organic systems achieve 3–6 times the profit of conventional production;
2. Yields for the organic approach are competitive with those of conventional systems (after a five-year transition period);
3. Organic yields during stressful drought periods are 40% higher than conventional yields;
4. Organic systems leach no toxic compounds into nearby waterways (unlike pesticide-intensive conventional farming;
5. Organic systems use 45% less energy than conventional; and
6. Organic systems emit 40% less carbon into the atmosphere.

Organically managed farmland has been found to increase the quantity and diversity of crop plant microbiota relative to chemical-intensive (conventional) counterparts, based on research by an international cohort from experts at Université de Rennes, Université de Paris-Saclay, L’Institut Agro Rennes-Angers, European Society for Agronomy, France’s National Research for Agriculture (INRAE), and Nanjing Agricultural University in Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. (See Daily News here.)

Organic methods of honey bee and biodiversity stewardship have been found to match or outcompete conventional, chemical-intensive practices, according to a study led by Pennsylvania State researchers in 2023. There are also plenty of opportunities to support ecosystem stability while farming organically, as proven in recent studies on bats.

There are also human health benefits. For example, adopting a fully organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in urine within just two weeks “by an average of 98.6%” and facilitate faster DNA damage repair relative to a diet of food grown with chemical-intensive practices, according to findings from a recently published randomized clinical trial building on existing research. (See Daily News here.)

See Why Organic? to learn more about the health, ecological, and environmental justice benefits of organic agriculture. See Beyond Pesticides’ National Forum session, Tackling the Climate Emergency (November 29, Session 3 recording) with a presentation by Rodale Institute’s Andrew Smith, PhD, and coauthor of several landmark reports on soil biology and carbon sequestration — including the Farming Systems Trial — 40-Year Report.

Call to Action

Across the country, people are preparing their comments for the Spring 2025 NOSB meeting, unpacking critical issues in maintaining trust and oversight into the National Organic Program. Beyond Pesticides continues to cultivate public awareness of the process through Keeping Organic Strong and numerous Actions of the Week, including one of the most recent: Organic Must Lead the Way.

Featured Image credit: Martin Falbisoner, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Sources: Organic Farming Research Foundation, National Young Farmers Coalition, National Organic Coalition

(Beyond Pesticides, April 23, 2025) Recent reviews of scientific literature, in both Chemosphere and Reports in Public Health, associate Parkinson’s disease (PD), the second most prevalent neurodegenerative disease globally, with pesticide exposure. “Given the pervasive nature of pesticide residues in everyday food consumption and inadequate monitoring of their long-term toxicological impacts, the role of pesticide exposure as a modifiable risk factor for neurological disorders, including PD, warrants urgent attention,” the researchers state in the article in Chemosphere.

In describing the history of Parkinson’s and previous research, the authors in Reports in Public Health note that while PD etiology is not fully understood, it is a multifactorial disease. “Hereditary factors are present in approximately 10% of diagnosed cases of Parkinson’s disease, presenting early onset; while the other 90% of cases are categorized as idiopathic or sporadic Parkinson’s disease, occurring in older individuals and may be associated with exposure to environmental agents,” the researchers say.

This disease, first described by English physician James Parkinson, M.D. in 1817, involves neurochemical changes that present as “the appearance of cardinal motor symptoms, such as bradykinesia, rigidity, postural instability, and rest tremor, which are essential for the clinical diagnosis of the disease,” the researchers note.

The prevalence of PD, according to a 2021 study, experienced a 155.5% increase between 1990 to 2019, affecting approximately 8.5 million people worldwide. Current estimates say more than 10 million people are living with PD and studies predict this number could exceed 25 million by 2050.

The researchers reviewed observational studies, conducted on humans, for evidence of pesticides’ association with PD. The studies focus on the Brazilian population, as “Brazil is responsible for approximately 20% of the world’s pesticide consumption,” they state. From the review, the authors find that “rotenone, paraquat, and maneb show toxicity mechanisms that have been most elucidated in pre-clinical studies.” (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.)

Additional study results include:

• Pesticides could trigger the development of PD through facilitation of gene or protein expression changes. (See studies here and here.)
• “[O]xidative stress markers were altered in Parkinson’s disease patients exposed to pesticides. Therefore, oxidative stress may be an aggravator in the neurodegenerative progression.”
• Occupational exposure to maneb is associated with Parkinsonian syndrome. (See here.)
• “[B]oth mancozeb and maneb inhibit the mitochondrial respiratory chain, leading to increased reactive oxygen species, motor impairments, and degeneration of nigrostriatal dopaminergic neurons in preclinical studies.” (See studies here and here.)
• “A 54-year-old man, without a familial history of Parkinson’s disease, accidentally sprayed himself with glyphosate, the most commercialized herbicide in Brazil and worldwide. Initially, one month after the acute intoxication, he presented slowness and rigidity in all four limbs, progressing to resting tremors in the left arm and hand and short-term memory deficit one year later.” (See here.)
• “[O]ccupational exposure to pesticides doubled the mortality of patients with Parkinson’s disease when compared to non-exposed patients.”
• “A case-control study carried out at the Mato Grosso State General University Hospital, including 88 Parkinson’s disease patients and 264 control individuals, also showed that direct handling of pesticides in the workplace increased the probability of developing Parkinson’s disease by more than three times.”
• The mechanisms of action of the herbicides 2,4-D and atrazine, and the insecticide malathion, are linked to the pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease. (See studies here, here, and here.)
• “Risk of developing Parkinson’s disease doubled in individuals exposed to household pesticides for more than 30 days per year at any time during their lifetime.”

These findings are further supported and explained in the Chemosphere article, where the researchers “provide an overview of the molecular pathways impacted by known neurotoxic pesticides and their involvement in the development of PD/parkinsonism.” In exploring the molecular mechanisms of PD development and the key pathways that can be induced by pesticides, such as with exposure to rotenone, paraquat, maneb, and others, the authors are “shedding light on their role in the pathogenesis of PD and highlighting the need for preventative measures and regulatory oversight to mitigate these risks.”

Through the analysis of a multitude of studies, the researchers conclude that pesticides, though they share common neurotoxic mechanisms, exhibit distinct pathways of toxicity and “disrupt mitochondrial and proteasomal functions, impair autophagy, and interfere with dopamine transport and metabolism, contributing to neurodegeneration.”

In describing these mechanisms as they relate to PD and pesticide exposure, the authors include the following:

• Pesticides can cause alpha-synuclein (aSyn) oligomerization, where proteins that play a crucial role in PD and other neurodegenerative disorders within the brain, specifically in nerve terminals, are misfolded. These alterations occur “through oxidative stress, ubiquitin-proteasome inhibition, mitochondria impairment, reactive oxygen species (ROS) accumulation, and altered lipid metabolism.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)
• The association between pesticide exposure and PD development is supported by studies highlighting the structural similarities between certain pesticides and neurotoxicants. (See studies here, here, here, and here.)
• “Epidemiologic studies have linked rotenone exposure, either alone or in combination with other pesticides, to an increased risk of developing PD.” (See here.)
• Paraquat is able to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB), cause prolonged oxidative stress, and alter multiple metabolic pathways that can induce neurotoxicity. (See studies here and here and Daily News here and here.)
• “Both acute and chronic exposure to maneb have been associated with adverse effects in the CNS [central nervous system] among agricultural workers. These effects manifest as Parkinsonism-like motor symptoms, encompassing postural tremor and bradykinesia, alongside complaints of fatigue, memory issues, and drowsiness.” This occurs through mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress. (See here.)
• “Despite the ban on dieldrin many years ago, this insecticide continues to pose a significant threat to the environmental diversity and human health, persisting in soil, rivers, and food samples.” Studies (see here and here) of post-mortem PD brains reveal dieldrin accumulation in the tissue.
• A study shows “alpha-cypermethrin-treated cells exhibited increased expression of several pro-apoptotic [cell death] genes, alongside key autophagy-related genes, as well as increased oxidative stress, characterized by increased nitric oxide levels, lipid peroxidation, and DNA damage.”
• Dichlorvos is shown to selectively induce degeneration of neurons and alter mitochondria morphology through swelling and disintegration. (See studies here and here.)
• Chlorpyrifos induces cell death in cortical neurons, as well as causes aSyn proteins to cluster together. (See here.)

With Parkinson’s disease considered the fastest-growing neurodegenerative disorder worldwide without an effective cure currently available, preventing exposure to environmental contaminants that increase disease risk is imperative. Unfortunately, as the researchers point out, regulatory protocols regarding pesticides “fall short in assessing the full range of their effects on the nervous system. Current guidelines mandate neurotoxicity assessments only if the active ingredient exhibits known neurotoxic properties or shares structural similarities with known neurotoxicants.”

They continue, saying: “This regulatory gap is particularly concerning given the growing body of evidence linking chronic pesticide exposure to PD and other neurodegenerative disorders… [There is a] systemic failure of current regulatory systems, which often underestimate neurotoxicity risks, particularly from chronic low-dose exposures or pesticide mixtures used in real-world agricultural settings. Regulatory frameworks, such as those of EFSA [The European Food Safety Authority] and EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency], continue to prioritize data from short-term, high-dose toxicity studies, which are poorly suited to detect subtle, cumulative damage to dopaminergic neurons [involving dopamine as a neurotransmitter] that can evolve over years or decades.” (See more on EPA failures here.)

Pesticides are intended to target specific pests but are often ineffective and carry unreasonable risks to nontarget organisms and the environment. As the authors state: “[O]ut of the annual 3 billion kilograms of pesticides used globally, only a mere 1% proves effective. This inefficiency has resulted in the widespread, indiscriminate, and often random use of pesticides, leading to environmental contamination and adverse health effects.” (See studies here and here and learn more through the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)

Beyond Pesticides has reported on the association between PD, as well as other brain and nervous system disorders, for many years. (See Parkinson’s Daily News archive here.) Coverage includes Pesticide-Induced Gut Microbiota Composition Alterations Linked to Parkinson’s Disease Prognosis, as well as the alteration of genes with pesticide exposure and how toxicants cause neurodegeneration through inhalation and ingestion pathways.

A Daily News post in February 2024 highlights a study published in Science of The Total Environment, where the researchers find health savings overshadow the cost of banning pesticides linked to Parkinson’s. Despite differing pesticide exposure scenarios, PD risk lowers without pesticide exposure, particularly to those that elicit neurotoxicity, and banning these chemicals is economically beneficial. The study concludes, “[T]he population-level long-term health benefits and health savings would outweigh the financial losses due to the pesticide ban.”

While Parkinson’s disease has no cure, preventive practices, such as organic agriculture and the Parks for a Sustainable Future program, eliminate exposure to toxic PD-inducing pesticides. Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic land management here and here. Make The Safer Choice by avoiding hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides and become a member today to help support Beyond Pesticides’ mission of eliminating petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032!

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Sources:

Amaral, L. et al. (2025) The neurotoxicity of pesticides: Implications for Parkinson’s disease, Chemosphere. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653525002905.

Santos, J. et al. (2025) Pesticide exposure and the development of Parkinson disease: a systematic review of Brazilian studies, Reports in Public Health. Available at: https://www.scielosp.org/article/csp/2025.v41n4/e00011424/en/.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 22, 2025) While it has been widely found that farmworkers bear the brunt of agricultural pesticide exposures in fields and outbuildings, the outdoor use of chemicals contaminating living spaces is documented in an increasing number of studies. Two recent studies add to earlier findings that raise exposure and health concerns.

A large European study of house dust contaminants, published in Science of the Total Environment, finds more than 1,200 anthropogenic compounds, including numerous organophosphates, the phthalate DEHP, PCBs, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products. And, a recent Argentine study, “Pesticide contamination in indoor home dust: A pilot study of non-occupational exposure in Argentina,” examines contaminant levels in household dust in villages and towns distributed throughout the Pampas region, where soybeans, corn, sunflowers, and livestock, especially cattle, are raised. The study participants were not agricultural workers, but teachers, government workers, librarians, retirees, college students, doctors, lawyers, artists, and business people.

The Argentine study reinforces what has been previously reported, which emphasizes findings that there is no doubt that pesticide residues accumulate in homes adjacent to agricultural fields and pastures. For example, in 2023, Beyond Pesticides reported on a study of 598 California homes near agricultural areas sampled for carpet dust at intervals over a year. Pesticides applied to fields and livestock—including the usual suspects, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, permethrin, carbaryl—were abundant in the dust, along with fumigants, insect and rodent repellents, and other non-agricultural toxic chemicals. The European study emphasizes previously reported determinations that the health effects of combined exposures have not been a priority for chemical companies or regulators. The European researchers attempted to determine acceptable daily intakes (ADI) for 202 of the compounds, but only 46 “had consensus-based ADI values.” In other words, of the 1,200 anthropogenic compounds detected, a measure of potential toxicity was available for only about 4 percent.

Homes in agricultural areas are not necessarily safer spaces than fields or outbuildings. And children bear the brunt of interior exposures because they are smaller than adults, breathe faster, and spend more time on or near the ground. Children exposed to pesticides in their first year experience more than twice the risk of developing asthma compared to children not exposed to pesticides. And especially for younger children, the exposures from indoor dust may be higher than through food.

More recently, researchers have focused on nonagricultural exposures in residences located in towns and cities. At first glance, it might seem that urban dwellers would be less exposed than agricultural workers to pesticides, but this is most definitely not the case: urban dwellers just tend to be exposed to different pesticides. While farmworkers take the brunt of the chemicals applied to food, fiber and biofuels, urban dwellers are hit primarily by insecticides used in the indoor environment for fleas, mites, ants, and roaches, for example, but also pesticides used outdoors, such as fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides used in gardens, golf courses, and parks, which make their way indoors. But many pesticides are used in all these environments. Moreover, indoor environments may pose even more of a threat because they tend to concentrate residues of pesticides, both brought in from outside and applied indoors, whether those homes are those of agricultural workers or urban residents.

Participants in the Argentine study completed questionnaires on household demographics, pet ownership, pesticide use, gardening, and habits such as whether shoes are left outside. For each household, dust was collected with broom and dustpan several times over 10 days, and the samples consolidated. The researchers checked for 49 pesticides, finding 41 compounds (including metabolites). All the samples contained mixtures, averaging 19 pesticides per sample and with a maximum of 32 per sample. Twelve pesticides were detected in more than 75 percent of the samples. Imidacloprid, carbaryl, glyphosate, atrazine, and piperonyl butoxide were detected in all samples. (Piperonyl butoxide is not directly pesticidal but increases the potency of pyrethrin insecticides.) Seven of the 49 are used as both agricultural and veterinary or household pest compounds. The authors note that many of the pesticides not associated with residential use likely came from greenspaces and golf courses. There is a strong sampling of pesticides banned in either the U.S. or E.U. or both, including carbofuran (U.S. and E.U.), aldicarb (E.U.), diazinon (U.S. and E.U.), and hexachlorobenzene (banned globally under the Stockholm Convention). Of the compounds detected, Argentina bans diazinon, 2,4DB, fipronil, and chlorpyrifos-ethyl.

For seven of the compounds identified, including glyphosate, atrazine, and imidacloprid, the highest concentrations were over one part per million (1.0 ppm). In the U.S., for many consumer products, glyphosate residue tolerances are below this number. For example, EPA’s tolerances for glyphosate residues in stevia leaves and berries are each 0.1 ppm. This tolerance is ten times lower than the detected concentrations of just one of the pesticides found in the study.

Indoor exposures present an added twist compared to outdoor ones. The Argentine authors noted that the number and concentrations of pesticides in indoor dust can be significantly higher than in outdoor dust and air. Indoors, chemical compounds break down more slowly because they are far less exposed to sunlight, humidity and microbial action. Even long-banned chemicals such as DDT, other organochlorine pesticides, and PCBs remain in many indoor environments because they are so persistent, and they continue to pose hazards to residents and pets.

This has been known for decades; a 2009 Beyond Pesticides analysis of an EPA study noted that most floors in occupied U.S. homes had measurable levels of pesticides. Fipronil and permethrin were found in abundance, along with diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and chlordane. DDT was found in higher percentages than its breakdown product DDE, suggesting that indoor environments preserve the original active components of pesticides much longer than outdoor environments. DDT was globally banned for agricultural use under the Stockholm Convention in 2004. It is still used indoors where malaria is endemic.

The Argentine results are consistent with a very large European study published in 2023. The study took 625 samples of the environment of agricultural sites in ten countries: air, surface water, sediment, soils, crops, and dust inside agricultural workers’ homes. The researchers found 197 pesticide residues indoors. Organic farmers had slightly fewer residues than conventional farmers, but the predominant pesticides were very similar in each type and very consistent with the Argentine samples. One major contrast was that in organic farmhouses, 2,4-D had the highest median concentrations, whereas in conventional farmhouses, the highest was glyphosate. Two-thirds of the residues in indoor dust overall are “highly hazardous to mammals.” Disturbingly, of all the environmental compartments tested, “indoor dust contained the highest number of pesticide residues and the highest pesticide concentrations,” the authors wrote. They also stressed that pre-market risk evaluations fail to capture two crucial aspects of pesticides’ effects, because they are not required to assess all routes of exposure, including indoor environments, and they do not consider mixtures. 

For the Argentine study participants, as for nearly everyone, pets pose a vexing problem, being significant contributors to household dust: 93 percent of participants had pets, and 51 percent had used flea repellents (mostly imidacloprid & fipronil). The authors cited a Netherlands study that found imidacloprid and fipronil in 100 percent of dog hair samples. The role of pets was also observed in the 2023 European study, highlighting the urgent need to develop non-toxic parasite control for pets. Other pests targeted were flies, mosquitoes, slugs, and ants. Two-thirds of participants in the Argentine study brought shoes inside.

Residential studies like this demonstrate unequivocally that we live in a miasma of many different pesticides. The list of documented health effects of pesticides is too long to repeat here, but it includes harms to every physiological system that supports life in humans, wildlife, livestock, pets, fish, aquatic and invertebrates, and beneficial and non-target fungi and microbes. Neurological, respiratory, metabolic, hematological, reproductive, endocrine systems—all are altered in ways that hamper health at every level of the biosphere.

Beyond Pesticides’ archive documents the increasing scientific literature about the extent, composition, and hazards of exposure to pesticide mixtures. For example, in March, we analyzed a study showing that the combination of abamectin and spirodiclofen degrades the intestinal barriers in mice, implying similar damage to the human colon that can lead to colorectal cancer and other diseases

It cannot be overemphasized that the mixtures of pesticides, together with the myriad other chemical products people use in their homes, contribute significantly to the burden of chemical exposures and have received far too little attention from regulators. The days of testing one pesticide active ingredient at a time and determining levels of gross damage in rodents rather than homing in on the cellular-level consequences to full-body processes should be over.

It is possible to reduce the use of toxic pesticides in homes, gardens, and public spaces. As a holistic solution, organic land management practices offer both health and environmental benefits, with proven commercial viability and effectiveness in both agricultural and nonagricultural uses. Become a Parks Advocate through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program. You can also help protect yourself and your family by Eating with a Conscience and making The Safer Choice to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides. Beyond Pesticides urges the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032.

🌎 In celebration of Earth Day, take action with Beyond Pesticides and advocate for organic parks! ➡️ TAKE ACTION

Sources:
Pesticide contamination in indoor home dust: A pilot study of non-occupational exposure in Argentina
Aparicio et al.
Environmental Pollution, May 2025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749125005810

Pesticide residues with hazard classifications relevant to non-target species including humans are omnipresent in the environment and farmer residences
Silva et al.
Environment International, 2023
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412023005536#ab015

Study Finds that Pesticides Linger in Homes
Beyond Pesticides Daily News, June 17, 2009
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2009/06/study-finds-that-pesticides-linger-in-homes/

Comprehensive characterization of European house dust contaminants: Concentrations and profiles, geographical variability, and implications for chemical regulation and health risk
Haglund et al.
Science of The Total Environment, December 2024
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724077969

Indoor Air Pollution: Pesticides Continue to Make Their Way Into Homes
Beyond Pesticides Daily News, February 1, 2023
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2023/02/indoor-air-pollution-pesticides-continue-to-make-their-way-into-homes/

(Beyond Pesticides, April 21, 2025)  The first Earth Day, 55 years ago, marked the beginning of a worldwide movement to protect the Earth from threats such as oil spills, raw sewage discharged into waterways, toxic chemical dumps, rampant pesticide use, the degradation of important habitats, and wildlife loss—a movement that led to passage of crucial environmental legislation, which is now at risk. While we try to ensure that the gains of the past 55 years are not lost, we can act locally to improve our local environments. 

Does your community have a pesticide-free park managed with organic practices? Do you wish it did?

The time to take action to protect those parks and create new ones is now. With Beyond Pesticides’ supporters, including the retailer Natural Grocers in the Midwest and west, the Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program provides in-depth training to assist community land managers in transitioning two public green spaces to organic landscape management, while aiming to provide the knowledge and skills and experience necessary to transition all public areas in a locality to these safer and sustainable practices. Through this program, Beyond Pesticides has assisted local leaders in converting the following parks and recreational areas exclusively to organic practices. With this program, Beyond Pesticides is currently working with 19 park districts in 12 states. In addition, Beyond Pesticides has worked with dozens of communities to adopt land management policies in jurisdictions of nearly every state in the country. The goal is to create models that show the viability and cost effectiveness of organic management systems that eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that contribute to the current health crisis, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency.

🌳 For more information, please see the map of our program sites here. For more details on policies and practices across the country, please contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450.

>> Become a 📣 Parks Advocate and/or 📣 take one of the actions listed below. 

1. If your community is one of a growing number across the country that has taken action to protect its citizens and environment by adopting organic policies and practices in its public spaces, 📣 please take this opportunity to thank your community leaders. However, be aware that the pesticide industry is seeking to take those policies away from you.
   
   Message: Thank you so much for implementing pesticide-free, organic policies and practices in our parks and public places! I love to spend time in our parks, knowing that I will not be exposed to toxic chemicals. It is great to know that toxic chemicals will not run off from our public spaces into streams and other water. It is wonderful to know that flowers in our parks can provide nectar to pollinators who face so many threats these days. In honor of Earth Day, thank you on behalf of our local community.
   
   
2. If your community has not yet taken action to protect its citizens and environment by adopting organic policies and practices in its public spaces, 📣 tell them how much you want them to do so.  
   
   Message: When I learned about how many communities protect their citizens and local environment by transitioning to organic landcare in parks and other public places (https://bp-dc.org/tools-for-change), I asked why we can’t do the same in our own community.  Pesticides used in parks, playing fields, and other public places threaten our health—especially that of our children and pets, who are closer to the ground and have greater exposure. Pesticides and chemical fertilizers run off, finding their way to streams. They also threaten pollinators, who are at risk from multiple threats. Communities no longer need to figure out how to do this alone. Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future (https://bp-dc.org/sustainable-parks-land-care-training) program aims to bridge the gaps resulting from staffing constraints and tight budgets, allowing communities to pilot the transition to organic land care on two public sites. I urge you to email their team (mailto:[email protected]) or call Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 to get started! Thank you!
   
   
3. Create your own pesticide-free space in your backyard. 📣 Advertise Your Commitment with a Beyond Pesticides “Pesticide Free Zone” Sign. Please share with us 📣 pictures of your organic yard or local park. 📣 Tell us why your pesticide-free parks are important to you. 

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 18, 2025) A recent study published in Foods assesses the ability of the fungicide azoxystrobin (AZX) and naturally occurring toxins produced by certain fungi, known as mycotoxins, to display effects of cytotoxicity (cell damage). These effects were evaluated using three common mycotoxins found in food, including ochratoxin A (OTA), deoxynivalenol (DON), and T-2 toxin as mixtures with AZX within human hepatocarcinoma (HepG2) cell cultures. In analyzing combinations of these compounds at sublethal concentrations, the authors find modified toxicological behavior and synergistic effects that highlight the complexities of chemical mixtures, and potential threats to liver health through dietary exposure to both toxicants and toxins, that are not adequately regulated for their interactions.

While fungicides, like azoxystrobin, are intended to prevent or control fungal diseases, resistance to these pesticides can increase the presence of fungi, and subsequent mycotoxins, on crops. This scenario allows for co-exposure of fungicides and mycotoxins within food products that present a risk to consumers. These chemicals can threaten human health individually, as the researchers confirm in their study, but present a greater threat in combination. The mixture of AZX with all three mycotoxins exhibits the highest toxicity, with synergistic effects at all tested concentration levels.

“These findings highlight that the co-occurrence of fungicides and mycotoxins in food commodities can lead to complex exposure scenarios that may result in combined toxic effects on the organism,” the researchers state. These simultaneous exposures, and the resulting heightened effects, better reflect real-world exposure where there is a constant stream of harmful compounds creating a chemical cocktail within the environment that all organisms are exposed to. As the authors point out, climate change is also of concern because it can exacerbate these threats, with “increasing global temperatures and shifting weather patterns, which result in higher rates of fungal diseases in crops.” (See study here.)

Through cell cultures and assays, the researchers test the effects of different mixtures of the compounds to find evidence of in vitro toxicity (within cells). This involves AZX and the three mycotoxins individually, in three binary combinations (AZX + DON, AZX + OTA, and AZX + T2), three tertiary combinations (AZX + DON + OTA, AZX + DON + T2, and AZX + OTA + T2), and a quaternary combination of all compounds (AZX + DON + OTA + T2). As the authors report, “The data obtained in the cytotoxicity tests were used to analyze the nature of the interactions between AZX and the mycotoxins DON, OTA, and T2.”

As a result, the researchers find that all the compounds reduced cell viability in a concentration-dependent manner. AZX alone “significantly reduced HepG2 cell viability, with decreases ranging from 7% to 99% and 15% to 87%,” they state. The study also reveals significant differences between the varying combinations and individual compounds. For example, the mixture of AZX + DON displays higher cell viability reduction than AZX by itself. Similar results occurred with AZX combined with OTA and T2 in binary combinations as well, and the tertiary mixture of AZX + DON + OTA shows higher cytotoxic effects than when AZX is administered alone.

The most noteworthy effects occur with the combination of AZX and all three mycotoxins, which has the highest toxic effects on HepG2 cell viability. The authors state: “Of particular significance was the observation that the quaternary mixture of AZX, DON, OTA, and T2 exhibited a synergistic effect at all the concentration levels measured. This finding suggests that the toxicity of the assessment of cell viability of the quaternary combination is greater than that of the related individual mycotoxins.” These results highlight the threat of synergistic effects that can be exhibited with chemical mixtures, which, as the authors describe, “occur when the combined impact is greater than what would be expected from simply adding the individual effects together.”

“Our results revealed that the interactions between AZX and the mycotoxins analyzed varied depending on the combination and concentration,” the researchers conclude. “This phenomenon could be attributed to a common occurrence observed between combinations of substances with different mechanisms of action.” While these mechanisms are not fully understood, scientific literature suggests that “AZX exhibits toxicity in human cells primarily through the generation of oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and the induction of apoptosis [cell death].”

The authors continue, saying: “Exposure to DON, T-2, or OTA has also been demonstrated to induce oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, apoptosis, DNA damage, and inflammatory responses in various cell types. One plausible explanation for the synergistic effect of the quaternary mixture could be the more complex composition of the mixture and the different mechanisms of action of each of the components, which may contribute to the increased cytotoxic effects… Thus, the available data suggest that the potential mode of action responsible for the cytotoxic effects observed in the synergistic interaction between simultaneous exposure to AZX, DON, T-2, and OTA may result from common metabolic processes, such as oxidative stress and energy metabolism.”

When it comes to food crops, Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) are set by regulatory bodies for the maximum permissible levels of pesticide residues. As the researchers share: “The MRLs established in the EU legislation are based on the potentially toxic effects of individual exposure to these chemicals and do not consider the presence of different classes of chemicals simultaneously… Most toxicity studies and risk assessments have focused on individual chemicals, failing to consider potential interactions between substances and leading to an underestimation of their overall impact on human health.” This also applies to the deficient protocols used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (See more on EPA failures here.)

The disregard for combined exposure to multiple compounds, especially when they can exhibit synergistic effects that enhance their toxicity, leaves the health of individuals at risk and “can lead to unpredictable health outcomes, including increased toxicity, reproductive and developmental disturbances, immune system impairment, or even cancer and neurodegenerative diseases.” (Learn more through the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)

Exposure to harmful chemicals can occur through various routes, such as dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion. The exposure to both agrochemicals and mycotoxins within food products represents a significant dietary risk for human health. As the authors note: “The most recent report from the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) indicates that pesticide residues and mycotoxins have been consistently identified as the most prevalent hazard categories, occupying the first and third positions, respectively. Consumers can be simultaneously exposed to these compounds through various food products such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, nut products, and seeds, or sequentially because of mixed diets.”

The increased risks to human health, as documented in this study, with combined exposure to multiple compounds showcases how crucial it is to evaluate chemical mixtures. The altered toxicological behavior and synergy that can occur with these interactions, currently not included in risk assessments, cannot be ignored. (See Action of the Week “FDA Must Establish Tolerances for Pesticides Used in Mixtures.”) With incomplete assessment protocols, the safety of food products and human health are further threatened.

The only way to ensure that both health and the environment are protected is to adopt the holistic solution of organic agriculture and land management. (See more on health and environmental benefits here and here.) As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, organic maintains a unique place in the food system because of its high standards, public input, inspection system, and enforcement mechanism. But, organic will only grow stronger if the public participates in voicing positions on key issues to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a stakeholder advisory board.

The NOSB is responsible for guiding USDA in its administration of The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), including the materials allowed to be used in organic production and handling. The role of the NOSB is especially important as we depend on organic production to protect our ecosystem, mitigate climate change, and enhance our health. Contribute your voice to Keeping Organic Strong by submitting NOSB comments. Because of a shortened period for NOSB review, we urge the submission of comments as soon as possible, but no later than 11:59 pm EDT on April 28.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source:

Fuentes, C. et al. (2025) Combined Cytotoxic Effects of the Fungicide Azoxystrobin and Common Food-Contaminating Mycotoxins, Foods. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/14/7/1226.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 17, 2025) A literature review in Reproductive Sciences finds glyphosate (GLY) and glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) impact women’s reproductive health, adding to the long list of documented harm from this widely used weed killer. The authors note, “Considering the widespread use of GLY, the controversy regarding its endocrine-disrupting potential and reproductive toxicity, and the innumerable lawsuits filed against Bayer and Monsanto by consumers for morbidities related to Roundup™ exposure, the purpose of this review is to summarize the current literature on the potential adverse effects of GLY and GBHs on the female reproductive tract and discuss possible clinical implications on reproductive health outcomes, including polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, and female fertility.” 

Glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), the primary metabolite (breakdown product) of GLY, are found throughout the environment in soil and water, as well as in samples of blood, urine, seminal plasma, and breast milk. Studies have detected residues in farmworkers, as well as “in the urine of 60–80% of the general public in the USA, including pregnant women and children.” (See studies here, here, and here.) The ubiquitous use of GLY and GBH, and subsequent persistence, threatens the health and well-being of all. 

Previous studies have found a wide range of health and environmental effects with GLY exposure, ranging from cancer and neurotoxicity to leaching in groundwater and threats to pollinators and aquatic organisms, despite the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reaffirming that glyphosate meets regulatory standards. As the researchers state, “Several studies have demonstrated the harmful effects of GLY and GBHs on the male reproductive system and fertility.” [See studies here, here, and here.] 

They continue: “However, a comprehensive review of the data on the effects of GLY on the female reproductive system and reproductive health outcomes is lacking… The continued debate regarding the effects of GLY exposure makes establishing the impacts of GBH on female reproductive health, the consequences on human fertility, and the epigenetic effects a pressing public health issue.” 

Through a review of over 80 current studies in scientific literature, the authors find associations between GLY and adverse impacts on the female reproductive system through “increased oxidative stress, endocrine disruption of reproductive hormones, histological changes in ovarian and uterine tissue, and diminished ovarian function in human cell lines and animals.” They continue by saying that this “growing evidence suggests GLY and GBH possess cytotoxic, genotoxic, and endocrine-disrupting effects, potentially impacting human health and reproductive function.” 

Oxidative Stress and Epigenetics 

Cytotoxicity refers to the ability of a substance to cause damage to cells. GLY’s cytotoxic effects are “primarily mediated by a heightened state of oxidative stress arising from an imbalance [of] reactive oxygen species (ROS).” The increasing levels of ROS, which are highly reactive molecules that are harmful in elevated concentrations, can cause cellular, protein, and DNA damage. Increased ROS production is a key oxidative stress mechanism that studies (see below) link to GLY and GBH exposure. This can, in turn, “induce endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, cell death, metabolic alterations, and potential epigenetic alterations.” 

As summarized by the researchers, “Epigenetics refers to heritable changes in gene expression that occur without changing the DNA sequence.” Epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation, are linked to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC) such as GLY. (See studies here and here.) “These epigenetic modifications may influence the expression of genes involved in female reproduction and development, which can promote the transgenerational inheritance of disease,” the authors state. These impacts highlight the threats to future generations even long after exposure has ended. 

Important study results include: 

• “GLY can trigger ROS overproduction and accumulation, leading to ROS-induced damage.” (See studies here and here.) 

• “In multiple animal models, GLY increased malondialdehyde (MDA) production, a toxic metabolite produced by ROS-induced lipid peroxidation, in the ovary and uterus.” (See studies here and here.) 

• In a multigenerational study of rats, “GLY-induced alterations in DNA methylation increased the frequency of ovarian disease, mammary tumors, obesity, premature birth abnormalities, and kidney disease.” 

• Another study “showed that perinatal exposure of female rats to GBH induced epigenetic changes in the uterine ERα gene,” which is a gene essential for the development and function of the uterus. 

• “Maternal exposure to GBH has also been linked to delayed fetal growth and structural congenital anomalies” in the offspring of rats. 

Endocrine Disruption 

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, a multitude of studies consider GLY and GBH as EDCs. The scientific literature shows that glyphosate products (e.g., Roundup™) are more toxic than glyphosate alone and result in a number of chronic, developmental, and endocrine-disrupting impacts. The “inert” ingredients in Roundup™ formulations kill human cells at very low concentrations, and some GBH products are genotoxic. Despite evidence of GLY as an EDC, “the endocrine-disrupting potential of GLY on female steroid sex hormones and reproductive function is limited,” the authors note. 

Through the available science, they find: 

• “Recent studies have suggested that GLY may induce estrogenic effects by targeting estrogen signaling pathways.” (See studies here and here.) 

• In a study of human placental cells, GBH concentrations lower than those used in agriculture cause decreased enzyme activity that is essential in producing estrogen. 

Female Reproductive System Effects 

In analyzing studies specifically relating GLY/GBH exposure to female reproductive health impacts, the researchers find pregnancy risks (including poor pregnancy outcomes and fetal developmental issues), uterine abnormalities, and ovarian dysfunction, such as with a reduction in the number and quality of eggs (oocytes) and damage to ovarian follicles that are needed for hormone production and egg development. “The consequences of GLY exposure on endocrine and reproductive function may negatively influence female fertility and reproductive health outcomes, including endometriosis, PCOS, and infertility,” the authors share. 

The literature review reports the following results: 

• “GLY-induced disturbances in redox balance and endocrine function, including aromatase activity and estrogen signaling, may negatively impact the female reproductive system, with potential consequences on ovarian function, uterus morphology, and embryo implantation.” (See studies here and here.)  

• “The effects of GLY and GBH on ROS accumulation and oxidative stress may disturb ovarian function and oocyte quality.” (See study here.) 

• “Oxidative damage also accelerates ovarian aging and increases apoptosis [cell death] in granulosa cells,” which are cells in the ovaries crucial for hormone production and oocyte growth and maturation. 

• “Numerous in vitro [in cells] and in vivo [in animals] studies have shown that GLY and GBH may disrupt ovarian function by impacting oocyte morphology, follicle development, and steroidogenesis.” (See here and here.) 

• “[I]n-utero exposure of mice to GLY decreased ovarian weight, increased follicle atresia, and altered estrogen and progesterone levels.” 

• “GLY impaired folliculogenesis, decreased estrogen secretion, and altered ovarian morphology.” (See study here.) 

• “GLY and Roundup™ exposure in pig oocytes reduced the percentage of oocytes that matured.” 

• GBH-induced alterations in the structure of the uterus “may contribute to infertility, early pregnancy loss, and endometrial hyperplasia.” 

• “[E]xposure to GBH may disrupt embryo implantation by damaging the vascular support to implantation sites in the uterus,” which can increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. 

• “GLY induces disruptions in ovarian and neuroendocrine functions that may result in abnormalities resembling the pathophysiologic features of PCOS, such as abnormal gonadotropin [hormones that regulate the function of the ovaries] secretion, dysfunctional ovarian aromatase activity and hyperandrogenism, and impaired follicle development and ovulatory function.” (See studies here and here.) 

These effects on women’s reproduction from exposure to GLY and GBH, resulting from oxidative stress, alterations in hormone levels, dysfunction of the ovaries and uterus, and more, suggest that these chemicals can act as endocrine disruptors and carry the threat of reproductive toxicity, which is not considered during risk assessments. (See more on regulatory deficiencies and EPA failures here.) 

In a recent Daily News post, Beyond Pesticides reports that reproductive implications are noted with many different classes of pesticides, such as insecticides, including organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), organophosphates (OPs), pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids, as well as herbicides and fungicides. In examining over 200 studies performed in the last 25 years, a review in Environment & Health finds that pesticides, including glyphosate, threaten women’s health, particularly through ovarian dysfunction. 

A Holistic Solution 

An article reporting on a Reproductive Sciences study in U.S. Right to Know, titled Glyphosate poses widespread risks to female fertility and reproductive health: new research, shares: “Glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, disrupts female hormones, and damages the ovaries and uterus in ways that can make it more difficult for women to get pregnant, according to a new review of human and animal research… To reduce your risk of exposure to glyphosate, opt for organic produce [and] avoid herbicide use in home gardens.” 

The article continues, “Supporting non-herbicide weed control strategies and organic farming in your community can also decrease reliance on chemical herbicides.” This echoes Beyond Pesticides’ mission of transitioning away from petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers into the holistic systems-based approach of organic land management. 

In adopting organic practices, the threats from GLY, GBH, and all other harmful chemicals are eliminated, except for the contamination attributable to chemical drift and runoff. This includes reproductive toxicity, as well as a wide range of additional health effects covered in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. To learn about the health and environmental benefits of organic, see here and here. For more information on endocrine disruption, watch keynote speaker Tracey Woodruff, PhD, at the second session of the 41st National Forum Series — Imperatives for a Sustainable Future. 

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.  

Sources: 

Ferdinand, P. (2025) Glyphosate poses widespread risks to female fertility and reproductive health: new research, U.S. Right to Know. Available at: https://usrtk.org/healthwire/glyphosate-risks-to-female-fertility-reproductive-health/.  

Stone, A. et al. (2025) Re-Evaluating the Use of Glyphosate-based Herbicides: Implications on Fertility, Reproductive Sciences. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43032-025-01834-6.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2025) Documented for the first time, 15 currently used pesticides (CUPs) and four metabolites (breakdown or transformation products—TP) were found in the marine atmosphere over the Atlantic Ocean. Three legacy (banned) pesticides were also discovered. According to a recent study published in Environmental Pollution, researchers found empirical evidence for pesticide drift over remarkably long distances to remote environments.

The findings of this study build on existing research that pollution knows no borders or boundaries, emphasizing Beyond Pesticides’ mission to advocate for the value of the precautionary principle through the elimination of synthetic chemicals and replacement with organic systems that address the root causes of pest pressures–including systemic failure to feed soil microbial life.  

Background and Methodology

“In this study, 329 pesticides, including 282 CUPs and 36 transformation products, were [sampled for] in the atmosphere across a south-north transect on the Atlantic Ocean,” said the authors. They unpack the three main objectives to address the focus and major objectives of their research:

1. “[T]he determination of pesticide concentrations in the atmosphere of the Atlantic Ocean,
2. The investigation of the spatial distribution of pesticides across the Atlantic Ocean, and
3. The elucidation of potential sources and factors influencing pesticide transport in the investigated area.”

The study authors are based at various universities and research institutes in Germany, including the Centre for Materials and Coastal Research, Rostock University, and Hamburg University.

In order to achieve these objectives, researchers collected air samples using glass-fiber filters and collected gaseous samples using slices of polyurethane foam and 55 grams of Amberlite XAD-2 resin housed in a glass column (PUF/XAD-2 column). To engage in this broad-spectrum analysis, researchers applied both gas chromatography and liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. Twelve air samples were gathered between two and five days, “depending on the distance to land and movement of air masses [in order to] ensure… detectable pesticide concentrations in each sample.” Samples were collected on a research vessel on a pathway from Punta Arenas, Chile, to Bremerhaven, Germany.

Figure 1: The study authors gathered air samples for this study on the research vessel and Icebreaker “Polarstern.” Image credit: Llez from Own Work, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Findings

“In total, twenty-two pesticides were found in the air above the Atlantic Ocean, including fifteen CUPs, four transformation products, and three legacy pesticides,” the authors report in the results and discussion section of this report. “All main pesticide groups were present and equally represented, namely six insecticides, five herbicides, seven fungicides, and four transformation products. Seventeen pesticides were present in the gaseous phase only, two pesticides were found in the particulate phase only, and three pesticides were found in both phases.”

The CUPs include the insecticides bifenthrin, carbofuran, flonicamid, and flupyradifurone; the fungicides cyflufenamid, dicloran, dimethomorph, fenpropidin, fluopyram, and tebuconazole; the herbicides clopyralid, fenuron, flumioxazin, isoxaflutole, and metamitron; the transformation products metalaxyl metabolite CGA 62826, metolachlor ethane sulfonic acid, metolachlor oxanilic acid, and prothioconazole desthio; and the legacy pesticides 2,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDD, and hexachloro-benzene.

Pesticide concentrations are generally higher in the northern hemisphere, with the European coastline having the highest concentrations found for this study. Of particular note is that this study is the first to provide empirical evidence for the potential for long-range transport (LRT) of twelve additional CUPs and four TPs in the marine atmosphere across the Atlantic Ocean after previous research in recent years found initial evidence for the other three (fenpropidin, S-metolachlor, and tebuconazole) in 2024. (See the previous paragraph for the list of pesticides.) Understanding the potential for long-range atmospheric transportation of pesticides is crucial not only for national regulators hoping to address chemical pollution within the boundaries of their countries but also for governments’ compliance with the international Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which is a treating that signed by 152 countries worldwide that bans persistent organic (meaning containing carbon) pollutants. The United States has not joined over 150 countries in ratifying a 2001 United Nations treaty known as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which requires the elimination of persistent organic pollutants’ (POPs) production, use, and/or release. (See here and here for Beyond Pesticides coverage).

The researchers highlight how their empirical evidence opens the door for these new pesticide products to be considered as compounds that undergo LRT potential as defined in the Convention: The Stockholm Convention defines relevant compounds to have “measured levels in locations distant from source regions that are of potential concern.”

Figure 2: The United Nations Headquarters in New York, USA. Image credit: ©[blurAZ from Getty Images] via Canva.com

Previous Coverage

There has been mounting scientific evidence of pesticide drift into the seemingly most out-of-reach and perplexing of locations, as previously covered in the Daily News. In 2024, a team of researchers from San Diego State University and the University of California, San Diego, published a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters on the impact of legacy pesticides on the long-term ecosystem health of the Superfund-designated Southern California Bight zone, an area known for its historic and tragic dumping of DDT waste. This study, funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), was the first to find halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) in deep ocean sediment and biota, identifying 49 compounds, many of which were DDT-related and not previously screened.

The adverse health impacts of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including banned legacy pesticides such as DDT and their metabolites, have also been found in the blubber of infant and younger humpback whales, based on published research by NOAA and the Center for Coastal Studies in Massachusetts. (See Daily News here.)

Additional studies have unpacked the bioaccumulative and adverse health effects of pesticides in salt and freshwater ecosystems alike, including coral reefs. A 2024 study published in Marine Pollution Bulletin found that large benthic foraminifera (LBF)—single-celled organisms found on reefs that researchers utilize as a “canary in the coal mine” for coral reef health—face adverse metabolic impacts after exposure to the weed killer glyphosate and insecticide imidacloprid. The study found that “even the lowest doses of the fungicide and herbicide caused irreparable damage to the foraminifera and their symbionts.” (See Daily News here.)

There are numerous peer-reviewed studies in the scientific literature that underscore the connection between synthetic pesticide use, exposure, and drift to deleterious effects on ecosystem health, including marine ecosystems and aquatic life. See the dedicated Daily News sections on aquatic organisms, biodiversity, oceans, water, and wildlife/endangered species for further information and insights.

Call to Action

Communities around the country continue to look for opportunities to support biodiversity conservation, public health, and climate resilience. Please consider subscribing to the Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to engage with decision-makers on pivotal issues and receive pertinent policy and science updates from the Beyond Pesticides team, respectively.

You can prevent pesticide air volatilization and drift into waterways and soil by asking your mayor to adopt organic land management policy and programs for your community’s parks and public spaces. (See Action of the Week here.)

Featured Image credit: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/index.php from NOAA, Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Figure 1 credit: Llez from Own Work, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Figure 2 credit: ©[blurAZ from Getty Images] via Canva.com

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Environmental Pollution

(Beyond Pesticides, April 15, 2025) A study in Communications Earth & Environment, through field, greenhouse, and laboratory experiments involving three plant bug species, finds both species-specific and sex-specific sensitivity responses to neonicotinoid insecticide exposure—highlighting the threats to grassland insect communities that are disregarded in risk assessments. By assessing the effects of Mospilan®SG, with the active ingredient acetamiprid, the researchers determine that nontarget plant bug species are highly sensitive to neonicotinoids and face community-level harm with exposure. As systemic insecticides, neonicotinoids move through the vascular system of plants, expressing the poison through pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets. As persistent pesticides, these chemicals indiscriminately poison insects and organisms in the soil.

“Although pesticides have been proposed as one of the main causes of insect decline, there are still few studies assessing their effects on non-target species under field conditions,” the authors state. They continue: “In this study, we address the existing research gap on insecticide exposure of non-target herbivorous insects, focusing on two main aspects: (1) realistic exposure scenarios, (2) community-level effects, i.e., differential sensitivity between closely related species and between sexes of the same species. We chose plant bugs (Heteroptera: Miridae) as a model group because they are one of the 20 most diverse insect families and a common component of non-target insect communities in agroecosystems.”

The environmental threats from pesticide exposure are becoming increasingly apparent. As the researchers point out, “We are facing an unprecedented decline in biodiversity, which has been particularly evident for insects in recent years, with many studies showing global declines in insect biomass, abundance, and richness.” The scientific literature shows pesticides as a major driver of these declines from both agricultural and nonagricultural exposure.

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, insects provide many important services, such as maintaining healthy soil, recycling nutrients, pollinating flowers and crops, and controlling pests. These nontarget and beneficial species are at risk through pesticide exposure, both directly and indirectly, which then affects these essential functions. The pesticide residues that contaminate plants and insects that provide a food source for other organisms can lead to population effects throughout multiple trophic levels. Since the active ingredients in pesticides can affect a wide range of taxonomic groups, they cause harm to numerous species rather than just the target species. 

As Dave Goulson, PhD—a speaker at Beyond Pesticides’ 40th National Forum Series—says, an insect apocalypse is occurring that threatens all ecosystems. In an essay in Current Biology, he states, “Insects are integral to every terrestrial food web, being food for numerous birds, bats, reptiles, amphibians and fish, and performing vital roles such as pollination, pest control and nutrient recycling. Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems will collapse without insects… we may have failed to appreciate the full scale and pace of environmental degradation caused by human activities in the Anthropocene.”

Plant bugs, with high diversity and abundance, represent an important group that supports the function of ecosystems but is understudied in existing scientific literature and “are not considered in the risk assessment procedure for plant protection products,” the authors note. They continue: “We argue that plant bugs are an ecologically relevant group to study. They are most certainly an important food source for birds and a wide range of predatory invertebrates. In addition, species within plant bug communities are often similar in many traits (e.g., morphology, habitat, diet, and phenology) and therefore offer the opportunity to study physiological differences in insecticide sensitivity at the species level due to the high diversity of this family.”

The study includes field, greenhouse, and laboratory experiments in southern Germany conducted with the neonicotinoid acetamiprid, which is both a contact and a systemic insecticide that can be absorbed by plants and distributed throughout their tissues. This active ingredient was chosen due to its worldwide use and because it is the only neonicotinoid still registered for open-field use in the European Union (EU).

The plant bugs in the experiments include the three most abundant species: Stenotus binotatus, Leptopterna dolabrata, and Megaloceroea recticornis, which can be considered representative nontarget herbivorous insects. Through direct and indirect exposure to acetamiprid, these species show high sensitivity and impacted survival rates. In summarizing the results, the authors say: “In a controlled field study, the abundance of three focal species was reduced by up to 92% two days after field exposure at concentrations expected at field margins, with mortality varying among species. Follow-up feeding assays with insecticide-treated host plants in the greenhouse and controlled dose-response laboratory assays confirmed the strong negative effects on non-target species.”

In comparing the three species, there are pronounced species-specific differences, with S. binotatus being significantly more sensitive to acetamiprid than the other two species. Additionally, of note is that males of L. dolabrata and M. recticornis are 20 times more sensitive than females and the LD50 (lethal dose of half the test population) levels calculated for the plant bug species show that acetamiprid is over 11,000 times more toxic to plant bugs than to honey bees.  

Honey bees are used as a model species in EU risk assessments, as well as those incorporated in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protocol, but do not adequately reflect the nontarget insect community. “As a result, the disruption to these communities caused by pesticide exposure is not considered,” the researchers point out. They continue: “In addition, risk assessment is currently only done at the species level, and sex-specific sensitivity is not considered. However, the up to 22-fold difference in LD50 values between sexes that we found could scale to detrimental long-term effects on plant bug community composition.”

This study, which focuses on EU risk assessments, applies even more so to current EPA regulatory protocol, as they allow many pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids, to be used that are banned in other countries. As shared in a previous Daily News article, EPA’s reliance on honey bee data from lab studies focused on LD50 does not accurately capture the threats that pesticides pose in the real world to all insects, including thousands of other bee species, with diverse life histories, genetic compositions, and sensitivities to pesticides. (See more on the deficiencies of pollinator risk assessments here and EPA failures here.)

Available ecotoxicological studies also have a narrow scope, in which the authors say, “Herbivorous insects, which account for about 50% of all insect species globally, have been largely neglected.” Studies that are representative of all species and their varied sensitivity need to be performed in order to make proper assessments. The researchers say their study results stress the need for the urgent adoption of risk assessments that adequately address the environmental harm of pesticide contamination to all species within ecosystems that are threatened by exposure.

The authors close by stating that continuous exposure to neonicotinoids, such as acetamiprid, “may reduce plant bug populations and promote insecticide-tolerant species, altering community composition. We suggest that sex-specific sensitivity be considered in risk assessment and conclude that the true risk to non-target insects is currently greatly underestimated.” The varied species susceptibility, which is not included during regulatory assessments, could cause entire community structures to be altered. This, in turn, can cascade throughout multiple trophic levels and the entire ecosystem, especially when insect herbivores are involved, as they play a central role in terrestrial food webs.

With large numbers of insects at risk, the reliance on pesticides in agriculture and land management threatens biodiversity, which is a key driver of ecosystem services. (See more on the importance of biodiversity here and here.) Within this context, organic agriculture and land management provide a holistic solution for enhancing and protecting biodiversity. Ultimately, the only way to ensure the safety of the world’s agricultural systems, as well as natural ecosystems, is to end the use of toxic petrochemical pesticides, including neonicotinoid insecticides.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for the widespread adoption of organic management practices as key to protecting insects, including pollinators, and the environment and has long sought a broad-scale marketplace transition to organic practices that legally prohibits the use of toxic synthetic pesticides and encourages a systems-based approach. Support Beyond Pesticides’ mission by becoming a member today and sign up to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates to stay informed and engaged.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source:

Sedlmeier, J.E. et al. (2025) Neonicotinoid insecticides can pose a severe threat to grassland plant bug communities, Communications Earth & Environment. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02065-y.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 14, 2025) The Trump administration has undertaken an unprecedented attack on science in regulatory, research, and educational institutions, with predicted adverse consequences for all people across the country. The Union of Concerned Scientists last week published a list of organizations and their tracking of Trump’s dismantling of federal science programs, including health research and the impact by Congressional district. And, the Environmental Protection Network estimates that the announced rollbacks at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would erase $254 billion in health and economic benefits.

Perhaps it is understandable that those who oppose environmental and health regulations that put limits on industry would favor cuts to regulatory agencies. However, the impacts of the current cuts go far beyond deregulation. 

>> Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to reverse Trump Administration cuts to science. 

The cuts to agencies affect science at every level. Science funding has been slashed at EPA, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). And these cuts have implications for, among other things, clean air and water, protection from wildfires, cures for diseases ranging from Alzheimer’s to childhood cancer, monitoring and protection from lead exposure and infectious disease, mine safety, weather safety, and the viability of farms. 

The attack on science does not stop at federal agencies. It affects scientific research and education at every level. Cuts in medical research grants will reduce funding at hospitals and universities in every state. The cuts have “thrown the research world into chaos.”  Admissions for PhD programs are being curtailed. Perhaps as many as 75% of scientists are considering leaving the U.S., leading to a fear of a “lost generation” of American scientists. Combined with cuts in education, cuts to scientific research also impact K-12 science education. 

These cuts (and others) have provoked resistance throughout the country. Over 1900 elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued an open letter opposing the Trump administration’s war on science. A group of current and former EPA employees wrote an op-ed piece defending their work in environmental justice programs to protect the health of communities. Researchers, doctors, and their supporters rallied to “Stand Up for Science” in New York and other cities. A coalition of officials from 23 states sued the Trump administration over cuts to public health. On April 5, millions of people throughout the country attended more than 1,400 “Hands Off” rallies to protest the Trump administration’s deep budget and staffing cuts, funding freezes, tariffs, and President Trump’s “authoritarian overreach and billionaire-backed agenda.” 

Beyond Pesticides joins with the voices challenging the Trump Administration’s attack on science!! 

>> Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to reverse Trump Administration cuts to science. 

Letters to Members of Congress
The Trump administration has undertaken an unprecedented attack on science in regulatory, research, and educational institutions, with predicted consequences for all of us.

Perhaps it is understandable that those who have opposed environmental and health regulation putting limits on industry would favor cuts to regulatory agencies. However, the impacts of the current administration’s cuts go far beyond deregulation.

The cuts to agencies affect science at every level. Science funding has been slashed at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). And these cuts have implications for, among other things, clean air and water, protection from wildfires, cures for diseases ranging from Alzheimer’s to childhood cancer, monitoring and protection from lead exposure and infectious disease, mine safety, weather safety, and the viability of farms.

The attacks on science do not stop at federal agencies. They affect scientific research and education at every level. Cuts in medical research grants will reduce funding at hospitals and universities in every state. The cuts have “thrown the research world into chaos.” Admissions for PhD programs are being curtailed. Perhaps as many as 75% of scientists are considering leaving the U.S., leading to a fear of a “lost generation” of American scientists. Combined with cuts in education, cuts to scientific research also impact K-12 science education.

These cuts (and others) have provoked resistance throughout the country. Over 1,900 elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued an open letter opposing the Trump administration’s war on science. A group of current and former EPA employees wrote an Op-Ed piece defending their work in environmental justice programs to protect the health of communities. Researchers, doctors, and their supporters rallied to “Stand Up for Science” in New York and other cities. A coalition of officials from 23 states sued the Trump administration over cuts to public health. On April 5, millions of people throughout the country attended more than 1,400 “Hands Off” rallies to protest the Trump administration’s deep budget and staffing cuts, funding freezes, tariffs, and President Trump’s “authoritarian overreach and billionaire-backed agenda.”

I believe that support for science and the scientific method of evaluating hypotheses is essential for preventing the country from being overwhelmed by those replacing facts with assertions based on fear and anger. Therefore, I ask you to challenge the Trump administration’s cuts and restore funding to research institutions.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 11, 2025) In a new report by Save our Seeds/Foundation on Future Farming, a consortium of EU-based scientists and bioethicists raise concerns about the implications and threats of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) for genetic engineering. Artificial intelligence will impact all aspects of society, including the acceleration of genetic editing tools that may lead to increased risks of harmful traits/genetic data being incorporated into products on the global marketplace. Organic farmers, conservationists, and public health professionals who collaborate with Beyond Pesticides grow increasingly concerned about the long-term impacts of deregulation and ongoing federal funding freezes and firings on needed regulatory oversight of the tech sector, including AI.

Review of Save our Seeds Report

So, what is artificial intelligence (AI)?

AI is a broad field that focuses on building machines and systems that can think, learn, and solve problems—incorporating elements of human behavior. It powers things like voice assistants, self-driving cars, and recommendation systems on apps like Netflix or Spotify. In short, AI is designed to understand information, make decisions, and complete tasks intelligently.

Generative AI, however, is an extension of AI focused on creativity. The main goal is to generate new content—whether in writing, photography, video, music, or computer code. Tools like ChatGPT and DALL·E can produce original stories, artwork, or designs based on the inputted information. While traditional features of AI were designed to support summation, light analysis, and automation, generative AI imagines and invents new content. The allegory that comes to mind is AI as the problem-solver and generative AI as the creator.

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into the genetic engineering of biological life is transforming the agribusiness sector. Developers have adapted AI architectures from models to interpret biological “languages,” given the sweeping quantity of gathered data on plant DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolites in recent years. As a result, AI tools have become both descriptive and generative, capable of analyzing and summarizing datasets, proposing predictions, and designing functional DNA, RNA, and protein sequences, including “new-to-nature” sequences.

Depending on the genetic data entered, AI models can fall into at least four categories highlighted by the authors of this report:

• Protein Models: These models can analyze proteins, simulate their interactions, and redesign their functions. Notably, Google’s AlphaFold has made significant contributions to this field, earning recognition for its advancements.
• DNA Models: Since 2021, large language models trained on DNA sequences have been developed. Among them, AgroNT, a collaboration between Google and Instadeep released in late 2023, stands out for being trained on 10 million genome sequences from 48 plant species.
• RNA Models: While AI models trained on human RNA sequences exist, it is anticipated that plant-based RNA models will be developed soon, with models like scGPT based on single-cell RNA sequencing data. Scientists writing on ScGPT last year in Nature said, “Our findings illustrate that scGPT effectively distills critical biological insights concerning genes and cells.”
• Multimodal Models: Developers are now working on multimodal AI systems capable of processing multiple forms of biological data, integrating DNA, RNA, and protein data for comprehensive analysis.

CRISPR-Cas remains foundational to gene editing, and developers have modified existing and new AI tools to optimize this process. These tools assist researchers in identifying optimal genetic targets, suggesting effective sequences to guide RNA, and selecting suitable CRISPR-cutting enzymes as a means to what the authors refer to as an increase in the precision and efficiency of gene editing. The use of AI has also expanded CRISPR’s capabilities to include quantitative trait engineering, permitting the control of gene expression levels and the potential to influence complex quantitative traits. Gene expression is pivotal to understanding why some are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, but also the basics of cell structures.

“Large seed companies such as Corteva, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta are increasingly using AI tools in their genetic engineering programmes,” according to the authors in this report on agrichemical corporations’ infiltration into the space. They continue: “To complement their in-house AI expertise, these companies are also partnering with specialised firms. For instance, BASF and Corteva have initiated collaborations with Tropic Biosciences, which owns proprietary AI technology. Syngenta has teamed up with Instadeep and Biographica, while Bayer is supporting startups Ukko and Amfora, both of which combine AI and CRISPR technologies to develop new plant varieties.”

On the one hand, proponents of its use argue that AI enhances the precision and efficiency of CRISPR-based gene editing, expanding its capabilities beyond traditional gene knockouts (an alteration in the genome resulting in reduced or eliminated function of a protein (genetic alteration that results in a reduced or abolished function of a protein, RNA, or other genetic products; see Oxford University definition here.)

However, the report highlights four critical, non-exhaustive vulnerabilities of existing AI in the realm of genetic engineering, including:

“Lower skill threshold” conundrum

Generative AI significantly lowers the barrier to entry for performing complex genetic engineering tasks. While this could democratize plant building by reducing infrastructure and technology costs, it also opens the door to lower quality science, as individuals without adequate scientific training—such as students or “DIY biologists” —might accidently create or release genetically modified/engineered biomaterial with unpredictable or hazardous traits without regulators even knowing where to look. This could happen even by those with extensive scientific training.

The black box effect

Generative AI models typically operate as “black boxes”—the tools provide new content without revealing the rationale underpinning the decision-making process. This lack of transparency is particularly dangerous in genetic engineering, where unintended biological consequences can go easily unnoticed, threatening biodiversity, public health, and climate resilience.

Data hallucinations

Generative AI is capable of producing palatable, yet factually invalid or irrelevant results, known as “hallucinations.” In the context of genetic engineering, these inaccuracies could lead to faulty designs or misinformed decisions, which in turn could lead to the development of GE plants with harmful traits being developed and released into ecosystems and on farmland, public lands, and other forms of private property.

Data distortions

AI systems, generative and otherwise, tend to rely on large datasets for training their models to produce original content. If these sets contain errors or biases, whether from the complexity of the biological systems genetic scientists are aspiring to emulate or basic human error, methodological or otherwise, the resulting predictions may also be skewed.

The overarching concern emerging from this report is the risk that plants with undesirable traits could be engineered and released into the environment prematurely, without proper regulatory or scientific oversight to account for potential errors.

Artificial Intelligence: Friend or Foe to Organic?

There is significant literature (see studies below) on the role of AI and machine learning to “optimize” or “reduce” the use of pesticides, which enables the petrochemical pesticide industry to continue business as usual. There are also misconceptions about organic that may threaten its integrity in the long-term, such as a study published by researchers at Oxford University and Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir, who call for the use of AI to enable consumers with a “a ‘third’ choice and create a new food label, ‘organically-grown GM produce’.”

However, there are also a series of studies from research institutions across the globe emphasizing the importance of AI in fixing capacity gaps in organic agriculture, be it from the perspective of soil health data gathering in European Union and Morocco-based research studies or protecting product integrity by mitigating fraud, discussed in a study published in 2024 by researchers at the Institute for Global Food Security. There is also the potential to employ AI and machine-learning tools (e.g., drones, sensors), it is argued, to address other issues that organic farmers face, such as tracking pesticide drift from off-site sources through sensors, a potential remedy to ensure adherence to standards, real-time pest monitoring and management tools accessible from a phone, and AI projections of weather and climatological data, soil moisture levels, crop health monitoring, and other data aggregation that could render toxic pesticide use unnecessary.

Call to Action

Organic advocates and farmers view federal decision-making as inadequate to protect against GE contamination and subsequent health risks. There is a bipartisan consensus in Washington to promote genetic engineering, made evident in the Biden Administration-published report that promotes genetic engineering, “The Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology—Plan for Regulatory Reform under the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology,” which followed efforts of previous administrations going back to the Clinton Administration. (See Daily News here.)

The issue of genetic engineering spans beyond the concern of food production. In 2022, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the introduction of millions of GE mosquitoes in California and Florida (see Daily News here) alongside the continuous use of prophylactic synthetic insecticide spraying (including sumithirin and bifenthrin) amid outbreaks of deadly arborviruses, such as West Nile and Eastern Equine Encephalitis (see Beyond Pesticides press release here and associated Action of the Week here), which exacerbates insect and weed resistance to toxic chemicals and pesticides.

Policymakers in countries like Kenya and Mexico are standing up to this threat by implementing the precautionary principle into legislative and regulatory decision-making. Just last month, the Mexican legislature signed into law a constitutional amendment prohibiting GE seeds, a direct rebuke to ongoing trade threats and attacks by the Trump Administration. See the recent Daily News post, Mexico Rejects U.S. Forcing Genetically Engineered Corn on Country under Trade Agreement, for analysis of the nearly 2,000-page scientific dossier underpinning the nation’s decision to prohibit GE corn and glyphosate use.

The Spring 2025 meeting for the National Organic Standards Board is a time for the public to speak out on the future of the U.S. food system. The meeting will be held virtually from April 29 to May 1. Written comments are due by April 28, with public comment webinars scheduled for April 22 to April 24 from 12-5pm EDT. See this week’s Action of the Week to submit public comments (see Daily News here) and our Keeping Organic Strong webpage to stay updated on how to engage in the public comment process to strengthen integrity in organic standards!

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Save Our Seeds

(Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2025) The Los Angeles Board of Supervisors has voted to declare today, April 10, Dolores Huerta Day, honoring the lifelong efforts of social justice activist Dolores Clara Fernández Huerta on the celebration of her 95th birthday. In the words of Chair Pro Tem Hilda L. Solis, according to Colorado Boulevard, “Dolores Huerta’s contributions to Los Angeles County and to Latinos across the country have inspired generations of leaders fighting for justice for all. Now more than ever, we honor Dolores Huerta for her work as one of the most influential labor activists of our time… may her legacy continue to light a fire in us all.” 

Ms. Huerta, in accepting the recognition, noted, “I accept this on behalf of Los Angeles’ working people, especially our immigrant community, whose labor supports families and children. The Supervisors have gone above and beyond to assist immigrants, and as we face challenges ahead, it’s vital to continue supporting their bold, compassionate leadership for our most underserved communities.” 

This action follows prior recognition from then Acting Governor of California Eleni Kounalakis in 2024 and the state of Washington in recognizing Ms. Huerta’s decades of leadership. It comes in the wake of the Trump administration’s attacks on farmworkers and others fighting for farmworker justice. [As Beyond Pesticides covered in a recent Daily News post, on March 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency would be shutting down the Environmental Justice and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices and staff at ten of the regional offices and the Washington D.C. headquarters, allegedly in response to the president’s executive order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”]

A Lifetime Legacy from a Legendary Activist 

A schoolteacher-turned-activist and daughter of a farmworker, Ms. Huerta was inspired to action by hungry farm children in her classroom, organizing farmers and farmworkers before cofounding the Stockton chapter of the Community Service Organization (CSO) and the Agricultural Workers Association. After meeting activist César Chávez, the team founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) in 1962—the precursor of the United Farm Workers’ Union (UFW)—ultimately resulting in the passage of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which “protects the rights of agricultural employees to make their own decisions about whether or not they want a union to negotiate with their employer about their wages, hours, and other working conditions.”  

As lead organizer for the historic Delano grape boycott of 1965, for example, she convinced more than 17 million consumers to stop buying grapes in support of workers’ demands for collective bargaining rights, despite interference by the U.S. government in purchasing grapes to send to U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Nonetheless, the campaign succeeded, and Ms. Huerta led the negotiations that followed to secure collective bargaining agreements between the California grape industry and UFW. 

A recipient of the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Ms. Huerta remains a champion of equity and environmental justice, despite the ethnic and gender bias she faced throughout her career. Author and organizer Randy Shaw, in the 2017 documentary, Dolores, credits Ms. Huerta and her collaborators for helping to lay the groundwork for the concept of “Environmental Justice”: “The Environmental Justice movement said that certain environmental hazards are disproportionately impacting on people of color,” Mr. Shaw highlights, continuing that, “It wasn’t simply stopping DDT, but it was also making the larger point, you’re only allowing this because of who the workers are, and their race and class background.” 

In an interview with Civil Eats, Ms. Huerta described her theory of change—embodied in the mission of the Dolores Huerta Foundation that she founded in 2002—as building “leadership in low-income communities and organize people so that they can have a sense of their own voices and their own power… once they understand this process and they have the power to change policy—and politicians—they really feel empowered and they want to go on and keep organizing. It’s wonderful. I call it ‘magic dust.’” 

Dolores Huerta has been spreading this “magic dust” for over seven decades. 

**** 

The fight for pesticide regulation is inextricably linked to the fight for immigrant rights. Beyond Pesticides will continue to speak out and monitor progress on inequities related to pesticides, agriculture, farmworker well-being, and the health of BIPOC communities in the U.S. For current reporting on matters related to environmental justice, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News archives on Environmental Justice. 

In support of farmworkers and the families of these essential workers behind bringing our food from farm to table, Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach, transitioning away from the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in land management and agriculture by transitioning to organic as part of a holistic system. 

Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, chemical occupational workers, and the agricultural sector can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment. For more information on the benefits of organic for both consumers and farm workers, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides. 

Image credit: John Mathew Smith & www.celebrity-photos.com from Laurel Maryland, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Sources: Colorado Boulevard, The Cascadia Advocate, Civil Eats, NPR, Newsroom, Dolores Huerta Foundation, People For the American Way, Dolores (2017 film); Beyond Pesticides Daily News [Washington and California to Celebrate First Annual Dolores Huerta Day on April 10;“Sí, se puede”—Letter and Reflection From the Women of Beyond Pesticides]

Michals, E. by D. (n.d.). Biography: Dolores Huerta. Dolores Huerta Biography. https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/dolores-huerta 

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2025) On March 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency would be shutting down the Environmental Justice and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices and staff at ten of the regional offices and the headquarters in Washington, D.C. Administrator Zeldin declared that this move implemented President Donald Trump’s Executive Order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”

In response to this decision, ten Democratic U.S. Senators—led by Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) and including Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR)—co-sponsored the Empowering and Enforcing Environmental Justice Act of 2025 to Congress that would codify funding for environmental justice offices in the Department of Justice. (See Sen. Padilla’s press release here.) Senators Duckworth and Booker—founding co-chairs of the Senate Environmental Justice Caucus—also issued the following statement:

“Underserved communities in rural, urban and tribal areas already shoulder the brunt of the climate crisis and environmental injustice. These cuts and reversals will make it even harder for these communities to address some of our nation’s toughest challenges, including removing lead pipes, cleaning up dangerous toxins, addressing legacy pollution that has led to higher cancer, asthma and death rates, and tackling the climate crisis that threatens our health and collective planetary future….With so much at stake, we urge them to immediately reverse course and prioritize public health before billionaires’ wealth. Making it harder for Americans to breathe safe air and drink clean water is not making America great or healthy again.”

Communities across the nation continue to contend with the whiplash of the Trump administration, as government programs are threatened generally, and those that mention climate change or environmental justice are specifically targeted. See a recent Daily News, Earthjustice Lawsuit Seeks to Defend Organic Farmers as Federal Funds Are Cut and Programs Eliminated, to learn how organic and conventional farmers are adversely affected by federal funding cuts and the culling of publicly available climate science.

Biden EPA Legacy Under Threat

Community leaders, public and environmental health advocates, and the broader public view executive orders like this as flying in the face of over three decades of efforts across various presidential administrations going back to the Clinton Administration to address environmental injustice. In 1994, three executive orders “provided direction to federal agencies [including EPA] to incorporate environmental justice considerations in their policies and programs, within the bounds of existing statutes[,]” according to Congressional Research Service (CRS) records. “By themselves, these [Executive Orders] do not establish federal law, but are presidential directives that instruct the implementation of existing law,” CRS said.

There is a long history of incorporating the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) into budgetary analysis, regulatory actions, and federally funded projects. In EPA’s 2023 Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, the agency finds: “National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine reports provide evidence of how the impacts of climate change create potential environmental justice concerns (NRC 2011, National Academies 2017). For a recent detailed discussion of climate change impacts in the U.S. and their intersection with environmental justice concerns, see the 2021 Climate Change and Social Vulnerability report (EPA 2021e).” Harvard Law School’s Environmental & Energy Law Program houses a regulatory tracker, which contains a history of the Biden Administration’s track record through 2023, as well as the history of GHG pricing beginning in the Obama Administration.

In January 2024, the World Resources Institute conducted a climate action progress tracker, finding the Biden Administration to have made several pivotal achievements, including the following:

• “Set target to cut emissions by at least 50% by 2030;
• Pass a major climate-smart stimulus package [Inflation Reduction Act] after COVID-19; [and]
• Tackle super pollutants.”

On the subject of scientific integrity, advocates see that little has changed in ensuring sound science in EPA decision-making on pesticide and chemical regulations. There was a public comment period that closed in early 2024 (see the Action of the Week) following the Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking. EPA published an updated version of the agency’s Scientific Integrity Policy in January 2025, just days before the administration transition. (See Action of the Week here for an archive of the Beyond Pesticides’ actions.) The policy had not been updated since 2012.

According to the EPA website, “Scientific integrity is the adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities. Inclusivity, transparency, and protection from inappropriate influence are hallmarks of scientific integrity.”

Advocates continue to be skeptical of the implementation of this new policy given various investigations resulting in shocking discoveries about regulatory misconduct, including a 2021 report for The Intercept, “The Department of Yes: How Pesticide Companies Corrupted the EPA and Poisoned America,” highlighting scandalous behavior for a regulatory agency, including but not limited to:

• Burying an EPA report warning about glyphosate linkages to cancer;
• Neglecting evidence that links exposure to a neonicotinoid insecticide and neurological damage;
• Dismissing widely acknowledged science linking malathion exposure to cancer; and
• Normalizing the waiving of significant numbers of toxicity tests “at the request of industry.”

Environmental Justice through Justice40 Initiative

Another Executive Order signed on January 27, 2021, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” put into place commitments to put teeth into these Executive Orders (EOs), leading to the creation of the Justice40 Initiative. The goal of Justice40 was transformational in that it aimed to dedicate “40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal climate, clean energy, affordable and sustainable housing, and other investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.”

An independent analysis by Resources for the Future, “an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, D.C,” of 445 Justice40 covered programs released by the White House in April 2023 finds the implementation of EJ commitments was at different stages with a significant amount of funding already distributed.

For example, 30 percent of the programs (133 programs) reviewed are “not making information about their activities available to the public.” However, 98 of the programs are considered to fall under the category of “full implementation and achievement of the 40 percent goal,” representing the second highest category. It remains to be seen what the full impact of Justice40 has been in moving forward. According to data provided by the Biden Administration, over 500 programs received more than $30 billion in funding under Justice40 as of the end of 2022.

An additional action the Biden Administration took through this EO was the establishment of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) with the goal of “bring[ing] greater visibility to EJ issues across the federal government, but will provide EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) with an excellent partner for providing horizon-expanding EJ advice and recommendations to our government’s leadership.” For many communities across the nation, the move to suspend these councils comes alongside the fact that the current Trump Administration’s Cabinet makeup consists of over one dozen billionaires. See the analysis by Public Citizen (January 2025) on this subject, which has raised ongoing concerns about corporate accountability.                                                                               

Call to Action

As environmental justice and climate funding are under threat and communities face the brunt of environmental, public health, and biodiversity crises, advocates are dedicated to holding elected officials accountable for protecting institutions designed to serve people with specific attention to those at disproportionate risk.

Congress should respond to President Trump’s firing of federal watchdog offices across the government by ensuring the integrity of federal agencies through the reappointment of independent Inspectors’ General. (See Daily News here.)

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Sources: Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2025) A comprehensive literature review in Environment & Health analyzes evidence from human biomonitoring, epidemiological studies, and toxicological studies that link adverse effects on women’s reproductive health, specifically impacting the ovary, to pesticide exposure. In examining the scientific literature, consisting of over 200 studies performed in the last 25 years, the authors find pesticide exposure threatens women’s health through ovarian dysfunction.

“Epidemiological studies have shown that pesticide exposures are associated with early/delayed menarche [first occurrence of menstruation], menstrual cycle disorders, early menopause, long time to pregnancy, polycystic ovary syndrome, primary ovarian insufficiency, infertility, and implantation failure in women,” the researchers state. They continue, “Both in vivo [in animals] and in vitro [in cells] studies have shown that exposure to pesticides disrupts the estrous cycle, reduces the follicle pool, alters hormone levels, and impairs oocyte [egg] maturation.”

These reproductive implications are noted with many different classes of pesticides, such as insecticides, including organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), organophosphates (OPs), pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids, as well as herbicides and fungicides. The authors, however, comment on present research gaps: “Much of the available epidemiological evidence focuses on legacy insecticides, such as OCPs, and a subset of insecticides that are still in use but in decline, such as OPs. Little research has been done on relatively newer insecticides whose use is increasing, such as neonicotinoids. Compared to insecticides, fewer studies have been conducted on herbicides and fungicides, although biomonitoring data show that these agrochemicals are also detected at relatively high rates in human biological samples.”

Despite the disproportionate amount of scientific literature available for all types of pesticides, the evidence shows common mechanisms of action of these different chemicals on ovarian function. The researchers report that these mechanisms include effects on steroid receptors, hormone synthesis, oxidative stress, inflammation, epigenetic modifications, and signaling pathways.

The ovaries, crucial for female reproduction, provide many functions that include producing eggs/oocytes and synthesizing steroid hormones such as estrogen and progesterone, which play a role in maintaining reproductive tissue, regulating ovarian function and ovulation, and establishing pregnancy. These vital functions are threatened by pesticide exposure, which as the researchers state, “can interfere with steroid hormone synthesis by altering the activity and expression of key enzymes involved in steroidogenesis, leading to ovarian dysfunction.”

Numerous studies, as highlighted in the literature review, show that pesticide exposure “can induce oxidative stress, inflammation and apoptosis [cell death] in ovarian cells, leading to DNA damage, altered gene expression and impaired ovarian function.” These studies cover various impacts on ovaries including abnormal estrous/menstrual cycles, reduced follicle numbers/diminished ovarian reserve, changes in hormone levels, disrupted oocyte maturation, decreased ovarian weight, reduced fertility, and increased risks of ovarian disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and premature ovarian insufficiency (POI). “As many ovarian diseases are of unknown etiology, there is growing concern about the contribution of environmental factors to ovarian dysfunction,” the authors say. These studies provide evidence that pesticide exposure represents a large threat to women’s reproductive health.

Insecticides

Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs)

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, for the most part, organochlorine insecticides, including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), are no longer used worldwide but the legacy of their poisoning and contamination persists. OCPs are primarily made up of chlorine atoms, classified as persistent organic pollutants due to their toxic longevity in the environment. Although many countries ban most organochlorine compounds, OCPs remain in the soil, water, and air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards.

Within the literature review, the researchers share the following relevant study results:

• A study in Spain shows “people living in areas of high pesticide use had a significantly higher risk of ovarian cancer and dysfunction.”
• “Exposure to OCPs has been linked to the adverse effects on IVF outcomes, including pregnancy rate, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, embryo quality and live birth rate.”
• Pregnant mice exposed to DDT in a transgenerational study led to offspring with an increase in PCOS-like ovarian cysts.
• Lindane exposure in pregnant mice “resulted in a significant reduction in the number of germ cells in embryonic ovaries.” (See study here.)

Organophosphates (OPs)

In a previous Daily News, Beyond Pesticides shares that organophosphates are a family of insecticides derived from World War II nerve agents. They are cholinesterase inhibitors, meaning that they bind irreversibly to the active site of an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, acetylcholinesterase (AChE), inactivating the enzyme. Due to this, OPs are often linked to neurological diseases and mental illness, but, as highlighted in the literature review, can also induce reproductive effects.

Studies note:

• Women with “combined levels of DEP [diethylphosphate] and DETP [diethylthiophosphate] in urine samples were significantly associated with irregular menstrual cycles.”
• Higher urinary DETP levels are also “correlated with longer time to pregnancy and increased odds of infertility.” (See study here.)
• Diazinon “showed greater oocyte toxicity, as this OP caused a reduced survival rate of mouse oocytes and inhibited the maturation of porcine (pig) oocytes at lower concentrations.” (See here and here.)
• Levels of diazinon and chlorpyrifos are “negatively associated with the number of retrieved eggs and the implantation rate.”
• Rats exposed to chlorpyrifos show “reduced body weight, impaired ovarian redox homeostasis and decreased the serum levels of estradiol, progesterone and LH [luteinizing hormone].” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• In vitro studies of chlorpyrifos show inhibited oocyte maturation and fertilization.
• Acute malathion exposure in rats “disrupted ovarian redox homeostasis, induced apoptosis and destroyed cell structure.” (See study here.)
• Malathion treatment in in vitro studies “had adverse effects on the survival, quality and maturation rate of oocytes, and on in vitro fertilization and embryo development of fertilized oocytes.” (See here, here, and here.)

Pyrethroids

Pyrethroids, as documented by Beyond Pesticides, are evidenced to cause a myriad of health and environmental effects. (See additional coverage here.) As these insecticides are rapidly metabolized in the body, their metabolites (breakdown products) often serve as markers of pyrethroid exposure. The most commonly and frequently detected pyrethroid metabolite is 3-phenoxybenzoic acid (3-PBA).

Studies of pyrethroids, and their metabolites, within the review highlight reproductive effects including:

• “A case-control study showed that urinary concentrations of 3-PBA were positively associated with the risk of POI in Chinese women.”
• Rats exposed to fenvalerate exhibit “decrease[s] in ovarian and body weights, and reduced numbers of preantral follicles and corpus luteum in adult female offspring.” (See study here.)
• Cypermethrin and lambda-cyhalothrin exposure in adult female “resulted in an abnormal estrus cycle, a decrease in ovarian weight, follicle and corpus luteum numbers, decreases in serum levels of estradiol, progesterone, FSH [follicle-stimulating hormone] and LH, and an increase in follicular atresia.” (See here, here, and here.)
• “Oral exposure of rats to permethrin at doses of 20 mg/kg and 40 mg/kg disrupted ovarian follicular and subcellular structures with increased ovarian cell apoptosis.”
• “Gestational exposure of mice to a mixture of eight commonly used pyrethroids at ADI [Acceptable Daily Intake] doses caused abnormal ovarian development and function, including a decrease in the number of primary follicles and estrogen levels, an increase in follicular atresia and FSH levels in adult female offspring.”
• “[I]n vitro treatment with cypermethrin or deltamethrin delayed maturation of fully grown oocytes, disrupted oocyte meiotic maturation, impaired oocyte mitochondrial functions, and induced oocyte apoptosis and autophagy [process that regulates cell death].” (See studies here and here.)
• Exposure to bifenthrin in rat cells can significantly inhibit the production of progesterone and other hormones. (See here and here.)

Neonicotinoids

While there is a wide body of science connecting neonicotinoids to impacts on pollinators, this is considered a relatively new class of insecticides that lacks extensive research on human health effects. The researchers note: “Although there are no epidemiological data on the relationship between neonicotinoid exposure and women ovarian health, experimental studies have shown the effects of neonicotinoids on mammalian ovaries. A few in vivo studies have demonstrated the ovarian toxicity of imidacloprid, the most extensively used neonicotinoid insecticide.”

They continue, “Human exposure to neonicotinoids and their metabolites is mainly through diet intake and absorption, as residues of neonicotinoids and their metabolites have been frequently detected in food, surface water and drinking water, and indoor dust.” While studies involving human subjects are limited, research in mammals provides evidence of threats to women’s health from these chemicals.

Evidence of reproductive effects from neonicotinoid exposure includes:

• Imidacloprid, in rat studies, decreased ovarian weight and altered hormone levels in mothers and their offspring, which shows transgenerational effects. (See studies here and here.)
• A study of imidacloprid exposure for 30 days in female rats also reveals clumping of oocytes.
• “Thiamethoxam exposure reduced ovarian weight and decreased preovulatory follicles with increased atresia in female mice.” (See study here.)
• Chromosomal damage in cultured mammalian oocytes is noted with imidacloprid and acetamiprid.

Herbicides

While the majority of studies related to ovarian dysfunction focus on insecticide exposure, there are toxicological studies that report adverse effects of herbicides on mammalian ovarian development and function. (See Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of herbicides here.) The research cited below on atrazine and glyphosate showcases the threats to reproduction from herbicides based on current scientific literature.

Atrazine

• “Women in areas where atrazine was used extensively were more likely to report irregular and longer menstrual cycles than women in areas where atrazine was used sparingly.” (See study here.)
• “Another study of 17 Chinese women who worked on the atrazine production line in a pesticide factory for 3 months showed that levels of urinary atrazine metabolites and serum estradiol were increased, while the length of the menstrual cycle and especially the ovulatory phase were shortened.”
• Rats exposed to atrazine have decreased levels of estradiol and progesterone, as well as increased testosterone levels.
• Additional studies in rats with atrazine exposure reveal oxidative stress, bleeding within the spaces between cells, and degenerative changes in the ovaries. (See here and here.)

Glyphosate

• Female mice exposed to glyphosate “caused decreased ovarian size or weight, increased ROS [Reactive Oxygen Species] levels, apoptosis and follicular atresia, decreased estradiol production with inhibited oocyte maturation.” (See here, here, here, and here.)
• “[G]lyphosate inhibits oocyte maturation, and increases oxidative stress, apoptosis and autophagy in oocytes”.
• An in vitro study shows that glyphosate reduces hormone proliferation and production.

Fungicides

Fungicides are also underrepresented in scientific literature for reproductive impacts. “Although some studies have suggested that fungicide exposure may have deleterious effects on female reproduction, human data on associations between fungicide exposure and ovary-related outcomes remain scare,” the authors state. This broad class of pesticides is connected to various other acute and chronic health and environmental effects, as documented by Beyond Pesticides. Regarding implications of fungicide exposure to ovaries, the below studies note effects from mancozeb and vinclozolin exposure.

Mancozeb

• “Toxicological evidence has shown that mancozeb, the most commonly used EBDC [ethylenebisdithiocarbamate], is an ovarian toxicant. Exposure of mice to mancozeb at doses of 500 mg/kg-800 mg/kg reduced litter size and ovarian weight, disrupted the estrous cycle with fewer healthy follicles and increased atresia.” (See studies here and here.)
• Increased ovarian cell death and fewer oocytes are observed in female mice after gestational and lactational exposure to mancozeb. (See here and here.)

Vinclozolin

• Female rats exposed to vinclozolin promoted the presence of ovarian cysts in their offspring (which resembles PCOS in women) and severely reduced primordial follicles (which resembles POI in women). The studies also note changes in DNA methylation, showing how these “epigenetic modifications appear to trigger changes in gene expression profiles, ultimately leading to dysregulation and an increased disease susceptibility in the affected offspring later in life.” (See here and here.)
• “Both in vivo and in vitro exposure to vinclozolin delayed follicular progression and oocyte meiotic differentiation in fetal mouse ovaries.”
• Female rats exposed to vinclozolin for 14 days exhibited lower ovarian weight, irregular estrous cycles, and altered hormone levels. (See study here.)

The Need for an Organic Solution

These results highlight the reproductive threats that multiple classes of pesticides pose, which are often not included in regulatory risk assessments. (See more on regulatory deficiencies and EPA failures here.) These health implications, while needing to be studied further as the researchers note, can also be diminished with organic land management practices. By transitioning to a world that does not rely on petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, as is Beyond Pesticides’ mission, the health of all organisms (including humans and wildlife) is safeguarded while also protecting and enhancing the environment by mitigating the crises of biodiversity and climate change.

To learn more about human health and specific pesticides, visit the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database and Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management. For least toxic control of pests in your home and garden, visit ManageSafe™ and make The Safer Choice. Interested in transitioning your community to organic? Sign up for the Parks for a Sustainable Future program as a Parks Advocate.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source:

Wang, L., Ma, X. and Liu, J. (2025) Adverse Effects of Pesticides on the Ovary: Evidence from Epidemiological and Toxicological Studies, Environment & Health. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/envhealth.4c00243.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2025) Throughout the year and historically, the science and policy deficiencies captured by the Daily News paint a dramatic picture of the issues that support the need for strong organic standards on a range of issues, some of which will be under consideration by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) when it receives public comments through Monday, April 28. Organic advocates are gearing up to participate in the hearing process and the semi-annual meeting of the NOSB to protect and enhance the integrity of defined, certified, and enforceable organic standards as an alternative to harmful chemical-intensive practices.

Because of USDA’s delay in scheduling the NOSB meeting, board members will not have time to review public comments unless they are submitted as soon as possible before the start of the board meeting on April 29. So, Beyond Pesticides is encouraging members of the public to comment early.

There are public comment webinars on April 22 and 24 and a deliberative hearing from April 29 through May 1, that concern how organic food is produced. A draft meeting agenda is available here; a more detailed agenda with proposals is available here.

• Sign up for a 3-minute oral public comment timeslot to let the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) know how important organic is by Wednesday, April 9! Remember, oral comment sign-ups fill up fast! Links to the virtual comment webinars will be provided approximately one week before the webinars. 
   
• Written comments must be submitted through our “click and submit” form or via Regulations.gov by 11:59 pm EDT on Monday, April 28, but please get them in as early as possible!

The NOSB is responsible for guiding USDA in its administration of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), including the materials allowed to be used in organic production and handling. The role of the NOSB is especially important as organic land management protects the ecosystem, mitigates climate change, and enhances health. 

>> Click here to submit your comments to the National Organic Standards Board by Monday, April 28!

***UPDATE on April 10, 2025—With the critical nature of the issues discussed this spring and the truncated schedule of the NOSB comment period, we acknowledge that we did not leave enough room to adequately allow for personalization, which is a vital component of reaching out to protect the integrity of organic. Due to system requirements, this “click-and-submit form” allows for a 4,000-character limit on the comments; however, the limit when submitting directly to Regulations.gov is 5,000 characters. If interested in adding edits, we encourage the public to directly “copy and paste” our comments to Regulations.gov, which will allow for edits without deleting more of our comment text. 

The NOSB plays an important role in bringing the views of organic consumers and producers to bear on USDA, which is not always in sync with organic principles and not giving sufficient support to the critical need to end the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. There are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this spring. For a complete discussion, see the Keeping Organic Strong and the Spring 2025 Beyond Pesticides’ issues webpages.

Here are some of Beyond Pesticides’ high-priority issues for the upcoming meeting: 

• Compost made in organic production should use plant and animal waste, and not synthetic materials that could introduce hazardous contaminants like PFAS and microplastics. The current regulations require compost to be made from manure and plant wastes, allowing only synthetics on the National List—that is, those that have specifically been approved by the NOSB and USDA through a public comment process. The only synthetic inputs into compost that are currently allowed are newspaper and other paper. A petition seeks to allow “compost feedstocks” that might include, for example, “compostable” food containers.  
  
  Both organic and nonorganic farms have been taken out of production because of PFAS contamination, and microplastics can have a synergistic effect with PFAS. Even worse are potential contaminants we don’t know. Current PFAS contamination came from past use of biosolids not known to be a source of “forever chemicals.” Biosolids—fortunately never allowed in organic production—should be a lesson to remember. The NOSB must protect organic production by denying the petition to allow synthetic “compostable materials.” 
   
• The NOSB is considering a proposal to eliminate nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) in iodine products used in livestock. Iodine is frequently formulated as iodophors—with surfactants or complexing agents. Iodophors may contain nonylphenols (NPs) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), as well as other alkylphenols (APs) and alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs), which are endocrine disruptors with impacts on many species, including gender changes. Breakdown of certain APEs may lead to toxic effects in treated livestock and applicators. Organic alternatives include ethanol or essential oils for some uses. Other natural alternatives identified by the TR include udder washes containing essential oils, vinegar, natural acids, nisin for teat dips, and natural ethanol. Other substitutes include chlorhexidine, alcohols, hydrogen peroxide, essential oils, and other chlorine materials. EPA has approved the following for use in Design for the Environment disinfectant products: citric acid, hydrogen peroxide, l-lactic acid, ethanol, and isopropanol. Some disinfectant TRs identify some alternative practices for some uses–steam sterilization and UV radiation. The iodine TR says, “The risk of mastitis incidents is significantly reduced when producers maintain a clean and dry environment for the animals. Frequently changing the animal’s bedding material and/or using inorganic bedding (i.e., sand) may also reduce environmental contamination with these bacteria. In addition, providing a healthy, balanced diet to the animal and ensuring the cleanliness of milking implements are important steps for maintaining healthy udders.”  
  
  The Livestock Subcommittee (LS) has scaled back its original proposal to prohibit APEs to one that prohibits only NPEs. We believe it is important to add an annotation to prohibit the use of APEs and APs in organic production; APEs are suspected endocrine disruptors and proven aquatic toxins. As described by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, “[A]lkylphenols are a group of chemicals comprising a substantial number of substances ranging from cresol (C1-alkylphenol) to phenols with up to four linear or branched constituent groups of varying chain lengths. However, the ethoxylated versions of alkylphenols of any commercial significance (detergents, emulsifiers) are in reality limited to C8-, C9- and C12-compounds [octyl-, nonyl-, and dodecylphenols]. . .”  The National List should restrict iodine materials to those “without octylphenol, nonylphenol, dodecylphenol, octylphenol ethoxylate, nonylphenol ethoxylate, or dodecylphenol ethoxylate.”
   
• The NOSB should use the review (or sunset) process to eliminate nonorganic ingredients in processed organic foods. Materials listed in §205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that may comprise 5% of organic-labeled processed foods. The intent of the law is to allow restricted nonorganic ingredients (fully disclosed and limited) when their organic form is not available. However, materials should not remain on §205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and we can now grow virtually anything organically. The Handling Subcommittee needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, “Could you supply the need if the organic form is required?” The materials on §205.606 up for sunset review this year are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be taken off the National List of allowed materials. 
   
• Finally, no issue is more urgent than the need for the NOSB to evaluate so-called “inert” ingredients in the products used in organic production to ensure that they meet the criteria in OFPA. The NOSB, which is responsible for giving direction to the National Organic Program (NOP) at USDA, has passed repeated recommendations instructing NOP, to replace the generic listings for EPA Lists 3, 4A, and 4B “inerts” with specific substances approved for the use. NOP must allocate resources for this project. Recent appropriations have increased for NOP, and some of this money must be used for the evaluation of “inert” ingredients to ensure compliance with the law and to maintain the integrity of the USDA organic label. 
  
  
• OFPA provides stringent criteria for allowing synthetic materials to be used in organic production. In short, the NOSB must judge—by a supermajority—that the material would not be harmful to human health or the environment, is necessary to the production or handling of agricultural products, and is consistent with organic farming and handling. These criteria have been applied to “active” ingredients, but not to “inert” ingredients, which make up the largest part of pesticide products—up to 90% or more. 
  
  A comparison of the hazards posed by active and “inert” ingredients used in organic production reveals that in seven of 11 categories of harm, more “inerts” than actives pose the hazard. The NOSB and NOP must act on “inerts” NOW and refuse a blanket relisting of List 4 “inerts.”

Submit a comment at Regulations.gov OR use click-and-submit form linked below! 

Click here to submit your comments to the National Organic Standards Board by Monday, April 28. 

Comment to NOSB:

Compost made in organic production should use plant and animal waste, and not synthetic materials that could introduce hazardous contaminants like PFAS and microplastics. The current regulations require compost to be made from manure and plant wastes, allowing only synthetics on the National List—that is, those that have specifically been approved by the NOSB and USDA through a public comment process. The only synthetic inputs into compost that are currently allowed are newspaper and other paper. A petition seeks to allow “compost feedstocks” that might include, for example, “compostable” food containers.

Both organic and nonorganic farms have been taken out of production because of PFAS contamination, and microplastics can have a synergistic effect with PFAS. Even worse are potential contaminants we don’t know. Current PFAS contamination came from past use of biosolids not known to be a source of “forever chemicals.” Biosolids—fortunately never allowed in organic production—should be a lesson to remember. The NOSB must protect organic production by prohibiting synthetic “compostable materials.”

The NOSB is considering a proposal to eliminate nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) in iodine products used in livestock. Iodine is frequently formulated as iodophors—with surfactants or complexing agents. Iodophors may contain nonylphenols (NPs) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), as well as other alkylphenols (APs) and alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs), which are endocrine disruptors with impacts on many species, including gender changes. There are many organic, natural, and allowed alternatives. In addition, providing a healthy, balanced diet to the animal and ensuring the cleanliness of milking implements are important steps for maintaining health udders.”

The original proposal has been scaled back to prohibit only NPEs. It is important that the annotation prohibit the use of C8-, C9- and C12-APEs and APs in organic production. They are suspected endocrine disruptors and proven aquatic toxins. The National List should restrict iodine materials to those “without octylphenol, nonylphenol, dodecylphenol, octylphenol ethoxylate, nonylphenol ethoxylate, or dodecylphenol ethoxylate.”

The NOSB should use the review (or sunset) process to eliminate nonorganic ingredients in processed organic foods. Materials listed in §205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that may comprise 5% of organic-labeled processed foods. The intent of the law is to allow restricted nonorganic ingredients (fully disclosed and limited) when their organic form is not available. However, materials should not remain on §205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and we can now grow virtually anything organically. The NOSB needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, “Could you supply the need if the organic form is required?” The materials on §205.606 up for sunset review this year are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be taken off the National List of allowed materials.

Finally, no issue is more urgent than the need for the NOSB to evaluate so-called “inert” ingredients in the products used in organic production to ensure that they meet the criteria in OFPA. The NOSB has passed repeated recommendations telling NOP to replace the generic listings for EPA Lists 3, 4A, and 4B “inerts” with specific substances approved for the use. The law provides stringent criteria for allowing synthetic materials to be used in organic production:  that the material would not be harmful to human health or the environment, is necessary to the production or handling of agricultural products, and is consistent with organic farming and handling. These criteria have been applied to “active” ingredients, but not to “inert” ingredients, which make up the largest and often most toxic part of pesticide products.

The NOSB must refuse a blanket relisting of List 4 “inerts.”

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2025) In March, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced the launch of SprayDays California, “a first-of-its-kind statewide system designed to provide transparent, accessible and timely notifications and information about the use of specific pesticides[,]“ according to the agency’s press release. The state says that notification will occur in “advance of the scheduled use of California restricted material pesticides in production agriculture.”

Growing out of the passage of AB 617 Community Emissions Reduction Act in California, passed in 2017, farmworker safety advocates have long been urging an implementation strategy that provides notification of pesticide spraying. In late 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) began implementation of AB 617, a bill enacted with the stated intent of addressing the air quality crisis in many communities of predominantly people of color who are disproportionately harmed by toxic chemicals. While the overall goal of the law is to reduce air pollution in these communities, farmworker advocates have sought to operationalize a pesticide spraying notification system to warn communities when nearby spraying is scheduled to take place.

The idea behind notification programs and transparency in government is that it enables those potentially exposed to take precautionary measures to reduce exposure, which may or may not be possible given the ability of people, workers, or families to secure adequate protection from drift and the chemicals’ intrusion into homes, schools, and other buildings.

However, requirements for public disclosure of toxic pesticide ingredients have historically had the effect of encouraging pesticide users and manufacturers to find less hazardous products or ingredients. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a policy to require chemical companies to disclose on pesticide product labels inert (typically undisclosed chemicals) ingredients “of toxicological concern” (List 1 inert ingredients), they began removing the toxicants from their products. Under this policy, the label is required to disclose the following: “This product contains the toxic inert ingredient (name of inert).”

The specific active ingredients (some categories overlap) that are now required for monitoring and submission to SprayDays include the

• 23 existing federally restricted use pesticides;
• Handful of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 18 pesticides for limited-time “emergency exemption,”
• “Pesticides formulated as a dust, labeled to permit outdoor use, and packaged in containers of more than 25 pounds,” except those that are exempt under California Section 6402 “exempt” pesticides (under California law) for certain uses;
• 105 pesticides labeled on the Groundwater Protection List;
• Among “certain other pesticides” listed in subsection E. (See here for further information.)

According to EPA’s Active Pesticide Product Registration Informational Listing (APPRIL), there are over 56,000 registered pesticide products with over 1,000 approved active ingredients.

In an era of federal deregulation, funding freezes and deep cuts, and elimination of public data, this California program is providing an incredible public service for frontline and fenceline communities to access more information on pesticide use. Living amid chemical pollution creates the need for immediate mitigation measures in an attempt to reduce exposure. Mitigation measures, however, are often found to be lacking because of ongoing risks that may be reduced, but not eliminated, despite the availability of nontoxic practices that current policies do not require.

Beyond Pesticides has written extensively that focusing on mitigation efforts (buffer zones, notification systems, etc.) fails to identify the root cause being the failure of EPA to adequately assess the lack of pesticide essentiality and pesticide hazards in the face of unprecedented chronic illness diagnoses, biodiversity collapse (pollinators, birds, and butterflies alone), and the climate crisis. In partnership with farmers, community organizers, public health professionals, and some policymakers, we believe that adopting land management and food supply chain systems rooted in organic principles and criteria translates to a pesticide-free future.  

Background on Notification System

Based on DPR’s website, the agency began developing SprayDays California in 2021 after receiving funding in the state budget. That same year, pilot projects were voluntarily launched in four counties (Stanislaus, Riverside, Santa Cruz, and Ventura), and a two-year public outreach effort culminated in four focus groups and eight public meetings. The UC Davis Center for Regional Change conducted an independent evaluation of the notification system from the four notification pilot projects, echoing some concerns raised by local groups and Beyond Pesticides. (See here.) In 2023, DPR moved to propose regulations to implement this system across the state, with final regulations approved in December 2024.  

SprayDays California requires that “restricted material pesticides” must be added to the notification system, with a 48-hour minimum notice expected for soil fumigants and 24-hour notice for all other pesticides in this category. The notifications will be sent via email and text messages, with opt-out options available depending on the user’s needs. The pesticide map component of this system organizes the pesticide applications into one-square-mile sections, including relevant information, such as pesticide product name, active ingredient(s) name(s), application method (ground, aerial, fumigation, other), number of treated acres, and EPA registration number.

Critical Analysis of Pesticide Notification Systems

“This is a first-in-the-world pesticide notification system,” says Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) Co-Director Angel Garcia in a CPR blog post on March 25, 2025. “Since California uses more pesticides than any other state, including more than 130 pesticides that are not approved in the European Union, farmworker communities have demanded a ‘heads up’ in order to take measures to reduce the risk of exposure to our loved ones. We need far better protections from the State, but this is a giant step forward toward transparency about toxic pesticide use.”

While advancing a strategy to transition chemical-intensive agriculture to certified organic practices, Beyond Pesticides has supported mitigation measure policies, including neighbor and public notification systems, across the nation for years (see previous Daily News and Actions of the Week here, here, and here). Additional examples include federal rulemaking, such as the proposed Draft Herbicide Strategy Framework for pesticide spraying in designated critical habitats; additionally, the organization mobilized in the state of Michigan in 2024 in support of a neighbor notification bill in the state legislature. Beyond Pesticides has also mobilized the public in California in 2023 before this new program was finalized to ensure that DPR would require exact field locations and commit to improvements suggested by communities directly impacted by potential sprayings.

This last point was a concern shared by several local groups and individuals, including Irene Gomez – a resident of Oxnard, CA, and member of the Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety – Ventura County (CAPS 805). “When my community in Nyeland Acres had the pilot notification project, our biggest issue was that you couldn’t find out exactly where the pesticides would be applied – which farm? That’s still a problem with Spray Days,” says Ms. Gomez. “You can only know pesticides are being applied within a square mile, but not whether it’s coming from behind your house, across the street, or even a mile away.”

The issue of knowing exactly where and when a pesticide application is occurring is critical to public safety for communities living near or around spray zones, particularly in the California context where a significant quantity of the toxic fumigant 1,3D (Telone) is sprayed in some instances for dozens of acres in one given logged application; for instance, as of April 1, 2025, there are three restricted material pesticide applications planned on approximately 24.2 acres of farmland in Tulare County – all Telone.

There are several additional components about which DPR will likely face questions from the public, including the notification system’s omission of general use pesticides, despite known health risks, whether SprayDays applies to nonagricultural pesticide applications (e.g., mosquito spraying, structural/indoor use, privately-owned public land, private homes, homeowner associations (HOAs), etc.). Concerns of lackluster public participation and privacy concerns have also emerged, as evidenced in a review of several of the pilot notification systems in Stanislaus, Riverside, Santa Cruz, Ventura, and Tulare counties, reported by The Modesto Bee in February 2024.

“During the pilot program in Grayson [Stanislaus County], only 46 people out of the community’s nearly 800 adult residents enrolled in the notification system, according to Stanislaus County Agricultural Commissioner Linda Pinfold,” as reported in the article. Farmworker and immigrant communities, as shared by Bianca Lopez of the environmental justice nonprofit Valley Improvement Project as well as others, are concerned about the way in which personal information would be used to undermine their ability to maintain residence in the country.

Another issue is limiting the scope of the program to “intended” or “scheduled” versus actual pesticide applications. According to the program’s frequently asked questions page, “Not all scheduled pesticide applications included on SprayDays will occur.” In terms of instilling public trust in real-time information on applications appearing on the platform, some advocates are concerned about the flexibility and possible discrepancy between projected and actual pesticide use: “If the intended application is approved by the county agricultural commissioner, a grower or applicator has up to four days following the scheduled application date to start the pesticide application,” the policy says. On the topic of the one-square-mile sections on the pesticide map, DPR settled on this decision after pushback from Farm Bureau and other chemical-intensive industrial farmers out of fear that protestors would disrupt their farming operations if more specific details were publicly listed.

Beyond Pesticides has covered the fundamental flaws in similar types of mitigative, rather than preventive, efforts in a 2018 Daily News, Protections from Agricultural Pesticide Drift over Schools Take Effect in California, in the context of developing pesticide buffer zones for California schools. In this context, intense pressure from the industry led to the weakening of the draft proposed regulation. For example, the original proposal required growers to give schools 48-hour notice of any pesticide use planned within a quarter mile. This was removed from the final regulation, leaving only the requirement to provide general notice to schools of possible pesticide use over the year. At that time, concerned parents and advocates said it was unacceptable for DPR to water down already insufficient protections.

“I told my daughter: When I die, I want this [SprayDays California] to be on my tombstone. I want everyone to know that I fought for you, your future, your family and their future,” says Byanka Santoyo, community organizer at the Center on Race, Poverty, & the Environment, one of over 200 coalition partners working on this notification system over the course of a decade, according to reporting by Environmental Health News. Critics of the notification system acknowledge the thousands of hours, blood, sweat, and tears that have gone into developing this novel monitoring system while understanding the limitations of mitigation measures and the need to urgently transition agriculture to nontoxic practices.

As is the case with buffer zones putting the onus on school systems and those farming without toxic chemicals, so too do public notification systems place the burden on rural, farmworker, and working-class communities of color who are expected to easily access a system with known flaws. Instead, pesticide use is no longer a fixed variable in 21st-century agriculture with a $70 billion organic sector demonstrating an alternative pathway forward. See Daily News, Recent Census Shows 24 Percent Jump in Organic Sales; Integrity Issues before Organic Board, for analysis before the Fall 2024 NOSB meeting and recent trends in the organic sector.

Pesticide Drift and Health Effects

Various peer-reviewed studies and reports highlight the ecological and human health impacts of chemical-intensive food systems. Pesticide harms for exposed children include:

• Higher risk of childhood leukemia linked to pesticides commonly used in vineyards (See Daily News here.)
• A literature review of over 200 studies finds racialized disparities in neurodevelopmental disorders a matter of environmental justice. (See Daily News here.)
• There are statistically significant positive associations between pesticide usage rates and children with cancer, specifically brain and central nervous system (CNS) cancers and leukemia. (See Daily News here.)

Pesticide drift contaminates soil in urban and “natural”/rural environments equally, based on a 2023 study published by an international group of scientists spanning all continents. (See Daily News here.) Pesticide drift is also a threat from indoor agricultural facilities such as greenhouses; a 2020 study finds that children living near floricultural greenhouses spraying organophosphate and carbamate pesticides exhibit reduced activity of the acetylcholinesterase enzyme (AChE) and abnormal functioning of the nervous system. (See Daily News here.) Additionally, pregnant women living within just 2.5 miles of chemical-intensive farming face an increased risk of their children developing central nervous system (CNS) tumors. (See Daily News here.)

There are calls for alternative systems, including organic agriculture, as made clear in an Environmental Pollution literature review of numerous studies from North and South America, Africa, Europe, and Asia in late 2024. (See Daily News here.)  

Call to Action

Advocates continue to look for regulatory pathways built into existing federal pesticide law to expedite the registration review process for toxic pesticides. While it is valuable to develop tools for the most at-risk communities and workers to protect themselves and their loved ones from exposure, Beyond Pesticides continues to support these efforts coupled with structural changes to risk assessment and organically managed land and food systems. See the previous Daily News, Beyond Pesticides Makes Science-based Case that It Is Imperative to Phase Out Pesticides in a Decade, to learn more about our mission to eliminate toxic petrochemical-based pesticides and fertilizers from food and land management systems by 2032.  

The Spring 2025 meeting for the National Organic Standards Board will be held virtually from April 29 to May 1. Written comments are due by April 28, with public comment webinars scheduled for April 22 to April 24 from 12-5pm EDT. See Keeping Organic Strong to stay tuned for more information and learn how to engage in the public comment process to strengthen integrity in organic standards!

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2025) As highlighted by Beyond Pesticides in recent comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chlorpyrifos (CPF) has been under scrutiny for decades due to associated adverse health effects, noted particularly in the extensive and consistent scientific evidence of neurotoxic dangers to children’s health. The latest research on CPF, published in Environmental Toxicology and Genes & Diseases, reveals additional threats to the immune system and male reproduction that are not captured in current EPA risk assessments of chlorpyrifos and raises serious health questions, given that residues are found throughout the food supply.

CPF, a widely used organophosphate insecticide in agriculture, is a cholinesterase inhibitor that binds irreversibly to the active site of an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, acetylcholine esterase (AChE), inactivating the enzyme. Many insecticides, including organophosphates and carbamates, target AChE, causing them to be highly toxic to both insects and mammals that have this enzyme as a crucial part of their nervous systems. The history of chlorpyrifos exemplifies the failure of pesticide law and policy, as this chemical, among many others, not only has direct adverse health effects but is contributing to the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and disproportionate levels of illness in people of color communities.

The study in Environmental Toxicology, performed by researchers in Taiwan, notes: “Although chlorpyrifos poses considerable risks to the environment and human health, it is still used in many countries. This pesticide has various toxic effects on humans, including neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity, and organ damage caused by oxidative stress and DNA damage.” Their results add immunotoxicity to this list, as they find that chlorpyrifos induces apoptosis (cell death) in macrophages (a type of white blood cell vital in immune system functions).

As the authors state, “[F]ew studies have comprehensively analyzed the direct effects of chlorpyrifos on macrophages and the immune response. Thus, this study aims to investigate the cytotoxic effects of chlorpyrifos on macrophages, with a focus on elucidating the molecular mechanisms underlying chlorpyrifos-induced apoptosis through intrinsic and extrinsic apoptotic pathways.” Evaluating immunotoxic impacts of CPF is important, as the immune system is responsible for protecting the body against infections and diseases caused by pathogens.

“Macrophages, key players in the immune system, are responsible for engulfing pathogens, presenting antigens, and releasing cytokines to regulate immune responses,” the researchers share. They continue: “Chlorpyrifos exposure affects macrophages first because they play the role of sentinels. Chlorpyrifos-induced macrophage apoptosis can impair immune function, weakening the body’s ability to fight infections and maintain tissue homeostasis.”

In using a murine (rodent) macrophage cell line exposed to concentrations of CPF, the authors report reduced cell viability, an increase in the proportion of apoptotic (controlled cell death) and necrotic (uncontrolled cell death) cells, an upregulation of the expression of death receptors, disrupted mitochondrial function, and the imbalance of proteins. “Chlorpyrifos induced cytotoxicity and apoptosis in a concentration-dependent manner,” the researchers state. They continue: “The simultaneous activation of both apoptotic pathways represents a novel finding, highlighting the strong proapoptotic effect of chlorpyrifos on macrophages through multiple mechanisms. Our findings offer compelling evidence of chlorpyrifos’ multifaceted toxic effects.”

These results add to the wide body of science on public health implications from CPF exposure. In referencing the scientific literature, the authors include:

• “[S]tudies have reported that chlorpyrifos caused neurotoxicity and hepatotoxicity in SH-SY5Y, HepG2, and PC12 cells by inducing DNA damage, oxidative stress, and apoptosis.” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• Organophosphates “not only cause immediate harm but also persist in the environment, entering the food chain and exposing humans to long-term health risks, such as chronic toxicity.”
• “Studies on developmental toxicity have revealed that exposure to these pesticides during pregnancy may disrupt fetal neurodevelopment, leading to cognitive impairments, such as reduced intelligence, attention deficits, and hyperactivity.” (See here and here.)
• “[P]rolonged or substantial exposure to these pesticides can reduce lymphocyte levels and weaken the immune system, thereby increasing the risks of infections and blood cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma in humans, particularly agricultural and industrial workers.” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• “Chlorpyrifos has been demonstrated to inhibit AChE activity in the nervous systems of Wistar and Sprague–Dawley rats; this pesticide led to behavioral abnormalities in the rats and reduced the reproductive potential in the male animals.” (See here and here.)

In a similar study, the latest research in Genes & Diseases also finds reproductive impacts with CPF exposure. After subjecting male Sprague-Dawley rats to different concentrations of chlorpyrifos for 30 days, as well as cell cultures, assays, RNA sequencing, and additional analyses, the researchers report disruption in the blood-testis barrier (BTB) and abnormal spermatogenesis (the process of producing sperm cells).

As the authors mention, “CPF can enter animals and humans through dermal contact, ingestion, and the food chain, leading to its accumulation, metabolism, and subsequent toxic effects.” In studying the effects of chlorpyrifos—and its main metabolite, 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP)—in mammals, this research provides insight into the mechanisms in which organophosphates can alter important functions such as reproduction.

The study results show impaired spermatogenesis through sperm deformation and a lower number of sperm in the exposed rats, as well as a decreased expression in the testes of PLZF and Stra8, important markers involved in sperm production. The researchers highlight that, “[P]repubertal exposure to CPF resulted in abnormal testicular morphology, decreased sperm count and quality, and BTB integrity impairment, suggesting that CPF resulted in abnormal spermatogenesis by disrupting BTB integrity.”

Additional analyses, such as with RNA sequencing, confirm that CPF exposure triggered ferroptosis in testes and Sertoli cells based on gene expression. Ferroptosis is a specialized cell death triggered by an imbalance between iron and lipid metabolism. Sertoli cells form the blood-testis barrier, which supports spermatogenesis. Alterations in gene expression that promote ferroptosis and impact Sertoli cells play a vital role in the impairment of male reproduction, as the researchers also report in previous literature. (See studies here and here.)

“In this study, we confirmed that CPF and TCP promoted ferroptosis in vivo [in rats] and in vitro [in cell cultures],” the authors conclude. The results demonstrate how chlorpyrifos exposure compromises BTB integrity through ferroptosis and leads to abnormal spermatogenesis. “Our findings provide novel insights into understanding the mechanisms of CPF-induced male infertility,” the researchers postulate.

The study also highlights previous relevant research, sharing:

• “[R]ecent studies have revealed that CPF can adversely affect male reproduction, as indicated by decreased levels of serum testosterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone, as well as reduced sperm count and quality.”
• “CPF has been found to induce structural abnormalities in the seminiferous tubules. An investigation of the mechanisms underlying the CPF-induced impairment of male reproductive function revealed that CPF caused oxidative damage to the testes. The reduced levels of superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione peroxidase, and glutathione (GSH) contribute to the observed damage.” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• Studies show that “exposure to toxicants during the prepubertal stage has detrimental effects on the development and maturation of the male reproductive system. These effects can persist into adulthood and lead to abnormal spermatogenesis.” (See studies here, here, and here.)

As Beyond Pesticides shared in a recent Daily News article, pesticides can cause spermiotoxicity, which is defined as toxic effects of a substance on sperm cells, leading to reduced sperm quality or function. The referenced research, published in Toxics, was the first study to evaluate the cytotoxic effect of the triazole ipconazole on mammalian spermatozoa, ending in the conclusion that exposure causes spermiotoxicity through significantly reduced sperm viability, as well as alterations in enzyme and gene expression related to fertility.

The scientific evidence presented in all of these studies, as well as previous coverage from Beyond Pesticides on the impacts of pesticides on sperm, infertility, and other sexual and reproductive dysfunction, showcases the myriads of health effects that EPA does not consider in their chemical registration processes. (See more on EPA failures and regulatory deficiencies here.)

The threats to public health, as well as to the environment and all organisms it supports, from harmful chemicals require mitigation in the form of a systemic, holistic solution. An alternative land management option, through the organic production system, exists that can replace petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, which endanger all life. Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic here and here.

Beyond Pesticides’ mission of fully transitioning to organic land management is rooted in protecting healthy air, water, land, and food for ourselves and future generations. To help support this work, join as a member today or give now to help support our work in 2025.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Sources:

Chiang, C.-Y. et al. (2025) Chlorpyrifos Induces Apoptosis in Macrophages by Activating Both Intrinsic and Extrinsic Apoptotic Pathways, Environmental Toxicology. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tox.24515.

Fu, Y. et al. (2025) Chlorpyrifos induces spermatogenic dysfunction via ferroptosis in Sertoli cells, Genes & Diseases. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235230422500090X.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2025) In examining prenatal residential proximity of documented pesticide spraying in California to the menstrual cycle characteristics of 273 Latina adolescents, researchers report in the American Journal of Epidemiology a positive association between exposure to the insecticide methomyl and heavy bleeding. Other pesticides appear to influence menstrual symptoms as well. “Adolescents’ menstrual cycle characteristics can be ‘vital signs’ of health and impact quality of life,” the authors share. They continue, “To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the association between prenatal pesticide exposure and menstrual outcomes in adolescents of any demographic group.”

Menstrual cycle characteristics, such as dysmenorrhea (painful or uncomfortable menstrual cramps), irregularity, and heavy menstrual bleeding, can also be indicators of underlying health conditions, including endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), thyroid dysfunction, and bleeding disorders. By associating the pesticide exposure of mothers during pregnancy to impacts on their children, the researchers highlight important health risks for women and young girls that are often disregarded.

“The prenatal period is a critical period of reproductive development that may be particularly sensitive to endocrine disruption,” the researchers share. As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, endocrine-disrupting chemicals are any synthetic or natural compounds that hinder endocrine system functions and create harmful effects on organisms, which includes many pesticides. The Endocrine Society emphasizes, “There are nearly 85,000 man-made chemicals in the world, many of which people come into contact with every day. Only about one percent of them have been studied for safety; however, 1,000 or more of these chemicals may be EDCs [endocrine-disrupting chemicals] based on their probable endocrine-interfering properties.”

The authors of the article in American Journal of Epidemiology, affiliated with the University of California Berkeley and San Francisco (particularly through the Center for Environmental Research and Community Health), focus their research on California residents within the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) study. California represents an area of intensive cultivation, utilizing many agricultural pesticides, since the state “grows over a third of the United States’ vegetables and over three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts,” according to the researchers.

The study participants, with an average age of 16.3 years, were evaluated through a questionnaire regarding menstrual characteristics, including cycle length irregularities, painful menstruation, and heavy bleeding. These characteristics, in referencing their maternal residential addresses, were compared to California’s Pesticide Use Reporting database to determine the association between prenatal residential proximity to 11 agricultural pesticides and any menstrual cycle symptoms. The chemicals were evaluated singularly and adjusted for co-exposure since “[a]gricultural pesticide use practices often result in simultaneous and sequential exposure to multiple highly correlated active ingredients from different classes,” the authors state.

The pesticides included in the study are from six different pesticide classes. “These active ingredients were permethrin [pyrethroid insecticide], methomyl [carbamate insecticide], imidacloprid [neonicotinoid insecticide], maneb/mancozeb [ethylenebisdithiocarbamate (EBDC) fungicides], and glyphosate [herbicide]. For the organophosphate insecticides, multiple active ingredients met our inclusion criteria: acephate, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, oxydemeton-methyl, and dimethoate,” the researchers note.

As a result, the authors report, “We found evidence that prenatal exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides may impact certain adolescent menstrual cycle characteristics.” The most notable association in the single exposure model is that a 2-fold increase in prenatal methomyl exposure correlates to a 29% increase in heavy menstrual flow. The researchers share that this relationship also “approached statistical significance in our joint exposure model.”

They continue, “Other instances where results approached statistical significance in joint exposure models were: permethrin exposure and increased odds of painful cycles [and] oxydemeton-methyl [organothiophosphate insecticide] exposure and increased odds of pain medication use during cycles.” These findings suggest prenatal pesticide exposure is associated with subsequent menstrual cycle symptoms in children.

As the authors point out, these symptoms can have a strong negative impact on individuals’ quality of life and mental health. One study from Australia reports that teens with menstrual problems have significantly lower quality of life scores than healthy teens. Additional studies find that dysmenorrhea (painful or uncomfortable menstrual cramps) is “positively associated with academic absenteeism, depression, body image issues, and social isolation.” (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.) Symptoms that include heavy and prolonged menstrual bleeding can also be markers of bleeding disorders, interfere with mental and physical health, and lead to anemia and period-related stress. (See here and here.)

“Many currently used pesticides contain active ingredients that are known or suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which may interact with the endocrine system, preventing proper function by mimicking or blocking hormonal interactions,” the researchers note. Within the study, evidence of endocrine disruption in scientific literature is shared, including:

• “Carbamate insecticides, organophosphate insecticides, pyrethroids insecticides, glyphosate herbicides, and manganese fungicides can disrupt normal hormonal signaling along the estradiol, progesterone, and thyroid pathways and dysregulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis, all of which are important to the function of the female reproductive system.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)
• Oxidative stress, as a result of organophosphates and neonicotinoid insecticides, can alter the epigenome, resulting in hormonal imbalances. (See here and here.)
• “In rodent models, exposure to commonly used pesticides such as imidacloprid and chlorpyrifos have been shown to alter estrous cyclicity and adversely affect the structure and function of the uterus and ovaries.”
• “In vivo and in vitro studies on prenatal EDC exposures consistently find associations with deleterious effects on female reproductive health.” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• Studies in rodents, with pesticide exposure from pregnancy to lactation, find “differences in time to puberty, age at first estrous, sex hormone concentrations, uterine and ovarian function, and fertility in female offspring.” (See here, here, here, and here.)
• “[A] study in a mouse model found that exposure to methomyl and another carbamate, carbofuran, disrupted estrous cycle length.”
• “Maternal exposure to pyrethroid insecticides has been associated with delayed sexual maturation, abnormal estrous cycle, and altered ovarian and uterine function in female rats and with delayed puberty onset and diminished ovarian reserve in humans.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)
• Studies of the metabolites of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, confirmed in urinary concentrations, are associated with “increased odds of endometriosis, a disease characterized by menstrual pain, heavy menstrual bleeding, and other cycle irregularities.”
• “Organophosphate pesticide exposure disrupted estrous cycle cyclicity in rats and mice and shorter duration of menstrual bleeding and higher odds of irregular menstrual cycles among Chinese women.” (See here, here, here, and here.)

As was shared in a Beyond Pesticides’ article titled “Multiple Studies Link Adverse Effects on Female Reproductive Health with Endocrine Disrupting Chemical Exposure,” research in Frontiers in Public Health showcases the wide body of science connecting adverse effects to the female reproductive system, such as infertility, with exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. As the researchers conclude from these results: “The impact of EDCs extends beyond lowering the rate of a successful pregnancy and increasing the risk of miscarriage in women; they also impair the future reproductive health of the fetus.” This highlights how infants and children are at a disproportionate risk with pesticide exposure, as this is a crucial developmental window.

Additional Beyond Pesticides’ coverage, following International Women’s Day this year, shares excerpts from The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, by Marcos Orellana, that was delivered to the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in July 2024. He states: “Some of the most serious impacts of exposure to pesticides concern female reproductive health damage. Exposures to hazardous pesticides during pregnancy can cause miscarriages, premature births, birth anomalies and low birthweight… [P]esticides generated a wide spectrum of reproductive health problems, such as male and female infertility, endocrine disruption, some types of cancer, germ cell mutations, damage to pregnancy and fetal development, effects on child development and puberty and transgenerational effects, among others.”

Also shared in Daily News regarding International Women’s Day was a compilation of studies on women’s health to emphasize the disproportionate risks women face from toxic chemicals that are often unaccounted for and even dismissed throughout pesticide regulatory review processes. The inequalities in pesticide threats to women include health effects ranging from cancer, sleep disorders, gut dysbiosis, and diabetes to epigenetic effects, developmental delays, neurotoxicity, and reproduction dysfunction, including infertility and negative birth outcomes.

Beyond Pesticides has long since covered the regulatory deficiencies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the Daily News post titled “Human Health Disregarded with Obsolete Regulations and Risk Management, Researchers Find,” it is stressed how assessments relying on outdated principles and expectations put human health at risk. Gender inequalities within these assessments are one of many data gaps that threaten human health. (See more on EPA failures here.)

To mitigate the endocrine-disrupting effects of pesticides that display detrimental long-term health effects both directly and indirectly, implementation of the holistic solution of organic land management is necessary. By eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, organic methods safeguard public health, for women, men, and children, as well as mitigate the crises of climate change and biodiversity.

To learn more about endocrine disruption, listen to keynote speaker Tracey Woodruff, PhD, from the second session of the 41st National Forum Series — Imperatives for a Sustainable Future and to learn more about the benefits of organic land management, see here and here.

Take action by helping to transition your community to organic practices through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program as a Parks Advocate and become a member of Beyond Pesticides to add your voice to the organic solution. Stay informed by signing up for our Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates, delivered straight to your inbox!

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source:

Paul, J. et al. (2025) Prenatal residential proximity to endocrine disrupting agricultural pesticides and menstrual cycle characteristics among Latina adolescents in California, American Journal of Epidemiology. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaf059/8083004.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2025) With the second largest award of nearly $2.1 billion (see reporting on largest), a jury in Georgia state court on March 21 found the pesticide manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto guilty of causing a man’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after use of the company’s glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup^TM product. The jury’s award includes $65 million in compensatory and $2 billion in punitive damages, as reported by the Associated Press and Courtroom View Network.

This verdict in Barnes v. Monsanto (2025) comes amid a concerted effort by Bayer and other chemical and agribusiness groups to take away the main legal argument, “failure-to-warn,” for the type of litigation that pesticide exposure victims have commonly used to hold companies accountable. This is happening as Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia considers signing into state law a pesticide immunity bill that will prevent future litigation like this in the state. In a deregulatory environment, the courts and state governments are viewed as critical backstops, given the dismantling of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory apparatus and extremely limited Congressional oversight.

History of Litigation

Bayer has lost almost all of the cases filed against it for compensation and punitive damages associated with the plaintiffs’ charge that its products caused them harm. The U.S. Supreme Court twice rebuffed the company’s plea to have its appeal heard, as reported by Beyond Pesticides and news outlets. Its legal strategy, pursued through the entire court system, has failed to fend off ongoing litigation for harm associated with its glyphosate-based products. As Bayer’s website has touted in a five-point strategy to mitigate the company’s financial “risks” from future litigation, “A favorable ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the federal preemption question could largely end the Roundup litigation.” The main question here is whether state-based “failure-to-warn” claims are preempted by federal law since the EPA concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer and approved the Roundup™ label without a warning. Bayer is vigorously pursuing a judicial decision or the adoption of legislation at the federal or state level that preempts, or takes away, plaintiffs’ right to sue the company when they are harmed by the company’s products.

Bayer is not giving up on the current U.S. Supreme Court in seeking to overturn current law, as established by previous court decisions, including Bates v Dow (2005). However, that strategy is not succeeding, at least not yet. The string of Bayer losses includes a judication decision on February 5, 2024, when the decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came down in favor of the plaintiff in Carson v. Monsanto on Bayer’s claim that FIFRA preempts a “failure-to-warn” claim. (See Daily News here for further analysis.)

There were several other significant developments in 2024, including the Oregon Court of Appeals decision on July 10, ruling that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not preempt pesticide exposure victims’ claims in state court against pesticide manufacturers, based on reporting from The New Lede. An Appellate court overturned a 2022 local court ruling and remanded the case (for a retrial) in part because the judge had failed to consider the expert witness testimony of Chuck Benbrook, PhD, a scientist specializing in agricultural economics with over 40 peer-reviewed articles, reports, and book chapters on pesticide regulation and risk assessment. (See Daily News here.)  

Bayer has doubled down on the safety of its weedkiller, even though investors are sounding the alarm and as the company announced that it could pull Roundup from the U.S. market due to ongoing legal risks. For an in-depth history and related developments for Bayer-Monsanto litigation, see this tracker developed by the Lawsuit Information Center.  

Connection to “Failure-to-Warn”

State legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their “failure to warn” about the hazards of their pesticide products is moving forward in six state legislatures (Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, and North Dakota).

Four bills have failed to pass (Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, and Oklahoma). See a recent Daily News, Flying Through States, Industry Seeks To Stop Lawsuits Over Failure to Warn of Pesticide Dangers, for a legislative update of where the bills stand as of March 31, 2025.

Meanwhile, in August 2024, the Republican Attorney General of North Dakota jointly filed a petition to EPA with 10 other Republican Attorneys General (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and South Dakota) requesting that the agency promulgate rulemaking to prevent states like California from adding additional warning labels to pesticide and chemical products that disclose more hazard information than is required on warning labels under federal pesticide law. The proposed petition would prompt the agency to “modify its requirements such that any state labeling requirements inconsistent with EPA’s findings and conclusions from its human health risk assessment on human health effects, such as a pesticide’s likelihood to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm, [would] constitute misbranding.” This rule would consider any add-on label requirement that considers scientific literature not recognized by EPA (such as the 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designation of glyphosate as a “probably carcinogenic to humans”) in violation of FIFRA’s misbranding clause. If finalized into regulations, this petition would preempt the ability of states like California to continue its add-on cancer warning label language for products under its state law, Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986).

See the Action of the Week, As Fed Cuts Protections, Petition Would Prohibit State Pesticide Warnings and Restrictions, for an archive of the EPA public comment docket for the proposed petition. Beyond Pesticides will continue to provide updates as information becomes available.

Language establishing chemical company immunity from “failure-to-warn” litigation and local and state authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than EPA is included in the 2024 Republican Farm Bill draft, escalating the fight over federal preemption of state and local standards and protective authority of the courts. The Senate GOP framework alludes to preemption of state and local governance of pesticides, food systems and production, and public health in Title X, Horticulture title: “Restates and reaffirms U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) obligation with respect to the federal and state regulatory process.” Moreover, Title XII, Miscellaneous states: “Protects the ability of livestock producers to raise and sell products into interstate commerce without interference from other states.”

Environmental and health advocates point to preemption provisions having been adopted by the House in the previous Congress in the form of stand-alone legislation, including the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (See Daily News here for analysis) and Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act (See Daily News here for analysis), and would effectively prohibit “failure-to-warn” claims and prohibit state and local ordinances and policies more stringent than weaker federal standards, respectively. (See Daily News here.)

These bills have yet to be reintroduced in the current Congress, but advocates expect the language to be included in future Republican Farm Bill text.

Call to Action

Through grassroots efforts, coalitions and communities across the nation have successfully beat back this legislation in Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, and Oklahoma this year after a successful defense in Missouri, Idaho, and Iowa in the 2024 legislative session. The public’s voice is pivotal at this time!

See the Failure-to-Warn resource hub that Beyond Pesticides updates in real time to account for legislative movement, public hearing timelines, and other background information so that communities and organizations can speak out on these bills.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.  

Source: Associated Press, ABC News.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2025) This week, Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to contact their Governor and local officials to respond to a new report on the serious decline of bird populations by eliminating the use of toxic pesticides in the management of state and local public property. The latest study on bird declines is the 2025 edition of the State of the Birds report, written by scientists in the U.S. Committee of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), a forum of government agencies, private organizations, and bird initiatives. The study finds “[s]obering evidence that America’s birds continue to decline across the board.”

Furthermore, the report says: “Birds are telling us that the habitats people depend on are vanishing. Declines are happening across the board: in grasslands, aridlands, western and eastern forests, in Hawaii’s fragile ecosystems; and with our shorebirds and seabirds. Even waterfowl, which had rebounded strongly thanks to decades of conservation work, are seeing sharp recent declines.” 

>> Tell your governor and mayor to protect birds by adopting policies that support organic land management. 

Not only are bird species important for preserving biodiversity, but many species provide ecosystem services such as pollination and mosquito management. The protection of birds and their habitats allows for other organisms, including humans, to prosper. The assessment reveals that although overall, about one-third of U.S. birds, or 229 species, are of high or moderate conservation concern, impacts to bird species in some habitats face greater threats than others. Grassland and aridland species have both lost more than 40 percent of their total populations over that period.

The report notes particular species of highest concern, labeled as “tipping point” species that have lost more than half their populations in the past 50 years. In total, 112 tipping point species are identified, the highest being shorebirds with the highest number of tipping point species (19) and grassland birds with more than half of bird species in steep decline.  

The State of the Bird report, which focuses on long-term population changes for 246 total species of North American birds, highlights just one piece of the larger picture; as bird species face population threats, so do other organisms within terrestrial and aquatic food webs and across all ecosystems.

Many scientific studies tie impacts on bird species to the interconnected issues of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change. From higher insecticide levels in pesticide-laden nests linked to increased offspring mortality to the threats to seed-eating birds from neonicotinoid treated seeds, agricultural intensification harms bird species within the U.S. and throughout the world.  

It has become clear that we cannot count on EPA to protect birds—or the rest of us— from the interconnected threats of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change.  The alternative is to promote policies at the state and local level that move towards organic land management in agriculture, communities, and homes. 

Beyond Pesticides has established its Parks for a Sustainable Future program to assist communities and states in transitioning their public land to organic land management. With a cost-effective approach to managing land without petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, Beyond Pesticides provides horticultural services to evaluate current land management programs and put together a plan for organic management that cycling nutrients naturally, reduces vulnerability to disease and infestations, and support greater plant resiliency. The program is specifically designed to protect wildlife and biodiversity, while protecting the health of the community and its ecosystem, and contributing to mitigation measure to reverse global climate change.

>> Tell your governor and mayor to protect birds by adopting policies that support organic land management. 

Letter to Mayor
The 2025 edition of the State of the Birds report by scientists in the U.S. Committee of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) finds “[s]obering evidence that America’s birds continue to decline across the board.” Furthermore, the report says, “Birds are telling us that the habitats people depend on are vanishing. Declines are happening across the board: in grasslands, aridlands, western and eastern forests, in Hawaii’s fragile ecosystems, and with our shorebirds and seabirds. Even waterfowl, which had rebounded strongly thanks to decades of conservation work, are seeing sharp recent declines.”

It has become clear that we cannot count on the EPA to protect birds—or the rest of us—from the interconnected threats of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change.   We must promote policies at the state and local level moving towards organic land management in agriculture, communities, and homes. 

Not only are bird species important for preserving biodiversity, but many species provide ecosystem services such as pollination and mosquito management. The protection of birds and their habitats allows for other organisms, including humans, to prosper. The assessment reveals that although overall, about one-third of U.S. birds, or 229 species, are of high or moderate conservation concern, impacts to bird species in some habitats face greater threats than others. Grassland and aridland species have both lost more than 40 percent of their total populations over that period.” 

The State of the Bird 2025 report, which focuses on long-term population changes for 246 total species of North American birds, highlights just one piece of the larger picture; as bird species face population threats, so do other organisms within terrestrial and aquatic food webs and across all ecosystems. 

Many scientific studies tie impacts on bird species to the interconnected issues of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change. From higher insecticide levels in pesticide-laden nests linked to increased offspring mortality to the threats to seed-eating birds from neonicotinoid treated seeds, agricultural intensification harms bird species within the U.S. and throughout the world. 

States should adopt a strategy promoting natural and working lands as a critical yet currently underutilized sector in the fight against climate change. These lands can sequester and store carbon emissions, limit future carbon emissions into the atmosphere, protect people and nature from the impacts of climate change, and build resilience to future climate risks. The strategy should define the state’s natural and working landscapes; describe how these lands can deliver on climate change goals; highlight priority nature-based climate solutions to address the climate crisis; explore opportunities for regional climate smart land management; identify options to track nature-based climate action and measure progress; and outline opportunities to scale climate-smart land management across regions and sectors in the state. States should set a pesticide-free goal for state parks. 

To be effective, the strategy must include ambitious targets focused on reduction of agricultural chemicals and support for organic agriculture. These measures also address other crises, including microbial support for ecosystem health and biodiversity. Industrial farming systems dependent on synthetic fertilizers and other chemical inputs must be replaced with organic systems that do not use chemicals in which animals and feed sources are fully integrated.

I urge you to take the lead in creating policies that move our state to organic agriculture and land management.

Thank you.

Letter to Governor
The 2025 edition of the State of the Birds report by scientists in the U.S. Committee of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) finds “[s]obering evidence that America’s birds continue to decline across the board.” Furthermore, the report says, “Birds are telling us that the habitats people depend on are vanishing. Declines are happening across the board: in grasslands, aridlands, western and eastern forests, in Hawaii’s fragile ecosystems, and with our shorebirds and seabirds. Even waterfowl, which had rebounded strongly thanks to decades of conservation work, are seeing sharp recent declines.”

It has become clear that we cannot count on the EPA to protect birds—or the rest of us—from the interconnected threats of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change.   We must promote policies at the state and local level moving towards organic land management in agriculture, communities, and homes. 

Not only are bird species important for preserving biodiversity, but many species provide ecosystem services such as pollination and mosquito management. The protection of birds and their habitats allows for other organisms, including humans, to prosper. The assessment reveals that although overall, about one-third of U.S. birds, or 229 species, are of high or moderate conservation concern, impacts to bird species in some habitats face greater threats than others. Grassland and aridland species have both lost more than 40 percent of their total populations over that period.” 

The State of the Bird 2025 report, which focuses on long-term population changes for 246 total species of North American birds, highlights just one piece of the larger picture; as bird species face population threats, so do other organisms within terrestrial and aquatic food webs and across all ecosystems. 

Many scientific studies tie impacts on bird species to the interconnected issues of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change. From higher insecticide levels in pesticide-laden nests linked to increased offspring mortality to the threats to seed-eating birds from neonicotinoid treated seeds, agricultural intensification harms bird species within the U.S. and throughout the world. 

States should adopt a strategy promoting natural and working lands as a critical yet currently underutilized sector in the fight against climate change. These lands can sequester and store carbon emissions, limit future carbon emissions into the atmosphere, protect people and nature from the impacts of climate change, and build resilience to future climate risks. The strategy should define the state’s natural and working landscapes; describe how these lands can deliver on climate change goals; highlight priority nature-based climate solutions to address the climate crisis; explore opportunities for regional climate smart land management; identify options to track nature-based climate action and measure progress; and outline opportunities to scale climate-smart land management across regions and sectors in the state. States should set a pesticide-free goal for state parks. 

To be effective, the strategy must include ambitious targets focused on reduction of agricultural chemicals and support for organic agriculture. These measures also address other crises, including microbial support for ecosystem health and biodiversity. Industrial farming systems dependent on synthetic fertilizers and other chemical inputs must be replaced with organic systems that do not use chemicals in which animals and feed sources are fully integrated.

I urge you to take the lead in creating policies that move our state to organic agriculture and land management.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2025) The Rhine Valley in southwestern Germany is renowned for the agricultural bounty it has provided for centuries. Today, the area is home to dense wine, vegetable, fruit, and cereal cultivation. However, a study shows that current regulation of pesticides, even in the relatively progressive European Union, is inadequate to protect humans and all the other organisms that produce the environment necessary for human life and civilization. 

The study goal was to determine how far—and which—pesticides traveled beyond the croplands of vegetables, fruit orchards, and cereals, as well forested lands, into nontarget areas that should serve as refugia for plants, animals, and invertebrates not considered pests. Based at the Landau Institute for Environmental Sciences at the University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, the researchers used innovative methods to measure the types, concentrations, and distribution of pesticides.

They took samples from three landscape categories—vegetation, topsoil, and surface water—at 78 sites distributed along six transects, each reaching from the valley floor to the tops of the mountains on either side. Samples were taken from grasses, shrub leaves, and topsoils along each transect, together with water samples from rivers, small streams, ponds, and puddles. They tested for 93 current-use pesticides (CUPs).

There was no site where all samples of vegetation, topsoil, or water were free of all pesticides. Of the 93 CUPs tested, the researchers found 63 in the samples. CUPs were found in 97 percent of all the vegetation and topsoil samples and 83 percent of the water samples. The mixture of pesticides was wildly varied; the scientists found 140 different combinations of at least two pesticides. Fungicides were most prominent overall, and the pesticides most commonly found together were the fungicides fluopyram and spiroxamine. Fluopyram appeared in the vast majority of samples. Others in the samples with lesser frequency included the bee-killing neonicotinoids clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiacloprid. See Beyond Pesticides’ rich archive of information on these very dangerous pesticides.

Fluopyram is a member of the PFAS family of “forever chemicals,” of which the authors point out there are 37 authorized for use in the European Union. They add that the Rhine Valley sits atop a very large aquifer that provides water to more than seven million people; thus, PFAS use on the surface presents a high risk of contaminating drinking water. While there is not a large body of research on fluopyram’s health hazards, the authors note that fish exposed to it exhibit behavioral alterations, implying neurological damage. Another study found high toxicity in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.

Both fluopyram and spiroxamine are registered for use in the European Union (E.U.) and the U.S. E.U. evaluations found that residues are of little concern, but other research suggests otherwise. A survey of residues in the environment in Argentina and Europe comparing chemical-intensive (conventional) and organic farms found high concentrations in the conventional soils, principally fungicides, including boscalid (another fungicide) and spiroxamine, both of which were present in the Rhine Valley study. A 2021 Indian study of fluopyram residues on pomegranates found that they were concentrated in the outer peel but that the fruit was free of it. However, these authors noted that this should not be reassuring, as pomegranate peel, like every other part of the pomegranate, is of high value owing to the antioxidant polyphenols it contains. The peel is used to augment other fruit juices and has potential as a preservative. Thus, the principle of utilizing naturally-occurring plants to support health also carries a risky downside if the plants are treated with pesticides. The Rhine Valley study shows that wildlife and ecosystems run the same risks and that distance from the application site is not necessarily protective.

Spiroxamine, used against powdery mildew, is almost absent from the scientific literature on pesticide health effects, meaning it has also achieved registration based on data that at least in part are considered proprietary studies by chemical companies, and has not truly been evaluated for human or environmental risks based on exposures that are chronic, low-dose or in combination with other chemicals. However, even regulatory toxicology studies have shown it is highly toxic to birds and moderately toxic to mammals (rats).

One of the innovative, striking, and tragic results of the Rhine study was finding that puddles pose severe risks to insects, especially honey bees, birds, and mammals wherever they are found. This is because as puddles dry out, the concentrations increase, “which turns puddles in agricultural areas into toxic soups,” they wrote. “Puddles in human-modified landscapes are an important drinking water source for birds, and honey bees actively forage in ‘dirty’ water sources for minerals that may be lacking in their floral diet. We emphasize the critical exposure pathway for birds and mammals…especially when contaminated puddles are the only source of water in hot seasons or during increasingly frequent droughts.” Even worse, “Natural puddles in non-target areas contained the highest contamination levels and are so far not included in environmental risk assessment procedures.”

The Rhine Valley study firmly establishes that pesticides do not stay where they are applied, even when the application area is bounded by higher altitudes that might be expected to confine them. The researchers found significant deposition of pesticides even at the highest point of the surrounding mountains. There was no environmental compartment—soil, water, vegetation—that was protected. This means that refugia, even those assumed to be far enough away to escape contamination, will not suffice to maintain a functional ecosystem while proceeding with business as usual in agriculture.

Further, other research clearly demonstrates that pesticides travel around the world in and on agricultural products. Within Germany, the country’s Beer Purity Law, or “Reinheitsgebot,” in place for 500 years, is routinely broken by the near-universal use of glyphosate. As Beyond Pesticides noted in its 2016 News Brief, the law requires brewers to produce beer using only malt, hops, yeast, and water. Yet the Munich Environmental Institute found glyphosate in 14 popular German beers. The highest concentration was 300 times the legal limit for drinking water in Germany.

The best way to avoid pesticide residues in food is to buy organic food and support organic agriculture. See our database, Eating With a Conscience (EWAC), for information on the pesticides that could be present in the food we eat and why food labeled organic is the right choice. The choice of organic food is also a good way to help protect ecosystems.

Consuming organic foods and protecting organic agriculture, along with continuing to communicate the importance of pesticide elimination to policymakers, are the best ways to push back at the conflict-ridden industrial hegemony that keeps the world at risk. The Landau scientists conclude that “the current pesticide authorization and risk management practices do not protect terrestrial biodiversity….[t]ogether with the aim of transforming 25 percent of the agricultural land to organic production by 2030, as formulated originally in the EU Green Deal and integrated in national and international policies, synthetic pesticide use could be substantially lowered leading to a reduction of pesticide exposure of biodiversity and humans.”

The Rhine Valley study also illustrates why regulatory toxicology is both inadequate and actively harmful. Regulators rely on the self-interested studies performed by the commercial interests producing and marketing the pesticides. These types of studies have been shown to have outlived their usefulness, requiring new regulatory protocols to include the breakthroughs in assessing chemicals’ health effects developed by academic and public health researchers—such as those demonstrating the role of inflammation in nearly every chronic health condition, and which has been shown to result from pesticide exposures. See Beyond Pesticides’ analyses here, here, and here. Products are registered and used long before independent scientists can study their long-term, transgenerational, and synergistic effects. Nevertheless, there has now accumulated a large body of peer-reviewed science demonstrating pesticides’ serious harms. The pesticides identified in the Rhine Valley study have been studied far less than the “usual suspects,” such as glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, and atrazine, and may not be in widespread international use yet, but they have already been labeled as low-risk without a truly responsible assessment of their ecotoxicological and human health effects. We already know there is a high likelihood that they will join most other pesticides in the “harmful” column.

Sign up here to receive our Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox, and stay informed with the Daily News Blog.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides. 

Sources:

Current-use pesticides in vegetation, topsoil and water reveal contaminated landscapes of the Upper Rhine Valley, Germany
Mauser et al.
Communications Earth & Environment, 2025
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02118-2

Landscape Scale Pesticide Pollution Detected In Upper Rhine Region, From Agricultural Lowlands To Remote Areas
Eurasia Review March 17, 2025
https://www.eurasiareview.com/17032025-landscape-scale-pesticide-pollution-detected-in-upper-rhine-region-from-agricultural-lowlands-to-remote-areas/

Landscape scale pesticide pollution detected in the Upper Rhine region, from agricultural lowlands to remote areas
News Release March 12, 2025
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1076460

Glyphosate Residues in Popular German Beers
Beyond Pesticides, February 29, 2016
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2016/02/glyphosate-residues-in-popular-german-beers/

Flooding Transports Pesticides from Streams to Soil and Plants, Threatens Terrestrial Food Webs
Beyond Pesticides, October 22, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/10/flooding-transports-pesticides-from-streams-to-soil-and-plants-threatens-terrestrial-food-webs/

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2025) In Ecotoxicology, results of a study on Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) exposed to florpyrauxifen-benzyl (FPX) suggest the new herbicide causes oxidative stress (imbalances affecting the body’s detoxification abilities that lead to cell and tissue damage), with specific genotoxic (damage to genetic material) and hepatotoxic (damage to the liver) effects on nontarget species. The authors state: “According to the available literature, no data exist on the toxicity of FPX in fish. Therefore, this study aims to investigate, for the first time, the potential toxicity and associated mechanistic effects of the pyridine-carboxylic acid herbicide (FPX) on the non-target species, Nile tilapia.”

According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, “Florpyrauxifen-benzyl is a systemic herbicide (i.e., it moves throughout the plant tissue). It is a WSSA Group 4 herbicide, meaning that the mechanism of action is by mimicking the plant growth hormone auxin and causing excessive elongation of plant cells, ultimately killing the plant.”

The researchers, from Menoufia University, the Agricultural Research Center, and Cairo University in Egypt, focus on FPX as it is the active ingredient in Divixton 2.5% EC, a newly released herbicide used in rice fields and applied directly to freshwater aquatic bodies for emergent aquatic vegetation. Studying the effects in Nile tilapia is crucial for the area, as the species “accounts for about 80% of Egyptian fish production,” the authors share, and “can be used as an environmental indicator of xenobiotic biotransformation and biomarker response, making it a valuable model for various monitoring programs,” they continue.

As has been extensively documented, the excessive use of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals poses a significant threat to both terrestrial and aquatic environments. (See Daily News coverage here.) The researchers note that, “Water-borne derivatives of herbicides strongly affect the well-being of aquatic animals, their productivity, and safety of aquatic organisms for human consumption.” Water contamination occurs through various sources such as runoff, soil leaching, and aerial drift. When chemicals reach bodies of water, “they may interact with other pollutants, increasing their toxicity to aquatic organisms” and cause, even in very low concentrations, “morphological, histological, and biochemical changes in their tissues,” the authors state.

The active ingredient FPX was unconditionally registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2017 and is a selective herbicide used to kill post-emergent weeds. In studying this herbicide in a nontarget aquatic species, the researchers highlight disrupted hepatic (liver) functions and antioxidant responses of Nile tilapia that represent the threat to other aquatic species and biodiversity. Hepatotoxic implications can leave organisms susceptible to further health impacts, as the liver is “responsible for the detoxification of xenobiotics and other pollutants” and is “a histologically extraordinarily sensitive organ that is used to evaluate the toxic effects of different contaminants on fish, as it is the major site for pesticide’s storage, biotransformation, and excretion,” the researchers note.

Through blood samples, dissections, and analyses performed on 400 fish after exposure periods of 7 and 15 days to sublethal concentrations of FPX, the results identify oxidative, genotoxic, and hepatic changes within the organisms. The researchers find that at both durations of exposure to FPX, levels of malondialdehyde (MDA) were elevated. MDA is a biomarker associated with lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress (leading to cell damage), and elevated levels of MDA in the liver are associated with liver damage and fibrosis. The authors also report: “Concentrations of FPX induced oxidative stress in fish by altering activities of antioxidant enzymes and their transcripts. The genotoxic effect of FPX was evidenced by a significant increase in micronuclei (MNs) and ENA [erythrocytic nuclear abnormalities] frequencies.” 

The researchers attribute these results to FPX causing changes to hematopoiesis (the process of producing blood cells) in the fish. They report that the “oxidative stress caused vigorous damage in the mitochondrial DNA of hepatocytes resulting in the rupture of blood sinusoids and pushing of blood in the liver which resulted in the hepatopathological [liver tissue] changes.” These findings, while very complex, highlight the intricacies of health effects from pesticide exposure that are often overlooked or dismissed during pesticide regulation processes. (See more on regulatory deficiencies of EPA here.)

Additional results of the study suggest FPX toxicity may alter cell wall elasticity and gene expression, cause the enlargement of the gallbladder, encourage degeneration of the pancreatic area, alter blood vessels, cause hemorrhaging, and lead to necrosis (death of body tissue). While this is a novel study for FPX, previous research supports herbicides inducing oxidative stress in Nile tilapia and causing alterations in antioxidant activity and mRNA expression. (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.)

Of note is another study from 2024 in mice, published in the Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology, which found similarly that FPX exposure “exhibited apoptosis [cell death], oxidative stress, immunosuppression, and inflammatory response in a dose-dependent manner, leading to spleen tissue damage and immunotoxicity.”

As Beyond Pesticides previously reported, pesticide contamination inflicts devastating effects on the food web and overall biodiversity. The health of aquatic ecosystems is at risk with indirect effects on nontarget species from pesticides in the environment. This includes impacts on species of fish, invertebrates, microbial communities, and marine mammals. There is an overwhelming body of science that shows the negative implications associated with pesticide exposure on the environment, including in soil, water, and air, as well as detrimental effects on human health.

Alternatives, such as organic agriculture, offer a path forward that eliminates these threats and also mitigates the current climate change crisis. Beyond Pesticides’ mission is to lead the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides. To join in this holistic solution, you can start by buying organic products and making The Safer Choice to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides. Stay informed with the Daily News Blog and take action to create meaningful change with Action of the Week.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source:

Nabet, N. et al. (2025) The induced hepatotoxicity and genotoxicity in Oreochromis niloticus exposed to a newly released florpyrauxifen-benzyl herbicide, Ecotoxicology. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10646-025-02864-1.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2025) State legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their “failure to warn” about the hazards of their pesticide products is moving forward in seven state legislatures (Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Oklahoma) across the United States. After three bills failed to pass (Mississippi, Wyoming, and Montana) and one bill is awaiting signature into law by the Governor’s Office (Georgia), Beyond Pesticides, working with a broad coalition, is pushing back. (See Beyond Pesticides’ Failure to Warn resource hub, background materials, and opportunities for action.) If adopted, the “immunity from litigation” legislation would set a dangerous precedent for state common law claims against any manufacturers of products with toxic ingredients. Currently, pesticide labels under federal and state law generally do not warn of potential chronic effects, such as cancer, reproductive effects, infertility, birth defects, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, cardiovascular damage, and more (see Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database), but warn of acute effects, such as rashes, headaches, stinging eyes, and more.

After years of large jury awards, preemptive settlements, and lost appeals in cases involving exposure to the weedkiller glyphosate, Bayer/Monsanto is trying to stop the company’s financial hemorrhaging with a state-by-state strategy to deny victims access to the courts. To accomplish this, Bayer has founded, along with agribusiness groups including state Farm Bureaus, a coalition to stop “failure-to-warn” lawsuits with state legislation. Bayer’s coalition, Modern Ag Alliance, says it is fighting what they describe as “scientifically unsound lawsuits” on the weedkiller glyphosate. The alliance says, “If we don’t act, the future of glyphosate and other valuable crop protection tools and critical innovations may be at stake.” As has been reported widely, Bayer/Monsanto has lost numerous multimillion-dollar lawsuits because of its “failure to warn” of its product’s hazard by those who have been harmed. The company’s defeats include a U.S. Supreme Court denial (denial of certiorari) to hear their appeal. With this, Bayer has taken its campaign to the states to strip away peoples’ (including farmers) ability to hold corporations accountable through a common law duty to warn claims associated with pesticide products.

Despite decades of lobbying by the agrichemical industry to ensure an extremely weak and unprotective federal pesticide registration law, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the industry argues that federal law should preempt people’s right to sue and communities’ right to restrict pesticides more stringently than the paltry federal and state laws that the industry has a hand in writing. So far, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bates et al. v Dow Agrosciences (544 U.S. 431, 2005) has found that citizens damaged by pesticides have the right to sue producers of toxic products, saying that federal pesticide law does not offer adequate protection from “manufacturers of poisonous substances.” Importantly, “failure-to-warn” claims serve as the de-facto legal backstop to hold pesticide companies accountable, given the limitations of the federal and state regulatory systems. Litigation is not only for holding chemical manufacturers accountable, but also incentivizes more responsible corporate behavior across the board, resulting in safer products.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also upheld the right of communities to restrict pesticides more stringently than the federal government in Wisconsin Public Intervenor  v. Mortier (501 U.S. 597, 1991), but that victory for local democratic process to protect residents’ and ecosystems’ health has been thwarted by laws in at least 44 states that preempt the authority of their local municipalities. The question now is whether the chemical industry playbook will yield a similar result and preempt people’s right to sue in cases of “failure-to-warn.”

In the U.S. Congress, pesticide immunity language has been included in previous Farm Bill language and in the Fiscal Year 2025 Appropriations bill (See Daily News here), as well as in an ongoing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking, advanced by 11 Republican Attorneys General. (Although the public hearing comment period ended on March 24, see Action of the Week here for more background.) So, the industry campaign is aggressively playing out at the state and federal level.

Public opinion does not support the chemical industry

Accountable Iowa conducted a survey of 875 Iowa voters in the 2024 election cycle on their views on the pesticide immunity bill, and the results do not support the industry’s position.

Across all surveyed voters, regardless of political affiliation or demographic makeup, the public overwhelmingly distrusts chemical corporations and opposes giving them legal shields from lawsuits. This opposition is built upon shared concerns about the corrupt entanglements and history of EPA and Bayer/Monsanto. There is also the shared preference to hold chemical companies accountable for causing serious health issues.

Breaking it down by the numbers, 87% of registered Republican respondents oppose giving chemical companies like Bayer-Monsanto immunity from lawsuits. 94% of surveyed Republican voters agreed that it is very concerning that the EPA relies on industry-funded data to carry out safety studies.

Where the Bills Stand

Idaho

The legislature of this state was the first to see the introduction of a pesticide immunity bill in 2024, which some local advocates attribute to the pesticide industry’s political power in Idaho, given that it is home to one of the few domestic phosphate production facilities in the United States. (See Daily News from last year here.)

At the beginning of the session, the Idaho Conservation League released a press release with relevant information and polling data on how Idahoans feel about corporate immunity from litigation:

“An independent survey of 2,678 registered voters was conducted in September 2024 by Embold Research, including 878 from Idaho, finding:

• 90% of Idahoans oppose chemical company immunity;
• 88% of Idahoans are concerned that the Environmental Protection Agency does not conduct its own safety studies to evaluate new pesticides;
• 96% support warning people when lawsuits show products can cause serious health problems;
• 85% of Idahoans are concerned that foreign corporations are trying to limit their access to the courts when chemicals threaten their health.”

In this year’s session, the scope of the bill has been expanded to preempt “failure-to-warn” claims on any agricultural products that produce “feed and fiber.” The bill, HB 303, is also similar to bills from other states in setting up an exception process where “failure-to-warn” claims can still be advanced “by a showing that:

1. The clear weight of scientific evidence does not support the scientific basis on which the required warning is based; and,
2. The manufacturer or seller knows or should have known at the time the product was sold that the required warning was not supported by the clear weight of scientific evidence.”

Advocates find this inclusion strange given the significant amount of publicly available knowledge surrounding EPA’s inability to adequately assess pesticide risks for humans, pollinators, and ecosystems, issues of industry interference in the regulatory process, allegations of industry ghostwriting scientific papers to rationalize rubberstamping pesticide registration reviews, and ongoing unresolved issues on pesticide-related regulations (see Daily News here) and scientific integrity. If passed, this would inevitably put the onerous on pesticide exposure victims—disproportionately farmers, farmworkers, and working class and majority communities of color—to prove that their legal claims have merit.

To tell your state Representatives to VOTE NO on HB 303, you can take action here.

Iowa

The Iowa legislature failed to pass this legislation last year, having passed in the Senate, but failing in the House after several attempts.

At the beginning of this year’s legislative session, over 150 Iowans mobilized a “cancer vigil” in the Iowa Capitol in protest of the bill (Senate File 394). According to reporting by Des Moines Register, “Demonstrators held a vigil in the Iowa Capitol’s rotunda Monday to honor the lives lost to cancer each year in Iowa and demanded lawmakers kill the bill.”

Local advocates point to the 2024 Iowa Cancer Registry in their opposition to this bill, referencing the fact that Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in the nation.

The language remains nearly identical to last year’s attempt—a label provides sufficient warning (meaning “failure-to-warn” does not apply) if that label was approved by EPA, the label is consistent with FIFRA human health assessment, and the label is consistent with EPA carcinogenicity classification.

You can take action here and tell your state Senators to VOTE NO on SF 394.

Missouri

The battle in Missouri over pesticide immunity bills (HB 544/SB 14) hits home given that Bayer’s U.S. headquarters is in the state, with the multinational corporation employing several thousand Missourians.

There has been steadfast opposition to pesticide immunity from a broad coalition of public health, environmental, and rural community advocacy groups, as well as from far-right Senators in the Missouri Freedom Caucus. The Missouri Independent reported in February that “direct mail pieces sent out in at least nine state Senate districts accuse lawmakers of failing to protect the state’s food supply from ‘Chinese Communist Party chemicals[.]’”

This effort, it has been alleged by the nine targeted Senators, is a “propaganda” campaign that “Bayer is paying for the flyers but have no solid evidence.” A follow-up article by the same outlet on March 13 reported “Bayer within a week will lift the veil of secrecy on some documents detailing its campaign to influence public opinion regarding the safety of its herbicide Roundup, attorneys said Wednesday [, March 12].” Matt Clement, a lawyer representing a Wisconsin-based man claiming Roundup gave him non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, argued that 46 Bayer records “should be unsealed as an emergency measure to show how the German chemical giant is trying to influence lawmakers and potential jurors.”

Advocates view these moves as representative of a strategy employed by pesticide companies that is reliant on muscle and money, rather than facts and fairness, to avoid further lawsuits.

HB 544 passed the House on February 20 [85-72], however you can take action here and tell your state Senators to VOTE NO on SB 14.

North Dakota

The legislation moved through the state very quickly, with the House unanimously voting in favor of HB 1318 early in the session. After several public hearings, farmers, environmental advocates, and legal professionals expressed their concerns with allowing federal agencies to have the final say in matters of public health and environmental stewardship.

“The EPA is at the same time perfectly suited to regulate this but overbearing and killing business at the same time and must be cut,” says Sam Wagner, food and agriculture organizer at Dakota Resource Council, in written testimony on this bill in a public hearing before the Senate Agriculture and Veteran Affairs Committee on March 14. “Every time we talk about regulation we get into a game of hot potato, the federal government tells us the state and local governments should handle this, and the state and local government tells us that the federal government should handle this and in the meantime the people suffer from this.”

This bill is problematic because it inevitably would take away the primary legal argument used to hold pesticide companies accountable in the face of regulatory failure to adequately assess full pesticide formulations and conduct human health risk assessments. In the case of loosening regulations on a potent fumigant pesticide 1,3-Dichloropropane (Telone), a 2022 EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report found multiple failures in how it conducted the full human health assessment, including EPA staff’s failure to conduct an open scientific literature review on the chemical at the start of the investigation, applying a novel approach to evaluate 1,3-D’s carcinogenicity that the agency itself went on to question its validity, and the open knowledge that “not all members possessed the appropriate scientific expertise for using and implementing the…approach for evaluating the evidence of the carcinogenic potential of 1,3-D,” according to OIG interviews. (See Daily News here.) As of June 2024, EPA OIG reported that the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has still failed to “[c]onduct an external peer review on the 1,3-Dichloroproene cancer-risk assessment.” (See Daily News here.)

You can take action here by telling your state Senators to VOTE NO on HB 1318.

Florida

There was a version of the pesticide immunity bill in Florida last year, however it failed to move forward. This year, however, there are active bills in both chambers (HB 129/SB 992).

This year, there is an additional liability shield for any “agricultural employer” who may face “failure-to-warn” claims in court moving forward. Like some of the other states, the Florida legislation offers carveouts for when “failure-to-warn” could apply:

• If the product was altered, if the label was not followed, among other clauses; and
• Builds in a carveout for “foreign” manufacturers, most notably Syngenta/ChemChina.

These bills are problematic for Florida because they not only apply similar repercussions as the North Dakota legislation, but also attempt to pit farmers against farmworkers by shielding “agricultural employers” from liability. Farmworkers, farmers, and anyone living near areas sprayed with pesticides or holding mixtures of pesticide residues will have this legal argument taken away from them if this legislation is signed into law by Governor Ron Desantis (R). The Florida bills would also set a dangerous precedent by establishing contradictory policies for domestic versus foreign pesticide manufacturers, when in reality the four top pesticide companies – Syngenta (China), Bayer (Germany), Corteva (U.S.), and BASF (Germany) – “controlled around 70 percent of the global pesticide market in 2018,” based on reporting in the 2022 Pesticide Atlas. In other words, advocates across the state and the country are frustrated that the majority of pesticide companies are already foreign-owned, and yet their pesticides are registered for use in the United States without regulatory repercussions. This law would only worsen the problem.

You can take action here and tell your state Senators and Representatives to VOTE NO on HB 129 and SB 992.

Georgia

The bills moved through the Senate and the House, passing both chambers.

SB 144, if signed into law by Governor Brian Kemp (R), gives foreign chemical corporations like Syngenta/ChemChina legal immunity from future lawsuits—even if they fraudulently hide the risks and violate federal misbranding rules. Just like the other bills, SB 144 strips farmers and families of their right to hold pesticide companies accountable when the label is a lie.

This legislation if passed would set a dangerous precedent for all state legislatures to contend with the ability to immunize certain industries from legal accountability in the face of federal and state inaction on regulatory matters vital to the public interest. There is also the problematic and revisionist nature of lines 40-44 in the bill to attempt providing an exception for when “failure-to-warn” claims can still apply,

“provided, however, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply when a determination has been made by the Environmental Protection Agency that a manufacturer knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information regarding the human health risks of such pesticide in order to obtain or maintain approval of its label by the Environmental Protection Agency.”

This legislative language is dangerous because it ignores the institutionalized pattern of corruption in various EPA offices that go back to the creation of the agency in the 1970s. During the 1970’s and 1980’s, there was the Industrial Biotest and Craven Laboratories scandals that brought to public attention fraudulent laboratory animal test data that supported the registration and tolerances (acceptable residues), respectively, of pesticides. Then corruption was called out in 1984 when Congress held hearings on another corruption blow-up dubbed the “cut-and-paste” scandal, where EPA staff were found to use verbatim chemical company toxicology review analyses, pasting them on to EPA letterhead as if they were independently reviewed by Office of Pesticide Programs staff. (See Daily News here.)

Fast forward to 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voided EPA’s “interim registration review” decision approving continued use of glyphosate, issued in 2020 saying, “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate cause[s] cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).” On this matter, the Supreme Court refused to consider a Bayer petition to throw out cases against cancer victims alleging harms from their glyphosate-based herbicide products. (See Daily News for more context here and here.)

There is a clear pattern of corruption that demonstrates the importance of protecting “failure-to-warn” claims. You can take action here and tell Governor Kemp to VETO SB 144.

Debunking Myths

Proponents of this legislation rely on several buckets of arguments to legitimize this effort, including putting trust in the regulators and the risk assessment process.

Myth One: These bills do not prevent anyone from suing pesticide manufacturers.

These bills undermine the foundational legal argument used in thousands of previous and pending cases filed by those who have been harmed by pesticide use and exposure.

Myth Two: EPA’s registration process for pesticides is robust, involves rigorous testing, and ultimately leads to safe products

Substantial scientific literature, inspector general reports, and litigation going up to U.S. Supreme Court point to limitations of pesticide registration, including safety claims.

Myth Three: The weedkiller glyphosate in Roundup will be taken off the market if state legislation is not passed. We need a fair legal climate!

“Failure-to-warn” claims have been a basic right in state courts going back to 1947. Users of pesticides are better protected by fair warning of product hazards in the marketplace.

Myth Four: Farmers will be reliant on unsafe products developed in foreign countries if legislation is not adopted.

The current ability to sue for a manufacturer’s failure to warn protects farmers, gardeners, and users of chemical products because it incentivizes truthful labeling of products, which enables informed consumer choices with full information.

See the Myths & Facts sheet for more information and context.

Call to Action

Through grassroots efforts, coalitions and communities across the nation have to-date successfully beat back this legislation in Mississippi, Wyoming, and Montana this year after defending the public’s right to sue in Missouri, Idaho, and Iowa in the 2024 legislative session. Your voice is pivotal at this time!

See the “failure-to-warn” resource hub, which is updated by Beyond Pesticides in real time to account for legislative movement, public hearing timelines, and other background information so that your communities and organizations can speak out against these bills and protect the right to sue.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.