(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2025) Pesticides and antibiotics are linked inextricably in the looming crisis of human and ecosystem health. Both started out as quasi-miraculous solutions to age-old human problems, yet it has been clear that the failures of each present severe challenges—and that they are synergistic because they trigger the same kinds of defensive mechanisms in their targets: insects, fungi, and weeds on the one hand, and microbes on the other. A review of contamination of waterways in India with pesticides and antibiotics, published in Environmental and Geochemical Health, recounts the many threats that arise when these chemicals mix and how their presence in water makes the problems much worse.   

Globally, about five million people died in 2019 from infections with antibiotic-resistant microbes. By 2050, according to a World Bank estimate, antibiotic resistance could add $1 trillion to global health care costs and subtract $3.4 trillion from annual global gross domestic product. While the world slowly realizes the urgent need to counter antibiotic resistance, the role of pesticides in generating it has received less political and public attention. But there is no doubt that pesticides are strongly implicated. In fact, the resistance of microbes to antibiotics is no different from the well-documented resistance of insects and plants to pesticides.

The presence of both pesticides and antibiotics in water bodies—lakes, rivers, and oceans—and especially those receiving both agricultural runoff and hospital waste—multiplies the risk of antimicrobial resistance. Further, the waters of the world are largely connected, from snow zones to oceans, so that in many cases what enters one body of water affects everything downstream.

India’s experience with pesticides began with the Green Revolution, which spread globally from the mid-1940s to the mid-1980s. DDT and benzene hexachloride (BHC) were introduced in 1948 in India. The first BHC factory was built in 1952, and India subsequently became a major manufacturer of pesticides. It was not until 1971 that a national pesticide regulation was established. The country’s pesticide evolution has since undergone phase transitions similar to those in the United States and Europe—from DDT to organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, and more recently, neonicotinoids. From the 2000s onward, Indian pesticide production has burgeoned, and the country is currently the fourth-largest producer of agrochemicals.

Antibiotic resistance is a classic case of natural selection: Not every organism will be killed by a toxicant, and the survivors reproduce to create a population of resistant individuals. This has been a recognized problem for at least two centuries, but microbial resistance is accelerating as the world becomes more and more saturated with chemicals that trigger natural selection. Pesticides have profound effects on microbes, including in the human gut, and often function as antibiotic,s whether intentionally or not.

Microbes have numerous ways of evading pesticides’ antibiotic properties—efflux pumps, horizontal gene transfer, biofilm formation—and bacteria possessing all these skills are especially good at multi-drug resistance. Efflux pumps allow bacteria to eject foreign and toxic material from their cells.

Horizontal gene transfer and genetic mutations allow bacteria to alter cellular defenses, often through the transmission of plasmids, which are packets of resistance genes and their helper DNA elements. These genes can change membrane permeability, dismantle antibiotics, or change the target of an antibiotic or pesticide. Biofilms protect a wide variety of microorganisms from antibiotics, cleaning agents, and even abrasion. According to the Indian review, biofilms occur frequently in agricultural runoff, sewage systems, and their receiving waters. Bacteria living inside a biofilm can be a thousand times more resistant to antibiotics than those living freely, the authors write, and biofilms often harbor persister cells, which remain dormant when exposed to antibiotics and afterwards revive to regenerate the biofilm. They also make horizontal gene transfer more likely.

These defense mechanisms increase as the selective pressure, whether from pesticides or antibiotics, increases, and in areas where both pesticides and antibiotics are present, the rate at which resistance evolves speeds up. Specific pesticides have been associated with resistance to specific antibiotics. According to the Indian review, glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba help bacteria develop resistance to tetracycline and ampicillin. (See Glyphosate Induces Antibiotic Resistance in Deadly Hospital-Acquired Infection.) Chlorpyrifos increases multidrug-resistant plasmid transfers. The fungicide azoxystrobin causes Pseudomonas aeruginosa to bolster its efflux pump capacity. (See Daily News and Pesticides and You.)

The Indian review analyzes the evidence of antibiotic resistance and pesticides in Indian aquatic ecosystems. According to the authors, numerous aquatic environments in India show signs of being antibiotic resistance nurseries, from the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in the north to the Thamirabarani in the southern Tamil Nadu state. These areas receive heavy amounts of agricultural runoff. Seawater along the coasts harbors Vibrio bacteria—pathogens of cholera and gastroenteritis—that are antibiotic-resistant. India is also a leader in pharmaceutical manufacturing, which contributes significant effluent to surface waters; wastewater treatment facilities receiving such effluent are known antibiotic resistance hotspots. Groundwater in India is likewise polluted; researchers have also found resistant E. coli strains in Assam and Uttar Pradesh in groundwater contaminated with agricultural products.

Aquaculture is emerging as a serious incubator of pesticide-antibiotic induced resistance. A study of finfish aquaculture in Bangladesh found extensive use of many antibiotics and pesticides.

India uses relatively few pesticides, with an application rate of 0.4 kg per hectare, compared to China, which uses 1.83 kg per hectare. It actually manufactures and exports more than it uses internally, according to the review. But, between the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and pesticide and their use internally, much of the country is contaminated. India has gradually increased pesticide regulation, banning the organochlorine compound endosulfan in 2011, which reduced the scourge of pesticide-related suicides significantly. It passed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in 2014, and there have been some attempts to incorporate alternative pest management practices, but these are inconsistent and spotty.

Ultimately, there is no avoiding the end-state of pesticide use, which is an increasingly toxic environment populated by those organisms that can survive it, which are uncontrollable by current methods.

As the review authors put it, “The time for half-measures and bureaucratic reluctance is passed; India needs to take immediate action to defend its water resources and public health from this unpredictable yet growing problem.”

As Beyond Pesticides wrote in a Commentary last year, “[W]e must stop broadcasting pesticides in the environment. The crisis in antibiotic resistance, which creates a threat of another pandemic, is ignored in the registration of pesticides. The antibiotic impacts of pesticides…were discovered only after the pesticides had been disseminated in the environment for decades. EPA must not register pesticides unless they have been demonstrated not to contribute to antibiotic resistance and must cancel the registration of those that do.” (See Agricultural Uses of Antibiotics Escalate Bacterial Resistance.)

Beyond Pesticides’ position is that the twin problems of pesticides’ multifarious toxicities and antibiotics’ inevitable uselessness are not categorically distinct, but rather two aspects of the same mistaken assumption—that we can dominate nature by brute force. They can be reversed by switching to organic and regenerative agriculture. Resistance to both pesticides and antibiotics is inevitable, and thinking otherwise is magical thinking.

To take action: Tell EPA to cancel all uses of a pesticide when resistance is discovered or predicted to occur. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA protects public health from deadly antifungal and antibiotic resistance.

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

Sources:

Pesticide‑driven antimicrobial resistance in water bodies: insights on environmental concerns, health implications, and mitigation strategies
Sonkar et al
Environmental and Geochemical Health 2025
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10653-025-02600-y

Local applications but global implications: Can pesticides drive microorganisms to develop antimicrobial resistance?
Ramakrishnan et al
Science of the Total Environment 2018
https://www.academia.edu/85694036/Local_applications_but_global_implications_Can_pesticides_drive_microorganisms_to_develop_antimicrobial_resistance

Commentary: We Can and Must Stop Antibiotic Pesticide Use in the Interest of Public Health Worldwide
Beyond Pesticides, January 8, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/01/commentary-we-can-and-must-stop-antibiotic-pesticide-use/

Amounts of Pesticides Reaching Target Pests: Environmental Impacts and Ethics
David Pimentel
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1995
https://r.jordan.im/download/environmentalism/pimentel1995.pdf

Mechanism for Escalating Antibiotic Resistance in Agriculture Detailed in Study, as Crisis Grows
Beyond Pesticides, January 2, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/01/mechanism-for-escalating-antibiotic-resistance-in-agriculture-detailed-in-study-as-crisis-grows/

Study Finds Synergistic Convergence of Global Warming, Pesticide Toxicity, and Antibiotic Resistance
Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/05/study-finds-synergistic-convergence-of-global-warming-pesticide-toxicity-and-antibiotic-resistance/

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2025) A study in People and Nature, with the goal of better understanding the social acceptability of introduced species management (ISM), often labeled “invasive species,” in the U.S., “conducted an online experiment with vignettes describing hypothetical but realistic ISM scenarios, varying targeted taxon (insect or plant), control method (mechanical, chemical and biological), risk severity (low and high) and type of non-target risk (to humans or native species).” This study highlights the debate on defining “invasive” species, as well as the low levels of acceptability by the general public for chemical controls such as pesticides.

In addition, as pesticide hazards increase, the authors note that the responses show acceptance for only mechanical controls that incorporate manual removal of species, such as through pulling, cutting, clipping, or mowing. “Surprisingly, there was no significant difference in how respondents ranked risks to people and risks to native species,” the researchers report. This shows the values placed on both human health and biodiversity and “highlight[s] the need for evidence-guided ISM, which includes evidence of harmful impacts of introduced species, as well as risks and benefits of management activities, as one potential way to increase the social acceptability of non-native species management.”

In supporting the organic movement as an alternative to chemical-intensive land management, the study notes that: “Concerns about non-target risks of chemicals are widespread as evidence of detrimental effects on species, food webs and human health continues to accumulate. Modern pesticides now widely used in ISM are promoted as more selective and less toxic than older versions, but this may be misguided.” (See research here, here, here, and here.)

The authors continue by saying: “[E]ven with repeated efforts, chemicals are often insufficient for managing widespread introduced species. Our respondents show a general aversion to these treatments, a continued trend of social discomfort towards this method which first coalesced in U.S. environmentalism of the 1960s following the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. The withdrawal of many products no longer deemed safe for humans or the environment and documentation of widespread negative impacts to wildlife and human health may explain our respondent’s aversion towards chemical treatments.” (See studies here and here.)

As Beyond Pesticides advocates, current risk assessments do not adequately capture the harm to all organisms and the environment. There is a wide body of scientific literature connecting the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, typically used in the management of many “invasive” species, to detrimental effects on human health, biodiversity, and the environment. The failure to fully consider these adverse effects in the registration process, advocates say, violates the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). (See more on regulatory deficiencies here and here.)

In previous Beyond Pesticides coverage, the topic of what constitutes “invasive” species is discussed. As shared on the Ecological Management of Problem Vegetation (“Invasive Weeds”) page, the landscape in the U.S. and around the world has vastly changed over the last few decades. The replacement of diverse ecosystems with monocultures and development projects has been accompanied by disturbances that create new habitats. As people have moved around, they have carried with them — sometimes unwittingly, sometimes purposefully — plants and animals from their former homes. When the habitat suits the new plant or animal, it happily makes itself at home.

When these new inhabitants interfere with what humans want to do, the unwanted species are identified as “pests” or “weeds.” There are some weeds that seem to be especially difficult to manage—particularly those that have become established in “natural” or managed ecosystems. Are these species “invasive” or are they opportunists taking advantage of disturbed ecosystems? This is the ever-evolving debate over “invasive” versus introduced species and emphasizes how important definitions are.

Many scientists have different opinions on this matter. While stressing the importance of preventing the introduction of unwanted species, David Pimentel, PhD, argued at one point that alien weeds pose serious problems for agricultural and natural ecosystems, although most of his work pointed to the true agricultural costs of pesticides from secondary pests and lost ecosystem services. Virginia Daley and Fritzi Cohen argued that humans have always assisted the spread of plants wherever they have moved, and that the current concern about “invasive plants” is an excuse to mount chemical warfare campaigns. (See more Beyond Pesticides coverage on “invasives” here, here, here, and here.) Despite the framing of the definition of “invasives,” toxic chemicals are not an answer, but in fact, pose greater threats than the problems they are meant to solve.

The current study in People and Nature describes the definition of introduced species by stating: “Human-assisted biological invasions occur when species are transported (accidentally or purposefully) from their current range to a new environment where they are not native. This process unfolds in stages and species need to overcome multiple environmental and ecological filters. Most of the non-native species that arrive in a new environment actually fail to establish, and of those that initially establish and grow, many fail to naturalize, that is, create self-sustaining, reproducing populations. Of those that naturalize, some thrive and expand their range from initial introduction areas, and they may become abundant in local ecosystems. Those non-native species that naturalize and become harmful by affecting native species, ecosystems, human well-being or the economy are considered ‘invasive,’ but the distinction between introduced and ‘invasive’ species has become blurred and scientists disagree on terminology.”

The researchers note that perceptions of “invasive” species, and of the language used to characterize non-native species, can greatly vary in both the scientific community and by the general public. “Part of the complexity that makes biological invasions a wicked problem is the enormous variation in introduced taxa (from microbes, to insects, to plants, to birds, to fish, to mammals, etc.) and their ecological niches (decomposers, herbivores, parasites, diseases, predators, etc.), causing a wide variation of potential and realized impacts,” the authors say. They continue, “Impacts can vary according to how different stakeholders are affected and through time, reflecting a mix of scientific evidence and value judgements and creating intense disagreements about which non-native species should be managed and how.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)

The intent of ISM is to avert or reduce harmful impacts of non-native species, usually by preventing introductions in the first place, but when utilized after a species is well established “reflects a belief that the non-native species is causing harm, and that risks associated with management are smaller compared to risks of not managing.” This approach is problematic, as the authors point out that “for the vast majority of non-native species we have extremely limited or no published evidence for their ecological impacts. Even for well-studied species, documented impacts can range from negative, to neutral, to beneficial.” (See scientific literature here, here, here, here, and here.)

To better understand public opinion and acceptability of ISM, the researchers conduct an experiment with 24 “realistic but hypothetical ISM scenarios varying targeted taxon (insect or plant), control method (mechanical, chemical and biological), risk severity (low and high) and non-target risk (to human well-being or native species)” involving non-native plants and insects. The experimental scripts include written descriptions in short, plain language regarding invasion scenarios and proposed management actions to measure how acceptable courses of action are perceived to be.

The scenarios incorporate responses on a “7-point bipolar Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ through ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ with an additional option of ‘I do not know’” to assess acceptability. As a result, the authors note: “Comparing within non-target impacts, acceptability was always significantly lower for biological and chemical relative to mechanical control, regardless of taxon targeted. Acceptability is only separated for biological and chemical controls in comparison to mechanical control across non-target impacts. When biocontrol targeted plants and involved risks to human well-being, acceptability was significantly lower than mechanical control of either plants or insects with risks to native species.”

These results highlight a preference for mechanical controls of introduced and non-native species. In summary, the researchers say: “Our findings suggest that many current ISM practices have limited acceptability by the U.S. public, even when risk levels are low… [W]e found that concerns of management potentially harming native species were equally strong as impacts affecting human well-being. Our results point to a greater societal concern for the fate of native species than generally acknowledged and may be consistent with evidence showing a shift from utilitarian value orientation to more ecocentric or mutualistic views of nature and wildlife in the U.S. affecting attitudes regarding management of non-native species.”

Aside from the vast amount of research highlighting the negative effects of chemical control methods, Beyond Pesticides has also covered scientific evidence on biological control. Studies (see here, here, and here) demonstrate that biological control has successfully managed non-native fire ants and the tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and can be considered a less-toxic option. Mechanical control, however, remains the safest alternative and is proven effective in managing species considered “invasive” or unwanted.

In particular, goats can be used as a mechanical method to organically manage land. As stated in previous Daily News articles, goat grazing has been demonstrated to be an effective tool because the herd eats unwanted vegetation and then cycles nutrients back into the soil, thus fertilizing. Goats get a drink and deliver water to dry sites one pint at a time, thus irrigating, and also aerating, mulching, and tilling soils with their hooves. (See additional coverage on goats here, here, here, here, and here.)

To learn more about organic land management and non-toxic lawns and landscapes, see here and here. The holistic, systems-based approach of organic offers both health and environmental benefits while managing non-native species in a way that promotes ecosystem health and mitigates myriad adverse effects that are documented with chemical-intensive methods. Sign up to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox to stay informed and engaged.

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

Source:

Simmons, W. et al. (2025) Common approaches to introduced species management face widespread acceptance problems in the United States, People and Nature. Available at: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1002/pan3.70053.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2025) Policymakers in Tanzania are calling for increased investments in organic agriculture for the 2025/26 fiscal year budget, demonstrating the increase in political will to advance new systems of farming and land management after decades of relying on Green Revolution-style, or chemical-intensive, policies. On June 20, various ministers representing the national government presented speeches to Parliament on the national government’s plan and budget recommendations, as well as highlighting the previous fiscal year’s trends and use of funds.  

Political and popular support for organic agricultural systems has gained momentum across the globe. Worldwide, organic farming practices quadrupled from 2000 to 2018, with over 180 countries supporting a global transition to organic agriculture. Newly published global survey data by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements – Organics International (IFOAM) reveal global organic agriculture to be at an all-time high, with 71.5 million hectares of farmland in production as of 2020. (See Daily News here). Farmer and agricultural cooperatives around the world, from Brazil to Madagascar and Togo, leverage organic systems to develop competitive business models in regional, national, and international markets. (See Daily News here.) The European Union, with the goal of 25 percent of all European farmland certified organic by 2030, just released a new nearly 5 million euro initiative (OrganicClimateNet) to support farmers and supply chains in reaching this goal. (See Daily News here.)

According to reporting in the Tanzania-based outlet The Citizen, “Special Seats MP [Member of Parliament] Asha Juma (Chama Cha Mapinduzi, the ruling political party in the nation) called for more sustainable farming methods, advocating for a gradual transition away from chemical imports toward organic agriculture: ‘Let’s protect our land and adopt organic farming.’” MP Juma continues, “If we reduce reliance on imported chemicals and shift to organic practices, we will safeguard the environment and enhance long-term soil fertility.”

“Tanzania’s budget spending will increase by about 12% next fiscal year to roughly 56.5 trillion Tanzanian shillings ($22 billion), driven by efforts to complete flagship infrastructure projects, Finance Minister Mwigulu Nchemba said on Thursday [June 12,]” based on reporting by Reuters. In addition to recognizing the importance of the country’s National Ecological Organic Agriculture Strategy (NEOS) (2023-2030), MP Juma’s enthusiasm to double down on organic stems from Minister Mchemba’s rosy outlook on the growth of the national agricultural sector from 2.7 percent of GDP in 2022 to 4 percent in 2024 and crop production increasing from 17.1 million tons to over 22.8 million tons in that same period.

Tanzania, like many nations, is at a crossroads in the direction it may choose in leading sustainable forms of land management and agriculture that move beyond the chemical-intensive status quo. The development of national strategies and goals for organic agriculture is a step in the right direction that advocates in the United States have been calling for elected officials to embrace. However, goals for organic transition remain elusive under the national political leadership.

National Ecological Organic Agriculture Strategy

NEOS, published in September 2023, builds on regional goals to expand organic farming via the African Union’s Decision on Organic Farming (2010) and Ecological Organic Agriculture Initiative (EOAI) in Eastern Africa.

The stated core values of NEOAS are ninefold and “anchored around sustainable ecological organic agricultural practices.” The policy seeks to:

1. Enhance biodiversity in view of nature conservation and sustainable development.
2. Promote farming systems that incorporate indigenous knowledge.
3. Promote environmental conservation.
4. Embrace fairness and justice to the ecosystem.
5. Improve and secure farmers’ market access and livelihoods.
6. Promote safe, nutritious, and healthy food.
7. Protect nature and water sources.
8. Reduce climate impacts from farming and improve resilience to climate change.
9. Enhance and protect indigenous and improved EOA [ecological organic agriculture] seeds/breeds.

Moreover, the Strategy lays out 12 objectives to be carried out by 2030:

1. Enhance capacity of institutions for research, training, and extension systems in developing and disseminating appropriate EOA technologies and practices.
2. Promote availability and accessibility of EOA inputs and appropriate farm machineries (tools, equipment, and implements)
3. Strengthen Information and Communication Technology (ICT) system to access and disseminate appropriate EOA information.
4. Strengthening networking, capacity in EOA sub-sector organizations and institutional coordination framework.
5. Ensure compliance of standards and certification of EOA products at an affordable cost.
6. Facilitate development of EOA value chains.
7. Strengthen environmental conservation using Ecosystem-based Adaptation and Nature-based Solutions.
8. Mainstream cross-cutting issues in EOA sub-sector.
9. Facilitate acquisition and accessibility of financial resources for EOA investment.
10. Facilitate development and use of irrigation infrastructure in EOA production systems.
11. Enhance availability, accessibility, and utilization of land for EOA
12. Increase the business and trade volumes of EOA products in the national, regiona,l and international markets.

The rationale for developing this guiding strategy, as outlined in the founding document, centers around advancing food sovereignty in an ecologically sustainable manner, lifting communities out of poverty, and encouraging stronger competition in national and international markets. Minister of Agriculture Hussein Mohamed Bashe, in his presentation to Parliament, shared that the government continues to implement NEOAS through several interventions, including organizing farmer field schools, formulating guidelines and standards for certification, and determining access to national and international markets through various farmer organizations in the organic sector, including Tanzania Organic Agriculture Movement, which is referenced in NEOAS as a leading nonprofit group in this arena.

Another farmer-led organization contributing to the growth of organic in Tanzania, named Kilimo Kwanza (Swahili for Agriculture First), has highlighted the rise of organic production in Tanzania, as well as other African nations such as Kenya and Uganda, in “transforming their agricultural landscapes and positioning themselves as significant exporters of organic products.” In the context of Tanzania, the author notes, “Since the introduction of NEOAS, Tanzania’s agricultural budget dedicated to organic farming has increased fivefold.” The author continues: “This substantial investment has facilitated the growth of the organic sector, enabling farmers to adopt sustainable practices that avoid synthetic chemicals and embrace agroecological methods. The results have been significant, with Tanzania now recognized for its high-quality organic produce, including fruits, vegetables, and spices, in high demand in international markets​​.”

Scientific Record of Pesticide and Chemical Harms in Tanzania

There are decades of peer-reviewed scientific literature, including in-depth research at scientific institutions within Tanzania, highlighting the human health and ecological risks of pesticide and chemical agents. In 1991, a study published in World Health Organization Bulletin and funded in part by the World Health Organization (WHO) in partnership with National Institute for Medical Research found the pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin “was associated with abnormal skin sensations on the face and, less frequently, with nose and throat irritation, sneezing, and coughing” among indoor spraying of the pesticide and associated exposure to inhabitants in those households. It is important to note that this study did not address long-term adverse effects associated with the pyrethroid, as documented in the scientific literature, including endocrine-disrupting potential and neurotoxicity in humans, as well as toxicity to bees, fish, and aquatic organisms.

A study in 2017, published in Environmental Research, tested mothers’ breast milk and associated health metrics of their infants and levels of organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in maternal breast milk. Organochlorine (OC) pesticides and metabolites tested include dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and its metabolites, dieldrin and PCBs. Two DDT metabolites, “p,p′-DDE and p,p′-DDT, were detected in 100% and 75% of the breast milk samples, respectively,” according to the abstract. “Dieldrin was detected in 66% of the samples.” The authors determined that “[t]he estimated daily intake (ng/kg body weight/day) of ∑DDTs, dieldrin and nondioxin-like PCBs (∑6PCBs) exceeded the provisional tolerable daily intake (PTDI) in two, six and forty-eight of the nursing infants, respectively, suggesting potential health risks.” Head circumference of infants consuming this breast milk were also found to have head circumference “negatively associated” with one DDT metabolite in “female infants, suggesting that OC exposure during pregnancy may influence fetal growth.”

Research on chronic health and disease has also been discussed in the scientific literature. While a recent literature review published in Scientific African found “scarce information on the association between pesticide exposures and chronic diseases in Tanzania” and no published study exploring this specific linkage as of 2022, there are various linkages between pesticide exposure and chronic illnesses in other parts of the globe listed in Table 3 of the study. The authors, which include academics based at Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology in Tanzania and Nutrition and Dietetics Kenyatta University in Kenya, indicate that the rise of non-communicable (NCD) diseases is a serious national public health problem “currently account[ing] for 33% of all death[s]” with “[a]bout 35,000 people…developing cancer yearly in Tanzania and the rate…expected to increase by 50% by 2030.” NCDs have disproportionately impacted young people and women. See previous Daily News, With Global Disease Rates Rising, Do Pesticides Take Some of the Blame? Science Says, “Yes.”, for additional analysis.

A 2022 literature review published in Chemosphere, and conducted by Tanzania Industrial Research and Development Organization (generally regarded as a pro-industry perspective, per their mandate), identified studies signaling pesticide residues that fall under the legal threshold for safety concerns (per WHO, Environmental Protection Agency, and UN Food & Agriculture Organization limits), however there are noted exceptions. In a recent Daily News, U.S. Policy Allows Cancer-Causing Pesticide Use Even Though It Is Not Needed to Grow Food and Manage Land, Beyond Pesticides breaks down the failure of relying on risk-based regulatory models for protecting human health and the environment. See here also for the failure of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program in misleading the public on pesticide residues and the risks they impose on long-term health trends among consumers of U.S. produce and food products. The study does concede the thorny issue that various pesticides (DDT, endosulfan, and hexachlorocyclohexane [HCH]) have been detected in vegetation, food, and biota samples. It is important to note that approximately two-thirds of acute pesticide poisonings are under-reported and occupational poisonings are least common in women as opposed to men in Tanzania, according to a 2014 research report published in NeuroToxicology conducted by Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (Tanzania), Muhimbli University of Health and Allied Sciences (Tanzania), and School of Public Health & Family Medicine (South Africa).

Building on this point of pesticide residues in food consumed by the public, a 2018 study also published in Chemosphere and conducted by researchers at University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, found most pesticide residues in their study—which included aldrin, dieldrin, chlorpyrifos, fenitrothion, pirimiphos-methyl, DDT, endosulfan, and HCHs—are in excess of maximum residue limits (MRLs) among chicken kidney, liver and muscle samples from poultry farms in various agricultural-intensive regions of Tanzania. Researchers point to these findings as indications of “risks and concerns for livestock and public health.” Organochlorine pesticides and their metabolites (DDT, DDE, DDD, HCHs, dieldrin, heptachlor, chlordane, endrin and hexachlorobenzene [HCB]) have been detected in rainwater on the Kibaha Coast region of the nation, as identified in a 2015 Chemosphere study conducted by researchers at German institutions and University of Dar es Salaam in their respective chemical and environmental health departments. “The highest concentrations were found in samples collected in the vicinity of the contaminated site and the concentrations at other points showed a general even distribution suggesting repeated volatilization and deposition mechanisms,” note the authors. They continue: “The strong positive correlations in the concentrations of the compounds indicated a common source.”

See previous Daily News here and here to learn more about nature-based solutions to move beyond synthetic agrochemicals for ecosystem management in the Lake Victoria region, as well as the synergistic impacts that pesticide run-off imposes on infectious human diseases like snail fever (schistosomiasis).

Call to Action

It is imperative to move beyond reliance on toxic petrochemical-based practices and toward an organic future. This requires calling on regulatory agencies like EPA to meet its statutory obligations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). See here to take action today!

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

Source: The Citizen

(Beyond Pesticides, July 8, 2025) A commentary published in Science of The Total Environment showcases the occupational and environmental exposure pathways of fossil-fuel-based pesticide and fertilizer products that children across the globe face, particularly in rural areas of low- and middle-income countries.

The authors underscore “the urgent need for multi-level systemic change, resilient health systems, and active stakeholder engagement,” which includes “support for safer and more sustainable agricultural practices.” This includes specific asks for governments “to offer technical assistance to producers and encourage organic and agroecological practices to ensure both environmental justice and food security.”

Organic food systems, and criteria for land management systems more broadly, are critical to addressing the triple crises of biodiversity loss, public health collapse, and climate emergency.

Organic law, as defined in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1991, is designed as a participatory process with accountability and transparency integral to the statutory language. The law creates the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), comprised of farmers, consumers, and conservation organizations, a scientific expert, an organic certifier, and a retailer with the statutory authority to adopt binding recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Simultaneously, the public is invited to submit comments to NOSB every six months.

Review of the Commentary

This commentary revolves around the story of Zeca, a child living in rural Brazil with worsening asthma as a result of occupational and environmental exposure to pesticides. According to the article: “Despite this consistent scientific evidence, children’s pesticide exposure in LMIC [Low- and Middle-Income Countries] rural areas remains largely neglected in occupational health and maternal-child health agendas. It continues to be underrecognized, understudied, and underfunded—both in research and clinical practice. This invisibility delays essential policy responses, and undermines risk assessments, effective interventions, healthcare, and surveillance. In short, it remains the “elephant in the room — a global public health crisis we are collectively ignoring.”

The authors explore the concept of Chemical Colonialism, or “the continued export of pesticides banned in high-income countries to LMICs, where regulation, surveillance, and enforcement are often absent or insufficient ().” The authors continue: “Paradoxically, many of these poorer countries subsidize their own contamination. In 2017 alone, Brazil provided nearly 10 billion reais (approximately USD 3 billion dollars) in tax incentives for pesticide industries, based on the premise that pesticides are vital for national development and agricultural modernization ( ). Thus, the profits of wealthier nations are built on the toxic burden placed upon the children of poorer countries.” Beyond Pesticides has reported extensively on this dynamic previously in the Daily News here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The issue of child labor exemplifies disproportionate adverse effects on a vulnerable population group, as noted in this commentary. “Globally, millions of children — some as young as 5y[ears old] — are engaged in unsafe labor. About 160 million children aged 5-17y[ears old] were engaged in child labor in 2020, with nearly half working under hazardous conditions, mainly in agriculture,” according to the authors. They continue: “Among the youngest group (ages 5–11), approximately 75 % work in agricultural settings, where pesticide exposure is a routine risk (). This is the harsh reality faced by Zeca in his childhood.”

“[Environmental injustices] are evidence of our bioethical failure, and part of a broader global pattern in which the most affected populations in LMICs — children, women, Indigenous people, and smallholder farmers — are those with the least institutional protection or voice,” according to the authors. The authors cite policymakers’ concerns over food security or public health pertaining to the spread of mosquito-borne diseases, such as malaria, as barriers to passing more robust reforms.

Given this historical impasse, the authors propose a series of policy recommendations focused on mitigation measures that fall short of transformative change, including calls for better labeling, better access to pesticide data to inform risk assessment, and taxing pesticides more stringently to inform surveillance and prevention. At the same time, the authors recognize the value of organic and agroecological farming, given that these systems move beyond the status quo of extractivism and chemical dependency. Another set of important recommendations proposed by the authors includes the representation of rural communities in decision-making processes, as well as consideration of pesticide harms in “clinical assessments,” Advocates point to the need to consider cumulative risks and synergistic effects before registering new pesticide active ingredients or whole formulations of products, including adjuvants, inert ingredients, and/or synergists.

This commentary was co-written by an international cohort of academics from a range of institutions in Global South and Global North nations, including University of Sao Paulo (Brazil), University of Queensland Child Health Research Centre (Australia), Universiti Teknologi Mara Department of Environmental Health (Malaysia), National University of Costa Rica, Universidad de Chile, Institutio Nacional de Salud Publica (Mexico), as well as UC Berkley Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, and University of Michigan School of Public Health (United States).

Previous Research and Developments

The threat of pesticide exposure is both immediate and existential for frontline communities, as was made clear last November when South Africa declared a national emergency after at least 23 children died and nearly 900 people fell ill from pesticide poisonings (including organophosphate insecticide terbufos and carbamate insecticide aldicarb). (See Daily News here.)

There is increasing evidence linking mothers’, children’s, and adolescent health in rural communities to generational effects, both in the United States and abroad. In Brazil, a 2023 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) tracked 15 years of data; the findings identified a 10 percent increase in soybean cultivation area is associated with an additional 0.40 deaths out of 10,000 due to ALL for children 5 years of age and lower and an additional 0.21 deaths of children 10 years of age and lower per 10,000 population. The study finds “a strong and persistent relationship between the arrival of high-intensity agriculture in [the Cerrado] region and adverse human health outcomes,” even after controlling for confounding factors. (See Daily News here.)

Similarly, in Mexico, a 2025 study compared two communities located less than a quarter of a mile from agricultural fields with one control community located more than a mile away. The study shows that children in the field-adjacent towns are clearly exposed to pesticides and are experiencing cellular distress, including elevated levels of biomarkers linked to oxidative stress, as a result. (See Daily News here.)

This pattern is also found in various peer-reviewed studies in U.S.-based cohorts. In analyzing data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide National Synthesis Project in combination with diagnoses through the Nebraska Cancer Registry, authors of a 2025 study published in GeoHealth found associations between 32 agrichemicals and pediatric cancer in the state. The authors found 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.)

In a separate study published this year in PNAS, University of Oregon researchers found that the rollout of genetically engineered corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years.” The researchers “focus[ed] on the over 10 million births that occurred between 1990 and 2013 in rural U.S. counties or involved mothers residing in rural counties” across the nation. (See Daily News here.)

Pesticide harms can impose long-term health risks beginning with maternal health and extending onward to prenatal, postnatal, and adolescent adverse effects. A 2025 study published in Journal of Hazardous Materials reports for the first time an association between gestational anemia (GA), pesticide exposure, and the potentially protective effects of gut microbes. While the report is still undergoing peer review, it establishes important connections eminently worthy of deeper investigation and suggests that the balance of gut microbes may be a highly effective way to reduce or prevent GA. (See Daily News here.)

Generational exposure raises serious concerns for reproductive health, as evidenced in a 2025 report published in American Journal of Epidemiology. Researchers identified the influence of prenatal pesticide exposure among Latina adolescents, leading to the influence of menstrual symptoms, such as heavy bleeding, indicating to their knowledge that “this is the first study to examine the association between prenatal pesticide exposure and menstrual outcomes in adolescents of any demographic group.” (See Daily News here.) This finding is supported by various research associating higher levels of certain pesticide metabolites with early onset of puberty (see Daily News here) and developmental neurobehavioral disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (see Daily News here).

Call to Action

Reflecting on Juneteenth and Pollinator Week, advocates are reminded of the inextricable link between environmental justice and the necessity to eliminate pesticide exposure by targeting root causes. There is also an immediate need to ensure that food security is met while also encouraging the growth of local food systems that are invested in moving beyond the status quo of chemical-intensive, industrial agriculture.

In that spirit, you can take action today by informing your U.S. Representative and Senators to make the Local Food for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Cooperative Agreement Program permanent through the Farm Bill. (See the Action of the Week here.)

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

Sources: Science of The Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, July 7, 2025) At the end of the Independence Day weekend and after the Congressional passage of reconciliation bill (H.R. 1) on July 3, ongoing legislative proposals challenge the underlying principles of the  Declaration of Independence—raising serious environmental and public health concerns and issues of democratic governance by local and state governments to ensure protections.

A new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll finds that three-quarters of Americans say democracy is under serious threat. The Declaration not only presented the case of the colonists for independence from Britain, it also created a framework for defining democracy, beginning with the statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and it continues “necessary for the public good.”

• Above all, the Declaration’s statement of the equal rights of all citizens supports the need for environmental justice. 
• Among the grievances listed are the King’s restriction of the power of local (colonial) authorities to pass laws, “the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” This is an important issue today, as we see attacks on local ordinances to restrict pesticides that endanger public health.  
• The colonists also protested against the King’s obstruction of justice, which is evident today as industry attempts to prevent those injured by pesticides from receiving compensation. 
• Beyond the Declaration, the Bill of Rights protects citizens’ right to debate the scientific findings on adverse effects of products. 

In the spirit of Independence Day, Beyond Pesticides urged Congress to affirm the foundation of democracy by taking steps that protect the lives of constituents by: 

1. Reinstating environmental justice as a goal of federal programs;
2. Affirming the rights of state and local governments to protect residents from the effects of pesticides;
3. Ensuring that people have the right to be heard in court and recover damages when injured by pesticides;
4. Protecting the right to debate scientific findings regarding the effects of pesticides and other toxic products; and
5. Supporting organic agriculture and landcare as an alternative to unnecessary use of toxic pesticides.

On Independence Day, Beyond Pesticides called on the public to Tell Congress to protect democracy by resisting the domination of the pesticide industry and promoting organic alternatives that protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3-4, 2025) On this Independence Day, Beyond Pesticides calls for holistic solutions that, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, move the nation to ensure “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The founders of the United States were aware of the existential threat of corruption to democratic institutions. Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, warned in Federalist No. 68 of The Federalist Papers that the presidency could be overtaken by a despotic figure without adequate safeguards. James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, in Federalist No. 10 speaks to the danger that factions—defined as a group of people or entities “… who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”—impose on the general public, if not checked by safeguards in the country’s political system.

The foundational principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have been challenged under the current administration and in the U.S. Congress. Communities are facing a fourfold attack on these principles and the centuries-old promise of the nation:

1. The illegal rollback of federal and state laws, as well as funding programs allocated by Congress, amounts to violations of the Constitution on multiple grounds and an abuse of environmental justice principles;
2. The preemption of state and local authority that threatens local democratic decision-making continues to be weighed out in Congress, including through the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, previously the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act;
3. The continuous attacks on the right of cancer patients to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable through failure-to-warn claims, which amounts to infringement on the democratic right to access the judicial branch of the government and to hold bad actor corporations accountable in the courts; and
4. The undermining of First Amendment rights to have a public debate on independent scientific findings on the adverse effects of consumer products.

Altogether, “moneyed” interests, such as the fossil fuel sector, pesticide and fertilizer manufacturers, industrial agriculture, and their political allies, continue to weaponize the three branches of government and undermine the distribution of powers between local, state, and federal governments (principle of federalism). Environmental advocates maintain that economic interests must not harm the public good, but should prioritize investments and regulations to protect and regenerate clean water, air, soil, and ecosystems through organic systems.

Attacks on Environmental Justice

Beyond Pesticides was founded in 1981 in the spirit of environmental and agricultural justice. The organization’s founders walked through agricultural areas in Florida, Texas, and California in the late 1970s, speaking with farmworkers about their sicknesses and miscarriage rates, and the lack of training, protective equipment, clean drinking water, and sanitation in the fields. They witnessed the profound failure of the marketplace and the regulatory system to protect the lives and well-being of farmworkers and their families—including the lives of young children who, on a typical day, lived with poisoned air, water, and food on the edges of treated fields. 

In this spirit, Beyond Pesticides works with communities across the country to transition their neighborhoods—specifically public parks, green spaces, and playing fields—to organically-managed, pesticide-free spaces. We have worked with roughly 26 states across dozens of cities and towns across the country over the course of the Parks for a Sustainable Future Program. (See here for a map highlighting our impact.) Amid attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and environmental justice funding, we believe that it is a critical concern to ensure that public spaces are toxic-free, considering the disproportionate risks that parents and children—particularly in BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities—face daily. See here to learn more about the Sustainable Parks program.

Beyond Pesticides has called out the illegal federal funding cuts and urged Congress to restore funds for various programs that disproportionately impact the working class, fenceline, frontline, and communities of color nationwide. Impacted programs that aim to protect essential workers in the food and agriculture sector include the Biological Center for Research on Children’s Health project and the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) Program. See here to take action.

The Bioecological Center for Research on Children’s Health project, funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was designed to identify, understand and address the cumulative impacts of exposures to environmental toxicants (pesticides, heavy metals, particulate matter) and nonchemical psychosocial stressors (poverty, food insecurity, trauma, discrimination, etc.)  on the health, development, and growth of farmworker children. Working in collaboration with the Florida State University (FSU) health clinic in Immokalee, the project would have examined threats, implemented strategies to improve health outcomes for farmworker children, and collaboratively established a Center in Immokalee, Florida to continue the research, outreach, and services to the community.  

The SENSOR program, funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), monitors pesticide-related incidents of injuries, illnesses, and deaths at the state level, tracking worker pesticide exposure incidents. By providing technical support to state health agencies to train medical professionals on how to diagnose and treat pesticide poisonings, SENSOR strengthens the network of health experts who can help advise farmworkers, pesticide applicators, parents, and others to prevent harm from pesticides, often with disproportionate adverse effects in people of color communities.

These are two of the countless initiatives, research centers, and other federal programs that are in jeopardy due to the current administration’s wrecking-ball approach to operating regulatory systems meant to protect, not undermine, public well-being.

Pesticide Preemption

As Congress amends and comes to a consensus on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, hundreds of organizations representing the interests of farmers, rural communities, farmworkers, conservationists, environmentalists, and public interest continue to oppose preemption language in the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (not yet re-introduced in the 119^th Congress) or EATS Act (re-introduced as the Food Security and Farm Protection Act on April 8). As of today’s publication, it is expected that industry-backed amendments will be included in upcoming legislation, including provisions on federal preemption of state and local environmental and public health laws, and a prohibition on failure-to-warn cases against chemical manufacturers whose products cause harm.   

Pesticide manufacturers, including Bayer-Monsanto, have been ramping up their federal lobbying efforts after failing to pass state legislation in nine of the twelve states to immunize them from failure-to-warn litigation. See section below for further information on failure-to-warn claims and related legislation.

Language establishing chemical company immunity from “failure-to-warn” litigation and local and state authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than the EPA was included in the 2024 Republican Farm Bill draft, as well as failed attempts to include it in the House Interior Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2025, escalating the fight over federal preemption of state and local standards and protective authority of the courts. The Senate GOP framework includes preemption of state and local governance of pesticides, food systems, and production, and public health in Title X, Horticulture title: “Restates and reaffirms [EPA’s] 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.” More specifically, this language would have a two-fold impact:

• Prohibit the right to sue for failure to warn when harmed by pesticides. In Section 10204 of the House Farm Bill, language shields (gives immunity to) the producers and users of toxic pesticides from liability lawsuits associated with the harm that their products cause. The provision will block lawsuits like those successfully advanced against Bayer/Monsanto for adverse health effects, like cancer, associated with exposure to their products and companies’ failure to warn about these effects on EPA-approved product labels.
• Prohibit the rights of states and local governments to restrict pesticides and protect public health and the environment. In Sections 10204 and 10205, language would prevent local and state governments from passing pesticide ordinances or concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations that conflict with (aka are more stringent than) federal regulations and policy.

In a win for local control in the context of CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operations) preemption, the Supreme Court on June 30 denied the Iowa Pork Producers Association’s petition to throw out California’s Proposition 12. “The challenge stem[med] from a previous Supreme Court ruling on the case, which determined California’s law does not violate the Commerce Clause,” according to reporting by Progressive Farmer.

See Daily News here and here, respectively, for further analysis on the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity and Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.  

Failure-to-Warn

An industry-led campaign to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their “failure to warn” about the hazards of their pesticide products has failed to move forward in nine state legislatures with significant GOP majorities (Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, and Oklahoma). The bills were successful in North Dakota and Georgia, with Bayer CEO Bill Anderson threatening to withdraw pesticide products from states that do not pass this legislation (see here for Reuters reporting), imposing undue pressure on local and state governments to govern themselves based on their constituents’ values and wishes, rather than those of a private corporation.

North Carolina remains the last state with active pesticide immunity legislation, with successful efforts to remove the provision from the North Carolina Farm Act in the state House; unfortunately for North Carolinians, the state Senate did not concur, and so it will move forward in a closed-door conference committee consisting of House and Senate members. The General Assembly is currently on summer recess; however, they will return in the fall, and Beyond Pesticides will continue to track as more information arises.

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 and chemical-intensive commodity crop associations, a coalition to stop “failure-to-warn” lawsuits with state legislation. Bayer’s coalition, Modern Ag Alliance, says it is fighting what it describes 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 hazards to those who have been harmed. The company’s defeats include a U.S. Supreme Court denial (denial of certiorari) to hear their appeal in 2022.

With this, Bayer has taken its campaign to the states to strip away people’s (including farmers’) ability to hold corporations accountable through a common law duty to warn claims associated with pesticide products. Most recently, SCOTUS asked the Solicitor General’s office (U.S. Justice Department) “for its views on whether the justices should take up the appeal,” based on Reuters coverage. There are more than 67,000 pending cases in state and federal courts alleging Bayer failed to warn customers of Roundup products’ linkage to various cancers, including failure to warn through their advertising materials. In May 2025, Missouri Independent reported that a federal court of appeals (Western District of Missouri Court of Appeals) upheld the decision of a 2023 case in Cole County, Missouri, awarding a $611 million judgment to three cancer victims.

See here for some of the latest developments on failure-to-warn and pesticide immunity legislation in a recent Daily News.

First Amendment under Threat

When legislative and executive branches of government forego their responsibilities to serve the public interest, the significance of an independent judiciary becomes all the more important to protecting democratic traditions, most notably the First Amendment of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech.

Polyloom, a major artificial turf manufacturer and self-describes as “one of the largest designers, producers, recyclers, manufacturers and installers of artificial turf in the United States”, filed both a complaint and an application for a Temporary Restraining Order, preliminary injunction, and monetary damages ahead of a webinar scheduled for June 23, 2025, entitled “The Trouble with Turf.” The targets of this webinar include Grassroots, the webinar sponsor, and all the individuals slated to speak in it who were sued in their individual capacities, including Jay Feldman, the executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

The counter-lawsuit, filed under the Civil Rights Law of New York by all the people and entities named in Polyloom’s action, charges the corporation of having engaged in an illegal SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit “for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, punishing, or maliciously inhibiting the free exercise of speech, petition or association rights.” The suit seeks $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages, as well as all costs and attorneys’ fees. 

“Our lawsuit is an important attempt to hold Polyloom accountable for false accusations on scientific questions of safety and the potential of synthetic turf to present a hazard to health and the environment,” Mr. Feldman stated. “Beyond Pesticides advances organic land management as an alternative to synthetic turf, and the discussion of this alternative should not be stifled by Polyloom or other corporations that have a vested economic interest in downplaying or misleading on the hazards associated with their products.”

The brazen approach that private interests take comes at a time when the public is looking for alternatives to agricultural and land management systems that contribute to biodiversity collapse, public health deterioration, and the climate crisis. See Daily News, Synthetic Turf Company Sues to Silence Environ. and Health Groups on Hazards/Alternatives; Pushback, for further context.

Call to Action

The Constitution of the United States begins with a simple, yet profound, preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It is imperative that the constitutional authority that binds this nation together is protected and preserved, not only to ensure liberty and justice for all, but also to continuously improve upon the lofty ideals included in that document that millions of Americans have long sought after, including women and gender-expansive folks, Black, Brown, and Indigenous peoples of color, naturalized citizens and those aspiring to become so, among other historically disadvantaged communities and peoples.

During these unprecedented times, Beyond Pesticides urges sending a message even to those who refuse to listen. As we strive to adopt the changes essential for a livable future, we must create a record that is based on science, even when the science and the facts are dismissed by those in power.

To this end, the failure of action to address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises by those in Congress and the administration empowers lower levels of government and some corporations to step into the void left by those whose actions or inaction threaten life. See here to sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update in your inbox. You can also become a local Parks Program Advocate here.

As the nation celebrates the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll finds that three-quarters of Americans say democracy is under serious threat. The Declaration not only presented the case of the colonists for independence from Britain; it also stated a framework for defining democracy, beginning with the statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

📣 Tell Congress to protect democracy by resisting the domination of the pesticide industry and promoting organic alternatives that protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

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

Sources: Federalist 10, Federalist 68, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Food Security and Farm Protection Act, Progressive Farmer, Reuters, Missouri Independent

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2025) An article in The New Lede, entitled Seeking answers to a cancer crisis in Iowa, researchers question if agriculture is to blame, documents case studies of cancer diagnoses linked to chemical-intensive agriculture. Current national cancer rates, according to the American Cancer Society, show that two million new cancer cases are projected to occur during 2025 in the U.S. Additional research predicts 618,120 cancer deaths this year as well, highlighting a crisis of great concern.

A wide body of science links increased cancer risks with exposure to agricultural chemicals, including petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Previous coverage from Beyond Pesticides showcases the disproportionate health risks to farmworkers and their families, as well as those living near agricultural fields, associated with exposure to harmful toxicants. Recent research ties pesticide use to cancer diagnoses among farmer populations through a literature review of clinical trials, as well as epidemiologic, case-control, and experimental studies, from not only the U.S. but Brazil, India, France, Egypt, Columbia, Ecuador, Mexico, Italy, and Spain. (See Daily News here.)

Additional risks for children, as reported in a study in GeoHealth, are noted in Nebraska as exposure to agricultural mixtures show statistically significant positive associations with pediatric cancer, specifically brain and central nervous system (CNS) cancers and leukemia. Scientific literature has also analyzed the mechanisms in which pesticides can impact cancer development. A study in Environmental Sciences Europe finds that the weed killer glyphosate persists in bones before reentering the bloodstream. The mechanisms in which glyphosate interacts with important cells for development, called hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), and breaks and rearranges DNA offer a possible explanation for the heightened risk of cancer, specifically blood cancers like non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), myeloma, and leukemia.

The New Lede article captures the experiences of individuals in Iowa on “the rising rates of cancer plaguing the state,” with a call for an investigation of “potential environmental causes for what some call a cancer ‘crisis.’” Through both personal stories of cancer patients with no other known risk factors aside from agricultural exposure, as well as comments from community members a listening session held in Indianola, Iowa, the article highlights not only the pervasiveness of cancer but the heightened risks of living in heavily farmed areas. At the listening session, “[T]he moderator asked attendees to raise their hands if they had experienced cancer personally or through someone close to them. Everyone raised a hand.”

A study published last year in Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society supports the Iowa experience with a finding that agricultural pesticide use “has a significant impact on…all cancers, bladder cancer, colon cancer, leukemia, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer…and these associations are more evident in regions with heavy agricultural productivity.” For all cancers, the highest number of cases per year correlates strongly with the highest pesticide usage, with the Midwest—Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Nebraska—seeing more than 150,000 additional cases annually.

As a farm state, Iowa represents an area in which heightened exposure to agricultural chemicals occurs with subsequent health and environmental effects. “With nearly 87,000 farms, the state ranks first not only for corn production but also for pork and egg production, and is within the top five states for growing soybeans and raising cattle,” The New Lede article shares. They continue, “Of Iowa’s 35.7 million acres of total land, roughly 31 million is devoted to farming.” 

The article also raises concern about specific pesticides, including glyphosate, and PFAS (including fluorinated pesticides), for which there is a long history linked to a wide range of diseases. It states: “PFAS are pervasive globally, and one emerging concern has been PFAS contamination of sewage sludge spread on farm fields as fertilizer. Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) warned of elevated cancer risks related to such contaminated farm fertilizer.” (See additional Daily News coverage of PFAS here.)

Another article in The New Lede ties glyphosate to cancer, referencing a study entitled “Carcinogenic effects of long-term exposure from prenatal life to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides in Sprague–Dawley rats.” In describing the research, the article finds:

“A new long-term animal study of the widely used weed killer glyphosate find fresh evidence that the herbicide, introduced by Monsanto in the 1970s, causes multiple types of cancer, and may do so at doses considered safe by regulators.

The results of the two-year study, which were published June 10 in the journal Environmental Health, add to an ongoing global debate over the safety of the pesticide, which is commonly used by farmers to kill weeds in fields and pastures. The chemical is also used widely to manage weeds on golf courses, in parks and playgrounds, and in forestry management.

 ‘Our study provides solid and independent scientific evidence of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides,’ said Daniele Mandrioli, director of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the Ramazzini Institute in Italy. Mandrioli is the principal investigator for the study.”

This study is the latest to contribute to the mounting evidence of glyphosate’s negative health effects, which Beyond Pesticides and many other organizations consider a poster child for the broken regulatory system that allows toxic pesticides to harm health and the environment.

In the Daily News, U.S. Policy Allows Cancer-Causing Pesticide Use Even Though It Is Not Needed to Grow Food and Manage Land, the history and current status of the regulation of food safety in the U.S. is discussed, showcasing the system as a rickety structure built over a century with unpredictable and often contradictory additions, extensions, remodels, and tear-downs. Beyond Pesticides advocates for a regulatory process that requires the incorporation of the vast body of scientific evidence that pesticides do far more harm than good, and that organic regenerative agriculture is the surest path to human and ecological health.

EPA regulates pesticides under the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to which Congress mandated a major revision with the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996—which repealed the Delaney Clause with the codification of risk assessment protocol that allows for uncertainty, ignores preexisting health conditions and vulnerabilities, fails to evaluate chemical mixtures and synergistic effects, and establishes levels of acceptable harm. The Delaney Clause required the banning of chemical additives in food that cause cancer in humans or animals: If a substance was carcinogenic, no level of it would be tolerated in processed food. There was no acceptable threshold below which safety could be assumed. (See more on regulatory deficiencies here and here.)

There is strong evidence that pesticides lead to cancer via upstream mechanisms such as immune inhibition, hormonal derangement, and inflammation that are also common to other health disorders. Health advocates argue that a new approach must address the reality that these mechanisms predispose physiological systems to become disordered, and that averting these dangers would provide a multitude of positive outcomes across the disease spectrum.

With the availability of safer alternatives to toxic chemicals, whether in agriculture, parks, homes, or gardens, the allowance of substances with documented harm to health and the environment is unreasonable. Organic methods are proven to provide numerous health benefits, as well as more nutritious food, that can both protect and enhance biodiversity and mitigate the effects of climate change.

To learn more about organic land management and the benefits, see here and here. Take action to advance the organic movement and contribute your voice to the holistic, systems-based solution that protects the health of all.

>> Tell EPA that to meet its obligations under FIFRA and ESA, it must facilitate a transition to organic practices. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA meets its statutory obligations.

>> Tell Congress to restore funding that protects the health of farmers, farmworkers, and their families.

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

Source:

Gillam, C. (2025) Seeking answers to a cancer crisis in Iowa, researchers question if agriculture is to blame, The New Lede. Available at: https://www.thenewlede.org/2025/06/seeking-answers-to-a-cancer-crisis-in-iowa-researchers-question-if-agriculture-is-to-blame/.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2025) Published in Water Research, a study highlights the various routes for pesticide contamination, with the results identifying the presence of over 80 substances in streams without adjacent agricultural land use. “Our findings underscore the necessity of further investigating the non-agricultural entry pathways of pesticides and biocides to effectively mitigate their impacts on streams in non-agricultural catchments,” the authors state. They continue, “These streams often serve as critical refuge habitats and sources of recolonization, making their protection essential for biodiversity conservation.”

In analyzing nonagricultural streams, the researchers find pesticide contamination that, while lower than levels found in streams directly next to agricultural land, can occur through various routes and threatens biodiversity in essential ecosystems. As the authors describe: “Although pesticide concentrations were lower than in agricultural streams, the potential toxicity of pesticides was associated with a significant reduction in sensitive insect populations, as indicated by the SPEAR_pesticides index. Notably, 40% of the studied streams did not achieve a good status according to the pesticide specific SPEAR_pesticides indicator.”

The SPEAR_pesticides indicator is used “to identify pesticide effects on the aquatic invertebrate community. It measures the abundance of pesticide-sensitive species (“species at risk”) in relation to the abundance of all taxa,” the study explains. The calculated value then correlates with “five quality classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad) following the ecological status classes laid out under the WFD [European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive].”

The study focuses on examining “13 streams located predominantly in protected areas with no agricultural land use in their catchments,” which leads to the hypothesis that, “Given the absence of direct pesticide input via runoff, any detected pesticide contamination is likely attributable to atmospheric deposition.” These areas were chosen due to the role of protected areas in contributing to biodiversity conservation.

Researchers continue: “Streams within protected areas may enhance freshwater biodiversity by providing suitable habitats and serving as sources for recolonizing species. Undisturbed stream stretches play a pivotal role in the recovery of pesticide-impacted downstream areas.” (See studies here and here.)

Previous research finds that pesticide contamination of natural areas is ubiquitous, even in areas considered remote and pristine, such as the Alpine glaciers, U.S. national parks, high-altitude tropical cloud forests, and the Maya Mountain Protected Areas. (See studies here, here, here, and here.) “Remarkably, not only legacy persistent organic pollutants (POPs) were found, such as organochlorine pesticides, which are known to be prone to atmospheric transport, but also current-use pesticides like organophosphates, chlorothalonil, terbuthylazine, pendimethalin, and glyphosate,” the authors state.

They continue: “In recent years, several studies monitoring pesticides in ambient air have shown the presence of a wide range of pesticides in ambient air, in total >100 different substances with detection frequencies reaching up to 100% of samples. Sampling sites included remote sites, such as national parks, forests, and even polar sites, indicating medium- and long-range transboundary transport.”

A recent study in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, covered in the Daily News here, highlights how the pesticides used in global crop production pose risks to ecosystem and human health through multiple pathways. As the authors note, “Once applied to crops, pesticides are transported through surface and groundwater flows, atmospheric dispersion and wildlife migration.” Residues in food products, such as fruits and vegetables, as well as bioaccumulation in animals that are consumed as food, also threaten consumers around the world, particularly those relying on international trade.

The researchers reference an additional study, which identifies a potential transboundary transport of pesticides involving the Tijuana River watershed, as two pesticides (methidathion and mevinphos), both banned in the U.S. but not in Mexico, are detected in rivers within U.S. boundaries. “The presence of pesticides in the atmosphere and their long-distance travel can lead to exposure of local and adjacent biodiversity and communities, as well as damage to non-target crops,” the authors state. (See more on pesticide drift and water contamination here and here.)

In the current Water Research study, the researchers aim to “(i) characterize the toxicity profiles of these streams, (ii) identify whether the source of detected pesticides could be linked to atmospheric transport from surrounding agricultural activities, (iii) investigate the role of substance properties in influencing pesticide concentrations through their propensity for atmospheric transport, and (iv) assess the ecological relevance of pesticide levels by analyzing their impact on the macro-invertebrate community composition in the streams.”

The 13 streams included, located in Germany and in the national pesticide monitoring program of small lowland streams (known as “Kleingewässer-Monitoring”) as well as the FLOW project, were selected because they do not have any expected pesticide input by runoff or leaching. “Of the 13 streams, eight sites were monitored in only one of the three years, four in two years, and one in all three years,” the researchers note. They continue: “The sites span five federal states in Germany. Except for two, all monitoring sites are located within protected areas, including biosphere reserves, landscape conservation areas, nature parks, and NATURA 2000 sites.”

In discussing the methodology, the authors say, “Water sampling was conducted from April to July/August in 2018, 2019, and 2021 during the main pesticide application period, while benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled after the main pesticide application period in June.” Following sampling, analyses of pesticide toxicity to invertebrates is assessed and recorded using toxic units (TU), which are “calculated from the individual measured pesticide concentrations divided by the respective LC50 [concentration that is lethal to 50% of a group] in acute standard laboratory test systems.”

The results show that potential pesticide toxicity, represented as maximum toxic units (TU_max), is “associated with a significant reduction in sensitive insect populations, as indicated by the SPEAR_pesticides index,” the researchers report. They continue: “The correlation of SPEAR_pesticides with TU_max shows a significant decrease in SPEAR_pesticides with increasing potential toxicity. This indicates that macroinvertebrate communities may be affected by pesticide toxicity in the investigated streams.” (See recent Daily News entitled Study Adds to Wide Body of Science Highlighting Benefits of Organic for Insect Biodiversity that highlights research from Germany on the insect apocalypse.)

In further explaining the results, the authors note that these values are: “driven by insecticides and biocides not approved for agricultural use or phased out during the study period, such as fipronil and neonicotinoid insecticides. They likely originated from veterinary products, residues from past agricultural use, illegal use, or impurities in approved pesticides.” Both fipronil and neonicotinoids are widely used in land management in the U.S., with a wide body of science linking these chemicals to health and environmental impacts.

Overall, 118 substances were analyzed, 81 of which are detected at least once in the streams. 69 samples reveal concentrations above their respective limit of quantification (LOQ) and the regulatory acceptable concentration (RAC) is “exceeded 14 times in 10 samples in 9 different streams by fipronil, imidacloprid, clothianidin, and cypermethrin.” As a note, all threshold exceedances are caused by insecticides. The researchers state that, “[O]bserved threshold exceedances can be mainly attributed to the structural problem of the current regulatory approach where authorizations are granted for several years without reevaluation in the case of new scientific evidence.” (See more on regulatory deficiencies here.)

The above insecticides “exhibited by far the highest potential toxicity towards invertebrates, followed by fungicides,” the authors say. Many of these chemicals, however, are not approved for use in the EU. As an explanation, the researchers relay: “Imidacloprid, clothianidin, and fipronil have high persistence in soil (half-lives ranging from 142 to 545 d), and they have been detected in soil several years after the last application, therefore an input into streams from past use can be expected. Other possible explanations include illegal application practices and impurities in approved pesticides. However, input from uses other than agriculture is also possible because pyrethroids, imidacloprid and fipronil were all approved as biocides, and imidacloprid and fipronil were also approved as veterinary products during the study period.” Fipronil residues are also linked to rinsate from bathing dogs, which can lead to contamination in nearby waterways. (See previous coverage on pesticides and pets here and here.)

As the authors summarize, this study “indicates that pathways other than atmospheric transport from agricultural application may be more relevant for pesticide exposure in non-agricultural streams.” Additional studies support this, such as a French study that finds acute toxicity in crustaceans from pesticides in mountain lakes most likely originated from livestock treated with veterinary drugs.

The study results lead the researchers to summarize that their work “highlights the need to scrutinize pesticide entry pathways other than those related to crop spraying to mitigate pesticide risks in streams in non-agricultural catchments.” The indirect contamination that is not addressed through regulatory processes threatens crucial habitats and overall biodiversity, further emphasizing the need to reevaluate the role of pesticides in agriculture.

Prior research supports the current study findings and documents the role of pesticide transport through the atmosphere. One study finds that “pesticide deposition in snow at U.S. National Parks correlated best with cropland area within 75 to 300 km, depending on pesticide half-life.” This showcases how there is no universal radius of influence that can be defined, as different pesticides and their properties can determine the degree of their impacts to nontarget areas.

Additional studies provide “evidence that pesticides contribute significantly to the ongoing biodiversity crisis,” the researchers say. “For example, a German national monitoring study on pesticide exposure and effects in agricultural streams recently identified pesticides as the dominant stressor for vulnerable insects. Comparable results were found in Australia, Europe, North America, and South America.” In California, research finds that “the decline of several amphibian species in the Sierra Mountains within the last decades of the 20th century was strongly associated with upwind pesticide use in the intensely agricultural Central Valley, with cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides showing the strongest association.” This class of pesticides can include organophosphates and carbamates.

The direct and indirect effects of pesticides, from both agricultural and nonagricultural methods, threaten all life. These findings support the need for alternative practices that protect biodiversity, public health, and the environment and mitigate the harmful effects of chemical-intensive land management. Organic agriculture offers a holistic solution that removes these threats, as well as goes a step further to not only protect but enhance biodiversity, while also providing increased nutritional quality and other benefits. (See more on health and environmental benefits here and here.)

Lend your voice to the organic movement by taking action. >> Tell your Congressional Representative and Senators to cosponsor bills supporting organic agriculture. Additionally, become a Parks Advocate to encourage your community to transition to organic. The 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 necessary to eventually transition all public areas in a locality to these safer practices. For more information, please email our team at [email protected].

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

Source:

Schweiger, L. et al. (2025) Pesticide contamination is associated with invertebrate community change in non-agricultural streams, Water Research. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135425008115.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2025) Temperatures are hot—and getting hotter. Climate change is one of multiple crises that are compounding one another. Environmental disasters, including fires, floods, and severe weather events, are brought on or exacerbated by widespread reliance on disruptive chemicals, which played a role in a delayed start to the southern California rainy season, hurricane-force winds, and low humidity levels—all elevated by climate change. While climate change may be most apparent—record heat in much of the U.S. this month, 128°F in Death Valley last year, and extreme heat globally, last year’s earliest Category 5 hurricane on record, another volatile wildfire season, etc.—as crises are escalating in human disease and biodiversity collapse. 

Extreme heat is the deadliest weather disaster—killing hundreds of thousands of people every year. Heat makes the health effects of pesticides and other pollutants more serious. Climate change is intensifying the impacts of habitat destruction and toxic chemicals on biodiversity. As the problems grow,  false claims of climate change mitigation require scrutiny. In this context, as an example, regenerative agriculture fails to require the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers—major contributors to the climate crisis—while certified organic agriculture does.

As organic is increasingly understood to be a climate solution, OrganicClimateNet last year launched an aggressive effort to build the base of organic farmers in the European Union (EU). As the climate crisis grows exponentially, the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP28) adopted an agreement with nearly 200 countries committing to the “end of the oil age.” See UN Climate Crisis Conference Calls for Phaseout of Fossil Fuels, which Are Used to Produce Pesticides and Fertilizers.

• Organic agriculture can mitigate climate change. Agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. In a recent article in Science, Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, agriculture and forestry account for as much as 25% of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The contribution of animal agriculture has been estimated at 14.5% to 87% or more of total GHG emissions. These estimates include emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ammonia. The carbon dioxide contribution largely comes from converting land from natural forest to pasture or cropland. 

“Regenerative” agriculture is widely considered to be a solution for reducing or even reversing these impacts. Unfortunately, a movement by promoters of chemical-intensive agriculture has fooled some environmentalists into supporting toxic “regenerative” agriculture. While recognizing practices that sequester carbon in the soil—practices that are central to organic agriculture—the so-called “regenerative agriculture” promoted by these groups ignores the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients as well as for the heat and energy driving chemical reactions. It is important to see through this deception.  

• Organic practices preserve natural lands and biodiversity. Natural forests are more effective than tree plantations in sequestering carbon. Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, which also reduces dependence on petroleum-based pesticides. Organic farms are required to “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife, as required by § 205.200 of the regulations and per the § 205.2 definition of Natural resources of the operation.”
    
• Organic agriculture benefits human health. By avoiding the use of antibiotics and toxic pesticides, organic agriculture protects farmworkers and consumers. In addition, studies have found organically grown plant foods and milk to be nutritionally superior to those produced by chemical-intensive agriculture.  
   
• The National Organic Program provides for clarity and enforceability, while providing processes that are open and transparent to growers, consumers, and the public at large. As an established program, it also has its own funding mechanism. Any definition of “regenerative” must—at a minimum—meet organic standards.  

Agriculture can be harnessed in the fight against climate change, biodiversity collapse, and health problems, with the elimination of practices that have created the problems. As aptly stated by CEO Emeritus Jeff Moyer of the Rodale Institute, “We believe that in order to be regenerative, you have to start by being organic. It’s a little disingenuous to say you can regenerate soil health and sequester carbon and still use nitrogen fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. What you’re really saying is equivalent to saying ‘I want to be healthy as a person, but I still want to smoke cigarettes.'”  

The climate crisis and the devastating decline in biodiversity are escalating because of uncontrolled and unnecessary reliance on toxic chemicals. These threats to life require a meaningful, holistic strategy to end our fossil fuel dependence and use of materials that release harmful levels of noxious gases (including greenhouse gases).   

Agriculture must—across the board and on an expedited five-year schedule—shift to organic practices. Organic practices both sequester carbon and eliminate petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Importantly, the data show that organic agriculture now operates without sacrificing productivity or profitability. While the vested economic interests in the petroleum and chemical industry cling to the status quo, there are good jobs and money to be made in a green economy.  

Beyond Pesticides advocates for a national plan to shift to 100% organic farming. Organic land management is more effective at reducing emissions and sequestering carbon in the soil. There is already a national program for certifying farms that meet organic standards. Organic operations must “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.”

Undefined “regenerative” agriculture falls short by ignoring the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health and ecosystem services caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients and for the heat and energy-driving chemical reactions.  Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, reduces dependence on petroleum-based pesticides, and is more effective in sequestering carbon. Biodiversity buffers against damage from climate change by allowing systems to evolve with changing conditions. Preserving natural lands and transitioning farms to organic production should be the cornerstones to combating climate change. 

📣 Beyond Pesticides has sent the following message to its network: As temperatures break records, Congress must act to urgently transition away from petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use in land management, and support an across-the-board shift to the organic regenerative solution. 

Letter to U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative:

As Congress considers elements of the next Farm Bill, climate change is an extremely urgent crisis to address. And while climate change may be most apparent—record heat in much of the U.S. this month, 128°F in Death Valley last year, and extreme heat globally, last year’s earliest Category 5 hurricane on record, another volatile wildfire season, etc.—we are also facing crises in human disease and biodiversity collapse.

Heat makes the health effects of pesticides more serious. Climate change is intensifying the impacts of habitat destruction and toxic chemicals on biodiversity.

We cannot afford to let anyone capitalize on marketing schemes making false claims of climate change mitigation. Regenerative agriculture must be organic. 

Organic agriculture can mitigate climate change. Agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. Research shows that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. According to the International Panel of Climate Change, agriculture and forestry account for as much as 25% of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

“Regenerative” agriculture is widely considered to be a solution for reducing or even reversing these impacts. Unfortunately, a movement by promoters of chemical-intensive agriculture has fooled some environmentalists into supporting toxic “regenerative” agriculture. While recognizing practices that sequester carbon in the soil—practices that are central to organic agriculture—the so-called “regenerative agriculture” promoted by these groups ignores the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients as well as for the heat and energy driving chemical reactions. It is important to see through this deception. 

Organic farms are required to “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.” 

Organic agriculture benefits human health. By avoiding the use of antibiotics and toxic pesticides, organic agriculture protects farmworkers and consumers. In addition, studies have found organically grown plant foods and milk to be nutritionally superior to those produced by chemical-intensive agriculture. 

The National Organic Program provides for clarity and enforceability, while providing processes that are open and transparent to growers, consumers, and the public at large. As an established program, it also has its own funding mechanism. Any definition of “regenerative” must—at a minimum—meet organic standards. 

The climate crisis and the devastating decline in biodiversity are escalating because of uncontrolled and unnecessary reliance on toxic chemicals. These threats to life require a meaningful, holistic strategy to end our fossil fuel dependence and use of materials that release harmful levels of noxious gases (including greenhouse gases).  

We need a national plan to shift to 100% organic farming in the coming five years. Please support this shift in the Farm Bill and reject language that undermines, or preempts, local and state authority to enact more stringent land management policies that protect health and the environment.  

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2025) An article in The New York Times (NYT), entitled “A Killer Within Easy Reach,” highlights the use of the weed killer paraquat, a widely used herbicide in the U.S. and many other parts of the world despite being banned in over 70 countries, as the cause of numerous suicides. The article references the tiny nation of Suriname, located on the northeastern coast of South America, as they have “one of the highest suicide rates in the world,” with the majority of those deaths involving paraquat. Globally, paraquat is prevalently used in self-harm incidents. The chemical, when absorbed into the body, among other deadly effects, causes pulmonary fibrosis, making lung tissue brittle and causing respiratory failure.

While this pesticide is intended and generally used for weed control, it is also highly lethal to humans in small amounts and is often easily accessible in many households. As the NYT article states, “Pesticides are among the leading means of suicide in agricultural areas of developing nations, implicated in more than 100,000 deaths annually.” Citing examples from around the world, the article states, “Sri Lanka’s crop yields had surged after the introduction of modern fertilizers and pesticides in the 1960s, but… the suicide rate had increased fivefold as well.” This connection was further emphasized when the Sri Lankan government outlawed paraquat; the suicide rate fell by more than 70 percent. The article also highlights South Korea, “where restrictions and then a ban on paraquat cut suicide mortality in half.”

Beyond Pesticides has noted a University of South Australia study, which cites the frequency of deliberate pesticide ingestion. Of the 34,902 patients (age 11 and up) with possible or known self-poisonings from nine hospitals in rural Sri Lanka, the highest fatalities occur with paraquat ingestion, representing 41.8% of the deaths. The accessibility of toxic chemicals, such as paraquat, within households and communities exponentially increases the threat they pose to human health.

The use of pesticides in self-poisoning, particularly in developing nations, warrants more than just household security measures. It requires the removal of highly toxic pesticides from the market, as noted in a previous Daily News article. By encouraging a transition to safer organic practices and implementing restrictions on imports containing toxic pesticides, developed countries like the U.S. can assist in reducing suicide rates.

“A worldwide ban on the use of highly hazardous pesticides is likely to prevent tens of thousands of deaths every year,” says Professor of Epidemiology David Gunnell, PhD, of the University of Bristol, UK, to the Daily Star. This is echoed in the NYT article, as the author says researchers and philanthropists are “arguing that restricting access to the most lethal pesticides could be one of the simplest, most cost-effective ways to save lives.”

It is also noted in the article that paraquat is one of the deadliest pesticides still on the market and is used for suicide by many residents in Suriname due to being a cheap, widely available weed control product. In turning to this chemical as a means of committing suicide, it is “quickly absorbed by the body and has no antidote,” the article says. “Even a small dose causes multi-organ failure, though death may take hours or days.”

A wide body of science showcases paraquat’s effects on human health and the environment. From cancer to reproductive dysfunction and neurotoxicity to toxic effects in aquatic organisms, this herbicide causes deleterious impacts. In particular, paraquat is linked to Parkinson’s Disease. As covered in the Daily News (see here and here), Syngenta, one of the main producers of manufacturing paraquat-based and other pesticide products linked to neurodegenerative outcomes, was forced to settle over 5,000 pending lawsuits claiming paraquat caused their Parkinson’s Disease. (See additional Daily News coverage on paraquat here.)

Recent scientific literature on this herbicide states that: “Paraquat (PQ) poisoning is a life-threatening condition with a high-mortality rate. As it lacks a specific antidote, treatment is mainly supportive, focusing on reducing oxidative damage and organ dysfunction.” The researchers continue, saying: “PQ toxicity causes oxidative stress, resulting in rapid progression to multiorgan failure… This oxidative stress leads to extensive tissue damage, including lipid peroxidation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and activation of nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB). These processes contribute to pulmonary fibrosis, nephrotoxicity [kidney damage], hepatotoxicity [liver damage], and acute toxin-induced pancreatitis.”

Another study in Frontiers in Public Health shows the prevalence of pesticide poisoning in China, specifically in Quzhou city, Zhejiang Province, where 2,368 cases were reported from 2015 to 2022. The researchers report: “A total of 280 patients died, for a case fatality of 11.82%. Among the patients, 1,281 were male and 1,087 were female; the fatality was significantly greater in males (13.35%) than in females (10.03%)… Among those in the non-occupational pesticide poisoning group, 213 patients died from suicide, with the highest fatality of 15.07%.” Paraquat was found to have the highest number of fatalities resulting from acute effects.

The study findings also show that: “Overall, the fatality of herbicides (15.21%) was higher than that of insecticides (12.34%). This result was consistent with other studies, which indicated that certain herbicides have higher lethality. Among them, paraquat had a particularly significant fatality rate of 31.82%. This fact highlights the necessity for stricter regulation of the use of paraquat.”

Additional research, published early this year in PLOS Global Public Health, concludes that limiting access to highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) is successful in preventing suicides. As such, the authors say this should “provide strong evidence to governments and public health officials that are considering implementing bans on HHPs in order to reduce suicides.”

Beyond Pesticides, however, urges that amid many regulatory deficiencies, taking this matter a step further is critical. The answer to not only eliminating the role of pesticides in suicides, but to all negative health and environmental effects from these chemicals lies in a holistic, systems-based solution. As opposed to perpetuating the pesticide treadmill, transitioning to organic land management practices, both in agriculture as well as in homes, gardens, and public parks, offers a safer alternative.

The World Health Organization (WHO) finds that more than 720,000 people die due to suicide each year, with even more suicide attempts. Of these suicides, 73% occur in low- and middle-income countries, which are already at a disproportionate risk for pesticide exposure. Eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides plays an essential role in decreasing the rates of suicide, as supported by the science.

With that in mind, buying organic and taking action in your community can contribute to a system that respects the natural environment and human health. Learn more about the benefits of organic here and here. Stay up to date on the latest science and policy news regarding pesticides with the Daily News Blog and sign up here to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered straight to your inbox!    

Mental health matters. If you or someone you know is in an emergency, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255), 988 Lifeline, or 911 immediately.

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

Sources:

Alcorn, T. (2025) A Killer Within Easy Reach, The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/10/health/paraquat-pesticides-suicide-suriname.html.

Barma, A. et al. (2025) Fatal paraquat poisoning: a case report and literature review on rapid deterioration and therapeutic challenges, Annals of Medicine & Surgery. Available at: https://journals.lww.com/annals-of-medicine-and-surgery/fulltext/2025/04000/fatal_paraquat_poisoning__a_case_report_and.82.aspx.

Rubbo, B. et al. (2025) Preventing suicide by restricting access to Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs): A systematic review of international evidence since 2017, PLOS Global Public Health. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgph.0003785.

Zheng, X. et al. (2025) Epidemiological analysis of 2,368 pesticide poisoning patients in Quzhou City, China, Frontiers in Public Health. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1587271/full.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2025) A review article in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment highlights how the pesticides used in global crop production pose risks to ecosystems and human health through multiple pathways. As the authors note, “Once applied to crops, pesticides are transported through surface and groundwater flows, atmospheric dispersion and wildlife migration.” Residues in food products, such as fruits and vegetables, as well as bioaccumulation within animals that are consumed as food, also threaten consumers around the world, particularly those relying on international trade.

The researchers note: “In this Review, we summarize the pathways through which synthetic pesticides transcend boundaries, focusing on the impacts of their use in food production… First, we explain how environmental flows contribute to transporting pesticides to regions far from their original source. Next, we examine the role of international food trade in causing transboundary exposure and impact of pesticide use.” As a result, the study calls for prioritizing biodiversity and human health through sustainable methods while maintaining yield to support the growing population.

The use of pesticides in chemical-intensive agriculture has exponentially increased since their first synthesis in the late 1930s. “Globally, pesticides were applied on agricultural land at an average rate of 2.4 kg per hectare (kg ha-1) in 2022, nearly double the rate in 1990,” the authors explain. “About 40% of countries exceeded the global average rate in 2022, with pesticide use volumes in low-income countries growing more than 150% between 2008 and 2018.”

As the researchers point out, and has been documented in scientific literature for decades, “human exposure to pesticides, either occupational or environmental (via air, drinking water and food), can lead to cancers, neurological disorders, respiratory disorders and endocrine disruptions.” (See studies here, here, here, and here, as well as Beyond Pesticides’ extensive coverage of these health effects in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)

They continue: “Pollinator exposure to pesticides can impair their detoxification mechanisms and immune responses, increasing their vulnerability to other environmental stresses. Pesticide use has also been associated to the decline of bird population, stream invertebrates, and abundance and diversity of soil fauna. Subsequent decreases in biodiversity negatively impact the ecosystem functions necessary for sustaining crop production.” (See more on pesticides’ effect on ecosystems here and here.)

Pesticides impact not only local populations and ecosystems but can have implications in surrounding areas, as well as across international boundaries. “After being released to the environment, pesticides undergo various biotic and abiotic processes at rates dependent on their physicochemical properties and environmental conditions,” the study says. “Of the pesticide mass applied globally, approximately 82% is degraded to daughter molecules, some of which potentially retain toxicity to non-target organisms.” (See studies here and here.)

The authors further explain, noting: “The undegraded pesticides and their transformation products move through and accumulate in soil, groundwater, surface waters and atmosphere via various transport pathways. Such pathways include wind drifts, infiltration into soils and leaching to groundwater, surface run-offs and soil erosion, and can transcend boundaries.”

One study identifies a potential transboundary transport of pesticides involving the Tijuana River watershed, as two pesticides (methidathion and mevinphos), both banned in the U.S. but not in Mexico, were detected in rivers within the U.S. boundaries. “The presence of pesticides in the atmosphere and their long-distance travel can lead to exposure of local and adjacent biodiversity and communities, as well as damage to non-target crops,” the researchers state. (See studies here and here.)

Beyond Pesticides recently shared in the Daily News that, 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 the study, published in Environmental Pollution, researchers found empirical evidence for pesticide drift over remarkably long distances to remote environments.

“Drifting pesticide droplets often deposit into surface waters, leading to biodiversity and communities far from application points being exposed to pesticides through contaminated water,” the researchers share. “For example, atmospheric exchange of chemicals (including pesticides) in Lake Michigan, in the Great Lakes region in the USA, is one order of magnitude greater than that of chemicals transported directly into the lake from its tributaries.” (See studies here and here.)

Pesticide drift threatens human health near and far from the point of application. Another study shows how “high numbers of pesticide residues are found in indoor dust in Europe and Argentina, even in areas far from agricultural fields, highlighting the importance of atmospheric drift as a transport pathway.” Impacts on nearby crops is also important, as “dicamba pre-emergence applications on herbicide-tolerant crops causes an average damage of 4% (up to 8%) to off-target soybean fields in the USA,” the study authors say.

Additionally, bioaccumulation and biomagnification can occur with cascading impacts on organisms. Studies highlight the particular prevalence of this in aquatic ecosystems, as pesticides can easily move through multiple trophic levels, such as from plankton to fish and predators.

“Wildlife migration is another pathway for long-range transboundary pesticide transport,” the researchers point out. They continue, “Contaminated wildlife that migrate seasonally or periodically across habitats far from agricultural fields, with some having habitats spanning across multiple countries and regions, can cause exposure of predators and humans in distal regions through hunting or consumption.”

Pesticide residues also remain on crops that are consumed by both humans and livestock, which further threatens consumers through dietary intake. “With international food trade, these pesticide residues can be transported across national boundaries, exposing consumers in importing countries to pesticides,” the study says.

The horticultural products that most frequently contain pesticide residues include fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes. “About 62–76% of sampled horticultural products produced in the USA, China and the EU [European Union] bear one or more synthetic pesticide residue,” the authors share. (See research here, here, here, and here.)

They continue, saying: “In Western countries, citrus fruit, berries, pulses and leafy vegetables are generally among the most pesticide-tainted foods, with 85% of harvested produce containing pesticide residues… Conventionally grown foods generally exhibit a fourfold higher prevalence of pesticide residues than organic produce.”

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, 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 randomized clinical trial published in Nutrire. The authors explain that their finding “is likely due to two main factors: the presence of compounds characteristic of [an organic] diet, which may have high levels of antioxidants that can protect DNA and also induce DNA repair [], and the absence or decrease in the incidence of pesticides in this type of diet, which are recognized for their genotoxic effects and have the ability to affect the genetic repair system of organisms [].” (See additional coverage on the benefits of an organic diet here.)

One of the main issues that the study highlights is the inconsistency of maximum residue level (MRL) compliance across the globe. “Furthermore, chronic exposure to residues below MRL levels can lead to health problems such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, obesity or reproductive disorders,” the researchers state.

They continue: “The presence of pesticide residues raises substantial food safety concerns, not only for local consumers but also for those in importing countries. Countries with stringent pesticide regulations, such as the EU, might experience low rates of MRL violations in domestically produced foods, but imported foods often exhibit much higher violation rates.”

The alternative, that prevents these health and environmental risks, lies in organic land management. As the authors summarize, “Pesticide pollution can be resolved through large-scale adoption of agroecological and biodiversity-driven management solutions, which can simultaneously support yields and ecosystem services.”

A transition to organic agriculture eliminates the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers while prioritizing soil health, protecting and enhancing biodiversity, safeguarding public health, and mitigating climate change.

Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic here and here. Take action to support the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies, and get your community involved through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program.

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

Source:

Tang, F. et al. (2025) Transboundary impacts of pesticide use in food production, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-025-00673-y.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2025) A United Kingdom (UK) study, published in May by the Women’s Environmental Network (Wen) and Pesticide Action Network (PAN) UK, is reporting levels of the herbicide glyphosate—a probable human carcinogen that is also linked to Parkinson’s disease—in tampons at concentrations 40 times higher than the legal drinking water limit. This finding highlights the serious public health threats that result from under-regulated period products, given that 1.8 billion people worldwide menstruate monthly, according to UNICEF.  

The report raises fundamental concerns about the harm to women’s health associated with toxic chemical exposure. For tampon users, the vaginal route of exposure bypasses detoxification with a significantly higher absorption rate than skin. In addition, health concerns extend to ongoing chronic toxic chemical exposures to women worldwide working in cotton production and living in nearby communities.

Methodology

To investigate whether menstrual products contain harmful pesticide residues and whether current safety standards adequately control the risk of vaginal exposure, study researchers tested 15 boxes of tampons directly bought from UK supermarkets. These boxes were sent to an external laboratory for testing that looks for the presence of glyphosate and its breakdown product amionomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA) in the cotton material used to make tampons. AMPA can be more toxic than the parent compound, glyphosate. 

Though the sample size of the study is small due to high testing costs, one sample reveals glyphosate detected at a concentration of 0.004 mg/kg, a number that is well above the UK/European Union (EU) drinking water limit of 0.0001 mg/kg. The testing also reveals AMPA residues in the same box, again confirming the presence of glyphosate contamination. Using methodology set forth by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), the researchers in the study calculated the total estimated amount of glyphosate the average tampon user would be exposed to daily. For an adult, the highest exposure estimate is 0.0000024 mg/kg/day, which falls below the ANSES guideline for unsafe pesticide exposure (0.1 mg/kg/day). The calculations, however, utilize oral reference doses, failing to account for the difference in absorption via the vulva compared to the mouth or skin. The study notes chemical absorption rates vaginally are 10 to 80 times higher than absorption rates via the skin, and likewise, exposure via the vaginal route is double that of the oral route.

These findings raise urgent concerns about the adequacy of existing safety thresholds, based on ingestion, especially when applied to products used vaginally. Without comprehensive regulation tailored to the use of menstrual products, millions of people may be unknowingly exposed to toxicants with a long-standing history of adverse effects to reproductive health. 

Background

Period products are composed primarily of cotton, one of the most pesticide-intensive crops in the United States. Despite this, no regulations currently require companies to test or disclose the chemical contents of these products. Prior research has revealed that tampons and pads may contain phthalates, dioxins, environmental phenols, and volatile organic compounds—all associated with hormone disruption and diseases such as endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and certain cancers. Although not all fragrances in personal care products contain harmful products, the study indicates that many fragrances are linked to lasting adverse health effects and are not adequately tested or labeled. A study published in Frontiers in Reproductive Health finds that these risks are exacerbated for Black women and low-income individuals, who are more likely to use fragranced products, increasing cumulative exposure. The study attributes a possible explanation for these findings to racist societal stigma associated with Black and low-income women. The findings indicate how the negative reproductive health risks of pesticides are not just an environmental health issue, but a more complex problem requiring a nuanced understanding of social norms as well as other social determinants of health.

This problem does not only impact consumers. Many cotton farmers are women, especially in the Global South, and face daily exposure without access to personal protective equipment. Pesticides are often stored in homes and used without regulation, harming entire families. These exposures put female farmers at heightened risk of reproductive disorders, chronic illness, and even death. One solution to this problem is the transition to organic land management. As the study explains, case-study examples of women-led organic farming initiatives in Benin, Brazil, and India have shown how organic cotton production can provide a safer, more empowering path forward for female farmers without compromising on financial security.

How and Why do Pesticides Impact Women’s Health?  

Women tend to be more vulnerable to chemical exposure due to biological reasons and social norms that increase their contact with different pesticides, which ultimately allows for greater chemical accumulation within the body. As mentioned earlier, vaginal tissue, in particular, is highly absorbent and allows chemicals like pesticides to enter directly into the bloodstream, bypassing liver detoxification. The liver is the body’s primary filtration system, and liver detoxification refers to the process where the liver breaks down harmful substances—like toxicants or chemicals—to be eliminated from the body. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) found in some period products have been linked to early puberty, endometriosis, PCOS, and hormone-related cancers. Yet, most toxicology research fails to consider these gendered and intersectional vulnerabilities, leaving critical gaps in safety assessments.  

Call to Action 

This study adds to the growing body of evidence supporting the need for stronger chemical safety standards. Period products must be regulated with residue limits tailored to vaginal exposure. The public should demand greater transparency from manufacturers, including full ingredient disclosure and independent testing. Supporting organic and additive-free menstrual products and advocating for legislative reforms—such as the proposed UK Menstrual Health, Dignity and Sustainability Act—are critical next steps. For those in the U.S., this underscores the urgent need to strengthen FDA oversight of menstrual products, which are currently classified as medical devices with limited transparency requirements. Advocating comprehensive federal standards can help close this regulatory gap and help prioritize women’s health worldwide. 

For direct information on how you can take action against the adverse effects of pesticides on women’s health, see Beyond Pesticides’ International Women’s Day Action Agenda. 

Additionally, for more information on why organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers who grow the crops used in period products, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.  

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

Source: Pesticide Action Network UK, 2025. Pesticides in period products. Pesticide Action Network UK. Available at: https://www.pan-uk.org/period-products.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2025) As changes in the executive branch of the federal government upend expectations among environmental stakeholders, the regulation of food safety in the United States is being revealed as a rickety structure built over a century with unpredictable and sometimes contradictory additions, extensions, remodels, and tear-downs. In the short term, clarity is unavailable, but there have been calls for revision and strengthening of regulatory processes—requiring lawmaker and regulator willingness to incorporate the vast body of evidence that pesticides do far more harm than good, and that organic regenerative agriculture is the surest path to human and ecological health. News reports out of Costa Rica in May brought public attention to drafted legislation to ban pesticides in the country that the World Health Organization (WHO) has defined as “extremely or highly hazardous, or those with evidence of causing cancer, genetic mutations, or affecting reproduction, according to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS).” The headline sparked a relook in this Daily News at the current and historical failure of U.S. policy, which allows cancer-causing pesticides in food production and land management, despite the booming success of a cost-effective and productive, certified organic sector for which petrochemical pesticides are not needed.

Over the last century, pesticide regulation has been based on two different assumptions about how people might be protected from chemicals that cause cancer and other diseases. Food safety regulation began with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FFDCA). FFDCA was modified by the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 (which included the notorious Delaney Clause to prohibit cancer-causing pesticides in processed foods). EPA regulates pesticides under the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to which Congress mandated a major revision with the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996—which repealed the Delaney Clause with the codification of risk assessment protocol that allows for uncertainty, ignores preexisting health conditions and vulnerabilities, fails to evaluate chemical mixtures and synergistic effects, and establishes levels of acceptable harm.

Historically, concern about cancer topped the list for both the public and lawmakers enacting regulations; the Delaney Clause was added during a period when people were becoming aware of the risks of food dyes and the estrogen compound diethylstilbesterol. Worries about pesticides were not far behind, as Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring made clear in 1962. These worries have been borne out. A 2024 study in Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society found that agricultural pesticide use “has a significant impact on…all cancers, bladder cancer, colon cancer, leukemia, lung cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer…and these associations are more evident in regions with heavy agricultural productivity….” The effects of pesticides on non-Hodgkin lymphoma, bladder cancer and leukemia are “more significant than the effects of smoking.” For all cancers, the highest number of cases per year correlates strongly with the highest pesticide usage, with the Midwest—Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Nebraska—seeing more than 150,000 additional cases annually. The study includes the 69 pesticides the U.S. Department of Agriculture monitors by county, although it does not connect any specific pesticides to cancer incidence.

Beyond Pesticides provides numerous resources about carcinogenic pesticides registered for use in agriculture, lawns and gardens, and nonagricultural land management. See, for example, “40 Common Lawn and Landscape Chemicals,” which lists 26 carcinogens among them. The Pesticide-Induced Diseases database provides scientific evidence for 29 kinds of cancer.

The Delaney Clause required the banning of chemical additives in food that cause cancer in humans or animals: If a substance was carcinogenic, no level of it would be tolerated in processed food. There was no acceptable threshold below which safety could be assumed. While this affected many chemicals intentionally added to food, such as dyes, it also applied to pesticides, which are only incidentally present, but which are intentionally toxic to a wide variety of organisms. However, Delaney was never fully enforced until successful litigation brought by the state of California and the Natural Resources Defense Council resulted in a 1992 court decision forcing EPA to start removing carcinogens from the food supply. It was at this point that Congress intervened to replace the Delaney Clause with a risk assessment provision in FQPA that allows cancer-causing chemical use, including pesticides, in food production. While the risk assessment provision in FQPA is often characterized as a “health-based standard,” critics point to the continued allowance and registration of cancer-causing pesticides and synthetics under fundamentally flawed risk assessment reviews. (For a historical read on this critical point in the legalization of cancer-causing pesticides and other synthetics in the food supply, see Unreasonable Risk—The Politics of Pesticides (1998).) At the point of FQPA passage, synthetic chemicals were ubiquitous in the food supply, the environment, and human bodies.

Forty years after the passage of the Delaney Clause, FQPA traded a “zero risk” standard for a system based on acceptable pesticide tolerances, or thresholds, in food, while imposing new protections for infants and children. The threshold model assumes the truth of the ancient toxicological maxim “the dose makes the poison.” Crucially, FQPA also required EPA to screen pesticides for endocrine disruption. By then, it was clear that endocrine-disrupting chemicals—DDT, for example—were associated with disease induction. However, EPA has not produced an effective screening system as of this writing.

As Beyond Pesticides noted in 2021, “In 1996, the promise of screening pesticides for endocrine disruption generated support from environmentalists and public health advocates for the FQPA, which traded the absolute prohibition of carcinogens in food of the Delaney Clause for a risk assessment standard that is subject to manipulation and an underestimation of real-life hazards. And now, 25 years later, we have yet to see EPA use endocrine disruption findings in pesticide registration decisions.”

EPA has also struggled to adapt its registration requirements to new science and new technologies, revealing pesticides’ effects that reach far beyond the strictures of traditional regulatory toxicology. Standard toxicological screens have not incorporated the last several decades’ staggering advances in molecular biology, epidemiology, genetics, and exposure science. These advances are illuminating the many connections between pesticide exposures and diseases of all kinds. At the molecular and cellular level, pesticides cause inflammation and oxidative stress, alter lipid metabolism, change gut microbiota composition and behavior, affect gene expression, and many other cellular processes increasingly linked to both cancer and diseases like Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and inflammatory bowel disease.

In fact, pesticides have been implicated in harm to nearly every aspect of human physiology, from microbial gut health to neurodevelopmental disorders and reproductive issues. At the same time, however, these scientific advances have also connected many of these other disease processes to the longstanding concern about cancer.

Nowhere is this connection more salient than in endocrine disruption, particularly the derangement of reproductive hormones such as estrogen and testosterone. Beyond Pesticides has documented hundreds of studies showing that hundreds of pesticides affect hormonal balance and that exposure to these pesticides raises the risk of cancer. See Beyond Pesticides’ breast cancer prevention resource regarding exposures to DDT, organophosphates, glyphosate, neonicotinoids, and dioxins.

The associations are undeniable. One recent example is a 2024 case-control epidemiological study that also incorporates urinalysis to determine pesticide exposures in women from a Brazilian agricultural region who were screened for breast cancer. The study grouped the women according to whether they did or did not have breast cancer and were exposed or not exposed to pesticides. The researchers found that women exposed to the agricultural pesticides glyphosate, atrazine, and 2,4-D have a significantly higher risk of breast cancer than unexposed women. The risk of metastasis, a major predictor of mortality, was 54% higher among women with breast cancer who were exposed to pesticides than among women with breast cancer who were not exposed to pesticides. The authors cite plausible cellular mechanisms for cancer induction, including glyphosate’s effects on DNA methylation, oxidative stress, and alteration of estrogenic pathways, along with atrazine’s known disruption of estrogen in both normal and cancerous breast cells. While not mechanistic, this study confirms a strong association between pesticide exposure and aggressive forms of breast cancer.

Such evidence highlights the urgency of reforming the regulation of pesticides. There is strong evidence that pesticides lead to cancer via upstream mechanisms such as immune inhibition, hormonal derangement, and inflammation that are also common to other health disorders. Health advocates argue that a new approach must address the reality that these mechanisms predispose physiological systems to become disordered, and that averting these dangers would provide a multitude of positive outcomes across the disease spectrum.

In addition to failing in its duty to evaluate pesticides for endocrine disruption, EPA has also failed to demonstrate the efficacy of replacing the Delaney clause with the threshold model. It has not been established that there are distinct levels of exposure below which there is no harm. Research since the FQPA was passed has shown that even very low pesticide residues and exposure levels can trigger health consequences. This is especially true for hormone-disrupting pesticides, because hormones normally act at extremely low concentrations. For many chemicals, low exposures and high exposures can have very different effects. Some effects, in addition, can be epigenetic across generations, affecting cancer risk and fertility in unexposed descendants. And unstudied and unregulated are the cumulative effects of mixed exposures or the lifelong consequences of exposures at crucial developmental stages early in life.

The emerging picture is one of such complexity that a return to the simple assumption of Delaney—that exposure to a carcinogen at any level is unacceptable—has become increasingly reasonable in light of the availability of productive and cost-effective organic food production that does not allow the vast majority of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic substances. There are those who argue that the assumption of harm is manifestly incorrect, because the dose makes the poison – many substances humans are exposed to are technically carcinogenic, yet do not produce obvious cases. Yet even the American Chemistry Council-funded consultancy ToxStrategies has admitted the inadequacy of the threshold model as well: “[T]he shape of the dose-response curve for chemical carcinogenesis may be more complex than the default assumption of linear, no threshold behavior—a fact that would dramatically affect estimated points of departure for risk assessments as well as the fundamental understanding of cancer risk (no added risk below the threshold vs. added risk at any dose).”

It is the position of Beyond Pesticides that the post-Delaney threshold standard is unworkable because science cannot determine a threshold dose for cancer induction. Further, the evidence that the conditions for cancer induction have much in common with those for many other diseases means a much larger view must be taken—without, of course, downplaying the devastation caused by cancer itself. Thresholds remain a crude tool on which to base risk assessments purporting to define “acceptable” exposures. The solution to the overarching problem that pesticides produce large-scale physiological harms, both singly and in combination, is to transition to organic regenerative agriculture without further delay. Nothing can eliminate human disease or ecological change altogether, but eliminating pesticides would go a long way toward reducing these heavy burdens. The next step in pesticide regulation must recognize this and act on it, according to Beyond Pesticides.

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

Sources:

EPA’s Proposed Endocrine Disrupting Pesticide Review Called Deficient
Beyond Pesticides, February 5, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/02/epas-proposed-endocrine-disrupting-pesticide-review-called-deficient/

Tell EPA: It Must Ban Pesticides Unless Shown Not To Be Endocrine Disruptors
Beyond Pesticides, August 16, 2021
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/08/tell-epa-it-must-ban-pesticides-unless-shown-not-to-be-endocrine-disruptors/

Exposure to Pesticides and Breast Cancer in an Agricultural Region in Brazil
Carolina Panis et al
Environ Sci Technol. 2024
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11191594/

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and endocrine neoplasia: A forty-year systematic review
Sofia Macedo et al
Environmental Research 2023
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393512202196X?via%3Dihub

Comprehensive assessment of pesticide use patterns and increased cancer risk
Gerken et al
Front. Cancer Control Soc. 2024
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cancer-control-and-society/articles/10.3389/fcacs.2024.1368086/full

Resolving the “Delaney Paradox” Congress Resets the Table for Pesticides on Food
James D. Wilson
Resources for the Future 1996
https://www.resources.org/archives/resolving-the-delaney-paradox-congress-resets-the-table-for-pesticides-on-food/

Potential Role of Glyphosate, Glyphosate-Based Herbicides, and AMPA in Breast Cancer Development: A
Review of Human and Human Cell-Based Studies
Hannah M Schluter et al
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11354939/

Pesticides Tied to Widespread Health Threats
Beyond Pesticides Retrospective 2021
https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/journal/bp-retrospective21-final6.pdf   

Children’s Health Threatened as Rates of Pediatric Cancers are Linked to Agricultural Pesticide Mixtures
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/03/childrens-health-threatened-as-rates-of-pediatric-cancers-are-linked-to-agricultural-pesticide-mixtures/
Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2025

Continued Reduction in Sperm Count Raises Call for Action
Beyond Pesticides, November 29, 2022
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/page/28/?feed

(Beyond Pesticides, June 23, 2025) At the close of National Pollinator week, Beyond Pesticides says in an action that all species—and their ecosystem—are threatened by the failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform its statutory duties under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

Under FIFRA, EPA is required to register pesticides only when they pose no “unreasonable risk to man [sic] or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits.” Under ESA, EPA must, like all federal agencies, “seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes” of the ESA—which are “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions” through which “the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction.” 

In this context, Beyond Pesticides urges the public to:Tell EPA that to meet its obligations under FIFRA and ESA, it must facilitate a transition to organic practices. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA meets its statutory obligations. 

In registering and reregistering pesticides, EPA routinely allows uses of chemicals that harm humans, other organisms, and ecosystems. According to FIFRA, whether those harms are “unreasonable” depends on a weighing of the costs and benefits. Under a related law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, EPA sets allowable residue limits of pesticides in food (tolerances) utilizing risk assessments that have embedded in them the assumption that toxic pesticides are necessary for crop production.

In fact, EPA starts with the position that farmers cannot farm without these toxic chemicals, an assumption that clouds and undermines the regulatory process and keeps farmers on the pesticide treadmill. In its Draft Herbicide Strategy Framework update, EPA says, “Without certain pesticide products, farmers could have trouble growing crops that feed Americans and public health agencies could lack the tools needed to combat insect-borne diseases.” Not true. Organic farmers are not reliant on these pesticides. Organic practices must be used as the yardstick against which so-called “benefits” of pesticides are measured. 

The only way to truly protect pollinators, insects, birds, and other species, as well as the ecosystem as a whole, is to stop the use of pesticides completely. Converting the world’s agricultural systems to organic would have a tremendously positive impact on threatened populations. Organic farming enhances biodiversity in the ecosystem and mitigates environmental degradation and climate change, all of which are necessary for the recovery of threatened and endangered species.  

By avoiding synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, organic farms provide a safer habitat for a wide range of organisms, from soil microbes and insects to birds and mammals. The biodiversity provided by organic farms is crucial for ecosystem resilience and the provision of ecosystem services such as water purification, pollination, and nutrient cycling, that benefit all species. Organic farming also mitigates climate change, which is a significant contributor to the decline of species around the world. Organic farming methods increase carbon sequestration in soils, reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels through practices that enhance soil organic carbon, such as using cover crops and organic soil amendments. Furthermore, organic farming reduces the reliance on fossil fuels by eliminating synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which are energy-intensive to produce.  

As part of its update to EPA’s ESA Workplan, as an example, EPA created a “Mitigation Menu Website” last year for “reducing pesticide exposure to nontarget species from agricultural crop uses.” After court decisions forced the agency to develop a strategy to meet its statutory responsibility to protect endangered species from pesticide use, the agency recognized that it is, in its own words, “unable to keep pace” with its legal obligations. Therefore, instead of carrying out its charge under ESA, the agency says it will “provide flexibility to growers to choose mitigations that work best for their situation.” In this spirit, a range of people, including grower groups, gathered earlier in the year for a series of workshops in the Pacific Northwest to discuss possible mitigation measures. According to a report written by commercial beekeeper Steve Ellis (more background), concrete decisions were not reached at the workshops as participants recognized the complexities in crafting pesticide product label restrictions to protect endangered species. Mr. Ellis concluded: “If it’s so complex that it’s impossible, then no one wins.” 

Even if EPA can fix some of the technological problems with its website, mitigations only reduce the chance of harmful impacts of pesticide use. Perhaps more importantly, the mitigation measures are entirely voluntary. There is no enforcement mechanism and no way to ensure that the pesticides are used as directed or that mitigation measures are implemented properly. In addition, EPA is making allowances for use of a pesticide when impacts cannot be avoided. Specifically, EPA plans to allow the use of toxic chemicals that kill endangered species when the user provides “offsets” such as “funding habitat restoration for the species, contributing to a captive rearing project at a zoo for the species, or other steps to conserve the species.” How EPA will ensure that such offsets happen or that they successfully contribute to the conservation of a species of concern has not been described. It also does nothing to protect the habitat necessary for the long-term survival of the species in its ecosystem.

As stated above, the only way to truly protect endangered species, as well as the ecosystem as a whole, is to stop the use of pesticides completely. Instead of creating a complicated workaround that will not address the urgent health, biodiversity, and climate crises, EPA must cancel registrations of pesticides that harm endangered species and facilitate a widescale conversion to organic practices. 

Tell EPA that to meet its obligations under FIFRA and ESA, it must facilitate a transition to organic practices. Tell Congress to ensure that EPA meets its statutory obligations.

Letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 
At the close of Pollinator Week, I want to remind you that all species—and ecosystems—are threatened by the failure of EPA to perform its statutory duties under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under FIFRA, EPA may register pesticides only when they pose no “unreasonable risk to man [sic] or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits.” Under ESA, EPA must “seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and . . . utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes” of the ESA—which are “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions” through which “the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction.”  

In registering and reregistering pesticides, EPA allows uses that harm humans, other organisms, and ecosystems. EPA starts with the position that farmers cannot farm without these toxic chemicals, which fails to eliminate unreasonable risk. Organic farmers are not reliant on these pesticides. Organic practices must be used as the yardstick against which so-called “benefits” of pesticides are measured.  

By avoiding synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, organic farms provide a safer habitat for a wide range of organisms, from soil microbes and insects to birds and mammals. The biodiversity provided by organic farms is crucial for ecosystem resilience and the provision of ecosystem services such as water purification, pollination, and nutrient cycling, that benefit all species. By eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, organic farming also mitigates climate change, which is a significant contributor to the decline of species around the world.   

As part of its update to EPA’s ESA Workplan, EPA created a “Mitigation Menu” last year for “reducing pesticide exposure to nontarget species from agricultural crop uses.” After court decisions forced the agency to develop a strategy to meet its statutory responsibility to protect endangered species from pesticide use, the agency recognized that it is, in its own words, “unable to keep pace” with its legal obligations. Therefore, instead of carrying out its charge under ESA, the agency says it will “provide flexibility to growers to choose mitigations that work best for their situation.” Farm groups that discussed possible mitigation measures in a series of workshops recognized the complexities in crafting restrictions and pesticide product label changes to protect endangered species. In the words of one participant, “If it’s so complex that it’s impossible, then no one wins.”  

Even if EPA can address complications, mitigations only reduce the chance of harmful impacts of pesticide use. Perhaps more importantly, the mitigation measures are voluntary, with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the pesticides are used as directed or that measures are implemented properly. Moreover, EPA makes allowances to use a pesticide when impacts cannot be avoided—allowing the use of toxic chemicals that kill endangered species when the user provides “offsets” such as “funding habitat restoration for the species, contributing to a captive rearing project at a zoo for the species, or other steps to conserve the species,” with unknown effectiveness.   

The only way to protect endangered species and the ecosystem is to stop the use of pesticides. Instead of creating a complicated workaround, EPA must cancel registrations of pesticides that harm endangered species and facilitate a widescale conversion to organic practices.   

Thank you. 

Letter to the U.S. Congress: 
At the close of Pollinator Week, I want to remind you that all species—and ecosystems—are threatened by the failure of EPA to perform its statutory duties under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under FIFRA, EPA may register pesticides only when they pose no “unreasonable risk to man [sic] or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits.” Under ESA, EPA must “seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and… utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes” of the ESA—which are “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions” through which “the United States has pledged itself as a sovereign state in the international community to conserve to the extent practicable the various species of fish or wildlife and plants facing extinction.”  

In registering pesticides, EPA allows uses that harm humans, other organisms, and ecosystems. EPA starts with the position that farmers cannot farm without these toxic chemicals, which fails to eliminate unreasonable risk. Organic farmers are not reliant on these pesticides. Organic practices must be used as the yardstick against which so-called “benefits” of pesticides are measured.  

By avoiding synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, organic farms provide a safer habitat for a wide range of organisms, from soil microbes and insects to birds and mammals. The biodiversity provided by organic farms is crucial for ecosystem resilience and the provision of ecosystem services such as water purification, pollination, and nutrient cycling, that benefit all species. By eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, organic farming also mitigates climate change, which is a significant contributor to the decline of species around the world.   

As part of its update to EPA’s ESA Workplan, EPA created a “Mitigation Menu” last year for “reducing pesticide exposure to nontarget species from agricultural crop uses.” After court decisions forced EPA to develop a strategy to meet its statutory responsibility to protect endangered species from pesticide use, the agency recognized that it is, in its own words, “unable to keep pace” with its legal obligations. Therefore, instead of carrying out its charge under ESA, the agency says it will “provide flexibility to growers to choose mitigations that work best for their situation.” Farm groups that discussed possible mitigation measures in a series of workshops recognized the complexities in crafting restrictions and pesticide product label changes to protect endangered species. In the words of one participant, “If it’s so complex that it’s impossible, then no one wins.”  

Even if EPA can address complications, mitigations only reduce the chance of harmful impacts of pesticide use. Perhaps more importantly, the mitigation measures are voluntary, with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the pesticides are used as directed or mitigation measures are implemented properly. Moreover, EPA makes allowances to use a pesticide when impacts cannot be avoided—allowing the use of toxic chemicals that kill endangered species when the user provides “offsets” such as “funding habitat restoration for the species, contributing to a captive rearing project at a zoo for the species, or other steps to conserve the species,” with unknown effectiveness.   

The only way to protect endangered species and the ecosystem is to stop the use of pesticides. Please ensure that instead of creating a complicated workaround that fails to protect, EPA cancels registrations of pesticides that harm endangered species and facilitates a widescale conversion to organic practices.   

Thank you. 

 🦋🌻Look for additional actions on the Beyond Pesticides website that the public can take to help pollinators all year long!

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

Image: Art Page submission from Sara Grantham, “Pollen Song.”

(Beyond Pesticides, June 20, 2025) A study in Conservation Genetics, entitled “Organic farming fosters arthropod diversity of specific insect guilds – evidence from metabarcoding,” showcases the negative effect of chemical-intensive, conventional farm management on insect populations when compared to organically managed meadows. The researchers find that the diversity and biomass of flying insects are higher with organic land management by 11% and 75%, respectively.

“We report a higher diversity on organic meadows in comparison with conventional ones, all over the diversity of flying insects and not only based solely on a few species-poor groups as in previous studies,” the authors state. They continue: “We found significant richness differences between management types and increased functionality on organic meadows. Our results imply the superiority of organic farming in comparison to conventional farming in the conservation of insect diversity.”

The topic of insect biodiversity and the decline of insect populations over the last few decades, also referred to as the insect apocalypse, has been extensively covered by Beyond Pesticides. As previously reported in the Daily News, “Continued Decline in Insect Species Biodiversity with Agricultural Pesticide Use Documented,” insects provide many important services, such as maintaining healthy soil, recycling nutrients, pollinating flowers and crops, and controlling pests. These nontarget insects and beneficial species are at risk due to 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. (See additional coverage here, here, and here.)

As Dave Goulson, PhD—a speaker at Beyond Pesticides’ 40th National Forum Series—says, the insect apocalypse that is occurring 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.”

The researchers in the present study, which focuses on meadows in southern Bavaria (the largest state in Germany), note, “Agricultural intensification and industrialisation have caused severe losses of insect diversity, abundance and biomass across major parts of Central Europe.” (See studies here and here.) They continue: “Habitat destruction and subsequent fragmentation have forced local populations to persist in small and isolated habitat patches, increasing the probability of local extinctions and consequently the gradual loss of species at the landscape level. In addition, the deterioration of habitat quality due to influx of fertilisers and pesticides diminishes habitat quality and threatens particularly species with specific habitat demands and restricted dispersal behaviour.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)

As is noted in the study: “Temporal changes [change over time] in community composition have so far been demonstrated for a few scientifically well-studied and taxonomically well-known charismatic groups, most often in birds, but also in some invertebrate groups like butterflies, hoverflies or longhorn beetles… However, community trends in most other insect groups, including those of major ecological and economic importance, are far less known. A full picture of insect community trends needs to incorporate these groups, including many ecologically and economically important but taxonomically less resolved, mega-diverse taxa.” (See studies here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

This research analyzes a wide range of species, as the authors utilize metabarcoding and barcode index numbers (BINs) to identify and estimate species diversity and ecological patterns. “Until today, most studies of insect decline focused on a small fraction of taxonomic groups, such as functionally or economically relevant flagship species or groups,” the study notes. “Therefore, a comprehensive picture of the impact of different agricultural management types requires integration of the majority of all insect groups.”

To achieve this, the researchers sampled insects with Malaise traps on both organically and conventionally farmed meadows over the course of three years. In describing the aim of the study, the authors share: “Based on the taxa detected and their taxon-specific ecological performance, we focus on the following research questions:

1. Do organically and conventionally farmed meadows differ in biomass of insects and numbers of taxa?
2. Does community structure complexity differ between both meadow types?
3. Which traits of the entire communities are fostered in organically and conventionally farmed areas?”

The six study areas (three organically and three conventionally managed meadows) are located in close geographic proximity but differ in their mowing frequency (approximately twice a year for organic and up to seven times a year for conventional), as well as the usage of non-organic chemical inputs on the conventionally managed land. The traps collected insects from April to October each year and were “emptied twice per month, resulting in a total of 95 single trap data during three years of which 48 trap data came from the organic and 47 trap data from the conventional meadows (one trap bottle was missing),” the researchers note.

After collecting all of the insects, the dry biomass materials were weighted and analyzed, assigning BINs to represent the numbers of consensus orders, families, genera, and species for the samples. As a result, the authors report: “We obtained a total of 7,101,348 reads, which were distributed with 3,790,227 reads on the organic and 3,311,121 reads on the conventional meadows… During the three study years, we found a total of 6,509 different BINs (considered as a proxy for species) from 301 insect families.”

The study finds that biomass is significantly higher on organic meadows compared to the conventionally farmed ones. “The organically managed meadows returned 11.2% more BINs (5,679) than the conventionally managed ones (5,109), a highly significant difference,” the researchers conclude. They continue: “1,400 BINs (i.e. 22% of all BINs) were only found on the organic meadows… For most families, the comparison of organic and conventional meadows revealed a higher diversity in the organic meadows, irrespective of family size. Particularly rich on organic meadows were the Hymenoptera families Megachilidae, Cynipidae, Diapriidae, the Coleoptera families Buprestidae, Carabidae, and Mordellidae, as well as Thripidae.”

In terms of trophic guilds (species with similar feeding roles within an ecosystem), all of them, aside from coprophages (organisms that feed on feces), have significantly higher numbers of BINs on organic meadows. However, “10% (coprohages) to 28% (mycetophages) of BINs occurred exclusively on organic meadows” and were not seen on any of the conventionally managed land.

The consistently higher insect diversity and evenness found in the organic meadows highlight how organic land management promotes biodiversity. The study also finds that “40% of seed feeders and 36% of nectar users occurred exclusively on organic meadows,” showing that organisms that provide particular ecosystem services, such as pollination, are supported.

Previous research confirms these findings and offers explanations for the results, as is referenced throughout the study, including:

• One study “evidenced that in particular the specialised species disappear from intensively farmed areas due to lack of specific resources needed for their larval development.” Additional studies show that “species requiring specific habitat features for their larval development or depending on very specific food sources during their adult stage, are much more sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance and habitat homogenisation than generalist species.”
• “[N]umerous insect species are sensitive to the reduction of plant diversity and in particular disappearance of plant species, as many insect species dependent on specific host plants.”
• “[N]itrogen input and frequent mowing rather negatively impact plant diversity, and subsequently faunal diversity. This difference is even more pronounced for fungiphages because fungi are reacting even more sensitive on human disturbance, but largely safeguard plant growth and ecosystem health by mycorrhiza symbioses.” (See research here and here.)
• Studies conducted on various insect taxa (see here, here, here, and here) support that organically managed land harbors significantly more arthropod species than the conventional ones, showcasing the ecological value of organic farming.
• Key factors, such as the homogeneous habitat structures, high rates of habitat disturbance, and reduced plant diversity often seen in conventional agriculture, “lead to a reduction in niche availability that ultimately causes the decline of insect diversity.” (See study here.)

As shared in recent Daily News coverage, with large numbers of insects at risk, the reliance on pesticides in agriculture and land management continues to threaten biodiversity, 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 and synthetic fertilizers.

Beyond Pesticides’ mission is to lead the transition to the widespread adoption of organic management practices that protect biodiversity, public health, and the environment. With organic practices that legally prohibit the use of toxic chemicals, this systems-based approach offers a solution for the current crises we are facing.

Become a member of Beyond Pesticides today to add your voice to the organic movement and sign up to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates to stay informed and engaged. For more information on the benefits of organic, see here and here.

***
🐝 National Pollinator Week for Friday! Time to Spread the Buzz!
In view of EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from pesticides, the lives of those essential insects, birds, and mammals are increasingly dependent on state and local laws that are under threat. In particular, bird species are crucially important for preserving biodiversity, as well as providing ecosystem services such as pollination and mosquito management. Protection of birds and their habitats allows for other organisms, including humans, to prosper. 

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

In addition, the Trump administration has removed crucial protections established under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), including those that protect birds from pesticide poisoning. Until 2017, MBTA protected migratory birds from such incidental taking as oil and gas operations, which account for 90% of migratory bird deaths, industrialization, and pesticide use. The Migratory Bird Protection Act (MBPA), introduced in May by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), will restore protections against an “incidental take,” but alone, it only returns to a status quo approach. Additional measures are needed, including a wholescale conversion to organic agriculture and land care, as well as reducing dependence on petrochemicals in other ways.  >> TAKE ACTION: Tell your U.S. Representative to cosponsor the Migratory Bird Protection Act (H.R. 3188).  

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

Source:

Habel, J. et al. (2025) Organic farming fosters arthropod diversity of specific insect guilds – evidence from metabarcoding, Conservation Genetics. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10592-025-01707-0.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 19, 2025) Juneteenth, officially recognized as a federal holiday since 2021, commemorates the arrival of Union soldiers in Galveston, Texas, to free enslaved people per the Emancipation Proclamation that was issued two and a half years prior. While June 19, 1865, does not mark the legal end of slavery nationwide, it was a crucial moment in the fight for freedom and continues to highlight the ongoing fight for human rights, equality, and environmental justice.  

As Beyond Pesticides has previously shared in the Daily News, this commemorative day is a time for individuals and organizations to acknowledge and reflect on their past and current actions or inactions that perpetuate systemic racism. The father of environmental justice, Robert Bullard, Ph.D., defines environmental racism as any policy or practice that unequally affects or disadvantages individuals, groups, or communities based on their race. Dr. Bullard states that, until the 1980s, environmental conservation and pollution were separate. Many environmental organizations prioritized the preservation of “wilderness” rather than urban areas, predominantly comprised of POC, who continuously experience the disproportionate impacts of pollution and the effects of environmental racism.  

Sharing the Science 

A recent study regarding the intersections of urban planning, wildlife management, and the histories of systemic bias in People and Nature shows how marginalized and vulnerable communities are disproportionately impacted and experience exacerbated injustices within cities. “Our review shows that wildlife affect nearly all aspects of urban life for people, including economics, participation in decision-making, patterns of urban space, human health, psychological well-being and cultural discourses,” the authors report. 

The study finds that “the effects of pests and pesticides are often unequally felt by marginalized communities due to a variety of social, economic and political factors” and that these communities are “often more negatively impacted due to exposure to zoonotic diseases, pesticides and rodenticide use.” (See additional research here, here, and here.) The researchers continue, sharing: “On a broader scale, pesticides often affect these neighbourhoods from production to utilization to disposal. Pesticide manufacturing facilities, for instance, are often built nearer to vulnerable populations or the only available housing for lower-income individuals is closer to the sites of former manufacturing locales—a classic illustration of environmental racism.” 

There is a wide body of science linking this disproportionate exposure to health effects both in the U.S. and around the world. Not only are marginalized communities more likely to be exposed to toxic chemicals in urban settings, but farmworkers, their families, and those living closer to agricultural fields are also at risk. According to USDA, this group of individuals is comprised mainly of POC, representing another link of disparities in environmental justice. (See Daily News coverage here.)   

A case study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health reports that: “Latinx communities face disproportionate environmental injustices and are targeted due to systematic economic and political inequities. This research evaluates the ease at which links between industrial releases and risk of adverse health effects can be defined to influence policy change in Houston, TX.” In analyzing geospatial data, the study shows that Latinx communities house the heaviest polluting industrial facilities in Houston and, as a result, “face the highest potential risk of adverse health effects due to exposure to a multitude of chemicals.” 

The study also includes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies,” with fair treatment described as “no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies.” Under the Trump administration, these policies have ended, and EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice has been dismantled, according to news reports. 

Despite these definitions, included in recent years in EPA actions (although now ended under the Trump administration), they have fallen short of the stated goal. The study finds that “BIPOC, working-class, and lower-income communities disproportionately experience environmental health injustices, with Latinx populations in particular facing heightened health risks due to industrial pollution.” The authors describe how the prevalence of industrial and manufacturing facilities in these communities leaves POC disproportionately exposed to chemicals and causes them to live “in a ‘toxic normal’, where seeing or smelling hazardous chemicals in daily life is routine.” (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.) 

Additional research highlights these disproportionate risks in POC that lead to certain negative health effects. A recent review in Current Cardiology Reports notes that “African Americans are exposed to a multitude of environmental CVD [cardiovascular disease] risk factors at higher rates than Whites” as a result of socioenvironmental contexts. (See additional research here.) The authors highlight that these factors “may occur in the natural environment (e.g., pollution, heavy metals, and pesticides), the built environment (e.g., neighborhood conditions and accessibility of healthy food), and/or the social environment (e.g., access to healthcare services, quality of patient-provider interactions, and population density).” 

They continue, saying, “These environmental conditions persist over time via racial segregation and political fragmentation, which are subsequently correlated with poor economic outcomes. Disinvested communities then have fewer resources to help buffer against negative health outcomes.” (See study here.) 

Another review in Birth Defects Research reports that women of color working in agriculture, such as on tea plantations, are frequently exposed to pesticides that “may lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes and may result in altered function of the placenta, fetal growth restrictions, low birth weight (LBW) of babies, and sex-specific differences in the fetal development. These adverse effects may pose a potential risk of poor health, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and congenital birth defects leading to neurobehavioral disorders in childhood, and even cancer later in life.” (See more on reproductive dysfunction and women’s health here and here.) 

Children and adolescents in or from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) also experience disproportionate risks to hazardous environmental exposures, according to a technical report in Pediatrics. “In many LMICs, toxic environmental exposures—notably outdoor and household air pollution, water pollution, lead, hazardous waste disposal, pesticides, and other manufactured chemicals—are highly prevalent and account for twice as great a proportion of disease and deaths among young children as in North America,” the authors state. 

They continue, saying: “In LMICs, environmental hazards account for twice as great a proportion of deaths in children younger than 5 years as in high-income countries—26% versus 17%. Pollution is a major risk factor and is responsible for an estimated 9 million deaths annually in persons of all ages—3 times as many deaths as AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Nearly 92% of pollution-related deaths occur in LMICs. Environmental threats to children’s health in LMICs are worsening, and ambient air pollution and contamination by pesticides and other toxic chemicals are growing especially rapidly.” (See research here and here.) 

These impacts are a result of the significant social, ethnic, racial, and economic inequities that contribute to the global distribution of environmental hazards. As the researchers point out, “In countries at every economic level, disease caused by hazardous environmental exposures is most prevalent among poor people and historically marginalized groups, an inequitable pattern of exposure and disease termed ‘environmental injustice.’” 

Yet another study, published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, “addresses the developmental inequities linked to pesticide exposure, particularly in Brazil, focusing on its impact on the gut microbiome and neurodevelopment,” according to the authors. While highlighting the impacts of pesticides on the gastrointestinal tract, this article also “explores the unequal regulatory landscape for pesticides, emphasizing the disparities between more-regulated and less-regulated regions.” 

The researchers continue, saying: “Brazil serves as a case study to illustrate how inconsistent global pesticide standards contribute to developmental inequity, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. The findings underscore the need for sustainable agricultural practices and stronger international regulatory coherence to ensure safe food production and to protect neurodevelopment, especially for children in low- and middle-income countries.” 

Organic Solution 

Amid the overwhelming evidence of disproportionate risks to POC in marginalized communities from pesticide exposure that result in deleterious health effects, showcased above in various studies as well as in research spanning many decades, there is a solution that addresses significant aspects of environmental justice. 

An article in Sustainable Agriculture highlights “how food security, rural economic resilience, ecological restoration, and environmental justice can be achieved through a repaired agricultural microbiome. Microbial repair must reverse the damage done by legacies of agricultural intensification to restore the microbiome’s ability to deliver key agricultural and societal functions.” 

The authors note: “In the case of agriculture and the microbiome, repair needs to confront how histories of colonialism and industrialization shape the uneven environmental and health burdens generated by the modern food system, which are largely borne by poorer and other underserved communities… The repair of the agricultural microbiome must be attentive to how the social injustices of the food system can be repaired through the microbiome.” 

This speaks to the power of organic agriculture and land management, which focuses on soil health and the soil microbiome as the foundation for a holistic, systems-based solution. In adopting organic practices, all ecosystems and organisms are supported, which also removes disproportionate risks to POC, farmworkers and their families, and the general public.  

As shared in previous Daily News, Beyond Pesticides’ executive director Jay Feldman said, “By eliminating toxic pesticide use, we will provide critical protections for community health, particularly for children, the elderly, and vulnerable population groups, which includes people of color in the highest risk population group.” 

The transition away from petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers safeguards the public health of all individuals, as well as protects wildlife and mitigates the current crises of biodiversity and climate change. Eliminating the disproportionate risks of chemical exposure also puts an end to institutional biases that codify environmental racism. 

Let today serve as a reminder to create an equitable and sustainable world for all. As shared in last year’s Juneteenth Daily News, this holiday coincides with National Pollinator Week and represents a time to renew our commitment to environmental justice. This can be achieved by seeking the adoption of transformative solutions that recognize the urgency to address disproportionate harm caused by toxic pesticide production, transportation, use, storage, and disposal.  

We affirm on Juneteenth and during National Pollinator Week the urgent need to support healthy ecosystems through organic land management. These ecosystems are necessary to sustain all life on earth, but are being catastrophically harmed by escalating existential pesticide-induced health crises, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency—all disproportionately affecting people of color in the U.S. and worldwide. 

***
🌱 National Pollinator Week for Thursday! Juneteenth and Environmental Justice! 

As Pollinator Week coincides with the Juneteenth celebration, the time is now to renew our commitment to environmental justice while seeking the adoption of transformational policies and practices that recognize the urgency to address disproportionate harm inflicted by toxic pesticide use. 

What can we do? Transitioning to organic land management, such as with the Parks for a Sustainable Future program, and purchasing organic food supports the health of landscapers and farmworkers. Use the following Action of the Week forms to protect these workers who are disproportionately harmed, as well as to preserve children’s health through access to organic lunches. 

>> Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to make the Local Food for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Cooperative Agreement Program permanent through the Farm Bill.  

You can also speak up for environmental justice and urge your U.S. Representative and Senators to ensure funding for meaningful programs that aim to protect those essential workers who grow our nation’s food, as well as the health of their loved ones. This includes the following programs as poignant examples: 

• The Bioecological Center for Research on Children’s Health project, funded by the EPA, which was designed to identify, understand and address the cumulative impacts of exposures to environmental toxins (pesticides, heavy metals, particulate matter) and non-chemical psychosocial stressors (poverty, food insecurity, trauma, discrimination, etc.)  on the health, development, and growth of farmworker children. Working in collaboration with the Florida State University (FSU) health clinic in Immokalee, the project would have examined threats, implemented strategies to improve health outcomes for farmworker children, and collaboratively established a Center in Immokalee to continue the research, outreach, and services to the community.   

• The Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) program, funded by NIOSH, monitors pesticide-related incidents of injuries, illnesses, and death at the state level, tracking worker pesticide exposure incidents. By providing technical support to state health agencies to train medical professionals on how to diagnose and treat pesticide poisonings, SENSOR strengthens the network of health experts who can help advise farmworkers, pesticide applicators, parents, and others to prevent harm from pesticides, often with disproportionate adverse effects in people of color communities.   

>> Tell Congress to restore funding that protects the health of farmers, farmworkers, and their families.  

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

Sources: 

Cusworth, G. et al. (2025) Microbial repair and ecological justice: A new paradigm for agriculture, Sustainable Agriculture. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44264-025-00062-4. 

Gama, J., Neves, B., and Pereira, A. (2025) Developmental inequity and the impact of pesticide exposure on gut and brain health in developing nations – a Brazilian perspective, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-04229-1. 

Kumar, S. et al. (2025) Pesticide Exposure in Agricultural Workplaces and Resultant Health Effects in Women, Birth Defects Research. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bdr2.2460. 

McInturff, A. et al. (2025) Pathways between people, wildlife and environmental justice in cities, People and Nature. Available at: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10793.  

Moody, D. et al. (2025) Multilevel Racism and Discrimination and Cardiovascular Disease and Related Biopsychosocial Mechanisms: An Integrated Scoping and Literature Review and Future Research Agenda, Current Cardiology Reports. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11886-025-02238-3.  

Wheless, H. and Hoepner, L. (2025) Access to Interpretable Data to Support Disproportionate Health Risks from Industrial Releases: A Case Study on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Datasets and Their Application to the Latinx Communities of Houston, Texas, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/2/291.  

Zajac, L., Landrigan, P., and the Council on Environmental Health and Climate Change (2025) Environmental Issues in Global Pediatric Health: Technical Report, Pediatrics. Available at: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/155/2/e2024070076/200639/Environmental-Issues-in-Global-Pediatric-Health. 

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18, 2025) A major artificial turf manufacturer’s effort to block a webinar about the hazards of synthetic turf has triggered a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against it. That suit, filed in Nassau County, New York, accuses the Polyloom Corporation of America of having engaged in an illegal Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) for trying to block the turf webinar by the non-profit Grassroots Environmental Education, featuring a presentation by a scientist from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). 

The webinar, slated for January 23, 2025, entitled “The Trouble with Turf,” was intended to discuss potential adverse health risks of artificial turf, including the fact that most artificial grass blades contain toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).  The session and material did not mention Polyloom Corporation, which self-describes as “one of the largest designers, producers, recyclers, manufacturers and installers of artificial turf in the United States.” 

Three days before the webinar, Polyloom filed both a complaint and an application for a Temporary Restraining Order, preliminary injunction, and monetary damages against Grassroots, the webinar sponsor, and all the individuals slated to speak in it who were sued in their individual capacities.  Polyloom’s action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  On January 21st, the court ordered the two sides to “meet and confer” before considering any motion to dismiss. As a result, Grassroots agreed to postpone its webinar indefinitely. The Tennessee court recently allowed Polyloom “limited discovery,” which the court stated it did with “some hesitance.” 

The new lawsuit, filed under the Civil Rights Law of New York by all the people and entities named in Polyloom’s action, charges the corporation of having engaged in an illegal SLAPP suit “for the purpose of harassing, intimidating, punishing, or maliciously inhibiting the free exercise of speech, petition or association rights.”  The suit seeks $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages, as well as all costs and attorneys’ fees. 

“Corporate bullies should not get away with using the legal system to quash the truth,” stated PEER Science Policy Director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and PEER’s leading spokesperson on artificial turf issues. Dr. Bennett was one of the scheduled speakers at the cancelled webinar. “The purpose of anti-SLAPP laws, such as New York’s, is to prevent corporations from intimidating people speaking out on matters of public concern.” 

The Grassroots webinar also featured Dr. Sarah Evans, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Jay Feldman, the Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides and an expert on alternatives to artificial turf, and Patricia Wood, Executive Director of Grassroots Environmental Education.  

• Dr. Evans stated, “All communities deserve access to unbiased, scientific information about the potential risks from play on artificial turf. Silencing scientists hurts communities, preventing them from accessing the information that they need to make evidence-based decisions to protect public health.”

• “Our lawsuit is an important attempt to hold Polyloom accountable for false accusations on scientific questions of safety and the potential of synthetic turf to present a hazard to health and the environment,” Mr. Feldman stated. “Beyond Pesticides advances organic land management as an alternative to synthetic turf, and the discussion of this alternative should not be stifled by Polyloom or other corporations that have a vested economic interest in downplaying or misleading on the hazards associated with their products.”

• “Our mission is to educate the public and decision makers about how environmental exposures can impact human health, especially for children,” says Ms. Wood. “Peer-reviewed research indicates that there can be significant adverse health outcomes associated with artificial turf. Toxic chemicals in some infill and other components of the fields, extreme heat, increased risk of injuries, and a plastic playing surface that sheds microplastics are a particular concern for children who are uniquely vulnerable due to immature physiological and behavioral differences.” 

For more information, please contact Kyla Bennett, PhD, Director of Science Policy, Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Director, PEER, at [email protected]. 

Featured in the New York Times article published on June 17, 2025, “Is Fake Grass Safe? A Manufacturer Sues to Stop a Discussion.“

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of PEER and Beyond Pesticides [press release from June 18, 2025]. 

***
🦋 National Pollinator Week for Wednesday! Identifying and Planting for Pollinators 
With pollinators responsible for over 80% of the world’s flowering plants, it’s no wonder we are fighting to protect them. Pollinators are important members of various land ecosystems; therefore, how we manage these ecosystems and landscapes plays a critical role in long-term pollinator health. The expansion of urban, suburban, and agricultural areas reduces pollinator habitat and access to food, while intensive chemical use harms these beneficial organisms. Pesticide applications expose bees, birds, butterflies, and more to acute and sublethal levels of pesticides, which can result in reproductive abnormalities, impaired foraging, and even death.  Please see our brief introduction to pollinators here!  

As a symptomatic example of the ongoing insect apocalypse, populations of both Eastern and Western monarch butterflies have been decreasing in recent years, leading environmentalists to clamor for an “endangered” classification for the species. Monarch butterflies serve as an indicator of the status of insect pollinators and their habitats, whose decline threatens worldwide ecology and agriculture, and exemplifies the failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including the Office of Pesticide Programs, to regulate with a holistic lens that protects biodiversity. Although many factors are involved in the devastation of insect populations, scientific studies show that pesticide use ranks high, led by the use of seeds coated with neonicotinoid insecticides. Other pesticide impacts include mortality from insecticide drift and the destruction of milkweed by herbicides. These impacts are exacerbated by climate change, which is made worse by the production and use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. 

What can we do? You can play a role in protecting pollinators by making an organic garden with colorful, bee-attractive flowering plants, pledging it as pollinator-friendly, or even organizing your community, schools, or local government to make choices that foster pollinators. Don’t have a garden? Windows and balconies are also great places to feature plants to encourage pollinators to stop by! Backyard trees, gardens, and beekeeping are great ways to support biodiversity and pollinators. Intentionally providing water, food, and forage to pollinators will encourage and boost pollinator populations in your community.  It helps to review  Organic Lawn Care 101 best practices and know your weeds—simple steps to convert your lawn to organic!  Check out the BEE Protective Habitat Guide, the Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity resource, which offers hints about increasing biodiversity, and the  Pollinator-Friendly Seed Directory.

Because so many people have been involved in monitoring their populations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has responded to the call to protect monarch butterflies by proposing to list them as a threatened species and designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Join Beyond Pesticides and take action here! 📣 TAKE ACTION: Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize its proposed listing of monarchs as threatened.   

Sources: 

Tabuchi, H. and Belson, K. (2025) Is fake grass safe? A manufacturer sues to stop a discussion. – The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/climate/artificial-turf-grass-lawsuit-defamation-health-risk.html (Accessed: 17 June 2025).

(Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2025) Funding cuts in the current budget bill include drastic cuts in research essential to protect farmers, farmworkers, and their families. There are many federal agencies funding research, but among the most important of those funding research affecting farmers, farmworkers, and their families are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  

>> Tell Congress to restore funding that protects the health of farmers, farmworkers, and their families.

EPA funding for the Bioecological Center for Research on Children’s Health (BeRCH) project was cut after almost two years. This project had the potential to address farmworker children’s health. Farmworker children can face many challenges–including poverty, language barriers, inadequate housing, discrimination, fear of family separation, exposure to agricultural chemicals, food insecurity, and migration. BeRCH was designed to identify, understand, and address the cumulative impacts on the health, development, and growth of farmworker children. The project goals were to examine farmworker children’s exposures to environmental toxins (pesticides, heavy metals, particulate matter) and non-chemical psychosocial stressors (poverty, food insecurity, trauma, discrimination, etc). Working in collaboration with the Florida State University (FSU) health clinic in Immokalee, the project would have examined threats, implemented strategies to improve health outcomes for farmworker children, and collaboratively established a Center in Immokalee to continue the research, outreach, and services to the community.  

The Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) is a NIOSH-funded program that monitors pesticide-related incidents of injuries, illnesses, and death. The program is state-based, and so far, 13 states participate, tracking worker pesticide exposure incidents. Tracking and documenting pesticide exposure cases of farmworkers is now severely curtailed, through cuts to the SENSOR pesticide surveillance program—the only national program tracking pesticide-related illnesses and deaths. By providing technical support to state health agencies to train medical professionals on how to diagnose and treat pesticide poisonings, SENSOR strengthens the network of health experts who can help advise farmworkers, pesticide applicators, parents, and others to prevent harm from pesticides. 

Other cuts to NIOSH have led to concern in the farming community. NIOSH established and has funded Centers for Agricultural Safety and Health, which have provided resources for on-farm studies and training since 1990, will lose federal funding this fall. In addition to researching long-term safety and health issues, the NIOSH-funded centers provide assistance directly to farmers in their region. With the highest fatal injury rate among workers–with 18.6 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2022 compared to 3.7 deaths per 100,000 workers across all industries—these cuts put agricultural workers at disproportionate risk. 

The funding cuts hurt agricultural families, who live near agricultural fields, as well as workers. Although 11 of the Centers for Agricultural Safety and Health work on a broad range of agricultural health and safety topics, the National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety (NCCRAHS) has a more specific mission—to address the needs of children and families who live and work on farms across the country. The NCCRAHS estimates, “About every three days, a child dies in an agriculture-related incident, and each day, at least 33 children are injured. During the past decade, youth worker fatalities in agriculture have exceeded all other industries combined.” It offers educational materials and training to protect agricultural families. 

Broad, untargeted cuts in federal programs hurt agricultural families. Congress should restore funding for programs that support the agricultural workers—and their families—who produce our food. 

>> Tell Congress to restore funding that protects the health of farmers, farmworkers, and their families. 

The target for this Action is the U.S. Congress.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators: 

Funding cuts in the current budget bill include drastic cuts in research essential to protect farmers, farmworkers, and their families. There are many federal agencies funding research, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

EPA funding for the Bioecological Center for Research on Children’s Health (BeRCH) project was cut after almost 2 years. This project had the potential to address farmworker children’s health. Farmworker children can face many challenges. BeRCH was designed to identify, understand, and address their cumulative impacts on the health, development, and growth of farmworker children. The project goals were to examine farmworker children’s exposures to environmental toxins (pesticides, heavy metals, particulate matter) and non-chemical psychosocial stressors (poverty, food insecurity, trauma, discrimination, etc).  Working in collaboration with the Florida State University (FSU) health clinic in Immokalee, the project would have examined threats, implemented strategies to improve health outcomes for farmworker children, and collaboratively established a Center in Immokalee to continue the research, outreach, and services to the community. 

The Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) is a NIOSH-funded program that monitors pesticide-related incidents of injuries, illnesses, and death. The program is state-based, and so far, 13 states participate, tracking worker pesticide exposure incidents. Tracking and documenting pesticide exposure cases of farmworkers is now severely curtailed, through cuts to the SENSOR pesticide surveillance program–the only national program tracking pesticide-related illnesses and deaths. By providing technical support to state health agencies to train medical professionals on how to diagnose and treat pesticide poisonings, SENSOR strengthens the network of health experts who can help advise farmworkers, pesticide applicators, parents, and others to prevent harm from pesticides.

Other cuts to NIOSH have led to concern in the farming community. NIOSH established and has funded Centers for Agricultural Safety and Health, which have provided resources for on-farm studies and training since 1990, will lose federal funding this fall. In addition to researching long-term safety and health issues, the NIOSH-funded centers directly assist farmers in their region. With the highest fatal injury rate among workers–with 18.6 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2022 compared to 3.7 deaths per 100,000 workers across all industries—these cuts put agricultural workers at disproportionate risk.

The funding cuts hurt agricultural families, who live near agricultural fields, as well as workers. Although 11 of the Centers for Agricultural Safety and Health work on a broad range of agricultural health and safety topics, the National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety (NCCRAHS) has a more specific mission—to address the needs of children and families who live and work on farms across the country. The NCCRAHS estimates, “About every three days, a child dies in an agriculture-related incident, and each day, at least 33 children are injured. During the past decade, youth worker fatalities in agriculture have exceeded all other industries combined.” It offers educational materials and training to protect agricultural families.

Broad, untargeted cuts in federal programs hurt agricultural families. Please restore funding for programs that support the agricultural workers—and their families—who produce our food.

Thank you.

***
🏞️ National Pollinator Week for Tuesday! Parks for a Sustainable Future—Become an Advocate!

“Envision an organic community where local parks, playing fields, and greenways are managed without unnecessary toxic pesticides, children and pets are safe to run around on the grass, and bees and other pollinators are safeguarded from toxic chemicals… this is the future we envision and are working to achieve.”

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!  

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

***Featured Art Page submissions for National Pollinator Week, highlighted with the gratitude of Beyond Pesticides: Jesse from Livermore, CA: “Honeybee Pollinating Citrus Blossom”; Yumi from New York, NY: “Birds and the Bees”; Gretchen from Helena, MT: “Butterflies”; Janet from Concord, MA: “Beneath the Big Dipper”; and Trix from Petersburg, NY: “Downy Woodpecker.”

(Beyond Pesticides, June 16, 2025) Every year, Beyond Pesticides announces National Pollinator Week to remind eaters of food, gardeners, farmers, communities (including park districts to school districts), civic organizations, responsible corporations, policy makers, and legislators that there are actions that can be taken that are transformative. All the opportunities for action to protect pollinators, and the ecosystems that are critical to their survival, can collectively be transformational in eliminating toxic pesticides that are major contributors to the collapse of biodiversity. This is why Beyond Pesticides starts most discussions and strategic actions for meaningful pollinator and biodiversity protection with the transition to practicing and supporting organic. 

In launching National Pollinator Week, Beyond Pesticides makes suggestions for individual actions to increase efforts to think and act holistically to protect the environment that supports pollinators. The impact that people have starts with grocery store purchases and the management of gardens, parks, playing fields, and public lands. The introduction of pesticides into our food supply and managed lands has contributed to an unsustainable downward spiral. The good news is that it is now proven that we do not need toxic pesticides to grow food productively and profitably (nor are they required to manage ballfields, parks, and public spaces). 

That is why, in very realistic terms, Beyond Pesticides says that pollinator protection starts with organic practices. Pollinators—bees, butterflies, birds, bats, and other organisms—make a critical contribution to plant health, crop productivity, and the preservation of natural resources, but their existence is threatened by pesticide-contaminated habitats. Throughout the week, Beyond Pesticides will weave together actions that can be taken to promote the health of pollinators. Although these actions can include the establishment of pollinator-friendly plants, the first step is providing a safe place for pollinators to live, eat, reproduce, and take refuge from predators and adverse weather. In this context, pollinator conservation begins with organic management of the environment. 

In recognition of the importance of pollinators and biodiversity to a healthy environment and healthy people during National Pollinator Week, Beyond Pesticides announces a week of activities and actions! Everything here you can find on our webpage, National Pollinator Week Kicks Off with a Week of Actions! Check out our daily celebration of unsung Pollinator heroes as well!  

Pollinator Week 2025 by Beyond Pesticides

Monday: Pollinator Protection Starts with Organic Practices 
Pollinators—bees, butterflies, birds, bats, and other organisms—make a critical contribution to plant health, crop productivity, and the preservation of natural resources, but their existence is threatened by pesticide-contaminated habitats! Throughout the week, we will suggest actions that you can take to promote the health of pollinators. Although these actions can include establishing pollinator-friendly plants, the first step is providing a safe place for pollinators to live, eat, reproduce, and take refuge from predators and adverse weather.   

In other words, pollinator conservation begins with organic management of their environment.  📣 TAKE ACTION: Tell your Congressional Representative and Senators to cosponsor bills supporting organic agriculture.   

In addition, millions of miles of roads, utility lines, railroad corridors, and other types of rights-of-way (ROWs) are treated with pesticides to control unwanted plants and insects. Some states have addressed the risk of using pesticides along ROWs by developing integrated pest management (IPM) programs, restricting when and where pesticides can be applied on ROWs, and/or providing no-spray agreements. Planting native vegetation, using mechanical, biological, and least-toxic vegetation control methods, is effective in reducing and eliminating toxic pesticide applications. 

What can we do?  Take action, and encourage your community to develop an integrated roadside vegetation management program for roadside management. Cut, girdle, mow, or use grazing animals whenever possible as a mechanical means to eradicate unwanted vegetation. Establish a roadside wildflower program that plants native flower and grass species, especially those that are attractive to bees and other pollinators. Avoid pesticides such as 2,4-D, glyphosate (Roundup), dicamba, picloram, and triclopyr for roadside management. Look to our Pesticide Gateway page for more information!  

🖼️ Featured image: “Honeybee Pollinating Citrus Blossom” submitted by Jesse from Livermore, CA! (Arts Page) 

Tuesday: Parks for a Sustainable Future—Become an Advocate! 
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 to three 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 the 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. 

What can we do? Become a parks advocate!  Beyond Pesticides is interested in working with you to encourage your community to transition to organic land care. Our training program starts small, with two to three demonstration sites, but often becomes the basis for broader change to land care practices throughout the entire community. 

More we can do!  Determine whether your state, school, or community has a law or policy governing pesticide usage in and around schools, or on public lands. Find out if, and how well, it is being implemented, and if you do not have a law, call for an organic land care policy in your community. Petition the school and the town parks department to convert the playing fields to organic care and require the grounds maintenance director and/or contractors to be trained in organic land care.  

Envision an organic community where local parks, playing fields, and greenways are managed without unnecessary toxic pesticides, children and pets are safe to run around on the grass, and bees and other pollinators are safeguarded from toxic chemicals. At Beyond Pesticides, this is the future we envision and are working to achieve. 

🖼️ Featured image: “Birds and the Bees” submitted by Yumi from New York, NY! (Arts Page) 

Wednesday: Identifying and Planting for Pollinators 
With pollinators responsible for over 80% of the world’s flowering plants, it’s no wonder we are fighting to protect them. Pollinators are important members of various land ecosystems; therefore, how we manage these ecosystems and landscapes plays a critical role in long-term pollinator health. The expansion of urban, suburban, and agricultural areas reduces pollinator habitat and access to food, while intensive chemical use harms these beneficial organisms. Pesticide applications expose bees, birds, butterflies, and more to acute and sublethal levels of pesticides, which can result in reproductive abnormalities, impaired foraging, and even death.  Please see our brief introduction to pollinators here!  

As a symptomatic example of the ongoing insect apocalypse, populations of both Eastern and Western monarch butterflies have been decreasing in recent years, leading environmentalists to clamor for an “endangered” classification for the species. Monarch butterflies serve as an indicator of the status of insect pollinators and their habitats, whose decline threatens worldwide ecology and agriculture, and exemplifies the failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including the Office of Pesticide Programs, to regulate with a holistic lens that protects biodiversity. Although many factors are involved in the devastation of insect populations, scientific studies show that pesticide use ranks high, led by the use of seeds coated with neonicotinoid insecticides. Other pesticide impacts include mortality from insecticide drift and the destruction of milkweed by herbicides. These impacts are exacerbated by climate change, which is made worse by the production and use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. 

Because so many people have been involved in monitoring their populations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has responded to the call to protect monarch butterflies by proposing to list them as a threatened species and designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Join Beyond Pesticides and take action here! 📣 TAKE ACTION: Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize its proposed listing of monarchs as threatened.   

What can we do? You can play a role in protecting pollinators simply by making an organic garden with colorful, bee-attractive flowering plants, pledging it as pollinator-friendly, or even organizing your community, schools, or local government to make choices that foster pollinators. Don’t have a garden? Windows and balconies are also great places to feature plants to encourage pollinators to stop by! Backyard trees, gardens, and beekeeping are great ways to support biodiversity and pollinators. Intentionally providing water, food, and forage to pollinators will encourage and boost pollinator populations in your community.  

It helps to review Organic Lawn Care 101 best practices and know your weeds—simple steps to convert your lawn to organic!  Check out the BEE Protective Habitat Guide, the Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity resource, which offers hints about increasing biodiversity, and the Pollinator-Friendly Seed Directory.

Additionally, please see the short film [above] “The Seeds That Poison,” a Beyond Pesticides feature video highlighting the hazards associated with a major use of bee-toxic pesticides—seed coatings!  

🖼️ Featured image: “Butterflies” submitted by Gretchen from Helena, MT! (Arts Page) 

Thursday: Juneteenth and Environmental Justice 
In a 2022 interview with Southern Environmental Law Center, Robert Bullard, PhD—known as the father of environmental justice—defines the term as the embracement of “the principle that all communities, all people, are entitled to equal protection of our environmental laws, housing laws, transportation laws…civil rights laws, human rights laws, and health laws and regulations.” 

As Pollinator Week coincides with the Juneteenth celebration, the time is now to renew our commitment to environmental justice while seeking the adoption of transformational policies and practices that recognize the urgency to address disproportionate harm inflicted by toxic pesticide use.  Those fighting for environmental justice understand that the harms inflicted by toxic chemical production and use cause disproportionate adverse effects on people of color—from fenceline communities near chemical production plants to the hazardous and inhumane working conditions in agricultural fields, to the elevated risk factors for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) from toxic pesticide exposure.    

Amidst the overwhelming evidence of disproportionate risks to POC in marginalized communities from pesticide exposure that result in deleterious health effects, showcased in studies and research spanning decades [and tracked by Beyond Pesticides!], there is a solution that can address this environmental injustice. Stay tuned for the Daily News featured on Juneteenth this Thursday, June 19, 2025! 
 
What can we do? You can speak up for environmental justice and urge your U.S. Representative and Senators to ensure funding for meaningful programs that aim to protect those essential workers who grow our nation’s food, as well as the health of their loved ones. This includes the following programs as poignant examples: 

• The Bioecological Center for Research on Children’s Health project, funded by the EPA, which was designed to identify, understand and address the cumulative impacts of exposures to environmental toxins (pesticides, heavy metals, particulate matter) and non-chemical psychosocial stressors (poverty, food insecurity, trauma, discrimination, etc.)  on the health, development, and growth of farmworker children. Working in collaboration with the Florida State University (FSU) health clinic in Immokalee, the project would have examined threats, implemented strategies to improve health outcomes for farmworker children, and collaboratively established a Center in Immokalee to continue the research, outreach, and services to the community.  

• The Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) program, funded by NIOSH, monitors pesticide-related incidents of injuries, illnesses, and death at the state level, tracking worker pesticide exposure incidents. By providing technical support to state health agencies to train medical professionals on how to diagnose and treat pesticide poisonings, SENSOR strengthens the network of health experts who can help advise farmworkers, pesticide applicators, parents, and others to prevent harm from pesticides, often with disproportionate adverse effects in people of color communities.  

📣 TAKE ACTION: Tell Congress to restore funding that protects the health of farmers, farmworkers, and their families.  

🖼️ Featured image: “Beneath the Big Dipper” submitted by Janet from Concord, MA! (Arts Page) 

Friday: Time to  Spread the Buzz! 
In view of EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from pesticides, the lives of those essential insects, birds, and mammals are increasingly dependent on state and local laws that are under threat. In particular, bird species are crucially important for preserving biodiversity, as well as providing ecosystem services such as pollination and mosquito management. Protection of birds and their habitats allows for other organisms, including humans, to prosper. 

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. 📣 TAKE ACTION: Tell your governor and mayor to protect birds by adopting policies that support organic land management.  

In addition, the Trump administration has removed crucial protections established under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), including those that protect birds from pesticide poisoning. Until 2017, MBTA protected migratory birds from such incidental taking as oil and gas operations, which account for 90% of migratory bird deaths, industrialization, and pesticide use. The Migratory Bird Protection Act (MBPA), introduced in May by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), will restore protections against an “incidental take,” but alone, it only returns to a status quo approach. Additional measures are needed, including a wholescale conversion to organic agriculture and land care, as well as reducing dependence on petrochemicals in other ways.  📣 TAKE ACTION: Tell your U.S. Representative to cosponsor the Migratory Bird Protection Act (H.R. 3188).  

What else can we do? Order a Pesticide-Free Zone sign to showcase your organic yard or garden, share resources with your community, and share photos of pollinators on social media of with the hashtags #PollinatorWeek or #ProtectPollinators—then submit them to our Art Page! The banner for Pollinator Week highlights art submissions from members of the public to our Art Page! 🐝 

🖼️ Featured image: “Downy Woodpecker” submitted by Trix from Petersburg, NY! (Arts Page) 

Food for Thought  in Closing 

“We need worms to create soil; flies and beetles and fungi to break down dung; ladybirds and hoverflies to eat greenflies; bees and butterflies to pollinate plants to provide food, oxygen, fuel, and medicines, and hold the soil together; and bacteria to help plants fix nitrogen and to help cows to digest grass. . . [yet] we often choose to squander the irreplaceable, to discard those things that both keep us alive and make life worth living. Perhaps if we learn to save a bee today, we can save the world tomorrow?” 

—David Goulson, PhD, National Forum Speaker,  A Sting in the Tale (2013) 

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 13, 2025) A report highlights the ongoing stress to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed from pollutants, particularly pesticides. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the contiguous United States, with tributaries shared among six states and the District of Columbia. It receives runoff from nine major river systems traversing a wide mix of land uses, with significant agricultural and urban areas nearest the Bay and forest along the western boundary. Nearly 13 million people get their drinking water from the watershed.

The watershed report by the Maryland Pesticide Education Network focuses primarily on the herbicide atrazine, the neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam, and per- and polyfluorinated compounds (PFAS).

Atrazine needs little introduction, being notorious for disrupting hormones, particularly estrogen, as demonstrated by the pioneering work of Tyrone Hayes and more recent research analyzed by Beyond Pesticides here, here and here. In male fish, it can trigger production of egg proteins, especially vitellogenin, and development of eggs in their testicles. These are manifestations of intersex, in which an organism shows forms of sexual differentiation of both sexes.

The Chesapeake watershed report notes that atrazine and metolachlor (also an estrogen/androgen disruptor and suspected human carcinogen) occur together frequently in the Chesapeake Bay. While many estrogen-related compounds in waterways are thought to come from wastewater treatment plants, agricultural runoff containing these pesticides can also trigger endocrine reactions.

Among their possible victims are the world-famous Chesapeake Bay oysters, which are an important part of the Bay’s food web. Oysters filter millions of gallons of water a day. The report cites research showing that oysters lose their beneficial microbes when exposed to low concentrations of atrazine. This leads to opportunistic colonization by pathogenic microbes, posing a risk to the long-term survival of oysters and to the health of the bay generally.

The neonicotinoids are also implicated. The watershed report cites research showing that thiamethoxam, a known bee-killer banned for outdoor use in the European Union, correlates with intersex in fish. In Beyond Pesticides’ 2017 Pesticides and You report, its presence in the Chesapeake watershed was noted. Under chronic exposures, neonicotinoids are known to bind to estrogen and androgen receptors, affecting vitellogenin production.

But perhaps the most unnerving threat to the health of Chesapeake Bay is from PFAS. In addition to the atrazine, metolachlor, thiamethoxam, glyphosate, and legacy organochlorine pesticides found in the watershed, the report notes, “Within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, PFAS were detected in every smallmouth bass plasma sample amongst four varying land use locations (agriculture versus developed land).” This raises the question, the authors write, “whether pesticides of concern described within this report may have synergistic and detrimental effects when combined with per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances.”

Concern has been building about these “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment and are so ubiquitous that they are “present from the far Arctic reaches of the planet to urban rainwater,” as a 2024 Science magazine article put it. A growing body of research is identifying their deleterious effects on ecosystems and individual species, including humans, as detailed in Beyond Pesticides’ news brief here. The EPA itself found that reducing PFAS exposure would induce “kidney cancers, heart attacks, strokes, and developmental effects, as well as a general reduction in harms to the immune, developmental, cardiovascular, hepatic, endocrine, metabolic, reproductive, and musculoskeletal systems,” according to a 2024 review in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Several years ago, Beyond Pesticides and other concerned citizen groups raised alarms about the leaching of PFAS from pesticide containers into the products themselves. In 2022 EPA admitted as much. In July 2024, EPA granted a petition from a group of citizen organizations to address the problem in pesticide containers. In fact, the leaching of PFAS into high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers goes far beyond pesticides, as food is often stored in them as well. See our analysis here.

But it is not just containers. It is the pesticides themselves. Despite the evidence and EPA’s own admission of PFAS’s toxicities, the number of products containing PFAS is burgeoning out of control to replace banned organochlorines such as DDT and methoxychlor. In 2020, fluorinated agrochemicals comprised about nine percent of the pesticide market, and have now reached almost 70 percent of newly-approved pesticides, according to a 2025 review in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

In fact, the pesticide industry is charging full steam ahead on PFAS, apparently ignoring the harms acknowledged by EPA. A 2022 review by Portuguese researchers noted that “Fluorine-based agrochemicals have been benchmarked as the golden standard in pesticide development.” A Chinese-Swedish review that year stated, “We believe the fluorine introduction methods described here can provide ideas for the development of new and economical pesticide synthetic routes, and stimulate researchers to develop new fluorine incorporation methods and create new pesticides…The dramatic effect of fluorine on the biological activity of agrochemicals such as fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, acaricides, and nematicides has earned fluorine a unique place in the toolbox of the agrochemical chemists.”

Syngenta has even put out a call for ideas to “enable the fluorine-efficient design of new agro-chemical products,” to counteract “emerging regulatory trends [that] have led to increased scrutiny of all fluorinated compounds, regardless of their demonstrated properties.”

The chemical industry’s appalling lack of attention to—or even awareness of—the downstream unintended ecological and health consequences of pesticide chemistry is nowhere better illustrated than in this line of research. There is clearly no industry intention to reduce the development and marketing of PFAS pesticides. The firewall between industrial chemistry and public health must be dismantled, not reinforced, for there to be any lasting improvement in planetary and human health.

Further, regulatory momentum is likely to slow considerably. EPA has demonstrated some confusion since the November 2024 presidential election. That month, the agency issued a document stating, “PFAS …are an urgent threat to public health and the environment…The science is clear: exposure to certain PFAS poses significant risks to human health, including cancer, even at very low levels.” The document is a “strategic roadmap” for restricting and remediating PFAS in the environment and investing in more research.

But most recently, on May 14, the Trump administration delayed implementation of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation PFAS standards and declined to reduce the maximum levels of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. Even during the last year of the Biden administration, Trump-appointed EPA officials prevented EPA staffers from warning the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee about a loophole that would allow companies to avoid reporting releases of PFAS in the Toxics Release Inventory and avert a designation of PFAS as “chemicals of special concern.”

Thus, for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the thousands of other ecosystems around the world, there is still a strong headwind obstructing real progress. The report does highlight one bright ray of light: Since organochlorine pesticides have been banned, “[T]here is no longer a discernible relation between halogenated contaminants in osprey eggs and their reproductive success in Chesapeake Bay. Osprey populations are thriving in much of the Chesapeake, with productivity rates exceeding those required to sustain a stable population. These results highlight the positive effect of federal or state banning of pesticides.” The report cites an estimate that the total population of ospreys has increased from 1,450 pairs in the 1970s to nearly 10,000 pairs today.

The report also stresses a set of best management practices that can have real benefits by preventing the flow of agricultural runoff, wastewater plant effluent, and other terrestrial contaminant sources into the Chesapeake basin. These include filtration systems, stormwater systems, permeable pavement, and riparian buffer zones. According to the report, riparian buffer zones alone can reduce pesticide presence by 70-94 percent. In urban settings, best management practices can cut pesticide pollution by 25 percent.

Beyond Pesticides has been supporting concrete approaches to these practices for decades, such as organic land and lawn care on state and local public lands, residential properties, schools, golf courses, and in agriculture; and the transition to regenerative agriculture. The return of the osprey to Chesapeake Bay shows that change can happen, and the citizen energy that saved the birds can continue to fuel the transition to a truly healthy world.

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

Sources:
Pesticides and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Communicating Recent Pesticide Research
Findings to Inform Stakeholders | 2010-2021
Pesticides & the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Project Research & Data Gaps Working Group, MPEN
May 27, 2025
https://y6bcan6ab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001gtW_lwTJX1A97NSFqkBSBljtkcihyCOCk7n6mufEXAJRUez0wdz1GB2Ovj6INMOSjBwiJH396_TGZAiSCmr_M4kfVmEvQs8TJrV4oWSm-o0oNy-XWqr1UNPOdO2Sd9yDZyQ0RyZDgV9BWl9g6rq29BcYsuXXFoCrNGVjKYQ6MK8eO0RaIEqyJA2nKG2HhrXRK9JrsN2wXPrhoMWkDhj6pQUPJMMHUTi2ZtYIH1Lq-iHHM66-oPCNCOgmg8BUtuDRO9hyuImsM6M=&c=VQ3A1HRLB_Q-JQv7WLqiObLkH_2RgLWh5iT2NA7xgsYBHRF4nfaweg==&ch=CcRoX4OaF-gHvTjzcNYqo_hOQ_NFUpietAQUOft5V9Yx0XQ4nHs25g==

Forever Pesticides: A Growing Source of PFAS Contamination in the Environment
Donley et al.
Environmental Health Perspectives July 2024
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/epdf/10.1289/EHP13954

EPA Confirms PFAS “Forever Chemicals” Leach into Pesticides from Storage Containers
Beyond Pesticides, September 14, 2022
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2022/09/epa-confirms-pfas-forever-chemicals-leach-into-pesticides-from-storage-containers/

Science on “Forever Chemicals” (PFAS) as Pesticide Ingredients and Contaminants Documented
Beyond Pesticides, July 31, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/07/science-on-forever-chemicals-pfas-as-pesticide-ingredients-and-contaminants-supports-need-for-immediate-action-to-end-their-use/

The Rise and Risks of Fluorinated Pesticides: A Call for Comprehensive Research to Address Environmental and Health Concerns
Ravikumar Jagani, Hiraj Patel, Jasmin Chovatiya, and Syam S. Andra
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2025 73 (4), 2217-2220
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.4c12827
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acs.jafc.4c12827?ref=article_openPDF

New Study Finds Alarming Rise in Persistent ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Pesticides—
PFAS From Pesticide Products Detected in Rivers, Streams Throughout United States
Center for Biological Diversity, July 2024
https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-study-finds-alarming-rise-in-persistent-forever-chemicals-in-pesticides-2024-07-24/

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the environment
Evich et al.
Science February 2022
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/pmid/35113710/

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2025) Thailand-based researchers, in a study published in BMC Veterinary Research, found significant documentation of the occurrence of anticoagulant rodenticide (AR)-induced toxicosis for nontarget organisms in the country. This includes the finding that “all submitted samples of suspected AR exposure in wild animals and exotic pets tested positive for ARs.” These findings signal the pervasive nature in which agrichemical products, including anticoagulant and nonanticoagulant rodenticides, encroach on broader ecosystem health. In an era of federal deregulation and increasing public scrutiny of the role of government in addressing public health, biodiversity, and the climate crisis, advocates continue to call for a wholesale transition to organically managed food and land management systems.

Background and Methodology 

“In this retrospective study, we investigated the occurrence of AR poisoning in animal specimens analy[z]ed at the Department of Veterinary Pharmacology, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Chulalongkorn University (DVPCU), between 2018 and 2023,” say the authors on the primary focus of this study. “This study aims to provide a reference dataset for future research on the epidemiology of AR toxicosis in nontarget species.” The authors declared that there were “no competing interests” in engaging in this research. 

The anticoagulant rodenticides were detected through two forms of chemical analysis: “thin layer chromatography (TLC) and spectral analysis via derivative spectrophotometry.” There were 55 animal cases submitted to DVPCU for this study, including “43 dogs, 6 cats, 3 Patagonian maras, one goose, one turkey, and one wild boar.” 

Results 

“Among these cases, 35 (63.6%) tested positive for AR poisoning using both TLC and spectrophotometry methods ()[,]” says the authors in this study. “Within the AR-positive group of 35 cases, dogs accounted for 27 cases (77.1%), followed by two cats (5.7%), one goose (2.9%), one turkey (2.9%), one wild boar (2.4%) and 3 Patagonian maras (8.6%).” It is important to note that the “Cohen’s kappa value was 0.421, indicating moderate agreement” between the AR-positive test results for the various intestinal tissue samples included in this study. As stated by the authors, “[T]he most prevalent lesion observed in all submitted specimens was hemorrhage in the liver.” 

Cohen’s kappa value is utilized in research settings to capture the strength of the interrater reliability for this study, which refers to the “reproducibility” of the same measurement (i.e., ecotoxicological impact of a rodenticide) among multiple scientists or scientific teams. (See here and here for additional information on kappa value and interrater reliability.) 

“In terms of specimen types, liver samples have proven to be the most appropriate for detecting ARs due to their high accumulation. . .,” say the study authors. The authors suggest “that stomach content analysis [for AR-induced Toxicosis] may be a useful complementary tool alongside liver testing, which has not been previously reported” in the existing scientific literature. Considering that certain laboratories may not host suitable equipment to adequately scan for AR toxicity, the authors view this development as critical for future research. 

Previous Research and Actions 

There are a significant number of peer-reviewed studies that document the toxic nature of rodenticides. 

Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) have been found in the tissue of various aquatic and terrestrial organisms, leading researchers and conservationists to increasingly scrutinize the role of toxic pesticide drift from bait stations to streams, forests, and other habitats. See our previous Daily News, Research Highlights Regulatory Failures in Addressing Risks to Nontarget Organisms from Rodenticides, for additional analysis on some of the latest peer-reviewed research out there on rodenticides. 

Beyond Pesticides has submitted comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Office of Pesticide Programs, including in early 2024, expressing disagreement with the categorical no effect (NE) determinations for all freshwater and marine fish, aquatic mammals, aquatic amphibians, aquatic reptiles, and aquatic invertebrates. (See here for Daily News, here for Action of the Week, and here for EPA comments.) In response to continuous concerns raised by the public that their beloved pets and wildlife are being poisoned by toxic substances, including rodenticides, in 2023 EPA announced the release of over a decade worth of pesticide incident data in a searchable database that will be updated on a monthly basis through the Incident Data System (IDS). (See Daily News here.) According to an analysis at the time by the Center for Biological Diversity, 1,169 incidents involve the toxic PFAS rodenticide brodifacoum, one of the most widely used rodenticides in rat poison products. 

Unfortunately, by the agency’s own admission, it has “limited confidence in the accuracy and validity of the data because the data entries are reports of one or more individuals’ perspective of what happened.” Rather than take a precautionary approach based on the known harms of the substances at hand, EPA continues to prioritize mitigation over prevention of poisonings at the root cause— a systemic failure to improve the regulatory system. 

See here for additional Daily News coverage on rodenticides and their ecological and public health impacts on people and ecosystems. 

Call to Action 

There are policymakers taking action to address the issue of runaway pesticide deregulation and rubberstamping of their continuous use in spite of the abundance of peer-reviewed scientific literature indicating severe public health and environmental dangers from anticoagulant rodenticides. 

On May 7, 2025, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development in Kenya took significant steps to prevent pesticide poisonings and ecological harms with, as they describe it, “the bold announcement to ban over 50 pesticide products from the Kenyan market.” This action follows a court ruling on March 19 in the Kenya Court of Appeal “blocked the Kenyan government from importing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the country[,]” according to a press release by Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA). See here for the Kenya Ministry of Agriculture’s press release and here for the press release representing civil society commending the government’s action.) 

In Vermont, there are efforts to pass legislation (H.326) to address the issue of anticoagulant and nonanticoagulant rodenticides in decimating wildlife and undermining ecosystem integrity. “The first step in pest management is pest prevention,” says Jay Feldman, Sara Grantham, and Max Sano in written comments submitted to the Vermont legislature on holistic pest management practices. “IRM is an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach that places strong emphasis on sanitation, pest exclusion (which includes addressing human behavior and structural pest proofing), education, and training. To address human behavior, one must focus on food, water, and harborage (FWAH) for rodents. These three factors can help regulators determine the extent of rodent infestation and the causes.” For additional scientific analysis, see our full written testimony here. 

Are you interested in taking action? Learn more about how to become an advocate for the Parks for a Sustainable Future Program and engage in an Action of the Week. 

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

Source: BMC Veterinary Research

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2025) Researchers developed a novel tool* in a recent study published in Nature Communications this year that successfully creates a map of the “pesticide-gut microbiota-metabolite network,” identifying “significant alterations in gut bacteria metabolism.”

While the study authors acknowledge that this is not a complete map, since they selected specific pesticides and bacterial partners, the research adds to the body of peer-reviewed scientific literature that underscores the relationship between pesticide residues and human gut health. Organic farmers, as well as any land steward invested in agroecological practices and soil health, understand that microbial life (both in the body and in the soil) is dangerously undermined by the status quo of chemical-intensive land management.

Background and Methodology

The researchers leverage mass spectrometry to test metabolite (metabolomics) and lipid (lipidomics) relationships with pesticide residues, as well as an in vivo mouse model. *The map itself is a form of computational biology, which advocates have warned could be a false solution if not accompanied by other proven scientific methods. See here for analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council on risks of unproven methods such as New Approach Methodologies [NAMs].

All major phylogenetic (“evolutionary relationships among biological entities”) groups are represented in the bacterial strains studied: 7 Bacteroidetes, 7 Firmicutes, 2 Actinobacteria, and 1 Proteobacteria. There were 18 pesticide compounds (active ingredients and metabolites) tested in relation to the above bacterial strains, including organochlorines (endosulfan, methoxychlor, and DDT metabolites 4,4’-DDT, 4,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDD); organophosphates (chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos metabolite TCP [3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol], dichlorvos, malathion, fenitrothion, parathion, diazinon); pyrethroids (permethrin and cypermethrin); carbamates (carbaryl), glyphosate, and malathion dicarboxylic acid (metabolite of malathion).

Results

The researchers signal that microbial metabolite and lipid profiles can serve as biomarkers for environmental exposure and disease diagnosis; however, more studies are necessary.

Key findings identified by the researchers who conducted this study include:

• 306 pesticide-bacteria pairs showing significant potential metabolic shifts in the gut microbiome.
• 40 metabolic pathways are disrupted; more specifically, pathways involving nucleotide synthesis, amino acid metabolism, and tryptophan, propanoate, and bile acid pathways. This is critical to understanding of public health, as nucleotides are considered one of the building blocks of RNA and DNA (National Human Genome Research Institute), amino acids are important energy sources for the human body (Nature), tryptophan and propanoate serve essential functions for metabolic regulation (Endocrinology) and bile acid is critical for disposal of toxic metabolites and absorption of lipid-soluble vitamins and essential dietary fats. (ScienceDirect).

This in vivo mouse study also validated these metabolic changes based on the bacterial-pesticide relationship. For example, mice in this study that were recolonized with B. ovatus and exposed to 4,4′-DDE exhibited:

• Systemic metabolic changes identified in the brain, liver, intestine, and lung, among other organs.
• Altered levels of lipids, purines (building block of DNA and RNA), N-acylethanolamine (NAEs), short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), and bile acids (BAs).
• Suppression of TLR4/NF-κB inflammatory signaling, indicating microbial modulation of host immunity.
• Measurable pesticide residues in tissues, including the brain and gut.

Previous Research

There has been mounting scientific evidence in recent years that identifies various exposure pathways of concern that may be contributing to poorer health outcomes for the gut microbiome, as documented in previous Daily News reports, and the Pesticide-Induced Disease Database.

University of Illinois researchers in 2020 published a literature review in Toxicological Sciences looking at how various environmental contaminants adversely affect and reinforce chemical disruption of the gut microbiome. The review details manufacturing compounds in commonly-purchased consumer products, like bisphenols (BPA) and phthalates in plastic packaging and vinyl flooring. The review also examines the science behind the exposure to numerous persistent organic pollutants (POPs) like pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in non-stick cookware, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (flame retardants), and dioxins (byproducts of pesticide manufacturing and burning organic material like fossil fuels). The research highlighted in this review looks at the adverse impacts of these chemicals in rodents (e.g., rats, mice), aquatic organisms (e.g., fish, amphibians), birds (e.g., chickens), larger mammals (e.g., dogs, cows, human adults, and infants), insects (e.g., honey bees), and other organisms. (See Daily News here.)

In 2022, a robust report published in Environmental Health and developed in partnership with researchers at King’s College London, the Center for Microbiome Analyses and Therapeutics (Netherlands), the Metabolomic Medicine Clinic (Greece), and the University Hospital of Limoges (France) identified over 300 environmental contaminants in collected fecal and urine samples. The report examined dietary exposure to 186 common pesticide residues in the fecal excrement to determine impacts on the microbiome among 65 twins in the United Kingdom and investigated if associations between gut health and various variables can also impact concentrations of pesticide residues in excrement to indicate gut health alterations. In terms of pesticide residues, the report finds that all urine samples contain pyrethroid or organophosphate insecticide residues, with 53 percent of urine samples containing glyphosate. Additionally, participants who consume more fruits and vegetables grown with chemical-intensive practices have higher concentrations of organophosphate residues. Although urinary metabolite (pesticide breakdown product) excretion lacks a correlation with gut microbial changes, there are 34 associations between the concentration of pesticide residues and metabolite residues in fecal matter and gut health. Glyphosate excretion in the fecal matter correlates with an increase in bacterial species richness, fatty acid metabolites, and phosphate concentrations in the gut. For pyrethroids, the deltamethrin metabolite, Br2CA, has a positive association with phytoestrogens enterodiol (dietary estrogen) and a negative association with specific amino acids in the gut. (See Daily News here.)

Specific pesticides and classes of pesticide active ingredients, such as glyphosate, neonicotinoids, azoxystrobin, among others, have been linked to adverse human gut health impacts. Researchers based at the University of Turku (Finland) developed a bioinformatics tool in 2021 to determine that “54% of species in the core human gut microbiome are sensitive to glyphosate.” (See Daily News here.) Researchers published a study in the World Journal of Pediatrics, finding an association between antibiotic and neonicotinoid (neonic) exposure and the onset of pediatric (childhood) type 1 diabetes (T1D) through its effects on the gut microbiome. This can have a compounding effect on afflicted participants, as children with type 1 diabetes are at higher risk of other autoimmune disorders, including thyroid and celiac disease. (See Daily News here.) The widely used fungicide azoxystrobin has been linked to disrupting the function of the intestinal (colonic) barrier responsible for the absorption of nutrients and defense against harmful substances. This function is critical to the health of the gut microbiome. This study demonstrates that exposure alters the ability of gut bacteria to break down proteins, fats, carbohydrates, or other macronutrients into residual metabolites, which constitute the metabolic profile. (See Daily News here.)

For more information on the importance of soil health and “the underground ecosystem” to the gut microbiome, please see our “Letter from Washington” and the work of David Montgomery, PhD, featured speaker at Beyond Pesticides’ 35th National Pesticide Forum. 

Call to Action

Public health and environmental advocates are calling for solutions grounded in science. It is critical that agencies charged with protecting the food supply chain move forward in such a manner, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). See here to contact HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, to revise the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on pesticide residues and set more protective standards.

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

Source: Nature Communications

(Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2025) An industry-led campaign to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their “failure to warn” about the hazards of their pesticide products has failed to move forward in nine state legislatures with significant GOP majorities (Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, and Oklahoma). As the Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission released its first report to assess the root causes of childhood diseases and adverse health conditions, there continues to be an ongoing fight among forces within the Trump Administration on whether pesticides should even be mentioned. (See here for The New York Times coverage.)

As federal funding cuts make their way through the Budget Reconciliation process, communities around the country are calling on their elected officials to protect their right to sue pesticide manufacturers with failure-to-warn claims; in an era of deregulation and ongoing failure of our regulatory agencies to assess potential associated harms, advocates demand the preservation of this legal right. 

Status Report on State-Level Legislation 

The only state that has active legislation, as of today’s writing, is North Carolina. The failure-to-warn language was inserted into the annual state Farm Bill package (SB 639) in Section 19, leading to public outcry in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on May 6. (See here for additional context.)  

As the legislative session nears its end, it remains to be seen which direction this state legislature will proceed in at this stage. The bill was pushed forward without public comments in the Senate Finance Committee hearing scheduled the following day due to anticipated backlash from concerned citizens, and then moved to the Rules Committee before it was scheduled for an official Senate-wide vote on May 15. Without any additional notice, the bill was withdrawn from the calendar and remains in the Senate Rules Committee, based on the legislative updates provided by the state legislature website. (See here.) 

Reporting from North Carolina Newsline on May 21 highlights advocacy led by Toxic Free North Carolina and other community leaders who have expressed concerns about the 11th-hour inclusion of this language into what is normally a standard piece of legislation that moves through the state legislature to support agricultural communities and the economy on an annual basis. 

“This is a direct attack on our community’s right to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for the harm they cause,” says Kendall Wimberley, policy manager at Toxic Free NC. “This is not something communities are asking for.” 

Beyond Pesticides will continue to monitor any late-breaking developments, which will be updated on the Bills to Track section of the Failure-to-Warn resource hub. 

MAHA community activists are speaking out against this legislation, including in a recent letter signed by nearly 300 “MAHA” advocates directed to the MAHA Commission expressing their “opposition to chemical liability shields.” See here for the letter. It remains to be seen what influence this may have on decision-makers, however it is important to note that in the same month that the MAHA Initial Assessment was released U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) moved forward to rescind its recordkeeping requirement for restricted-use pesticides. The agency provided no public comment period (see here), at the same time that it proposed rescinding organic standards rulemaking for pet food and mushroom products after a delay of the effective date published in the Federal Register. (See here for previous Daily News and here for an archive of a related Action of the Week.) 

See a recent Daily News, Flying Through States, Industry Seeks To Stop Lawsuits Over Failure to Warn of Pesticide Dangers, for a mid-session legislative update of where the bills stand as of the beginning of April. See here for Beyond Pesticides’ analysis of the MAHA report, and see here for the associated Action of the Week. 

Preemption and the Court System 

Bayer is not giving up on the current U.S. Supreme Court as it seeks to overturn current law, 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 the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts a “failure-to-warn” claim. (See Daily News here for further analysis.)  

For the third time in recent memory, Bayer submitted yet another petition for SCOTUS on April 4, 2025, to “limit legal claims” on Roundup weedkiller linkages to cancer, according to reporting by Reuters. The pesticide manufacturer has signaled optimism that the nation’s highest court will move in a different direction, given that there is now a Federal Court Circuit split with the latest decision in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Schaffner v. Monsanto. As reported in Progressive Farmer in early May, twelve national agricultural groups filed an amicus brief in support of Bayer’s petition. These groups represent the interests of industrial agriculture, including American Farm Bureau Federation, American Soybean Association, American Sugarbeet Growers Association, Cherry Marketing Institute, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, International Fresh Produce Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association, National Cotton Council of America, National Sorghum Producers, North American Blueberry Council and Western Growers. Legal issues continue to mount for the pesticide manufacturer as the Western District of Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a $611 million judgment against Bayer, as reported by Missouri Independent on May 28. 

There were several other significant developments in 2024, including the Oregon Court of Appeals decision on July 10, ruling that 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.)   

Moving into 2025, Bayer has doubled down on the safety of its weedkiller, even though investors are sounding the alarm 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, as well as this informative analysis published in Harvard Law Review. 

EPA Legal Petition 

Meanwhile, in August 2024, the Republican Attorney General of North Dakota jointly filed a petition to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (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. 

Farm Bill and Congress 

As of today’s publication, there are no indications that federal preemption language was included in the GOP plan. If a comprehensive Farm Bill is considered by Congress, there is a higher likelihood that preemption language from the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act or EATS Act (re-introduced as the Food Security and Farm Protection Act on April 8) will be included, given the current balance of the legislative branch. Pesticide manufacturers, including Bayer-Monsanto, have been ramping up their federal lobbying efforts after failing to pass state legislation in nine of the twelve states that give the pesticide industry immunity from failure-to-warn litigation filed by those who charge that manufacturers do not provide adequate disclosure of product hazards. 

Language establishing chemical company immunity from “failure-to-warn” litigation and local and state authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than EPA was 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.” More specifically, this language would have a two-fold impact: 

• Prohibit the right to sue for failure to warn when harmed by pesticides. In Section 10204 of the House Farm Bill, language shields (gives immunity to) the producers and users of toxic pesticides from liability lawsuits associated with the harm that their products cause. The provision will block lawsuits like those successfully advanced against Bayer/Monsanto for adverse health effects, like cancer, associated with exposure to their products and companies’ failure to warn about these effects on EPA-approved product labels. 

• Prohibit the rights of states and local governments to restrict pesticides and protect public health and the environment. In Sections 10204 and 10205, language would prevent local and state governments from passing pesticide ordinances or concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations that conflict with (aka are more stringent than) federal regulations and policy. 

See Daily News here and here, respectively, for further analysis on the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity and Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.   

Call to Action 

See the Failure-to-Warn Resource Hub to learn more about the pesticide industry playbook on taking away communities and people’s right to freedom from toxic chemical exposure in their air, waterways, soil, ecosystems, and bodies.  

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