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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public opinion does not support the chemical industry

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

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

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

Where the Bills Stand

Idaho

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iowa

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

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

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

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

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

Missouri

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

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

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

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

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

North Dakota

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

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

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

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

Florida

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

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

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

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

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

Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debunking Myths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2025) An editorial in Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy finds that triazole fungicides pose a significant risk of cardiotoxicity with “growing concerns regarding their safety for human health, especially in long-term exposure,” the authors share. After analyzing the known mechanisms of cardiotoxicity of triazole pesticides in mammals, they conclude that “the most effective approach to mitigating triazole-induced cardiotoxicity lies in prevention.” 

Triazoles, a class of fungicides, target fungi by inhibiting the biosynthesis of ergosterol, an essential component of their cell membranes. As the researchers share, “Compounds such as tebuconazole, propiconazole, and difenoconazole are among the most used triazoles in agriculture.” Triazoles are utilized as antifungal medications, despite the rise of resistant infections, in addition to their use as systemic pesticides on many fruit and vegetable crops, including grapes, wheat, corn, and soybeans.  

As Beyond Pesticides’ previous coverage indicates, many triazole fungicides in the U.S. are registered for use despite evidence of endocrine disruption established over a decade ago in a U.S. Geological Survey report. These pesticides exhibit common mechanisms of toxicity often disregarded in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessments, with a multitude of studies showcasing the myriads of health threats that the agency does not consider in its chemical registration processes. (See more on EPA failures and regulatory deficiencies here.)   

Within the editorial, the authors examine the scientific literature linking triazole exposure to cardiotoxicity, including heart damage and cardiovascular system impacts, tying together the mechanisms of toxicity between chemicals within this class of pesticides. They report: 

• The toxicity of triazoles, while classically defined due to their ability to impact ergosterol biosynthesis, “arises from the ability of the fungicide to bind to distinct proteins of off-target organisms, including humans.” 

• “Triazole pesticides can induce cardiotoxicity through various mechanisms: oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammation, and electrophysiological alterations in the heart.” (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.) 

• “[I]n vivo exposure of rats to tebuconazole induces cardiac toxicity through oxidative stress.” (See studies here and here.)  

• Exposure to triazoles, confirmed with urine analyses in humans, is associated with oxidative stress. 

• A study, using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from 2004 to 2022, finds 53,864 adverse effects attributed to triazole antifungal agents, 6,174 of which were cardiac adverse effects. 

• “Exposure to triazoles can compromise mitochondrial function. In vivo studies in rats have demonstrated that tebuconazole modulates the mitochondrial pathway of apoptosis [cell death].” (See studies here, here, and here.) 

• “[I]n vitro and in vivo exposure to triazoles can trigger inflammatory responses in cardiac tissue, resulting in the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Chronic inflammation can cause adverse cardiac remodeling, fibrosis, and heart failure.” (See studies here and here.) 

• In triazoles changing mitochondrial function, it can result in “decreased ATP production, release of pro-apoptotic factors, increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, and intracellular calcium dysregulation.” These impacts, especially involving ROS production in cardiac cells, can lead “to oxidative stress, which can damage proteins, lipids, and DNA, resulting in cellular dysfunction and programmed cell death (apoptosis), as observed in rats orally in vivo treated with triazole (tebuconazole).” (See studies here, here, here, and here.) 

• Triazoles “can directly interfere with ion channels in mammal cardiac cells, altering the action potential and electrical conduction in the heart, leading to arrhythmias, which are potentially fatal disturbances in heart rhythm, as shown in studies conducted in vitro and ex vivo.” (See studies here, here, and here.) 

• Tebuconazole exposure in rats results in increased heart weight, which indicates cardiac hypertrophy that makes it harder for the heart to pump blood. 

Aside from cardiotoxicity, scientific literature links triazole pesticides to numerous health threats. Previous coverage of a study in Environmental Pollution highlights four triazoles pesticides, detected in blood, that can cross the blood-brain barrier and infiltrate cerebrospinal fluid due to their ability to affect a steroid synthesis pathway. Research finds ipconazole, in a recent Toxics study, to cause spermiotoxicity through significantly reduced sperm viability, as well as alterations in enzyme and gene expression related to fertility. (See Beyond Pesticides’ coverage here.) 

The solution to adverse health impacts from pesticide exposure, as the Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy article authors state, is prevention. By transitioning away from the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in land management, the threats to health and the environment are mitigated. Adopting organic practices, and relying on an organic diet, provides numerous health benefits and has a significantly lower environmental impact than conventional food production, as Beyond Pesticides has reported. 

Research finds that organic diets can also promote heart health. A study in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology states that organic food consumption lowers the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. These findings reinforce scientific understanding that negative effects on the heart from pesticide exposure are preventable and eliminating toxic chemicals within food can play an important role in reducing a major public health threat. 

Organic agriculture lowers cardiovascular disease risks, as well as brain and nervous system disorders, cancer, endocrine disruption, and many more. Be part of the organic solution by buying organic products, growing your own organic food, and advocating for the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies. 

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

Source: 

Souza, D. and Roman-Campos, D. (2025) Cardiotoxicity and triazole pesticides: therapeutic options for a neglected heart disease, Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14779072.2025.2476124. 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 24, 2025) In establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission in February, the President tapped Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to chair the interagency panel. The stated goal, as described in the founding proclamation, is “drastically lowering chronic disease rates and ending childhood chronic disease.” The commission document states, “Overall, the global comparison data demonstrates that the health of Americans is on an alarming trajectory that requires immediate action.”

In this context, on March 10, Secretary Kennedy directed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Acting Commissioner Sara Brenner, MD to take steps to explore potential rulemaking to revise its Substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Final Rule and related guidance to eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS pathway—allowing the food and chemical industry to assign GRAS status to food ingredients without oversight. This “pathway” to allowing food additives has long been recognized as a loophole that allows unidentified and potentially harmful additives in food, including by the 2010 U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) report, Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safety. 

Beyond Pesticides launched an effort this week to tell FDA to eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS loophole and tell Congress to pass the Toxic Free Food Act of 2024. 

In 2016, FDA finalized a rule allowing food companies to add new ingredients to the food supply with almost no federal oversight. Thousands of substances have been added under the rule, which has been in effect since it was first proposed in 1997. The rule, which was meant to provide guidance for companies seeking to classify new food ingredients as GRAS, has been widely criticized because it puts consumers at risk by allowing the food industry to bypass crucial safety checks for new ingredients.  

The GRAS designation is rooted in 1958 amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which were meant to require companies to demonstrate the safety of prospective ingredients but created an exemption for common ingredients like vinegar and baking soda that were already widely used and known to be safe. Although the provision was intended to exempt only the most time-tested substances from rigorous pre-market approval requirements, FDA introduced a new rule in 1997 allowing companies to decide for themselves what ingredients qualify as GRAS and whether to report the designations to FDA. 

For example, according to a Consumer Reports article, “GRAS: The hidden Substances in Your Food,” “… the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) has classified several possible carcinogens as GRAS, and when pressed has failed to produce peer-reviewed safety data on those chemicals.” However, the unknown ingredients, which have never been reported at all, pose the greatest concern. With the number of food additives reaching several thousand, found in virtually every processed food, there is no way to guarantee that food is free from toxic chemicals or allergens. They can be found in virtually any processed food—from breakfast cereals and energy drinks to frozen dinners and all manner of snacks. 

An independent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that from 2003-2013, almost all new chemicals added were deemed by manufacturers to be GRAS. As a result of the adoption of the GRAS process, the Center for Food Safety estimates that 3,000 chemicals that have never been scrutinized by the FDA are in use today.  

In September 2024, U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) re-introduced the Toxic Free Foods Act, to overhaul FDA’s process for determining the safety of chemicals used in the food supply. The Toxic Free Food Act would require FDA to close the GRAS loophole and make the industry’s chemical food additives subject to FDA approval. The legislation failed to pass in the last (118th) Congress but should be reintroduced and passed in order to provide a more permanent solution to the problem.

>> Tell FDA to eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS loophole. Tell Congress to pass the Toxic Free Food Act of 2024. 

For more information, please see the Daily News from March 17, 2025—Can FDA Step In When EPA Fails to Ensure Safety from Pesticide Mixtures in Food?

Letter to the U.S. Congress
On March 10, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. directed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take steps to explore potential rulemaking to revise its Substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Final Rule and related guidance to eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS pathway. This “pathway” to allowing food additives has long been recognized as a loophole that allows unidentified and potentially harmful additives in food, including by the 2010 U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) report, Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safety.

In 2016, FDA finalized a rule allowing food companies to add new ingredients to the food supply with almost no federal oversight. Thousands of substances have been added under the rule, which has been in effect since it was first proposed in 1997. The rule, which was meant to provide guidance for companies seeking to classify new food ingredients as GRAS, has been widely criticized because it puts consumers at risk by allowing the food industry to bypass crucial safety checks for new ingredients. 

The GRAS designation is rooted in 1958 amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which were meant to require companies to demonstrate the safety of prospective ingredients but created an exemption for common ingredients like vinegar and baking soda that were already widely used and known to be safe. Although the provision was intended to exempt only the most time-tested substances from rigorous pre-market approval requirements, FDA introduced a new rule in 1997 allowing companies to decide for themselves what ingredients qualify as GRAS and whether to report the designations to FDA.

For example, according to a Consumer Reports article, “GRAS: The hidden Substances in Your Food,”  “the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) has classified several possible carcinogens as GRAS, and when pressed has failed to produce peer-reviewed safety data on those chemicals.” However, the unknown ingredients, which have never been reported at all, pose the greatest concern. With the number of food additives reaching several thousand, found in virtually every processed food, there is no way to guarantee that food is free from toxic chemicals or allergens. They can be found in virtually any processed food—from breakfast cereals and energy drinks to frozen dinners and all manner of snacks.

An independent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that from 2003-2013, almost all new chemicals added were deemed by manufacturers to be GRAS. As a result of the adoption of the GRAS process, the Center for Food Safety estimates that 3,000 chemicals that have never been scrutinized by the FDA are in use today. 

Please eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS loophole.

Thank you.

Letter to the Food and Drug Administration
On March 10, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. directed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take steps to explore potential rulemaking to revise its Substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Final Rule and related guidance to eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS pathway. This “pathway” to allowing food additives has long been recognized as a loophole that allows unidentified and potentially harmful additives in food, including by the 2010 U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) report, Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safety.

In 2016, FDA finalized a rule allowing food companies to add new ingredients to the food supply with almost no federal oversight. Thousands of substances have been added under the rule, which has been in effect since it was first proposed in 1997. The rule, which was meant to provide guidance for companies seeking to classify new food ingredients as GRAS, has been widely criticized because it puts consumers at risk by allowing the food industry to bypass crucial safety checks for new ingredients. 

The GRAS designation is rooted in 1958 amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which were meant to require companies to demonstrate the safety of prospective ingredients but created an exemption for common ingredients like vinegar and baking soda that were already widely used and known to be safe. Although the provision was intended to exempt only the most time-tested substances from rigorous pre-market approval requirements, FDA introduced a new rule in 1997 allowing companies to decide for themselves what ingredients qualify as GRAS and whether to report the designations to FDA.

For example, according to a Consumer Reports article, “GRAS: The hidden Substances in Your Food,” the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) has classified several possible carcinogens as GRAS, and when pressed has failed to produce peer-reviewed safety data on those chemicals. However, the unknown ingredients, which have never been reported at all, pose the greatest concern. With the number of food additives reaching several thousand, found in virtually every processed food, there is no way to guarantee that food is free from toxic chemicals or allergens. They can be found in virtually any processed food—from breakfast cereals and energy drinks to frozen dinners and all manner of snacks.

An independent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that from 2003-2013, almost all new chemicals added were deemed by manufacturers to be GRAS. As a result of the adoption of the GRAS process, the Center for Food Safety estimates that 3,000 chemicals that have never been scrutinized by the FDA are in  use today. 

In September 2024 Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) re-introduced the Toxic Free Foods Act, to overhaul the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) process for determining the safety of chemicals used in the food supply. The Toxic Free Food Act would require FDA to close the GRAS loophole and make the industry’s chemical food additives subject to FDA approval. The legislation failed to pass in the 118th Congress but should be re-introduced and passed in order to provide a more permanent solution to the problem.

Please cosponsor a reintroduced Toxic Free Foods Act.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2025) Sin maíz, no hay país – “Without corn, there is no country” (Mexican saying)

In the face of U.S. efforts to require Mexico, under a trade agreement, to import genetically engineered corn, last week the Mexican legislature approved a constitutional amendment identifying native corn as “an element of national identity” and banning the planting of GE seeds. This brings to a head a clash over issues of food sovereignty and security, genetic integrity, health protection, and environmental safety.

In 2020, the Mexican government committed to phasing out the importation of genetically engineered (GE) corn by 2024. Mexico had also planned to ban by April 1, 2025, the weed killer glyphosate, integral to GE corn production—but recently delayed its decision. These actions by Mexico triggered vigorous pushback by the U.S., resulting in the formation of a panel under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) to decide which country was in the right. The USMCA, negotiated in 2018 during President Trump’s first term, replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Under USMCA, parties can adopt measures to protect human animal or plant life or health. However, in December 2024, the USMCA panel ruled in favor of the U.S., rejecting Mexico’s comprehensive scientific analysis in support of its position that GE corn presents unacceptable risks to Mexico’s 9,000 years of indigenous stewardship of carefully bred and wild varieties of corn. The constitutional amendment adopted last week does not ban all GE corn products, only seeds, and therefore complies with the panel’s decision. Mexico is allowing the continued importation of $5 billion of U.S. GE corn, most of which is used for livestock.  

The move by the Mexican government is likely to spur yet more conflict with the U.S. on issues of science, international relations, and environmental health.

The scientific documents submitted by both sides present a snapshot of the intractable (to date) divide between the pesticide industry and the community of organic, regenerative, indigenous, and scientific advocates for rationalization of the regulatory process. The Mexican Scientific Dossier on Genetically Modified Corn and its Effects (dossier) notes that “there is no scientific consensus on the safety of human or animal consumption of GE crops” or their release into the environment. Yet, the dossier says, there is plenty of evidence that “transgenesis is an imprecise technology with unexpected and undesired effects.”

This is exactly what industry proponents deny. They create the impression that genetic engineering is as precise and efficient as the creation of a Swiss watch. It is not. “[T]hese techniques are imprecise and inefficient, giving rise to undesired gene and epigenetic expressions,” according to the dossier. The insertion of foreign genes into a host genome is a haphazard process, with little precision as to exactly where in the genome the package will end up. Despite the impression conveyed by biotechnologists that corn is a simple form of grass, corn is a complex organism, with approximately twice the number of genes that humans have. There are hundreds of varieties. Changing its genome is a process “embedded in a myriad of conditions mediated by cellular and extracellular metabolism and the environment,” according to the dossier. GE is a form of horizontal gene transfer, naturally common in bacteria and viruses, which can make genes that are stable in the donor unstable and unpredictable in the recipient. In addition, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes, the toxin-producing bacterial source most commonly used in plants incorporated with the insecticide (so-called “plant incorporated protectants”), have been shown to harm not just the target pests, but all kinds of insects and arachnids.

Genes also migrate across distances—especially in wind-pollinated plants like corn. It is incorrect to assume that genetic drift of GE organisms into other varieties never occurs. According to a report from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) detailed here by Beyond Pesticides, “[S]ignificant levels of transgenic DNA in native corn varieties were found in the remote mountains of Oaxaca in 2001, with further contamination found in nine states in 2003.” This highlights the danger that not only does commercial planting of GE corn replace cultivation of other varieties, but the GE genes may also be directly altering wild and Indigenous varieties, impoverishing the gene pool curated by Indigenous peoples. This loss is not just an inconvenience, and the Mexican government is right to protect the country’s cultural heritage as well as its agricultural economy.

Genetic engineering is complex. The desired gene, such as Bt, must be embedded between two other genetic sequences, one to start and one to stop the transcription. According to the dossier, these “cassettes” are often made up of genetic material from three different species. A common practice is to take the promoter component from the cauliflower mosaic virus and the terminator from Agrobacterium tumorifaciens, the pathogen of crown gall disease in plants. Sometimes these helper components remain in the host genome as well as the target gene(s), with unpredictable results. Because single-gene herbicide-resistance mechanisms rapidly lose effectiveness, GE packages are often “stacked” with up to seven functional genes, each with its own promoter and terminator companions.

One of the red herrings pesticide advocates frequently push is the idea that GE crops increase yields and reduce pesticide use. As the Mexican dossier details, these assertions are flat-out lies. Corn production has in fact risen between 1980 and 2020, but only because the amount of land under cultivation has increased. If actual yield had risen, increasing cultivated land would not be necessary. In fact, according to a study by Jack Heinemann, PhD, of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and colleagues, yields of maize, rapeseed, and wheat have been higher in Europe, where GE crops were very rare during the study period (1961-2009). Furthermore, the dossier states that industry claims of higher yields are based on greenhouse or small-scale field trials “and are not possible under real agrosystem conditions.”

As to reduction in pesticide use, Beyond Pesticides’ May 2013 analysis shows that after an initial decline when Bt-toxin-carrying corn was introduced in 2003, resistance to GE crops developed in pests like the western corn rootworm (monoculture creates ideal habitat for pests), and there was a subsequent surge in pesticide sales, along with revenue increases and stock price jumps. The CBAN report cites data showing that herbicide sales in Canada increased by 244% between 1994 and 2021.

The Mexican dossier also frequently emphasizes that its scientific sources are free of conflicts of interest, unlike the arguments proffered by the U.S. This refers to the dependence of U.S. regulatory and political systems on studies performed by the product manufacturers or their contracted companies. These studies are not part of the public record. With respect to GE corn, Friends of the Earth submitted comments to the USMCA panel. They pointed out the absurdity of expecting Mexico to “trust the completeness and accuracy of the initial GE corn safety assessments carried out 15 to 30 years ago by the companies working to bring GE corn events to market.”

This skewing of evidence is a severe and deeply embedded problem that ignores independent and academic research into the cellular, metabolic, and whole-organism effects of pesticides in the real-world environment. According to an investigation by Carey Gillam and Johnathan Hettinger in The New Lede, international trade agreements are now a strong focus of the pesticide industry’s attempts to ensure the dominance of their products and friendly policies. The New Lede reports on emails exchanged between Corteva AgriScience (a merger of Dow and DuPont) and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) handling the Mexico dispute. Other emails show that CropLife America began to implant the concept of using the USMCA to achieve its goals through EPA assistant administrator Alexandra Dunn, who forwarded to USTR colleagues a CropLife letter proposing the idea. Ms. Dunn is now president of CropLife America.

Considering the shambolic state of U.S. politics and international relations at the moment, and the likelihood of further attacks from U.S. industry, Mexico will have to stand very firm in its defense of its agricultural and cultural sovereignty to maintain its constitutional integrity.

For information on the alternative to genetically engineered crops, see Beyond Pesticides webpages on organic production standards, which prohibit genetically engineered plants.

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

Sources:

2024 FINAL REPORT – AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES, AND CANADA
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Panel
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Final%20Report%20ENG.pdf

Scientific Dossier on Genetically Modified Corn and Its Effects
Government of Mexico 2024
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DOSSIER-MAIZ-2024-ENGfinal-5.pdf

Rebuttal Submission from Mexico on Measures Concerning Genetically Engineered Corn
(MEX-USA-2023-31-01) dated May 28, 2024
https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/EscritodReplicadeMexicoENGPublicVersion.pdf

Government Report Pushes Genetically Engineered Crops, Despite Failure and Effective Alternatives
Beyond Pesticides, May 31, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/05/government-report-pushes-genetic-engineered-crops-despite-failure-and-effective-alternatives/

Federal Framework Seeks to Accelerate Adoption of Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops with Exemptions from Regulation
Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/06/federal-framework-seeks-to-accelerate-adoption-of-genetically-engineered-ge-crops-with-exemptions-from-regulation/

New scientific analyses underpin Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn and glyphosate due to health risks
Timothy A. Wise and Stacy Malkan
U.S. Right to Know
January 14, 2025
https://usrtk.org/gmo/new-scientific-analyses-mexicos-restrictions-on-gm-corn-glyphosate-health-risks/

‘We are defending your products:’ Emails reveal coordination between US government, industry in foreign trade disputes
The New Lede March 21, 2024
Johnathan Hettinger and Carey Gillam
https://www.thenewlede.org/2024/03/we-are-defending-your-products-emails-reveal-coordination-between-us-government-industry-in-foreign-trade-disputes/

Insecticide Sales Rise with Failure of GE Corn
Beyond Pesticides, May 24, 2013
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2013/05/insecticide-sales-rise-with-failure-of-ge-corn/

Comments Submitted to the USMCA Genetically Engineered Corn Dispute Resolution Tribunal
Friends of the Earth 2024
https://policycommons.net/artifacts/12036056/comments-submitted-to-the-usmca-genetically-engineered-corn-dispute-resolution-tribunal/12929635/

Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years
Charles Benbrook
The Organic Center 2009
https://organic-center.org/reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf

Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest
Heinemann et al
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2014
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263223620_Sustainability_and_innovation_in_staple_crop_production_in_the_US_Midwest

The U.S.-Mexico Genetically Engineered Corn Dispute
Congressional Research Services
06/05/2024
Author:              Tsui, Benjamin
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48083

Commentary: Novel strategies and new tools to curtail the health effects of pesticides
Charles Benbrook, Melissa J. Perry, Fiorella Belpoggi, Philip J. Landrigan, Michelle Perro, Daniele Mandrioli, Michael N. Antoniou, Paul Winchester & Robin Mesnage
Environmental Health volume 20, Article number: 87 (2021)
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-021-00773-4

(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2025) An article, published by the National Audubon Society, titled “A Sweeping New Report Shows U.S. Birds Declining Sharply Across a Range of Habitats” reviews the latest State of the Birds 2025 report and finds concerning news for bird species across the country. As the article says: “Whether they hop around the prairie, dabble in wetlands, flit through forests, or forage along the shore, birds are suffering rapid population declines across the United States… If these habitats are struggling to support bird species, it’s a sign that they’re not healthy for other wildlife, or even humans—but working to restore them will have benefits across ecosystems.”

The 2025 edition of the State of the Birds report, showcasing a status assessment of the health of the nation’s bird populations, was cultivated by scientists from bird conservation groups through the U.S. Committee of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The report notes, “Despite ample evidence that conservation can work, the status quo approach to conservation is not turning bird populations around.”

As NABCI shares, the report contains “[s]obering evidence that America’s birds continue to decline across the board.” They continue, saying: “Birds are telling us that the habitats people depend on are vanishing. Declines are happening across the board: in grasslands, aridlands, western and eastern forests, in Hawaii’s fragile ecosystems; and with our shorebirds and seabirds. Even waterfowl, which had rebounded strongly thanks to decades of conservation work, are seeing sharp recent declines.”

Not only are bird species important for preserving biodiversity, but many species provide ecosystem services as pollinators. Protecting bird species, and their habitats, allows for other organisms, including humans, to prosper. The National Audubon Society shares their mission in saying, “For 120 years and counting, the National Audubon Society has preserved bird habitats, conducted scientific research, influenced policymakers to enact commonsense conservation laws, and engaged communities across the hemisphere to protect the natural resources upon which birds—and we—depend.”

The assessment reveals that impacts to bird species are not limited to select habitats but does note that some face heightened threats in comparison to others. Within the Audubon article, the author highlights: “The 2025 report shows that birds across most habitats have suffered major losses since 1970. Grassland and aridland species have been dealt the heaviest blow: Both groups lost more than 40 percent of their total populations over that period.”

The article continues, “Overall, around one-third of U.S. birds, or 229 species, are of high or moderate conservation concern, according to the report—dealing with low population levels, declining trends, or other threats that call for conservation action to step up.” The State of the Birds 2025 report, which focuses on long-term population changes for 246 total species of North American birds, highlights just one piece of the larger picture; as bird species face population threats, so do other organisms within terrestrial and aquatic food webs and across all ecosystems.

The report notes particular species of highest concern, labeled as “tipping point” species that have lost more than half their populations in the past 50 years. In total, 112 tipping point species are identified, with shorebirds having the highest number of tipping point species (19) out of all of the identified habitat groups. The report emphasizes the importance of these findings in saying, “Rates of shorebird declines exceed thresholds for listing as vulnerable/endangered under national and international conservation standards.”

The impacts to grassland birds are also perilous, with more than half of bird species that depend on grasslands for breeding habitats in steep decline. The report shares: “In America’s Heartland, more than 320 million acres of grasslands support people’s livelihoods, Indigenous cultures, and ecosystem functions. Yet this crucial biome is in collapse—and grassland birds are rapidly disappearing—due to conversion for row-crop agriculture, woody-plant invasion, and drought.”

Beyond Pesticides has reported on many scientific studies that tie impacts on bird species to the interconnected issues of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change. From higher insecticide levels in pesticide-laden nests linked to increased offspring mortality to the threats to seed-eating birds from neonicotinoid treated seeds, agricultural intensification harms bird species within the U.S. and throughout the world. (See additional coverage here.)

Previous research in 2019, published in Science, estimated a net loss of nearly 3 billion birds since 1970. The authors “report wide-spread population declines of birds over the past half-century, resulting in the cumulative loss of billions of breeding individuals across a wide range of species and habitats.” The study shows that “declines are not restricted to rare and threatened species—those once considered common and wide-spread are also diminished. These results have major implications for ecosystem integrity, the conservation of wildlife more broadly, and policies associated with the protection of birds and native ecosystems on which they depend.” Despite these staggering results that had advocates calling for action, over five years later bird populations are still declining.

As mentioned in Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of this study, the decline in bird populations reflect overall ecosystem health that is directly impacted by harmful agricultural practices. These issues have been of concern for decades, back to when Rachel Carson warned the world how insidious pesticide use can be. She wrote in Silent Spring: 

“For each of us, as for the robin in Michigan or the Salmon in the Miramichi, this is a problem of ecology, of interrelationships, of interdependence. We poison the caddis flies in a stream and the salmon runs dwindle and die. We poison the gnats in a lake and the poison travels from link to link of the food chain and soon the birds of the lake margins become its victims. We spray our elms and the following springs are silent of robin song, not because we sprayed the robins directly but because the poison traveled, step by step, through the now familiar elm leaf-earthworm-robin cycle. These are matters of record, observable, part of the visible world around us. They reflect the web of life — or death — that scientists know as ecology.”

The latest State of the Birds 2025 report is more than just an assessment of population effects for birds—it indicates environmental decline in critical ecosystems that impact all organisms. Whether directly or as part of ecological ripples throughout the food web, a trophic cascade that affects all life is clearly occurring. A driving factor for these declines, as has been well-documented in scientific literature, is industrial agriculture. In order to protect all organisms, from birds to mammals to insects, eliminating the use of harmful chemicals is essential.

Despite compelling scientific findings, officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not felt compelled to act. Beyond Pesticides, in comments to EPA in February 2024, cited a dramatic regulatory failure to address the effects of endocrine disrupting pesticides on bird populations and other wildlife. As far back as 1988, a report on the Great Lakes ecosystem found a range of adverse effects to fertility, eggshell thinning, metabolic function, birth defects, and more. These findings and others less than a decade later led to the adoption of amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act which required EPA to regulate endocrine disrupting pesticides. However, the agency has not acted, despite the empirical evidence that is mounting to unsustainable levels. (See more on endocrine disruption and EPA failures here and here.)

While efforts to reduce harm to species are reflected in proposed legislation, they are often weakened throughout the process, such as with the recent Birds and Bees Protection Act, and do not sufficiently mitigate the threats from toxic chemicals. As an alternative, transitioning to organic land management practices, and focusing on soil health, can reverse these threats and subsequent population declines noted in species such as birds. (See previous coverage on organic farming reducing pesticide load in bird species here.)

Join this effort by purchasing organic products, planting diverse pesticide-free vegetation, and advocating for your local community to follow suit. We must take action to prevent the complete loss of species before it is too late. Ensure your voice is heard in promoting the holistic solution of organic land management and help Beyond Pesticides achieve the goal of eliminating petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032 by becoming a member today.

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

Sources:

Burakoff, M. (2025) A Sweeping New Report Shows U.S. Birds Declining Sharply Across a Range of Habitats, Audubon. Available at: https://www.audubon.org/magazine/sweeping-new-report-shows-us-birds-declining-sharply-across-range-habitats.

Rosenberg, K. et al. (2019) Decline of the North American avifauna, Science. Available at: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw1313.

State of the Birds Report (2025) North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Available at: https://www.stateofthebirds.org/2025/download-pdf-report/.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2025) In a major win for small-scale food producers and peasant farmers in Kenya, “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)—an alliance of organizations and movements across the continent advocating for agroecology and food sovereignty. 

“We celebrate this ruling as a major victory for small-scale farmers across Kenya,” said David Otieno, a small-scale farmer and member of the Kenyan Peasants League, a social movement consisting of consumers, farmers, pastoralists, and fishers rallying against the multinational corporate takeover of food systems in Kenya. Mr. Otieno continued: “GMOs are not the solution to food insecurity in our country. Instead, they deepen dependency on multinational agribusinesses, threaten biodiversity, and compromise farmers’ ability to control their food systems.”

Genetically engineered seeds are designed to be resistant to commonly used pesticides, including the weedkiller glyphosate, which locks farmers into dependence on multinational corporations rather than their own ability to practice seed saving and enhance their food sovereignty.

This battle for control over the ownership of land and seeds in Kenya resonates with the growing movement of consumers, farmers, land stewards, and public health professionals in the United States facing similar industry-fed arguments about the necessity for pesticide use in agriculture as a matter of food insecurity and national security. Despite industry and government claims of increased productivity and reduced pest control costs, GMO cropping systems have led to a dramatic increase in the use of herbicides and the fast development of weed and insect resistance.

History

“The ruling comes in response to an appeal by the Kenya Peasants League, Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya (BIBA) and 18 other parties, which challenged the government’s October 2022 decision to lift its [10-year GMO] ban,” according to the press release.

The press release continues, “Following this ruling, all government actions related to the introduction and promotion of GMOs in Kenya must cease immediately. The case will proceed to a full hearing, where the Court of Appeal will determine whether the lifting of the GMO ban was lawful and in the best interests of the country.”

“President William Ruto had on October 3, 2024, announced that the government had lifted the ban on GMO foods after a Cabinet meeting to boost the country’s food security following [a] prolonged drought,” according to reporting by The Standard.

Political leaders continue to rely on the food security argument to rationalize deregulation and continuous use of genetically engineered foods, despite mounting evidence from peasant farmers across the globe that this is a false choice. A 2024 report, Food From Somewhere: Building food security and resilience through territorial markets, found that relying on pesticide-free food systems rooted in agroecological and organic principles “in many cases help[s] to provide market outlets for farmers using natural fertilizers and pesticides that work with nature, rather than the fossil-fuel based synthetic inputs associated with corporate value chains.” (See full Daily News here.) An analysis published in the International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews found that Kenyan farmers who included the integration of cover crops and legumes, which is otherwise undermined by introducing genetically modified seeds into ecosystems, into their farming systems found that these organic practices “not only enhances soil fertility through nitrogen fixation but also contributes to improved food security by providing multiple harvests throughout the year.” (See full Daily News here.) On the topic of food security, for decades, scientists have raised alarm about the implications of mass pollinator die-off for food supply chain resilience and economic security. A two-year study commissioned by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) found that roughly $235 to $577 billion in annual value of global crop production is directly impacted by pollinators.

This court decision arrives as some policymakers in Kenya continue to protect their sovereignty from industry interference. In early 2024, the Kenyan parliament introduced a resolution to ban hazardous pesticides including glyphosate-based herbicide products such as Roundup^® Ready sold by Bayer/Monsanto, leading to a fiery debate on the state of agricultural uses moving forward. Hon. Gladys Boss, Deputy Speaker for the National Assembly, speaks to the rationale for introducing the petition:

“The issue of carcinogenic pesticides and Round-Up herbicides is of significant concern to our country. This challenge is known in all levels of Government. The ‘Pesticide Atlas,’ a document developed by 20 scientists from the University of Nairobi, confirms that 267 pesticides banned in Europe and America are still in use in Kenya.”

See the full Daily News, Countries in Global South Lead and Face Challenges in Human Rights, Health, and Environmental Protections, for additional context.

In 2024, the Kenyan government, alongside six other Global South nations, launched the Financing Agrochemical Reduction and Management (FARM) Programme—a $379 million initiative that “will realign financial incentives to prevent the use of harmful inputs in food production.” This international cohort aims to phase out the use of “toxic persistent organic pollutants (POPs)—chemicals which don’t break down in the environment and contaminate air, water, and food.” While it remains to be seen the impact of this initiative as of today’s publication, it departs significantly from the status quo of increasing synthetic and pesticide use. (See Daily News here.)

The impacts of business-as-usual pesticide use have had devastating impacts on human and ecological health in Kenya, as covered previously. As a result of rampant glyphosate and malathion usage, farmers have gone pesticide-free and instead use toothbrushes and sponges as a substitute for pollinators who suffered the consequences. (See Daily News here.) According to a Scientific Reports-published study conducted by Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) and the Kenya-based International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), pesticide run-off from nearby farmland indirectly increased the rate of the tropical disease schistosomiasis, which infected over 280 million people in 2018. (See Daily News here.)

There are examples, however, of ecologically grounded solutions that have yielded very positive results. For instance, Lake Victoria—a body of water shared by Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda—suffered from a water hyacinth infestation in the 1990s. Scientists collaborated and responded in turn by introducing two species of weevils, which are natural predators of the hyacinth: Neochetina bruchi and Neochetina eichhorniae. The initiative was so successful that it resulted in a 90 percent decrease in hyacinth cover; consequently, this nature-based strategy continues to serve as the blueprint for many other African countries facing similar dilemmas. (See previous Daily News here.) 

Call to Action

Advocates across the globe continue to push for a world beyond the use of toxic petrochemical-based pesticides and fertilizers, leaning into the importance of Indigenous food systems based in agroecology and autonomy rather than reliance on multinational corporations.

One of the first steps advocates can take to fight for a pesticide-free future is arming themselves with the facts. Consider reviewing the robust selection of peer-reviewed, independent scientific literature at the Pesticide-Induced Disease Database. This resource provides the public with free and easy access to learn more about the linkages between cumulative and individual pesticide exposure and biodiversity loss, chronic illness, and climate catastrophe. It is a powerful tool when advocating that communities move away from using toxic land management practices in parks and on playing fields and schoolyards, replacing them with organic practices. See Parks for a Sustainable Future.

It was Nelson Mandela who said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Consider applying your knowledge for the greater good by signing up for Action of the Week to apply this new-found knowledge into action!

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

Source: Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)

(Beyond Pesticides, March 18, 2025) The November 2024 press release by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its Rodenticide Strategy includes the final biological evaluation (BE) of 11 rodenticides. Prior to the finalization of the BE, Beyond Pesticides commented to EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs in early 2024, disagreeing with the categorical no effect (NE) determinations for all freshwater and marine fish, aquatic mammals, aquatic amphibians, aquatic reptiles, and aquatic invertebrates. (See related Daily News and Action of the Week.) The latest scientific literature highlights the impacts of rodenticides on nontarget organisms, including aquatic organisms that the agency failed to evaluate due to harm that was, as EPA says, “not reasonably certain to occur.”

Many rodenticides, intended to target rats, mice, squirrels, nutria, and more, are anticoagulants and stop normal blood clotting. Active ingredients in these pesticides can include bromadiolone, chlorophacinone, difethialone, brodifacoum, and warfarin. Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs), contrary to the agency’s assertions, can be transported to aquatic ecosystems, including both freshwater and marine environments. As mentioned in Beyond Pesticides’ comments, ARs have been detected in raw and treated wastewater, sewage sludge, estuarine sediments, suspended particulate matter, and liver tissues of sampled fish, demonstrating that the aquatic environment experiences a greater risk of anticoagulant rodenticide exposure than EPA claims.

In a Science of The Total Environment study, the authors find evidence of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) in frog species. Brodifacoum was found in four of the six frog species analyzed by the researchers, and they share, “This is the first report of anticoagulant rodenticide detected in wild amphibians, raising concerns about potential impacts on frogs and extending the list of taxa shown to accumulate rodenticides.” SGARs were developed after first-generation anticoagulants created resistance in rodents. These compounds contain properties that “pose greater risks to nontarget species” due to their potency, EPA states.

Prior research, also published in Science of The Total Environment, designates SGARs as “(very) persistent, (very) bioaccumulative, and toxic.” While new research is continuing to emerge regarding rodenticides, the authors highlight the previous lack of focus on aquatic species: “So far, worldwide monitoring of AR residues mainly focused on terrestrial and avian non-target species and their routes of exposure… AR residue screening in aquatic compartments is challenging, and accordingly little is known about direct and indirect exposure routes as well as anticoagulants’ distribution and fate in the aquatic environment.”

The researchers also share: “Further research should investigate the potential risks and hazards of ARs in the aquatic environment in order to pave the way for scientific-based, targeted, and effective regulatory decisions. Until then, the ecological implications for aquatic organisms as well as fish-eating predators remain largely unknown.” This highlights the many data gaps that call in to question EPA’s ability to declare risks to aquatic organisms as “not reasonably certain to occur.”

The risk of pesticide exposure to nontarget organisms, including both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, is often disregarded in regulatory assessments. Wildlife can be adversely affected by pesticides through their direct or indirect application, such as pesticide drift, secondary poisoning, runoff into local water bodies, or groundwater contamination. It is possible that some animals can be sprayed directly, while others consume plants or prey that have been exposed to pesticides.

As documented by Lohr, M. et al., “Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) have been detected in non-target wildlife species worldwide… Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) pose a particular threat to scavengers and top-order carnivores because their long half-lives allow for biomagnification and bioaccumulation beyond their intended rodent targets.” In analyzing liver tissues from carnivorous and scavenging mammals, 50% tested positive for the presence of ARs. Multiple samples showed more than one AR compound as well.

“This study is the first to document widespread and pervasive AR exposure in native Australian marsupial carnivores, including those in remote locations away from towns,” the researchers share. They continue: “The frequency and severity of exposure, sometimes from multiple ARs, suggest potential population-level impacts on these threatened species. These findings provide further evidence that ARs should be listed as a key threatening process under state and federal legislation.”

A similar study, in Environmental Chemistry Letters, reports: “We analyzed residues of eight anticoagulant rodenticides in liver samples of 96 great cormorants, 29 common mergansers, various fish species, and coypu, in different German regions. Results show that hepatic residues of anticoagulant rodenticides were found in almost half of the investigated cormorants and mergansers due to the uptake of contaminated fish from effluent-receiving surface waters.” This highlights the presence of ARs in aquatic organisms that are then transferred through the aquatic food web to predators and adds to the concern about ARs’ propensity for biomagnification and bioaccumulation.

The authors conclude that: “Our biomonitoring study demonstrated that piscivorous avian predators in anthropogenically influenced landscapes are exposed to second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides via their fish prey. Transfer of second-generation active ingredients along the aquatic food chain was thus confirmed. Without doubt, future improvements of regulatory measures concerning biocides will be required to mitigate the yet unknown consequences for aquatic wildlife from the nowadays almost exclusive application of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides during chemical rodent control.”

Also documenting secondary exposure to ARs, a study in The Journal of Wildlife Management shows how anticoagulant rodenticides cause “the death of mammalian predators and scavengers directly and indirectly through sublethal effects that reduce fitness.” In quantifying AR exposure in carcasses of 365 urban and suburban coyotes in southern California, the researchers report, “Nearly all urban coyotes (98.1%) were exposed to at least 1 AR, compared to 41.7% of rural coyotes, and most individuals had residues of both first-generation (FGAR) and the more potent second-generation (SGAR) compounds, often at concentrations exceeding thresholds considered lethal in other mammals.”

The authors also share that the “adults tended to have residues of more compounds and at higher concentrations than juveniles, suggesting repeated and chronic exposure.” They continue, “[S]ome coyotes showed evidence of internal bleeding consistent with AR toxicosis and were in poorer body condition,” raising additional concerns for mechanisms of toxicity. (See more research on ARs and carnivores here and here.)

As Beyond Pesticides notes in a previous Daily News, reliance on toxic rodenticides also poses threats to human health. In 2023, guests at a Pittsburgh, PA extended-stay hotel were evacuated by health officials due to a contamination and poisoning incident caused by an unidentified rodenticide. Officials confirmed that the particular rat poison involved in the incident, when exposed to water, releases the highly toxic phosphine gas. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the gas causes many symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, diarrhea, thirst, muscle pain, difficulty breathing, and the accumulation of fluid in the lungs, with acute and prolonged exposure potentially leading to more severe consequences.

There is a wide body of science highlighting the impacts of pesticides on human health and biodiversity. Many of these effects, however, are not taken into account in risk assessments by EPA and other regulatory agencies. (See more on EPA failures here.) Without fully evaluating the potential for chemicals to impact the health of organisms and the environment, both singularly and in mixtures, advocates are calling for a transformation toward an ecologically sustainable land management system rooted in organic principles.

Safety advocates do not consider the risks of using toxic chemicals in agriculture and land management ”reasonable,” under the legal standard of federal pesticide law, given the availability of a safe and effective alternative. Studies show organic practices lower the environmental impact of agriculture, provide human health benefits, enhance biodiversity, and more.

As Beyond Pesticides reported earlier this year, the current health, biodiversity, and climate crises are the most profound problems humanity has yet encountered and calls for dismantling siloes, integrating knowledge among disciplines and between actions, and committing to changing some of our most basic beliefs and dogmas. This is not an optional process; it is life or death, not only for human civilization but for the environmental processes that sustain it. But we can take beneficial steps across the broad spectrum of human activity as long as we consider their effects on the multiple health and environmental elements that intersect and keep our eyes on the prize of a healthy, abundant, and sustainable planet.

All of this is possible with organic as a holistic solution. To learn more, visit the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management, as well as how to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides with The Safer Choice. To help support Beyond Pesticides’ mission, become a member today and take action to have your voice heard on governmental actions that are harmful to the health of the environment and all organisms.

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

Sources:

Lohr, M. et al. (2025) Widespread detection of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in Australian native marsupial carnivores, Science of The Total Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972500467X.

Regnery, J. et al. (2020) Heavy rainfall provokes anticoagulant rodenticides’ release from baited sewer systems and outdoor surfaces into receiving streams, Science of The Total Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720334252.

Regnery, J. et al. (2024) Rodenticide contamination of cormorants and mergansers feeding on wild fish, Environmental Chemistry Letters. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-024-01762-y.

Rowley, J. et al. (2024) Broad-scale pesticide screening finds anticoagulant rodenticide and legacy pesticides in Australian frogs, Science of The Total Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972402672X.

Stapp, P. et al. (2024) Patterns of exposure of coyotes to anticoagulant rodenticides in California, USA, The Journal of Wildlife Management. Available at: https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.22696.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2025) When Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced last week that he is directing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to explore rulemaking to review substances in food affirmed by the food companies to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), he said he is “committed to promoting radical transparency to make sure all Americans know what is in their food.” The issue of independent review of the food industry’s GRAS declarations has long been the subject of critiques raising public health concerns. As this issue emerged, on another food safety issue, Beyond Pesticides is asking  FDA to use its broad authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to “ensur(e) that human foods and animal feeds are safe” from residues of pesticide mixtures, in light of new troubling scientific data.

Under various memoranda of understanding between FDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) going back decades, FDA could consult with EPA on food safety issues ignored by the agency, including  recent data published in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, which “suggest that combined [pesticide] exposure may further amplify the toxicity and compromise the intestinal barrier.” Where EPA fails to consider exposure to mixtures of pesticides in people’s diet, Beyond Pesticides sees a role for FDA to recommend regulatory action.

>> Tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to instruct FDA to recommend tolerances for mixtures of pesticides. 

On the GRAS concern, Beyond Pesticides raised the issue when telling the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) that it could not, by law, allow GRAS substances without a thorough independent review. Beyond Pesticides, whose executive director served on the NOSB, cited a comprehensive review (2011) of the U.S. food additive regulatory program, which found that 60% of food safety decisions allowing substances in food are made by manufacturers and a trade association: “Overall, federal agencies made approximately 40% of the 6000 safety decisions allowing substances in human00pm food. These decisions allowed an estimated 66% of the substances currently believed to be used in food. Manufacturers and a trade association made the remaining decisions without FDA review by concluding that the substances were generally recognized as safe (GRAS).”

The U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) reported on FDA’s regulation of food additives, particularly GRAS items in its report, Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safety (2010). The GAO found:

• “FDA’s oversight process does not help ensure the safety of all new GRAS determinations. FDA only reviews those GRAS determinations that companies submit to the agency’s voluntary notification program—the agency generally does not have information about other GRAS determinations companies have made because companies are not required to inform FDA of them.”
• “FDA has yet to issue a final regulation for its 1997 proposed rule that sets forth the framework and criteria for the voluntary notification program, potentially detracting from the program’s credibility.”
• “FDA is not systematically ensuring the continued safety of current GRAS substances. While, according to FDA regulations, the GRAS status of a substance must be reconsidered as new scientific information emerges, the agency has not systematically reconsidered GRAS substances since the 1980s.”
• FDA has also not generally responded to concerns raised by individuals and public interest groups. “In fact, FDA has decided on the validity of these concerns in only 1 of 11 cases. In addition, FDA does not know to what extent, or even whether, companies track evolving scientific information about their GRAS substances.”
• “FDA’s approach to regulating nanotechnology allows engineered nanomaterials to enter the food supply as GRAS substances without FDA’s knowledge.”…FDA encourages, but does not require, companies considering using engineered nanomaterials in food to consult with the agency regarding whether such substances might be GRAS. Because GRAS notification is voluntary and companies are not required to identify nanomaterials in their GRAS substances, FDA has no way of knowing the full extent to which engineered nanomaterials have entered the U.S. food supply as part of GRAS substances.

Back to pesticide mixtures. The researchers in the study cited above found that the toxic effects of the insecticides abamectin and spirodiclofen, as well as the fungicide fluazinam, individually and in combination caused serious adverse effects to the intestines, raising an alarm not considered by EPA. In exposing mice and in vitro colorectal cells to these pesticides, both singularly and in mixtures, the results show the disruption of intestinal functions caused by the interaction of pesticides in mixtures. These findings highlight the need to assess potential synergistic effects of pesticide mixtures as a part of the regulatory review process. FDA may recommend regulatory action in this regard. 

>> Tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to instruct FDA to recommend tolerances for mixtures of pesticides. 

“Currently, most studies investigating the effects of pesticide residues on the barrier function of Caco-2 cells [human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells used as a model of the intestinal epithelial barrier] concentrate on the exposure to a single residue, while the potential toxic effects arising from the concurrent presence of multiple pesticide residues remain largely overlooked,” the authors say. As previously reported, scientists and health advocates have urged prioritizing further studies on the effect of mixtures on organisms for many decades, given that exposure in the environment is not limited to a single pesticide at a time.  

“[R]ecent studies have increasingly highlighted the toxic effects of abamectin on non-target organisms and human cells,” the researchers state. The combination of pesticides is widely used due to widespread resistance among red spider mites to individual pesticides. The interaction effects of commonly used pesticides remain largely unexplored. This study exposes a mechanism for the synergistic effects of concurrent exposure to a combination of pesticides and highlights the importance of considering synergy in risk assessments. “These findings enhance our understanding of the interactions among multiple pesticide residues and further clarify the complexity of these interactions and their impact on human exposure,” the authors conclude. (See additional coverage on health effects from pesticide mixtures here and here.)  

Additional research referenced in the study supports the findings of intestinal damage from pesticide exposure. This includes: 

• The insecticide imidacloprid, which “induces disruption of the intestinal epithelial barrier, specifically through the down-regulation of tight junction protein complexes” and has enhanced toxicity against the gut microbiota in mice with co-exposure to zinc oxide. (See studies here and here.) 
• The insecticide chlorpyrifos, which is “observed to disrupt the integrity of the gut barrier in mice, resulting in increased entry of lipopolysaccharides into the body.” (See study here.) 
• The fungicide carbendazim, which when combined with epoxiconazole or fluazinam has synergistic effects in Caco-2 cells, according to a study in Food Chemistry. 

The findings are very concerning, given that pesticide residues in food are introduced directly to the intestines. As the researchers note, “The intestinal tract functions as a congenital barrier for homeostasis, preventing pathogenic bacteria, toxins, and other harmful substances from entering the body.” They continue: “Pesticides ingested through the diet are absorbed and transported into the human body, directly interacting with intestinal epithelial cells. This exposure results in alterations to cell permeability and integrity, ultimately compromising the barrier function of these cells.” 

The complex interactions among pesticide mixtures are not fully understood but represent a significant threat to human health The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fails to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world. Risk assessments have been highly criticized as inadequately addressing the full range of adverse effects that put human health and the health of all organisms at risk. (See more on regulatory deficiencies here and here.) 

Scientists and advocates have long asked EPA to evaluate and regulate full formulations of pesticides, and their mixtures, instead of assessing active ingredients singularly. As the body of knowledge base evolves, so should the systems for assessments that are meant to inform decisions that have a wide impact on human and ecosystem health. 

Given both the known and still unevaluated effects of pesticides, including the impact of mixtures and synergistic effects, Beyond Pesticides urges the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032. As a holistic solution, organic land management practices offer both health and environmental benefits, with proven commercial viability and effectiveness in both agricultural and nonagricultural uses. 

>> Tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to instruct FDA to recommend tolerances for mixtures of pesticides.  

Letter to Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Under your authority to protect the safety of the food supply from pesticide residues, it is critical that you recommend the setting of tolerances for pesticide mixtures, an area of health concern not currently considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Study results published in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology “suggest that combined [pesticide] exposure may further amplify the toxicity and compromise the intestinal barrier.” The researchers found that the insecticides abamectin and spirodiclofen, and the fungicide fluazinam, individually and in combination cause serious disruption of intestinal functions caused by the interaction of pesticides in mixtures. These findings highlight the need to assess potential synergistic effects of pesticide mixtures as a part of the regulatory review process. Under memoranda of understanding with EPA, please instruct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to recommend tolerances based on combined exposure when pesticides are used together.

“Currently, most studies investigating the effects of pesticide residues on the barrier function of Caco-2 cells [human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells used as a model of the intestinal epithelial barrier] concentrate on the exposure to a single residue, while the potential toxic effects arising from the concurrent presence of multiple pesticide residues remain largely overlooked,” the authors say. This study exposes a mechanism for the synergistic effects of concurrent exposure to a combination of pesticides and highlights the importance of considering synergy in risk assessments and the setting of pesticide tolerance to protect health. 

Additional research referenced in the study supports the findings of intestinal damage from pesticide exposure, including disruption of the intestinal epithelial barrier by imidacloprid, enhancing toxicity of zinc oxide to gut microbiota; disrupt the integrity of the gut barrier in mice by chlorpyrifos, resulting in increased entry of lipopolysaccharides into the body, and synergistic effects of carbendazim combined with epoxiconazole or fluazinam in Caco-2 cells. 

The findings are very troubling, since pesticide residues in food are introduced directly to the intestines. As the researchers note, “The intestinal tract functions as a congenital barrier for homeostasis, preventing pathogenic bacteria, toxins, and other harmful substances from entering the body.” They continue: “Pesticides ingested through the diet are absorbed and transported into the human body, directly interacting with intestinal epithelial cells. This exposure results in alterations to cell permeability and integrity, ultimately compromising the barrier function of these cells.”

The complex interactions among pesticide mixtures are not fully understood but represent a significant threat to human health. EPA fails to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world. Risk assessments have been highly criticized as inadequately addressing the full range of adverse effects that put human health and the health of all organisms at risk. Since establishing tolerances for pesticide residues is the responsibility of FDA, I ask you to require FDA to set tolerances based on combined exposure when pesticides are used together.

Given both the known and still unevaluated effects of pesticides, including the impact of mixtures and synergistic effects, petrochemical pesticides can be better regulated through the setting of tolerances and replaced by organic land management practices, which have proven commercial viability and effectiveness in both agricultural and nonagricultural uses.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 14, 2025) Beyond Pesticides celebrates the life and legacy of Joan Dye Gussow, EdD, a leader in the organic and local food movements for decades. Dr. Gussow passed away at 96 years young on Friday, March 6, at her home in Rockland County, New York.

As the matriarch of the “eat locally, think globally” movement (New York Times), Dr. Gussow embodied what it means to practice what you preach with decades of experience in pesticide-free, regenerative organic gardening, where she grew seasonal produce for her own consumption.

In her book, The Feeding Web, Gussow explains why gardening matters:

“Food comes from the land. We have forgotten that. If we do not learn it again, we will die….Are we not, in fact, more helpless than any people before us, less able to fend for ourselves, more cut off from sources of nourishment? What would we do if we could not get to the supermarket?”

Dr. Gussow represents the values of community- and people-first organic principles in food and land management systems. By 1971, the year after she published her first book on the relationship between nutrition and children’s performance in school, Dr. Gussow was invited to testify before Congress about Saturday morning cereal commercials and the confusing, harmful messages they send to children and families about food.

Dr. Gussow emphasized that organic, regenerative, sustainable food systems, and ecologically based land and pest management, mean very little if they do not support local communities, and she understood that as a leading thinker not just about food systems, but also about how unfettered consumerism is counterintuitive to planetary health.

Highlights from the 37^th Pesticide Forum in NYC

Dr. Gussow delivered a keynote speech at Beyond Pesticides’ 37^th National Pesticide Forum hosted at the New York Academy of Medicine on April 5-6, 2019. The following highlights some excerpts that not only stand the test of time but offer critical insight into how to achieve a more sustainable future.

“Way back in the 1950s, over 60 years ago, the purveyors of a post-World War II arsenal of novel pest-killing chemicals knew that resistance to those chemicals would occur so that farmers who became dependent on any single product would regularly need to shift to something new.

“They also knew, now that [Rachel] Carson had pointed it out, that the poisons of which we were trying to exterminate, everything we viewed as threatening to us or to our crops, were working their way up the food chain that we sat on top of, poisoning on their way lots of other things in the environment besides the particular pest being targeted. It’s important to keep in mind that at the time the book was published, almost 40 years ago, lots of non-chemical approaches to controlling crop pests had been familiar to professionals for decades, among them the development of insect-resistant strains of crops, insect pathogens, biological control, sterile males, hormonal control of insect growth, alteration of farming practices, organic production, for example, mechanical devices, the use of resistant crop plants, and so on.”

“All of which is to say that our agriculture is more deeply trapped in a chemical web than we were before GMOs were invented as a solution. And it wasn’t as if no one knew. As Iowa State University’s 2012 Herbicide Guide for Iowa Corn and Soybean Production stated, ‘History has proven time and time again that herbicide-based weed management will inevitably fail.’”

“The percentage of U.S. crop acreage planted to Roundup ready corn, cotton, and soy went from zero in 1996 to 90%. That’s the percent of acreage involved in genetically engineered crops. Herbicide use went through the ceiling. By that time, just as many observers had predicted, superweeds, untouchable by the herbicide, had invaded more than half of U.S. farms [2013]. It looked like it was time to try another approach.

Right? Wrong. Monsanto, slipping out from under its increasingly damned reputation, folded into Bayer, which introduced two new genetically stacked versions of soy. One resistant to both glyphosate and an older, more toxic pesticide called 2,4-D, and another resistant to a truly lethal old pesticide called dicamba.

Dicamba-resistant soy was widely planted, almost immediately, and because the pesticide is extremely volatile and moves off to places where it isn’t sprayed, we’ve already seen a picture of what happens to peach trees. Dicamba has already caused widespread damage in surrounding fields and backyards to fruits, vegetables, commercial and residential gardens and trees, including orchard trees. It has put some farmers out of business, and others have been forced to buy dicamba-resistant seed because they can’t afford to risk losing their soybean crop, and by planting the variety that they really want to, which is a wonderful marketing method.”

Reflecting on Women’s Month

Dr. Gussow understood the dangers of relying on a product substitution model for pest management and the corrosive nature of pesticide manufacturers and moneyed interest in undermining the regulatory system meant to protect public health and the environment.

That begins said, March is Women’s History Month, and we find it an honor to celebrate the legacy and impact of Gussow as a leader who recognized the importance in moving beyond siloes to address the cascading crises of biodiversity collapse, public health fragility, and climate change before they were part of the broader discourse.

Beyond Pesticides recognizes the importance of amplifying and highlighting leadership for women and femme-identifying individuals at a time when women’s health is under threat by the continuous use of toxic petrochemical-based pesticides. See a recent Daily News, On International Women’s Day, Pesticide Risks to Women’s Health Call for Urgent Transition to Organic, to learn more on the disproportionate risks that women faced from a failed regulatory system that does not embody the precautionary principle.

See the latest Action of the Week to tell Congress to insist on eliminating pesticides that endanger women’s health. 

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

Sources: New York Times

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2025) Study results published in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology “suggest that combined [pesticide] exposure may further amplify the toxicity and compromise the intestinal barrier.” The researchers studied the toxic effects of the insecticides abamectin and spirodiclofen, as well as the fungicide fluazinam, individually and in combination. In exposing mice and Caco-2 cells to these pesticides, the results show the disruption of intestinal functions and highlight the need to assess potential synergistic effects of pesticide mixtures as a part of the regulatory review process. 

Effects on the intestinal barriers of mice represent a threat to “the first line of defense against the external environment,” the researchers say. The intestinal mucosal epithelial structure plays an important role in preventing harmful substances from entering the intestines and causing damage to cells. 

[Caco-2 cells represent a human cell line, derived from a colon cancer patient’s tissue, and mimic the small intestine. These cells are vital in research as a model of the intestinal epithelial barrier.] 

“Currently, most studies investigating the effects of pesticide residues on the barrier function of Caco-2 cells concentrate on the exposure to a single residue, while the potential toxic effects arising from the concurrent presence of multiple pesticide residues remain largely overlooked,” the authors say. As Beyond Pesticides has previously reported, scientists and advocates have urged prioritizing further studies on the effect of mixtures on organisms for many decades, given that exposure in the environment is not limited to a single pesticide at a time.  

“[R]ecent studies have increasingly highlighted the toxic effects of abamectin on non-target organisms and human cells,” the researchers state. The combination of pesticides has been widely used due to widespread resistance among red spider mites to individual pesticides. The researchers continue: “Currently, research predominantly focuses on individual exposure to pesticides, while the interaction effects of three commonly used pesticides remain largely unexplored. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the potential interaction effects of abamectin, fluazinam, and spirodiclofen pesticides with high detection rates in actual samples on the impairment of intestinal barrier function and transepithelial transport.” 

The study subjected both mice and Caco-2 cells to concentrations of the three pesticides, representing acceptable daily intake (ADI) values as well as environmental exposure concentrations. After 28 days, histopathological changes in the colon of the mice were evaluated. For the Caco-2 cell cultures, viability assays and an analysis of gene expression were performed.  

Findings from the histopathological analysis (a microscopic examination of tissues) “suggest that exposure to both individual and combined pesticides may induce structural damage to the mouse colon, with fluazinam and spirodiclofen exposure further exacerbating this damage,” the authors report.  

Between the mouse models and cell assays, treatment with the pesticide mixtures shows compromised intestinal integrity as well as changes in the transport and uptake of the chemicals. The study reports: “[A]nalysis of mouse intestines revealed synergistic damage in those exposed to a binary mixture of abamectin, fluazinam, and spirodiclofen… The studies on the transport in Caco-2 cells revealed that the combined exposure to abamectin and spirodiclofen resulted in transport amounts that were 5.37 and 19.98 times greater than those observed with individual exposures, respectively.” These results highlight how the uptake of chemicals into cells can differ not only between single pesticides but also when exposure occurs in combination.  

The effects of pesticide mixtures seen in this study highlight the importance of considering synergy in risk assessments. “These findings enhance our understanding of the interactions among multiple pesticide residues and further clarify the complexity of these interactions and their impact on human exposure,” the authors conclude. (See additional coverage on health effects from pesticide mixtures here and here.)  

Additional research referenced in the study supports the findings of intestinal damage from pesticide exposure. This includes: 

• The insecticide imidacloprid, which “induces disruption of the intestinal epithelial barrier, specifically through the down-regulation of tight junction protein complexes,” and has enhanced toxicity against the gut microbiota in mice with co-exposure to zinc oxide. (See studies here and here.) 

• The insecticide chlorpyrifos, which is “observed to disrupt the integrity of the gut barrier in mice, resulting in increased entry of lipopolysaccharides into the body.” (See study here.) 

• The fungicide carbendazim, which when combined with epoxiconazole or fluazinam has synergistic effects in Caco-2 cells, according to a study in Food Chemistry. 

The findings are very concerning, given that pesticide residues in food are introduced directly to the intestines. As the researchers note, “The intestinal tract functions as a congenital barrier for homeostasis, preventing pathogenic bacteria, toxins, and other harmful substances from entering the body.” They continue: “Pesticides ingested through the diet are absorbed and transported into the human body, directly interacting with intestinal epithelial cells. This exposure results in alterations to cell permeability and integrity, ultimately compromising the barrier function of these cells.” 

The complex interactions among pesticide mixtures are not fully understood but represent a significant threat to human health. As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, there is persistent failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world. Risk assessments have been highly criticized by Beyond Pesticides as inadequately addressing the full range of adverse effects that put human health and the health of all organisms at risk. (See more on regulatory deficiencies here.)  

Scientists and advocates have long asked EPA to evaluate and regulate full formulations, and their mixtures, instead of assessing active ingredients singularly. As science and the knowledge base evolve, so should the systems for assessments that are meant to inform decisions that have a wide impact on human and ecosystem health.  

Given both the known and still unevaluated effects of pesticides, including the impact of mixtures and synergistic effects, Beyond Pesticides urges the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032. As a holistic solution, organic land management practices offer both health and environmental benefits, with proven commercial viability and effectiveness in both agricultural and nonagricultural uses. 

Interested in transitioning your community to organic? Become a Parks Advocate through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program. You can also help protect yourself and your family by Eating with a Conscience and making The Safer Choice to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides. 

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

Source: 

Liu, Z. et al. (2025) Transport mechanisms of pesticide mixtures impairing intestinal barrier function in mice, Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048357525000690. 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2025) Earthjustice filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging the Department’s alleged illegal purging of datasets, resources, and pertinent information that organic farmers rely on to carry out their operations, according to the complaint filed on February 24, 2025.

The deletion of public data compounds the numerous threats facing organic and regenerative organic farmers across the nation. The uncertainty associated with the starting and then stopping of tariffs has led to surges in costs and supply chain challenges. Meanwhile, core organic programs, including the Organic Certification Cost Share Program, Organic Data Initiative, and Organic Certification Trade and Tracking Program, remain unfunded, leaving huge uncertainties for the organic sector moving forward. The administration has canceled the spring meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the Congressionally-mandated board established to guide the setting of standards and materials on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.

In theory, organic farmers and public and environmental health advocates align with some of the stated objectives of the Make America Healthy Again Commission (MAHA), established by executive order on February 13, 2025. MAHA’s stated efforts to “drastically lower….chronic disease rates and end…childhood chronic disease” would be undermined by the administration’s failure to support organic farmers who produce foodstuffs without the use of toxic petrochemical-based pesticides. It has been widely reported in the media that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “has vowed to crack down on dyes in the food industry and to reduce pesticides in the farm and agriculture industry,” which he can do through the tolerance-setting process at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Continue Reading »

(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2025) A study in Toxics analyzes ipconazole, a triazole fungicide often used as a coating on treated seeds and as a foliar treatment on the leaves of plants. “Triazole pesticides are widely used throughout the world, but their abuse causes toxic effects in non-targeted organisms,” the researchers state. In the current study, unintended reproductive effects are noted in male sheep (ram) and pigs (also known as porcine or swine). This research focuses on the impact of ipconazole exposure on spermatozoa (sperm) in two mammal species and finds spermiotoxicity through significantly reduced sperm viability, as well as alterations in enzyme and gene expression related to fertility. 

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the cytotoxic effect of the triazole ipconazole on mammalian spermatozoa,” the authors share. This analysis utilizes semen samples from the Reproductive Biotechnology Laboratory of the Major National University of San Marcos in Lima, Peru, the university where six of the nine researchers are Faculty of Veterinary Medicine.  

“The sperm were exposed to ipconazole concentrations of 1, 5, 10, 50 and 100 µM, and to a control without ipconazole,” they say. Similar concentrations have been used in previous cytotoxicity studies with ipconazole. One, a 2023 Toxics study, finds reduced cell viability, oxidative stress, and cell death, specifically in SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells, that suggests ipconazole exposure as a factor for neurotoxicity and neurodegeneration. 

The study evaluated a range of cell functions to determine adverse health outcomes. The latest Toxics study utilized sperm viability, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production (critical to the central nervous system), superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity (an enzyme critical to the regulation of oxygen), and catalase activity assays, as well as an analysis of gene expression through qPCR (which stands for quantitative polymerase chain reaction and is a technology used for measuring DNA). 

As a result of the experiment, the authors report: “Ipconazole led to a significant decrease in cell viability and a significant increase in ROS generation, as well as several changes in catalase and SOD activity. It also altered the molecular expression of structural and oxidative stress biomarkers in spermatozoa of both species.”  The alterations in the molecular mRNA expression of structural biomarkers include PRM1, ODF2, AKAP4, THEG, SPACA3, and CLGN, which are related to fertility in males. 

“Ipconazole-induced oxidative stress has been demonstrated experimentally in vitro and in vivo,” the researchers note. They continue: “Data from this study suggests that ipconazole is able to alter the oxidative state by inducing ROS production and reducing or increasing the activity of the antioxidant enzymes SOD and catalase in porcine and ram spermatozoa. Overall, the oxidative effect (ROS generation) of ipconazole was higher in porcine spermatozoa than in ram spermatozoa, even reaching up to 3 times higher ROS levels compared to the control group.” 

The authors also relay that there was an overexpression of BAX (cell death) and ROMO1 (oxidative stress) mRNA, which shows the ability of ipconazole to cause epigenetic changes in mammals. Overall, these results indicate that “the fungicide triazole is involved in cellular, enzymatic and molecular alteration of porcine and ram spermatozoa, and is possibly a factor in the development of infertility in male mammals,” they conclude. 

Previous research finds triazole pesticides cause various health effects in terrestrial and aquatic nontarget organisms including humans and wildlife. Other pesticide classes are also documented as impacting sperm and fertility. Relevant results highlighted in the current study include: 

• “Agrochemicals such as pesticides can alter seminal parameters, with total sperm count, motility and morphology being the most frequently worsened.” (See study here.) 

• “There is a strong association between decreased sperm concentration and the presence of pyrethroid, organophosphate [OP], BPA and phthalate pesticide metabolites in urine… Synthetic pyrethroids, OPs and phthalates have also been found to cause sperm aneuploidy and an altered X:Y ratio.” (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.) 

• Difenoconazole, when administered to rats, reduced sperm numbers in all treated groups. 

• “[C]ontinuous exposure to penconazole reduces testosterone levels, causes spermatogenic alterations, and impairs Sertoli and Leydig cell morphology.” (See study here.) 

• Triazole compounds impact chick testicular functions “by reducing cell viability, steroidogenesis and lactate production. Furthermore, the exposure of spermatozoa to triazoles causes a decrease in sperm motility, and an increase in sperm abnormalities and ROS production.” 

• “[T]ebuconazole caused a decrease in the number of germ cells and increased oxidative stress-related genes in fetal mouse testis.” (See study here.) 

• Exposing sperm cells to pesticides “induces the expression of oxidative stress and cell death such as BAX.” (See studies here, here, and here.) 

• “[T]he additive mixture of tebuconazole and econazole induced ROS-dependent cytotoxicity in TM4 Sertoli cells.” 

There is a level of complexity here that is not adequately addressed in regulatory processes within the United States (U.S.). While ipconazole is not registered for use in the European Union as of 2023 due to concerns about its impact on the environment and risks to agricultural workers, there are still permitted uses in seed treatments and for ornamental plants and turf in the U.S. Additionally, many other triazole fungicides are registered for use despite evidence of endocrine disruption. Triazole pesticides, as a class of fungicides, exhibit common mechanisms of toxicity often disregarded in risk assessments. 

The wide body of science presented in this study, as well as previous coverage from Beyond Pesticides on the impacts of pesticides on sperm, infertility, and other sexual and reproductive dysfunction, showcases the myriads of health threats that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not consider in their chemical registration processes. (See more on EPA failures and regulatory deficiencies here.)  

To mitigate these threats from harmful chemicals, alternative land management options need to be considered. There is the existence of an alternative—an organic production system—that does not harm human health, other species, or ecosystems and, in addition, helps to mitigate climate change. In all its regulatory decisions, EPA must switch to using organic production as a yardstick, denying any application for a toxic chemical in which organic production delivers a successful replacement. 

Organic agriculture provides health and environmental benefits, as well as protects and enhances biodiversity. (See recent coverage on the health benefits of organic diets here and here.) Learn more about choosing organic food through Eating with a Conscience, and consider buying organic products (on a budget!) or growing your own organic food. 

Beyond Pesticides’ mission is rooted in protecting healthy air, water, land, and food for ourselves and future generations by eliminating petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. We are working for holistic change in food production and land management—from farms to homes, gardens, parks, playing fields, and schools. Join as a member today or give now to help support our work in 2025. 

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

Source: 

Falero, C. et al. (2025) Oxidative and Molecular–Structural Alterations of Spermatozoa in Swine and Ram Exposed to the Triazole Ipconazole, Toxics. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/13/3/176. 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 10, 2025) Following International Women’s Day, celebrated on March 8, 2025, the poignant findings on women, gender, and hazardous substances in a United Nations report raise critical issues of concern and cause for urgent action to phase out petrochemicals. The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, by Marcos Orellana, was delivered to the 79^th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in July 2024.

Excerpts from the report follow:

“Women make up roughly 60 to 70 per cent of the agricultural labour force in developing countries where pesticides and pesticide handling are especially poorly regulated. In Zambia, for example, two thirds of the labour force is engaged in agriculture, and 78 per cent are women farmers and peasants. Women there play a significant role in pesticide application, often without any or adequate personal protective equipment, especially during activities such as weeding, harvesting, and washing pesticide-laden clothes.”

“In higher-income countries, women who do agricultural work are often poor and/or migrants; pesticides are one of many dimensions of marginalization and damage to their well-being. The European agriculture sector uses many seasonal and migrant women from Northern Africa, for example. Strawberries have some of the highest pesticide residues in the European Union, and women working with strawberries have also reported trafficking and sexual abuse.”

“Some of the most serious impacts of exposure to pesticides concern female reproductive health damage. Exposures to hazardous pesticides during pregnancy can cause miscarriages, premature births, birth anomalies and low birthweight. In one study in Argentina, women exposed to chlorpyrifos experienced miscarriage at 4.7 times the rate of other women. Men also face reproductive damage from pesticides, for example reductions in sperm quality. A recent Brazilian study found that pesticides generated a wide spectrum of reproductive health problems, such as male and female infertility, endocrine disruption, some types of cancer, germ cell mutations, damage to pregnancy and fetal development, effects on child development and puberty and transgenerational effects, among others.”

The regulation of (or failure to restrict) toxic chemicals poses disproportionate harm to women. Pesticides’ adverse effects on women, inadequate regulatory recognition of elevated pesticide risks to women, and the gaps in research related to pesticides and women’s health must empower a louder and larger driving force in the elimination of petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use and transition to organic practices. 

Among the most compelling reasons to act to eliminate petrochemical pesticides is the data, collected by the American Cancer Society, which establishes that breast cancer is the most common cancer in the U.S. (2024). We know from the large number of studies that toxic chemicals, and pesticides in particular contribute significantly to this tragic reality. Genetic factors play only a minor role in breast cancer incidences, while exposure to external environmental factors (i.e., chemical exposure) may play a more notable role. For breast cancer, one in ten women will receive a diagnosis, and genetics can only account for five to ten percent of cases. Therefore, it is essential to understand how external stimuli—like environmental pollution from pesticides—can drive breast cancer development.  

Most types of breast cancers are hormonally responsive and thus dependent on the synthesis of either estrogen or progesterone. Hormones generated by the endocrine system—and the synthetic chemicals that mimic them—greatly influence breast cancer incidents among humans. Several studies and reports, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, identify hundreds of chemicals as influential factors associated with breast cancer risk. 

>> Tell Congress to insist on eliminating pesticides that endanger women’s health. 

Pesticides disproportionately affect women’s health in many ways, including ovarian and breast cancer, spontaneous abortion, stillbirths, and other negative birth outcomes, developmental effects, and adverse neurodevelopment (brain function and development) among infants. Notably, many of these health effects are hormonally responsive. Chemicals that act like hormones—endocrine disruptors—may cause or contribute to these problems. 

Endocrine disruptors (EDCs) are chemicals that can, even at low exposure levels, disrupt normal hormonal (endocrine) function. Endocrine disruptors function by: (1) mimicking the action of a naturally produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; (2) blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of natural hormones; or (3) affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism, and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones. 

EDCs include many pesticides, exposures to which have been linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. EDCs can wreak havoc not only on humans but also, on wildlife and ecosystems. 

In 1996 Congress required EPA to determine whether pesticides disrupt the endocrine system of humans and other organisms. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in February 2024 issued a proposal for modifying its approach to the implementation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). On October 11, EPA published a notice of a proposed partial settlement agreement and consent decree in response to a suit by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, et al. challenging the agency’s failure to test and regulate endocrine-disrupting pesticides. 

EPA’s proposal was an abrogation of EPA’s responsibilities under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act / Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FQPA/FFDCA) as well as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Limiting the scope of the EDSP to humans, certain pesticide active ingredients only, and limiting the types of data to assess ED effects is contrary to the Congressional intent and requirements in these statutes. It is also a reversal of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) advice and the agency’s original EDSP implementation policy and science decisions.  

While the consent decree does commit EPA to testing for estrogenic effects in conventional pesticide active ingredients, it falls far short of addressing the full range of endocrine disrupting effects of all pesticide ingredients, as is required to protect human health and the environment. The February 2024 comments of Beyond Pesticides detail these requirements.

Under FIFRA, a pesticide is presumed to pose an unreasonable risk until reliable data demonstrate otherwise. If EPA lacks the data and/or resources to fully evaluate endocrine risks to human health and wildlife, then it is obliged to suspend or deny any pesticide registration until it has sufficient data to demonstrate no unreasonable adverse endocrine risk. 

The history and status of endocrine disruption research are summarized in Beyond Pesticides’ comments and the October 29, 2024 Daily News post. Evidence that synthetic chemicals can mimic or otherwise interfere with natural hormones has existed for over half a century. Although early attention was given to estrogen mimics, it soon became apparent that the homeostatic function of the endocrine system—which regulates and balances physiological functions—can be disrupted at many sites and hormone systems.  

>> Tell Congress to insist on eliminating pesticides that endanger women’s health. 

Endocrine disruption as a phenomenon affecting humans and other species has been critically reviewed by several authors. A common thread weaving across these reviews is the notion that chemicals that may disrupt the endocrine systems of humans and wildlife may be pervasive in contaminating their habitats. A pandemic of endocrine-related disorders from attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, diabetes, obesity, childhood cancers, testicular cancer in young men, infertility, male dysgenesis syndrome, hypospadias, low sperm count, loss of semen volume and sperm quality, and increased risk of testicular and prostate cancer can be connected with endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). All these disorders have been increasing in incidence and can be traced back to prenatal exposure to EDCs. 

Endocrine pathways are largely conserved across species and, thus, are not species- or taxa- specific. It is well-known that thyroid endocrinology in particular is well conserved across vertebrate taxa. This includes aspects of thyroid hormone synthesis, metabolism, and mechanisms of action. Thyroid hormones are derived from the thyroid gland through regulation of the HPT axis, which is controlled through a complex mechanism of positive and negative feedback regulation. Multiple pathways contribute to the synthesis of thyroid-releasing hormone, including thyroid hormone signaling through feedback mechanisms; leptin and melanocortin signaling; body temperature regulation; and cardiovascular physiology. Each pathway directly targets thyroid-releasing hormone neurons. Based on the conservation of endocrine pathways, it is well understood that the ecological assays (the frog assay in particular) are often more sensitive and equally relevant to mammalian assays in informing risk assessors on whether a chemical can perturb and cause adverse endocrine outcomes in the human population and vice versa. 

FQPA amends FIFRA to ensure potential endocrine-disrupting effects are considered in agency risk assessments to fulfill the FIFRA mandate that a pesticide registration will not cause unreasonable adverse effects. This applies to humans and wildlife and to all pesticide chemicals as defined in FIFRA including “all active and pesticide inert ingredients of such pesticide.” SDWA addresses drinking water contaminants as well. EPA must make use of all available scientifically relevant endocrine disruption research findings and avoid deviating from established international efforts for screening/testing endocrine disruptors that incorporate human and wildlife-relevant studies. Recognizing that mammalian data informs potential endocrine disruption in other vertebrate taxa (avian, amphibian, fish) and vice versa, the agency should not decouple the mammalian from other vertebrate assays in EDSP screening.  There are more than 50 different ecological and mammalian assays included in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Conceptual Framework for screening/testing endocrine disrupting effects, and there are additional assays being developed for consideration as well. So, the agency should not limit the range or types of data to be used, but as FQPA prescribes use “appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information.”

Many studies have long demonstrated that childhood and in-utero exposure to DDT increases the risk of developing breast cancer later in life. Many current-use pesticides and chemical contaminants play a role in similar disease prognoses, including mammary tumor formation. Recent research from the Silent Spring Institute links 28 different EPA-registered pesticides with the development of mammary gland tumors in animal studies. Many of these chemicals are endocrine disruptors and thus have implications for breast cancer risk. 

A 2020 study reveals that exposure to acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors like organophosphates (OP) can cause sex-specific differences in depression symptoms among adolescent girls through endocrine disruption. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that, in the general population, OP exposure causes an increased risk of total cancer for female non-smokers, breast cancer for female smokers, and prostate cancer for male smokers from OP exposure.  

>> Tell Congress to insist on eliminating pesticides that endanger women’s health. 

Proper prevention practices, like buying, growing, and supporting organics, can eliminate exposure to toxic pesticides. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, as it curtails the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Regenerative organic agriculture nurtures soil health through organic carbon sequestration, preventing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture.

For more information on why organic is the right choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.  

Letter to the U.S. Congress
In furtherance of the 2025 International Women’s Day (IWD) goal of accelerating action, please commit to eliminating the ways in which the regulation of (or failure to restrict) toxic chemicals pose disproportionate harm to women.

Pesticides disproportionately affect women’s health in many ways, including ovarian and breast cancer, spontaneous abortion, stillbirths, and other negative birth outcomes, developmental effects, and adverse neurodevelopment (brain function and development) among infants. Notably, many of these health effects are hormonally responsive. Chemicals that act like hormones—endocrine disruptors—may cause or contribute to these problems.

Endocrine disruptors (EDCs) are chemicals that can, even at low exposure levels, disrupt normal hormonal (endocrine) function. Endocrine disruptors function by: (1) mimicking the action of a naturally produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; (2) blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of natural hormones; or (3) affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism, and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones.

EDCs include many pesticides, exposures to which have been linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. EDCs can wreak havoc not only on humans but also on wildlife and ecosystems.

In 1996 Congress required EPA to determine whether pesticides disrupt the endocrine system of humans and other organisms. EPA has so far failed to carry out the Congressional mandate.

According to data from the American Cancer Society, breast cancer is the most common cancer in the U.S. (2024). Genetic factors play only a minor role in breast cancer incidences, while exposure to external environmental factors (i.e., chemical exposure) may play a more notable role. For breast cancer, one in ten women will receive a diagnosis, and genetics can only account for five to ten percent of cases. Therefore, it is essential to understand how external stimuli—like environmental pollution from pesticides—can drive breast cancer development. 

Most types of breast cancers are hormonally responsive and thus dependent on the synthesis of either estrogen or progesterone. Hormones generated by the endocrine system—and the synthetic chemicals that mimic them—greatly influence breast cancer incidents among humans. Several studies and reports, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, identify hundreds of chemicals as influential factors associated with breast cancer risk.

Many current-use pesticides and chemical contaminants play a role in similar disease prognoses, including mammary tumor formation. Recent research from the Silent Spring Institute links 28 different EPA-registered pesticides with the development of mammary gland tumors in animal studies. Many of these chemicals are endocrine disruptors and thus have implications for breast cancer risk.

A 2020 study reveals that exposure to acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors like organophosphates (OP) can cause sex-specific differences in depression symptoms among adolescent girls through endocrine disruption. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that, in the general population, OP exposure causes an increased risk of total cancer for female non-smokers, breast cancer for female smokers, and prostate cancer for male smokers from OP exposure. 

In order to protect women, please insist that EPA deny the registration of any pesticide unless it is shown NOT to cause endocrine disruption.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2025) In honor of International Women’s Day on Saturday, March 8, 2025, Beyond Pesticides sheds light on the disproportionate risks to women from toxic chemicals that are often unaccounted for and even dismissed throughout pesticide regulatory review and the underlying statutes. In a roundup of Daily News coverage in 2024, as well as the most recent scientific studies in 2025, on the scientific links between pesticide exposure and adverse effects in women, this article highlights the growing inequities in pesticide threats to women’s health. 

Women farmers and farmworkers are particularly excluded when assessing pesticide risks. As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, a study published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine finds that pesticide exposure, especially during puberty, can play a role in ovarian cancer development among female farmers. Although there are many studies that evaluate the risk for cancers among farmers, very few scientific articles cover the risk of ovarian cancer from pesticide exposure. 

Additionally, this study suggests the role of hormones in ovarian cancer prognosis and development, highlighting an association with endocrine disruption. Endocrine disruption can lead to numerous health problems in multiple organ systems, including hormone-related cancer development (e.g., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity that can span generations. 

It must be noted that breast cancer, according to the American Cancer Society, “is the most common cancer in women in the United States, except for skin cancers. It accounts for about 30% (or 1 in 3) of all new female cancers each year.” Hundreds of thousands of breast cancer diagnoses occur each year. The American Cancer Society estimates for 2025 include approximately 316,950 new cases of invasive breast cancer and 42,170 deaths, as a result of breast cancer, in women. Beyond Pesticides has extensively covered the wide body of science linking pesticide exposure to breast cancer here and here. 

In other scientific literature, a recent cross-sectional study in Heliyon highlights the link between sleep disorders in Thai farmers and pesticide exposure while also revealing that “women are at a higher risk of sleep-related issues with pesticide exposure compared to males,” the researchers report. (See Daily News coverage here.) 

Additional research published in Environmental Pollution reports the effects of the widely used insecticide chlorpyrifos (CPF) on gut dysbiosis in women, with more pronounced impacts in pregnant women. In noting intestinal imbalance in both non-pregnant and pregnant women, the study “enhances our understanding of the health risks associated with CPF exposure in women, with implications for maternal and fetal health, and underscores the importance of considering physiological states such as pregnancy in toxicological research.” 

Sex-specific health implications from pesticides within a multitude of studies showcase how males and females can experience different effects from exposure. These differences can be attributed to variations in hormone levels and reproductive organs that can be adversely affected by endocrine-disrupting chemicals. A recent study in Biology of Sex Differences regarding different clinical features between men and women states, “Despite widespread recognition of these differences, females are under-represented in clinical and experimental studies.” In analyzing sex and gender differences in the molecular etiology of Parkinson’s disease, the authors find transcriptomic (relating to RNA, gene expression, and cell/tissue regulation) and epigenetic (changes in gene expression and cell function without DNA alterations) differences in men and women. This highlights how variations between men and women in gene regulation and hormones can impact disease outcomes.  

The study also notes the gender bias associated with pesticides that are correlated with Parkinson’s diagnoses, compounded by biological differences. The authors conclude: “In addition to the gender-based likelihood of exposure, pesticides and neurotoxins interact with biological sex-related factors. Higher levels of adipose tissue in females compared with males increase the risk for pesticide absorption and later release into the bloodstream. Changes in estrogen levels during pregnancy, breastfeeding, and menopause also affect susceptibility to negative health effects of pesticide exposure. Finally, pesticide exposures may interact with genetic and epigenetic factors differently in each sex.” (See additional coverage on sex-specific effects in mammals here.) 

A report by the American Cancer Society, titled “Cancer Mortality Continues to Drop Despite Rising Incidence in Women; Rates of New Diagnoses Under 65 Higher in Women Than Men,” finds disparities in cancer deaths and diagnoses for not only women but by race and ethnicity. The report highlights, “Despite overall declines in cancer mortality, death rates are increasing for cancers of the oral cavity, pancreas, uterine corpus, and liver (female).”  

As Beyond Pesticides previously stated, if we are not protecting the most vulnerable in society, we ultimately adversely affect the entire society because we are intricately linked in the web of life. Pesticide regulation, which has failed—even under friendly administrations—to protect human health, enhance biodiversity, and prevent climate disasters, is in need of reform in order to protect those at greatest risk, and in doing so, protect the general population.  

The research that connects pesticides, such as glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba, to heightened risks in women and their children of cancer risk, developmental delays, neurotoxicity, infertility, negative birth outcomes, and diabetes is overwhelming. Of the subset of studies analyzed over the past year, noteworthy coverage includes: 

• A study published in Environmental Research finds an association between adverse neurodevelopment (brain function and development) among infants and exposure to the herbicide glyphosate during pregnancy (gestational). (Daily News available here.)      

• In a first-of-its-kind series of biomonitoring studies published in Agrochemicals, researchers identified the presence of the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D in all pregnant participants from both cohorts in 2010-2012 and 2020-2022. (Daily News available here.) 

• Published in Science of The Total Environment, a comprehensive literature review of population-based studies finds strong linkages between direct and acute pesticide exposure and elevated risk of breast cancer. Included in these studies are women who worked in chemical-intensive agricultural settings, directly sprayed pesticides in their at-home gardens, and/or handled pesticide-contaminated clothing. (Daily News available here.) 

• Pesticide exposure is linked to negative birth outcomes in a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The researchers correlate mothers living within 500 meters of any pyrethroid, organophosphate, or carbamate insecticide applications during specific windows before and during pregnancy with stillbirth. (Daily News available here.) 

• A comprehensive literature review in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety links a heightened risk of spontaneous abortion with pesticide exposure, allowing the researchers to highlight an important public health issue and raise concerns for maternal contact with the harmful chemicals in pesticide products. (Daily News available here.) 

• In a Frontiers in Public Health review article, researchers report on the wide body of science connecting adverse effects to the female reproductive system, such as infertility and related diseases including endometriosis, premature ovarian insufficiency, and endocrine axis dysregulation, with exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. (Daily News available here.) 

• Women with occupational pesticide exposure have elevated rates of breast cancer, according to a study in Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology. Based on an analysis of clinicopathological data from 188 affected women, the study authors demonstrate “that occupational exposure to pesticides modifies the clinical presentation of disease in breast cancer patients, depending on their age at disease onset, affecting cytokine production, especially in those exhibiting early age at diagnosis.” (Daily News available here.) 

With the fight for proper representation for women in all aspects of life, the need for equitable scientific research in both toxicology studies and clinical trials is clear, according to health advocates. According to the Katz Institute for Women’s Health: “Medical research has left women in the dark for years… Failing to take extraordinary steps to ensure women are well represented in clinical trials and to assess differences between sexes in medical therapy leaves a lot of women’s health up to chance.” The absence of women in important research is “limiting biological understanding and contributing to health inequities and social injustice,” according to a study in Cell Reports Medicine. 

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

On International Women’s Day—and every day—pesticides’ adverse effects on women, inadequate regulatory recognition of elevated pesticide risks to women, and the gaps in research related to pesticides and women’s health must empower a louder and larger driving force in the elimination of petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use and transition to organic practices. In commemorating women in science, take a look at “Sí, se puede”—Letter and Reflection From the Women of Beyond Pesticides. Happy International Women’s Day to all! 

In furtherance of the 2025 International Women’s Day (IWD) goal of accelerating action, Beyond Pesticides asks you to consider the ways in which the regulation of (or failure to restrict) toxic chemicals poses disproportionate harm to women. On this day, and every day, pesticides’ adverse effects on women, inadequate regulatory recognition of elevated pesticide risks to women, and the gaps in research related to pesticides and women’s health must empower a louder and larger driving force in the elimination of petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use and transition to organic practices. >> Tell Congress to insist on eliminating pesticides that endanger women’s health. 

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

Sources: 

Abou Diwan, M. et al. (2025) Effects of Chlorpyrifos on gut dysbiosis and barriers integrity in women with a focus on pregnancy and prebiotic intervention: Insights from advanced in vitro human models, Environmental Pollution. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749124022504.  

Schaffner, S. et al. (2025) Sex and gender differences in the molecular etiology of Parkinson’s disease: considerations for study design and data analysis, Biology of Sex Differences. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13293-025-00692-w.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2025) A proposed change to a model pesticide ordinance in the city of Portland, Maine was soundly defeated on Monday, March 3 after public engagement and a near-unanimous city council vote. In a 6-1 vote, the council rejected the school district’s request for a waiver under the city’s pesticide use ordinance to use the insecticide chlorantraniliprole/acelepryn (diamide insecticide). A campaign to reject the waiver was led by Avery Yale Kamila, cofounder of Portland Protectors, and supported by Beyond Pesticides.

Portland passed a landmark Pesticide Use Ordinance in 2018 and a synthetic fertilizer ban over five years later. As stated in Beyond Pesticides testimony to the council, “Key to [the Portland ordinance’s] passage was an understanding that Portland was not going to take a product substitution approach to land management, replacing a toxic pesticide with an “organic” pesticide, but that it was facilitating the adoption of an organic systems approach that used allowed inputs (defined in the ordinance) when necessary.” The ordinance refers to allowed materials under federal organic certification law. The Landcare Advisory Committee, created by Portland’s ordinance, recommended the toxic pesticide use waiver with some objections, raising questions among city council members about the need for strengthening the ordinance to ensure support for the rigorous adoption of organic land management practices to prevent pest problems.

In its testimony, Beyond Pesticides said: “The recognition that creating sustainable fields, lawns, and landscapes requires a holistic approach to land management is central to the passage and updating of the ordinance. We urge that the City Council reject the amendment to the ordinance that will allow the chemical’s use and constitute a serious setback for the City’s sustainability efforts.”

The events in Portland illustrate that public policy and health protections are continually subject to pressure from those who want to take a chemical-intensive approach to land management. In fact, continuous engagement and education are required, given the turnover of elected officials and continual campaigning by those committed to chemical-intensive practices, either because they have not been trained in organic land management or they have a vested interest in using toxic chemicals.

Background

The City of Portland is part of a growing number of communities that have adopted ordinances that restrict pesticides by limiting their use to a list of allowed substances established under federal organic law. The adoption of the Portland ordinance followed the adoption of similar laws in Ogunquit, neighboring South Portland, and other jurisdictions like the City of Takoma Park and Montgomery County, both in Maryland. Thirty-four jurisdictions throughout Maine have restricted pesticides, including on public and private property. South Portland and Portland have adopted a holistic approach to land management by also banning petrochemical fertilizer use—since that use undermines the natural cycling of nutrients in the soil that requires building back organic matter and feeding microorganisms in the soil that solubilize nutrients for uptake by grass and other plants.

In support of Portland’s legislation when it was being debated, the council received a letter from 31 medical and science professionals, who said, “As health professionals, it is our contention based on the molecular and microbiologic actions of these synthetic land care pesticides that the continued use of them must be challenged, banned, and replaced by practices and products that are not harmful to people and the environment.”

Maine policymakers continue to adopt the precautionary principle and understand the importance of moving beyond siloes in promulgating public policy, as evidenced by numerous pieces of legislation passed in recent years. Through the adoption of this policy, communities express the importance of responding to the current existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises that are exacerbated by the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.

In an attempt to preempt Maine municipalities from adopting their pesticide restrictions, the chemical and pest control industry sought unsuccessfully to enact a statewide pesticide preemption law (LD 1853) in 2018. In April 2021, the Maine legislature passed, and Governor Janet Mills (D-ME) signed, a new law that will prohibit use of neonicotinoid pesticides with the “active ingredient[s] dinotefuran, clothianidin, imidacloprid or thiamethoxam used for application in outdoor residential landscapes such as on lawn, turf or ornamental vegetation.” A few months after this win, however, Governor Mills vetoed legislation prohibiting the aerial use of glyphosate and other dangerous herbicides in forestry practices.

(See Daily News, Portland, ME Becomes an Organic City, Banning Toxic Pesticides on Public and Private Property, for historical context.)

The Connecticut Example on Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

A similar effort to weaken previously adopted pesticide restrictions occurred in Connecticut when legislation was introduced in 2012 to repeal the state’s ban on toxic pesticide use on school grounds with an amendment calling for “integrated pest management” (IPM), a practice that allows the use of toxic pesticides without any meaningful restrictions. Through public engagement, communities fought back and defeated the measure.

Because of IPM’s reliance on pesticides and its failure to meet its original goals of moving away from pesticide dependency, Beyond Pesticides began advocating for the adoption of organic policy and practice in the early 1980s. A 2021 study authored by previous IPM practitioners and advocates worldwide concluded, “More than half a century after its conception, IPM has not been adopted to a satisfactory extent and has largely failed to deliver on its promise. . . . Despite six decades of good intentions, harsh realities need to be faced for the future. . . . IPM has arguably reached its limits.”

The researchers determined that the failures of IPM are sixfold:

1. The plethora of definitions of IPM has meant confusion and varying interpretations of the concept by practitioners;
2. There have been inconsistencies between IPM concepts and practices and public policies;
3. Commonly, there is a lack of basic understanding by farmers of the ecological concepts behind IPM;
4. In many IPM programs, chemical controls remain a cornerstone, and their use as a “last resort” is rarely adopted by farmers;
5. IPM research has been paltry, both in scientific and programmatic realms; and
6. “Ecology” has been inadequately prioritized in IPM.

(See Daily News, IPM (Integrated Pest Management) Fails to Stop Toxic Pesticide Use, for further analysis.)

Parks for a Sustainable Future

Beyond Pesticides is collaborating with communities across the nation to advance organically managed land management systems on public green spaces, including parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields. Community discussion on this underscores the importance of building and sustaining awareness of the importance of organic land management and food systems as chemical and pest control interests push the introduction of weakening amendments, even years after a policy is passed.

See here to learn more about the process to become an advocate for the Parks for a Sustainable Future program and transition your community into a petrochemical-free zone! If you are a local government official interested in learning more about how to participate in the program, see here.

See Action of the Week from earlier this year to ask your mayor to adopt a policy and program for organic management of your community’s parks and public spaces. 

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

Source: Portland Press Herald

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2025) Legislation in the state of Washington (Senate Bill 5474) is moving forward to establish a first-in-the-nation Organic Action Plan to “expand opportunities for organic, regenerative, climate-smart, and sustainable producers.” If passed, this bill would build on California’s trailblazer status as a leader in cultivating the expansion of the organic marketplace. Advocates hope that in developing the Plan, Washington will follow in the footsteps of California and European Union by setting targets for total cropland under certified organic management and bridge the gap between climate, public health, and biodiversity.

As federal funding cutbacks continue to impact farmers’ ability to leverage resources and grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), organic and transitional farmers are eager to see states like Washington take responsibility and improve the financial viability of farmers. Mike Stranz, vice president of advocacy at National Farmers Union, spoke to Brownfield Ag News when visiting the Wisconsin Farmers Union town hall meeting on February 21 echoing these concerns, saying, “A lot of conservation and climate initiatives, a lot of local foods initiatives and programs, dollars for those were halted and cut short even as farmers and ranchers were making improvements or holding up their end of the deal.”

Protecting and strengthening organic standards is a key priority for Beyond Pesticides, and issues before the National Organic Standards Board at the upcoming Spring meeting will be covered on the organization’s Keeping Organic Strong webpage. The public’s voices will be critical to ensure that USDA protects organic amid the wanton firings of federal workers and cuts to federal programs.

Structure of Original Bill

The originally filed legislation, SB 5474, has three core pillars:

1. Organic Action Plan: The Washington Department of Agriculture (WDA) will be tasked to develop a written report to submit to the legislature no later than June 1, 2027.
2. Microgrant Program: WDA will contract with a relevant nonprofit to administer grants of up to $25,000 for new and beginning farmers, with prioritization listed for Black, Indigenous, and farmers of color, as well as farmers employing regenerative and climate-smart practices, including those that facilitate greenhouse gas reduction, carbon sequestration, soil health, biodiversity, among other criteria.
3. Organic Certification Support: Under their authority of managing the state organic certification program, the WDA Director will be empowered to modify certification fees to provide flexibility for struggling farmers, both existing organic certified and those making or intending to begin the transition.

The legislation is based on five key findings:

1. Washington state has a diverse agricultural sector, with over 15 million acres producing 300 different crops. Chemical-intensive, industrial agriculture is dominated by monoculture farming that degrades soil, water, and ecosystem health, and inevitably human health. Underscoring the vibrance of the state’s agricultural sector is a helpful tool for advocacy because it establishes a starting point for potential skeptics who may fabricate claims that this bill is anti-farmer.
2. Consumer demand for organic in the state has grown steadily year over year, by a factor of 10 to 15 percent annually between 2010 and 2025. Organic skeptics tend to point to misleading or outright false arguments that organic is not viable economically and that consumers are put off by the price. The most recent USDA Census corroborates this argument that, between 2017 and 2022, total organic product sales in the U.S. jumped by 24 percent despite the supply chain disruptions borne from the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Numerous sustainable agriculture practices can improve economic, human, and ecosystem health, including regenerative, climate-smart, and organic. Despite this, nonchemical-intensive forms of agriculture have not had the same political value as their conventional counterparts.
4. The price of certification is a “significant expense” and a barrier to transitioning farmers to organic. Identifying the problem establishes a launching point to propose the solution.
5. Regulatory and financial obstacles for organic and transitional farmers in the state of Washington need to be removed.

A version of this bill was introduced in the 2024 legislative session with significant support from the organic and regenerative farming sector, led by the Coalition for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture, an initiative of Tilth Alliance (an affiliate of the National Organic Coalition, of which Beyond Pesticides is a member).

Committee Recommendations & Changes

As the bill moves through the committee process, the latest draft, SB 5474-5, removes the provision for the microgrant program. A report submitted by the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee mentions several other strikes from the original bill, including removing “the requirement that the organic agriculture action plan identify ways to improve partnerships between organic producers and financial institutions.” The new draft also removes “intent language concerning the effects of certain agricultural practices.” According to comments and feedback from legislators on the bill during public hearings on February 3 and February 20, concerns were expressed about the bill, given budget concerns raised about limited funding at the state level.

Because of the limited public support of organic as a social good through grants and tax policy, the cost of organic has largely been out of reach for low- and moderate-income households. As a result, it has long been criticized as elitist and exclusionary to the working class and consumers of color. A similar critique extends to the accessibility of certification for farmers. According to 2017 Agricultural Census data (the last collection to have updated information on racial and ethnic demographics), 92% of organic farm owners identify as White; meanwhile, fewer than 1% of organic farm owners identified as Black or African American, and 0.5% identified as American Indian or Alaska Native. (See National Organic Coalition resources here.)

Advocates argue that rolling back provisions in the bill will undermine the foundational intent “to identify and remove existing regulatory and market barriers that are preventing agricultural producers from integrating organic and regenerative practices and accessing certified organic markets.” However, given that this bill is still in the early stages of the legislative process and the overarching structure appears to remain intact, advocates still see plenty of opportunities to incorporate this microgrant program in a different capacity after/once the legislation is passed and signed into law.

Organic as a Climate, Biodiversity, and Public Health Solution

For regular readers of the Daily News, it will come as no surprise that the benefits of farmland managed with organic standards and criteria are justified by numerous peer-reviewed scientific literature and field tests. The Rodale Institute has conducted the longest-running North American field study comparing organic to chemical-intensive grain-cropping and reported in 2022 impressive productivity and profitability benefits based on four decades of data collection:

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

German researchers last year found that organic farming provides significant benefits to honeybees, along with the presence of diverse flowering plants in and near monoculture fields, according to an analysis of 16 agricultural landscapes in Lower Saxony and northern Hesse that had different combinations of semi-natural habitat, organic practices, and annual and perennial flower strips. Organic methods of honeybee and biodiversity stewardship have been found to match or outcompete conventional, chemical-intensive practices, according to a study led by Pennsylvania State researchers in 2023. There are also plenty of opportunities to support ecosystem stability while farming organically, as proven in a recent study on bats.

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

Call to Action

Organic integrity is at a crossroads. California is attempting to define sustainable agricultural programs, including regenerative agriculture funding programs, without mentioning organic standards, practices, or criteria. Beyond Pesticides has written extensively about the risks of greenwashing in legislation, despite decades of advocacy to develop an industry that is now valued at roughly $70 billion.

A bill in New York, S1306, would exempt farmland that is in transition to certified organic practices from real property tax for up to a three-year period.

As energy shifts to the state level, advocates continue to diligently review proposed bills in different legislatures. Simultaneously, Beyond Pesticides continues to track the NOSB meetings to ensure that existing organic standards are preserved, offer recommendations to improve trust in the label, and provide the public with how-to guides and sample comments to offer a starting point to engage in the process.

See Keeping Organic Strong to learn more and prepare for the Spring 2025 public comment process. Tell your state legislators and governor to support the transition to organic with state tax policy reform.

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

Source: Washington State Legislature

(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2025) A study in GeoHealth of pediatric cancers in Nebraska links exposure to agricultural mixtures with the occurrence of these diseases. The authors find statistically significant positive associations between pesticide usage rates and children with cancer, specifically brain and central nervous system (CNS) cancers and leukemia.

“Our study is the first to estimate the effect of an agrichemical mixture on the pediatric cancer rate in Nebraska,” the study authors share. “One significant advantage of our study is that we identified the pesticide consistently applied over 22 years in Nebraska counties and then estimated the overall mixture effect of these pesticides on pediatric cancer.” The elevated effect of pesticide mixtures, a reality that is not evaluated in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide registration program, was reported in Oecologia (2008), documenting harm to amphibian populations even if the concentration of the individual chemicals is within limits considered acceptable. (See additional coverage here.)

There is a wide body of science highlighting the disproportionate risk of adverse health effects in children with pesticide exposure. Their small size and developing organ systems, propensity to crawl and play near the ground, tendency for frequent hand-to-mouth motion, and greater intake of air and food relative to body weight make them particularly susceptible. These risks additionally increase from “agricultural activities in nearby fields (such as [with] agricultural drift, volatilization, and wind erosion) and the transportation of pesticides into the home by family members who are occupationally exposed (e.g., through clothes and shoes),” the researchers say.

Methodology and Results

In analyzing data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide National Synthesis Project in combination with diagnoses through the Nebraska cancer registry, the study authors find associations between 32 agrichemicals and pediatric cancer. The data encompasses frequently applied pesticides from 1992 to 2014 in 93 Nebraska counties, as well as pediatric cancer diagnoses among children <20 years of age from the same years.

The authors report, “We observed a statistically significant positive association between the 32 agrichemicals and overall pediatric cancer and subtypes.” They continue, saying that the 11 subtypes include “leukemias, lymphomas, and reticuloendothelial neoplasms, all brain and central nervous system (CNS) neoplasms, neuroblastomas, and other peripheral nervous cell tumors, retinoblastoma, renal tumors, hepatic tumors, malignant bone tumors, soft tissue, and other extraosseous sarcomas, germ cell tumors, and other malignant epithelial neoplasms.”  

The agrichemicals assessed in the study are among those most commonly used in the selected Nebraska counties. The researchers note: “Predominantly applied herbicides included 2,4-D, atrazine, alachlor, acetochlor, and glyphosate, followed by insecticides such as chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, esfenvalerate, and others. Atrazine, 2,4-D, trifluralin, picloram, and permethrin were categorized as IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer] Group 3 carcinogens or classified as not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans. At the same time, glyphosate was labeled as a type 2A carcinogen [probably carcinogenic] by IARC. Despite their classifications, numerous human and animal studies have reported these agrichemicals to be carcinogenic to humans.”

[Disregarding decades’ worth of scientific research on pesticides as carcinogens, many regulatory agencies fail to properly label these toxic chemicals as such. Currently, EPA disagrees with IARC and independent scientists and concludes that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans. In Beyond Pesticides’ recent Daily News article on glyphosate, the connection between blood cancers and glyphosate is explored, offering potential mechanisms to explain how glyphosate causes cancer.]

The study results show: “that every 10% increase in pesticide mixture was associated with a 36% increase in the rate of brain and other CNS cancers in children. The magnitude of this association was slightly greater for brain and other CNS cancers than for overall cancer and leukemia.” The pesticides, notably mostly herbicides, contributing the most to this joint association of agrichemical mixtures and cancer rates include dicamba, glyphosate, paraquat, quizalofop, triasulfuron, and tefluthrin.

As highlighted in a U.S. Right to Know article, “The findings raise concerns about the long-term health impacts of pesticides on children, particularly in agricultural regions, and add to growing evidence that pesticide exposure contributes to childhood cancer.”

Pesticides and Cancer

As Beyond Pesticides states, “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.” A multitude of studies connect exposure in children, who are especially vulnerable to pesticides, with developmental delays, asthma, learning disorders and neurological damage, and cancer, among other diseases. (See more Daily News coverage on children here, as well as the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)

“Cancer has been one of the major causes of death in children globally, and the incidence has been increasing in recent times,” the study authors note. They continue: “In the United States, it has been the second most common cause of death among children aged 1–14 years and the fourth most common cause among adolescents (aged 15–19 years), and about 1 in 260 children has been diagnosed with cancer before the age of 20 years.”

While incidence rates of childhood cancer can vary across the country and throughout the world, many areas, such as those with large amounts of land devoted to agriculture, have higher-than-average incidence rates. In assessing the connection between pesticide usage and the occurrence of cancer, the researchers note the importance of focusing on pesticide mixtures compared to single pesticides.  

“Several studies have explored the environmental, genetic, and social risk factors for childhood cancers, as well as the association between pediatric cancer and individual waterborne agrichemicals in Nebraska,” the authors share. “However, individuals are exposed to a chemical mixture, and by studying individual chemicals in isolation, we will underestimate the cumulative effects of co-exposures within the mixture.”

“The current study expands upon the findings of Ouattara et al. (2022), which focused on the association of individual chemicals with pediatric cancer in Nebraska and, encountered limitations due to the confounding influence of co-pollutant exposures and investigation of only three cancer subtypes,” the researchers state. They continue, “We have addressed these limitations by exploring the impact of exposure to a mixture of agrichemicals, supporting our initial hypothesis that such exposure is a significant risk factor for the development of pediatric cancer.”

Assuming single pollutant exposure ignores the reality that humans, and all other organisms, are subjected to many different chemical mixtures. “[B]y studying individual chemicals in isolation, we will underestimate the cumulative effects of co-exposures within the mixture,” the researchers conclude. The interactions of pesticide mixtures can result in “synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects, influencing the health of ecosystems and living organisms.”

This study, while supporting previous research findings on carcinogenic pesticides, also expands on the scientific literature by identifying certain pesticides as risk factors for pediatric cancer that have not been considered carcinogenic in the past. EPA does not consider the pesticides within this study (dicamba, glyphosate, paraquat, quizalofop, triasulfuron, and tefluthrin), which are found to be associated with increased cancer rates from agrichemical mixture exposure, as carcinogens. This raises concerns about the current regulatory processes that do not adequately assess harmful chemicals and ignore peer-reviewed scientific evidence regarding pesticides and their mixtures.

The Organic Solution

The answer to protecting children and all future generations lies in organic land management. Organic practices focus on health—by prioritizing soil health, the health of all organisms and the environment are also protected. The “National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances” managed by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) outlines what substances can be used in organic crop and livestock production and is continuously improved upon through scientific research and public input.

Visit the Keeping Organic Strong page to learn more about organic regulations and farming practices, as well as updates on the next NOSB meeting for this spring. Discover the health and environmental benefits of organic here and here, and make The Safer Choice to protect you and your family.

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

Source:

Ferdinand, P. (2025) Agricultural pesticide exposure linked to childhood cancers, study says, U.S. Right to Know. Available at: https://usrtk.org/healthwire/pesticide-exposure-linked-to-childhood-cancers/.

Taiba, J. et al. (2025) Exploring the Joint Association Between Agrichemical Mixtures and Pediatric Cancer, GeoHealth. Available at: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GH001236.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2025) When the United Nations (UN) adjourned the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), said, “The world’s commitment to ending plastic pollution is clear and undeniable.” She continued, “Here in Busan [Korea], talks have moved us closer to agreeing on a global legally binding treaty that will protect our health, our environment, and our future from the onslaught of plastic pollution.” In March 2022, the UN Environment Assembly adopted UNEA Resolution 5/14 entitled “End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument.”  With the Trump Administration shutting down environmental programs and exiting from collaborative international environmental agreements, the work of the world community has taken on elevated importance, given the urgency of health, biodiversity, and environmental crises; so, too, has the work going on at the state level and in local communities across the United States. The interconnectedness of the pesticide and plastic problems was brought into focus recently with a scientific review of articles showing elevated pesticide hazards linked to plastic contamination.

A literature review in Agriculture, covering over 90 scientific articles documents how microplastics increase the bioavailability, persistence, and toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture. Because of their widespread infiltration into the environment and the bodies of all organisms, including humans, plastics contamination requires a holistic strategy to protect life— with consideration given to practices and chemical use that reduce or eliminate harm. Pesticides and other toxic chemicals are adsorbed (adhered) to microplastics, resulting in bioaccumulation and widespread contamination.  

This adds to the complexity of the pesticide problem, a part of the complex interactions of pesticides in the environment and human body that is largely ignored by federal regulatory agencies. While most environmental policies attempt to clean up or mitigate health threats, accumulating data on the harm associated with plastics and related contamination reinforces the necessity for all government agencies to participate in a comprehensive strategy to eliminate plastics and pesticides. However, with drastic cuts and uncertainty at the federal level, the public must look for state and local opportunities to advance policies and programs that protect health and the environment. 

>> Tell your governor and state legislators to pass a “beyond plastics” bill to reduce harm from microplastics and their interaction with pesticides and other toxic chemicals AND >> Tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to use the Federal Food and Drug Administration to get plastics out of food. 

There are many uses of plastic—from artificial turf to plastic mulch to water pipes—that release toxic chemicals in use and micro- or nanoplastics as they degrade and should be eliminated. However, one broad class of plastic can be singled out because it is destined for immediate disposal—and disintegration into microplastics. Single-use plastics are therefore the target of statewide legislation that has been passed in Vermont and New Jersey. Beyond Plastics has drafted a model a model bill for statewide and local legislation to eliminate single-use plastics. This bill bans many of the most common sources of single-use plastic pollution—plastic bags, plastic straws, stirrers, splash guards, polystyrene, and balloon releases. 

Beyond Pesticides is working to get plastics out of organic agricultural production, processing, and packaging, and out of food production in general. The use of natural organic materials in compost and mulch is foundational to organic. Beyond Pesticides has urged the National Organic Standards Board to call for the elimination of plastic in organic to be a research priority so that restrictions can be adopted as soon as possible. See Beyond Pesticides’ comments. 

Please note that some states have passed harmful preemption laws that prevent the banning of plastic bags and other items in local municipalties. Click here to find out which states have passed a preemption law for plastics. If so, you will not be able to pass the Beyond Plastics bill and should focus on trying to get your state to strike down its preemption law. (See here for background on preemption of local pesticide restrictions.) 

There are many uses of plastic in food production and packaging that release toxic chemicals and micro- or nanoplastics. This has created a public health threat. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2024) found that out of a total of 257 patients completing the study, polyethylene was detected in the carotid artery plaque of 150 patients (58.4%), with a mean level of 2% of plaque; 31 patients (12.1%) also had measurable amounts of polyvinyl chloride, with a mean level of 0.5% of plaque. Microplastics have also been found in human lungs, blood, feces, breast milk, the brain, and placenta. 

Highly hazardous PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are leaching out of plastic containers and contaminating food products, according to research published in Environment Technology and Letters. The data confirm the results of prior research focused on the propensity of PFAS to contaminate various pesticide products through storage containers. 

The evolving science on plastics contamination and their interaction with pesticides is yet another reason to transition to holistic land management systems that take on the challenge of eliminating hazardous chemical use. Organic land management policy creates the holistic systems framework through which plastics can be eliminated in agriculture. Again, eliminating plastic is important not only because of the direct effects of plastic pollution on human health and the environment, but also because they provide a vehicle for antibiotics, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals to enter into our bodies and the ecosystem, often with enhanced toxicity.  

>> Tell your governor and state legislators to pass a “beyond plastics” bill to reduce harm from microplastics and their interaction with pesticides and other toxic chemicals AND >> Tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to use the Federal Food and Drug Administration to get plastics out of food. 

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

Letter to governor and states legislators
A recent literature review in Agriculture covering over 90 scientific articles documents how microplastics increase the bioavailability, persistence, and toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture. Because of their widespread infiltration into the environment and the bodies of all organisms, including humans, plastics contamination requires a holistic strategy to protect life— with consideration given to practices and chemical use that reduce or eliminate harm. Pesticides and other toxic chemicals are adsorbed (adhered) to microplastics, resulting in bioaccumulation and widespread contamination. 

This adds to the complexity of the problem, which is largely ignored by federal regulatory agencies. While most environmental policies attempt to clean up or mitigate health threats, accumulating data on the harm associated with plastics and related contamination reinforces the necessity for all government agencies to participate in a comprehensive strategy to eliminate plastics and pesticides. Unfortunately, with drastic cuts and uncertainty at the federal level, we must look for state and local opportunities to advance policies and programs that protect health and the environment.

There are many uses of plastic—from artificial turf to plastic mulch to water pipes—that release toxic chemicals in use and micro- or nanoplastics as they degrade and should be eliminated. However, one broad class of plastic can be singled out because it is destined for immediate disposal—and disintegration into microplastics. Single-use plastics are therefore the target of statewide legislation that has been passed in Vermont and New Jersey. 

Beyond Plastics has drafted a model bill (https://bp-dc.org/ beyond-plastics-bill) for statewide legislation to eliminate single-use plastics. This bill bans many of the most common sources of single-use plastic pollution—plastic bags, plastic straws, stirrers, splash guards, polystyrene, and balloon releases.

The evolving science on plastics contamination and their interaction with pesticides is yet another reason to transition to holistic land management systems that take on the challenge of eliminating hazardous chemical use. Organic land management policy creates the holistic systems framework through which plastics can be eliminated in agriculture. 

Again, eliminating plastic is important not only because of the direct effects of plastic pollution on human health and the environment, but also because they provide a vehicle for antibiotics, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals to enter into our bodies and the ecosystem, often with enhanced toxicity.

Please introduce legislation based on the Beyond Plastics model bill.

Thank you.

Letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
A recent literature review in Agriculture covering over 90 scientific articles documents how microplastics increase the bioavailability, persistence, and toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture. Because of their widespread infiltration into the environment and the bodies of all organisms, including humans, plastics contamination requires a holistic strategy to protect life— with consideration given to practices and chemical use that reduce or eliminate harm. Pesticides and other toxic chemicals are adsorbed (adhered) to microplastics, resulting in bioaccumulation and widespread contamination. 

This adds to the complexity of the problem, which is largely ignored by federal regulatory agencies. While most environmental policies attempt to clean up or mitigate health threats, accumulating data on the harm associated with plastics and related contamination reinforces the necessity for all government agencies, with the Department of Health and Human Services leading, to participate in a comprehensive strategy to eliminate plastics and pesticides. 

There are many uses of plastic in food production and packaging that release toxic chemicals and micro- or nanoplastics. This has created a public health threat. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2024) found that out of a total of 257 patients completing the study, polyethylene was detected in carotid artery plaque of 150 patients (58.4%), with a mean level of 2% of plaque; 31 patients (12.1%) also had measurable amounts of polyvinyl chloride, with a mean level of 0.5% of plaque. Microplastics have also been found in human lungs, blood, feces, breast milk, the brain, and placenta. 

Highly hazardous PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are leaching out of plastic containers and contaminating food products, according to research published in Environment Technology and Letters. The data confirm the results of prior research focused on the propensity of PFAS to contaminate various pesticide products through storage containers. 

Please use your authority to instruct FDA to eliminate through regulation microplastics from our food and water supply.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 28, 2025) It is well established that children are more vulnerable than adults to environmental insults such as pesticides, from conception onward. Children living in agricultural areas are exposed differently from those in urban areas. A study of rural children by researchers at Mexico’s Universidad Atónoma de Nayarit 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 as a result. The state of Nayarit is on the west coast of Mexico near Mazatlan.

Rural children encounter aerial application, spray drift, and erosion. If their parents are agricultural workers and especially if they apply pesticides, they bring home residues on their clothes. Residential storage of pesticides and small children’s propensity to play in the dirt and put things in their mouths exacerbate their exposure. Urban children get hit by pesticides in their homes, schools, and parks.

The researchers took blood and urine samples from 431 children aged six to 12 and collected questionnaires as to pesticide exposures from the parents or guardians. They assayed the samples for biomarkers known to be linked to various cellular stressors, principally oxidative stress (OS) triggered by reactive oxygen species. A very common result is inflammation, which contributes in multiple ways to chronic and acute diseases in numerous neurological, digestive tract, cardiovascular, and other systems.

The biomarkers included five indicators of OS: lipid peroxidation via malondialdehyde (MDA), a chemical that causes cell membrane permeability and forms compounds called adducts with DNA, which can trigger gene mutations; 8-OHdG, an OS agent that also forms adducts with DNA that precondition genes for mutation; the immune system messengers called cytokines, which are a sign of inflammation; and six dialkylphosphates (DAP), which are a family of pesticide metabolites.

The researchers found that the DAPs, the MDA, and the 8-OHdG concentrations were significantly higher in children from the field-adjacent towns compared to the more distant one. One cytokine (a type of interleukin) was elevated in one of the two nearer towns. One DAP, DETP, was the most commonly found pesticide metabolite. According to a 2021 Thai study, DETP is a marker of exposure to numerous pesticides.

Nayarit grows tobacco, sorghum, corn, beans, sugar cane, and mango, and numerous harmful pesticides are used in abundance. These include diazinon (banned in the U.S.), chlorpyrifos, and permethrin on beans, carbofuran and acetochlor on sugar cane, and carbaryl, malathion, and even the Stockholm Convention-banned endosulfan on mangoes. Neonicotinoids are increasingly used on sorghum, corn, and mangoes, while atrazine is common on corn and sugar cane.

The study did not connect these results with specific pesticides or provide any epidemiological evidence of health effects in the children. Further, it provided only a snapshot in time rather than a series of samples that could offer a more precise picture of chronic exposures.

Tobacco is a particularly concerning crop. Eighty percent of Mexico’s tobacco is produced in Nayarit. A 2006 study conducted there of children as young as five years old who work in tobacco fields and sheds, where families also sleep, found the children’s acetylcholine levels significantly depressed. This is a familiar outcome of organophosphate and carbamate exposures and interference with acetylcholine is known to be neurologically toxic. Tobacco is especially risky, the authors noted, because its leaves exude nicotine resin which can hold the equivalent of 30 applications of chemicals and is easily absorbed through the skin.

Children in agricultural areas are not the only children exposed to pesticides. There is ample evidence of urban children’s exposure as well. The main difference may be the chemical types. A 2023 study of low-income urban and rural Latino children in North Carolina found the urban children were mostly exposed to organochlorines, which are no longer widely used but are very persistent, whereas the rural children were exposed to organophosphates and pyrethroids, which are still used in agriculture. Unexpectedly, there was some suggestion in their results, although not conclusive, that the organochlorine exposures resulted in more cognitive impairment than the organophosphates, which would imply that urban children being exposed to persistent pesticides may be at higher risk for neurological damage than rural children exposed to currently-used pesticides. Thus, health advocates say there is little comfort to be gained from assuming that only some children suffer the health consequences of exposure. Most children are exposed. There is likewise cold comfort in assuming that banned pesticides are no longer damaging people and ecosystems.

The Nayarit studies provide a window into the plight of some of the world’s poorest children, whose labor is being exploited and whose futures are mortgaged to pesticides. Nor are pregnant women and fetuses safe from the effects. Organochlorines, organophosphates, neonicotinoids, and pyrethroids have all been shown to adversely affect fetuses. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database is a rich source of information on hundreds of pesticides and their health effects, including on the most vulnerable among us. See also our Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture page for ways to reduce exposures to children and adults.

The current political situation puts environmental and public health protection for children and adults in the cross-hairs. On February 25, new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced that he intends to fire 65 percent of EPA employees, eliminating nearly 10,000 jobs, according to The New York Times. In January, Trump appointed Nancy Beck, a veteran of EPA during his first administration, to head the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Beck is also a veteran executive of the industry influence group the American Chemistry Council. While Beyond Pesticides has certainly been critical of EPA decisions for decades, a world with even an inefficient EPA in it is preferable to one crippled by anti-scientific ideologues.

To prevent this, make your voice heard. In recent weeks, citizens have raised objections en masse to staff firings and program cancellations across the executive branch. Members of Congress can be prodded into action by constituents. Call or write your elected officials at all levels of government and let them know that you demand a functioning EPA and policies supporting human and ecosystem health and that eliminating pesticides is the policy our country needs to pursue. See USA.gov to get contact information for federal elected officials. Also, do not lose sight of local, state, and regional efforts to reverse the tide of pesticide harms. Our U.S. Pesticide Reform Policy map shows numerous locations in the U.S. where positive steps have been taken. For example, the city of Spokane, Washington, banned the use of neonicotinoids on city properties in 2014. The sound and fury at the national level need not extinguish citizen action.

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

Sources:

Environmental exposure to pesticides is associated with oxidative stress, oxidative DNA damage, and elevated interleukin-8 in a child population
José Antonio Aguilar-Bañuelos et al
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, February 18, 2025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668925000316

Environmental Protection Agency Will Lose 65 Percent of Staff, Trump Says
Lisa Friedman
The New York Times, February 26, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/26/climate/trump-epa-layoffs.html?searchResultPosition=2

Exposure of young children working on Mexican tobacco plantations to organophosphorous and carbamic pesticides, indicated by cholinesterase depression
Gamlin et al.
Child: Care, Health and Development, 25 October 2006
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00702.x

The Assessment of Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure among School Children in Four Regions of Thailand: Analysis of Dialkyl Phosphate Metabolites in Students’ Urine and Organophosphate Pesticide Residues in Vegetables for School Lunch
Anurak Wongta et al.
Toxics. 2022 Jul 29;10(8):434. doi: 10.3390/toxics10080434
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9416577/

Tobacco’s profit, workers’ loss?
Valerie Brown
Environmental Health Perspectives, 1 May 2003
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.111-a284

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2025) In analyzing current scientific literature and data on glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), a research article in Environmental Sciences Europe finds that glyphosate (GLY) persists in bones before reentering the bloodstream. The mechanisms in which GLY 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.

“Existing data on GLY/GBH metabolism and genotoxicity provide critical insights into how exposures may be contributing to blood cancers,” according to the study’s author, Charles Benbrook, PhD. Dr. Benbrook continues: “A significant portion of GLY reaching blood moves quickly into bone marrow and then bone, where it can bioaccumulate and persist… Data reviewed herein suggest that a portion of the GLY excreted by most people on a daily basis can be traced to the shedding of calcium-GLY complexes in bone back into the blood supply.”

This allows for near-constant contact between glyphosate molecules and hematopoietic stem cells, which are immature cells that can develop into any type of blood cell. Mutations in hematopoietic stem cells can cause blood cancers to emerge. Those at disproportionate risk with GLY exposure, such as farmworkers and pesticide applicators, likely have “hundreds of million, if not billions of GLY molecules in bone marrow for every hematopoietic stem cell,” Dr. Benbrook states, highlighting the connection between GLY exposure and blood cancer risk.

There is a wide body of science on pesticide-induced diseases, with a multitude of studies focusing on GLY/GBH exposure. (See more coverage from Beyond Pesticides here and stay tuned for an in-depth analysis on recent research connecting agrichemical mixtures and pediatric cancer.) These studies confirm that products containing glyphosate can trigger oxidative stress, impair DNA, and increase cancer risk. (See previous Beyond Pesticides coverage here, here, here, and here.) The mechanisms behind these effects are not fully understood, but research, including Dr. Benbrook’s article, showcases potential pathophysiologic bases (combining pathology and physiology) for better understanding the extent to which GLY impacts organisms down to the molecular level.

History of Glyphosate

As the review highlights, GLY is “the most heavily applied pesticide ever brought to market… No other pesticide in history has come close to such extensive worldwide use.” The widespread utilization of this pesticide endangers not only pesticide applicators, but farmers, farmworkers, and their families, those who live near agricultural land, and the general public that consumes food and beverages containing GLY residues.

With its wide use, glyphosate exposure raises concern for all organisms and the environment. As Dr. Benbrook says, “Excessive reliance on GLY has brought on several problems. These include the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, loss of terrestrial biodiversity, water contamination, and declining soil health.”

GLY exposure, and subsequent research, span many decades. The debate over the carcinogenicity of GLY has persisted for over 40 years, but regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) “are among several regulatory authorities that have concluded that dietary exposure to active substance glyphosate is unlikely to pose cancer risk.” Dr. Benbrook continues in saying, “But substantial data show that applicators of formulated glyphosate-based herbicides are often exposed dermally to much higher levels of GLY and that repeated dermal exposure episodes over many years heightens cancer risk.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)

There are many regulatory deficiencies, and dermal exposure to GLY is just one of them. As the review shares: “The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) in the U.S. EPA has largely ignored dermal exposures to GBHs in the still ongoing reregistration review cycle… [T]he OPP concluded that applicator and occupational exposure and risk assessments were not necessary. This OPP judgement, and the 0.1 mg/kg occupational exposure threshold, are not based on studies capable of detecting the impacts of GLY/GBH on hematopoietic stem cells.”

In a previous article by Dr. Benbrook, he analyzes independent research reviewed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) and reports “~ 80% produced some evidence supportive of an association between GLY/GBHs and DNA damage.” Despite this finding, EPA has continued its registration of GLY. “The OPP relied on mostly negative genotox/mechanistic studies on glyphosate technical carried out by GBH registrants, and the agency dismissed or ignored multiple in vivo studies reporting evidence of genotoxicity and/or oxidative stress following exposure to GBHs, including some studies in exposed human populations,” Dr. Benbrook notes.

Additional independent research (see here and here) of GBHs highlights evidence linking GBH exposures to cancer outcomes. More specifically, as Dr. Benbrook states, “Papers published since the completion of the EPA and IARC reviews have enhanced the weight-of-evidence supporting a linkage between GBH exposures and some hematopoietic cancers.” (See studies here and here.)

Review of Study Data

To explore his hypotheses regarding how GLY storage occurs in bones and how the prolonged interaction with hematopoietic stem cells heightens the risk of blood cancers, Dr. Benbrook critiques animal bioassays and epidemiologic studies that “link GLY/GBH exposure to heightened risk of blood cancers, and possibly other pathologies.”

The research he reviews shows adverse impacts on both human and animal health, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia, DNA damage, reduced birth weight, dysbiosis in gut microbiota, impaired development in children, and more. Additional areas of concern highlighted by studies involve surfactants in pesticide formulations, as well as the metabolites (breakdown products) of GLY. The implications of these finding are enormous since many biomonitoring studies focused on GLY “show that a majority of people, usually 70–90% or more of individuals tested, have detectable levels of GLY and/or its primary metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in their urine or blood,” Dr. Benbrook shares. (See studies here, here, here, here, and here, as well as previous Daily News coverage on GLY contributing to body burden here and here.)

He continues: “[D]ietary exposures and risk assessments should, but often do not, include data on levels of AMPA in food and beverages. This is because once sprayed on a food crop, the GLY in a GBH breaks down to AMPA incrementally over time. Many epidemiological studies report stronger associations between AMPA levels in human biofluids and adverse health outcomes, compared to associations between GLY and the same adverse outcome.”

Dr. Benbrook also states: “[T]he impact of GLY and AMPA on the etiology of cancer must be evaluated taking into account the impacts of other chemicals. Exposures to complex mixtures can augment oxidative stress, disrupt the repair of damaged DNA, and trigger other adverse genetic and epigenetic effects that, in turn, alter the impacts of GLY and AMPA on cancer and other health outcomes. Moreover, such effects can occur at doses well-below current safety thresholds.”

Results noted in the review article include:

• “An analysis of GLY/GBH genotoxicity studies published since the completion of the 2015 OPP and IARC GLY oncogenicity reviews found that 24 of 33 assays on technical GLY were positive, and 58 of 61 were positive in assays testing GBHs (overall, 82 positives out of 94 assays, or 87%).”
• An “in-depth quality analyses of genotoxicity and endocrine disruption revealed strong and consistent positive findings… [GBHs] elicited a stronger effect in both human and animal systems when compared to glyphosate alone…the highest quality studies in humans and human cells consistently revealed strong evidence of genotoxicity.”
• A Monsanto-commissioned GLY and GBH dermal penetration study “tested penetration rates through rat skin for pure GLY and a formulated GBH and reported that almost ninefold more GLY in the formulated product moved through rat skin compared to pure GLY.”
• “Substantial GLY metabolism data show that within minutes of entering the bloodstream, GLY moves into bone marrow, and then laterally through bone tissue and back into general circulation.”
• GLY lingers longer in bones than in blood and other tissue. In four rat metabolism studies, “the largest percentage of the delivered dose of GLY at study termination is retained in bone… The results highlight the degree to which bone is the tissue in which GLY bioaccumulates and where it remains for an extended period of time.”
• An unpublished Monsanto study in 1983 “demonstrates that over time GLY remains at significantly higher levels in bone marrow compared to blood plasma… These pharmacokinetic findings are consistent with insights gained from [more recent] rat metabolism studies.”

HSCs and Risk of Blood Cancers

This review focuses on understanding the mechanisms by which exposure to GLY contributes to the risk of hematopoietic cancers based on the current scientific literature. The metabolism data regarding GLY shows its propensity to bind to calcium and become immobilized within bones before reentering the blood stream. This occurs through chelation (a type of bonding), allowing GLY molecules to remain in the body for an extended period of time. 

In identifying GLY as a genotoxic threat that lingers in bones, Dr. Benbrook’s hypothesis connects the compound with heightened blood cancer risks. “An extensive literature exists on the specific genetic abnormalities typically associated with the etiology of blood cancers,” the review states. “This literature, coupled with published studies on the genotoxicity of GLY and GBHs, helps explain where and how GLY and the coformulants in GBHs can come into contact with HSCs and possibly trigger damage to DNA.”

Dr. Benbrook continues: “Importantly, GLY has been shown to induce double-strand DNA breaks in human lymphocytes at low doses. Double-strand breaks result in the sort of gene rearrangement and genetic changes typically seen in human NHL… Damage to the DNA in HSCs and progenitor B cells can also lead to several subtypes of leukemia.” Additional studies corroborate this, such as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), which finds greater leukemia incidence associated with GLY exposure. (See studies here, here, and here.)

Organic Solution

The science showing adverse health effects to humans and wildlife with pesticide exposure is vast, as is data supporting organic alternatives for land management. While current pesticide registration processes are lacking, as highlighted above (and in previous coverage here, here, here, and here), it is more concerning that they do not consider substitutive methods that mitigate threats to all organisms and ecosystems.

Organic agriculture, without the use of GLY/GBHs and other harmful chemicals, provides health and environmental benefits while combatting current crises of biodiversity and climate change in a holistic manner. Help support Beyond Pesticides’ mission of transitioning to a world free from toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by becoming a member today. Stay up to date with the latest science and policy developments with the Daily News Blog and sign up to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates straight to your inbox here.

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

Source:

Benbrook, C. (2025) Hypothesis: glyphosate-based herbicides can increase risk of hematopoietic malignancies through extended persistence in bone, Environmental Sciences Europe. Available at: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-025-01057-1.

*** Beyond Pesticides has recently received an insulting broadside from an environmental group; click here to read the original email and a response from the organization that includes a deep history of Beyond Pesticides’ commitment to ecological and organic farming practices in local food systems that are just. 

(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2025) The National Park Service (NPS) recently announced a settlement agreement regarding the management of northern California’s Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) that will result in the closure of 12 out of 14 historic dairy and cattle ranches, including those organically managed, within the park. This decision comes after nearly a decade of legal disputes and negotiations between environmental groups, ranchers, and the NPS, ending 170 years of family ranching, displacing multi-generational farmers—at least 90 farmworker families—and abandoning 77 historic ranch buildings. Critics lambast the agreement as devastating local organic agriculture and food production in West Marin County, which is essential for creating long-term climate solutions.

Over the decades since PRNS’ inception, local and national environmental groups have litigated against ranchers and the National Park Service, including demanding range expansion for the native tule elk, which were reintroduced to the park by NPS in the 1970s. However, the removal of these farms, and the accompanying loss of local food production, will have extreme long-term negative impacts on the local community and the environment, according to many environmental advocates.

As Andy Naja-Riese, executive director of the Agricultural Institute of Marin, puts it, “The greatest threat to the tule elk is not cattle; it’s global climate change, and what we can all do [to fight that threat] is preserve our local food system… We need to stop vilifying and attacking animal agriculture. Animal agriculture, when done right through organic, climate-smart, and regenerative practices, is a climate solution.”

Background and History

Across the 70,000 acres of PRNS, NPS leases 18,000 to commercial beef and dairy ranches, many to the same families who have lived and ranched on the land for generations. When Point Reyes National Seashore was established in 1962, a compromise allowed existing ranches to continue operating under NPS lease agreements to balance the continuation of historic agricultural practices with the preservation of natural landscapes. Some ranches are even listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The ideal farming and ranching conditions of the expansive coastal prairie are not only due to long growing seasons, moist, cool conditions adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, but also, as NPS’ history of the region describes, “most likely the byproduct of burning, weeding, pruning, and harvesting for at least two millennia by Coast Miwok and their antecedents.” Today, approximately 20 multigenerational farming families remain in the park with approximately 200 farmworkers and their families.

This settlement agreement follows years of wrangling between Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Resource Renewal Institute as plaintiffs against NPS and individual ranchers. The plaintiffs first filed a lawsuit against NPS in 2016 for water quality violations resulting from ranch operations in the park. While the first lawsuit was settled, the group brought a second lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the recently renewed 20-year leases violated NPS’s legal obligations to the natural environment.

Negotiations between the parties were stalled until 2022 when two groups of beef and dairy ranchers, including the Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association, joined the mediation effort. In 2023, The Nature Conservancy joined the negotiations, bringing the funding necessary to finalize an agreement. In January 2025, NPS announced a settlement agreement in which six dairy and six beef ranches will close within 15 months—former leaseholders will be compensated through a $30 million settlement fund. In a last-minute addition, 90 ranch employees and their families will receive compensation and relocation assistance.

Among the multiple concerns voiced by advocates is the apparent lack of transparency in the negotiation process or the settlement agreement itself. “I think that for me, the big challenge is that a decision was made for us, without us,” said Mr. Naja-Riese. Unlike all other NPS planning processes, local stakeholders—including farmworkers and local business owners whose livelihoods will be decimated—were not invited to participate. The amounts of the lease buy-outs, severance packages, and relocation assistance also have not been disclosed. During a town hall meeting on January 11 hosted by U.S. House Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) to announce the mediated settlement, a wide range of local stakeholders spoke with anger and concern about the secretive mediation process that excluded key stakeholders as well as the dramatic impact the closure of the ranches will have on the wider West Marin County community and economy. Jasmine Bravo, a local advocate, asked, “I’m just wondering if you all have a plan for a workforce after the residents who live on ranches have been evicted, and you lose Isabel at the clinic, and my sister at the clinic, and Gabriel Romo at the bank, and everyone who works at the grocery stores and makes your food?”

[Notably, some local indigenous representatives of the Miwok tribe protest their lack of inclusion [in the mediated settlement process—Updated from original text on February 27, 2025.] Long-term management of the tule elk herd remains one of the outstanding questions. Others are concerned as the herd, free from competition with cattle and absent natural predators, may quickly exceed the land’s ability to support it—hunting is not allowed within the borders of the national park.]

Post Settlement: The Future of PRNS and Resulting Impacts

In the wake of the ranching operations, the landscape of PRNS will look decidedly different. The Nature Conservancy has agreed to “co-manage” the restoration of the 16,000 acres of former ranch land as a “Scenic Landscape,” which will be opened to use by the tule elk, as well as other wildlife, although how this effort will be funded has not been disclosed. Liebe Patterson, a long-time donor to The Nature Conservancy declined to contribute to the buy-out fund for that very reason. As the Press Democrat reports, Ms. Patterson said, “…my concern was, it doesn’t take care of the problems. It just removes the ranchers from the seashore. It doesn’t clean up the waterways. It doesn’t manage the grasslands to keep them from becoming a fire hazard. It was just to buy out the leases.”

Over the last several decades, many of the ranches slated for closure, such as Mendoza and BN Ranch, have become leaders in organic and regenerative agriculture, as well as Marin Sun Farms, a certified organic and Animal Welfare Approved facility. Marin Sun Farms is one of six beef ranch operations to close and also operates the last remaining USDA-inspected slaughterhouse in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

The impact of these closures goes beyond the Point Reyes Seashore, with significant economic and food production implications. Straus Family Creamery, which operates its own certified organic farm and creamery just outside PRNS and has long been at the forefront of organic dairy farming, sources a third of its organic milk from the ranches in the park. Second-generation owner Albert Straus works closely with PRNS ranchers to pioneer a range of internationally recognized innovative practices with the goal of bringing its operations—and those of its organic dairy suppliers—to carbon neutrality by 2030. According to Straus, “What I’ve tried to do is create a sustainable organic farming model that is good for the earth, the soil, the animals, and the people working on these farms, and helps revitalize rural communities.”

[In 2013, Straus Organic Dairy Farm became the first dairy farm in California to develop a carbon farm plan, with the Marin Carbon Project, updated in collaboration with the Marin Resource Conservation District and the Marin Agricultural Land Trust. Their practices reduced overall carbon emissions by experimenting with red seaweed cattle feed, implementing the use of a biodigester, and switching to electric farm vehicles, some of which are powered by methane captured from cattle operations and converted to fuel for farm vehicles. Straus currently provides technical expertise and assistance for ranches to develop their own “carbon farm plan.”]

Albert Straus, founder of Straus Family Creamery, which manages the organic dairy, points out that climate change is wreaking havoc on traditional dairy and cattle operations. “By getting rid of these small family farms, we’re forcing dairy farms to get bigger and bigger and the whole food system to be less environmentally friendly and produce lower-quality food that’s not organic,” Mr. Straus said in 2023. “I think this could be the demise of our farming and food system.”

Many local farming practices that will be terminated ultimately provide ecosystem benefits that are compatible with environmental conservation, with the ranchers supported by local conservation groups, including the Marin Agricultural Land Trust and Marin Conservation League. “The farmers and ranchers and farmworkers and the people who grow our food are environmentalists, and we need to start a conversation about agriculture environmentalism,” concludes Mr. Naja-Riese.

Late Breaking Lawsuit

A new legal challenge emerged on February 21, 2025, when attorney Andrew Giacomini filed a federal lawsuit to block the ranch closures, alleging a “conspiracy” between the National Park Service and The Nature Conservancy. The suit claims that the agencies deliberately created uncertainty for ranchers and that “the National Park Service, Acting Director, and Regional Director conspired with the Conservancy to pay off the departing ranchers in exchange for the ranchers relinquishing their rights to 20-year leases and instead leasing the ranchers’ property to the Conservancy.”

The complaint focuses on the displacement of over 90 residents, mostly Latino families, many of whom have lived on these properties for decades. Also, ranchers reportedly face reduced compensation if residents remain on their properties after operations cease. The suit was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The Path Forward to a Livable Future

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for the transition to organic and regenerative agricultural systems to urgently address the environmental and health challenges posed by conventional agriculture. The situation at PRNS serves as a critical reminder of the need to support and expand these practices. As we face the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, it is imperative that we prioritize agricultural systems that work in harmony with nature rather than against it. The loss of PRNS ranches represents not just a loss of local food production, but also a setback in the advancement of sustainable agricultural practices that are crucial for our future.

Beyond Pesticides joins advocates calling on policymakers, environmental organizations, and the public to recognize the vital role that organic agriculture can play in addressing our most pressing environmental challenges (see the recent decision by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which diverts public attention away from organic with a weakly definition of ‘regenerative agriculture’). Rather than viewing agriculture and conservation as opposing forces, we must seek solutions that integrate sustainable food production with ecosystem preservation. As Marin Agricultural Land Trust remarks, “The story of agriculture in Marin County has never been a straight line. Instead, it is a story of innovation and resilience, of ranchers and farmers who have faced challenges and stepped into the role of changemakers – from organic dairies to regenerative ranches to artisanal cheese visionaries.”

Join Beyond Pesticides in taking action to end the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers! The path forward includes increased support for research and implementation of organic and regenerative-organic practices, as well as policy measures and financial support for farmers making the choice to transition to certified organic agriculture. In reflecting on the impacts of this litigation’s mediated settlement that will inexorably change this multi-generational agricultural community in Point Reyes, let us use this moment to redouble our efforts. It is not just about preserving a way of life or a local food system—it is about charting a course in pursuit of a livable future for ourselves, our neighbors, our communities, and for the generations to come.

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

Sources:

Point Reyes National Seashore Announces Revised Record of Decision for General Management Plan Amendment and Settlement Agreement on the Management of Ranching on Park Lands, National Park Service announcement, January 8, 2025.

Secret deal brokered by The Nature Conservancy to end ranching era in Point Reyes National Seashore faced opposition from outset, The Press Democrat, February 8, 2025.

Inside the secret Nature Conservancy deal to end ranching in Point Reyes National Seashore, The Press Democrat, January 29, 2025.

2025 Record of Decision: General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement: Settlement Agreement, Point Reyes National Seashore, National Park Service website, January 8, 2025.

Historic Agreement on Cattle Ranching and Wildlife Management at Point Reyes National Seashore Ends Decades of Conflict, The Nature Conservancy announcement, January 9, 2025.

2021 Record of Decision: General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement,  Point Reyes National Seashore, National Park Service, September 13, 2021.

Reducing Cow Methane Emissions, Straus Family Creamery website.

Can Point Reyes National Seashore Support Wildlife and Ranching Amid Climate Change? Civil Eats, October 17, 2023.

Judge halts controversial fence removal in Point Reyes, SF Gate, December 10, 2024.