(Beyond Pesticides, May 13, 2025) A study in Environmental Pollution examines ecological and health risks in farmland soil with pesticide contamination. “Although agricultural soil pesticide residues have long threatened the environment, a relatively complete system for evaluating their health and ecological risks has not yet been developed,” the authors state. In addressing this research gap, the study finds that “more than ten pesticides were detected in 98.62% of the soil samples, which changed the soil environment” and threatens the health of the soil microbiome.

The authors continue, “This study investigated the correlation between pesticide residue risks and soil ecological security and human health, revealed the response characteristics of soil microbial communities under pesticide stress, and identified microbes strongly related to pesticide ecological risks.” Pesticides, as the authors emphasize, “inevitably pollute agricultural soil, affect the ecological environment, and pose a threat to human health.” (See studies here, here, and here.) With this in mind, they assess 50 selected pesticides in 145 soil samples from agricultural land in Zhejiang Province, China and calculate the associated risks to ecosystems and public health.

In describing the importance of this research, the authors explain: “Pesticides are prone to leakage and drift in environmental media, turning from point sources to non-point source pollution, thereby further deteriorating the environment and posing a serious threat to soil ecology. The soil microbial community is an important indicator of soil health, however, pesticide residues in the soil can change its structure and promote resistance in some microorganisms.” (See Daily News here and studies here, here, and here.)

The soil microbiome requires balance, and contamination from toxic chemicals can affect the stability of the soil ecosystem with cascading impacts, ultimately, to human health. (See here, here, here, and here.) These impacts, however, are complex and difficult to identify, as there are a variety of pesticides and their mixtures in agricultural soils.

Study Methodology

The 145 soil samples were obtained from citrus orchards (26), vineyards (29), and vegetable gardens (90) and range in crop types, 48 of which were from leafy vegetables, 4 from brassicas, 9 from solanaceous vegetables, 6 from legumes, 2 from melons, 10 from bulbs, and 11 from root vegetables. Each sample was analyzed for pesticide residues and physicochemical properties such as total nitrogen, pH, and organic matter.

From the data, ecological and health risk evaluations were performed. “A health risk evaluation was conducted to more comprehensively evaluate the health effects of pesticide residues in agricultural soils on human health,” the researchers state, with parameters for the model based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and relevant literature.

“The soil ecological risks caused by pesticide residues are complex and have different degrees of impact on soil animals, plants, and microorganisms,” the authors share. (See studies here, here, and here.) They continue: “No assessment method can simultaneously reflect the response of each niche to pesticide residues. However, to more comprehensively assess the contamination levels of pesticide residues in samples, it is necessary to calculate and quantify the risks posed by pesticides in soils.”

In using ecotoxicology data from earthworms, the researchers calculate ecological risk of each of the 50 selected pesticides to assess the ecological risk of pesticides in soil samples from each agricultural area. “Earthworms are ecosystem engineers who can affect soil fertility, promote crop growth, and improve the soil environment,” the authors note.

Results

As an outcome of testing all soil samples for pesticide residues, the researchers find that, of the 50 pesticides included in the analyses, “more than 10 pesticides were detected in 98.62% of the soil samples, and more than 20 pesticides were detected in 56.55% of the soil samples. A further detailed analysis of the detection rates of specific pesticide types in the samples revealed that 33 pesticides were detected in 20% of the soil samples, and 17 pesticides were detected in 60% of the soil samples.”

Notably, up to 20 types of pesticides were found in soil with nightshade vegetables. A previous study supports this, as it found “that the concentration of residual pesticides in the soil of nightshade lands was greater than that in the soil of other crops.” Additional results show that soil properties, including pH and total nitrogen, experience negative inhibitory effects with pesticide residues, which “highlights the potential associations between pesticides and soil physicochemical properties.”

From the health risk assessment, the calculations identify high carcinogenic risks from dimethomorph, imidophos, indoxacarb, and imidacloprid. Interestingly, the authors share, “We further evaluated the difference in the risk posed by different planting behaviors and reported that the soil with the highest average cancer risk was that planted with nightshades.”

Within the ecological risk assessment, nightshade vegetables were the planting type with the highest average, and the insecticides chlorpyrifos and bifenthrin were identified as having higher entropy (uncertainty) values, classifying them as ‘medium ecological risk threats.’

From the extraction and sequencing of soil microbial DNA, the researchers classified “taxonomic groups of 62 phyla, 201 classes, 543 orders, 949 families, 2,514 genera, and 7,215 species of microbes” from the samples. They note: “The vineyard soil had the most unique species (1,059) among all planting types. As the type with the most serious pesticide residue pollution and highest ecological risk, nightshade land had only 52 exclusive species.”

The soil microbial communities were most impacted by dimorpholine, and the “soil bacterial composition changed significantly under different ecological risk levels at the phylum level [the third broadest level of taxonomic classification of biological communities].” Of the bacteria, Firmicutes exhibit the clearest response to pesticide residues. “With the increasing ecological risk, the relative abundance of Firmicutes gradually decreased,” the authors say. “Specifically, the relative abundances were 8.76, 7.04, and 0.98% at negligible, low, and medium ecological risk levels, respectively.”

Altering the abundance of Firmicutes, and any soil biota, leads to impacts on soil health and crop productivity. A study in Science of The Total Environment similarly reported that with increasing concentrations of the insecticide chlorantraniliprole that the proportion of Firmicutes in the soil decreased. In the present study, the significant decrease of the relative abundance of Firmicutes, with an increase in the ecological risk of pesticide residues, suggests that these bacteria may be an indicator of the ecological risk of pesticides.

This group of bacteria plays an important role in soil ecosystems. Firmicutes contribute to the decomposition of organic matter and nutrient cycling, as well as promote plant growth and suppress diseases. They are also active in chitin degradation and can provide substrates for iron reducers. (See study here.)

“In summary, our study investigated the characteristics of pesticide residues in an actual agricultural environment and their risk-related relationships with soil ecological security and human health, [and] revealed the response characteristics of soil microbial communities under pesticide stress,” the researchers conclude.

Previous Research

As the study points out, the “problem of pesticide residues in soil has a long history.” With the ubiquitous contamination of multiple pesticide residues in agricultural soils worldwide, a multitude of studies identify various impacts, including synergistic effects, to biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and human health, as a result.

“Several studies have concluded that humans, as the most direct users of pesticides and those who come into contact with them, are exposed to both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks from pesticides,” the authors note. (See here and here.) “Certain pesticide ingredients may increase the risk of cancer development with long-term exposure as well as a range of non-carcinogenic risks, such as neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption, which pose potential threats to human health.” Disproportionate risk to farmworkers, their children, and those who live near agricultural land is also well documented. (See here.)

In recent coverage of research in Advances in Modern Agriculture, the threats to soil nematodes from pesticide residues, as well as the resulting phytotoxic effects to cucumber plants with exposure, are highlighted. The authors, in assessing both the sprayed vegetables and the organisms in the soil, find a correlation between pesticide exposure and adverse effects on soil nematode populations that is proportional to the application rates of the chemicals, as well as alterations in plant development. These impacts highlight potential wider effects on crop productivity, biodiversity, and human health.

Additional Daily News highlights various studies that identify the significance of organic farming systems in advancing soil health in comparison to chemical-intensive agriculture. As previously covered, in 2022, the Rodale Institute released the findings of its forty-year-long comparative analysis of organic and conventional grain production, finding that:

1. Organic systems achieve 3-6 times the profit of conventional farms.
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 fields.
4. Organic systems leach no toxic compounds into nearby waterways.
5. Organic systems use 45% less energy than conventional farming systems.
6. Organic systems emit 40% less carbon into the atmosphere.

Countless other studies (see here and here) confirm the soil health benefits of organic agriculture, as it can improve ecological functions damaged by chemical-intensive farming practices. By focusing on a healthy system that starts with the soil, the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers becomes obsolete.

To learn more about the benefits of organic land management, see here and here. Become an advocate for organic parks by engaging with your community leaders and advertising your commitment to pesticide-free spaces with “Pesticide Free Zone” signs. Help support Beyond Pesticides’ mission by becoming a member or making a gift contribution today.

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

Source:

Tang, T. et al. (2025) Systematic assessments of ecological and health risks of soil pesticide residues, Environmental Pollution. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749125007213.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 9, 2025) Research in Advances in Modern Agriculture showcases how pesticide residues can threaten the health of soil nematodes and cause phytotoxic effects in cucumber plants. In assessing both the sprayed vegetables and the organisms within the soil, the authors find a negative correlation between pesticide exposure and soil nematode populations that is proportional to the application rates of the chemicals, as well as alterations in plant development. These impacts highlight potential wider effects on crop productivity, biodiversity, and human health.

“Nematodes, which are microscopic worms inhabiting the soil, are vital contributors to soil vitality and the cycling of nutrients,” the authors share. “Nonetheless, the non-selective and widespread application of pesticides can negatively impact these organisms, leading to potential detriments in soil quality and plant vitality.”

“Pesticide residues have the propensity to be absorbed and progressively accumulate as they traverse from soil to plants and subsequently to humans,” the researchers state. They continue, “The specific characteristics of the pesticide and its interactions with the body across different levels dictate whether it will be excreted without causing significant harm or if it will accumulate, potentially leading to enduring subclinical and clinical ramifications.” The impacts vary widely between organisms but can become heightened due to bioaccumulation and biomagnification throughout the food web.

Chemical residues cause soil contamination and can threaten the health of the soil microbiome, which is needed for ecosystem stability. As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, healthy soil contains millions of living species that form the microbiome. Most of the biodiversity in soil consists of bacteria and fungi, and their number and type are regulated partially by predatory protists and nematodes that feed on bacteria. In working together, these tiny organisms determine the health of the soil for plant growth.

To test those effects, different cucumber plants were exposed to four pesticides: two organochlorine insecticides (Endosulfan and Methoxychlor) and two organophosphate insecticides (Diazinon and Malathion). The study area, within the Teaching and Research Farm at the University of Port Harcourt in Nigeria, consisted of 48 raised beds with three replicates of 16 each. The researchers note that three weeks after germination, the cucumber plants “suffered pest attacks from spotted cucumber beetles, flea beetles, and cabbage loopers.”

They continue: “To combat this, pesticides such as Diazinon, Endosulfan, Malathion, and Methoxychlor were used, applied in varying concentrations (20 mL, 30 mL, 40 mL) according to a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). Pesticide treatments were replicated three times, with applications made early in the morning weekly.”

Plant growth metrics, such as leaf height and stem thickness, were collected weekly following the pesticide applications, and at harvest, fruit yield metrics were also recorded. Samples of the cucumbers were taken to analyze the pesticide residues, and nematodes were collected from both the control plots and exposed soil beds for identification and counting.

“The Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) used for interpreting the pesticide residue levels in this study were based on the Codex Alimentarius international food standards established by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO),” the authors note. As a result of their analysis, they report: “Significant differences in residue levels were found between various pesticides and application rates. Diazinon residues ranged from 0.86 to 2.28 mg/kg, exceeding the MRL of 0.1 mg/kg, indicating soil contamination. Endosulfan had the lowest residues, from 0.44 to 1.75 mg/kg, which were within acceptable limits. Conversely, Malathion and Methoxychlor residues notably surpassed their MRLs, raising potential safety concerns.”

Through the nematode sampling, the researchers identified the species within the soil at the study site as Meloidogyne incognita. In comparing the nematode populations from the different plots, the authors note “a significant relationship between pesticide concentration and nematode population in the soil,” with the statistical analysis “…indicating a decrease in nematode population with increasing pesticide concentration.”

They continue, “The slopes suggest that for each unit increase in pesticide concentration, there is a proportional decrease in the nematode population, with Malathion showing the steepest decline, followed closely by Endosulfan, Methoxychlor, and Diazinon.” The data “suggest a strong linear relationship between pesticide concentration and the decline in nematode populations across the range of concentrations studied,” the researchers explain.

Lastly, in examining the pesticide concentrations with the plant development, the study finds potential plant toxicity, or phytotoxicity, specifically with higher concentrations of Methoxychlor and Malathion. The authors note that “some pesticides may exhibit phytotoxic characteristics, which can hinder seed germination, stunt plant growth, and reduce overall crop yields.” (See study here.)

The cucumber is a vegetable with many health advantages, such as promoting hydration, with its high water content, and providing a source of vitamin K, which is essential for blood coagulation and maintaining healthy bones. (See here.) By exposing consumers to levels of pesticide residues above the MRLs, which the study shows across all tested cucumber samples, there is concern for adverse health issues such as “headaches, nausea, rashes, neurotoxicity, cancer, and endocrine dysfunction, which can arise from both direct and indirect exposure to pesticides,” the researchers report. See additional health effects in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.   

A previous study of fruit imported into the United Arab Emirates “revealed that most of the imported fruits surpassed the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for pesticides, and this underscores a pressing environmental health issue, aligning closely with the outcomes of our investigation,” the authors say. “This trend suggests systemic shortcomings in pesticide management and regulation, raising significant concerns regarding pesticide oversight and application practices in agriculture.” Pesticide residues within food threaten consumer well-being, which necessitates higher food safety standards and enhanced regulation to protect human health.

The resulting soil contamination and threats to nematode populations in the study are also supported by previous research. “El-Marzoky et al. revealed that using abamectin at 500 ppm notably reduced nematode reproduction and gall numbers [growths on plants in the presence of certain nematode species]. This finding parallels the results of our study, where pesticide levels were found to influence soil nematode counts,” the researchers state.

They continue, “Fabiyi et al. also revealed that pesticides, especially at higher concentrations, significantly harm beneficial nematodes and bacteria, which are essential for soil fertility and plant growth.” These findings all showcase the adverse effects of pesticides on nontarget soil organisms, like nematodes, that are essential for soil health and ecosystem functioning.

The authors, in finding that pesticide exposure not only contaminates food and threatens human well-being but can also lead to lower numbers of soil nematodes and has cascading effects on the ecosystem, advocate for a balance between health and sustainable farming practices. “Achieving this balance is essential for future agricultural practices, as it ensures food security while preserving ecological integrity and minimizing potential risks to human health and the environment,” the researchers state.

The organic solution provides exactly that. Studies prove organic agriculture provides soil health benefits, has a significantly lower environmental impact than conventional food production, is more profitable and productive, provides health benefits, and mitigates the crises of climate change and biodiversity. As shared on the Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture page, organic food can feed us and keep us healthy without producing the toxic effects of chemical agriculture.

Learn more about the benefits of organic agriculture here and how to support organic through your diet here and here. Become a member of Beyond Pesticides today to add your voice to the urgent movement of eliminating fossil fuel-based pesticide use within the next 10 years. 

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

Source:

Imonikebe, P. et al. (2025) Pesticide residue in cucumber-exposed plants, and its associated effects on soil nematode population, Advances in Modern Agriculture. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390847748_Pesticide_residue_in_cucumber-exposed_plants_and_its_associated_effects_on_soil_nematode_population.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 8, 2025) A study, published in Environmental Pollutants and Bioavailability, assesses the impacts on Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) with subacute and chronic exposure to thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid insecticide, and finds genotoxicity, oxidative stress, and changes in tissue structure, among other threats to organ function and overall fish health. “The study focused on biochemical markers, genetic damage, pesticide residue levels in fish flesh, and histopathological changes in fish exposed to different concentrations of thiamethoxam,” the authors state. The threats do not end there; human health is also at risk from the consumption of these contaminated fish.

“Unfortunately, neonicotinoids, rapidly washed into surface water from agricultural areas, pose a significant threat to environmental water quality and can harm non-target species, particularly aquatic organisms,” the researchers state. The accumulation of these chemicals leads to “ultimately harming both aquatic ecosystems and human health,” they say.

In particular, the study highlights that prolonged exposure to high doses of thiamethoxam can cause “significant negative effects on fish health,” the authors note. They continue: “This exposure led to increased levels of urea and ALT [alanine aminotransferase] in the blood, indicating potential damage to the kidneys and liver. Additionally, thiamethoxam caused oxidative stress, as evidenced by elevated levels of MDA [malondialdehyde, a product of lipid peroxidation] and upregulated TLR2 [toll-like receptor 2] gene expression.”

Residues of thiamethoxam in Nile tilapia muscle correlate with increasing exposure and elevated urea levels. Even lower thiamethoxam concentrations are associated with subsequent kidney dysfunction. “Thiamethoxam also negatively impacted the fish’s antioxidant defense system,” the researchers say. “It significantly reduced the expression of key antioxidant genes like ghrelin and catalase [CAT],” they note, which “could be a consequence of thiamethoxam-induced gastroenteritis” and indicative of damage to gut cells.

Lastly, the authors share, “Histological examination revealed severe degenerative changes in the gills and liver tissues of the fish exposed to thiamethoxam, with the severity of the damage increasing with the concentration of the pesticide.” These results are concerning, as chemicals such as thiamethoxam are able to bioaccumulate and biomagnify within the food chain, leading to impacts on various organisms, including humans.

The study, carried out in Egypt, utilizes 200 Nile tilapia within one control group and four test groups exposed to multiple concentrations of thiamethoxam for varying lengths of time. “Prior to the main study, preliminary trials were conducted to establish non-lethal thiamethoxam concentrations, which were subsequently used as sublethal doses in toxicity assessments,” the researchers say.

In analyzing biochemical markers, this study determines pesticide toxicity. “Specifically, this study examined the impact of thiamethoxam on serum liver and kidney biochemical functions, oxidative stress markers (SOD [superoxide dismutase], MDA, and TAC [total antioxidant capacity]), gene expression (TLR2, ghrelin, and catalase), tissue residue levels, and histopathological changes in the gills and liver of fish,” the authors explain.

The results show a reduction in both SOD and TAC biomarkers. “Collectively, these findings provide compelling evidence that TMX [sublethal exposure to thiamethoxam] exposure induces significant oxidative stress in Nile tilapia, characterized by diminished antioxidant enzyme activity, increased lipid peroxidation, and compromised overall antioxidant capacity,” the researchers note. Additional results, including the significantly elevated creatinine levels, also indicate potential renal dysfunction, as well as impacts on hepatic gene expression “associated with growth (ghrelin), immunity (TLR2), and oxidative stress (CAT).”

“The analysis revealed significant, concentration-dependent alterations in the expression of these genes across all treatment groups compared to the control,” the authors say. They continue: “Notably, ghrelin expression demonstrated a significant downregulation… indicative of potential growth inhibition. Conversely, TLR2 expression exhibited a substantial upregulation…suggesting a pronounced activation of the immune response. Furthermore, CAT gene expression displayed a significant downregulation… signifying heightened oxidative stress.” These results highlight thiamethoxam’s ability to disrupt physiological pathways in fish species by compromising growth, immune function, and the management of oxidative stress.

Lastly, the fish exposed to different concentrations of thiamethoxam all show a range of impacts and damage to their gills. From inflammation and hemorrhaging to exacerbated gill lesions, even the lower concentrations yielded concerning results. As the concentrations increase, more severe hepatic pathologies are induced. The researchers note necrosis (cell death) within tissues and congestion of hepatic blood vessels at the higher exposure levels.

“These findings demonstrate a clear concentration-dependent increase in histopathological damage to the gills and liver of Nile tilapia following [thiamethoxam] exposure, indicative of significant toxicological effects,” the authors write. “The histopathological findings support the biochemical results, showing direct damage to gill and liver tissues caused by thiamethoxam.”

Previous research confirms these results, within Nile tilapia and similar species, to both thiamethoxam and other neonicotinoids. Important study results include:

• “Research indicates that sublethal exposure to thiamethoxam (TMX) significantly disrupts the physiology of Labeo rohita over 120 hours” and also “documented notable elevations in urea and creatinine, suggesting impaired kidney function, along with increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST), indicators of liver damage. Additionally, the study found a rise in malondialdehyde (MDA) concentrations, a marker of lipid peroxidation, demonstrating that TMX induces significant oxidative stress in the fish.”
• Another study “further demonstrated that TMX administration exacerbates oxidative stress through the inhibition of crucial antioxidant enzyme activities. Specifically, they observed statistically significant reductions in catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GPx), and glutathione (GSH) enzyme activities, coupled with an increase in MDA levels.”
• The sublethal effects of thiamethoxam in a study of Oreochromis niloticus reveal “dose-dependent increases in serum ALT, AST, ALP, BUN, urea, uric acid, creatinine, and cortisol, alongside decreased albumin after a 7-day exposure. Kidney tissue exhibited significantly reduced glutathione (GSH) and heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) levels, while thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) surged, indicating heightened oxidative stress.”
• “TMX significantly weakened the immune response in fish, as evidenced by reduced serum lysozyme activity, respiratory burst activity, and phagocytosis, alongside a notable increase in pro-inflammatory interleukins (IL-1β and IL-6).” Nile tilapia exposed to thiamethoxam also “has led to liver damage, including congestion of central veins, diffuse hydropic degeneration of hepatocytes, activation in melanomacrophage centers (MMCs), and vacuolation of hepatocytes.” (See study here.)
• A study of Clarias batrachus exposed to sublethal doses of thiamethoxam reports a significant increase in serum protein, which can be an indicator of various physiological changes, including immune responses, nutritional status, and chronic stress.
• A significant increase in ALT and AST enzyme levels is observed in Nile tilapia exposed to imidacloprid.
• Two studies (see here and here) “reported elevated creatinine levels in fish exposed to thiamethoxam and imidacloprid pesticides.”
• A study “reported increased urea levels in Labeo rohita exposed to thiamethoxam at concentrations ranging from 0 to 2.0 mg/L over 120 hours.”
• “[E]levated urea levels may be associated with gill dysfunction, as observed histopathologically in Nile tilapia, and increased creatinine may result from muscle damage or glomerular disorders, renal tissue breakdown, or decreased kidney filtration.” (See studies here and here.)
• Rainbow trout exposed to thiamethoxam “showed decreased SOD, CAT, and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) levels, along with increased MDA and myeloperoxidase (MPO) levels.” (See here.)
• Another study “reported decreased antioxidant enzyme activities (SOD, GPx, CAT, GST) and reduced glutathione (GSH) levels in fish exposed for 96 hours to thiamethoxam.”
• Cultivated fish in thiamethoxam-treated paddies show evidence of weakened digestive systems. (See study here.)
• “[H]istopathological changes, such as muscle damage, degeneration, necrosis, edema [tissue swelling], and inflammation, observed in fish exposed to acetamiprid and imidacloprid, are likely caused by oxidative stress.” (See study here.)
• Another study “observed similar gill tissue damage in Nile tilapia exposed to imidacloprid, including epithelial lifting, fusion of secondary lamellae, dilated blood vessels, and increased blood flow.”
• “[S]evere gill damage in Nile tilapia exposed to acetamiprid and thiamethoxam, including swelling, increased cell proliferation, bleeding, and fusion of the secondary lamellae [projections in gills]” is noted in various studies. (See here and here.)
• Imidacloprid “exhibited cell damage, cytoplasmic vacuolations, and loss of cell structure in Nile tilapia liver.” (See study here.)

The above findings highlight the vast array of effects on fish health from neonicotinoid exposure that consequently affect human health when contaminated fish are consumed. As a result of their study, the researchers conclude, “These results underscore the toxic impact of thiamethoxam on aquatic organisms, emphasizing the need for stringent monitoring and regulatory measures to protect aquatic ecosystems.”

Regulatory processes fail to safeguard human health and the environment. (See extensive coverage here.) As a solution, Beyond Pesticides advocates eliminating petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use because of their threat to all organisms and their ecosystems. Instead, Beyond Pesticides urges the adoption of organic land management in order to create a world free of toxic chemicals.

Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic (see here and here) and stay informed with the Daily News Blog, which offers information on the hazards of pesticides, pesticide regulation and policy, pesticide alternatives, and cutting-edge science. Sign up now to get our Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox in order to take action and stay engaged.

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

Source:

Mansour, A. et al. (2025) Exploring the toxicity of thiamethoxam on aquatic ecosystems: an overarching assessment of biochemical parameters, genotoxicity, fish flesh residues and histological alterations in Nile tilapia, Environmental Pollutants and Bioavailability. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26395940.2025.2493050.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 7, 2025) Researchers at the University of Caxias do Sul (Brazil) identify 29 peer-reviewed scientific studies with statistically significant findings that tie pesticide use to cancer diagnoses. The literature review is published in Saúde Debate. This collection of clinical trials, as well as epidemiologic, case-control, and experimental studies—from the United States, Brazil, India, France, Egypt, Columbia, Ecuador, Mexico, Italy, and Spain—add to the hundreds of peer-reviewed independent analyses connecting synthetic chemical dependency in food production and land management with mounting public health concerns.

Advocates continue to call for holistic solutions that move away from toxic inputs that disproportionately harm the communities responsible for the food on dinner tables, and instead cultivate microbial diversity in soil, rather than prophylactically spray for the sake of pest control. Beyond Pesticides values the importance of scientific integrity and open access to data to inform decision makers on how to adopt healthier practices for their communities. Reliable information for good governance is critical, which is a driving factor in the ongoing compilation of thousands of peer-reviewed literature compiled and curated in the Pesticide-Induced Disease Database and Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management.

Background and Methodology

The main objective of this review is to determine the relationship between the use of pesticides and the elevated risk of cancer among farmer populations. The researchers, as noted in their introduction, aimed to achieve this by engaging in a broad literature review, pulling in different types of studies with strict criteria to sort through the several subpopulations who face elevated chemical risks from occupational exposure. A search methodology was established to pull peer-reviewed journal articles from various scientific databases across the globe.

“The inclusion criteria for selecting articles were: original articles; applied research articles; published in full, from 2012 to 2021; with open access; in English and Portuguese; that addressed the relationship between the use of pesticides and the onset of cancer in the farming population,” say the researchers. The exclusion criteria include studies unrelated to pesticides, those with participants who have only indirect exposure to pesticides, studies that do not identify cancer biomarkers, or other meta-analyses.

Saúde Debate, translated as “Health in Debate,” is a peer-reviewed journal hosted by the Brazilian Center for Health Studies. The journal receives funding from the Center, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. The review follows Preferred Reporting Items for systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews, a study protocol registered on the Open Science Framework platform on August 22, 2022. The authors also disclose that this scoping review is part of their research project, ‘The use of pesticides in family farming and its implications for farmers’ health and environmental health,’ which was “approved by the Research Ethics Committee, Opinion No. 3,481,277 (CAAE 17010519.1.0000.5341).”

Results

In terms of best practices for identifying reliable sources, the authors note that all the studies of interest include the following two features:

1. “biomarkers for early prediction of cancer (case-control studies and clinical trials); and
2. risk associations (sociodemographic data, use of pesticides, types of pesticides, exposure to products, frequency and duration of exposure and agricultural tasks).”

Fourteen of the studies signal elevated risk for numerous cancers, including breast cancer, central nervous system, lung, as well as general cancer risk. In studies that consider multiple pesticides, associations are made between exposure and “lung, hematological, breast, and prostate cancer.” Associations between pesticide exposure and melanoma, non-melanoma, and lip cancer were excluded because of sun exposure as a significant confounding factor. This is important to note in the context of organochlorine pesticides, which have been determined to be carcinogenic and widely considered a leading cause of cancer among farmers and agricultural communities for decades. (See here for Daily News coverage of the latest scientific literature on organochlorine pesticides and health impacts.)

The results originating in the U.S.-based studies, which make up the largest number of studies identified in this literature review, highlight a demonstrable pattern between long-term exposure to chemical mixtures and heightened risks of health hazards. There are several studies in this review, as well as studies covered in the Daily News, that leverage data from the Agricultural Health Study, a prospective study of licensed applicators recruiting nearly 53,000 private applicators and more than 75 percent of their spouses in Iowa and North Carolina enrolled in a cohort between 1993 and 1997.

For example, a 2015 study published in PloS One found that pesticides, including the weed killer 2,4-D, were “borderline significant” for acting as a potential intermediary for certain diseases, including cancer. The researchers in this prospective population cohort study considered geographical location, smoking history, body mass index, and other potentially confounding variables in their assessment. A 2017 population study published in Environmental Health Perspectives contributes to the literature on linkages between occupational pesticide exposure and lung cancer. High pesticide exposure events are also found to contribute to “increased DNA methylation in GSTp1 promoter and subsequent gene inactivation have been consistently associated with prostate cancer[,]” based on a 2016 study published in Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis from this same cohort.

Agricultural Community Impacted by Pesticides

Farmers, farmworkers, and their families face disproportionate risks from toxic pesticide exposure.

A recent Daily News post, Dramatic Array of Pesticides Used Outdoors Make Their Way Inside, Contaminating the Indoor Environment, reviews two recent studies from European and Argentine-based populations, highlighting the implications of pesticide contamination in an indoor environment. The Argentine study found 41 compounds or metabolites of the 49 pesticides it tested for in its study, speaking to the pervasiveness of chemical residues that can be tracked into homes. Pesticide residues have been detected in the urine samples of farmers and nonfarmers alike, in addition to being linked to an elevated risk of depression, cognitive decline, obesity, sleep issues/disorders, and various cancers, including brain cancer.

As previously covered in the Daily News, farmworkers face the brunt of pesticide exposure on a daily basis, not just in the form of acute exposure but also long-term residues that drift in from the field on clothing, footwear, or other mediums. Peer-reviewed studies have linked pesticide exposure to sleep disorders, respiratory harms, DNA damage, and mental health disorders, including depression and suicide. Farmworker children are particularly vulnerable given the bioaccumulative impacts and amplified toxicity potential that they face compared to their parents. See Agricultural Justice to learn about the history of Beyond Pesticides’ engagement with farmworkers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as one of the driving forces for Beyond Pesticides’ mission to eliminate toxic petrochemical-based pesticides and transition to organic.

Call to Action

Beyond Pesticides continues to support coalitions and campaigns across the nation that protect people’s rights to safety from environmental and occupational exposure to toxic pesticides, including protection of “failure-to-warn” claims against chemical manufacturers, central to pesticide injury litigation in the U.S. In an era of federal deregulation and the inability of political leaders to initiate and enact substantial reforms, litigation remains a critical backstop for corporate accountability.

For more information, see the latest Action of the Week, Don’t Allow Chemical Companies To Exempt Themselves from Responsibility. See the Pesticide Immunity Bill Resource Hub to stay updated on related state and federal campaigns.

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

Source: Saúde Debate

(Beyond Pesticides, May 6, 2025) A study in Ecology Letters finds “severe degradation of ecosystem functioning in the form of loss of organic matter consumption and dramatic shifts in primary productivity,” the researchers state, after performing an experiment with “36 naturally established freshwater ecosystems exposed to increasing field-realistic concentrations of the neonicotinoid thiacloprid.” Aquatic communities contribute to overall biodiversity and are crucial in maintaining healthy ecosystems; without them, the entire food web and vital ecosystem services, such as nutrient cycling, water filtration, and climate regulation, are threatened.

As the authors reference, there is a current unprecedented decline in biodiversity that can be attributed to anthropogenic impacts. A multitude of studies connect pesticides, and more specifically neonicotinoid insecticides, to impacts on aquatic ecosystems. (See studies here and here.) “Since the community of organisms locally present is responsible for the functioning of the local ecosystems,” the researchers begin, “this begs the question: do neonicotinoid-induced shifts in community composition result in a degradation of ecosystem functioning?”

Previous research finds that neonicotinoids can “impede several freshwater ecosystem processes such as organic matter (‘OM’) decomposition, primary production or biomass transfer to neighbouring ecosystems,” the authors say. (See studies here, here, and here.) They continue: “However, knowledge is lacking regarding to what extent neonicotinoid concentrations in surface waters actually affect natural freshwater biodiversity and how the functional coherence of the community is affected. To explore this gap, we analysed naturally assembled freshwater communities that were exposed to an environmentally realistic neonicotinoid concentration range.”

Through a two-tiered network-based approach, the researchers compare aquatic community structures and determine how neonicotinoid-induced stress disrupts ecosystem processes. As a result, they report, “We experimentally show that co-occurrence network approaches can identify the effects of a neonicotinoid at very low concentrations and that co-occurrence network disruption coincides with losses in ecosystem functioning.”

Assessing species co-occurrence, the pattern of two or more species within the same habitat, and changes to species with the introduction of an environmental stressor provides information on community structure and ecological variables that could cascade to further impacts. This experiment, conducted at an outdoor research facility at Leiden University in the Netherlands called the Living Lab, includes a setup of 36 experimental freshwater ditch ecosystems with a ‘mesocosm’ design to ensure similar habitat structure and conditions.

As the authors describe: “Our setup also allowed natural colonisation: We did not control how and which ecological invertebrate communities developed. This provided a controlled outdoor experimental design to study the effects of the neonicotinoid on naturally-formed communities and their environment.” They allowed species to populate the ditches for five months before closing them off to the adjoining lake, sampling the macroinvertebrates for diversity, and then proceeding with two spikes, two weeks apart, of neonicotinoid exposure in the test groups.

The environmentally relevant concentrations of thiacloprid include 0, 0.1, 1, and 10 μg/L. Before exposure, the researchers confirmed the ditches did not have any significant differences in species abundance or other biotic or abiotic conditions (pH, temperature, etc.). After one month, the macroinvertebrates were sampled and analyzed again to assess impacts on the aquatic communities.

The study considers multiple variables:

• Total abundance (the overall number of individuals),
• Abundance per taxonomic order (the number of individuals within a species or other taxa),
• Species richness (the number of different species), and
• Shannon diversity (a measure of diversity considering species richness and ‘evenness’/uniformity of distribution).

As a result, the authors report:

• “[T]otal invertebrate abundance decreased by 18% at the lowest test concentration and by 36% at the two higher test concentrations. This decrease in total abundance was mostly due to lower abundances in the taxonomic orders Malacostraca and Ostracoda. In contrast, we observed higher abundances with increasing neonicotinoid concentration for the orders of Arachnida and Branchiopoda, likely due to increased reproduction and/or offspring survival of these taxa with relatively short generation times.”
• “Increasing thiacloprid concentrations induced increasingly significant dissimilarities in species composition… This implies that the dissimilarity can be largely attributed to taxon replacement, which in turn explains the lack of effects on total taxon richness and Shannon diversity.”
• “At 10 μg/L, we even observed a strong reduction in the number of strong species’ co-occurrences,” which shows 54% fewer correlations when compared to the control community and indicates “a severe impairment of the statistical coherence at high neonicotinoid concentrations.”
• “The biomass of the combined functional feeding group of ‘Gatherer/Collectors + Shredders’ decreased significantly by 15%, 46% and 85% for the insecticide concentrations 0.1, 1 and 10 μg/L, respectively, relative to the control. This coincided with changes in the ecosystem processes fulfilled by these functional feeding groups; invertebrate organic matter consumption strongly declined by 80% and 100% at the 1 and 10 μg/L treatment relative to the control, respectively.”
• “Through losses in the ‘Gatherer/Collectors + Shredders’ functional feeding groups, ditches also became dominated by floating algal beds [FLABs] with increases in biomass relative to the control of over 300 and over 1400% at 1 and 10 μg/L, respectively.” The presence of FLABs also cascaded to cause a decline in phytoplankton levels.

This study highlights the impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides on freshwater ecosystems, as exhibited by the altered aquatic communities and dramatic decrease in functioning within the results. The researchers note: “These analyses show that increasing levels of disturbance lead to a progressive loss of the number and strength of species co-occurrences within these communities, to the point that almost all strong species correlations are lost… Indeed, the observed progressive loss of species correlations from the co-occurrence networks coincided with increasingly degraded ecosystem functioning.”

Additional research supports this study’s findings. (See Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of neonicotinoids and aquatic impacts here, here, here, here, and here.) Specifically, many studies use the network approach to assess community vitality within ecosystems. (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.) The researchers also share that, “[R]ecent research with thiacloprid at the same test facility showed that short-term toxicity effects can lead to persistent restructuring of the invertebrate community, which coincides with observations in long-term studies on local community changes.” (See studies here, here, and here.)

Through multiple direct and indirect pathways, insecticide exposure can induce stress on ecosystem functioning. These systems rely on a balance of many factors, with changes in any of them causing disruption and further cascading impacts. As the authors say: “While there are few laws in ecology, at least a simple and perhaps trivial consensus is that in ecological systems, ‘organisms interact with one another (…) and their environment.’ Hence, it may not be the species richness of a local community per se, but rather the set of functional links between organisms in a specific community and with their environment that provides the connection between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.” (See here, here, and here.)

The ability of environmentally relevant levels of thiacloprid to “induce major compositional shifts and degradation of the aquatic food web shortly (i.e., 1 month) after pulse applications” is of great concern. The researchers note: “These effects are well beyond any effects that could be estimated from species-specific effects (as obtained from bioassays) described by standard risk assessment methodology (e.g., OECD 235, 2011; OECD 211, 2012). In addition, we already observed significantly impaired statistical coherence of invertebrate communities at nominal thiacloprid concentrations as low as 0.1 μg/L (actual 0.08 μg/L), which lies well below nearly all recognised toxic concentrations for individual aquatic species.” (See studies here, here, and here.)

This concentration, as the authors reference, is also dangerously close to established values, such as the chronic benchmark from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for freshwater invertebrates and the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) Maximum Allowable Concentrations – Environmental Quality Standard. “This indicates that these norms are insufficient for the protection of freshwater invertebrate communities,” the researchers maintain.

They continue, “This also strongly suggests that the result of degrading co-occurrence networks is not simply a result of differential thiacloprid-induced mortality between species. Therefore, and because several taxa increased in abundance, the observed degradation is likely a result of both direct and indirect thiacloprid-induced toxicity. The sensitivity of the co-occurrence analysis of the ecological community shows that the current pesticide risk assessment has major shortcomings since it can fail to predict effects on the integrity of natural communities and related ecosystem functioning.” (See more on EPA failures here.)

Neonicotinoid insecticides threaten freshwater life and function, and therefore also threaten overall biodiversity. This study, as the authors conclude, shows how thiacloprid “can strongly disrupt freshwater ecosystem functioning via degradation of the invertebrate food web… Our results also suggest an immediate re-evaluation of the extensive usage of these insecticides is warranted, because both EPA and EFSA thresholds (that are deemed safe for freshwater life) were within our tested environmentally relevant concentrations where we observed degradation of freshwater communities and ecosystem functionality. Importantly, given the hundreds of pesticides that are on the market worldwide and present in the freshwater environment, the ecological networks and ecosystem functioning may be in far more perilous state than we have concluded based on trends in local taxon richness alone.”

To mitigate these risks, the elimination of not only neonicotinoid insecticides but all petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers is needed. The availability of organic land management, which safeguards the environment and health for all organisms including humans, provides a holistic solution. To learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic practices, see here and here. Get engaged by taking action to protect ecosystems, as well as signing up to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered straight to your inbox.

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

Source:

Barmentlo, S. et al. (2025) Networks in Aquatic Communities Collapse Upon Neonicotinoid-Induced Stress, Ecology Letters. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ele.70121.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 5, 2025) With North Dakota on April 24 being the first state to enact chemical industry legislation that blocks poisoning victims from suing manufacturers for their failure to warn about their products’ hazards, a national fight over accountability and compensation has escalated. Legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their “failure to warn” about the hazards of their pesticide products is being pushed through state legislatures. Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade, according to legal professionals, including Brigit Rollins, JD, staff attorney at the National Agriculture Law Center. The litigation is also an important check on the chemical industry in a national climate of deregulation and the Trump Administration’s dismantling of environmental and public health programs. “Failure-to-warn” is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. “Almost every pesticide injury lawsuit filed in the past ten years has included a claim that the pesticide manufacturer failed to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using their product and that such failure caused the plaintiff’s injury,” says Ms. Rollins. 

[See below for action steps advocated by Beyond Pesticides and local state-based organizations.]

Attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims are taking place in the wake of extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by Roundup(TM) glyphosate and the company’s failure to have its case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts. The latest numbers indicate that Bayer-Monsanto alone has had to settle $11 billion for glyphosate use and exposure, prompting the industry to attack the right of those harmed to sue for the company’s failure to warn them about the product’s hazards.  

Pesticide exposure contributes to heightened risk of severe health conditions, including, but not limited to, various cancers, neurological disorders, reproductive disorders, immunological disorders, and obesity. 

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1,777,566 new cancer cases were reported in 2021 (the latest year of available incidence data). Not all cancer cases are directly related to pesticides; however, the National Cancer Institute notes, “[a]pproximately 40.5% of men and women will be diagnosed with cancer at some point during their lifetimes (based on 2017–2019 data).” Given that up to 93% of cancer diagnoses can be attributed to non-hereditary, environmental factors (National Institutes of Health), we must raise the question of the long-term viability of pesticide dependence given the availability of organic land management and safer structural practices. A 2022 study commissioned by the Parkinson’s Foundation found there was a 50% increase in expected annual diagnoses for Parkinson’s Disease, with 90,000 new individuals diagnosed each year. Data from the CDC-led National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2021-2023) indicates that approximately four in ten Americans are obese. 

Amidst the corresponding surges in chronic illnesses and severe health diagnoses of the past decades, alongside the unprecedented increases in pesticide use around the nation, the long-term viability of pesticide dependence must be questioned. 

State legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers who fail to warn users about the hazards of their pesticide products is moving forward in the state legislatures of Florida, Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina, having just been passed in North Dakota. After six bills failed to pass in Idaho, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Montana, Tennessee, and Wyoming, one bill is awaiting signature into law by the Governor’s Office (Georgia). Meanwhile, Beyond Pesticides, working with a broad coalition, is pushing back.

If adopted, the legislation would set a dangerous precedent granting “immunity from litigation” for state common law claims against any manufacturers of products with toxic ingredients. Currently, pesticide labels under federal and state law generally warn of acute effects, such as rashes, headaches, stinging eyes, but do not warn of potential chronic effects, including cancer, reproductive effects, infertility, birth defects, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and cardiovascular damage. See the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. 

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 hazards to those who have been harmed. The company’s defeats include a U.S. Supreme Court denial (denial of certiorari) to hear their appeal. With this, Bayer has taken its campaign to the states to strip away the people’s (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 ineffective 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 not only holds 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 the Fiscal Year 2025 Appropriations bill (see Daily News here), as well as in ongoing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking, advanced by 11 Republican Attorneys General. Although the public hearing comment period ended on March 24, see the Action of the Week here for more background. So, the industry campaign is aggressively playing out at the state and federal levels. 

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. Voters also shared a preference to hold chemical companies accountable for causing serious health issues. In quantitative terms, 89% of Iowans, including 87% of registered Republican respondents, oppose giving chemical companies like Bayer-Monsanto immunity from lawsuits. 94% of those surveyed agreed that it is very concerning that the EPA relies on industry-funded data to carry out safety studies. 

Beyond Pesticides, in collaboration with local state-based organizations, is urging the following action:
Tell your state legislators not to allow chemical companies to exempt themselves from responsibility. 

If you are a resident of the following states, follow these links to take urgent action! State bills to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers who fail to warn users about the hazards of their pesticide products are moving forward in Florida, Georgia (a bill is pending the Governor’s signature after passing the legislature), Iowa, Missouri, and North Carolina. If you are a resident of any other state, including North Dakota, click here or link below (>>) to take action!

If you are a resident of any other state, including North Dakota, please move to the Action form! 

• If you are not a resident of the above states or North Dakota, the form below will allow you to send your state legislators a message opposing “failure-to-warn” legislation.
• If you live in North Dakota, the form below will allow you to express your disappointment to your state legislators (and the governor!) and ask them to rescind the legislation. 

Letter to state legislators and the governor of states without active “failure-to-warn” legislation:
Legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their failure to warn about the hazards of their pesticide products is being pushed through state legislatures. Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade. “Failure-to-warn” is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using the product has been the basis for almost all pesticide injury lawsuits.

Attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims are taking place in the wake of extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by RoundupTM glyphosate and the company’s failure to have its case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts. The latest numbers indicate that Bayer-Monsanto alone has had to settle $11 billion for glyphosate use and exposure, prompting the industry to attack the right of those harmed to sue for the company’s failure to warn them about the product’s hazards.

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 created 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 the ability of people (including farmers) to hold corporations accountable through a common law duty to warn claims associated with pesticide products.

Pesticide exposure contributes to heightened risk of severe health conditions, including but not limited to, various cancers, neurological disorders, reproductive disorders, immunological disorders, and obesity, none of which are mentioned on pesticide labels. When pesticide manufacturers hold back information about severe harms, they must be held accountable.

Please reject efforts of the pesticide industry to deny people the right to compensation.

Thank you.

Letter to North Dakota state legislators and governor:
I was very disappointed to learn of the passage and signing of HB 1318, “A BILL for an Act to create and enact as new section to chapter 28-01.3 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to pesticide labeling,” that shields pesticide manufacturers from being sued by people who have been harmed by their products.

Legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their failure to warn about the hazards of their pesticide products is being pushed through state legislatures. Failure-to-warn claims serve as the basis for the overwhelming majority of pesticide injury litigation of the past decade. “Failure-to-warn” is a legal argument grounded in the common law of state court systems across the nation. Failure to warn the plaintiff of the health risks associated with using the product has been the basis for almost all pesticide injury lawsuits.

Attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims are taking place in the wake of extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by Roundup(TM) glyphosate and the company’s failure to have its case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court after losing in the lower courts. The latest numbers indicate that Bayer-Monsanto alone has had to settle $11 billion for glyphosate use and exposure, prompting the industry to attack the right of those harmed to sue for the company’s failure to warn them about the product’s hazards.

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 created 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 the ability of people (including farmers) to hold corporations accountable through a common law duty to warn claims associated with pesticide products.

Pesticide exposure contributes to heightened risk of severe health conditions, including but not limited to, various cancers, neurological disorders, reproductive disorders, immunological disorders, and obesity, none of which are mentioned on pesticide labels. When pesticide manufacturers hold back information about severe harms, they must be held accountable.

Please reject efforts of the pesticide industry to deny people the right to compensation. Reverse this legislation in the coming session.

Thank you.

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

* This article was cross-posted with permission from the Ecological Landscape Alliance, which was originally published on April 30, 2025. A link will be shared once it is made available.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2025) With the current existential health, biodiversity, and climate threats, organic land management is a bright spot for the sustainable future envisioned by Beyond Pesticides. Founded in 1981, Beyond Pesticides began tracking the science of pesticide hazards and questioning dependency on toxic, fossil fuel-based pesticides as unnecessary to achieving effective land management, both in agricultural and nonagricultural contexts. The organization, which grew out of a series of site visits and field hearings to document the limitations of labor standards necessary to protect farmworkers, was created to bring together environmentalists, public health practitioners, farmers, land managers, farmworkers, and consumers. 

Nearly a decade before its founding and less than 20 years after the publication of Silent Spring, many important laws governing clean air, water, food safety, and pesticides had been adopted. However, these statutes’ focus on mitigating risks of harm to health and the environment has fallen short, according to Beyond Pesticides. Instead, the organization pursues a precautionary approach that is codified in organic standards that grow out of the Organic Foods Production Act, a law it helped to write that establishes a systems approach to nurture soil microbial life, build organic matter, and cycle nutrients without synthetic inputs. The approach is cross-cutting in eliminating petrochemicals that contribute to public health issues, biodiversity decline, and the climate crisis by releasing toxic substances and greenhouse gases into the environment and reducing the earth’s capacity to draw down atmospheric carbon, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Beyond Pesticides tracks the overall hazards associated with pesticide use through a number of its databases, including the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, which documents independent peer-reviewed studies that link pesticides to a range of chronic diseases including cancer, reproductive harm, neurological illness, respiratory disease, autism and learning disabilities, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes. Because many of the pesticides are endocrine disruptors, the effects have been shown to cause adverse multi-generational effects.

Whether a health crisis borne out of chemical-induced diseases, the collapse of life-sustaining biodiversity, or the dramatic catastrophes caused by greenhouse gases and rising temperatures, the interconnectedness of the root causes of these crises requires solutions that are holistic and nurturing of humans’ relationship with nature—an interrelationship that has been neglected as a matter of policy and practice. In October 2023, an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) captures the urgency of the climate and biodiversity crisis in Time to Treat the Climate and Nature Crisis as One Indivisible Global Health Emergency. The authors state: “Over 200 health journals call on the United Nations, political leaders, and health professionals to recognize that climate change and biodiversity loss are one indivisible crisis and must be tackled together to preserve health and avoid catastrophe. This overall environmental crisis is now so severe as to be a global health emergency.”

Beyond Pesticides publishes numerous factsheets that catalogue pesticide hazards to health and the environment. Its factsheets, including 40 Commonly Used Lawn Pesticides, cites that 21 pesticides are probable or possible carcinogens, 20 are linked with birth defects, 28 with reproductive effects, 39 are neurotoxic, 33 cause liver or kidney damage, 18 are sensitizers and/or irritants, and 24 have the potential to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system.

Regarding environmental effects, 21 are detected in groundwater, 28 have the potential to leach into soils and water, 28 are toxic to birds, 39 are toxic to fish and aquatic organisms, 33 are toxic to bees, and 18 are toxic to mammals. Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix factsheet points to the data establishing elevated rates of pesticide-induced illnesses among children because of their elevated vulnerability due to small body size and exposure potential relative to body weight. The organization’s website is content-rich, with a comprehensive focus on adverse impacts from people to pollinators, waterways to wildlife, and information on alternative strategies for managing lawns, landscapes, and gardens without toxic inputs.

Beyond Pesticides’ work to advance organic agricultural, public, and residential land management systems within an organic policy framework recognizes that toxic pesticides are not needed to achieve food productivity or beautiful landscapes. To do this, the organization supports grassroots organizations and people as change agents to put in place practical solutions and policy reform. Beyond Pesticides is unique in hosting a national information desk on how to navigate the hazards of pesticide spraying in communities and providing hands-on training to facilitate organic policies and practices in local jurisdictions and states nationwide. Through its Parks for a Sustainable Future program, Beyond Pesticides provides hands-on horticultural support and helps to underwrite municipal programs to convert parks and playing fields to organic management.

In implementing organic methods, Beyond Pesticides adheres to a holistic approach that ensures that all the terms currently being used to advance regenerative and sustainable practices are built on a foundation of defined and enforceable organic standards contained in the federal organic law. Federal organic law is unique in that the Congressionally mandated National Organic Standards Board is a federal advisory board with teeth; what that means is all Board recommendations for allowed substances are binding, as required by statute. Organic standard setting is participatory, with open comments that have a history of strengthening standards to ensure integrity, trust, and accountability in the system. The organization pushes for clear and meaningful definitions of proposed solutions to the current crises, pointing out that several states are now advancing the term regenerative without the clarity and enforceability it says are needed.

Local campaigns to advance local organic land management ordinances in Maine, a call to action on a bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticide restrictions in Oregon and Connecticut, or similar actions nationwide is empowered by Beyond Pesticides’ daily science and policy tracking through its website’s Daily News. In doing so, the program contributes to communities’ sustainability and public health goals. Beyond Pesticides sees organic land management as a social good—one that requires a societal investment—for a livable future. For more information visit: Home — Beyond Pesticides.

Thank you.

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

Source: Journal of the American Medical Association

(Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2025) Pesticides by themselves are a grave threat to global health. As is global warming. As is antibiotic resistance. Each of these problems has to be analyzed in its own silo to reveal the mechanisms driving its dynamics. But eventually, it must be acknowledged that they actually converge. A common soil arthropod has clearly illustrated how this convergence creates synergistic effects: warming increases pesticide toxicity; pesticide toxicity triggers antibiotic resistance; antibiotic resistance spreads through horizontal gene transfer (movement through the environment to people) and predation. The consequences, not yet fully understood, are nevertheless emerging from accumulating research.

A study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials by scientists at six Chinese universities and research centers examines the convergence in springtails (Folsomia candida)—tiny insect-like animals that live in soils worldwide and are commonly used as laboratory subjects. The researchers exposed springtails to the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid at three concentrations and three temperatures. In addition to measuring the springtails’ direct mortality, the researchers also investigated the microbes in the animals’ guts, checking for expression of genes involved in antibiotic resistance.

The evidence is unequivocal: imidacloprid exposure at a soil temperature consistent with current and expected warming (30°C, or 86° F) killed significant numbers of springtails. Imidacloprid concentrations in the springtails were more than ten times higher at 30°C than at the two lower temperatures tested. Pesticide toxicity is known to increase with temperature, which affects how pesticides are metabolized, travel, and degrade in the environment. Higher temperatures also lower the threshold for pesticides’ lethality in soil invertebrates in part by forcing them to divert energy from reproduction and immunity to repair the heat damage.

When the researchers examined gene expression in the springtails’ gut microbes, they found similar evidence for the harmful combination of warming and pesticides. They detected 110 different antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), and to dive deeper, they tested one microbe abundant in the springtails, Serratia liquefaciens, in further detail. The authors cite research showing that this bacterium also inhabits the domestic silk moth, the greater Indian fruit bat, and honey bees.

In the springtails, at 30°C and the highest imidacloprid concentration, ARGs increased significantly, particularly genes associated with stress survival and the ability of pathogenic microbes to enter and injure cells. The authors note that antimicrobial resistance is also enhanced through changes in microbial community structure, oxidative stress/reactive oxygen species production in host species, and increased permeability of cell walls.

Many of the ARGs the researchers found across bacterial species are deemed high-risk. For example, in the high-temperature, high-imidacloprid concentration groups, they detect a gene for tetracycline resistance, along with the gene dfrA, which confers resistance to trimethoprim (used for bladder and ear infections), and optrA, a gene that works against the antibiotic tedizolid, described elsewhere as “a last-resort antimicrobial agent in human medicine.” The antibiotic resistance genes in the springtails are found together with virulence factors, which intensify the pathogen’s damage to the host.

The current study shows that the increased presence of imidacloprid also increases the presence of imidacloprid-degrading bacteria, reducing the diversity of the microbiome. This, in turn, “diminishes the metabolic multifunctionality of soil microbial communities,” the authors write, which raises springtail mortality. They cite a 2019 study showing that this process can also trigger pesticide resistance in mosquitoes exposed to pyrethroid insecticides by increasing pyrethroid-degrading bacteria. While pesticides and antibiotics are not usually equated, the mechanism inducing resistance in both is essentially the same—clearly, the pesticide-exposed springtails contain a wide variety of genes conferring resistance to antibiotics, adding to the growing body of research indicating that biological responses to pesticides affect responses to antibiotics, and vice versa.

A powerful factor in the risk landscape created by the convergence of these global threats is the potential for horizontal gene transfer throughout food webs. In the current study, the ARGs and virulence factors were also found with mobile genetic elements (MGEs), which comprise several types of genetic packages that can transfer these elements widely across species barriers.

In January, Beyond Pesticides analyzed a study by some of the same authors detailing this process in mites and springtails exposed to zinc thiazole, a fungicide and antibacterial chemical recently linked to thyroid disruption. The springtails’ gut microbes are incorporated into the mites’ gut microbiota, making resistance genes potentially available to new microbial taxa, and so on through the web.

In fact, the relationship between pesticides and antibiotics, and their mutual induction of various resistance processes in the biosphere, is a serious problem that has received far too little regulatory and legislative attention. Glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba have all been documented to create resistance in Salmonella and E. coli.

Beyond Pesticides, along with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Migrant Clinicians Network, and several other advocacy groups, sued the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2021 over its approval of streptomycin for use in citrus farming. The practice does not work against the target pathogens and fosters antibiotic resistance. Streptomycin is one of the few drugs useful against multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. In 2023 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs, and the antibiotic is now banned as a pesticide; however, the court’s reasoning fails to grasp the science on antibiotic resistance that EPA ignores in its review, despite it being the biggest emerging threat to U.S. and global health. Overall, the antibiotic-resistance-inducing effects of pesticides have not been properly regulated. Beyond Pesticides has called for the immediate cancellation of “all uses of a pesticide when resistance is discovered or predicted to occur.”

The harmful effects on soil health of pesticides and antibiotics—with climate change as a third partner—cannot be overemphasized. Invertebrates cannot be deleted from soils without disastrous results. As Beyond Pesticides stated in 2021, “Healthy, living soils contain a universe of organisms, including many invertebrates, that provide critical services: they decompose biomass and cycle nutrients, maintain soil structure, hold carbon, and support ecosystem equilibrium by controlling pests and diseases, and making nutrients available to biota. Such organisms include earthworms, ground-nesting bees, beetles, ants, springtails, termites, millipedes, and others.”

Pesticide companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Their practices are unsustainable, and sooner or later, the cumulative insults to the biosphere will overwhelm the ingenuity of companies to devise short-term “solutions” that merely hasten the day of their collapse. Switching to organic agriculture immediately is the wisest course. It can help disentangle a century or more of the synergies among pesticides, climate, and antibiotic resistance.

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

Sources:

Warming exacerbates the effects of pesticides on the soil collembolan gutmicrobiome and antibiotic resistome
Ya-Ning Wang et al
Journal of Hazardous Materials 2025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304389425012099

Dissemination of Antimicrobial Resistance in Microbial Ecosystems through Horizontal Gene Transfer
Christian J.H.von Wintersdorff et al
Frontiers in Microbiology
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4759269/ 

Meta-Review: Pesticides Kill or Harm Soil Invertebrates Essential to Soil Health
Beyond Pesticides, May 7, 2021
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/05/meta-review-pesticides-kill-or-harm-soil-invertebrates-essential-to-soil-health/

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

Common Herbicides Linked to Antibiotic Resistance
Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2015
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2015/03/common-herbicides-linked-to-antibiotic-resistance/

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2025) A literature review published in Ecosystem Services by researchers at Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies and Rodale Institute European Regenerative Organic Center identifies the ecological and soil health benefits of regenerative organic agriculture (ROAg). In comparison to chemical-intensive farming, ROAg increases soil organic content by 22 percent, soil total nitrogen by 28 percent, and soil microbial biomass carbon by 133 percent, according to the research.

While further long-term comparative research is needed to compare regenerative organic with conventional, chemical-intensive systems, as well as more precisely quantifiable benefits of regenerative organic farming on soil health, researchers were able to determine that regenerative organic agriculture “has significant positive impacts on soil health and ecosystem service delivery.” 

As U.S. farmers contend with the future of unpredictable supply chains, there is an increasing interest in the organic agricultural sector to minimize superficial costs while maximizing the utility of existing resources. The density and diversity of microbial life in the soil is one such resource that requires regenerative organic principles, including the commonly held belief that soil microbial life must be fed to break down organic matter for plant nutrition, rather than bypassing the soil with synthetic petrochemical nutrients.  

Background and Methodology

The authors identify two main objectives for this study:

1. “[A]ssess how multiple regenerative organic practices might influence several soil ecosystem services [and]
2. [I]dentify and discuss knowledge gaps associated with our ability to assess and quantify the role of different regenerative practices in influencing the delivery of multiple soil ecosystem services.”

The authors screened 271 records, with just 24 studies meeting all of the inclusion criteria. The literature review followed four stages; First, identifying keywords and working definitions for regenerative organic agriculture; Second, applying inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting relevant studies; Third, extracting the data from quantitative and non-quantitative datasets; and Fourth, evaluating the impact of regenerative organic practices by calculating impact scores for soil health and ecosystems services metrics. For each observation, the authors recorded the measured soil parameters, ecosystem services associated with healthy soils, and positive/negative direction of the impact on each parameter and service. (Note: “Measurements” in the non-quantitative database are the same as observations.)

As a part of the preliminary review of the literature, the study identifies six key ROAg principles:

1. “crop rotations,
2. use of organic fertilizers
3. use of cover crops
4. minimum soil disturbance
5. avoidance of chemicals (i.e., pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fertilizers), [and]
6. promotion of biodiverse cropping systems[.]”

Since there is no consistent definition of ROAg, authors lean on guidelines set by organizations, including Regenerative Organic Alliance and Rodale Institute who establish organic principles and standards as a baseline.

The authors pinpoint four guiding principles to incorporate into their framework for identifying relevant studies, including:

• “avoidance of synthetic inputs (i.e., promotion of organic farming);
• the simultaneous adoption of minimum tillage, cover cropping and crop rotation practices;
• the use of organic fertilizers or the retention of crop residues for increasing soil fertility; [and]
• crop rotation and minimum tillage could be avoided only in the case a perennial crop is being cultivated.”

The researchers “did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.” Davines Group and Regenerative Society Foundation are acknowledged for building capacity to engage in this research. The literature review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) protocol.

Results

The non-quantitative database, a blend of qualitative and quantitative information aimed at addressing relationships between regenerative organic practices, soil health characteristics, and ecosystem services, is analyzed through 45 observations. Meanwhile, the quantitative database more specifically measures soil health and plant nutrient density parameters, as well as yields from experimental trials, all incorporated into the impact score assessment. 

“Our evidence from 24 published studies shows how 64 [percent] of experimental observations report positive impacts of ROAg on soil ecosystem service delivery, particularly supporting soil ecosystem services, which have a key role in maintaining soil ecosystem functioning,” the authors report in the conclusion of the study regarding the relationship between soil health, ecosystem services, and regenerative organic principles. The study contains impact matrices of soil ecosystem services and soil health parameters, respectively, from the impact score assessment. (See page 9 of the study for more details.)

It is notable that ROAg has significant beneficial soil health and ecosystem impacts across the board, however there is a need for further research to corroborate existing findings since there is limited existing research linking ecosystem services (a term first coined by academics in 1997, according to the authors) to soil health properties and regenerative organic agriculture. With the exception of organic under clear USDA certification rules, regenerative is poorly defined and the subject of intense scrutiny by some farmers invested in holistic solutions and land management systems that move beyond fossil fuel and toxic input dependency.

Organic Principles Must be the Foundation for Regenerative Food Systems

Despite the existence of an organic community with governing stakeholders (farmers, consumers, conservationists, retailers, processors, inspectors, and scientists) that has evolved over at least seven decades and is codified in Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990, the petrochemical pesticide industry is advancing “regenerative” as a loosely defined alternative to the organic standard and label, which is transparent, defined, certified, enforced, and subject to public input. See previous Daily News, “Regenerative” Agriculture Still Misses the Mark in Defining a Path to a Livable Future, for some additional history on greenwashing in the regenerative space in recent years.

A pesticide lobbyist-funded study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability in 2024 dissects the development of national organic standards and opportunities that can be applied in expanding the use of “regenerative” agriculture. The study authors offer support for integrated pest management (IPM) and advocate for the utility of pesticide products as a means of ensuring soil health and more sustainable forms of agriculture. There is concern about journal articles like this, which represent an industry position, being cloaked in an academic journal with the effect of obstructing the widespread adoption and improvement of organic principles and practices. See previous Daily News, Industry Funded Study Diminishes Organic, Pushes Pesticides in Integrated Pest Management and Regenerative Ag, for an in-depth analysis on deciphering false solutions.

Beyond Pesticides has been outspoken as various efforts to define regenerative agriculture in state funding programs or legislation move forward without engaging the organic sector. See previous Daily News here and here, and an Action on the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) effort to define regenerative agriculture without organic. CDFA points to the definition, saying, “This recommendation is to inform State Agencies, Boards and Commissions on CDFA’s definition of regenerative agriculture as it relates to state policies and programs. This is not a definition for certification.”

Organic agriculture marks a clear pathway forward for sustainable agriculture in the United States, with a meta-analysis of over 100 different life cycle assessments of organic and chemically-intensive grown food products from cradle-to-gate confirming that organic has less of an environmental impact than business as usual. (See Daily News here.) With the surge of interest from private capital investments in regenerative organic and organic agriculture in recent years from groups like Mad Agriculture and Iroquois Valley Farmland REIT (See Daily News here), there is a lot of interest in simultaneously supporting healthy soil with organic practices and boosting capacity for transitioning and beginning, young, and historically underrepresented farmers.

Call to Action

The Spring 2025 National Organic Standards Board meeting takes place this month, with various members of Beyond Pesticides delivering spoken comments. (See here.) As organic advocates, see the Keeping Organic Strong webpage to stay abreast of key issues that affect health, biodiversity, and climate.

What pesticides are registered for use on common fruits and vegetables? See Eating with a Conscience to learn about the potential impacts on the ecosystems and farmworkers where various types of produce are grown with petrochemical pesticides.

For more information on the pesticides to which we are daily exposed, see Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

See also Why Organic and Agricultural Justice to learn more about the biodiversity, environmental justice, and public health implications of choosing certified organic products.

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

Source: Ecosystem Services

(Beyond Pesticides, April 29, 2025) A study in Environment International finds pesticide-induced alterations in the gut microbiota of a farmland raptor species. In collecting blood and cloacal samples from Montagu’s harrier (Circus pygargus) nestlings, the authors “shed light on an overlooked collateral effect of pesticides, i.e., a general modification of gut bacterial assemblages,” which can lead to an imbalance of microorganisms (dysbiosis) and the promotion of potential pathogens, as well as negatively impact the health of birds of prey. “Additionally, our findings support the ‘One Health‘ framework, stressing the interconnectedness of wildlife, ecosystem, and human health, particularly in pesticide-affected agricultural areas,” the researchers share.

“The gut microbiota is crucial for host health and can be impacted by various environmental disruptions, yet the effects of multiple pesticide exposures on farmland organisms’ microbiomes remain largely unexplored,” the authors state. In the study, they “assessed microbiota changes in a wild apex predator exposed to multiple pesticides in agricultural landscapes,” which “provides evidence of pesticide impacts on wildlife gut microbiota, highlighting links between pesticide exposure and changes in microbiota composition,” the researchers note.

The Montagu’s harrier, as an apex predator, serves as a ‘bio-sentinel’ or bioindicator species for assessing ecosystem health. “As top-level predators in the food web, they are especially vulnerable to pesticide exposure due to biomagnification,” the authors say. (See study here.) They continue, “Studying the effects of pesticides on the microbiota of wild birds not only provides insights into the health of these organisms but also highlights broader ecological consequences, making them relevant biological models for understanding environmental and animal health impacts.”

As Montagu’s harriers choose primarily to build nests in farmland, the majority of which have been treated with pesticides prior to their breeding period, they are exposed to chemicals through both the environment and their food. Their prey is comprised mostly of voles, small birds, shrews, rabbits, lizards, and insects that are found near their nesting sites, which they make in immediate contact with contaminated soil.

“This threatened, protected species nests on the ground, mainly in cereal crops, making chicks and adults directly subject to agricultural activity,” the researchers point out. (See studies here and here.) In identifying pesticide residues within blood samples and examining their effects on the composition and structure of the gut microbiota, the study highlights the threats to the overall health of not only this avian species but also other organisms subjected to these chemicals as well.

“The gut microbiota is an essential modulator of host physiology and plays a key role in host health,” the authors state. They continue, “Its importance is such that, in organisms, including humans, its disruption is associated with several pathologies, including diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular events, and neurodegenerative diseases.”

The study, conducted in an area of intensive farming in France on a site called “Zone Atelier Plaine & Val de Sèvre,” involves blood and microbiota sampling from nestlings 26 ± 2 days old. The researchers consider “both the diversity of pesticides (i.e., the so-called cocktail effect) and the diversity of the gut microbiota” to test “the concordance between the gut microbiota community structure and the concentration of pesticides measured on chicks’ blood.”

As a result, the blood samples of 22 chicks reveal a total of 36 pesticides and 139 MOTUs (Molecular Taxonomic Operational Units), which are groupings of related DNA sequences for species of bacteria to help classify them within the analyses. From the collected data, statistical analyses were performed only for the pesticides and MOTUs that were observed in at least five different chicks in order to ensure robustness. This encompasses the 35 most prevalent MOTUs and 25 pesticides.

“The strongest correlations involved eight different MOTUs (4 Actinobacteriota and 4 Proteobacteria) and 12 pesticides (two fungicides, seven herbicides, three insecticides), among which three were banned in Europe (acetochlor: 2013, chlorpyrifos: 2020, quinoxyfen: 2019),” the authors report. They continue, “Pesticides, including acetochlor and quinoxyfen, which are supposed to be banned, were significantly positively correlated with certain key bacteria from Actinobacteria, Alphaproteobacteria and Gammaproteobacteria classes.”

This study shows “show a significant correlation between the composition of the gut microbiota of an organism exposed to a cocktail of different pesticides found in its blood, suggesting that the processes linking microbiota and pesticide effects cannot be drawn from a single molecule nor a bacterial species.” The findings also “suggest that pesticides may modulate the development of key bacterial taxa at early stages of the gut microbiota ontogeny, which may have later implications (due to priority effects) on the development of the adult microbiota and its health.”

As the presence of certain bacteria can alter the health of the organisms, such as through metabolism or by inducing pathogenicity, these results highlight the “potential collateral effect of pesticides on gut bacterial assemblages through unknown mechanisms” that could result in dysbiosis (see here and here) and promote pathogens. “[T]hese microbial shifts underline the broader ecological consequences of pesticide exposure, emphasizing the need for integrated biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management to protect environmental and public health,” the researchers conclude.

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, a 2024 study in Science of The Total Environment, featuring many of the same authors as the current study, finds lower pesticide load in Montagu’s harrier chicks in areas with organic farming. A correlation between lower numbers of pesticides in the blood of birds with the presence of organic farms surrounding the habitats was determined after analyzing 55 nestlings from 22 different nests in southwestern France. As the percentage of organic agriculture around the nests increased, there was a significant decrease in the quantity and types of pesticides detected within the chicks’ blood.

As a result of their analysis, “all chicks sampled (n = 55) were found to be contaminated with at least one pesticide, and the maximum number of pesticides detected per chick was 16,” the researchers report. Some of the detected pesticides include bifenthrin, boscalid, clothianidin, cypermethrin, cyprodinil, difenoconazole, dimethomorph, epoxiconazole, indoxacarb, mecoprop, myclobutanil, oxadiazon, piperonyl butoxide, propyzamide, quinoxyfen, and thiacloprid. Each of these pesticides is linked to health effects in humans that range from skin irritation to cancer, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, kidney and liver damage, and birth, development, and reproductive impacts. Many of these pesticides are toxic to aquatic organisms, bees, and birds have been banned in France. Their persistence in the environment is highlighted by their presence in the blood of the Montagu’s harrier chicks.

“The present study reveals that organic farming reduces the number of pesticides in Montagu’s harrier chicks, which may have a beneficial effect on its population, as chemical inputs have been shown to drive farmland bird population decline across Europe,” the study authors postulate. Elimination of this species’ exposure to pesticide cocktails means elimination of exposure to all organisms within the food chain. As the scientists mention, “because the Montagu’s harrier is at the top of the trophic chain and a specialist predator species of agricultural lands, studying its contamination with pesticides is particularly relevant as an indicator of larger contamination of the environment.” Creating a more sustainable environment by addressing the issue of pesticide exposure allows for a cascade of positive effects on soil, water, air, and biodiversity.

Help support Beyond Pesticides’ mission of eliminating petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by becoming a member today. Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic land management here and here, and stay up to date on the hazards of pesticides, pesticide regulation and policy, pesticide alternatives, and cutting-edge science through the Daily News Blog.

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

Source:

Bariod, L. et al. (2025) Exposure to pesticides is correlated with gut microbiota alterations in a farmland raptor, Environment International. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025001874.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 28, 2025) Despite the rising number of households without adequate access to food (18 million or 13.5% of households, or over 45 million people in 2023, including children, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service), government programs to support local food systems are being dismantled by the Trump Administration. For several years, farmers, schools, and food distributors have been working together to provide fresh, local food in schools and food pantries across the nation, thanks to two programs at USDA—the Local Food for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Cooperative Agreement Program. 

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

USDA has canceled the two programs that gave states, tribal governments, schools, and food banks money to buy local food from farmers. The LFS program awards money to states to buy local foods for schools and childcare institutions, and the LFPA program provides funding for state, tribal, and territorial governments to buy food produced within the state or within 400 miles of delivery destinations. 

Hunger is a serious problem, and the loss of this funding endangers the local programs that often use volunteers and depend on donations to meet their budgets. 

Combined, the programs would have provided more than $1 billion this fiscal year. The loss of these funds will have lasting effects on local food networks. Farmers—many of whom shifted their crops to accommodate the demand of the programs—depend on these contracts. Food banks and local schools will lose out on high-quality local produce. Thus, the funding cuts hurt hungry people as well as the farmers who grow the food. The programs have also been beneficial to organic farmers, who frequently market their produce locally, by providing a dependable market.

Congress has the power to create permanent versions of these programs that farmers and communities can depend on through the Farm Bill.

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

Letter to Congress
For several years, farmers, schools, and food distributors have been working together to provide fresh, local food in schools and food pantries across the nation, thanks to two programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—the Local Food for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Cooperative Agreement Program.

USDA has canceled the two programs that gave states, tribal governments, schools, and food banks money to buy local food from farmers. The LFS program awards money to states to buy local foods for schools and childcare institutions, and the LFPA program provides funding for state, tribal, and territorial governments to buy food produced within the state or within 400 miles of delivery destinations.

Hunger is a serious problem in our state, and the loss of this funding endangers the local programs that often use volunteers and depend on donations to meet their budgets.

Combined, the programs would have provided more than $1 billion this fiscal year. The loss of these funds will have lasting effects on local food networks. Farmers—many of whom shifted their crops to accommodate the demand of the programs—depend on these contracts. Food banks and local schools will lose out on high-quality local produce. Thus, the funding cuts hurt hungry people as well as the farmers who grow the food. The programs have also provided a dependable market for organic farmers.

Congress has the power to create permanent versions of these programs that farmers and communities can depend on through the Farm Bill. 

Please publicly support permanent funding for local food purchasing through the Farm Bill.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organic Science and Research Investment Act (OSRI)

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

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

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

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

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

Organic Imports Verification Act (OIVA)

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

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

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

New Producer Economic Security Act

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

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

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

Honor Farmer Contracts Act

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

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

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

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

Benefits of Organic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional study results include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oxidative Stress and Epigenetics 

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

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

Important study results include: 

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

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

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

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

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

Endocrine Disruption 

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

Through the available science, they find: 

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

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

Female Reproductive System Effects 

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

The literature review reports the following results: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Holistic Solution 

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

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

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

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

Sources: 

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

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

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

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

Background and Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

Findings

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Environmental Pollution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Review of Save our Seeds Report

So, what is artificial intelligence (AI)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Lower skill threshold” conundrum

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

The black box effect

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

Data hallucinations

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

Data distortions

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

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

Artificial Intelligence: Friend or Foe to Organic?

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Save Our Seeds