(Beyond Pesticides, April 21, 2026) A very alarming link between agricultural glyphosate weed killer use and multidrug antibiotic resistance in nosocomial pathogens—those responsible for hospital-acquired infections—is revealed in a study by researchers from the University of Buenos Aires. Glyphosate is the most widely used pesticide in the world. Understanding the relationship between pesticide use, particularly glyphosate, and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is of increasing urgency.

Most soybeans grown around the world are genetically engineered to resist glyphosate in order for the crop to survive its heavy application to reduce weeds. Argentina is the third largest producer of soybeans after Brazil and the United States. In Argentina, estimated annual glyphosate use averaged about 36 tons between 2020 and 2023, according to the study authors.

The authors emphasize that understanding the relationship between glyphosate and AMR is, like many others in the current agricultural system, a result of siloing—of assumptions and methods, not of crops. Clinical studies of AMR focus on studying specific pathogenic strains in laboratory cultures, while environmental studies use metagenomics—assessing all the microbial genes in an environment to determine which functions are available for microbes to use, without necessarily determining the presence of, or culturing, particular species. The authors advocate a One Health approach, which, according to the World Health Organization, “recognizes that the health of humans, domestic and wild animals, plants, and the wider environment (including ecosystems) are closely linked and interdependent.”

The researchers isolated 68 microbial strains from wetland sediments not directly exposed to herbicides in Argentina’s Paraná Delta, and selected 35 clinical strains from the university’s collection, 19 of which were nosocomial and multidrug-resistant species. They also included 11 strains from herbicide-impacted soil. They exposed both the environmental microbes and the laboratory specimens to a range of antibiotics and glyphosate and determined which strains were most resistant and what strategies the microbes employed to cope with the exposures.

Resistance to glyphosate was common to both categories of microbes. This is in part because such resistance is a normal feature of evolution. In fact, ironically, a class of “last resort” antibiotics called carbapenems is derived from Streptomyces cattleya, a soil bacterium associated with cattle. The authors cite a study showing that in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, sublethal glyphosate exposure produces resistance to the carbapenem antibiotic imipenem. P. aeruginosa was originally a soil and water bacterium, but most human infections now occur in hospitals, and most strains of P. aeruginosa are resistant to nearly all antibiotics. Some strains of Staphylococcus aureus, another terror in hospitals, have also shown resistance to glyphosate. Thus, there is a direct, if unexplored, connection between glyphosate’s ubiquity and the very serious problem of hospital-acquired, multidrug-resistant infections.

The environmental strains most resistant to glyphosate are closely related to the nosocomial pathogens, the Argentine study found. Glyphosate kills weeds via the shikimate metabolic pathway, which was originally assumed to be confined to plants, but is now known to be common to many microbes as well. The bacterial resistance mechanism most familiar to researchers is an inactivating enzyme some bacteria can embed in the shikimate pathway, but microbes can also use other enzymes, modify glyphosate’s target site within the cell, and eject the herbicide molecules with efflux pumps. The genes encoding efflux pumps are known to increase when microbes are subjected to glyphosate stress, and in this study they were very common in at least eight strains. “Overall, the number of efflux pumps and [inactivating enzyme] genes appeared to be a more critical factor in resistance” than the shikimate pathway, the authors write. This finding adds to the evidence that assumptions by pesticide manufacturers and regulators about how living organisms react to chemicals in the environment must be much more closely investigated, and provides more reason to stop using toxic chemicals altogether.

A second study by Brazilian researchers examines genotoxicity and bacterial resistance to glyphosate in soils of the dryland farming region of Petrolândia. These authors cite research showing that a healthy microbial community contains many species and a mix of those either sensitive to or resistant to glyphosate based on their use of the shikimate pathway. Adding large amounts of glyphosate to a soil community shifts that balance considerably, and there is strong evidence that the human gut microbiome reacts much the same way.  

Beyond Pesticides has tracked the science on the problem of glyphosate’s effects on the human microbiome numerous times. For example, a August 15, 2024 Daily News reviewed evidence that victims of Parkinson’s disease have profoundly altered gut microbiomes, and that this changes the prognosis for their disease. A detailed a study in Nature Communications created a map of the network of pesticides, gut microbes, and metabolites; the study found 306 pesticide-bacteria pairings—including glyphosate—where gut microbes significantly shifted their metabolisms, and determined that these changes manifested in mouse brain, liver, intestinal, and lung tissues. For a comprehensive view of glyphosate’s plethora of health-damaging effects, including on the microbiome, see the section on glyphosate in the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management.

In the Petrolândia region, the water content of the soil is of special concern given the dry climate. The Brazilian researchers analyzed the solutes in the soil water of several samples from the region for plant nutrients, contaminants and general soil quality. They isolated 28 bacterial species, including the human pathogens Clostridium difficile, Enterobacter cloacae, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Klebsiella variicola. Five of the isolates were multidrug-resistant, with S. maltophilia resistant to eight antibiotics, the highest of any species.

They also analyzed the soils for levels of several metals, including zinc and chromium. (While zinc is a micronutrient, it has been shown to build up to toxic levels in fertilized soils.) They then exposed Drosophila melanogaster (fruit fly) larvae to the Petrolândia soils to determine whether there were DNA-damaging contaminants present. Those larvae show higher DNA damage compared to controls, with zinc and chromium responsible for most of the damage. The authors note that these results are consistent with other research showing that arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead and nickel are detectable in 22 different pesticides, including 11 glyphosate formulations. Thus, glyphosate can affect soil microbial balance and soil organism functions directly, but also by introducing other harmful contaminants.

Taken together, this new research from regions where glyphosate is king demonstrates that the herbicide reaches far beyond agricultural fields into urban and suburban areas, risking the health and even survival of human beings in need of urgent medical care.

This trend does not need to be taken to its most extreme before choosing the wiser course, that of making agriculture organic, renewable, sustainable, and truly healthy.

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

Sources:
Glyphosate resistance as a potential driver for the dissemination of multidrug-resistant clinical strains
Knecht et al.
Frontiers in Microbiology 2026
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2026.1740431/full

Emerging Bacterial Resistance and Genotoxicity of Water-Soluble Fractions of Agricultural Soils from the Semiarid Region of Brazil Affected by the Continuous Use of Glyphosate
Silva Souza et al.
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2026
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00128-026-04230-1

Glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) induce phenotypic imipenem resistance in Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Hahn et al.
Scientific Reports 2022
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-23117-9

Pesticide-Induced Gut Microbiota Composition Alterations Linked to Parkinson’s Disease Prognosis
August 15, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/08/pesticide-induced-gut-microbiota-composition-alterations-and-parkinsons-disease-prognosis/

Study Maps the Gut Microbiome and Adverse Impacts of Pesticide Residues
Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/06/study-maps-the-gut-microbiome-and-adverse-impacts-of-pesticide-residues/

(Beyond Pesticides, April 20, 2026) Earth Day, this week on Wednesday, April 22, is a day of education and action. Earth Day embodies the power of people in their communities engaging to advance changes in policies and practices that meet the environmental and public health challenges of the day. This year, 2026, may be a turning point in which public outrage about the failure of the current political leadership in Congress and in the Trump administration to address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises is deemed politically unacceptable. Animating public concern are elected officials who call the climate crisis a hoax and dismiss the health and environmental threat associated with the weed killer glyphosate (Roundup)—as representative of the deregulation of pesticides associated with cancer and other deadly diseases.

The words of the chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee of Health and the Environment, Representative Paul Rogers (D-FL), express in the importance of grassroots action that elevated Earth Day. In a piece in the EPA Journal, Rep. Rogers wrote the following:

“Historians of the environmental movement are likely to peg Earth Day 1970 as a key turning point in the American public’s consciousness about environmental problems. I believe that Congress’ enactment of the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act a few months later was an equally significant landmark. . . The juxtaposition of Earth Day and the 1970 amendments was no accident. As a representative body, Congress was responding to . . . public concern about the environmental pollution that was symbolized by the Earth Day demonstrations.”

The first Earth Day 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 years are not lost, we can act locally to improve our local environments. 

In an action posted for Earth Day, Beyond Pesticides asks: “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.“

The action goes on to identify local actions and policies:
In partnership with major retailers like Natural Grocers and Stonyfield Organic, 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 necessary to eventually transition all public areas in a locality to these safer practices. See a map of cities where Beyond Pesticides has assisted local leaders in converting parks and recreational areas to convert exclusively to organic practices and to eliminate the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. 

Become a Parks Advocate. Beyond Pesticides will develop materials for your community. Here is a new factsheet on pesticide hazards and alternatives that you can use! Here is an example of a brochure from our work in New York City. 

Opportunities for Action:

• 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. 
   

• 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 became jealous. 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, 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 [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or call Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 to get started.  

Further Earth Day actions: 

• 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. 
   
• Switch from a conventional to organic diet and drastically reduce the levels of pesticide in your body, with one week on organic food showing a 70% reduction in glyphosate in the body, according to one study.  
   
• Get ready to grow your spring garden the organic way by Springing Into Action. 
   
• Join us in celebrating, propagating, and educating about a misunderstood and beneficial plant: clover.  

The targets for this Action are U.S. mayors, as available in the system. If your mayor is not listed, please send their office an email! One tool is the USA.gov “Find and contact elected officials” page, which also lists other options for finding local elected officials in your community.

The action encourages timely advocacy with members of Congress as the Farm Bill moves to a vote of the House and Senate:
There are numerous provisions—a package of provisions—in the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee Farm Bill, voted out on March 5, that seriously undermine protections of health and the environment from pesticides, according to public health and environmental advocates. In response, Beyond Pesticides and allies are calling on U.S. Representatives and Senators to reject the Farm Bill as passed out of the House Agriculture Committee and, instead, pass a one-year extension of current law to protect health and the environment.

The package of amendments covers critical areas of protection that have been established over decades of Congressional action. While groups have called for major reforms, Beyond Pesticides says, “Existing pesticide law forms the foundation on which improvements should be made, not backsliding to give the chemical industry free rein.” (See Advocates Call on Congress To Reject House Agriculture Committee Farm Bill and Extend Current Law.)

For more information, please stay tuned for the Daily News post on April 20, 2026, in celebration of Earth Day!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 17, 2026) A comparative analysis published in The Lancet Planetary Health highlights the pervasiveness of pesticide pollution in organic and non-organic farms in Latin America (Costa Rica) and Africa (Uganda). While pesticides were detected in nearly all participating farmers, there is a significant relationship between lower biomarker concentrations (often correlating with less contamination) in urine samples of organic farmers relative to non-organic farmers. The researchers also identified that older farmers held higher herbicide and insecticide concentrations.

This research builds on the preponderance of scientific evidence and lived experiences of agricultural communities across the globe, including the U.S., which documents nontarget contamination of food systems through air, water, and soil. In this context, Beyond Pesticides continues to advocate for a transition to organic land management practices.

Methodology and Results

“We collected urine samples from 601 conventional and organic smallholder farmers in Zarcero County, Costa Rica, and Wakiso District, Uganda, on two occasions during the primary spraying season,” the authors write in introducing their methodology. The researchers tested urine samples of small-scale farmers in Costa Rica and Uganda for a mix of pesticides that include a fungicide, herbicide and insecticides—mancozeb (ETU), 2,4-D, glyphosate, pyrethroid metabolites (3-PBA, DCCA), diazinon (IMPy), and chlorpyrifos (TCPy). Participant data were gathered across two visits, including height, weight, sociodemographic (age, sex, literacy, income), farm-related (drinking water source, farming practice, job role), and pesticide-related information (pesticide poisoning, pesticide training, glove use, and application of parent pesticides). For more details on the statistical analysis, please see page four of the study PDF.

The researchers received funding support from the Swiss National Science Foundation, Swedish Research Council, Swiss Network for International Studies, Universidad Nacional in Costa Rica, and State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation. This research is a continuation of the Pesticide Use in Tropical Settings (PESTROP) Study project, “an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research project studying environmental, health, and institutional dimensions of pesticide use in tropical settings.”

In the introduction of their study, researchers point to existing data sets and evidence in Costa Rica (PESTROP study, see here and here) and Uganda (Improving exposure assessment methodologies for epidemiological studies on pesticides [IMPRESS] project), identifying pesticide safety training and organic farming as viable approaches to lower pesticide biomarkers in the human body. This study builds on the conclusions of previous research by comparing the relative reduction ranges of both approaches. “Lower biomarker concentrations were significantly associated with organic and mixed farming practices (24–68%) and with previous training on pesticide safety (17–27%),” according to the authors.

In other words, organic farming is more effective at reducing pesticide levels in the body relative to safety training that permits the continuous use of substances with known adverse effects.

The researchers conclude with some additional notable findings from the study:

• “In Costa Rica, 30 (11 percent) of 279 lived below the global poverty line, whereas in Uganda, 233 (78 percent) of 297 participants lived below the poverty line.”
• “All seven biomarkers were detected in nearly all participants in both countries, confirming widespread pesticide exposure of smallholder farmers in tropical LMICs [lower- and middle-income countries].”
• “Although Costa Rica had a higher number of applicators overall and more participants reporting pesticide application within the past week—suggesting a potentially higher application frequency—biomarker concentrations were not consistently elevated, probably due to lower pesticide quantities used per application, increased training, and greater PPE use.”
• “Higher biomarker concentrations with increasing age could be due to slower metabolism and differences in fat distribution and body water compared with younger patients, as these factors alter the distribution and elimination of lipophilic compounds [defined as the ability ‘to dissolve, be disolved in, or absorb lipids (fats)’ according to the National Cancer Institute], such as pyrethroids.”
• “An unexpected finding was the positive relationship between IMPy [diazinon] concentrations and glove use. During data collection, we observed that many farmers used gloves inconsistently and did not wash their gloves or hands after handling pesticides.”
• “Given the consistent associations across countries, our findings are likely generalizable to similar populations; however, they might not be applicable in environmental or non-tropical settings with different exposure routes and pest pressures, and they should not be interpreted as representative of the entire countries, as our use of Costa Rica and Uganda refer only to the respective study areas.”
• “There were approximately twice as many fungicide and herbicide applicators in Costa Rica as in Uganda, and a higher percentage of Costa Rican farmers reported applications within the last week, indicating a higher application frequency (Table 2). The percentage of insecticide applicators was similar in both countries; however, the percentage of applications within the last week appeared to be almost twice as high in Costa Rica as in Uganda.”

Previous Coverage

The consequences of pesticide exposure cannot be understated, as evidenced by peer-reviewed scientific literature.

“The routine use of common pesticides in agriculture is no longer an ethically viable option for sustainable food production,” according to a new review in Reproduction & Fertility by livestock researcher Whitney Payne, Ph.D. candidate, and Kelsey R. Pool, PhD, of the School of Agriculture and Environment at The University of Western Australia. They base their position on the endocrine-disrupting qualities of many pesticides. (See Daily News here.)

Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessed pesticide and PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) contamination in ten agricultural streams in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys (Central Valley) in 2024, detecting 60 pesticides, synergists, and associated transformation products, including 12 fluorinated pesticides (Dithiopyr, Trifluralin, Fluridone, Oxyfluorfen, Penoxsulam, Flubendiamide, Bifenthrin, Flonicam, Indoxacarb, Cyhalothrin, Fluopyram, and Penthiopyrad) that meet the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) definition of qualifying as PFAS. “[T]he OECD fluorinated pesticides were generally detected more frequently and at higher concentrations” says the authors relative to the 48 other compounds. Relatedly, research finds products containing three of the detected pesticides (Methoxyfenozide, Imidacloprid, and Piperonyl Butoxide) associated with various PFAS, and according to the authors, there are a handful of active ingredients, such as the insecticide Methoxyfenozide and the fungicide Azoxystrobin, detected in 100 percent of collected samples. Their entire findings were published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters in March 2026. (See Daily News here.)

Adverse health effects of numerous pesticides have been identified in the literature. For example, in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, a study of gestational (during pregnancy) exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide thiacloprid shows epigenetic effects (alterations in genes without altering underlying DNA) within prostate tissues. To analyze the role of gene expression in subsequent generations after initial thiacloprid exposure, the authors exposed pregnant outbred Swiss mice to the insecticide in order to assess the offspring for multiple generations. As a result, the researchers from the Université de Rennes in France state, “Our study revealed that exposure to thiacloprid induces [cell] proliferation and is associated with epigenetic alterations in the sperm of genes important for prostate development.” Increased cell proliferation in the prostate can cause the development of conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), and lead to prostate cancer. (See Daily News here.) A literature review published in Chemico-Biological Interactions links pyrethroid insecticide exposure to cardiac dysfunction. Through a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous research through July 2025, the authors find emerging evidence that indicates pyrethroids induce adverse cardiovascular effects through pathways of inflammation, oxidative stress, and myocardial injury (damage to the heart muscle). (See Daily News here.)

In a study of birth outcomes in Arizona, published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, researchers find that preconception and prenatal exposure to certain carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids increases the risk of lower Apgar scores, a metric used to assess neonatal health at one minute and five minutes after birth. (See Daily News here.) A review of pesticide exposure from a family member working in agriculture (“take-home” residues) finds that pesticide levels in the home are elevated between 2.6- and 3.7-times. This and other nonoccupational exposure data from homes are drawn from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) prospective study of cancer and other health outcomes in a cohort of licensed pesticide applicators and their spouses from Iowa and North Carolina. Between 1993 and 1997, with follow-up between 1999 and 2021, AHS tracks occupational and nonoccupational exposure and subsequent health effects from pesticide exposure. The study, published in Environmental Advances, reexamines a quantitative analysis on nontarget, “active-ingredient-specific” exposure to pesticides from multiple pathways—applying new criteria to AHS spousal exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos and the herbicide atrazine. The three pesticide exposure pathways include take-home, agricultural drift, and residential use. (See Daily News here.)

Meanwhile, there is the continued emergence of evidence of organic agriculture’s benefits to public health, biodiversity, and climate resilience. Researchers in Germany and Brazil investigated the biodiversity of agricultural landscapes in “bee hotels” in organic and non-organic areas, finding a positive correlation between organically managed fields and numerous indicators of improved pollinator health, including an “increase in bee abundance, species richness, and diversity.” To analyze differing landscapes across eight conventional and nine organic nesting sites, the researchers identified ‘foraging zones’ around each site based on units of circular areas within a 500-meter radius. “Our study demonstrates positive effects of organic farming for solitary bees of the genera Heriades, Chelostoma, Hylaeus, Megachile, Osmia, Hoplites, and Coelioxys. Both brood cells and species abundance increased with a higher proportion of organic farming in the conventional agricultural landscape,” say the authors. (See Daily News here.) Another study published in Scientific Reports highlights the benefits of organic agriculture in comparison to different farming systems over five years on four crops (maize, tomato, faba bean, and potato). “Soil carbon sequestration is a long-time storage of carbon in soil which represents 70% of the carbon in land,” the authors note. “Therefore, the main aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the agricultural practice systems on the soil carbon sequestration and properties, productivity, water consumption, soil carbon sequestration, CO₂ emission and cost of some agricultural crops.” As a result, the experiment reveals that, compared to chemical-intensive farming, organic methods enhance soil properties, reduce water consumption, provide higher yields and higher soil carbon sequestration, reduce CO2 emissions, and achieve the highest total net profit for all four crops after five years. (See Daily News here.) In a study published in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, researchers from France find pesticide-free fields promote carabid beetles and spiders, generalist arthropod predators that consume slugs, aphids, and mites, that in turn support healthy, organic systems. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

You can sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to stay notified on ways you can take action to support public investments and programs that expand organic land management, in agricultural contexts and on public green spaces, parks, and playing fields, to ultimately move beyond a reliance on synthetic materials.

A recent action calls on Congress to reject the Farm Bill as passed out of the House Agriculture Committee and vote to extend the current law to protect health and the environment.

Additionally, as an individual, you can also sign a petition asking major food processors and mills to reject the use of genetically modified organism (GMO) wheat, which is grown with the highly toxic weed killer glufosinate. The petition, being distributed in collaboration with Friends of the Earth and a coalition of like-minded organizations, asks companies to reject the inclusion of glufosinate-tolerant HB4 wheat in the marketplace, transition away from GMO commodities, and shift to support organic agricultural products to protect farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and the environment. 

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

Source: The Lancet Planetary Health

(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2026) A study of organic tomato agroecosystems with managed and wild bees, published in Apidologie, affirms the importance of protecting natural systems to support organisms that contribute to crop productivity. The study finds that the strategy of introducing social bees, even those native to other nearby areas, to enhance pollination in open-field conditions provides no direct benefits to the crops that are better served by wild bees. In evaluating the addition of Melipona quadrifasciata stingless bees, not native to the study site, for assisted pollination of tomato plants cultivated in open organic fields, the researchers note that “the presence of M. quadrifasciata hives did not influence fruit quality, indicating that wild bees primarily drove pollination benefits.”

This research, in assessing both wild and managed bees in organic tomato agroecosystems, supports previous scientific literature showing that promoting naturally occurring pollinators is the most sustainable and cost-effective strategy for ensuring pollination services. “This finding underscores the importance of conserving and promoting wild pollinator diversity in organic agroecosystems, as they play a critical role in sustaining pollination services,” the researchers affirm. They also say, “By offering a diverse range of floral shapes, colours, traits, and sizes, non-crop plants support a broader assemblage of pollinator species with complementary functional traits.” Incorporating non-crop plants helps to enhance biodiversity and support beneficial organisms.

As the managed hives did not directly contribute to tomato pollination, the wild bees provide the primary pollination service, highlighting the importance of supporting wild bees in all agroecosystems. The authors state: “DNA metabarcoding analysis confirmed that M. quadrifasciata did not visit tomato flowers and relied mostly on pollen from arboreal plants. Our findings underscore the importance of conserving and promoting wild pollinators in organic agroecosystems by managing non-crop plants, which support diverse pollinator communities.”

Study Importance and Background

As the study points out, “The demand for assisted pollination has increased, particularly for high-nutrition crops that form the basis of family farming (e.g., fruits and vegetables) and are highly dependent on animal pollination.” Using Meliponini hives for assisted pollination in Brazil is common, as they naturally occur in this region, lack a functional stinger and reduce risks of adverse incidents for farmers and farmworkers, and have generalist foraging habits. “Additionally, these bees exhibit morphological and behavioural diversity, including the ability to vibrate their bodies, which allows them to pollinate a wide variety of buzz-pollinated plants,” the researchers write.

Tomato plants require specific pollination behaviors, but are also “capable of self-pollination due to their hermaphroditic and self-compatible flowers.” Cross-pollination by bees, however, significantly enhances fruit productivity. Data on the effectiveness of adding managed stingless bees as a pollinator strategy in tomato agroecosystems, however, is scarce. “This practice typically lacks local, empirical validation, raising significant doubts about the efficacy of these bees on new target crops, their foraging preferences, and colony viability in new environments,” the authors write.

Methodology and Results

This study evaluates assisted pollination of tomato plants grown in open organic fields by assessing the quality of M. quadrifasciata hives, impact of introducing M. quadrifasciata hives on the diversity and abundance of wild bees, and the productivity and quality parameters of tomato fruits. These hives were maintained in an experimental area in Brazil, which is considered a biodiversity hotspot. “This biome supports 12% of the bee species in the Neotropical region, comprising approximately 820 species, with a significant proportion of endemic species,” the researchers state.

“The introduction of M. quadrifasciata hives into agroecosystems was evaluated across seven farms from July to October 2023,” with each of the farms engaging in organic management systems for at least three years prior to the study. The farmers also allowed non-crop plants to grow between crop rows and along field margins, providing additional areas for pollinators to visit.

Sampling of bees, tomatoes, and pollen collected from the hives allows for assessment of pollination services provided by wild and introduced bees. The authors state: “We evaluated the occurrence of introduced and wild bees in the tomato plants and on non-crop plants around the field margins, within a radius of up to 10 m from the cultivated area. Sampling bees on non-crop plants aimed to determine whether M. quadrifasciata also foraged on these plants, which are essential for maintaining wild bee interactions within tomato crop areas.” Up to two fruits per treatment from each tomato plant were also collected, which included “(1) SP—self-pollination, where tomato inflorescences were bagged during the pre-anthesis stage using material that allows only wind passage, preventing bee visits; and (2) OP—open-pollination, where bees were allowed to visit the flowers.” Fruit quality is assessed using measurements for fruit weight, diameter, number of seeds per fruit, and pest damage.

As a result, the researchers find that despite the introduced hives establishing new brood cells and food storage pots for pollen and honey, they did not visit any tomato flowers. In total, 2,692 bees visiting tomato (1,290 individuals) and non-crop (1,402) flowers were collected, which were identified into 60 different species. Of these, eight species were recorded only on tomato plants, 37 on non-crop plants, and 15 on both. The bees that most frequently visited the tomato plants were Paratrigona lineata, Exomalopsis analis, Exomalopsis auropilosa, and multiple species of Pseudaugochlora.

The study also reveals “no significant effect of managed colonies on the assessed fruit quality parameters” even though the tomatoes with open pollination have higher fruit weights and lengths, as well as higher numbers of seeds. The authors conclude that: “Hive introduction did not influence fruit quality, confirming that wild bees primarily drove the benefits of pollination, besides the role of wind. This suggests limited effectiveness of M. quadrifasciata for assisted pollination in open-field tomato crops.” This also further highlights the critical role of wild bee species and the urgent need to protect them.

Previous Research

Beyond Pesticides extensively covers the importance of pollinators and other beneficial organisms, as shown on the What the Science Shows on Biodiversity resource page. As shared in previous Daily News, bringing in managed pollinators to increase crop pollination, while critical in many orchard crops because of the kill-off of native bees, is undermined by chemical-intensive land management practices, particularly when the hives are on or near pesticide-contaminated “killing fields” or “ecological traps.” Pesticides are used on agricultural fields, and on seeds and crops grown in them; residues from spraying can drift to other areas, including vegetation on the perimeter of fields, and settle on soil and vegetation (including pollinator food sources), and contaminated water runoff can end up in drainage ditches and waterways that are favored by some flowering species. These chemicals are also used in nonagricultural areas for turf management, such as in public parks, greenspaces, golf courses, and other recreation or open spaces that may have pollinator-friendly vegetation (whether intentionally planted or “volunteer”). Direct exposures to pesticides, and/or indirect exposures through feeding from contaminated plants, exacerbate the negative impacts of these chemicals on pollinator populations. Opportunities for pollinator exposure to chemical pesticides can be rife.

Additional Daily News, entitled Bees Benefit from Diverse Flower Species in Ag Fields and Surroundings; Organic Farm Benefits Highest, highlights a large amount of evidence showing that organic farming presents effective solutions to many of these problems. Evidence shows that organic agriculture prevents the untold harms of pesticide-driven monoculture agriculture. In a study published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, German researchers compared 16 agricultural landscapes in Lower Saxony and northern Hesse that had different combinations of semi-natural habitat, organic practices, and annual and perennial flower strips. Overall, the researchers find that organic farming provides the highest benefit to the bees, along with the presence of diverse flowering plants in and near monoculture fields.

As the study shows, organic practices lead directly to lower parasite load and higher colony growth—essentially, the more organic crops, the more bees, and the more parasites, the fewer bees. Pesticides plus monoculture doubles the damage: Pesticides increase mortality, damage bees’ immune systems, and reduce foraging capacity, while monoculture disturbs bees’ nutritional balance, making them less able to resist parasites and survive pesticide exposure. In a perverse irony, conventional agriculture has been shifting toward more pollinated crops, such as almonds, apples, blueberries, cherries, and tomatoes. Beyond Pesticides has covered this research, which shows that between 1961 and 2016, the aggregate land area of crops requiring pollination grew by 136.9%, all while actual pollinator abundance was plunging because of pesticides, land use and climate changes, and monoculture. See additional Daily News about pollinators here.

Beyond Pesticide Resources

To help support the holistic, organic solution and protect all species—whether bees, other pollinators, or wildlife—we must shift away from the underlying agricultural and land management dependency on pesticides and incorporate practices that support biodiversity. Ultimately, the widespread adoption of organic management systems is necessary to protect biodiverse ecosystems and their inhabitants, especially those that support crop pollination.

Learn how to BEE Protective: Protecting Honey Bees and Wild Pollinators From Pesticides. In your own yard, use the Bee Protective Habitat Guide to plant a pollinator garden suited for your region, and consider seeding white clover into your lawn. Learn more about Pollinator-Friendly Seeds and Taking a Stand on Clover.

Consider taking action on governmental actions that are harmful to the environment and public and worker health, increase overall pesticide use, or undermine the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies. Sign up now to get our Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox!

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

Source:

Assunção, R. et al. (2026) Wild bees are key pollinators in organic tomato agroecosystems regardless of the presence of a managed stingless bee, Apidologie. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13592-026-01250-y.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 15, 2026) Researchers in the Czech Republic tested indoor dust across 116 homes and found that 93 percent of homes across urban and rural areas contained residue of at least one current-use pesticide (CUP). The study also found in every household residues of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and pentachlorobenzene (PeCB), the breakdown products or byproducts of certain banned organochlorine pesticides (OCP). These compounds, as well as DDT metabolites DDE and DDD, were detected in more than half of the homes tested. Results in this study and previous research confirm that pesticides used outdoors find their way indoors, resulting in an exposure pattern that is not calculated when pesticides are registered and allowed on the market. The findings are published in Indoor Environments.

These findings characterize the legacy of toxic pesticide exposure resulting from the proliferation of pesticides in the United States and around the world without a complete assessment of the chemicals’ residual activity and multigenerational adverse impacts on health. Based on the decades of peer-reviewed scientific literature on pesticide exposure and effects from across the globe, public health and environmental advocates warn that there is a continuation of this pattern of long-term effects associated with new pesticides linked to cancer, reproductive, neurological, and immunological effects—as exemplified by the recently registered PFAS “forever” pesticides with widespread adverse public health and environmental threats and disproportionate impacts to children, farmworkers, and people of color communities. (See Widespread PFAS Pesticide Contamination Harkens Back to DDT Poisoning.) This history of ongoing poisoning and contamination emboldens advocates to mobilize for an alternative approach that breaks the cycle of chemical-intensive dependency in pest management and transitions to organic practices—as defined by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and decades of principles from organic regenerative land management.

Methodology and Results

“To improve our understanding of the indoor presence of pesticides, we investigated pesticide concentrations in the context of building types, locations and characteristics of the building bacteriome,” the authors write. They continue: “Given the known seasonality in pesticide use and outdoor air concentrations of pesticides [], we additionally sampled a subset of homes monthly over one year to investigate the seasonal variations and trends in pesticide profiles.”

The indoor dust samples were assessed for 36 CUPs (pesticides that are currently in use), including:

• Eighteen herbicides (alachlor, acetochlor, atrazine, chlorsulfuron, chlortoluron, dimethachlor, diuron, fenoxaprop ethyl, fluroxypyr, isoproturon, metamitron, metazachlor, metolachlor, metribuzin, pendimethalin, pyrazon, simazine, and terbutylazine);
• Thirteen insecticides (azinphos-methyl, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, dimethoate, disulfoton, fenitrothion, fonofos, malathion, methyl parathion, pirimicarb, temefos, and terbufos); and
• Five fungicides (carbendazim, fenpropimorph, prochloraz, propiconazole, and tebuconazole).

The samples were also assessed for ten OCPs and breakdown products (metabolites), including DDT, DDE, DDD, alpha-HCH, beta-HCH, gamma-HCH, delta-HCH, epsilon-HCH, pentachlorobenzene (PeCB), and hexachlorobenzene (HCB). For quality assurance and control of the data, the researchers collected field blanks (contaminant-free samples treated with the same conditions as the experimental samples) and procedural blanks (assessing the potential contamination of pesticide analytes within the laboratory setting).

With respect to the intersection of bacterial and pesticide residue, the household data was quality-controlled to home in on 88 samples. They employed the “Spearman rank correlation matrix” through statistical analysis tools (see Section 2.3.2 on data analysis) to assess any relationships between these two categories of residues. Dust ingestion exposure estimates for pesticides with greater than 40 percent detection frequency in tested households are compared with typical and high exposure scenarios (based on EPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook for children between the ages of one and six years), with reference doses for chronic ingestion exposure (based on 2024 data from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CompTox).

The researchers arrive at the following conclusions/results:

• The fungicides carbendazim (84.5 percent), propiconazole (49.1 percent), and tebuconazole (11.2 percent), and the herbicide atrazine (24.1 percent) were the most frequently detected residues in this study.
• Researchers found that houses older than four decades had significantly higher concentrations of DDD, DDE, and HCB.
• Carbendazim and propiconazole levels were significantly impacted by households with adjacent gardens, the former having higher levels in non-garden homes and the latter having higher levels in homes with gardens.
• DDE concentrations are higher in pet households, given that dogs and cats are likely to bring in more soil particles. More research is needed to ascertain other factors that could play into this finding, according to the researchers.
• Across four locations (“urban central,” “urban residential,” “suburban agricultural,” and “suburban forested”), atrazine, carbendazim, propiconazole, and tebuconazole were the only CUPs detected either in more than 50 percent of samples or greater than same detection level in at least one of the four locations.
• Researchers hope to continue this research to assess other routes of exposure, including diet, inhalation, and dermal, to more holistically assess potential harm.
• Reference doses were not available for multiple detected pesticides, and the potential for synergistic/additive effects from chemical mixtures is not assessed, which the researchers acknowledge, writing that their “exposure estimates presented here should be interpreted as a simplified screening level assessment rather than a comprehensive evaluation of cumulative pesticide exposure.”

Previous Coverage

This is not the first study Beyond Pesticides has reviewed that focuses on indoor dust exposure in agricultural and nonagricultural households/communities, in the U.S. and global contexts.

A study published in Environmental Science and Technology finds that there are 47 current-use pesticides detected in samples of indoor dust, drinking water, and urine from households in the state of Indiana. “In this study, we collected matched samples of indoor dust, drinking water, and urine from 81 households in Indiana, United States, and analyzed these samples for 82 CUPs [current use pesticides], including 48 insecticides, 25 herbicides, and 9 fungicides,” the authors write. They continue: “Of these, 47 CUPs were identified across samples of indoor dust, drinking water, and urine with median total CUP (∑CUP) concentrations of 18 300 ng/g, 101 ng/L, and 2.93 ng/mL, respectively.”  The participants were recruited through the Person-to-Person (P2P) Health Interview study cohort at Indiana University, which was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. The dust, drinking water, and urine samples were all collected on the same day for each study participant, with three samples per participant, amounting to 243 total samples. Neonicotinoids and their “breakdown products” were the most abundant group of insecticides found in indoor dust, “contributing more than 70% to the total insecticide concentrations.” Additionally, “the most abundant herbicide detected in indoor dust was 2,4-dichorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), which constituted more than 85% of the total herbicide concentrations.” Considering that 2,4-D has a short half-life of one and a half days, the authors believe that this “may indicate a recent application in the vicinity of the sampling area.” (See Daily News here.)

Meanwhile, a study published in Environment International concurs with previous reports that agricultural pesticide treatment can contaminate nearby residential areas, resulting in indoor chemical exposure via concentrations of insecticide active ingredients in house dust. Researchers collected carpet-dust samples from 598 California homes to measure the concentration of nine insecticides: carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, diazinon, permethrin, azinphos-methyl, cyfluthrin, malathion, and phosmet. To compare the buffer zone between residential and agricultural areas, using the California Pesticide Use Reporting (CPUR) database, researchers estimate pesticide use within the buffer zone of agricultural and residential areas (buffer zone radii = 0.5 to 4 km). During the 30-, 60-, 180-, and 365-day periods, researchers evaluated the relationship between the density of pesticide use and the presence of pesticide dust concentration. (See Daily News here.)

Outside of the U.S. context, two recent studies add to earlier findings that raise exposure and health concerns of pesticide exposure through indoor dust. 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. Additionally, 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 businesspeople. 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. (See Daily News here.)

A University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) report, Building Capacity for Robust Pesticide Regulation: Part I – Cumulative Impacts, underscores some of the critical gaps in federal and state pesticide law and the opportunity for comprehensive reform to strengthen cumulative impact assessments for true and accurate exposure data for pesticide products. The main goal for this specific report is to develop a toolbox of scientific methodologies/approaches for California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and the local permitting process by county agricultural commissioners (CACs) to engage in more comprehensive and cumulative impact assessments under their purview. In the report, cumulative exposure refers to the various pathways (e.g., soil, air, water) and routes (e.g., ingestion, dermal, inhalation) through which pesticide exposure occurs. Cumulative risk is the combined risk from multiple exposures, with cumulative impact stacking on additional dimensions (or “stressors,” as the report refers to them), including socio-economic status or heat stress, among others. There is also a distinction in regulatory approaches for different types of pesticide mixtures (product mixtures, field mixtures, and coincidental mixtures), a set of criteria that is nonexistent in federal pesticide law. (See Daily News here.) Advocates continue to call for more robust state and local pesticide laws.

Call to Action

The most efficient and effective way to eliminate the manufacturing, distribution, sales, use, and disposal of synthetic pesticides is to build political will for the adoption of organic and nature-based pest management. You can take action today by asking your mayor to adopt a policy and program for organic management of your community’s parks and public spaces. You can take action by contacting your local elected officials about adopting an ordinance for the management of public land (and in six states, all land, including private property) in your town, county, or city.  If you are based in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, contact your local elected officials (municipal level) to discuss passage of a home rule petition with the objective of acquiring approval from the state legislature to authorize local pesticide ordinances with an organic land management mandate for all property within the jurisdiction. For information on working with Beyond Pesticides on the adoption of organically managed demonstration sites, including playing fields, parks, and school grounds, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program or reach out to [email protected].  

You can also sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to stay notified on ways you can take action to expand public investments and programs that expand organic land management, in agricultural contexts and on public green spaces, parks, and playing fields, to move beyond a reliance on synthetic materials.

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

Source: Indoor Environments

(Beyond Pesticides, April 14, 2026) A novel study mapping pesticide mixtures and cancer risk, published in Nature Health, “reveals a robust spatial association between environmental pesticide exposure risk and cancer incidence.” The team of international researchers incorporates pesticide risk modeling with Peruvian National Cancer Institute (INEN) registry data to map pesticide-induced cancer clusters in Peru, finding significant associations between pesticide mixtures and cases of carcinogenicity. The study analyzes 31 active ingredients to identify pesticide-associated cancer hotspots, none of which are classified as carcinogenic on their own by international standards. When combined as pesticide mixtures, as experienced in real-world environments, heightened risks and synergistic effects are noted.

“Collectively, these findings strongly support a mechanistic [causal] link between pesticide exposure and cancer, challenging assumptions of human non-carcinogenicity derived from reductionist experimental models,” the authors state. “This study redefines the exposome [measure of all environmental, dietary, lifestyle, and social exposures of an individual] as a lineage-conditioned, mechanistically tractable framework and shows how complex pesticide mixtures can contribute to carcinogenic trajectories, with profound and far-reaching implications for global health policy and socio-ecological equity.”

Background

An extensive body of scientific literature connects individual pesticide active ingredients to a wide array of health and environmental effects through very complex and multifaceted mechanisms of toxicity. (See the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database for more information.) Research also shows increased risks when pesticides are analyzed in mixtures, as they are encountered in the everyday life. However, as the authors point out, “Observational studies often fall short in capturing the complexity of pesticide exposures, whereas experimental models tend to oversimplify real-world dynamics.” These challenges stress the importance of incorporating the complex nature of pesticides, particularly in combination, into the analysis of health risks, as is shown in the current study.

As reported in Daily News earlier this year, researchers studied the effect of multiple climate stressors and pesticides in the environment and published their disturbing findings of elevated harm in “Double trouble: The synergistic threat of environmental stressors and pesticide mixtures,” published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials. The study documents synergism that is 70 times stronger in mixtures than it is for single chemicals, clearly demonstrating that evaluating chemical by chemical, presuming the effects of each are independent, is a bankrupt approach to chemical regulation. Among the manifold failures of pesticide regulators, the failure to address the effects of pesticide mixtures is paramount, since every living thing on the planet is exposed to mixtures rather than single chemicals in some kind of discrete order.

Synergistic effects with pesticide mixtures is further highlighted in Daily News entitled “Study of Chemical Mixtures at Low Concentrations Again Finds Adverse Health Effects.” The researchers note, “Investigators should consider additional binary data for acute toxicity and potential chronic health impacts on these mixture…which showed synergism at low levels.” The findings come as no surprise to advocates who have urged an assessment of the potential synergistic impacts of pesticide mixtures in the regulation of pesticides.

Study Methodology and Results

To capture “population-level heterogeneity in pesticide–cancer risk relationships, our approach maps exposure risk at a fine spatial scale and links statistical associations to mechanistic pathways of carcinogenesis,” the researchers state. Their model was able to compute the environmental fate of 31 of the most commonly used pesticide active ingredients (AIs) in the country, based on pesticide transport and degradation principles, to then estimate pesticide risk.

“The model thus captures cumulative, long-term risk from pesticide mixtures by concurrently estimating the environmental behaviour of all 31 AIs, thereby characterizing temporally stable exposure risk surfaces that reflect persistent contamination regimes rather than short-term variability,” the authors share. They continue: “By integrating a process-based framework with empirical data, our model reconstructs plausible pesticide exposure scenarios at the district scale, capturing the spatial footprint of routine human–environment interactions. To our knowledge, no other system combines national coverage, high spatial resolution and multi-year temporal depth to model chronic exposure risk to a comprehensive panel of key pesticides, making it uniquely suited for spatial epidemiology in Peru.”

Due to minor data gaps, the model maps risk levels for 95.7% of districts within Peru and identifies zones of moderate and high risk throughout more than one-third of the national territory. “The highest environmental pesticide exposure risks were concentrated in the Andean highlands and slopes, especially along the western flank and southern coastal areas, where limited precipitation exacerbates pesticide accumulation,” the researchers say.

To validate the findings within the model, biomonitoring was conducted on hair samples from 50 individuals living in distinct pesticide risk zones. As a result, the authors note: “Biomonitored levels of contaminating AIs and their degradation products exhibited significant spatial autocorrelation, closely aligning with modelled exposure risk estimates.”

Adding on to their pesticide risk model, the researchers then “mapped the spatial distribution of cancer risk across Peru using data from the Peruvian National Cancer Institute (INEN) registry—the country’s most comprehensive source of cancer records—for the years 2007 to 2020.” This yields a dataset of 158,072 primary cancer cases and were validated by expert pathologists.

The results show that: “The most extensive at-risk zones were associated with endodermal and ectodermal epithelial cancers—primarily affecting the gastrointestinal tract, lungs and skin—followed by non-mesenchymal [cells, tissues, or lineages that do not originate from the embryonic mesenchyme], mesoderm-derived [originating from the middle germ layer] malignancies such as those of the female genital organs and kidney.” The geospatial mapping of pesticide-associated cancer risk also reveals disproportionate risks based on population disparities, land use, and Peru’s diverse geography.

“Risk was predominantly concentrated in rural areas experiencing intense anthropogenic pressure,” the authors state. They continue: “Along the semi-arid Pacific coast, prominent hotspots coincided with zones of modern agriculture on reclaimed and fertilized land, notably in Ancash and Piura (north of Lima) and in Ica (south of Lima). In the Andes, smaller hotspots emerged in inter-Andean valleys, where steep terrain accelerates pesticide surface run-off, probably intensifying local exposure and fostering cancer cluster formation.”

This study, through a novel model of pesticide and cancer risk, links pesticide exposure to increased risks in a nationwide cohort, revealing pathways of environmentally driven carcinogenesis. As the researchers summarize: “This strategy enabled high-resolution mapping of cumulative environmental exposure risk to pesticide mixtures—unprecedented in scope—with each AI individually deemed non-carcinogenic. The resulting risk surfaces were linked to spatial patterns of cancer incidence.”

They continue: “Beyond its molecular insights, our study reveals pressing socio-environmental challenges. In regions where intensive agriculture, unsustainable land management and limited healthcare coalesce, the dispersal of pesticides not only undermines ecological resilience but also exacerbates enduring health inequalities. Geospatial modelling reveals that high-risk zones for pesticide-associated cancer are disproportionately concentrated in rural areas experiencing intense anthropogenic pressure.” (See additional Daily News on disproportionate risks here.)

Previous Coverage

On March 31, 2026, a statement decrying chemical company secrecy was released by over 200 grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental, and consumer groups, socially responsible corporations, over 340 citizens from 46 states, and international partners. The statement was released before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the final deadline for submission of amicus briefs in a case in which Bayer/Monsanto argues, with support of the Trump administration, that it should not be required to disclose on its product labels the potential hazards of its pesticide products. Oral arguments in the case will be heard on April 27, with a decision anticipated in June. Decades of law have upheld the legal argument that chemical companies are liable for their failure to warn users of their pesticides about the harm that they could cause. Bayer/Monsanto is attempting to reverse years of case law and billions of dollars in jury verdicts and future cases in which the company has been held liable for causing cancer but not warning product users. (See Daily News articles here and here.)

A wide body of scientific literature links pesticide exposure with cancer, including a study in the International Journal of Epidemiology where researchers from France assess the risks of kidney cancer with a wide range of agricultural activities and tasks, finding that occupational exposure heightens kidney cancer risk. In studying participants from the French AGRIculture and CANcer cohort (AGRICAN) with incident kidney cancer, elevated risks of disease development between 25-56% are documented for both men and women engaging in agricultural activities. In men, the authors find increased kidney cancer in those “working with rapeseed and sunflowers, and tasks related to other crops such as corn, wheat/barley, beet, and tobacco.” In women, an increased risk is noted for winegrowers and corn growers. “Pesticide use (on fields and/or seeds) was associated, for both sexes, with these crops, showing exposure-response relationships with crop area and work duration,” the researchers state. (See Daily News here.)

Additional research in Brazil, published in PLOS ONE, “analyzed the impact of occupational/household chronic exposure to pesticides on the clinicopathological profile of breast cancer in rural women from Paraná southwest, a predominantly rural landscape with large pesticide uses,” finding that “pesticide exposure favors the occurrence of more aggressive breast cancer.” The study highlights the disproportionate risks of pesticides to farmworkers, focusing on women, as it compares exposed and unexposed populations and breast cancer tumor/disease characteristics. (See more here.)

Another study, the first to assess the effect of pesticide exposures on the survival of children with leukemia, finds a statistically significant link between residential rodenticide exposure and a higher risk in children of death from acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), with about 10% of the exposed children dying within five years of diagnosis. Leukemia is the leading contributor to the clear rise in childhood cancer cases over the last few decades, and the general association of pesticide exposures with childhood leukemia is firmly established. (See Daily News here, as well as additional coverage on pesticides and cancer here.)

Beyond Pesticides’ Resources

As an alternative to carcinogenic pesticides, Beyond Pesticides advocates for the holistic approach of organic agricultural and land management practices. Learn more about how to take action and keep organic strong here and here, and support Beyond Pesticides’ mission of eliminating petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032.

Now is the time to Spring Into Action! Make The Safer Choice by learning how to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides. ManageSafe™ also helps to identify the organic management practices and compatible control options for pests in the home and garden.

Buying and growing organic food can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment, which protects all organisms within it. To learn more about the numerous health and environmental benefits of organic systems, see here and here.

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

Source:

Honles, J. et al. (2026) Mapping pesticide mixtures to cancer risk at the country scale with spatial exposomics, Nature Health. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44360-026-00087-0.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2026) There are numerous provisions—a package of provisions—in the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee Farm Bill, voted out on March 5, that seriously undermine protections of health and the environment from pesticides, according to public health and environmental advocates. In response, Beyond Pesticides and allies are calling on U.S. Representatives and Senators to reject the Farm Bill as passed out of the House Agriculture Committee and, instead, pass a one-year extension of current law to protect health and the environment.

The Committee Farm Bill contains provisions that advocates and members of Congress call “poison pills” because any one of them is so far-reaching that they make the entire measure unacceptable. The package of amendments covers critical areas of protection that have been established over decades of Congressional action.

While groups have called for major reforms, Beyond Pesticides, in an action recently released,  says, “Existing pesticide law forms the foundation on which improvements should be made, not backsliding to give the chemical industry free rein.” At stake, according to the group, are core safeguards that are seen as critical to the health of farmers, consumers and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use, and national and local site-specific regulatory action to ensure the safety of air, water, land, and food from pesticides. Overall, critics say, the Committee bill increases dependency on petrochemical fertilizers (which contribute to escalating toxic pesticide use), ignores hunger (despite a historically large $187 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program/SNAP), dismisses the notion of a fair, responsible, and accessible family farm safety net, and rolls back successful conservation investments. 

The GOP Farm Bill (Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567) that slashes protections from pesticides now faces a vote in the full House and then moves to the U.S. Senate, where advocates are urging that the bill with its current provisions be rejected, including Section X, Subtitle C, Part 1 on “Regulatory Reform.”

At a time when documented adverse health and ecological effects from pesticide use are skyrocketing, and sustainable practices have become widely available, the bill is being characterized as a “wish list” for the chemical industry. The science connecting pesticide exposure to neurotoxicity continues to mount. A study in Discover Toxicology highlights neurotoxic pollutants as significant environmental threats, showcasing the adverse impacts on vertebrates’ neurological health from pesticides, including organophosphates, carbamates, and organochlorines. In the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, a study of gestational (during pregnancy) exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide thiacloprid shows epigenetic effects (alterations in genes without altering underlying DNA) within prostate tissues. A literature review published in Chemico-Biological Interactions links pyrethroid insecticide exposure to cardiac dysfunction.

Besides leukemia and other cancers, childhood or in utero exposure to pesticides leads to a greater risk of asthma, ADHD, reproductive hormone production in girls, cardiometabolic disorders in boys, and suppression of the immune system, among other problems. These outcomes are unnecessary, since organic agriculture can produce any product produced by chemical-intensive agriculture. With future agriculture policy now under consideration, it is important that the Farm Bill not be used to prop up the chemical industry, but instead support organic agriculture that will not threaten vulnerable populations.  

The GOP Farm Bill is a sweeping set of exemptions, waivers, and revocations undermining 50 years of laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment.  

There is opposition to the bill in Congress. Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), condemned the GOP 2026 Farm Bill, saying it would be “‘very difficult, if not impossible’ for her to back a GOP-led farm bill because it contains ‘poison pills’ and doesn’t do enough to aid struggling farmers,” according to Politico. Make America Healthy Again advocates are also incensed over the provision that grants chemical companies immunity from lawsuits for injury when they fail to provide complete safety warnings. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) has indicated that she will seek to strike provisions of the bill. 

Specifically, Subtitle C of Title X, entitled Regulatory Reform, contains the following provisions that threaten human health, the ability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to keep foods free of dangerous chemicals, and that expose the environment to even greater toxic pesticides: 

• Section 10201(3): Permanently excludes dozens of hazardous chemicals used in industrial agriculture from human health and environmental safety reviews that are currently required under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. 
   
• Section 10202: Weakens and delays efforts to protect children, farmworkers, and public health, from dangerous pesticides by giving unprecedented authority to the USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy to review and potentially veto any environmental or human health safeguards determined to be necessary by EPA. 
   
• Section 10203(3): Undermines the integrity of the Endangered Species Act in an unprecedented manner by delaying protections for endangered species against dangerous pesticides by giving an internal interagency workgroup a de facto veto on any efforts to protect endangered species from pesticides, which could delay and weaken critical conservation measures.  
   
• Section 10204: Delays the review of hundreds of pesticides for harms to human health, endangered wildlife, and endocrine disruption until 2031, leaving potentially dangerous pesticides on the market and in widespread use without any updated protective measures. 
   
• Section 10205: Immunizes pesticide companies from their duty to warn the public about dangerous chemicals in their pesticide formulations, potentially eliminating access to the federal courts for thousands of individuals with cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and other health issues scientifically linked to pesticide exposure. See Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards. 
   
• Section 10206: Eliminates the six-decade-old authority of state and local governments to implement additional local and state-focused restrictions on the use of dangerous pesticides to protect children, farmworkers, pollinators, public health, and the environment. 
   
• Section 10207: Erases important, long-standing safeguards to protect people and wildlife from pesticide pollution discharged directly into waterways through the Clean Water Act Pesticide General Permit (“PGP”), though the broad language would exempt pesticide approvals from the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and other bedrock environmental laws. 

Beyond Pesticides’ action states:  Tell U.S. Representatives and Senators to reject the Farm Bill as passed out of the House Agriculture Committee and, instead, pass a one-year extension of current law to protect health and the environment.

Letter to U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators:
Recent studies demonstrating connections between prenatal and postnatal exposure to pesticides and severe consequences for health underscore the unnecessary dangers of agriculture that relies on toxic pesticides. Besides leukemia and other cancers, exposure to pesticides leads to greater risk of asthma, ADHD, reproductive hormone production, cardiometabolic disorders, and suppression of the immune system, among other problems. These outcomes are unnecessary, since organic agriculture can produce any product produced by chemical-intensive agriculture. The Farm Bill must not be used to prop up the chemical industry but instead support organic agriculture. 

The GOP Farm Bill passed out of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee on March 5 overturns core safeguards that are critical to the health of farmers, consumers and the environment—judicial review of chemical manufacturers’ failure to warn about pesticide hazards, the democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use, and national and local site-specific regulatory action to ensure the safety of air, water, land, and food from pesticides. Overall, the Committee bill increases dependency on petrochemical fertilizers, ignores hunger (despite a historically large $187 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program/SNAP), dismisses the notion of a fair, responsible, and accessible family farm safety net, and rolls back successful conservation investments. Subtitle C of Title X, entitled Regulatory Reform, is a sweeping set of exemptions, waivers, and revocations undermining 50 years of laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment: 

*Section 10201 permanently excludes dozens of hazardous chemicals used in industrial agriculture, including some genetically engineered “plant incorporated protectants” (pesticide incorporated plants), from human health and environmental safety reviews. 

*Section 10202 weakens and delays efforts to protect children, farmworkers, and public health, from dangerous pesticides by giving unprecedented authority to the USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy to review and potentially veto safeguards determined to be necessary by EPA. 

*Section 10203 undermines the integrity of the Endangered Species Act in an unprecedented manner by delaying protections and weakening conservation measures for endangered species against dangerous pesticides.  

*Section 10204 delays the review of hundreds of pesticides for harms to human health, endangered wildlife, and endocrine disruption until 2031. 

*Section 10205 immunizes pesticide companies from their duty to warn the public about dangerous chemicals in their pesticide formulations, potentially eliminating access to courts for thousands of individuals with cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and other health issues scientifically linked to pesticide exposure. 

*Section 10206 eliminates the six-decade-old authority of state and local governments to implement additional local and state-focused restrictions on the use of dangerous pesticides. 

*Section 10207 erases important, long-standing safeguards to protect people and wildlife from pesticide pollution discharged directly into waterways through the Clean Water Act Pesticide General Permit, while broad language would exempt pesticide reviews from the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and other bedrock environmental laws. 

Please reject this fundamentally flawed Farm Bill and vote for a one-year extension of current law, while Congress gets serious about protecting health and the environment. 

Thank you. 

(Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2026) An important study not previously covered in Daily News, “Use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)-Containing Food Products in Children,” raises serious concerns about children’s dietary exposure to pesticides, particularly the weed killer glyphosate, that are heavily used in the production of genetically engineered crops. Published in Pediatrics by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the lead authors Steven A. Abrams, MD, FAAP, Jaclyn Lewis Albin, MD, FAAP, and Philip J. Landrigan, MD, FAAP call attention to the widespread use of genetic engineering (GE) and GMOs in the U.S. food supply and the subsequent health risks for children and consumers.

The authors, in collaboration with the Committee on Nutrition, Council on Environmental Health and Climate Change Executive Committee, and additional medical professionals and researchers, also maintain that pediatricians have the opportunity to provide education and “lead conversations with families about the health impact of certain foods, provide nutritional guidance, and help filter the overwhelming volume of information.” By supporting parents in making informed nutrition choices, pediatricians can help shape decisions that impact the long-term health of children and advocate for choosing organic certified products.

As the authors state: “Although GMO technology could be used to increase the micronutrient content of foods, this does not occur in the United States; instead, GMO technology has been used to make crops resistant to chemical herbicides. As a result, herbicide use has increased exponentially.” Glyphosate, as a herbicide widely used with these crops, has measurable quantities detected in food products and is listed as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency on Research for Cancer (IARC).

“In this report, key issues related to GMO-containing foods are reviewed and information about the health benefits and risks that may be associated with their use is provided,” the doctors state. They continue: “The report focuses on foods marketed in the United States but also includes some discussion of global issues. Current controversies regarding GMO labeling are discussed, and an overview of the risks associated with the use of herbicides to produce GMO corn, soy, alfalfa, and other crops is provided.”

Background

As the clinical report points out, choosing the best food options for children “has become increasingly complicated as parents navigate time and cost barriers, concerns about food allergy and sensitivity, questions about organic food and food sourcing, and the potential health effects of genetic modification of food.” The labeling on packaged foods is also a concern, as labels are often complex and can contain confusing and misleading terminology or symbols. Under the 2016 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law and the subsequent National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (BE Standard), USDA calls GMO food “bioengineered” or “derived from bioengineering,” and the graphic is a sun over a plant and an agricultural field. The law requires that GMO food be labeled with this graphic.

Five percent of bioengineered ingredients not purposefully introduced are allowed in a food product without being designated on the label. Additional items, such as those containing meat and dairy products produced by animals that are fed bioengineered products, do not require disclosure on the labels. (See here.) It should be noted that foods labeled USDA certified organic, under the Organic Foods Production Act, are not permitted to be produced with GMOs. Many producers of non-GMO products—mostly of products that are not organic—use “non-GMO” or “GMO-free” label language.

Food safety advocates have raised concerns about the use of the term “bioengineered” instead of “genetically engineered,” the more commonly understood term, and the use of a graphic or symbol that is misleading. The term GMO “refers to foods (or other products) designed through genetic engineering, a process that introduces a desired trait into the product by inserting novel DNA from a separate organism.”

This report addresses the concerns that many families have regarding “the safety of GMO-containing foods, especially regarding the possible effects of the herbicides used in large quantities in their production.” (See here, here, and here.) These concerns also include “uncertainty about the presence of GMO in foods that are ultra-processed or have multiple components, which increases the likelihood of GMO ingredients.” (See here and here.) As the vast majority of soybean and corn crops grown today are genetically modified, and GMO ingredients are found in most ultraprocessed foods sold in the U.S., all parents and consumers need to be aware of the risks or uncertainties associated with the foods they choose for their families.

History of GE and GMO Foods

“The use of genetic engineering to produce GMO food crops builds on the ancient agricultural practice of selective breeding,” the authors say. “However, unlike selective breeding, genetic engineering vastly expands the range of genetic traits that can be moved into plants as well as the speed of their introduction.” Unfortunately, this alteration of genes for pesticidal purposes to establish a chemical tolerance within crops also comes with issues of resistance and an increase in the use of pesticides that leave residues on food commodities, threatening both public health and the environment.

GE food crops that have tolerance to herbicides were first introduced in the 1990s. The first GMO produce available was tomatoes, but they were “removed from the market in 1997 and are no longer produced in the United States.” The authors continue: “However, additional GMO produce items followed throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, including the now ubiquitous GMO corn, soybeans, canola, and sugar beets. In the United States, the most commonly grown GMO food crops are corn and soybeans resistant to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup).” (See here and here.)

These GMO ingredients are found ubiquitously in animal feed and ultraprocessed foods, as “many GMO ingredients derived from corn and soybean grain are also found in processed food products, including those made with processed cornstarch, soybean-based oils, and high-fructose corn syrup.” Interestingly, in the U.S., there is a short list of permitted GMO food crops. At the time of the article’s publication in 2023, there were 10 crops on the list. Today, it has expanded to 14. While this still seems like a low quantity of commodity types, these crops are used widely within the food supply.

Threats to Human Health

As Beyond Pesticides has extensively covered, children face disproportionate risks compared to adults with pesticide exposure. Their small size and developing organ systems, propensity to crawl and play near the ground, tendency for frequent hand-to-mouth motion, and greater intake of air and food relative to body weight make them particularly susceptible. Many of these increased risks start before a child is born and extend into the first few years of life, leading to deleterious lifelong impacts. The hazards borne by children in these “windows of vulnerability” can increase health risks ranging from birth defects to cancer. (See more here and here.)

“Currently, more than 90% of soybean and corn crops in the United States contain herbicide resistance and/or insect resistance genes, and these traits have also been genetically engineered in canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sugar beet crops,” the current study authors state. They continue: “Herbicide-tolerant GMO seeds and herbicides are typically sold in tandem… An unfortunate consequence of the increasingly heavy use of herbicides late in the growing season on herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans is that measurable quantities of glyphosate and other herbicides, termed ‘residues,’ remain present in GMO grains at harvest. As a result, glyphosate residues have been detected with increasing frequency in recent years in foods commonly consumed by children, as well as in drinking water.” (See research here, here, and here.)

Residues of not only glyphosate but also other herbicides are detected in corn silage and animal feeds that are made from herbicide-tolerant crops, increasing the risk of contamination of meat and dairy products. Another product of concern is infant formula, as “most contain some amount of corn syrup, soy, or other products that may be made from GMO components.” As the authors say, “The presence of glyphosate and other toxic herbicides in food products is the main hazard to children’s health associated with the consumption of GMO-based foods.”

Another major consideration in the repeated widespread and intensive use of herbicides like glyphosate is the development of resistant weeds. “More than 250 weed species in 70 countries are now known to be resistant to at least 1 herbicide, including at least 48 species resistant to glyphosate,” the researchers note. They continue, “In the United States, glyphosate-resistant weeds are found today on over 200 million acres, and many fields harbor 2 or more resistant weeds.” (See here.)

This leads to the perpetuation of the pesticide treadmill. “As more weeds survived heavier applications of glyphosate-based herbicides, farmers turned to treating crops with multiple other herbicides,” the doctors write. “A likely consequence of the use of multiple herbicides on GMO food crops is that residues of these multiple chemicals will be detected in crops at harvest and in food products made from these crops, thus further increasing cumulative risk of human exposure.” This can increase the overall body burden (accumulation of chemicals in the body) that individuals experience. (See more information in the Body Burden section of the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)

The Organic Solution

As the authors point out, “The distinction between foods labeled as not containing GMO ingredients versus foods labeled as bioengineered or USDA organic is likely to create confusion for many consumers.” (See here and here.) To avoid these issues, choosing organic certified food is the best way to protect the health of both children and adults. Products bearing the USDA Organic Label meet the requirements of the National Organic Program (NOP) Final Rule, the national standards for the production, handling, processing, and labeling of organically grown food in the United States.

Organic food (whether you buy it or grow it yourself) has proven health and environmental benefits. As shared in Daily News, adopting a fully organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in urine within just two weeks “by an average of 98.6%” and facilitate faster DNA damage repair relative to a diet of food grown with chemical-intensive practices, according to findings from a randomized clinical trial published in Nutrire. Additional research published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds urinary levels of glyphosate significantly decrease through an organic diet for pregnant individuals, and a previous study published in Environmental Research finds that glyphosate levels can be reduced by up to 70% after just one week into a fully organic diet.

Visit Eating with a Conscience for information on choosing organic food to protect health and the environment, and learn more about the national organic standards and subsequent labeling requirements with Beyond Pesticides’ National Organic Standards resource page.

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

Source:

Abrams, S. et al. (2023) Use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)-Containing Food Products in Children, Pediatrics. Available at: https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/153/1/e2023064774/196193/Use-of-Genetically-Modified-Organism-GMO.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2026) “The routine use of common pesticides in agriculture is no longer an ethically viable option for sustainable food production,” according to a new review in Reproduction & Fertility by livestock researcher Whitney Payne, Ph.D. candidate, and Kelsey R. Pool, PhD, of the School of Agriculture and Environment at The University of Western Australia. They base their position on the endocrine-disrupting qualities of many pesticides.

The authors describe endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) as “an inescapable feature of modern life” and note that the “farming systems sit at the intersection of animal health, environmental integrity, and food production.” The review stresses the risks that EDCs pose to livestock, which are seriously understudied.  

EDCs are introduced to cattle, sheep, chickens, goats, and other mammals via pesticides, plastics, and hormone treatments. Since humans consume livestock, the effects of EDCs on animals are not confined to animals themselves. Animal production systems illustrate how EDCs “can enter diverse food chains and ecosystems from a single source,” the authors write, being introduced by humans for one purpose and returning to affect livestock and humans indirectly through their long-term effects and breakdown products. While regulatory systems typically consider direct and indirect exposure pathways in humans and livestock, the fates of secondary and tertiary metabolites in livestock and the broader ecosystem are barely comprehended.

The review considers the endocrine-disrupting processes of insecticides and herbicides. These chemicals do not remain in their original applied form in the environment or even in the crop or animal receiving them. They affect invertebrates and other vertebrates in the environment, where they are degraded by organismal metabolism, microbial action, and sunlight, with the resulting chemical compounds possibly more potent and persistent than the original chemical.

Livestock are affected both by pesticides directly applied topically or in feed, but grazing livestock also encounter exposures through water and the atmosphere. They may eat plants that have been treated with pesticides or have absorbed them from soils and water. Some pesticides bioaccumulate in animals’ fatty tissues.

This becomes a problem for ensuing levels of consumption, as fatty tissues are mobilized during reproduction and development, and the pesticides contained in them can be transferred to offspring. “This can occur in wildlife, livestock, and humans alike, highlighting the vulnerability and broad impact EDCs can have across species,” the authors write. They cite a 2022 study of cattle and sheep feed comparing the maximum allowable pesticide residue levels for human and animal dietary intake in both European Union and non-EU countries with residues in animal feeds. That study also stressed that the allowed levels for lipophilic pesticides were significantly higher than they should be given their “relatively high toxicity and biotransfer factors.”

While the fearsome and broad toxicity of insecticides can no longer be ignored, herbicides have had the reputation as being far less risky than insecticides for humans because most of them target mechanisms like photosynthesis and amino acid formation. This was the case with glyphosate, which was ushered through EPA registration on the erroneous assumption that the plant metabolic pathway it affects was irrelevant to animals. But there is now significant evidence that many herbicides, such as glyphosate and atrazine, can disrupt hormones and trigger oxidative stress.

Importantly, both herbicides and insecticides can be highly persistent in the environment, particularly soils. The herbicide paraquat, the authors note, has a seven-year half-life in soil. The herbicide atrazine and neonicotinoid thiacloprid have half-lives of a year. Even pesticides with a relatively short half-life, like glyphosate (about 42 days in both soil and water) and permethrin (just over a month in soil) can do plenty of damage at the molecular level; even if a chemical has a short half-life in the environment or inside a plant or animal, it can do damage at the molecular level while it is there, particularly if it is continually reintroduced.

The review cites the limited research showing that pesticides affect livestock reproduction. For example, pre-pubescent female sheep exposed orally to 1 mg/kg/day of glyphosate had fewer eggs in their ovaries. A laboratory study of cattle tissues found that 1 ppm of Roundup disrupted sperm motility and embryo development. The authors suggest that in both grazing environments and feedlots, “chronic glyphosate exposure” may result in impaired fertility both by reduced quality of sperm and eggs and early failure of embryos, thus affecting overall fertility.

Research on carbamates and organophosphates also indicates reproductive harms for livestock. Laboratory studies of bovine cervical tissue show that a carbamate derivative disrupted oxytocin signaling, progesterone secretion, and cervical contractions at a concentration of 1 nanogram per milliliter, a level far lower than rodent studies indicated would affect reproductive function. Goat testes in tissue culture that were directly exposed to organophosphates downregulated genes important in spermatogenesis. Pig eggs and sperm exposed to organophosphates produced reactive oxygen species, which can derail the formation of a blastocyst, the earliest phase of embryo development.

Other pesticides have been even less studied in livestock, but there is evidence that neonicotinoids, triazines and pyrethroids all have reproductive effects that can be expected to disrupt the hormone systems of farm animals. Neonicotinoids are EDCs and promote oxidative stress. Limited studies indicate they harm sperm production and function at exposures livestock are likely to encounter on farms. Atrazine, a notorious chlorinated triazine herbicide, changes the processes that synthesize follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, testosterone, and estradiol. It also increases oxidative stress in the hypothalamus and pituitary glands, which have downstream effects on reproduction.

Pyrethroid insecticides typify a serious and understudied problem, according to the authors: research and regulatory testing have not adequately distinguished between the effects of a parent compound and its second- and third-level metabolites. Pyrethroids mimic thyroid hormones and change reproductive hormone receptors on cells. While they metabolize quickly in mammals, they also accumulate in fats, and, ominously, two pyrethroid metabolites, 3-PBA and DCCA, are 100 times and a thousand times more potent than the parent compound, respectively. These metabolites are associated with degraded sperm quality in humans when detected in urine. The authors point out that pyrethroid metabolites have not yet been detected in the meat of farm animals, likely due to their relatively rapid metabolism in mammals, but this does not mean they have not left damaging effects or harmed the health of the animals themselves.

An important aspect of their analysis is that many pesticides are considered neurotoxicants, but their endocrine-disrupting power is obscured. Organochlorines, organophosphates, neonicotinoids, carbamates, and pyrethroids all cripple insects’ neurological systems. Piperonyl butoxide, a common additive to pesticides in these groups, prevents insects from breaking down insecticides.

The authors’ analysis of acetylcholine demonstrates the problem with the siloing of assumptions about pesticides’ molecular behavior. Acetylcholine is common to every domain of life, including microbes, plants, animals, and fungi. In humans, it is a vital neurotransmitter. Many pesticides inhibit the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, which is why they are considered likely causes of diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Thus, the pesticides that affect acetylcholine pathways have been considered mainly as neurotoxicants. But acetylcholine is also known to affect reproduction in mammals; it is involved in sperm motility, fertilization, oocyte maturation, and cell differentiation in embryos, and its inhibition produces altered expression of receptors for steroid hormones such as estrogen.

It is an enduring mystery why pesticide manufacturers could assume that compounds affecting such basic processes conserved across whole swaths of the web of life would harm only those organisms humans consider pests. The chemistry and architecture of neurons are very similar in anything that has neurons. As the authors more temperately write, “Their limited species-specificity and potential to cause widespread environmental harm should remain key considerations in insecticide use.”

Taken together, the evidence presented in this review underscores the importance of eliminating pesticides in agriculture. The authors suggest that further study of their effects on reproduction would be an effective way to comprehend pesticides’ overall sublethal effects, which are, after all, likely more consequential than their acute effects. Further, it is not as if a pesticide is applied just once to one species and its influence stops there—the pesticide model is like a boomerang, a circular threat that returns repeatedly to harm human and animal health.

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

Sources:

Ecological and reproductive consequences of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in agricultural systems
Payne & Pool
Reproduction & Fertility 2026
https://raf.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/raf/7/1/RAF-25-0178.xml

Associations Between Endocrine-Disrupting Chemical Exposure and Fertility Outcomes: A Decade of Human Epidemiological Evidence
Tzouma et al
Life 2025
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/7/993

Framework for defining pesticide maximum residue levels in feed: applications to cattle and sheep
Li & Fantke
Pest Management Science 2022
https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.7241

Pesticide Exposure Again Linked to Neurotoxic Effects in Humans and Wildlife in Comprehensive Review
Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2026
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/category/chemicals/carbamates/

Study Reinforces Importance of Biodiversity in Agriculture and Ecosystem Health
Beyond Pesticides, November 6th, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/01/public-urged-to-tell-epa-that-it-is-time-to-stop-killing-biodiversity-with-the-weed-killer-atrazine/

Reinforcing Scientific Findings, Insecticide Permethrin Alters Gut Microbiome, Causing Obesity
Beyond Pesticides, September 5, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/09/reinforcing-scientific-findings-insecticide permethrin-found-to-alter-gut-microbiome-causing-obesity/

(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2026) Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assessed pesticide and PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) contamination in ten agricultural streams in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys (Central Valley) in 2024, detecting 60 pesticides, synergists, and associated transformation products, including 12 fluorinated pesticides (Dithiopyr, Trifluralin, Fluridone, Oxyfluorfen, Penoxsulam, Flubendiamide, Bifenthrin, Flonicam, Indoxacarb, Cyhalothrin, Fluopyram, and Penthiopyrad) that meet the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) definition of qualifying as PFAS. It is alarming to learn that “the OECD fluorinated pesticides were generally detected more frequently and at higher concentrations” relative to the 48 other compounds. 

Relatedly, research finds products containing three of the detected pesticides (Methoxyfenozide, Imidacloprid, and Piperonyl Butoxide) associated with various PFAS, and according to the authors, there are a handful of active ingredients, such as the insecticide Methoxyfenozide and the fungicide Azoxystrobin, detected in 100 percent of collected samples. Their entire findings were published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters in March 2026.

This research is critical to our understanding of the pervasiveness and ubiquity of multi-chemical pollution that impacts one of the most productive agricultural regions in the country. The regions encompassing these two valleys make up just one percent of total U.S. farmland, yet produce eight percent of total agricultural production by output, including 4 in 10 of the country’s fruits and nuts, according to USGS. Unfortunately, the chemical-intensive status quo has led to significant evidence of off-target pesticide drift into community members’ households and schoolyards, emphasizing the dangers of bioaccumulation from resulting acute and chronic exposure to local communities and ecosystems, not to mention the downstream effects of residues that are spread in the supply chain across the U.S. and the globe. In this context, organically managed systems, as defined by the Organic Foods Production Act, have created a blueprint for least- and non-toxic pest management systems that ban the spread of toxic inputs (synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, PFAS, biosolid sewage sludge, and antibiotics and animal growth hormones for livestock).  

Methodology and Results 
“The objective of this study was to evaluate pesticide applications as a source of PFAS in streams draining agricultural regions in California: San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley,” says the USGS researchers. They continue: “Sites across the San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento Valley were sampled for 183 pesticides and pesticide transformation products (TPs) and 57 individual PFAS.”  

Ten sites were selected across the Central Valley, with water samples gathered in May and July 2024. The sites were chosen based on two criteria: “minimal nonagricultural influences” to otherwise explain the source(s) of contamination and substantial levels of the pesticide product Intrepid 2F (methoxyfenozide), citing previous research finding “the presence of perfluorobutanesulfonate (PFBS)” in the formulation. The most recent pesticide data is from peak applications in 2021, collected by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), operating on the assumption “that 2022 pesticide use data (the most recent year available) are representative of the 2024 pesticide data.” A range of agricultural products (alfalfa, rice, tomatoes, nuts, etc.) are grown on the sites, information that assisted in determining relevant pesticides to test for.  

There was no rain to impact pesticide residue data gathered in this study across both valleys in the days leading up to water sample collection in July 2024, with San Joaquin Valley experiencing less than 2.5 centimeters of rainfall the day before water testing in May 2024; Sacramento Valley also faced no rainfall in the days leading up to the May 2024 sample gathering. Researchers used various techniques to isolate and determine individual compounds (pesticides, PFAS, etc.), involving liquid and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS). Across the ten sites (creeks and streams), summary data were developed, including “total PFAS concentration, total pesticide concentration, total OECD fluorinated pesticide concentration, PFAS counts, pesticide counts, and pesticide use (kg) normalized by watershed area (km2).” 

There are some additional notable findings from this study, including site-specific findings: 

• Mustang Creek was expected to face higher concentration of OECD and non-OECD PFAS pesticides since the area faces the highest quantity of pesticides per acre and also boasts the most cropland compared to the ten other creeks. It is important to note that almond orchards are located near the site, which the authors tentatively attribute to higher concentrations of residues in May; 

• PFOA and PFOS were detected in 60 percent and 35 percent of all water samples, respectively, with the remaining 11 PFAS having fewer than 3 detections each; 

• Orestimba Creek had the highest PFAS concentration in May, with researchers attributing the PFBA (perfluorobutanoic acid related to PFAS) levels to some combination of fluorinated pesticide containers and pesticides sprayed on nut crops in the spring, the latter explanation plausible given the timing of the spring season application. 

• Researchers highlight that PFAS contributions could also be explained through “the degradation of certain fluorinated pesticides and other organofluorine compounds to the ultrashort PFAS trifluoroacetate (TFA).” (See studies here and here for further details.) They continue: “Measurements and analyses of TFA and total organic fluorine (TOF) would likely yield a more complete assessment of pesticide applications as a PFAS source but were outside the scope of this study.” 

• Only 57 of potentially thousands of PFAS chemicals were targeted due to the scope of the study. “Lasee et al. measured PFAS in insecticide formulations pre- and post-oxidation, with PFAS concentrations increasing post-oxidation,” the authors state. They continue: “This suggests that pesticide formulations contain unmeasured PFAS that could oxidize to PFCAs and PFSAs.” 

The following pesticide-related compounds were detected at least once across the samples:  

• Insecticides: Methoxyfenozide, Chlorantraniliprole, Clothianidin, Imidacloprid, Thiamethoxam, Carbaryl, Etoxazole, Flubendiamide, Acetamiprid, Bifenthrin, Cyantraniliprole, Flonicamid, Flupyradifurone, Cyhalothrin, Diazinon, Indoxacarb, Tebufenozide, and Thiamethoxam degradate; 

• Herbicides: Diuron, DCPMU [Diuron metabolite], Metolachlor, 3,4-Dichloroaniline [building block for synthesis of herbicide active ingredients], Pendimethalin, Hexazinone, Atrazine Desiopropyl [transformation product], Clomazone, Bentazon, DCPU [Diuron metabolite], Dithiopyr, Simazine, Indaziflam, Trifluralin, Atrazine Desethyl [transformation product], Fluridone, Thiobencarb, Oxyfluorfen, Penoxsulam, Propanil,  Atrazine, Benziobicylon, and Propyzamide;

• Fungicides: Azoxystrobin, Propiconazole, Tebuconazole, Carbendazim, Fluopyram, Fluxapyroxad, Boscalid, Metconazole, Myclobutanil, Penthiopyrad, Pydiflumetofen, Difenoconazole, Metalaxyl, Pyrimethanil, Cyprodinil, Flutriafol, Pyraclostrobin, and Tebuconazole t-Butylhydroxy; and,

• The pesticide synergist piperonyl butoxide. 

Previous Coverage 
For decades, Beyond Pesticides has continuously tracked the emergence of peer-reviewed science, research efforts, and policy and regulatory updates to inform the public, advocates, and decision makers on the dangers of synthetic agrichemicals and the transition to alternative pest management systems, including organic standards. 

In the United States context, there is significant research continuing from data gathered in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) prospective study of cancer and other health outcomes in a cohort of licensed pesticide applicators and their spouses from Iowa and North Carolina. Between 1993 and 1997, with follow-up between 1999 and 2021, AHS tracks occupational and nonoccupational exposure and subsequent health effects from pesticide exposure. A recent study, published in Environmental Advances in partnership with Yale University associate professor of epidemiology Nicole Deziel, PhD, MHS, reexamines a quantitative analysis on nontarget, “active-ingredient-specific” exposure to pesticides from multiple pathways—applying new criteria to AHS spousal exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos and the herbicide atrazine. The three pesticide exposure pathways include take-home, agricultural drift, and residential use. (See Daily News here.) In another study focused on birth outcomes in Arizona (Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology), researchers find that preconception and prenatal exposure to certain carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids increases the risk of lower Apgar scores, a metric used to assess neonatal health at one minute and five minutes after birth. The results reveal that exposure to “several pesticide active ingredients at any point during preconception and/or pregnancy were associated with increased odds of low Apgar scores: the carbamates carbaryl and formetanate hydrochloride; the organophosphates diazinon and tribufos; and the pyrethroid cypermethrin.” (See Daily News here.)  

Additionally, the data in the annual U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pesticide residue report, released earlier this year, continues to show a pattern of pesticide residues in the majority of food tested by USDA. In terms of the 76 samples that exceeded tolerances, those samples include one sample of avocados, 22 samples of fresh blackberries, eight samples of cherry tomatoes, five samples of cucumbers, three samples of fresh sweet corn, and 37 samples of tomatillos. For the avocado sample it was deltamethrin; for the fresh blackberries it was nine samples with acephate, six samples with cyhalothrin, and eight samples with cypermethrin; for cherry tomatoes it was two samples with acephate, one sample with captan, two samples with flonicamid, and four samples with Tetrahydrophthalimide (THPI); for the cucumbers it was one sample with cyazofamid, two samples with etoxazole, one sample with methomyl, and one sample with myclobutanil; for sweet corn it was two samples with Deltamethrin and one sample with permethrin; for tomatillos it was 36 samples of acephate that exceed tolerance thresholds. (See Daily News here.) 

There is also significant research outside the U.S. context that demonstrates the pervasiveness of pesticide pollution and associated impacts on our bodies and planet. 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, Colombia, 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. (See Daily News here.) A cohort of over 300 citizen scientists gathered data for a study published last year in Science of The Total Environment reporting widespread pesticide contamination collected from beehive monitoring across the European Union (EU). Among many concerning findings, the researchers concluded that, “There was no sample site where there was no pesticide occurrence over the complete sampling period.” (See Daily News here.) 

Call to Action 
Beyond Pesticides recommends choosing certified organic produce whenever possible—since pesticides cited in this study and virtually all synthetic pesticides are not allowed in organic food production. Through the Eating with a Conscience database, you can select from over 90 different common produce and veggies you regularly consume and learn about the organic difference from their conventional, chemical-intensive counterparts. 

Additionally, you can sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to stay notified on ways you can take action to expand public investments and programs that expand organic land management, in agricultural contexts and on public green spaces, parks, and playing fields, to move beyond a reliance on synthetic materials. See ManageSafe^TM for addressing pest prevention and management for land and buildings. 

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

Source: Environmental Science & Technology Letters 

(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2026) In the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, a study of gestational (during pregnancy) exposure to the neonicotinoid insecticide thiacloprid shows epigenetic effects (alterations in genes without altering underlying DNA) within prostate tissues. To analyze the role of gene expression in subsequent generations after initial thiacloprid exposure, the authors exposed pregnant outbred Swiss mice to the insecticide in order to assess the offspring for multiple generations. As a result, the researchers from the Université de Rennes in France state, “Our study revealed that exposure to thiacloprid induces [cell] proliferation and is associated with epigenetic alterations in the sperm of genes important for prostate development.” Increased cell proliferation in the prostate can cause the development of conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), and lead to prostate cancer.

The study also finds elevated levels of specific biomarkers within the prostates of both the first and third generations, including phosphorylated histone H3, a marker crucial for cell division. Hox gene expression in both generations was also impacted, which plays a role in prostate development, based on the altered DNA methylation (abnormal changes) in the sperm of the analyzed mice.

“In this study, we aimed to reveal the effects of thiacloprid on prostate morphology and to gain insight into the epigenetic mechanisms involved in the regulation of genes important for prostate functioning and development using a mouse model,” the authors say. They continue, “Although the mouse prostate is anatomically and histologically different from the human prostate, there is extensive evidence that the genetic lesions in human prostate cancer can lead to neoplasia in the murine prostate, suggesting that there is a common conserved mechanism of prostate pathology development.”

Study Importance

A wide body of science, that continues to grow, connects the intensive use of neonicotinoids to adverse health effects in a multitude of organisms. Most notably, dramatic declines in bees and other pollinators are linked to neonicotinoids and neonicotinoid-treated seeds. (See What the Science Shows on Biodiversity for more information on the effect of pesticides on pollinators and other beneficial organisms.)

As the current study authors point out, neonicotinoids in Europe were banned in 2018 but continue to be detected in the environment and contaminate organisms. For instance, studies find that thiacloprid is detected in aquatic invertebrates in the Danube River, as well as in honey samples, years after the ban. (See research here, here, and here.) Birds in Europe, such as the house sparrow Passer domesticus, have detectable neonicotinoid residues in their feathers. Residues in farmland birds, including gray partridges and Montagu’s harrier chicks, also show the persistence of neonicotinoids in nature.

Additional studies find thiacloprid in mammals. One study finds levels of thiacloprid in the urine of domesticated dogs and cats, while another shows residues in the hair of small mammals. A human biomonitoring study finds urinary neonicotinoids and their metabolites correlated with oxidative stress biomarkers. This widespread and persistent presence of neonicotinoids in organisms, particularly where their use has been banned, shows the long-lasting effects that need to be taken into consideration prior to permitting the release of hazardous or potentially harmful chemicals into the environment.

Methodology and Results

In this study, multiple generations of Swiss mice are assessed for potential changes in gene expression within the prostate with exposure to thiacloprid. The control mice and the pregnant mice with neonicotinoid exposure represent the F0 generation, while their immediate offspring are F1. The researchers further describe, “Both control and exposed F1 generation males were crossed with non-related, untreated females to obtain the F2 generation. Both control and exposed male progeny of F2 were crossed with non-related, untreated females to obtain the F3 generation.”

For the F0 mice that were exposed to thiacloprid, this occurred over 10 days during the embryonic period based on the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL), the lowest concentration of a substance in which adverse alterations of morphology or function occur. As the authors point out, “The chosen dose was approximately four times lower than the LOAEL established by the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] for thiacloprid for mice” and “~5 times lower than the human equivalent LOAEL dose established by the EPA.” The entire experiment, from the F0 generation to the F3 generation, was performed twice.

The results of the study show some epigenetic effects in both the F1 and F3 generations, while other effects are only noted in the F1 generation despite the persistence of epigenetic markers. The researchers explain, saying: “[I]t is likely that gestational exposure to thiacloprid induces some alterations in the F1 generation, causing an increase in proliferation, based on analysis of markers. However, the effects were not detected in F3, suggesting that most of the effects induced in F1 were not transgenerational but intergenerational.”

Other effects show variation between the generations. “We also noted that alterations in our studies in F1 and F3 epigenetic marks had opposite effects,” the authors state. They continue: “We cannot simply explain this phenomenon; we suggest that some unknown mechanisms compensate for the previously induced epigenetic alterations in F3 males. Similar opposite effects were observed in our previous study in prostates exposed to chlordecone. We suggest that compensatory effects could be promoted during fertilization.” This variation requires further research to elucidate the mechanisms at play, but continues to expand the current knowledge regarding the effects of neonicotinoids through solely laboratory-based transgenerational exposure and without any direct exposure as would be encountered in the environment.

Gestational exposure to thiacloprid increases epithelial hyperplasia in the anterior prostate in the F1 generation, as well as elevates the expression of mitosis. As the researchers share, additional study results include:

• “We detected increased levels of the mitosis marker PHH3 in the prostate of F1 and F3, and the expression of the oncogenesis (cancer-causing) marker Ki-67 was significantly increased in directly exposed F1 but not in F3 males.
• The expression of genes encoding transcription factors, hormones, and chromatin factors was altered in both the F1 and F3 anterior prostates.
• We observed that gene expression and histone H3K4me3 occupancy at promoters of Hox and several transcriptional factors were consistently changed in similar directions in exposed mice.
• Compared with changes in gene expression, alterations in DNA methylation at the promoters of prostate development genes were observed in F1 and F3, mainly in opposite directions.
• The H3K4me3 global level increased in both generations, which could be due to an increased level of mitosis resulting from a significantly increased level of PHH3, a marker of mitosis, in F1 and F3.
• The DNA methylation of several genes essential for prostate development was altered. Notably, the analysis of markers (Ki-67, PHH3, and HDAC1) showed the effects in F1 but not in F3. However, there are some alterations in Hox genes (gene expression, histone H3K4me3 occupancy, sperm DNA methylation level) and in some other factors, such as HDAC1, suggesting that certain alterations could be persistent and possibly impact the prostate at a later age in F3 animals.”

Previous Research

In a prior study, the study authors show that gestational exposure to thiacloprid induces transgenerational alterations in the male reproductive system. That research led to the current study to identify specific impacts of thiacloprid exposure on the prostate. One study links thiacloprid exposure to a reduction in testosterone in the blood serum of F3 males. Additional scientific literature (see here and here)also connects thiacloprid exposure to toxicity within the thyroid glands of mice, where it “induces alterations in thyroid gland morphology and interferes with the production of thyroid hormones.” (See Daily News coverage on thiacloprid here.)

Other research connects other neonicotinoids to prostate effects. “Specifically, it has been determined that the neonicotinoid imidacloprid (IMI) is toxic to human prostate epithelial cells and induces apoptosis [cell death] and oxidative stress,” the researchers note. (See here.) Another study shows that “IMI exposure affected the weight of the prostates and led to a decrease in testosterone levels.” (See Daily News coverage on neonicotinoids and prostate effects here and here.)

Recent research published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology (CRT) and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), as shared in a Daily News piece entitled Studies Find Genetic and Epigenetic Effects from Pesticide Exposure, Threatening Future Generations, documents the genetic and epigenetic effects to pesticide-exposed groups through early-life exposure and from transgenerational inheritance (passed down through generations). These studies highlight the complex nature of mechanisms of toxicity, as well as the various pesticide exposure routes that begin even prior to conception. Through a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on “DNA damage, cytogenetic damage, DNA methylation, or gene expression outcomes associated with prenatal and early childhood pesticide exposure,” the CRT authors link genotoxic mechanisms and epigenetic alterations to adverse health outcomes while the PNAS study shows pesticide-induced epigenetic alterations in mammals across 20 generations that “suggest the maternal and paternal lineages can both induce and inherit epigenetic alterations that influence disease (e.g., kidney, testis, ovary, prostate) incidence, reproductive health (e.g., parturition, infertility), and overall fitness generationally.”

The Organic Solution

As an alternative to neonicotinoid insecticides like thiacloprid, Beyond Pesticides advocates for the precautionary approach of organic agricultural and land management practices. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment, which protects all organisms within it. To learn more about the numerous health and environmental benefits of organic systems, see here and here.

Make The Safer Choice by learning how to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides. ManageSafe™ also helps to identify the organic management practices and compatible control options for pests in the home and garden. For more information on alternatives, see the factsheet Managing Pests Safely Without Neonicotinoids: For Homes, Schools, and Other Indoor/Outdoor Areas, created through the BEE Protective project.

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

Source:

Dali, O. et al. (2026) Intergenerational Effects of Neonicotinoid Thiacloprid in Murine Prostate Tissue Are Associated with Epigenetic Alterations in Homeobox Hox Genes, International Journal of Molecular Sciences. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/27/7/2921.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2026) While mosquito season is not yet here, Beyond Pesticides has launched an action to remind people and policy makers that mosquito management requires the enhancing of natural ecosystems, including bird populations, in communities and residential areas to reduce the population of these biting insects. The campaign draws on the science showing that an unbalanced ecosystem eliminates some of the most attractive and helpful allies in mosquito management—birds. Incorporating the awareness of healthy ecosystems in communities and yards into local and state policies and practices is a critical pest management tool.

The action calls on Governors and Mayors to ensure ecological management of mosquitoes by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten mosquito predators.

An article, “The Ecological Impact of Pesticides on Non-Target Organisms in Agricultural Ecosystems” (2024), captures the importance of land management and habitat to protect a a balance of organisms, including bird populations. The authors, in the context of agroecosystems but generally applicable, write: “Pesticide exposure reduces ecosystem resilience, changes community dynamics, and accelerates population reductions in a variety of organisms, including predatory arthropods, bees, and butterflies. Furthermore, bird populations—which are essential to agroecosystems—face a variety of difficulties as a result of habitat degradation, food chain disruptions, and reproductive impairments brought on by pesticides. Pesticides are harmful in ways that go beyond killing; they affect the physiology and behaviour of creatures that are not intended targets.”

While the appetite of purple martins for mosquitoes is well known, most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome–like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.  

Mosquito-eating birds include many well-known residents of our communities. They include, for example, wood ducks, phoebes and other flycatchers, bluebirds, cardinals, downy woodpeckers, swallows, swifts, robins, orioles, wrens, great tits, warblers, nuthatches, hummingbirds, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, chickadees, sparrows, nighthawks, and even the much-maligned starlings. Attract these birds to keep mosquitoes from feasting on you. 

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly by pesticide use and indirectly by the loss of their prey. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, over three billion birds, or 29% of 1970s numbers, have been lost in North America over the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase. 

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance, with leading entomologists identifying steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor of 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.  

Insectivorous birds are an essential part of global food webs that bring balance to ecological communities, but birds are not the only insectivores to feed on mosquitoes. Animals who contribute to maintaining ecological balance by consuming mosquito larvae and adults include insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, and bats. All are threatened by pesticides. 

On a personal level, you can nurture a safe haven for birds and other mosquito predators. And remember, there are safer personal repellents. See How To Repel Mosquitoes Safely. Spread the word to your neighbors on safer mosquito management with Beyond Pesticides’ doorknob hanger, Manage Mosquitoes This Season without Toxic Chemicals. 

Urge your state and community to adopt biodiversity conservation principles that include ecological mosquito management practices. 

Beyond Pesticides suggests that people Tell their Governor and Mayor to ensure ecological management of mosquitoes by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten mosquito predators.  

Letter to the Governor:
It is time to prepare for mosquito season, which is upon us, and avoid the use of pesticides to kill them. Not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, but it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds. Most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome—like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.

Mosquito-eating birds include many well-known residents of our communities—for example, wood ducks, phoebes and other flycatchers, bluebirds, cardinals, downy woodpeckers, swallows, swifts, robins, orioles, wrens, great tits, warblers, nuthatches, hummingbirds, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, chickadees, sparrows, nighthawks, and even the much-maligned starlings.

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly and indirectly by pesticide use. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, North America has lost 29%—over three billion birds—in the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Please note the overlap with mosquito-eating birds. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Leading entomologists find steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor of 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.

Insectivorous birds are an essential part of global food webs that bring balance to ecological communities, but birds are not the only ones to feed on mosquitoes. Animals that contribute to maintaining ecological balance by consuming mosquito larvae and adults include insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, and bats. All are threatened by pesticides.

The use of pesticides that threaten birds and others who consume mosquitoes is not consistent with ecological management of mosquitoes.

Please eliminate the use of pesticides that imperil birds, other mosquito predators, and their insect food supply. Please adopt biodiversity conservation goals that include: (1) ecological mosquito management including measures that recognize the benefit of preventive strategies, which establish source reduction programs that manage breeding sites on public lands and educate on the management of private lands, employ programs for larval management with biological controls, and eliminate the use of toxic pesticides; (2) prohibition of systemic insecticides and treated seeds, including neonicotinoids; and (3) land management on public lands–including hospitals, higher education institutions, schools, and parks—using regenerative organic principles and organic certified practices and products, to transition to a viable organic system that prioritizes long-term health of the public, ecology, and economy.

Thank you.

Letter to the Mayor:
It is time to prepare for mosquito season, which is upon us, and avoid the use of pesticides to kill them. Not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, but it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds. Most songbirds eat insects at some stage of their life. Many birds who eat seeds or nectar feed insects to their young, including flying insects that may be bothersome—like mosquitoes or flies. Altogether, birds consume as many as 20 quadrillion individual insects, totaling 400-500 million metric tons, per year.   

Mosquito-eating birds include many well-known residents of our communities—for example, wood ducks, phoebes and other flycatchers, bluebirds, cardinals, downy woodpeckers, swallows, swifts, robins, orioles, wrens, great tits, warblers, nuthatches, hummingbirds, red-winged blackbirds, grackles, chickadees, sparrows, nighthawks, and even the much-maligned starlings.   

On the other hand, insectivorous birds are threatened directly and indirectly by pesticide use. In 1962, Rachel Carson drew attention to the poisoning of songbirds in her book Silent Spring. Despite restrictions on the organochlorines used in 1962, North America has lost 29%—over three billion birds—in the last 50 years. Research shows that 57% of bird species are in decline, and mosquito-eating birds lead the list. Ninety percent of all declines were within 12 bird families that include sparrows, warblers, blackbirds, larks, swallows, nightjars, swifts, finches, flycatchers, starlings, and thrushes. Please note the overlap with mosquito-eating birds. Only waterfowl and wetland bird species show any increase.  

Meanwhile, the world is experiencing an insect apocalypse. Leading entomologists find steep declines in insect populations. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor of 60 over the past 40 years—there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined more than 75% over the last 29 years, according to research published by European scientists.  

Insectivorous birds are an essential part of global food webs that bring balance to ecological communities, but birds are not the only ones to feed on mosquitoes. Animals that contribute to maintaining ecological balance by consuming mosquito larvae and adults include insects, spiders, fish, amphibians, and bats. All are threatened by pesticides.  

The use of pesticides that threaten birds and others who consume mosquitoes is not consistent with ecological management of mosquitoes.  

Please eliminate the use in our city of pesticides that imperil birds, other mosquito predators, and their insect food supply. Please adopt biodiversity conservation goals that include: (1) ecological mosquito management including measures that recognize the benefit of preventive strategies, which establish source reduction programs that manage breeding sites on public lands and educate on the management of private lands, employ programs for larval management with biological controls, and eliminate the use of toxic pesticides; (2) prohibition of systemic insecticides and treated seeds, including neonicotinoids; and (3) land management on public lands–including hospitals, higher education institutions, schools, and parks–using regenerative organic principles and organic certified practices and products, to transition to a viable organic system that prioritizes long-term health of the public, ecology, and economy.  

Thank you. 

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2026) A literature review published in Chemico-Biological Interactions links pyrethroid insecticide exposure to cardiac dysfunction. Through a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous research through July 2025, the authors find emerging evidence that indicates pyrethroids induce adverse cardiovascular effects through pathways of inflammation, oxidative stress, and myocardial injury (damage to the heart muscle). “The meta-analytic findings of this study offer the first comprehensive overview of the cardiotoxic effects of pyrethroids, encompassing electrophysiological, biochemical, inflammatory, and redox disturbances,” the researchers state. “Together, these findings indicate that pyrethroids disrupt cardiac electrical stability and induce cytotoxic [killing or damaging cells], inflammatory, and oxidative damage.”

Study Importance

Scientific literature connecting various classes of pesticides to adverse health effects continues to mount, with synthetic pyrethroids emerging as a class of increasing concern. Due to their broad spectrum of activity, pyrethroids are extensively used in agriculture and land management but can persist in the environment and can cause neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, and cardiovascular health implications. (See here and here.) In particular, pyrethroid exposure is associated with increased risks of developing cardiovascular disease. (See studies here, here, here, and here.)

“Cardiac electrical activity is regulated by mechanisms that are highly sensitive to oxidative stress and inflammation, which can disrupt electrophysiological stability and contribute to arrhythmogenesis [the process of developing abnormal heart rhythms],” the authors write. Due to this sensitivity, studying the effects of pyrethroid pesticide exposure gives insight regarding how electrophysiological alterations are induced and can lead to cardiac dysfunction. The researchers continue, saying, “As oxidative and inflammatory pathways are known modulators of cardiac excitability and conduction, secondary analyses focused on redox balance, inflammatory markers, and biochemical markers of cardiac injury to better understand the potential mechanisms involved were conducted.”

Methodology and Results

In performing a literature review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the authors searched for studies across the Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed databases using a combination of keywords, including heart disease, electrophysiology, and pyrethroids. After reviewing all results through this targeted strategy, eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, fifteen of which were included in the meta-analysis.

The authors note: “The primary outcome focused on assessing alterations in the cardiac and cardiomyocyte electrophysiological and mechanical parameters, such as action potential, heart and cardiomyocyte contractility and ionic currents, and a secondary outcome was to investigate conditions that potentially influence cardiac electrophysiological parameters, i.e., inflammation and redox state. Biochemical indicators of myocardial damage were also assessed.”

The studies include investigations of various aspects of cardiac electrophysiology, including action potential duration, sodium current, and parameters related to cardiac contractility, as well as biochemical markers of cardiac injury, inflammatory markers such as cytokines, and the activity of antioxidant enzymes. The pyrethroid active ingredients in the studies encompass deltamethrin, beta-cyfluthrin, tefluthrin, fenpropathrin, cypermethrin, tetramethrin, and permethrin.

The results show that these pyrethroids induce cardiac dysfunction through altered electrophysiological effects, biochemical markers, inflammatory responses, and oxidative stress, among others. Notable findings include:

• Pyrethroid exposure significantly prolongs the action potential duration within cardiac muscles and significantly affects the force of contraction coefficient, both of which modulate cardiac output.
• In multiple studies, significant oxidative imbalance is noted with pyrethroid exposure. Both biomarkers and enzyme levels show alterations that can indicate oxidative injury and lead to inflammatory and cytotoxic effects.
• “Cardiac-specific biochemical markers were consistently altered across the studies. Notably, troponin I and creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) levels were elevated following pyrethroid exposure, reflecting direct myocardial injury. Some studies also reported nonspecific markers of cytotoxicity.”
• Altered gene expressions and chronic inflammation “can destabilize conduction and repolarization, increasing the likelihood of arrhythmic events.” (See study here.)
• “Given the role of inflammation in modulating cardiac excitability and promoting arrhythmogenesis, inflammatory mediators were evaluated in several studies.” Many levels “were consistently upregulated in response to pyrethroid exposure… Additionally, increased activity of nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells was observed, a key transcription factor that regulates inflammatory gene expression.”

Many of these effects are connected. “From a mechanistic standpoint, inflammation and oxidative stress are closely intertwined, the researchers explain. They continue: “Moreover, oxidative stress can activate inflammatory signaling cascades and modulate the function of ion channels through oxidative modifications, further exacerbating electrical dysfunction… These converging lines of evidence – electrophysiological derangements, structural cytotoxicity, inflammation, and oxidative stress – highlight the multifactorial nature of pyrethroid-induced cardiotoxicity. Each of these mechanisms interacts synergistically: for example, oxidative stress promotes inflammation, which in turn can disrupt ion channel expression and function, leading to arrhythmogenesis and mechanical impairment.”

Previous Research

Biomonitoring studies show that high urinary levels of pyrethroid metabolites are associated with alterations that lead to the development of cardiovascular disease. (See studies here and here.) The cytotoxicity noted in these studies, which occurs as a result of mitochondrial dysfunction, membrane destabilization, and increased oxidative burden, indicates not only electrophysiological changes but also structural damage and loss of cellular integrity. “When combined with electrical instability, such injury likely heightens the risk of acute cardiac events, including arrhythmias and contractile failure, particularly in individuals with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions,” the authors write.

Additional research links pesticide exposure to a “significantly increased risk of death in individuals with cardiovascular disease, such as coronary heart disease.” (See here and here.) Other studies find increased risks of stroke, myocardial infarction, hypertension, and arrhythmias in patients with elevated levels of biochemical markers of pyrethroid exposure. (See here and here.)

Aside from pyrethroids, other classes of pesticides are linked to cardiac dysfunction. One study published in Cardiovascular Toxicology finds significant associations between Gulf War deployment-related toxic chemical exposure hazards and various adverse health outcomes, including heightened risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVDs), such as “heart attack, coronary heart disease, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral vascular disease.” The study identifies a significant association between ASCVDs in surveyed veterans who reported over 31 days of exposure to chemical and biological agents. (See Daily News here.)

A study published in Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology finds that “higher pesticide exposure was significantly associated with elevated blood pressure and greater risks of hypertension.” More specifically, “[t]he results indicated that exposure to PNP [para-nitrophenol/parathion] and 2,4-D may contribute to an increased risk of hypertension.” According to data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), roughly half of U.S. adults have hypertension, which can lead to increased risk for stroke and heart disease, two of the top causes of mortality in the nation. (See more here.)

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

The Organic Solution

Eliminating exposure to petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, such as with an organic diet, mitigates disease risks including brain and nervous system disorders, cancer, endocrine disruption, and cardiovascular disease (CVD). A study in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology finds that organic food consumption lowers the risk of developing ASCVD. This study adds to the ever-growing body of science that has linked pesticide exposure to negative effects on cardiovascular health for many decades. The findings reinforce scientific understanding that heart disease is preventable and eliminating toxics in diet can play an important role in reducing a major public health threat. (See Daily News here.)

Beyond Pesticides has extensively covered the health benefits of an organic diet and organic systems. As shared in recent coverage, titled Benefits of U.S. Organic Production Highlighted in Evidence-Based Research that Supports an Expedited Transition, a study of organic agricultural systems from 1960 to 2021 concludes that “the outlook for U.S. organic fruit and vegetables is encouraging, supported by expanding consumer demand, government support, and improved conditions for international trade.” Another study finds that 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. (See here.)

Start by Eating with a Conscience and choosing organic food to protect not only health but the environment. Beyond Pesticides’ offers tips on Buying Organic Products (on a budget!) or you can Grow Your Own Organic Food. You can also make The Safer Choice and avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides to protect you and your family.

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

Source:

Durço, A. et al. (2026) Pyrethroid-induced cardiac Dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical evidence, Chemico-Biological Interactions. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009279726001389.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2026) In advance of opening U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Monsanto v. Durnell, Beyond Pesticides joined an amicus brief filed yesterday and led by Center for Food Safety (CFS), which challenges Bayer/Monsanto’s position that it should not be held liable for failing to warn consumers that the use of their pesticide products could cause cancer. The chemical company giant, along with the broader chemical and agribusiness industry, argues that they should be given immunity from litigation because their products are registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a claim that is disputed in detail in the amicus brief. Groups joining the brief include Consumer Federation of America, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP), Rural Coalition, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Center for Biological Diversity, Beyond Pesticides, and Food & Water Watch. 

Click to access the 17 additional amicus briefs filed in support of the respondents: Stand for Health Freedom; The American Association for Justice and Public Justice; Children’s Health Defense; 36 State Legislators; The Local Government Legal Center, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and International Municipal Lawyers Association; Former EPA Officials and Environmental Protection Network; Philip Landrigan, MD, MSc, Lianne Sheppard, PhD, Christopher Portier, PhD, Dennis Weisenburger, MD, and Bruce P. Lanphear, MD, MPH; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Public Citizen; United States Senator Cory Booker; Heartland Health Research Alliance; Farmworker Justice, Farmworker Association of Florida, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Migrant Clinicians Network, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, and Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network; Texas, Florida and Ohio; Farmer and Farmworker Groups; New Mexico and Seventeen Other States; Naomi Oreskes and Alexander A. Kaurov; and, Roundup and Paraquat MDL Leadership. Plus, please see the original brief and supplement brief of respondent John L. Durnell.

Over 200 groups signed on to a joint statement endorsing the underlying principles and legal standards in the amicus brief being filed today. Please see Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards. 

In support of the positions taken in the amicus, over 200 grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental, and consumer groups, socially responsible corporations, over 340 citizens from 46 states, and international partners signed on to a statement calling for policymakers to uphold chemical company liability for harming but not warning people who use their pesticide products.

Given deregulation and the dismantling of federal agency programs, advocates say chemical and allied industry campaigns in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress threaten to undermine the foundational rights of pesticide injury victims to seek restitution for harms caused by manufacturers’ products. Chief among the issues documented in the amicus brief are the numerous inadequacies of the pesticide registration standards and process of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which oversees minimum label warnings and language proposed by the registrants (chemical companies). (See here and here.) The brief critiques serious deficiencies in the regulatory review process, court findings vacating EPA’s decisions as flawed, and EPA-approved product labels that chemical companies use to hide pesticide effects that are known or should have been known to the chemical manufacturers.

Core Arguments in the Amicus Brief

Argument One: Monsanto Relies Heavily on EPA’s Glyphosate Registration Review while Ignoring that the Review Was Held Unlawful, Contrary to Core Cancer Science Standards, and Vacated by the Court.

This section of the brief can be separated into four main sub-arguments:

1. EPA has been irreconcilably inconsistent in its cancer-causing classification for glyphosate;
2. EPA has improperly written off the results of animal carcinogenicity studies;
3. EPA ignored its own expert scientific advisory panels as it related to following the agency’s own Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment; and,
4. EPA was compelled to correct its own cancer risk assessment violations after the federal court’s vacating of the 2020 Registration Review.

In the brief, CFS points out that “Monsanto relies—over and over again—on EPA’s 2020 glyphosate registration review decision and the 2017 ‘not likely’ cancer classification on which that registration was based.” A three-judge panel of federal appeals court justices, Judges Friedland and Wallace of the Ninth Circuit and Judge Boggs of the Sixth Circuit, “held EPA’s human health risk assessment was fundamentally flawed in its substance, as well as contrary to law and violative of well-settled cancer science standards.” In this context, the amicus brief critiques their arguments, as follows:

Response 1: In the first response to Bayer/Monsanto’s argument, the brief calls out the inconsistent decisions that EPA has taken in its designation of glyphosate as “not likely to cause cancer.” EPA relied on its 2005 Cancer Guidelines to inform the 2020 registration decision, as well as its 2017 human health risk assessment and its 2017 Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential (“Cancer Paper”). In the Cancer Paper, EPA determined that “the association between glyphosate exposure and risk of [non-Hodgkin Lymphoma] cannot be determined based on the available evidence.” This contradicts the Cancer Guidelines classification of “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” since it only applies when the data “is robust” enough to back up the position that there is “no basis for human hazard concern.”

Response 2: The second response highlights EPA’s clash with its own Cancer Guidelines by discounting “all tumors observed in animal studies as not being ‘treatment-related’ by improperly tipping the scales in favor of glyphosate” on four counts. The first count references the use of “historical-control data” in which EPA selectively chose data to “discount studies indicating that glyphosate my cause tumors” even though the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) responsible for reviewing the 2017 Cancer Paper concluded that there were “numerous instances in which historical-control data could add weight to tumor findings, but EPA never used the data in that manner.” The second count highlights “EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the SAP had pointed out to EPA that its draft assessments had improperly discounted tumor incidents only because they were not statistically significant in pairwise comparison tests, ‘when those same tumor incidences were apparently statistically significant using trend tests.’” The third count highlights EPA’s disregard of tumor results in lab animals with higher doses of glyphosate, where EPA once again violated its own Cancer Guidelines by “claiming that the tumor results were ‘not considered relevant to human health risk assessment based on the currently registered use pattern’” even though the agency is charged to “first identify carcinogenic effects and mode of action, so that later steps can determine the risk of cancer based on human exposure levels.” The fourth count spotlights that “EPA improperly relied on a purported ‘limit dose’ of 1,000 mg/kg/day, that neither the Cancer Guidelines nor EPA’s Health Effects Test Guidelines supported.” The SAP also arrived at a similar conclusion.

Response 3: The third response, which was already alluded to in some of the previous analysis, posits that “the registration decision ‘fails to abide by the [Cancer] Guidelines,’ despite EPA’s repeated invocation of them.”

Response 4: The fourth response highlights the serious nature in which EPA’s 2020 Registration Review is in federal court. In this context, it is important to note that “EPA has not made a court-upheld carcinogenicity determination for over thirty-three years,” going back to its 1993 Reregistration Eligibility Decision. 

For additional analysis, please see the previous Daily News here and here.

Argument Two: Monsanto’s Undue Influence Tainted EPA’s Assessment

There are several examples of pesticide industry interference with the regulatory system, specifically regarding EPA’s registration review process for active ingredients, like glyphosate. The brief highlights a 2021 report by The Intercept, The Department of Yes, as well as a 2019 investigative piece by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) and Carey Gillam, Monsanto Exec Reveals $17 Million Budget For Anti-IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer], Pro-Glyphosate Efforts, highlighting some examples of the decades-long pattern of regulatory corruption. These are just examples of various other reporting and investigations that highlight the following takeaways:

• “Ghostwriting purportedly independent scientific papers;
• enlisting EPA officials in charge of the registration review to undermine the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) “probably carcinogenic to humans” cancer risk determination and achieve “not likely to be carcinogenic” and “no risks to human health” determinations from EPA;
• working to “kill” or suppress other independent scientific research; and
• extraordinary broad efforts to influence the public and media discourse.”

The brief also references the 2025 retraction of what was once considered a landmark study on glyphosate used to refute its links to cancer-causing effects. Beyond Pesticides covered the significance of this retraction in the context of public record and related investigations into EPA corruption in a previous Daily News, Scientific Deception by Monsanto/Bayer on Display with Retraction of Landmark Glyphosate Safety Study. The study was revealed as being ghostwritten by Monsanto employees, with the data based only on unpublished studies from Monsanto, ignoring data from studies that more thoroughly evaluated chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity. The recent retraction “came years after internal corporate documents first revealed in 2017 that Monsanto employees were heavily involved in drafting the paper,” which is one of several examples in which researchers and journalists have exposed “the many ways Monsanto manipulated the scientific record, influenced regulatory agencies, interfered in the peer-review process and used deceptive tactics to shape how regulators and the public view glyphosate,” Stacy Malkan of USRTK writes. This builds on a 2022 report, Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide, exposing not only Bayer/Monsanto malfeasance in its “promotion” of its glyphosate-based herbicide products, including the notorious Roundup®, but also, the broader landscape of corporate efforts to white- or green-wash products that companies know are harmful to people and the environment. (See Daily News here.)

There is also a USRTK tracker and report, “Tracing Bayer’s ties to power in Trump’s Washington,” (see more), finds that there have been significant lobbying investments by the multinational pesticide corporation just in the past year, including:

• “At least $9.19 million on federal lobbying in [2025]”;
• “16 key administration officials with ties to Bayer’s lobbying or legal network. Bayer and its lobbyists have access to people in power at the White House, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and even those in high level positions closest to Trump”;
• “45 people registered to lobby for Bayer under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, and at least 13 outside lobby firms – seven of which are now among the highest-paid firms in D.C”; and,
• “More than 30 senior officials at lobby firms retained by Bayer have direct ties to Trump, having worked in one or both of his administrations or political campaigns.”

The report points out that the four main trade and agribusiness groups that promote and defend pesticide products (American Chemistry Council, CropLife America, National Corn Growers Association, and American Soybean Association) spent a “combined $22 million on federal lobbying in 2025, with 12 more outside lobby firms and 79 more registered lobbyists in the fourth quarter.” (See Daily News here.)

Argument Three: EPA’s Current Treatment of Pesticide Product Labels and Cancer Risk

This section of the brief can be isolated into two main sub-arguments:

1. EPA approves carcinogenic pesticides without cancer warnings on their product labels; and
2. Cancer risk assessments are not addressed by the vast majority of pesticide product labels.

On the first count, the brief highlights two recent analyses of EPA’s registration process, finding “EPA frequently approves potentially carcinogenic pesticides, but virtually never provides cancer warnings for users.” The first analysis conducted by CFS found that out of the 570 active ingredients (the ingredient in the formulation that manufacturers claim targets the organism) tested for carcinogenic potential since 1985, over one-third (35%) EPA classified as “possible human carcinogens”/ “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” (127) or as “probable/likely” human carcinogens,” while the labels do reflect this information for the most part. In a second review at the pesticide product level conducted by Center for Biological Diversity, there was a review of “more than 93,000 historic and currently approved pesticide labels for all active, so-called ‘end-use’ pesticide products currently available.” Cancer warnings appeared on “only 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1 percent) that contain an ingredient the agency has designated as having ‘possible’ or “suggestive’ evidence of carcinogenic potential.” For pesticide products EPA designated as “probable” or “likely” carcinogenic to humans, only 69 of 4,919 product labels had cancer warnings.

For the second count, the brief underscores that “EPA only conducts scientific assessments of toxicity, including carcinogenicity, at the active ingredient level.” It continues: “EPA’s approval of registrant-drafted pesticide product labels does not include a cancer risk assessment, let alone any ‘findings’ by EPA of cancer safety.” Since the registrant is charged with supplying EPA with relevant information for label changes, it is important to note that EPA does not ask for a cancer warning nor “evaluates whether one is warranted.” EPA relies on existing data from the underlying registration to make its determinations, which in this case is the 1993 registration eligibility document.

Argument Four: EPA’s Pesticide Risk Review Is Neither Rigorous nor Continuous, Contrary to Monsanto’s Claims

This section of the brief can be isolated into three main sub-arguments:

1. “Conditional” registrations underscore a gaping hole in the pesticide registration review process;
2. Regardless of conditional or unconditional, there are major gaps in the risk assessment process in terms of testing whole formulation, failure to assess dermal exposure, consideration of acute versus chronic harms, and waivers of “required” studies, among others; and,
3. EPA’s enforcement failure, delay, and inaction, particularly on glyphosate and other active ingredients.

In terms of the first count of this argument, the latest analysis publicly available is from a Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2013, which found that, “EPA staff have misused the term ’conditional registration,’ incorrectly classifying pesticide registrations as conditional when, for example, they require a label change, which is not a basis in statute for a conditional registration.” The Natural Resources Defense Council (2013) found that “as many as 65 percent of more than 16,000 pesticides were first approved for the market using this [conditional registration] loophole.” Both reports indicate that the actual number of conditional registrations is difficult to gauge. The brief continues: “While EPA claims to be improving these systems, its product registration database shows that from 2011 to 2023, 49% of EPA-issued product registrations were still conditional.” What was meant to be the exception has become the norm, undermining trust in the rigor of the registration review process more broadly.

The second count delves into a variety of issues with the pesticide registration review process, which can be explored further in depth starting on page 32 of the brief. Beyond Pesticides has covered gaps in the registration review process extensively, including requirements that EPA conduct a registration review of all pesticide active ingredients every 15 years. As Beyond Pesticides has stated, EPA’s rationale for registration review—that “science is constantly evolving, and new scientific information can come to light at any time and change our understanding of potential effects from pesticides,”—should guide the agency in its decisions, especially when previous decisions have depended on limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or adverse incidents reported. 

While Beyond Pesticides advocates for the allowance of substances compatible with organic standards that are protective of human health, biodiversity, and healthy ecosystems, it urges EPA to establish rigorous standards in its registration review of all materials. Currently, there is not only an absence of consideration for alternatives when reviewing pesticide active ingredients but also a lack of full consideration for endocrine disruption, endangered species, chemically sensitive populations, “inert” ingredients, aggregate and cumulative risks, and synergistic effects, just to name a few. (See more on regulatory deficiencies and EPA failures here and here.)

Scientists and advocates have long asked EPA to evaluate and regulate full formulations of pesticides, and their mixtures, instead of assessing active ingredients singularly. As the body of knowledge evolves, so must the systems for assessments that are meant to inform decisions that have a wide impact on human and ecosystem health, advocates say. The complex interactions among pesticide mixtures are not fully understood but represent a significant threat to human health. EPA fails to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world and risk assessments continue to be highly criticized as inadequately addressing the full range of adverse effects that put human health and the health of all organisms at risk. For more information, see Daily News Human Health Disregarded with Obsolete Regulations and Risk Management, Researchers Find.

The third count, simply put, highlights that EPA has failed to abide by its own standards in terms of reviewing pesticides every 15 years to determine whether they are still in compliance with FIFRA. “Despite its first approval in 1974, and a drastic increase in use and critical scientific evidence since 1993, EPA has yet to complete even one (lawful) registration review for the most widely used pesticide on the planet,” says the amicus brief. The amicus also references various other active ingredients that have failed to undergo full reviews, including dicamba, 2,4-D, and carbaryl. Monsanto claims that registrants are charged with reporting adverse effects of their registered products; however, “that does not include a warning trigger or even label review. This duty is only as useful as what the registrants choose to submit and includes no affirmative mechanism to update labeling.”

Over the lifetime of EPA’s existence, the agency has only canceled between 37 and 40 active ingredients, with EPA only issuing emergency suspensions twice in its history (the herbicides Dacthal (DCPA) in 2024 and 2,4,5-T, one of the building blocks of chemical weapon Agent Orange, in 1979). See Daily News here for further details on the significance of the Dacthal suspension.

The Chemical Manufacturer Controls the Label, Ultimately

Despite having information on pesticide carcinogenicity, EPA does not require, under its minimum standards of disclosure on the pesticide product label, anything other than warnings of acute or shorter-term effects of pesticides and related mitigation measures like personal protective equipment. This means that more comprehensive label warnings must be requested by the chemical manufacturer registering the pesticide that knows or should know of the longer-term effects. The brief states: “Contrary to Monsanto’s misrepresentations, EPA’s approval of registrant-drafted pesticide product labels does not include a cancer risk assessment, let alone any ‘findings’ by EPA of cancer safety. They simply refer back to the underlying registration decision (here, from 33+ years ago). Under EPA’s regulations, registrants effectively control the label, not EPA, and if they don’t ask for a cancer warning, EPA never evaluates whether one is warranted.”

Call to Action

You can sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to stay notified on ways you can take action to expand public investments and programs that expand organic land management, in agricultural contexts and on public green spaces, parks, and playing fields, to move beyond a reliance on synthetic materials.

After President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 and issued an Executive Order (EO), Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides, U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) stood up to say “no.” They introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the February 18 Executive Order, which is now being supported by a campaign to urge Congressional Representatives to cosponsor the bill.

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

Source: CFS et al. Amicus Brief

(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2026) Researchers at the University of Washington and members of the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board published a commentary piece in Clinical Therapeutics highlighting the growing inadequacy of state-level regulatory safeguards for pesticide contamination of cannabis products. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is unable to assess pesticide residues, nor is it permitted to set tolerance limits under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), because, according to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), cannabis is a Schedule 1 narcotic, meaning there is “no accepted medical use.” As a result, EPA cannot conduct a full assessment of pesticide exposure associated with inhalation, ingestion, and dermal (skin) adsorption. There is an ongoing rescheduling process that was proposed in 2024 and followed up with an executive order in late 2025 to transition cannabis toward Schedule III status, suggesting that there would be an opening for EPA to promulgate rulemaking to support state-level regulations if it were to move forward.

An analysis of active legislation in state legislatures for the 2026 session highlights the concerns—at least 14 states (including Connecticut, California, Georgia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) had bills to modify or introduce systems for monitoring and assessing pesticide residues in medical and/or recreational cannabis.

Farmers, public health and environmental advocates, and medical cannabis users continue to call for a transition to organic cannabis production to ensure that consumers are not victimized with long-term health effects associated with pesticide poisoning via multiple exposure pathways, including inhalation, ingestion, and dermal. Medical cannabis users are an at-risk subpopulation who are prescribed the product for an adverse health effect or chronic health conditions, which emphasizes the importance of regulations that require a cumulative risk assessment that aggregates dietary and nondietary exposure, including any residues in the cannabis. Without this assessment, as required by law, Beyond Pesticides has told states that allowing anything other than organic cannabis production practices puts users at serious risk from pesticide exposure.

Background and Review

The study provides a lay-of-the-land for state-level regulations on pesticides as of February 2026, highlighting the risk of adverse health effects associated with pesticide exposure for medical cannabis consumers, and including recommendations for policy, medical, and research priorities in this area. Since this analysis was not developed solely for academic purposes, it relies on a partnership with “researchers at the regulatory agency that oversees enforcement and rules of cannabis pesticide use; a microbiologist at the health agency which administers the Medical Cannabis Program; a chemist at the agriculture agency that oversees pesticide testing and the accreditation of the cannabis testing laboratories; and an established Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) working as a primary care physician and clinical instructor at the University of Washington.”

Similar to EPA’s hamstrung authority to set “allowable levels of pesticide residues” for cannabis products (including medical cannabis), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are unable to track pesticide contamination due to its status as a Schedule I narcotic by the Department of Justice. In this context, state governments have leaned on EPA limits for other crops perceived as analogous to cannabis production or setting up a unique threshold system for each active ingredient, such as Oregon Health Authority’s four-stage criteria developed by health professionals in 2015: (1) general human toxicity, (2) analytical capability, (3) detection frequency in cannabis, and (4) pesticide availability. Several other states, including Washington, adopted this system, although the focus was limited to 59 active ingredients (out of over 1,200 active ingredients registered with EPA.)

Because of the multiple exposure patterns, including inhalation, of any pesticides used in cannabis production, establishing exposure patterns based on pesticide uses on other crops raises potential exposure assessment gaps. The authors acknowledge these research and policy gaps and the multiple exposure pathways specific to cannabis products, addressed in more detail in  the next section.) The researchers also cite the potential for byproducts from “combustion or heating” of cannabis. One peer-reviewed study they referenced includes myclobutanil, “a fungicide that decomposes into several toxic byproducts when heated, such as hydrogen cyanide.” The researchers cite various studies highlighting the disproportionate effects of pesticide contamination in medical cannabis among patients who are already immunocompromised. A study, published in Current Research in Toxicology, reviewed state-level data across 33 states and the District of Columbia on this intersection and found that “pesticides [were] detected in legal cannabis products had known neurotoxic, endocrine disrupting, or carcinogenic properties, raising concerns for medical cannabis patients with neurological diseases.”

There is also evidence, as published in Annals of Work Exposures and Health, that “medical cannabis products may have higher levels of pesticides than nonmedical products” based on Oregon medical cannabis and pesticide residue data, finding that “medical products had mean residual pesticide concentrations that were 3– 12 times higher than nonmedical products.”

The authors arrive at the following high-level conclusions in their commentary:

• Many state regulatory agencies, in the context of federal inaction, have set up pesticide residue testing for medical cannabis, however they lack “(1) cannabis-specific human health research to inform pesticide regulations and (2) the capacity to conduct their own pesticide health research, including research using products being sold in their state.”
• A national coalition must be formed to “share best practices and latest research, identify funding opportunities and areas for increasing efficiency and collaboration, and prioritize research efforts that would be most impactful to informing cannabis policymaking and regulatory decisions around pesticides.”
• With the explosion of medical cannabis legalization across the country, studies are needed to consider “the route of administration” (with consideration around burning/combustion), product type (flower, oil, edibles, etc.) to consider exposure pathway(s), and dosing (frequency and concentration of cannabinoids like THC).
• Health professionals, in research and practice, should assess “if people with qualifying health conditions for medical cannabis are at higher risk of exposure to pesticides as well as downstream adverse consequences of chronic exposure to those pesticides.” It is important to note that they recommend consideration of “risk of aggregate cumulative exposures that could come from exposure to multiple, similar, or different classes of pesticides from multiple routes since the health risks of pesticides are often accumulated over time from various sources.”

Previous Coverage

California became one of the first states in the country to establish a residue testing system for pesticides in 2018. (See Daily News here.) There are some experts concerned that the state has not gone far enough in protecting the public from harmful pesticides. Among them is Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. In particular, he says, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) calculation of allowable residues on ingestible products lacks a key scientific consideration. “If this were registered under a federal system, what the agency would have to do is perform an aggregate risk assessment for chemicals that have a common method of toxicity,” he notes in Into the Weeds: Regulating Pesticides in Cannabis, a research article in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Since 2015, Beyond Pesticides has laid out health, safety, and environmental concerns related to the contamination of cannabis by pesticides (and fertilizers) alongside the need to mandate an organic systems approach to cannabis production. Yet ten years later, it appears nationally that California state regulators were alone in 2021 in moving forward with state organic cannabis certification. There are other marketplace-based cannabis certification labels that require comparable organic certification practices (see Beyond Pesticides reporting here and here). For more information, please see past Pesticides and You reporting here and here.

Months after publishing a June 2024 study regarding concentrations of pesticides discovered in legal (and illegal) cannabis products in California, the Los Angeles Times released a follow-up exposé highlighting extensive pesticide contamination, including from “hidden” pesticides that regulators have not monitored. The authors conclude that in California’s legal weed market, over half of the available smoking products are found to contain hidden chemicals—toxic pesticides present in products but not regulated or monitored by state authorities.

The Los Angeles Times analyzed the results from state-licensed laboratory testing of more than 370 legal cannabis products, representing 86 brands. In addition to the 66 chemicals required under California’s mandatory screening requirements, as described below, the laboratories screened for more than 290 additional pesticides: in total, 79 toxic chemicals were found in the products tested, 45 of which tested positive in cannabis products specifically. All but one of these “hidden pesticides” are prohibited from use on cannabis plants due to failing to meet California’s “use criteria” (see here and here).

Limited research exists on the safety of these pesticides when burned and inhaled. While pesticides used in tobacco production is often used as a reference for allowing pesticide use in cannabis production, a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report over two decades ago flatly stated that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not fully evaluate residues in inhaled tobacco smoke “because of the severity and quantity of health effects associated with the use of tobacco products themselves.” 

The contaminants discovered in cannabis in California include the following insecticides:

• chlorfenapyr 2,000 times over the EPA-permitted residue level and an insecticide that is not allowed for use in food or California cannabis;
• pymetrozine (839 times over the permitted residue level or EPA criteria), an insecticide not required for screening in California;
• trifloxystrobin (488 times over the permitted residue level or EPA criteria), a fungicide and known endocrine disruptor and developmental toxin;
• 2-phyenylphenol (268 times over the permitted residue level or EPA criteria), a fungicide, disinfectant, and carcinogen; and
• bifenazate (237 times over the permitted residue level or EPA criteria), a restricted-use miticide that is a questionable developmental and reproductive toxin and endocrine disruptor.

In the California black market of illegally sold cannabis, the Los Angeles Times article concludes that of the 16 products tested from unlicensed sellers, roughly half are contaminated above the legal limits. However, unregulated products are more likely to contain one or more of the 66 regulated chemicals, whereas regulated products are more likely to contain one or more “hidden” chemicals, for which there is no required screening.

The list of 66 pesticides on the state’s required screening list includes 21 Category I pesticides, which are banned for use on cannabis due to significant risk—any chemical detection results in a failed test. The 45 Category II pesticides have specific “action levels” for ingestible and inhalable products, where use is allowed under certain conditions if residue levels remain below the prescribed limits. For example, the insecticide bifenthrin, a possible human carcinogen, and acephate, a neurotoxic organophosphate insecticide widely banned around the world (see here). Note: the list of what is required for screening does not encompass all the chemicals that may legally be used on cannabis crops. (See Daily News here.)

The problem is not isolated to California. Marijuana regulators in the state of Washington issued administrative holds on at least 18 licenses due to pesticide-contaminated marijuana in 2023, forcing producers and processors to cease operations until now. This shutdown of legal marijuana businesses serves as a window into a broader historical backdrop of pesticide issues within the marijuana industry. Within Washington, pesticide concerns have been growing since a study in 2018 of legal marijuana farms in the state had 84.6% (of 26 samples) with significant quantities of pesticides, including insecticides, fungicides, miticides, and herbicides. Last year, a national study identified a list of contaminants in 36 states and the District of Columbia and found 551 pesticides in cannabis products.

For additional coverage on the history of pesticide and cannabis regulations in the U.S., please see the previous Pesticides and You article from 2015, Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options.

Call to Action

For decades, Beyond Pesticides has sounded the alarm about the highly-concentrated levels of pesticides in marijuana products, calling on state officials to require organic criteria for marijuana production and handling, especially in the context of medical marijuana.

You can continue to stay apprised of the most pressing developments on various issues and campaigns by signing up for Weekly News Update and Action of the Week—including a call to tell your governor to adopt policies that support organic land management and ecological balance.

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

Source: Clinical Therapeutics

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2026) A statement decrying chemical company secrecy was released today by over 200 grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental, and consumer groups, socially responsible corporations, over 340 citizens from 46 states, and international partners. The statement, released before the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow reaches the final deadline for submission of amicus briefs in a case in which Bayer/Monsanto argues, with support of the Trump administration, that it should not be required to disclose on its product labels the potential hazards of its pesticide products. Oral arguments in the case will be heard on April 27, with a decision anticipated in June. Decades of law have upheld the legal argument that chemical companies are liable for their failure to warn users of their pesticides about the harm that they could cause. Bayer/Monsanto is attempting to reverse years of case law and billions of dollars in jury verdicts and future cases in which the company has been held liable for causing cancer but not warning product users.

See statement, Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards.

Chemical Industry State Campaign
The chemical industry last year launched a multi-pronged campaign to establish immunity from litigation by those who have been harmed but not warned about pesticide product hazards. It has taken the strategy to 15 states to adopt legislation that provides immunity from litigation (prevailing in two and possibly a third), the U.S. Congress, and now the Supreme Court. For more information on the chemical industry’s state campaign for a liability shield, go to Failure-to-Warn Resource Guide.

Monsanto Supreme Court Brief
The Monsanto Company, founded in 1901 and acquired by the multinational corporation Bayer AG in 2018, submitted its opening brief to the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) last month, seeking liability immunity from lawsuits filed by product users who have been harmed but not warned about potential product hazards. The question before SCOTUS is: “Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where EPA has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.” If successful, the Court would be overturning (reversing) its 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 544 U.S. 431, which upheld EPA and state registration of pesticides as a floor of protection, without releasing manufacturers of the responsibility to warn for potential harm that is not required by EPA. Pesticide manufacturers propose the text for their product labels and EPA ensures compliance with its minimum requirements, which does not preclude them from disclosing potential adverse effects they know of or should have known. The main arguments in the Monsanto brief include: “FIFRA Expressly Preempts Durnell’s Failure-To-Warn Claim”; “FIFRA Impliedly Preempts Durnell’s Failure To-Warn Claim”; and, “Preemption Of Durnell’s Claims Is Critical To American Agriculture And Innovation.” For more detailed analysis of Monsanto’s position, see Monsanto Brief Introduced as U.S. Supreme Court Considers Liability Immunity for Pesticide Manufacturers.

The Farm Bill
The Farm Bill—the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567—reported out of the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday strips environmental and public health protections from pesticides, reversing over 90 years of environmental laws adopted by Congress to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment that stretch back to the first Farm Bill in 1933. The Committee rejected the Protect Our Health Amendment, sponsored by Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), which would have ensured that the final bill maintain three core safeguards in current law: (i) Judicial review of chemical manufacturers‘ failure to warn about pesticide hazards; (ii) Democratic right of local governments in coordination with states to protect residents from pesticide use; and, (iii) Local site-specific action to ensure protection—the safety of air, water, and land from pesticides under numerous environmental statutes. All Republicans and one Democrat (Rep. Adam Gray, D-CA) on the Committee blocked the Pingree amendment. See Farm Bill Strips Protections from Pesticides for Farmers, Consumers, and the Environment.

Glyphosate Weed Killer Called a National Security Need
After President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 and issued an Executive Order (EO), Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides, U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) stood up to say “no.” They introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the February 18 Executive Order, which is now being supported by a campaign to urge Congressional Representatives to cosponsor the bill. With the EO’s declaration that contains no supporting documentation or findings, the U.S. government is granting Bayer/Monsanto immunity from lawsuits for adverse health effects or damage associated with the production, transportation, use, and disposal of the weed killer glyphosate. See Bipartisan Bill Challenges Trump Giving Bayer/Monsanto Liability Immunity for Glyphosate Harm.

A History of Failure to Warn
Two analyses published on March 30, 2026 highlight the repeated failures of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to incorporate warnings on pesticide products for adverse health effects, such as cancer, even when the agency finds high risks. The analyses, authored by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and the Center for Biodiversity (CBD), were released in a press release entitled New Analyses: EPA Consistently Fails to Warn Public of Pesticide Cancer Risks. The analyses calls attention to the abundance of scientific evidence that links currently approved and legacy pesticide active ingredients to carcinogenic effects. (See analyses here and here.)

CFS’ analysis “found that pesticides have been allowed on the market with a cancer risk as high as one in every 100 people exposed, a far greater level than the EPA’s benchmark of a one in a million chance of developing cancer” and that, “Over the last 40 years, the EPA has approved 200 active ingredients that are ‘likely’ or ‘possible’ carcinogens.” The report by CBD adds to this, finding that EPA includes cancer warnings “on only 69 of 4,919 pesticide labels (1.4%) containing an active ingredient that the agency has designated a ‘likely’ human carcinogen,” as well on “just 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1.1%) that contain an ingredient the agency has designated as a ‘possible’ human carcinogen.”

Pesticide labels are meant to convey warnings about pesticide active ingredients yet fail to include a variety of adverse health effects that are shown in the wide body of peer-reviewed, scientific literature. Current pesticide labels do not adequately capture the data on human health and environmental effects of the actual products on the market. (See Daily News Study Finds Pesticide Product Labels Fail to Convey Toxic Effects to Consumers.) As the press release notes: “Both analyses found that the vast majority of cancer warnings on pesticides come from obligations under Proposition 65 in California, which requires warnings on products, including pesticides, that contain hazardous levels of chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. However, most Americans are not adequately warned about products’ known cancer risks.”

Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards statement
The chemical industry is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse decades of jurisprudence and shield manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticide adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. Briefs are due in the case by April 1, and oral arguments will be heard on April 27, with a decision anticipated in June.

The case before the Supreme Court, Monsanto v. Durnell, is preceded by thousands of successful lawsuits and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto for the company’s failure to warn about long-term hazards on their product label. After years of litigation, Bayer/Monsanto has been held to account by juries for the cancer-causing effects of its weed killer glyphosate (Roundup^TM). While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not recognize glyphosate to be cancer-causing, the International Agency for Research on Cancer finds it to be “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Because Monsanto sought to hide behind a weak regulatory review process, juries have issued verdicts that held the company responsible for failing to warn of the chemical product’s potential adverse effects. The Durnell case resulted in a jury verdict (in 2023) of $1.25 million, while the total number of jury verdicts and settlements may amount to over $10 billion in liability if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts and over a hundred thousand additional plaintiffs make the same claim.  

The chemical industry is seeking liability immunity under federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), questioning whether compliance with that law, in the Court’s words, “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by EPA, where the agency has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.” If successful, the Court would be overturning (reversing) its 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 544 U.S. 431 (see analysis), which affirmed EPA’s approved label as minimum protection, without releasing manufacturers of the responsibility to seek approval for a label that exceeds EPA’s minimum. Pesticide manufacturers propose the text for their product labels and EPA ensures compliance with its minimum requirements, which does not preclude them from disclosing potential adverse effects they know or should have known about. EPA does not require a cancer warning (or other chronic effects typically) on pesticide product labels, even when the agency and the chemical manufacturer have identified a harm, including cancer, under EPA’s risk assessment review that it deems “acceptable.” 

The Court in the Bates case made the important point that the notion of liability “emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items.” In an age of deregulation, the ability to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for warning of hazards is the keystone to minimum protection of public health. Accountability in the courts serves the interest of farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and those potentially exposed to pesticide products, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily. 

We, the undersigned, believe that the Supreme Court must affirm the current law that holds chemical manufacturers liable when they do not warn consumers on the product label about potential hazards associated with the use of their products. 

Signatories below:

ORGANIZATIONAL SIGN-ONS

100 Grannies for a Liveable Future, Iowa 
350 Bay Area Action, California 
A Voice For Choice Advocacy, California 
Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet, California 
Aggie Perilli Communications International, Pennsylvania 
Alpenfire Orchards, LLC, Washington 
Agricultural Justice Project, New York 
Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alaska 
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Maryland 
American Bird Conservancy, District of Columbia 
American Sustainable Business Network, District of Columbia 
Americlense Technologies, Massachusetts 
Angela’s Pure Salon & Spa, Florida 
Arkansas Valley Audubon Society, Colorado 
Athens County’s Future Action Network (ACFAN), Ohio 
Baltimore Real Estate Investors Association (REIA), Maryland 
Barnstable County Beekeepers Association, Massachusetts 
Bear Warriors United, Inc., Florida 
Bee Friendly Michigan, Michigan 
Bee Friendly Williamstown, Massachusetts 
Bee Kind Apiary, LLC, Hawai’i 
Beyond Pesticides, District of Columbia  
Bell Family Homestead, Michigan 
BloomHouse Earth School Warriors, Florida 
Boss Bodyworks, Texas 
Boston Area Beekeepers Association, Massachusetts 
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, California 
Cabbages & Kings Catering, Connecticut 
Californians for Pesticide Reform, California 
Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund, District of Columbia 
Carl H Ebert & Associates, Illinois 
Carolina Advocates for Climate, Health, and Equity, North Carolina 
Center for Environmental Health, California 
Center for Food Safety, District of Columbia 
Center for Progressive Reform, District of Columbia 
Champlain Valley Apiaries, Vermont
Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, Maryland
Church Women United, New York 
Citizens for a Clean Black Lake, Washington 
Clean + Healthy, New York 
CleanEarth4Kids.org, California 
Clean Water Action, California 
Clear Creek Land & Livestock, Nebraska 
Community Alliance for Global Justice, Washington 
Community for Natural Play Surfaces, California 
Cumberland-Harpeth Audubon Society, Tennessee 
Desert Herbals, LLC, New Mexico 
Droughtscape LA, California 
Eden Foods, Michigan 
Ekō, California 
Elders Climate Action (ECA) Northern California Chapter, California 
Elders Climate Action [ECA] Southern California Chapter, California 
Energymugs, Nevada 
Environmental & Public Health Consulting, California 
Environmental Site Developers, Inc., Connecticut 
Everyday Advocates, Florida 
Families Advocating for Chemicals & Toxics Safety (FACTS), California 
Farmworker Association of Florida, Florida 
FITNALL, Tennessee 
Food and Water Watch, District of Columbia 
For a Better Bayou, Louisiana 
Forest Creek Studios, Oregon 
Friends of Cathedral Trees Sanctuary, Oregon 
Friends of the Earth, District of Columbia 
Frith Music, California 
Flying Rocks Farm, California 
Gardeners Without Borders, Florida 
Global Green Initiative, Michigan 
GMO Free Kaua’i, Hawai’i 
GMO Science, California 
GMO/Toxin Free USA, Connecticut 
Good Neighbor Community Builders, California 
Gordon Hill Farm, LLC, Montana 
Grassroots Environmental Education, New York 
Green America, District of Columbia 
Green Oakwood, Ohio 
Green Party of St. Louis, Missouri 
Green State Solutions, Iowa 
Grow Native Massachusetts, Massachusetts 
Grow Safe: Non-Toxic Missoula, Montana 
Hawai’i Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Hawai’i 
Hawai’i SEED, Hawai’i 
Hillhouse Farms, Virginia 
Institute for Responsible Technology, Iowa 
Intheshadowofthewolf, Connecticut 
Iowa Alliance for Responsible Agriculture, Iowa 
IPM Associates, Inc., Oregon 
James’ 1Solar, California 
Jared Schreck LLC, Pennsylvania 
Jazz SLAM, Florida 
Jefferson County Farmers & Neighbors, Inc., Iowa 
Jim Schulman, Architect, District of Columbia 
Josie Hill Rentals, California 
Jpritikin Industries, Inc., Oregon 
Latino Farmers & Ranchers International, Inc., Maryland 
Lawrence Bird Alliance, Kansas 
Learning Disabilities Association of America, Pennsylvania 
Lindsay Suter Architects, Connecticut 
Livingston Law Firm, Illinois 
Local Food Production Initiative, Alabama 
Los Angeles Climate Reality Project, California  
Los Gatos Almaden Pollinator Garden, California 
Los Jardines Institute, New Mexico 
LT Enterprises, Tennessee 
Maddog Farm, Massachusetts 
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Maine 
Marion Audubon Society, Kansas 
Maryland Children’s Environmental Health Coalition, Maryland 
Maryland Ornithological Society, Maryland 
Maryland Pesticide Education Network, Maryland 
Massachusetts Beekeepers Association, Inc., Massachusetts 
Massachusetts Pollinator Network, Massachusetts 
McDaniel Honey Farm, Maryland 
Mellon Farm, California 
Mercury Press Inc., California 
Mindflow Media, Tennessee 
Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter, Minnesota 
Missouri River Bird Observatory, Missouri 
Monroe Science Educational Services, Maryland 
Morningstar NEWS, Texas 
Mosquito Brigade, Florida 
Mothers Out Front, National, Massachusetts 
Natural Grocers, Colorado 
Naturalist For You, California 
Naturepedic Organic Mattresses, Ohio 
New Day Landmark Collective, Arkansas 
New Earth Home and Garden, Michigan 
Non Toxic Communities, New Hampshire 
Non Toxic Portsmouth, New Hampshire 
Norfolk County Beekeepers Association, Massachusetts 
Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Massachusetts 
Northeast Organic Farming Association, Interstate Council, New York 
Northeast Organic Farming Association, Massachusetts Chapter, Massachusetts 
Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire (NOFA-NH), New Hampshire 
Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey (NOFA NJ), New Jersey 
Northstar Nurseries, Washington 
Northwest Arkansas Audubon Society, Arkansas 
Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides, Oregon 
Oasis Spiritual Coaching & Shamanic Healing, Pennsylvania 
Orange Grove Friends Meeting, Community Garden, California 
Pamela Hall Real Estate, LLC, Florida 
People Organized in Defense of Earth and Her Resources (PODER), Texas 
Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network (PAN), California 
Piermont Marsh Alliance, New York 
Piermont Pier Alliance New York 
Pikes Peak Permaculture, Colorado 
Plant-Based Advocates, California 
Pollinator Friendly Alliance, Minnesota 
Pollinator Stewardship Council, Colorado 
Portland Protectors, Maine 
People and Pollinators Action Network (PPAN), Colorado 
Progressive Action Coalition for Equity (PACE), Minnesota 
Project Reuse, Hawai’i 
Protect Our Pollinators, Connecticut 
Protect the Peninsula’s Future, Washington 
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Maryland 
Rachel Carson Council, Maryland 
Replenishing the Earth, Missouri 
Responsible Growth Management Coalition, Florida 
Re:wild Your Campus, Texas 
Russo Construction Company, California 
Saint Charles Borromeo Center for Homelessness & Healing, Oregon 
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, California 
San Francisco Forest Alliance, California 
SAS Holdings, LLC, Oregon 
Save the Park, California 
Seven Springs Farm Supply, Virginia 
Shenandoah Valley Faith and Climate, Virginia 
S.O. Bees, Washington 
Somewhere In Time, Florida 
Steve Savitz, Artist, New York 
St. Louis No Spray Coalition, Missouri 
Stockbridge Farmers Market, Massachusetts 
SS Enterprises, Montana 
St. Denis Studio, New York 
Stop Developing Florida, Florida 
Sudi McCollum Design, California 
Sumkina Bait Company, Georgia 
Sun-Up Farm, West Virginia 
Sustainability Solutions, Vermont 
Susie Q. Zoo, Inc., Florida 
SWFL Reset Center, Florida
T. Payne Farms, Illinois
The Kitteh Spa, Florida 
The Last Plastic Straw, California 
Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, Texas 
The Coming Clean network, Vermont 
The Paw Shop, Missouri 
Tonia Noelle Studio, Illinois 
Topanga Peace Alliance, California 
Toxic Free NC, North Carolina  
Treehouse Festival, California 
Vessel Project of Louisiana, Louisiana 
WE CAN U & ME, INC, Florida 
Web of Life Products, Colorado 
Wilco Justice Alliance, Texas 
Wildcreek Productions, California 
Wisconsin Organics, Wisconsin  
Wolfgang Metals Services, Pennsylvania 
Vanaheim Farm, Colorado 
Veggielution, California 
Vessel Project of Louisiana, Louisiana 
Yard Smart Marin, California 
Zapped Films LLC, Arizona 

International 

Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren, Germany 
Conexiones Cimaticas, Mexico 
Corporate Europe Conservatory, Belgium 
Safe Food Matters, Inc., Canada  

Plus, 340 individual signatories from 46 states 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2026) Through today, organizations, institutions, and corporations can sign on to a public statement calling for chemical companies to continue to be held liable for harming but not warning people who use their pesticide products. The statement, joined by grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental and consumer groups, and socially responsible corporations, will be released tomorrow—just as U.S. Supreme Court begins on April 1 considering Monsanto/Bayer’s claim that the company is not responsible for failing to warn those whose cancer was found by a jury trial to be caused by its weed killer glyphosate (Roundup^TM).

Groups can sign on to the statement by 5:00pm (Eastern) by clicking here.

In the case before the U.S. Supreme Court case, Monsanto v. Durnell, Monsanto/Bayer is seeking to overturn over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements and stop future litigation on their failure to warn about the potential cancer effects of glyphosate/Roundup^TM. If Monsanto/Bayer wins, chemical companies will be able to legally withhold information on their pesticide product hazards not required to be disclosed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Bayer/Monsanto wants to overturn decades of legal precedent, including a previous Supreme Court decision, which establishes EPA-required, minimum pesticide product label language, but does not release companies from their responsibility to disclose all potential adverse effects that it knows or should have known about.

Health and environmental advocates say that with weak federal pesticide law and ongoing deregulation and dismantling of regulatory agencies, accountability in the courts is the last backstop for warning people about pesticide product hazards—creating an important degree of accountability and safety.  
 
For background on the case, see Monsanto Brief Introduced as U.S. Supreme Court Considers Liability Immunity for Pesticide Manufacturers.  
 
Beyond Pesticides explains that the sign-on statement is being circulated to express a united front against the disregard that chemical companies supporting this case have for human life and a sustainable environment. While there are several amicus briefs being filed by various health, environmental, farm and farmworker groups, space to join those briefs is extremely limited due to the permitted word count. The signatories to the statement are expressing the need for a legal standard, which current law has provided, that holds chemical companies accountable and incentives the development of safer products. 
  
The invitation to sign on the statement is open to all  organizations, companies, and institutions that wish to join.  

Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Case in Monsanto v. Durnell
The chemical industry is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse decades of jurisprudence and shield manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticide adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. Briefs are due in the case by April 1, and oral arguments will be heard on April 27, with a decision anticipated in June.

The case before the Supreme Court, Monsanto v. Durnell, is preceded by thousands of successful lawsuits and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto for the company’s failure to warn about long-term hazards on their product label. After years of litigation, Bayer/Monsanto has been held to account for the cancer-causing effects of its weed killer glyphosate (Roundup^TM). While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not recognize glyphosate to be cancer-causing, the International Agency for Research on Cancer finds it to be “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Because Monsanto sought to hide behind a weak regulatory review process, juries have issued verdicts that held the company responsible for failing to warn of the chemical product’s potential adverse effects. The Durnell case resulted in a jury verdict (in 2023) of $1.25 million, while the total number of jury verdicts and settlements may amount to over $10 billion in liability if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts and over a hundred thousand additional plaintiffs make the same claim.  

The chemical industry is seeking liability immunity under federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), questioning whether compliance with that law, in the Court’s words, “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by EPA, where the agency has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.” If successful, the Court would be overturning (reversing) its 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 544 U.S. 431 (see analysis), which affirmed EPA’s approved label as minimum protection, without releasing manufacturers of the responsibility to seek approval for a label that exceeds EPA’s minimum. Pesticide manufacturers propose the text for their product labels and EPA ensures compliance with its minimum requirements, which does not preclude them from disclosing potential adverse effects they know or should have known about. EPA does not require a cancer warning (or other chronic effects typically) on pesticide product labels, even when the agency and the chemical manufacturer have identified a harm, including cancer, under EPA’s risk assessment review that it deems “acceptable.” 

The Court in the Bates case made the important point that the notion of liability “emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items.” In an age of deregulation, the ability to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for warning of hazards is the keystone to minimum protection of public health. Accountability in the courts serves the interest of farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and those potentially exposed to pesticide products, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily. 

We, the undersigned, believe that the Supreme Court must affirm the current law that holds chemical manufacturers liable when they do not warn consumers on the product label about potential hazards associated with the use of their products.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2026) In a study of birth outcomes in Arizona, published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, researchers find that preconception and prenatal exposure to certain carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids increases the risk of lower Apgar scores, a metric used to assess neonatal health at one minute and five minutes after birth. The results reveal that exposure to “several pesticide active ingredients at any point during preconception and/or pregnancy were associated with increased odds of low Apgar scores: the carbamates carbaryl and formetanate hydrochloride; the organophosphates diazinon and tribufos; and the pyrethroid cypermethrin.”

This multi-institutional study, led by the University of Arizona with researchers from Harvard Chan School of Public Health and UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, provides novel insights, as it incorporates pesticide exposure over a 15-year period both before conception and throughout pregnancy.

“To analyze associations of preconception and prenatal exposures to carbamate, organophosphate, and pyrethroid pesticide classes and 25 individual active ingredients with newborn Apgar scores to evaluate the relationship between these exposures and neonatal health,” the authors explain. They continue: “We used pesticide use registry and birth certificate data from 2006 to 2020, linked as part of the Arizona Pregnant Women’s Environmental and Reproductive Outcomes Study (Az-PEARS). Exposures were measured as binary variables and defined as living within 500 m of an agricultural pesticide application during preconception (T0, 90 days before conception) and each trimester (T1–T3).”

Additional positive associations between lower Apgar scores are noted for ethephon, phorate, and beta-cyfluthrin during T0, methomyl during T1, and esfenvalerate and fenpropathrin during T2. This highlights how residential proximity to agricultural pesticide exposure can threaten infant health, even prior to conception.

Study Background

While previous research connects pesticide exposures to adverse health effects, such as in the reproductive, endocrine, nervous, and immune systems of the human body and particularly in children, “[f]ew studies have investigated how ambient preconception and prenatal exposures to pesticide active ingredients affect neonatal health, despite the importance of studying sensitive windows of exposure.” Many studies of infant health include assessing biomarkers from birth cohort studies, which can determine gestational exposures to certain pesticide classes, but have results only within a narrow window of time. (See research here and here.)

In referencing maternal residential proximity to pesticide use with Apgar scores in infants, this shows the connection between pre-birth pesticide exposure and neonatal health. Apgar scores, with the highest value being ten, are calculated for newborns one minute after birth and then again five minutes after birth by evaluating characteristics that include skin color, heart rate, reflexes, muscle tone, and breathing. “Previous studies have demonstrated that this scoring system may have predictive value for short-term brain damage and survivability in preterm infants,” the researchers share. (See studies here, here, and here.) Additional research suggests that Apgar scores less than seven predict neurological disorders and respiratory distress.

Methodology and Results

The state of Arizona is one of only two states, along with California, that have a legislatively mandated public pesticide use registry (PUR) database for tracking of commercial and agricultural applications. “This study used the state of Arizona’s PUR, linked to Arizona birth certificates, to analyze the association of residential proximity during preconception and pregnancy to carbamate, organophosphate, and pyrethroid pesticide classes and their specific active ingredients agriculturally applied from 2006 to 2020, with newborn five-minute Apgar scores,” the authors state.

To connect the use of agricultural pesticides in areas near where the mothers lived (within 500 m), the PUR records were compared with geocoded birth certificates, provided by Arizona’s Department of Health Services, along with data from the Arizona Pregnant Women’s Environmental and Reproductive Outcomes Study (Az-PEARS). The total sample size for the study includes 1,141,806 newborns and assesses exposure to a total of 25 active ingredients within the carbamate, organophosphate, and pyrethroid pesticide classes.

The Apgar scores were obtained from birth certificates. While this included both Apgar scores for one minute and five minutes after birth, the study focuses on Apgar scores taken five minutes after birth as they are “stronger predictors of neonatal survival compared to the one-minute score.” The researchers continue, saying: “We examined pesticide exposures occurring at any point during preconception and/or pregnancy (T0–T3) as well as exposures during specific exposure periods. Each model included pesticide active ingredients with at least five newborns exposed either during preconception and/ or in utero and having a low five-minute Apgar score (<8).”

As a result, a total of 24,272 newborns had a five-minute Apgar score below eight. Prior to conception, 5567 mothers were exposed to a carbamate, 16,344 were exposed to an organophosphate, and 26,059 were exposed to a pyrethroid pesticide based on residential proximity to an agricultural source. “Significant associations were found for the carbamates carbaryl and formetanate hydrochloride, the organophosphates diazinon and phorate, and the pyrethroids cyfluthrin, esfenvalerate, and zeta-cypermethrin,” the authors report. This provides evidence that agricultural exposure before and during pregnancy is positively associated with lower Apgar scores and could threaten infant health.

Study Limitations

While this study provides crucial insights into a specific area of science that has not been extensively researched, there are a few drawbacks that the researchers recognize and point out. The methodology does not take exposure to multiple pesticides into account, which is a more accurate representation of how exposure occurs since pesticide mixtures are encountered as opposed to single active ingredients one at a time.

The authors also note: “The limitations of this study include that only carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids applied at rates that allowed for statistical analysis with sufficient power were analyzed; therefore, some pesticide active ingredients within these pesticide classes and other pesticide classes were not addressed. Due to a lack of available data, other sources of pesticide exposures outside of agricultural applications, such as residential use, occupational use, and dietary exposures, were not considered.”

In an interview with 19th News, one of the lead authors on the study, Melissa Furlong, PhD, assistant professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Arizona, adds: “This is just one metric of exposure to these pesticides, but it’s concerning because the general population is still exposed to these ingredients… The research would have implications for household use and for residues on fruits and vegetables.”

Previous Research

While there is limited scientific literature connecting preconception and prenatal pesticide exposure to lower Apgar scores, there is a wide body of science linking pesticide exposures to adverse health outcomes in infants. (See Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News coverage on infants and children, as well as the Pesticide-Induced Diseases: Birth/Fetal Effects resource.)

Cited within the current study, this includes:

• Studies (see here and here) link preconception exposure to organochlorines and pyrethroids to the development of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
• “[P]reconception exposures to certain carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids are associated with stillbirth, which may be a response to neurological or other damage in the early prenatal period.” (See here.)
• Higher urinary levels of diethyldithiophosphate, a metabolite (breakdown product) of many organophosphate pesticides, can impact Apgar scores taken one minute and five minutes after birth. (See studies here and here.)
• Infants born to women with lower acetylcholinesterase (AChE) levels, who live in rural areas of Egypt, have lower Apgar scores taken at one minute and five minutes compared to infants born to women with normal AChE levels. (See here.)
• “Several epidemiological studies of prenatal carbamate, organophosphate, and pyrethroid pesticide exposures have found associations with neurological and behavioral outcomes… This includes an association with developmental delays, ASD, and reductions in full-scale Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and verbal comprehension scores.” (See research here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Beyond Pesticides’ Resources

Learn more about the Hazards of Pesticides for Children’s Health and why Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix. Preconception, prenatal, and the first few years of life are critical windows of exposure, known as “windows of vulnerability”, that can lead to life-long adverse health effects. The Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database facilitates access to epidemiologic and laboratory studies based on real-world exposure scenarios that link numerous categories of public health effects to pesticides while the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management provides information on specific pesticide active ingredients, as well as alternatives.

Make The Safer Choice and avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides to protect you and your family. Start by Eating with a Conscience and choosing organic food to protect not only health but the environment. Beyond Pesticides’ offers tips on Buying Organic Products (on a budget!) or you can Grow Your Own Organic Food.

Be part of the organic solution by helping to transition to a pesticide-free world. Support Beyond Pesticides’ mission by becoming a member or giving today!

Call to Action

Beyond Pesticides is inviting organizations, corporations, and institutions to sign-on to the attached statement on the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case in which Monsanto/Bayer is seeking to overturn over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements and stop future litigation on their failure to warn about the potential cancer effects of glyphosate/Roundup^TM. If Monsanto/Bayer wins, chemical companies will be able to legally withhold information on their pesticide product hazards.

With weak federal pesticide law, and ongoing deregulation and dismantling of regulatory agencies, accountability in the courts is the last backstop for warning people about pesticide product hazards—creating an important degree of accountability and safety.

For background on the case, please see Monsanto Brief Introduced as U.S. Supreme Court Considers Liability Immunity for Pesticide Manufacturers.

Beyond Pesticides is circulating this joint statement to express a united front against the disregard that chemical companies supporting this case have for human life and a sustainable environment. While there are several amicus briefs being filed by various groups, space to join those briefs is extremely limited due to the permitted word count. As an alternative and to amplify our voice, Beyond Pesticides will distribute this sign-on document to the media.

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

Source:

Yang, A. et al. (2026) Residential proximity to agricultural pesticide exposures during preconception and pregnancy and associations with Apgar scores in the Az-PEAR study (2006–2020), Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-026-00849-8.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2026) A review of pesticide exposure from a family member working in agriculture (“take-home” residues) finds that pesticide levels in the home are elevated between 2.6- and 3.7-times. This and other nonoccupational exposure data from homes are drawn from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) prospective study of cancer and other health outcomes in a cohort of licensed pesticide applicators and their spouses from Iowa and North Carolina. Between 1993 and 1997, with follow-up between 1999 and 2021, AHS tracks occupational and nonoccupational exposure and subsequent health effects from pesticide exposure. The current study, published in Environmental Advances, reexamines a quantitative analysis on nontarget, “active-ingredient-specific” exposure to pesticides from multiple pathways—applying new criteria to AHS spousal exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos and the herbicide atrazine. The three pesticide exposure pathways include take-home, agricultural drift, and residential use.

Building on a 2019 study, researchers consider data from additional studies published between 2019 and 2024, “providing support that all three pathways contribute to pesticide exposure.” More importantly, the updated estimates of nontarget exposure to chlorpyrifos and atrazine are overall strengthened by the incorporation of new data, highlighting the pervasive nature of pesticides in the environment.

The secondary “take-home” exposure pattern highlighted in this study is not typically addressed in policy governing pesticide registration and the underlying risk assessments conducted under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). While FFDCA, in setting tolerances or allowable residues in food, requires a cumulative risk assessment for dietary and nondietary exposure to pesticides that have a common mechanism of toxicity (e.g., nervous system effects initiated by the inhibition of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase), take-home exposure is not included in the exposure calculus.

Methodology and Results

The goal of the original study, according to the authors (which include one of the lead authors, Nicole Deziel, PhD, of Yale School of Public Health, across both studies), was to develop “a data-driven algorithm for AHS spouses to estimate nonoccupational, active ingredient-specific, cumulative exposure in units of intensity-weighted days from multiple pathways.” The researchers use the same search terms to identify relevant peer-reviewed literature and systematic reviews from March 2015 to December 2024 to expand their review. They evaluate pesticide exposure measurement data based on indoor dust samples across the three pathways.

The algorithm was designed to assess relative differences (RDs) in the ratios of pesticide concentrations across different exposure scenarios. For example, RDs for agricultural drift exposure assess the ratio of pesticide concentrations between homes with or without occupational exposure to a spouse or household member. For more details, please see the Methods section, including the subsection on “Exposure database” starting on the second page of the study. The authors adjusted the algorithm in six ways to strengthen the relative weight of multiple exposure pathways for non-occupational exposure:

1. The relative weights of each pathway are redefined as incremental exposure above background levels of pollution, as this is more in alignment with the unfortunate reality that we live in a polluted world at its baseline;
2. Exposure inside the home environment is considered as a factor across the three exposure pathways, adding a more realistic representation of relative exposure intensity;
3. Exposure estimates are more accurate and specific now that the researchers use pesticide-specific median application days rather than generic numbers;
4. The increase in background data from nine to nineteen studies led to changes in the relative weight of each pathway in terms of exposure;
5. Information on known-use confirms specific uses of pesticides and assists in developing more accurate weights among exposure pathways; and
6. Pathways equations for take-home and agricultural drift now include frequency of use and years of exposure, with residential pathway adjusted similarly in terms of baseline level of pollution and time weighting.

“In summary, our updated literature review and meta-analyses allowed us to refine the non-occupational pesticide algorithm based on additional findings from the past decade to better characterize relative exposure rankings of cumulative exposure for our study population,” the authors write in concluding the article. They continue: “The resulting metrics will help us advance our knowledge of the health risks, including female-specific cancer outcomes, that non-occupational pesticide exposures pose to AHS spouses.”

In terms of take-home exposure results from this study, researchers find that there are 3.7 x higher pesticide levels in exposed households compared to the 2.6 x higher levels initially determined in 2019. In other words, this pathway is the most substantial contributor to nonoccupational exposure across the three pathways when applying chlorpyrifos-specific data to the algorithm. For agricultural exposure results, RDs increased as the distance from the field to the household increased, with 4.2 x higher pesticide levels when a specific pesticide is confirmed. In other words, the further the distance from fields, the lower the pesticide levels. For residential use exposure results, specific pesticide use data contributes to increased levels by a factor of 3.1. However, residential use exposure is generally less than agricultural use exposure pathways, although the authors note that the effect size depends heavily on which pesticide is used. Please see Tables 2-4 for additional information on the relative differences in exposure pathways based on the results of this study.

Previous Coverage

There are significant additional studies relying on AHS data that continue to sound the alarm on the widespread adverse health outcomes faced by communities exposed to pesticides.

For example, research study results “show greater diabetes risk” from exposure to organochlorine, organophosphate, and carbamate insecticides, phenoxy and other herbicides, and the fumigant carbon tetrachloride/disulfide exposure. A study, published in Environment International, evaluates nearly 4,000 diabetes cases drawn from AHS follow-up surveys between 1999 and 2021. Researchers find evidence of an association between 18 pesticide active ingredients and diabetes. These include two phenoxy herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-TP, and seven organochlorine insecticides (DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, toxaphene, and lindane). (See Daily News here.) A novel study, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology in 2025, is the largest investigation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in women to date, finding evidence of heightened risks when exposed to insecticides through AHS data collected from over 400 eligible women. “With nearly 10 additional years of follow-up and more than 3-times as many cases than previous AHS reports on RA in spouses, this study of incident RA provides robust evidence that some insecticides may increase RA risk among women,” the study authors say. (See Daily News here.)

• Exposure to weed killer glyphosate induces oxidative stress in the body, a key biomarker known to heighten an individual’s risk of cancer, according to research published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute by a team of scientists from the National Institutes of Health. The findings, which track study participants’ past use of glyphosate and exposure levels through urine, are particularly concerning in light of recent data showing that four out of five (81.6%) U.S. residents have detectable levels of glyphosate in their bodies. To better understand the risk borne by farmers, applicators, and the general public, researchers studied a cohort of individuals enrolled in the Biomarkers of Exposure and Effect in Agriculture (BEEA) study, part of the long-running AHS, which tracks how agricultural, lifestyle, and genetic factors affect the health of farming communities. A total of 369 BEEA participants took part, and four subgroups were established, determined by their reported glyphosate use. (See Daily News here.) In 2019, a different team of U.S. scientists based at University of California, Berkeley, University of Washington, Seattle, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, published a meta-analysis of studies on glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), concluding that the evidence “suggests a compelling link between exposures to GBH and increased risk of NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma],” corroborating findings by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). (See Daily News here and here.)

There are additional studies beyond AHS data that also raise concerns. 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 and analysis of clinical trials, as well as epidemiologic, case-control, and experimental studies—from the United States, Brazil, India, France, Egypt, Colombia, 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. (See Daily News here.) Use of the herbicide dicamba increases humans’ risk of various acute and chronic cancers, according to research published in the International Journal of Epidemiology by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2020. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

You can sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update to stay notified on ways you can take action to expand public investments and programs that expand organic land management, in agricultural contexts and on public green spaces, parks, and playing fields, to move beyond a reliance on synthetic materials.

Having a pest problem and want to go for the least-toxic solution? See ManageSafe^TM for addressing pest prevention and management for land and buildings.

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

Source: Environmental Advances

(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2026) A literature review, published in Diseases, showcases the wide body of scientific literature linking pesticide exposure to liver disease through both apoptotic (programmed cell death without triggering inflammation) and non-apoptotic (regulated cell death with an inflammatory response) pathways. “In summary, our study confirms that pesticides carry significant health risks and sheds light on the underreported mechanisms that can drive their overall toxicity as a whole and hepatotoxicity [liver] in particular,” the researchers state.

 In addition to analyzing the science on pesticide-induced apoptosis, the researchers “systematically illustrated an underappreciated mechanism of pesticide-induced overall and hepatic toxicity, i.e., the ability to induce non-apoptotic regulated cell death (RCD) pathways such as ferroptosis, necroptosis, and pyroptosis.” They continue, saying, “Importantly, our review stresses the contribution of pesticide-induced cell death modes to inflammation and immunity regulation in hepatic pathology.”

Background

Pesticides, as a comprehensive group, can be subdivided into classes based on their targets: rodenticides (rodents), herbicides (weeds), insecticides (insects), fungicides (fungi), nematicides (nematodes), acaricides (mites and ticks), and bactericides (bacteria). The use of these pesticides, particularly in agriculture, has skyrocketed over recent decades. As the authors state: “In 2019, the total pesticide market size was estimated to approach $85 billion. The constant growth of this market is emphasized by the fact that its size is expected to increase to $280 billion by 2030.” This expansive market, however, causes social and economic burdens, particularly with the wide range of subsequent adverse health effects that occur with pesticide exposure.

The pesticide classes can further be identified by their chemical composition, which in turn indicates “the cellular and molecular targets for the biological action of pesticides,” the researchers note. They continue: “Insecticides primarily target the nervous system, acting as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, nicotine receptor agonists, voltage-gated sodium channel inhibitors, gamma-aminobutyric acid inhibitors, etc. Rodenticides can act as anticoagulants or mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation uncouplers. Fungicides can inhibit energy metabolism, microtubule assembly, or synthesis of fungal sterols. Likewise, herbicides target specific plant metabolic pathways, for instance, inhibiting photosynthetic processes, as well as amino acid or lipid synthesis.”

Despite these varying mechanisms of action and molecular targets, many pesticides could share common cytotoxic (damaging living cells) mechanisms. One of the main mechanisms that has been widely documented is oxidative stress. This is “triggered by excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS)” and can be a driving force of pesticide-induced cytotoxicity. (See study here.) Research (see here and here) also shows that inflammation can lead to pesticide-induced toxicity.

This toxicity is linked to liver diseases, which is a large group of disorders that include nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), hepatitis, fibrosis, cirrhosis, liver cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma), and more. Liver disease is a leading cause of death globally, causing about 2 million deaths per year.

Understanding the effects of pesticides on liver cells is complex, as multiple mechanisms linked to liver disease are also linked to pesticide exposure. One study shows: “simultaneous involvement of oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired glucose and lipid metabolism in liver damage. Therefore, the hepatotoxicity of pesticides might be multifaceted and suggests involvement of a wide array of cellular and molecular events.”

As the authors state, “A compelling body of evidence clearly demonstrates that a wide spectrum of pesticides might facilitate the development and progression of liver diseases through altering lipid and carbohydrate metabolism, triggering oxidative stress, ER [endoplasmic reticulum] stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction in liver cells, stimulating apoptosis, promoting fibrosis, and inflammation… Although the links between pesticides, non-apoptotic RCDs, and inflammation in the liver are well-established, there is a lack of studies that directly investigate non-apoptotic RCD-mediated effects on inflammation.” This literature review aims to fill that research gap and “expand the landscape of the hepatotoxicological [liver damage caused by chemical substances] mechanisms associated with pesticides.”

Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death

A multitude of studies show how pesticides elicit hepatotoxicity through apoptosis. This research indicates that pesticide exposure is linked to “the increased risk of NAFLD, hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and elevation of circulating liver function markers,” among others.

Impaired lipid metabolism and lipogenesis (the process of synthesizing fatty acids and triglycerides) is attributed to pesticide exposure. Scientific literature finds organochlorines (such as dieldrin), neonicotinoids (imidacloprid), and pyrethroids (permethrin) can alter lipid metabolism. The fungicides carbendazim and propamocarb can also alter gene expression within the liver, disrupting critical processes. “In addition to lipid metabolism, pesticides affect carbohydrate metabolism in liver cells, which also impairs the functions of hepatocytes [main functional cells of the liver],” the researchers say. Exposure to the organophosphates dichlorvos, monocrotophos, and malathion can impact these cells, elevating risks for liver disorders.

Mitochondrial dysfunction also plays a role in pesticide-induced hepatotoxicity, which one study connects to exposure of chlorpyrifos, endosulfan, fenpyroximate, paraquat, pendimethalin, rotenone, and tebufenpyrad. Another study finds that the neonicotinoid insecticides dinotefuran, nitenpyram, and acetamiprid promotes mitochondrial dysfunction of liver cells and oxidative stress.

The link between oxidative stress and pesticide-induced apoptosis “has been clearly shown,” according to the authors. (See additional Daily News coverage here.) Research also documents the role of pesticides in triggering hepatic inflammation. One study notes morphological signs of inflammation in rat livers following exposure to imidacloprid, while another study finds similar results in mice administered chlorpyrifos. “Thus, a wide spectrum of pesticides triggers hepatic inflammation, which aggravates their hepatotoxic effects,” the researchers write.

Non-Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death

Stress-induced cell death can create an inflammatory immune response, such as those documented in pesticide-induced non-apoptotic RCD. In explaining the difference, the authors say, “Apoptosis is a non-inflammatory, caspase-dependent programmed cell death, while necroptosis, pyroptosis, and ferroptosis are pro-inflammatory, regulated lytic cell deaths.”

These three types of non-apoptotic RCD are “the most documented and widely studied RCD pathways in liver pathology, contributing to a broad spectrum of liver diseases,” highlighting the various mechanisms through which pesticides can cause liver damage. The researchers state, “Increasing evidence summarized in Table 1 suggests that induction of non-apoptotic cell death pathways like necroptosis, ferroptosis, and pyroptosis is a common mechanism of pesticide-induced toxicity.”

Ferroptosis

This type of cell death incorporates ferrous iron, with the hallmarks of ferroptosis, including alterations in the levels of iron, as well as changes in lipid and redox metabolism. Oxidative stress, impaired lipid metabolism, and ferroptosis are all linked to liver disease, with ferroptosis particularly promoting liver fibrosis.

“Our analysis reveals that ferroptosis-mediated detrimental health effects of pesticides are currently the most studied, and ferroptosis contributes to pesticide-mediated nephrotoxicity (kidney), pulmonary toxicity, neurological damage, cardiotoxicity, reproductive dysfunction, intestinal injury, and immunotoxicity,” the authors share. “Taken together, oxidative stress mediated by the generation of ROS and lipid peroxides is crucial for pesticide-induced ferroptosis.”

Necroptosis

Necroptosis is similar to and connected with apoptosis, as both pathways involve death receptor signaling. Usually, necroptosis is considered a backup mechanism if cells fail to die by apoptosis, but this process can also occur in isolation. Necroptosis can “promote progression of steatosis [fatty liver disease] to fibrosis and then to hepatocellular carcinoma” (see study here) and “accumulating evidence demonstrates that necroptosis triggered by pesticides might be involved in neurotoxicity and neurodegeneration, renal injury, cardiac dysfunction, and immunotoxicity.” Some of the pesticides that induce necroptosis include rotenone, chlorothalonil, paraquat, dichlorvos, imidacloprid, and lambda-cyhalothrin, with ROS and oxidative stress acting as a major contributor to the regulated cell death.

Pyroptosis

Pyroptosis is another inflammation-promoting cell death pathway, with a growing body of evidence that supports the significant impact of pyroptosis on liver diseases. “Recent studies on pesticide-induced pyroptosis have unveiled its impact on kidney damage, neurological diseases, intestinal and pancreatic disorders, and immunotoxicity,” the researchers state. Pesticides, including imidacloprid, fenpropathrin, thiacloprid, paraquat, malathion, rotenone, and propisochlor, are documented as triggering pyroptosis. Similar to the other non-apoptotic RCD pathways, oxidative stress plays a role in pyroptosis.

Literature Review Outcomes

In analyzing the well-documented connection between apoptosis and pesticides, as well as the smaller body of existing literature on ferroptosis, necroptosis, and pyroptosis in the liver, the authors find that ROS and oxidative stress act as key drivers of pesticide-induced cell death. This connects the role of inflammation in liver diseases to stress-induced environmental contaminants.

The authors state: “The current experimental evidence clearly indicates that a wide spectrum of pesticides can trigger non-apoptotic RCDs in different tissues, which underscores the importance of this mechanism. In this review, we have focused on the role of RCDs, e.g., ferroptosis, necroptosis, and pyroptosis, in the emergence and progression of liver diseases associated with pesticide exposure. Accumulating evidence summarized in this review suggests that these emerging forms of RCD might be involved in promoting and orchestrating inflammation, liver tissue remodeling, steatosis, and fibrosis.” While the mechanisms of pesticide toxicity are highly complex, this literature reviews adds to the mounting scientific evidence linking pesticide exposure to elevated disease risks.

Beyond Pesticides’ Resources

To learn more about liver damage and liver failure, see Daily News coverage here and here. The Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, containing nearly 3,000 studies, documents elevated rates of additional chronic diseases among people exposed to pesticides, with increasing numbers of studies associated with both specific illnesses and a range of illnesses. The Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management also provides information on specific pesticide active ingredients, with links to factsheets, health and environmental effects, regulatory status, key studies, alternatives, and more.

Beyond Pesticides’ mission is to protect public health and the environment by leading the transition to a world free of toxic chemicals. This can be accomplished through the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers use in agriculture and land management with the adoption of organic systems. Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic methods, as widely documented and supported by science (see here, here, and here), and take action to advance the organic movement.

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

Source:

Khairullina, Z. et al. (2026) Pesticides Drive Liver Diseases Through Non-Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death Pathways, Diseases. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9721/14/3/96.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 24, 2026) Published in Environmental Pollution, study results in the floriculture region of Ecuador find detections of neonicotinoid insecticides (NNI) and the herbicide atrazine in drinking and irrigation water. The biomonitoring data reported in an earlier journal article in the same region found a total of 23 compounds used as herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, their associated metabolites (breakdown products), which include organophosphates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids. (See Daily News here.) Researchers from the University of Iowa, University of California, San Diego State University, and Universidad de San Francisco in Quito, Ecuador, determined that 1 in 5 households (20.5%) have detectable levels of one or more neonicotinoids in drinking water samples surrounding floricultural agricultural operations. This builds on previous research underscoring the nontarget pesticidal effects in communities near agricultural operations where the chemicals drift through the air and move into soil and water.

Methodology and Results

The authors report that, “This study focused on household tap water in proximity to floricultural plantations and in the ESPINA [Secondary Exposures to Pesticides among Children and Adolescents] participants’ homes with a range of NNI and total pesticides in urinary metabolite samples of the children.” They continue: “Participant households in the water study were selected for household tap water sampling from the ESPINA study based on hotspot analysis for ESPINA children with high levels of pesticides in urinary metabolites together with ‘coldspot’ analysis of ESPINA children who had no NNI present in urinary metabolites in 2016.” The data on drinking water for this study were derived in part from a previous study covered by Beyond Pesticides in 2025, with reference to ESPINA.

The researchers also found that 57.6 percent of irrigation water samples had detectable levels of neonic insecticides, which were based on “their proximity to selected ESPINA households.” Across two irrigation channels, there were 26 irrigation samples selected across 2022 and 2023. The older channel runs through areas with a higher concentration of intensive agriculture, with the newer channel running through more rural areas with less intensive agriculture. For further information on the approaches to pesticide analysis, please see Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the study.

There are several additional notable takeaways from this study:

• Imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were the most frequently detected across the irrigation water samples. The following additional NNIs were detected in one or more samples: clothianidin (6), dinotefuran (1), acetamiprid (3), sulfoxaflor (3), and thiacloprid (2). Atrazine was detected in 3 samples.
• Across the six samples for the non-targeted analysis, 63 contaminants (including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and transformation products) were identified, with 39 of those contaminants “confirmed presence by reference standard” across water samples for drinking water and irrigation during 2022.

Previous Coverage

There are numerous examples of peer-reviewed literature that delve into the potential for pesticide drift and associated adverse health and biodiversity effects. 

When pesticide drift is investigated, it is most often the drift from agricultural fields that is examined. A 2020 study shows that off-target drift of pesticides from greenhouses is also a reality. This research found drift of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides from crop applications in Ecuadoran floriculture greenhouses by evaluating the acetylcholinesterase enzyme (AChE) activity, necessary to the transmission of nerve impulses, in children residing nearby. The team finds that children living in homes near greenhouses in which these insecticides (widely recognized as cholinesterase inhibitors) are used exhibit reduced activity of this enzyme and abnormal functioning of the nervous system. The study analyzes both the distribution of areas of flower crops within “buffer zones” of various sizes around children’s homes, and the “correlation coefficients” (statistical measures of the strength of the relationship between two variables) between household proximity to the nearest treated greenhouse crops and to variously sized areas of flower crops within 1,000 meters of homes. (See Daily News here.)

In analyzing the data present in an article in Data in Brief, concerning levels of pesticide biomarkers present in the urine of adolescents and young adults, which are linked to numerous health implications. The biomonitoring data, collected at two time points from participants in a longitudinal cohort study in the agricultural county of Pedro Moncayo, Ecuador, encompass a total of 23 compounds used as herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides and their associated metabolites (breakdown products), which include organophosphates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids.  This study also relies on the ESPINA data, which was initially established in 2008 with a goal “to investigate the impacts of pesticide exposure on development from childhood to adulthood in individuals living within the agricultural community of Pedro Moncayo, Pichincha, Ecuador.” With cut flowers as one of the primary exports from Ecuador, and an emphasis on rose and flower cultivation in Pedro Moncayo, data from this region incorporates exposure to a variety of pesticides from multiple chemical classes. (See Daily News here.)

A 2025 study in Environmental Entomology shows that habitat and open space near agricultural fields become a killing field of pesticides, threatening biodiversity due to contamination from toxic drift. The study detected 42 pesticides, including several neonicotinoids, which are among the most lethal threats to pollinators. The research reveals the complexity of pesticide flow through the environment and the inadequacy of current methods of protecting nontarget organisms, including honey bees, bumblebees, and hundreds of other species of native bees worldwide. The researchers on the study, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cornell University, and Michigan State University, put silicone bands on fence posts in open areas adjacent to highbush blueberry fields on 15 farms in western Michigan. Silicone takes up chemicals in the atmosphere, which can then be extracted and analyzed. The fence posts were placed at seven intervals ranging from zero to 32 meters from the blueberry field edges. They were left in place for three weeks in July 2020. (See Daily News here.) In a novel, continent-wide study of soil biodiversity throughout Europe published in Nature earlier this year, researchers find 70% of the sampled sites contain pesticide residues, which “emerged as the second strongest driver of soil biodiversity patterns after soil properties,” particularly in croplands. (See Daily News here.)

In terms of waterways in the United States, pesticide drift is of concern to various researchers. One example includes a multidisciplinary team of researchers at the University of Connecticut, finding that 46% of Connecticut waterway samples are contaminated with levels of the neonicotinoid insecticide, imidacloprid, one of the most widely used insecticides in the United States on lawn and golf courses. The authors relied on federal data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), state-level data from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT-DEEP), and a small-scale data collection study by the Clean Rivers Project funded by the nonprofit Pollinator Pathway, Inc. In their report, Neonicotinoids in Connecticut Waters: Surface Water, Groundwater, and Threats to Aquatic Ecosystems, the researchers provide the most comprehensive view to date of neonicotinoid levels in Connecticut and offer critical recommendations for future testing within the state and nationally, given glaring data gaps. (See Daily News here.)

Pesticide contamination has also been found to drift from the field into the home. A study published in Environmental Science and Technology finds that there are 47 current-use pesticides—products with active ingredients that are currently registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) —detected in samples of indoor dust, drinking water, and urine from households in Indiana. The herbicides (13) detected include 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), Alachlor, Atrazine, CIAT (Desethyl-atrazine), Diuron, Metolachlor, Metolachlor OA (Oxanilic acid), OIAT (2-Hydroxy-4-isopropylamino-6-amino-s-triazine), OIET (2-Hydroxyatrazine), Prometon, Simazine, Acetochlor, and Acetochlor OA; the insecticides (20) include neonicotinoids (Acetamiprid, Clothianidin, Dinotefuran, Imidacloprid, Thiacloprid, Thiamethoxam, NDMA [N-desmethyl-acetamiprid], and 6-CNA [6-Chloronicotinic acid]), organophosphates (Diazinon, Ethoprophos, Malathion, IMPY [2-isopropyl-4-methyl-6-hydroxypyrimidine], PNP [p-nitrophenol], and TCPγ [3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol]), pyrethroids (3-PBA [3-Phenoxybenzoic acid], 4-F-3-BA [4-Fluoro-3-phenoxybenzoic acid], and Fenpropathrin), and phenylpyrazoles (Fipronil, Fipronil sulfone, and Desulfinyl fipronil); and the fungicides (9) detected include azoles (Myclobutanil, Propiconazole, Tebuconazole, and Metconazole), strobilurins (Azoxystrobin and Pyraclostrobin), amides (Boscalid and Metalaxyl), and the benzimidazole Carbendazim. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

You can continue to stay apprised of the most pressing developments on various issues and campaigns by signing up for Weekly News Update and Action of the Week—including a call to tell your governor to adopt policies that support organic land management and ecological balance. There are also two additional actions you can take to help move practices and policy away from chemical-intensive farming in 2026:

1. Petition—Tell Food Companies to Reject GMO Wheat!
2. Tell Congress to instruct USDA to prohibit HB4 wheat and instruct EPA to prohibit the use of glufosinate herbicides on wheat.

It should be noted that both pesticides targeted for evaluation in this study are endocrine disruptors, which calls into question the regulatory standards that do not take into account adverse effects well below established threshold levels of exposure. Despite a Congressional mandate in 1996 under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) mandating that EPA establish a protocol for endocrine-disrupting testing of pesticides, the agency has never promulgated a regulatory protocol for testing.

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

Source: Environmental Pollution

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2026) After President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 and issued an Executive Order (EO), Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides, U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) stood up to say “no.” They introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the February 18 Executive Order, which is now being supported by a campaign to urge Congressional Representatives to cosponsor the bill. 

With the EO’s declaration that contains no supporting documentation or findings, the U.S. government is granting Bayer/Monsanto immunity from lawsuits for adverse health effects or damage associated with the production, transportation, use, and disposal of the weed killer glyphosate.

The executive order proclaims: “There is no direct one-for-one chemical alternative to glyphosate-based herbicides. Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity.  Given the profit margins growers currently face, any major restrictions in access to glyphosate-based herbicides would result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.”

This proclamation was issued despite the availability of alternative, productive and profitable, practices and products that are not dependent on the weed killer glyphosate. Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector have proven that the unsupported EO statement is false. However, the EO comes at the same time that Bayer/Monsanto is pushing to secure immunity from liability tied to its failure to warn glyphosate users of the potential for exposure to cause cancer and undercut litigation that has so far resulted in over $10 billion in jury verdicts and settlements. Bayer is also seeking immunity from verdicts through a provision in the Farm Bill that has passed the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, state legislation, and a pending Supreme Court case that is attempting to overturn current liability law. Glyphosate exposure has been tied to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other adverse health effects.

Nothing in the President’s Executive Order appears to meet the intent of the Defense Production Act and its stated purpose to protect “the ability of the domestic industrial base to supply materials and services for the national defense and to prepare for and respond to military conflicts, natural or man-caused disasters, or acts of terrorism within the United States . . .”

Meanwhile, in an analysis of public records, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a nonprofit newsroom and public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers. Researchers at the University of Oregon found that the rollout of genetically engineered corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years.” Their results “suggest the introduction of GM [genetically modified] seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.” The conclusions of this study emerge as fossil fuel advocates, including President Trump, are mobilizing to establish “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy and organic land management. While chemical-intensive farmers and land managers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic practitioners are experiencing the economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services, including the natural cycling of nutrients for plants.  

The ubiquitous nature of glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms is a result of the widespread application of this toxic weed killer in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening.  Both glyphosate and its main metabolite (breakdown product), aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), are detected in air, water, soil, and food, which results in multiple pathways for exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans. Over 750 herbicides contain glyphosate as the active ingredient (the ingredient in a pesticide formulation that the manufacturer claims is included to target the labeled pest), and it also plays a large role in the production of genetically modified (GM) crops, with approximately 80% of GM crops bred specifically to be glyphosate-tolerant.  

But glyphosate is not the whole story. The executive order also protects producers of phosphorus and phosphate. Phosphates that are fertilizer is important to chemical-intensive agriculture, but its mining—mainly in Florida in the U.S.—has numerous environmental impacts. Phosphate strip mining clears away vegetation, topsoil, and wildlife from hundreds of thousands of acres of sensitive lands and waters, evicting wildlife from their natural habitats, and producing hazardous wastes that threaten water quality and public health with heavy metals and radioactivity. The process of converting mined phosphate to phosphate fertilizer utilizes sulfuric acid, an extracted fossil fuel byproduct that contributes to the degradation of soil microbial life necessary for plant nutrients and pollution of waterways that support aquatic life. 

The campaign to “Tell your Congressional Representative to cosponsor HR 7601, the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act” moves forward.  

Letter to U.S. Representative:
Showing a lack of concern for the effects of residues of the weed killer glyphosate, classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, routinely found in food products, President Trump’s February 18, 2026 Executive Order “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides” (EO) grants immunity from lawsuits for glyphosate and phosphorus producers. In response, Representatives Thomas Massey (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) have introduced the bipartisan No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the EO.  

Nothing in the EO meets the intent of the statute. Without any support, the EO states: “Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would criticall   y jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity …[and] result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.” Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector are proof that this statement is unsupported.  

Jury verdicts and settlements on glyphosate exposure have told the manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto to pay over $10 billion to plaintiffs harmed by glyphosate. Tens of thousands of cases are still pending, and robust independent, peer-reviewed scientific findings link glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other adverse health effects. U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers.  

Researchers have found that the rollout of genetically engineered (GM) corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years,” suggesting “the introduction of GM seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.” Meanwhile, fossil fuel advocates, including President Trump, are trying to establish “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy and organic land management. While chemical-intensive farmers and land managers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic practitioners are experiencing the economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services, including the natural cycling of nutrients for plants.   

Ubiquitous glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms come from widespread application of this toxic weed killer in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Both glyphosate and its main metabolite are detected in air, water, soil, and food, resulting in multiple pathways of exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans.   

But glyphosate is not the whole story. The EO also protects producers of phosphorus and phosphate. Phosphate fertilizer is important to chemical-intensive agriculture, but its mining—mainly in Florida in the U.S.—has many environmental impacts. Phosphate strip mining clears away vegetation, topsoil, and wildlife from hundreds of thousands of acres of sensitive lands and waters and produces hazardous wastes that threaten water quality and public health with heavy metals and radioactivity. The process of converting mined phosphate to phosphate fertilizer utilizes sulfuric acid, an extracted fossil fuel byproduct that contributes to the degradation of soil microbial life necessary to support healthy plants and pollution of waterways that support aquatic life.  

The success of organic farming shows this attempt to bolster chemical-intensive farming to be unnecessary ad unsustainable. Please cosponsor the No Immunity from Glyphosate Act.  

Thank you. 

Letter to U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Chellie Pingree (D-ME) [Sponsors]: 
Showing a lack of concern for the effects of residues of the weed killer glyphosate, classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, routinely found in food products, President Trump’s February 18, 2026 Executive Order “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate-Based Herbicides” (EO) grants immunity from lawsuits for glyphosate and phosphorus producers. Thank you for introducing the bipartisan No Immunity for Glyphosate Act (HR 7601) to undo the EO! 

Nothing in the EO meets the intent of the statute. Without any support, the EO states: “Lack of access to glyphosate-based herbicides would critically jeopardize agricultural productivity, adding pressure to the domestic food system, and may result in a transition of cropland to other uses due to low productivity …[and] result in economic losses for growers and make it untenable for them to meet growing food and feed demands.” Organic farmers and the companies in the $70 billion organic sector are proof that this statement is unsupported.  

Jury verdicts and settlements on glyphosate exposure have told the manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto to pay over $10 billion to plaintiffs harmed by glyphosate. Tens of thousands of cases are still pending, and robust independent, peer-reviewed scientific findings link glyphosate to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other adverse health effects. U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit public health research group, discloses significant financial ties between Bayer-Monsanto, lobbying firms, and the second Trump Administration, raising concerns about basic safeguards to curb corporate influence over federal policymakers.  

Researchers have found that the rollout of genetically engineered (GM) corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years,” suggesting “the introduction of GM seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.” Meanwhile, fossil fuel advocates, including President Trump, are trying to establish “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy and organic land management. While chemical-intensive farmers and land managers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, organic practitioners are experiencing the economic benefit of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services, including the natural cycling of nutrients for plants.   

Ubiquitous glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms come from widespread application of this toxic weed killer in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Both glyphosate and its main metabolite are detected in air, water, soil, and food, resulting in multiple pathways of exposure to nontarget organisms, including humans.   

But, as you know, glyphosate is not the whole story. The EO also protects producers of phosphorus and phosphate. Phosphate fertilizer is important to chemical-intensive agriculture, but its mining—mainly in Florida in the U.S.—has many environmental impacts. Phosphate strip mining clears away vegetation, topsoil, and wildlife from hundreds of thousands of acres of sensitive lands and waters and produces hazardous wastes that threaten water quality and public health with heavy metals and radioactivity. The process of converting mined phosphate to phosphate fertilizer utilizes sulfuric acid, an extracted fossil fuel byproduct that contributes to the degradation of soil microbial life necessary to support healthy plants and pollution of waterways that support aquatic life. 

The success of organic farming shows this attempt to bolster chemical-intensive farming to be unnecessary and unsustainable. Again, appreciate your leadership on this issue! 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2026) Biopesticides represent a kind of Utopian destination in the landscape of agricultural sustainability. If only they could ensure planetary harmony. A review of botanical biopesticides in the March 11 issue of Toxics raises important questions that require scrutiny and review under the pesticide registration process and when used in organic systems under the Organic Foods Production Act. The term biopesticide can be misleading, and any replacements for synthetic pesticides cannot be taken only on faith.

As Beyond Pesticides has noted previously, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) definition of biopesticides—“derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals”—is broad, vague, and used differently by different interests. EPA regulates biopesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in three categories:

• Substances that interfere with mating, such as insect sex pheromones, as well as various scented plant extracts that attract insect pests to traps;
• Microbial pesticides consisting of a microorganism (e.g., a bacterium, fungus, virus, or protozoan) as the active ingredient; and
• Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs), pesticidal substances that plants are genetically engineered to produce.

The review by Sandra Petrovic, PhD, and Andreja Leskovac, PhD, of the University of Belgrade, highlights the need not to rush from one solution—synthetic pesticides—to the next—biopesticides—without careful analysis of their modes of action and environmental fates, or ignoring the potential consequences.

Drs. Petrovic and Leskovac focus on botanicals out of the array of substances categorized as biopesticides. The EPA categories do not clearly address the ways botanical pesticides can be used, which are far wider than scented plant extracts in insect traps. Botanicals are plant-derived compounds such as phenols, flavonoids, resins, tannins, and terpenes. These are often in the form of essential oils from citrus plants, cloves, and mint. They may be applied to field crops, in greenhouses, and after harvest during storage and distribution.

Botanical biopesticides present serious challenges to any regulatory approval based on simplistic assumptions. Essential oils may contain more constituent compounds than commercial pesticides, and many, if not most, are unknown. The environmental fates of biopesticides are incompletely understood, although proponents tend to believe they break down rapidly and thus pose no risk beyond their intended use. But the downstream fate of biopesticides can lead to synergistic or additive toxic effects even when individual substances are present below allowed residue levels. Breakdown products can have very different chemical profiles and effects from their precursors, including in their “persistence, efficacy, and effects on non-target organisms,” the authors write.

Botanical pesticides are often quite volatile. This makes them less likely to remain as residues on crops, which is a plus compared to synthetic pesticides. However, evaporated and chemically complex essential oils “can emit measurable particulate matter” and each constituent can degrade into potentially more toxic compounds. They may also react with natural volatiles and form ozone. Particulate matter and ozone are potent health hazards—in fact, they are criteria pollutants regulated by EPA—and more commonly associated with vehicle and industrial emissions, but their potential generation by biopesticides must be considered.

Drs. Petrovic and Leskovac note that while using synthetic chemicals and biopesticides together is often touted as appropriate integrated pest management, “much less is known about their combined application, the interactions that may arise between them, and the potential agronomic or health implications of such mixed-use practices.” They cite research showing that essential oils can increase the toxicity of pyrethroids, organophosphates, neonicotinoids, and pyrroles.

All this indicates that just because a substance is “natural” does not mean it presents no hazard or risk. For example, rotenone, a plant-derived neurotoxicant, has been used for centuries to kill pests and in indigenous hunting. While it is still allowed by EPA for limited use in controlling invasive fish, it is not currently registered for food uses, and the Organic Foods Production Act’s National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances includes a section that prohibits natural substances that are hazardous, including rotenone. Beyond Pesticides emphasizes that the review process leading to appropriate restrictions on rotenone must continue to be used for all “natural” pesticides.

In 2024, EPA proposed to streamline the registration review for several “low risk biopesticides,” including alpha methyl mannoside, a growth promoter, Duddingtonia flagrans, a fungus that inhibits predatory cattle nematodes, and Pepino mosaic virus, which protects greenhouse tomatoes from other viruses.

Last year, Beyond Pesticides called on EPA to ensure that this contemplated streamlining does not rely entirely on original or previous registration data, much of which is incomplete and otherwise inadequate and may have been based on “limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or adverse incidents reported.” EPA rationalized its registration of alpha methyl mannoside based on just such flimsy evidence. Similarly, EPA approved Duddingtonia and Pepino mosaic virus by waiving numerous data requirements and using “scientific rationale”—a euphemism for broad assumptions made without empirical support—about the likelihood of harm to nontarget organisms and ecosystem stability.

Another serious concern regarding biopesticides is the category of Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs), promoted by the pesticide industry as environmentally benign companions to synthetic pesticides. PIPs include RNAi technologies, such as the genetic engineering of Roundup-ready seeds. The “i” stands for “interfering,” which should be an immediate red flag. This technology is derived from natural processes that silence certain genes in organismal development and is the basis for a number of pharmaceuticals. It starts with double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) that splits into RNAi when it encounters a particular enzyme called “dicer.” The RNAi molecules then act to silence genes.

But RNAi technology has serious flaws. It does not always silence only the target gene, but can affect other parts of a genome in the target organism or in other, nontarget species. As one recent critical review put it, “There is no shared understanding of dsRNA sequences that trigger off-targeting.” And another, more enthusiastic review of RNAi technologies even points out that “the rapid evolution of resistance in target insect species now poses a serious threat to the durability and field efficacy of this technology.”

The same review details other downsides to the use of RNAis: dsRNA “may still affect microbial communities essential for nutrient cycling and plant health” despite its rapid degradation in the environment, and it “is not always fully degraded by microbes.” In addition, dsRNA can bind to soil minerals and possibly transfer through food webs, including among predator species like ladybugs and parasitic wasps that ingest dsRNA in treated prey. Further, pesticide researchers are exploring the delivery of RNAi via nanotechnology, which adds a new and vast degree of uncertainty to pesticide technologies’ effects on human health and the biosphere.

As Beyond Pesticides noted in its 2021 critique of EPA’s broad definition of biopesticides, “There is something counterintuitive in labeling something a ‘bio’ product (which connotes something ‘natural’) when in fact it involves genetic engineering—an entirely synthetic process.” Genetic engineering is not allowed under the USDA Certified Organic brand and label.

The regulatory systems of both the U.S. and the E.U. were developed for synthetic pesticides, and, as Drs. Petrovic and Leskovac observe, the “properties, modes of action, and environmental fate differ significantly” between synthetics and biopesticides. However, they add, this does not mean biopesticides should be given a pass toxicologically. “Instead, they should be regulated as complex chemical mixtures that require robust compositional characterization, standardized toxicological assessment, and realistic exposure evaluation, comparable in scientific rigor to that applied to synthetic pesticides.”

Continuing research suggests that careful development of biopesticides can result in much improvement over synthetics. See the Daily News regarding rose essential oil as a stimulator of tomato plants’ defenses against pests. The reported study used very low concentrations of essential oil and found that higher concentrations might be harmful. Beyond Pesticides also analyzed research on a biofungicide produced by orange peel and distilled without solvents, which can be very effective against numerous fungi infecting fruit and vegetables. These studies reflect the understanding that agricultural product protection must be holistic, taking into account both production methods and downstream effects.

Beyond Pesticides stresses that the current system is in a perpetual “chase” for the next pest “fix,” whether chemical or biological. The only way to foster stability amongst competing organisms is through balance, not total annihilation. This is what organic regenerative agriculture is founded on. Soil health and enhancing biodiversity are essential for “plant health, resilience, and prevention of disease and infestations….Organic advocates maintain that without a holistic approach, land managers remain on a pesticide treadmill and undercut ecological balance necessary in organic systems.”

Thus, in the search for food security based on sustainable relationships between humans and non-human consumers of desirable resources, there are two aspects of reality that no pest control system can escape: pest resistance and nontarget effects. Using “natural” tactics with the same old strategy will not work, because that strategy is based on the fantasy that technology can always triumph over nature, and that unintended consequences can be externalized. The pesticide industry has used this fantasy to its own financial advantage for a century. But technology’s triumph is always temporary, and cannot beat nature at her own game.

See Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Agriculture page.

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

Sources:
Biopesticides and Human Health Risks: A Critical Review
Petrović and Leskovac
Toxics 2026
https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/14/3/246

Beyond Pesticides Calls on EPA To Ensure Comprehensive Review of “Biopesticides”
Beyond Pesticides, January 28, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/01/beyond-pesticides-calls-on-epa-to-ensure-comprehensive-review-of-biopesticides/

“Biopesticides,” with Broad Definition, Challenged as Unsustainable
Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2021
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/08/biopesticides-with-broad-definition-challenged-as-unsustainable/

Biofungicides Show Promise in Agriculture and Land Management, Study Finds
Beyond Pesticides, September 6, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/09/review-of-biofungicides-highlights-feasibility-of-alternatives-to-hazardous-pesticides-in-organic-agriculture-and-land-management/

Study Bolsters the Case for Essential Oils (EO) in Organic Pest Management for Tomato Production
Beyond Pesticides, April 3rd, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/04/study-bolsters-the-case-for-essential-oils-eo-in-organic-pest-management-for-tomato-production/

Minimum Risk Pesticide: Definition and Product Confirmation
Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.epa.gov/minimum-risk-pesticides/minimum-risk-pesticide-definition-and-product-confirmation#confirmunder

205.602 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production.
The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances
U.S. Code
Title 7 Subtitle B Chapter I Subchapter M Part 205 Subpart G The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-M/part-205/subpart-G/subject-group-ECFR0ebc5d139b750cd/section-205.602

(see https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-proposes-streamlined-registration-review-process-several-low-risk-biopesticidesfrom) “minimum risk” pesticides (see
https://www.epa.gov/minimum-risk-pesticides/minimum-risk-pesticide-definition-and-product-confirmation#confirmunder) section 25b of FIFRA.