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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, adopting a fully organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in urine within just two weeks “by an average of 98.6%” and facilitate faster DNA damage repair relative to a diet of food grown with chemical-intensive practices, according to findings from a randomized clinical trial published in Nutrire. The authors explain that their finding “is likely due to two main factors: the presence of compounds characteristic of [an organic] diet, which may have high levels of antioxidants that can protect DNA and also induce DNA repair [], and the absence or decrease in the incidence of pesticides in this type of diet, which are recognized for their genotoxic effects and have the ability to affect the genetic repair system of organisms [].” (See additional coverage on the benefits of an organic diet here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

Background

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

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

How and Why do Pesticides Impact Women’s Health?  

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

Call to Action 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

The topic of insect biodiversity and the decline of insect populations over the last few decades, also referred to as the insect apocalypse, has been extensively covered by Beyond Pesticides. As previously reported in the Daily News, “Continued Decline in Insect Species Biodiversity with Agricultural Pesticide Use Documented,” insects provide many important services, such as maintaining healthy soil, recycling nutrients, pollinating flowers and crops, and controlling pests. These nontarget insects and beneficial species are at risk due to pesticide exposure, both directly and indirectly, which then affects these essential functions. The pesticide residues that contaminate plants and insects that provide a food source for other organisms can lead to population effects throughout multiple trophic levels. Since the active ingredients in pesticides can affect a wide range of taxonomic groups, they cause harm to numerous species rather than just the target species. (See additional coverage here, here, and here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As shared in recent Daily News coverage, with large numbers of insects at risk, the reliance on pesticides in agriculture and land management continues to threaten biodiversity, a key driver of ecosystem services. (See more on the importance of biodiversity here and here.) Within this context, organic agriculture and land management provide a holistic solution for enhancing and protecting biodiversity. Ultimately, the only way to ensure the safety of the world’s agricultural systems, as well as natural ecosystems, is to end the use of toxic petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.

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

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

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

From higher insecticide levels in pesticide-laden nests linked to increased offspring mortality to the threats to seed-eating birds from neonicotinoid-treated seeds, agricultural intensification harms bird species within the U.S. and throughout the world. It has become clear that we cannot count on EPA to protect birds—or the rest of us— from the interconnected threats of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change.  The alternative is to promote policies at the state and local level that move towards organic land management in agriculture, communities, and homes.  >> TAKE ACTION: Tell your governor and mayor to protect birds by adopting policies that support organic land management.  

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

Sharing the Science 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organic Solution 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

Does your community have a pesticide-free park managed with organic practices? Do you wish it did? The time to take action to protect those parks and create new ones is now!  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pollinator Week 2025 by Beyond Pesticides

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday: Parks for a Sustainable Future—Become an Advocate! 
Does your community have a pesticide-free park managed with organic practices? Do you wish it did?  The time to take action to protect those parks and create new ones is now!   

With Beyond Pesticides’ supporters, including the retailer Natural Grocers in the Midwest and west, the Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program provides in-depth training to assist community land managers in transitioning two to three public green spaces to organic landscape management, while aiming to provide the knowledge and skills and experience necessary to transition all public areas in a locality to these safer and sustainable practices. 

Through this program, Beyond Pesticides has assisted local leaders in converting the following parks and recreational areas exclusively to organic practices. With this program, Beyond Pesticides is currently working with 19 park districts in 12 states. In addition, Beyond Pesticides has worked with dozens of communities to adopt land management policies in the jurisdictions of nearly every state in the country. The goal is to create models that show the viability and cost effectiveness of organic management systems that eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that contribute to the current health crisis, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From higher insecticide levels in pesticide-laden nests linked to increased offspring mortality to the threats to seed-eating birds from neonicotinoid-treated seeds, agricultural intensification harms bird species within the U.S. and throughout the world. It has become clear that we cannot count on EPA to protect birds—or the rest of us— from the interconnected threats of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change.  The alternative is to promote policies at the state and local level that move towards organic land management in agriculture, communities, and homes. 📣 TAKE ACTION: Tell your governor and mayor to protect birds by adopting policies that support organic land management.  

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

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

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

Food for Thought  in Closing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background and Methodology 

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

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

Results 

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

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

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

Previous Research and Actions 

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action 

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

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

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

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

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

Source: BMC Veterinary Research

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

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

Background and Methodology

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

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

Results

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Research

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

Source: Nature Communications

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

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

Status Report on State-Level Legislation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preemption and the Court System 

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

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

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

Moving into 2025, Bayer has doubled down on the safety of its weedkiller, even though investors are sounding the alarm as the company announced that it could pull Roundup from the U.S. market due to ongoing legal risks. For an in-depth history and related developments for Bayer-Monsanto litigation, see this tracker developed by the Lawsuit Information Center, as well as this informative analysis published in Harvard Law Review. 

EPA Legal Petition 

Meanwhile, in August 2024, the Republican Attorney General of North Dakota jointly filed a petition to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with 10 other Republican Attorneys General (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and South Dakota) requesting that the agency promulgate rulemaking to prevent states like California from adding additional warning labels to pesticide and chemical products that disclose more hazard information than is required on warning labels under federal pesticide law.  

The proposed petition would prompt the agency to “modify its requirements such that any state labeling requirements inconsistent with EPA’s findings and conclusions from its human health risk assessment on human health effects, such as a pesticide’s likelihood to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm, [would] constitute misbranding.” This rule would consider any add-on label requirement that considers scientific literature not recognized by EPA (such as the 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designation of glyphosate as a “probably carcinogenic to humans”) in violation of FIFRA’s misbranding clause. If finalized into regulations, this petition would preempt the ability of states like California to continue its add-on cancer warning label language for products under its state law, Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986). 

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

Farm Bill and Congress 

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action 

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2025) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is rescinding rulemaking it adopted December 23, 2024 on organic pet food and mushrooms. The agency requests comments on the rescission and “all aspects of the proposal” by June 11, 2025, at 11:59pm Eastern. The proposal to regulate organic pet food and mushrooms began in 1995, but USDA subsequently delayed implementation until March 21, 2025. As required by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), the rule was promulgated based on recommendations by the National Organic Standards Board after receiving public comment. 

USDA’s action arbitrarily removes long-awaited standards for organic mushrooms and pet food. Although the final standards are not perfect, they provide a regulatory framework for certifiers and provide producers with access to this market and the organic premiums it offers. In a blatant disregard for regulatory process, the USDA rescission of the rule without consulting the NOSB—and without giving any reasons for doing so—is a dangerous violation of the process established by OFPA and sets a harmful precedent for the development of organic standards.

Mushrooms. Mushrooms are fungi, a separate biological kingdom from plants and animals. Whereas plants make their own energy through photosynthesis and over 95% of their bodies are comprised of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen gained from carbon dioxide and water (with less than 5% comprised of nutrients gleaned from soil), fungi are comprised entirely of digested substrate. In this sense, fungi are more similar to animals than plants. Obviously, they are a poor fit for the livestock standards, which require outdoor access and attention to animal welfare. But because of their unique biology and heterotrophic nature, they are a poor fit for the crop standards as well. Fungi need standards that reflect their unique biology and can foster consistency in their cultivation and certification. 

In 2001, the NOSB recommended that organic mushrooms must be grown on organic substrate. Since fungi are composed of digested substrate, only mushrooms grown on organic substrate—manure derived from organic sources or untreated wood that is grown without prohibited substances—can validly claim the organic seal.

Pet Food. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), which houses the National Organic Program (NOP), promulgated a long-overdue organic pet food standard. Industries are being created around organic pet foods, and delays in proposing a rule have limited market development. Inconsistencies between certifiers of what might and might not be allowed have created market uncertainty. Rescinding the rule will shrink a struggling organic pet food sector, which has declined from $125 million in 2015 to just $104 million in 2024. 

Improvements. While the standards for organic mushrooms are long overdue, there are also some organic fungal products in the marketplace that are not mushrooms, such as drink powders made from lion’s mane mycelium, as well as the fruiting body and mycelium extract dietary supplements. Yeasts produced for direct consumption (such as nutritional yeast) are currently overseen as organic handling, but would fit better under a separate fungi scope. Framing new production standards to include only mushrooms unnecessarily excludes these products from certification (or leaves them without consistent production standards) and makes it harder for future innovative products to become certified. Conversely, framing new production standards to include all fungi would not only provide a better fit for current organic fungal products, but also provide ample room for additional markets to develop.

Although organic pet food production should be brought into conformance with livestock standards, while permitting meat to be used, the allowance of any synthetic material to be added to pet food must be based on a recommendation from the NOSB that, in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act, specifies the species that will be consuming the food. Not all species require the same amino acid profile or mineral supplements. By law, organic regulations limit the use of synthetic materials in organic products to only those that are necessary for designated uses. Annotations for pet food materials by specific species are necessary to put guardrails around the use of National List materials that define allowable synthetic substances (subject to chemical change) in accordance with the law. For example, while the science is clear that carnivorous pets, especially cats, require taurine, the question of whether there is a natural source must be addressed.

📣 Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to Tell USDA to reinstate and improve the final rule on organic mushroom and pet food production. 

The target for this Action is the U.S. Department of Agriculture via Regulations.gov [AMS-NOP-22-0063-3399].

Suggested comment to USDA:

On December 23, 2024, USDA completed rulemaking on mushrooms and pet food begun in 1995, then subsequently delayed implementation until March 21, 2025. As required by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), the rule was promulgated based on recommendations by the National Organic Standards Board after receiving public comment. Now USDA is rescinding the regulations. The agency requests comments on the rescission and “all aspects of the proposal.”

I support reinstating the regulations. I also suggest some improvements.

USDA’s action arbitrarily removes long-awaited standards for organic mushrooms and pet food. Although the final standards are not perfect, they provide a regulatory framework for certifiers and provide producers with access to this market and the organic premiums it offers. Importantly, USDA’s proposal to rescind the rule without consulting the NOSB—and without giving any reasons for doing so—is a dangerous violation of the process established by OFPA and sets a harmful precedent for the development of organic standards.

Mushrooms. Fungi comprise a separate biological kingdom from plants and animals. Whereas plants make their own energy through photosynthesis and over 95% of their bodies are derived from carbon dioxide and water (with less than 5% of nutrients coming from soil), fungi are comprised entirely of digested substrate. In this sense, fungi are more like animals than plants. But they are a poor fit for livestock standards, which require outdoor access and attention to animal welfare. Because of their unique biology and heterotrophic nature, they are a poor fit for the crop standards. Rules must recognize their unique biology to foster consistency in their cultivation and certification.

Pet Food. AMS promulgated a long overdue organic pet food standard. Industries are being created around organic pet foods, and delays in proposing a rule have limited market development. Rescinding the rule will threaten a struggling organic pet food sector, which has declined from $125 million in 2015 to just $104 million in 2024.

Improvements. While the standards for organic mushrooms are long overdue, there are also some organic fungal products in the marketplace that are not mushrooms, such as drink powders and dietary supplements made from mycelium and fruiting bodies. Framing new production standards to include only mushrooms unnecessarily excludes these products from certification (or leaves them without consistent production standards) and makes it harder for future innovative products to become certified. Conversely, framing new production standards to include all fungi would not only provide a better fit for current organic fungal products, but provide ample room for additional markets to develop. Yeasts produced for direct consumption (such as nutritional yeast) are currently overseen as organic handling, but would fit better under a separate fungi scope.

Although I support the organic pet food rule, the allowance of any synthetic material to be added to pet food must be based on a recommendation from the NOSB that, in accordance with OFPA, specifies the species that will be consuming the food. By law, organic regulations limit the use of synthetic materials in organic products to only those that are necessary for designated uses. Not all species require the same amino acid profile or mineral supplements. For example, while the science is clear that carnivorous pets, especially cats, require taurine, the question of whether there is a natural source must be addressed.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2025) Published in Environmental Pollution, a study of commercial dry pet products finds dietary pesticide residues in dog and cat food, “highlighting the urgent need for improved regulatory frameworks to address the presence of non-approved pesticides in pet food.” Additionally, the researchers point out: “Current regulatory frameworks primarily assess the toxicity of individual pesticide compounds, yet real-world exposure involves complex mixtures that may lead to additive or synergistic effects. The presence of multiple residues in a single sample suggests that companion animals may be subjected to combined toxicological burdens that are not yet fully understood.” (See studies here, here, and here.)

The researchers assess pesticide contamination, and their associated toxicological risks, in 83 total food products for dogs (43) and cats (40). Of the foods tested, the researchers found a total of 51 pesticides, many of which are banned in the European Union (EU), including 47% fungicides and 37% insecticides.

“Pesticide residues in pet food pose potential risks to animal health, yet their occurrence and dietary exposure in companion animals remain largely unexplored,” the authors state. They continue: “To our knowledge, this is one of the first comprehensive investigations assessing both pesticide prevalence and potential dietary exposure in companion animals. Previous research has primarily focused on the presence of contaminants in livestock feed, with limited attention given to pet food safety.”

To address this gap, this study focuses on dog and cat food, especially given the distinct dietary patterns and metabolic processes in these animals that are significantly different from farm animals. This also aligns with the increasing demand for high-quality pet nutrition. In Spain, where the study was conducted, the researchers report that, “… [the] pet population includes approximately 9.3 million dogs and 5.9 million cats. Dry food remains the dominant segment, representing 88.1% of dog food sales and 74.8% of cat food sales. This market expansion underscores the need for continuous monitoring of pet food safety and quality.”

Since pet food can contain many plant-based ingredients, there is a high risk of contamination from pesticides used in chemical-intensive conventional agriculture. Cereals (like corn, rice, wheat, barley, and sorghum), as well as various vegetables (such as peas, potatoes, carrots, and legumes), are often used in modern pet food formulations.

As the authors note: “[T]he increasing use of plant-based ingredients in pet food formulations has raised concerns about the presence of contaminants, particularly pesticide residues. Many pesticides applied during the cultivation, transportation, and storage of raw materials persist in the final pet food product.” (See studies here and here.)

They continue: “Additionally, animal-derived ingredients contribute to contamination, as pesticide residues bioaccumulate in livestock tissues used as protein sources in pet food. This dual exposure from both plant- and animal-based ingredients underscores the need for systematic monitoring of pesticide residues across all components of pet food formulations.”

Study Methodology

The study’s aim, as the researchers share, is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of pesticide residues in commercial dog and cat food by determining the prevalence of pesticide residues in a wide range of pet food products, comparing detected levels with existing maximum residue limits (MRLs) for livestock feed, and evaluating the potential toxicological risks associated with chronic exposure in companion animals.

The 83 food products were obtained from “retail outlets, specialized pet stores, and supermarkets in Gran Canaria (Canary Islands, Spain), reflecting Spain’s predominant sales distribution patterns, as reported by distributors,” the authors say. The products encompass a range of price points, brands (only internationally and nationally distributed brands were considered), and ingredients, with at least 40% of the samples containing vegetables in order to represent plant-based formulations.

In explaining the methodology, the researchers state: “To estimate the dietary exposure to pesticide residues in companion animals, the estimated daily intake (EDI) was calculated for each pesticide detected in dry pet food samples. The EDI was determined by multiplying the concentration of each pesticide residue in a given sample by the recommended daily consumption (g/kg body weight/day) provided by the manufacturer for that specific product. This approach allowed us to estimate exposure levels relative to body weight basis for both dogs and cats, accounting for species-specific dietary variations.”

Cumulative exposure to pesticides was also evaluated by using a Hazard Index (HI) for the pesticide classes, including herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, acaricides, and post-harvest preservatives. “This classification accounts for differences in modes of action and potential toxicological interactions within each category,” the authors explain. “Additionally, a total cumulative HI was calculated to provide an overview estimate of pesticide exposure in pet food.” This approach, however, does not account for synergistic effects of pesticide mixtures that can amplify adverse health outcomes.

Results

Of the 51 pesticides identified in at least one sample of the pet food products, 19 (37.25%) are banned in the EU. “A key finding of this study was the high prevalence of unapproved pesticides in the analyzed samples,” the researchers state. “These include long-banned substances such as atrazine (herbicide), chlorpyrifos (insecticide), and carbendazim (fungicide), which were prohibited due to their environmental persistence and potential toxicity to non-target species.”

This is of great concern, as the study points out: “Compounds such as chlorpyrifos, carbendazim, and atrazine have been linked to neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, and long-term ecological damage. The continued presence of these substances in commercial pet food suggests potential contamination of raw materials, insufficient regulatory oversight, or unauthorized use in certain agricultural practices.”  (See studies here, here, and here.)

Nineteen of the pesticides also exceed the MRL for feed materials under the EU Commission Regulations. The authors continue, reporting that, “Pesticide residues were significantly more prevalent in pet food containing vegetable ingredients. Although pesticide residues were detected more frequently in dog food than in cat food, total pesticide concentrations did not significantly differ between species.”

The estimated daily intake (EDI), however, was calculated and reveals significant differences in exposure levels for specific compounds between dogs and cats. “Pet foods containing vegetables, fruits, or cereals had higher total pesticide concentrations than those formulated exclusively with animal-based ingredients,” the researchers note. “This finding aligns with the widespread use of pesticides in crop production and post-harvest treatments, suggesting that plant-based components in pet food are a primary source of pesticide residues.”

Notably, the results reveal certain pet food brands contain “particularly high contamination levels, with up to 20 pesticide residues detected in a single dog food sample and 21 in a single cat food sample, respectively.” This did not, however, correlate with price point or type of brand (store brand vs. commercial). “Despite the common perception that premium-priced pet foods may adhere to stricter quality standards, our results indicate that pesticide contamination is independent of product price,” the authors say.

Although the Hazard Index (HI) calculations, to assess the potential risk posed by cumulative pesticide exposure, were “below the critical threshold of 1, indicating that individual pesticide exposure levels do not pose an immediate toxicological risk, chronic exposure effects remain uncertain.” (See studies here and here.)

Regulatory Deficiencies

Due to regulatory uncertainties, the cumulative risks of prolonged dietary pesticide exposure to pets need to be evaluated. As the authors stress, not only do the long-term effects of chronic low-dose exposure to pesticide mixtures have uncertain effects, but there is also an “absence of specific maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pet food [that] underscores the need for stricter regulations and systematic monitoring to ensure long-term safety.” Since pet food formulations are vastly different from livestock feed, current regulatory frameworks specifically addressing contaminants in companion animal diets are necessary.

The authors conclude: “From a regulatory standpoint, our findings highlight the urgent need for stricter monitoring and enforcement of pesticide residue limits in pet food… The absence of specific guidelines for companion animal diets represents a significant regulatory gap that should be addressed to ensure the long-term safety of pets.” (See additional Daily News coverage on pet health here.)

Previous Research

In the study, various scientific literature is cited that supports the results. This includes:

• “Previous studies have identified pesticide residues in the serum, hair, and urine of companion animals, indicating exposure through both dietary and environmental sources.” (See here, here, and here.)
• “[C]hronic exposure to low doses of neurotoxic and endocrine-disrupting pesticides has been linked to various health concerns in humans and wildlife, raising concerns about potential long-term effects in pets.” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• “Chronic pesticide exposure is linked to significant health risks in companion animals, including cancer and endocrine disorders. Epidemiological studies associate pesticide exposure with a higher incidence of malignant lymphoma in dogs, and transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder, particularly in genetically predisposed animals.” (See here, here, and here.)
• A study finds “exposure to pesticide residues has been implicated in the development of mammary tumors in dogs.”
• “In cats, chronic exposure to environmental contaminants, including pesticides, has been strongly associated with hyperthyroidism.”
• Studies (see here and here) show that “grains and legumes in pet food formulations often contain pesticide residues due to pre- and post-harvest treatments. While plant-derived ingredients may provide nutritional benefits, their inclusion also represents a potential risk factor for increased exposure to pesticide residues.” (See studies here and here.)
• “As pets consume the same diet daily over extended periods, even low-level chronic exposure to these pesticides may pose health risks, particularly in species with limited detoxification capacities, such as cats.” (See here and here.)

Organic Solution

As Beyond Pesticides has previously reported, upholding, and continuously improving upon, organic standards in food production is the solution for protecting the health of all organisms. Beyond Pesticides continues to urge the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to bring pet food production and materials standards in line with organic standards.

📣 TAKE ACTION on USDA’s proposal to rescind the organic pet food rule HERE! Public comments are due by Thursday, June 11, 2025, at 11:59 PM Eastern! This follows an Action of the Week from 2024 (Tell USDA To Ensure that Certified Organic Fungi and Pet Food Are Truly Organic).

In the context of upholding organic integrity and growing the market, Beyond Pesticides offers a perspective that it believes strengthens the value of protecting health and environment through a holistic systems approach to food production and processing—applying the principles and practices to all land management. This contrasts with chemical-intensive farming and land management with its reliance on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that contribute to the current existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises.

For additional Beyond Pesticides’ coverage on the threats of pesticides to pets and how to keep your companions safe, see here and here. Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic land management, as well as Buying Organic Products (on a budget!). Support Beyond Pesticides’ mission of eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032 by donating today.  

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

Source:

Macías-Montes, A. et al. (2025) Pesticides residues in pet food: A market-based study on prevalence and toxicological implications, Environmental Pollution. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749125007729.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2025) A study conducted in Pennsylvania and published in Environmental Entomology highlights threats to nontarget organisms from neonicotinoid insecticide exposure. Using species of ground beetles as an example, the study documents sublethal behavioral effects as well as decreased week-long survival. This research fills a notable gap in current research, with the authors explaining, “Predatory soil arthropods are under-represented in insecticide toxicity studies, severely limiting our understanding of how insecticides affect soil-invertebrate communities in agroecosystems.”  

The researchers continue, “As a step toward addressing this issue, we conducted novel acute oral, topical, and soil-based toxicity assays on 9 ground beetle species (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in response to the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and imidacloprid.” The nine carabid beetle species, all common to agroecosystems in central Pennsylvania, were exposed to clothianidin, while additional assays with thiamethoxam and imidacloprid were conducted on the two most abundant species.

A wide body of science exists that connects neonicotinoid exposure to health effects in a variety of nontarget organisms. Neonicotinoids, a class of neurotoxic insecticides, act as agonists of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, “persist under field conditions, and are water soluble, enabling them to translocate into plants and provide systemic protection of seedlings,” the researchers note. They continue, “[T]hese insecticides pose a risk to resident macrofauna, such as ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae), which spend most of their lives in and around soil.” (See studies here and here.)

With the lack of dose–response data for the vast majority of soil macrofauna, the authors say there is “a need to generate basic toxicity data for additional species of soil macrofauna, especially those that are at high risk to multiple routes of insecticide exposure.” Beetles represent approximately 40% of all described insects, making them the largest order of insects and encompassing ~25% of all known animal species on Earth.

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides in the Daily News post from June 23, 2023, Ecosystem Critical to All Pollinators: Popular and Unpopular Pollinator Guide, beetles are frequently overlooked in the world of pollinators. Gardeners are often familiar with the beneficial pest-control services provided by ladybugs and predaceous ground beetles, but flower-visiting species like soldier beetles, scarabs, long-horned beetles, sap beetles, and checkered beetles all provide important pollination services that complement the work of other pollinators in the landscape.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service, beetles were some of the earliest insects to utilize flowers for food and habitat. In doing so, these ancient pollinators began an important collaboration between flowers and beetles that continues today. Mature beetles feed on the pollen of flowering plants. They pollinate as they feed, transporting pollen on their body from a previous flower to successive locations. Idaho State University notes that beetles play a more important role in the pollination of tropical regions than in temperate ones. Even so, there are approximately 50 native plant species in the U.S. and Canada that depend upon beetle pollination.

Carabid beetles, the target of the current study, are, according to the researchers, “some of the most common predaceous, soil macrofauna found in Mid-Atlantic agroecosystems, and they are active throughout the growing season.” (See study here.) This causes these beetles to frequently encounter neonicotinoids through multiple exposure routes.

“In systems where neonicotinoids are applied to leaves (i.e., foliar sprays on many vegetable crops), carabids may experience topical exposure at rates up to 100 to 1,000 ng [nanogram] of active ingredient,” the authors say. They continue: “In field crops like maize and soybeans, neonicotinoids are more commonly applied as seed treatments, which would appear to reduce topical exposure to nontarget insects but do not eliminate exposure to contaminated soil or food. Soil concentrations of neonicotinoids generally stay below 100 ppb [parts per billion], but concentrations of neonicotinoids have been measured up to 594 ng g−1 in surface soil (0 to 5 cm) after planting thiamethoxam-treated soybean seeds.” (See studies here, here, and here.)

Therefore, consuming contaminated prey may present the greatest exposure risk for carabid beetles. “Beyond exposure via nontarget invertebrates, there is also a risk that predatory taxa will encounter insecticide residues when scavenging dead herbivores and when attacking herbivores that have developed resistance to neonicotinoids—this last scenario will only become more likely as more pest species evolve resistance,” the researchers state. (See research here and here.)

The study was conducted at Penn State’s Russell E. Larson Agricultural Research Center in Rock Springs, PA. The collected carabid species used for the soil-exposure, oral, and topical assays include Amara familiaris, Anisodactylus sanctaecrucis, Chlaenius tricolor, Harpalus pensylvanicus, Notiobia terminata, Patrobus longicornis, Poecilus chalcites, Poecilus lucublandus, and Pterostichus melanarius.

“Insecticide doses were directly applied to beetle pronotums [dorsal plate/first segment of the thorax] for topical assays, to dried cat food for oral assays, and to soil for soil-contact assays,” the authors say. Twenty-four hours after dosing, beetles were assessed and categorized as dead (D), exhibiting a toxic response (T), or apparently healthy (A).

“A beetle was assumed dead if it did not respond to gentle prodding or flipping with forceps,” the researchers specify. “If a beetle was responsive but exhibiting a sublethal toxic response (slow/erratic moving, repetitive twitching of legs and antennae, or unable to right itself when flipped over), we recorded it as exhibiting a sublethal, neurotoxic response (T).” Feeding rates and week-long survivorship were also analyzed.

While the field-realistic oral, topical, and soil-based exposure to the neonicotinoids “rarely led to acute (<24 h) beetle mortality,” the study reveals “significant sublethal effects—changes to mobility and feeding behavior—and decreased week-long survival. Under field conditions, carabids exposed to neonicotinoid sprays or contaminated food will be at higher risk of mortality from other factors (e.g., predation and starvation), which may affect their ability to contribute to biocontrol in agroecosystems,” the authors summarize.

“Based on this current study, neonicotinoid sprays and seed treatments are likely to have acute, sublethal effects on carabid beetles when applied at label-recommended rates,” the study concludes. “While neonicotinoid use is unlikely to cause direct, acute (<24 h) losses to carabid populations, exposure is likely to reduce feeding activity and longer-term (>7 d) carabid survival.”

Previous related research finds that field-realistic levels of clothianidin and thiamethoxam are acutely lethal to adult beetles of the Dalotia coriaria species. Another study links oral exposure of imidacloprid to feeding impacts on the isopod Porcellio scaber, while additional research suggests “that contaminated food, not soil, is the primary risk that soil- and seed-applied neonicotinoids pose to carabid beetles.” (See studies here, here, and here.)

As Beyond Pesticides shared in Neonic Insecticide Impairs/Kills Beetle Listed as Threatened and Important to Ecosystem Health, But Not Protected, a study earlier this year in PLOS One finds acute and chronic impacts of nontarget toxicity on a species listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus), with neonicotinoid insecticide exposure.

In assessing environmentally relevant concentrations of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid with N. americanus, the researchers note both mortality and behavioral effects that leave the species at high risk of predation, similar to the present study. Burying beetles, specifically, provide important ecosystem services within the environment, such as “burying carrion, increasing available nutrients in soil, and expediting carrion decomposition, while acting as a food source for secondary consumers,” the researchers state.

Shared in other Daily News coverage (see here and here), a 2015 study looks at the detrimental effects of neonicotinoids on molluscan herbivores and their nontarget insect predators, finding that slug exposure to neonicotinoids results in the secondary poisoning of beneficial predatory beetles. The use of these chemicals is not only dangerous to the environment but also puts farmers at economic risk. Research finds that their use can undermine pest control efforts and cause trophic cascades. One study found that when applied to seeds in an attempt to prevent pest slugs from eating seedlings, slugs were unaffected by neonicotinoid toxicity. However, they accumulated the chemicals in their body, and their main predator, beetles, died after consuming them. By creating an ecological imbalance, neonicotinoids allow the pest slugs to proliferate and alter the entire ecosystem. (See more in the Daily News post titled, Study Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse.)

As a holistic solution, organic land management practices can be adopted. As stated in Organic Systems: The Path Forward, organic practices support and enhance biodiversity and allow for healthy ecosystems to flourish without the use of toxic chemicals. Protecting all species, including pollinators and other organisms that provide ecosystem services, from pesticides is crucial to agricultural and economic productivity, as well as food security.

Take action to advance organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies, and be part of the organic solution by becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides today. Learn more about the benefits of organic agriculture here and here, as well as how to create nontoxic lawns and landscapes in your community with the Parks for a Sustainable Future program.

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

Source:

Pearsons, K. and Tooker, J. (2025) Acute toxicity of neonicotinoid insecticides to ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) from Pennsylvania, Environmental Entomology. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/ee/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ee/nvaf048/8128784.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 4, 2025) A new 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. Amid worsening public health concerns, with young generations facing an increase in heart failure (see here for the Duke University School of Medicine analysis), advocates continue to call for the transformation of the food system, including increased access and production of whole-based organic food.

Background Information and Methodology

The authors of this community-based, case-control study are researchers at the Guangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the School of Public Health at Southern Medical University, both located in Guangzhou, China. The study included 360 participants, consisting of 180 hypertension cases and 180 non-cases (“normotensive individuals”) within China’s National Essential Public Health Services Program. All participants were over 75 years of age. The Ethics Committee of the Guangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention approved the parameters of this study.

This study tested for eight urinary pesticide metabolites, including two organophosphates—parathion and chlorpyrifos (Para-nitrophenol and 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol [TCPY]); four pyrethroids—fluvalinate, cypermethrin, and permethrin (3-Phenoxybenzoic acid [3-PBA], 4-Fluoro-3-phenoxybenzoic acid [4F-3PBA], cis-3-(2,2-Dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid [cis-DCCA], and trans-3-(2,2-Dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid [trans-DCCA]; and two phenoxyacid herbicides—(2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid [2,4-D]and 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid [2,4,5-T]).

“Multivariate linear regression and logistic regression were used to evaluate the associations between pesticide metabolites and blood pressure and hypertension, respectively,” say the study authors on their approach to the statistical analysis. They continue: “The Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR) was used to assess the joint effects of pesticide metabolites on blood pressure and hypertension. We additionally applied Quantile g-computation (QGC) to validate the robustness of the results obtained from the BKMR analysis.” For further details, see Section 2.4 for the breakdown of various models employed for statistical analysis.

Results Main Takeaways

The main findings can be broken down by their overall associations, sex-specific effects, metabolite mixture effects, as well as the authors’ suggested biological mechanisms.

• Chronic low-dose pesticide exposure may significantly elevate the risk of hypertension. Notably, PNP was associated with an 8% increase in hypertension odds (OR: 1.08, p = 0.03).
• Sex-specific differences emerge both in terms of risk and response. Female participants showed stronger, nonlinear associations with certain pesticide metabolites (e.g., 3-PBA and trans-DCCA), suggesting some level of disproportionate susceptibility for certain active ingredients and metabolites
• Cumulative exposure (“joint effects”) matters. BKMR analyses revealed that cumulative exposure to multiple pesticides, rather than just individual metabolites, significantly increased hypertension risk and systolic blood pressure.
• 2,4-D and PNP stand out as the most critical contributors, with consistent positive associations across the numerous statistical models employed in this study.

Previous Research

The presence of herbicides like 2,4-D has been linked to various adverse health effects, with new studies emerging each year that emphasize the importance of adopting the precautionary principle in state and national regulatory systems.

In a novel series of biomonitoring studies published in Agrochemicals in 2024, researchers identified the presence of the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D in all pregnant participants. The findings from this research are not surprising given the explosion of toxic petrochemical pesticides in the Midwest region of the United States.

“The overall level of dicamba use (kilograms applied in one hundred thousand) in the U.S. has increased for soybeans since 2015 and slightly increased for cotton and corn,” the authors report, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agriculture Statistics Service surveys. The authors continue, “The overall level of 2,4-D use (kilograms applied in one hundred thousand) in the U.S. was highest in 2010 for wheat, soybeans, and corn. The amount of 2,4-D applied increased the most for soybeans and corn from 2010 to 2020.” The study focused on the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, given the increase in dicamba and 2,4-D during the research period for both cohorts (2010-2022). (See here for full Daily News analysis.)

2,4-D is just one example of a toxic pesticide linked to adverse health effects, including issues of hypertension and high blood pressure. A recent cross-sectional study in Heliyon published in 2025 showcases the linkage between sleep disorders and pesticide exposure. The authors of this study found pesticide exposure to be a critical risk factor for sleep disorders after surveying 27,334 Thai farmers over the age of 20 who had work experience for at least five years. The importance of sleep health is reflected both physically and mentally, as studies find “sleep deficiency increase[s] mortality and various health complications, including hypertension, obesity and type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, mood disorders, and neurodegenerative disorder[s].” Additional studies find that these issues are compounded when sleep health is affected by environmental factors such as pesticide exposure. (See Daily News here and here.)

Another study in 2024 published in Environment and Health documents over 50 obesogens – chemicals that are proven to have a health impact on metabolic systems relating to obesity— with high-level human exposure rates, including per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), phthalates (PAEs), and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), that can lead to lipid metabolism disruption, including health impacts on the liver and insulin resistance, among other metabolic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and dyslipidemia. The study authors highlight the scientific research community’s general focus on adipose tissue and the liver and cite the need to further explore effects on cardiovascular and kidney health. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

Communities across the nation continue to call for their elected officials to take a leadership role in ensuring that economic development does not come at the expense of short- and long-term public and ecological health.

You can take action here by contacting your U.S. Representative and Senators to co-sponsor bills that support the viability of organic agriculture, the only legally defined form of sustainable agriculture in the nation with mechanisms for compliance, enforcement, third-party certification, and public participation.

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

Sources: Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology

(Beyond Pesticides, June 3, 2025) Chemical contaminants in wastewater have long been of concern, especially given the significant costs of upgrading wastewater treatment facilities to remove existing and emerging chemicals. In advancing chemical safety, one of the many regulatory determinations that Beyond Pesticides advocates for, prior to the allowance of any toxic chemical use, is the establishment of a realistic cleanup or disposal strategy. Yet, a plethora of petrochemical pesticides flood the market and contaminate the air, soil, water, and crops before poisoning humans and wildlife. A study in the Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering uses the detectable levels of metabolites (breakdown products) of pesticides in wastewater to gauge exposure to populations living near flower bulb fields throughout the Netherlands. Wastewater samples were collected from five wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) located in different parts of the Netherlands, with two of the locations (Tollebeek and Lisse) located near flower bulb fields and the other three representing control areas. The study finds that higher levels of chemicals correlate with proximity to agricultural fields and present a heightened health risk.

The authors describe wastewater-based surveillance (WBS) as a complementary approach to human biomonitoring that they use “to assess the spatial differences in human exposure in areas with relatively high use of pesticides versus reference areas.” By analyzing influent wastewater [coming into wastewater treatment plants] for the presence of several specific human metabolites of triazines, pyrethroids, and organophosphates, the researchers are able to assess exposure to pesticides based on the proximity to flower bulb fields and evaluate the associated health risks.    

The authors note: “In this unique study a total of 71 influent wastewater samples were analyzed during the period of pesticide application on flower cultivation, 31 originated from flower bulb areas and 40 from control areas. Higher population normalized mass loads [PNMLs] were found in the flower areas for 2-methyl-6-ethylaniline and hydroxytebuconazole, metabolites corresponding to the pesticides metolachlor-S and tebuconazole, respectively.”

In utilizing the WBS method, the researchers are able to assess exposure throughout entire communities as opposed to testing hundreds or thousands of human urine samples, as is typical with human biomonitoring studies. The authors explain this, saying: “Wastewater-based surveillance (WBS) and Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) are exploratory and complementary tools that overcome some of the limitations of human biomonitoring, such as sampling biases, long realization time, high costs, and ethical issues. The WBS approach can be considered as a large anonymous test which consists of diluted urine from the entire population and thus a single sample can be representative of a large community.”

The WBS tool has previously been used for public health assessment with SARS-CoV-2 and Monkeypox, as well as with illicit drugs to provide estimates of total drug use in populations. (See studies here, here, here, and here.) In this study, the researchers report that, “The results in this work are presented as surveillance data based on WBS and can give valuable insight into spatial and temporal trends of human exposure to pesticides.”

Wastewater samples were analyzed for the following biomarkers that are related to pesticides applied in flower bulb cultivation: 2-methyl-6-ethylaniline (2,6-EA); 6-chloronicotinic acid (6-CN); 3,4-Dichloroaniline (3,4-DCA); terbuthylazine desethyl (DES); N-desmethylacetamiprid (N-DMA); asulam (ASU); tebuconazole-1-hydroxy (TEB-OH); boscalid-5-Hydroxy (BOS-OH); 3-phenoxybenzoic acid (3-PBA); 3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylic acid (HCBA) and 4-hydroxychlorpropham-O-sulphonic acid (4-HSA).

These biomarkers correlate with the following pesticides/classes of pesticides: tebuconazole, chlorpropham, asulam, boscalid, pyrethroids, cyhalotrin-lambda, terbutylazine, metolachlor-S, linuron, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, and acetamiprid. In analyzing the data, the authors note, “The concentrations of each biomarker measured in a 24-hour composite sample were multiplied by daily flow rates of wastewater entering the WWTP and divided by the population served by each WWTP.”

As a result, the metabolites (and associated pesticides) detected in samples from the collection sites near flower bulb fields include 3,4-DCA (linuron) in samples from Lisse, TEB-OH (tebuconazole) in Tollebeek, and 2,6-EA (metolachlor-S) in samples from both Tollebeek and Lisse. Population normalized mass loads (PNMLs) are higher in Tollebeek when compared to the control areas, with the researchers reporting that a “statistically significant difference was observed between Tollebeek and the other municipalities.”

As the study explains, results from wastewater and urine samples cannot be directly correlated, but the presence of these metabolites in WBS confirms human exposure to pesticides such as the broad-spectrum fungicide tebuconazole, with evidence that populations can be more exposed to these chemicals when living closer to flower bulb fields. “The results obtained in the present study illustrate that a population living near a flower bulb field is exposed to higher pesticide levels than people living in control areas,” the authors write.

They continue: “Here, we have investigated the particular case of flower bulb cultivation, in which a relatively high load of pesticides is being used. Obviously, a wider variety of crops will also be of interest, such as potatoes, other vegetables and fruit trees, that are cultivated in relatively large areas with a high pesticide application rate. WBS can help to assess if residents in these areas are subjected to higher pesticide exposures, as input for further risk assessment.”

The pesticides that correlate with the detected metabolites in the study are associated with toxicity to aquatic organisms, endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, developmental effects, epigenetic effects, organ damage, neurotoxicity, cardiotoxicity, oxidative stress, and potential cancer. (See more information on these chemicals in the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management.)

The researchers also share additional exposure-relevant research, which includes a Dutch study that finds concentrations of TEB-OH “in 61% of the urine samples (n = 99) collected from residents living near flower bulb fields during the application period in 2017.” The study also reports that “4-HSA was detected more often in urine samples collected from residents living in flower bulb areas (97%) compared to control areas.” Another study notes that, “Pesticide concentrations were 5–10 times higher in outdoor air samples around bulb fields during application periods than in reference areas,” supporting the current study’s data on higher pesticide exposure for populations closer to flower bulb fields.

Beyond Pesticides has previously shared that wastewater treatment facilities are contaminated with a variety of chemicals for which they do not have adequate processes in place to remove before the water is reintroduced in agriculture or even as drinking water. In a Pesticides and You article, the threats to health and the environment after the use of recycled wastewater in agricultural fields are explored. As stated, residues of pesticides, pharmaceutical drugs, and other chemicals in irrigation water can end up on plant surfaces, be taken up by crops, or contaminate the soil, thus increasing human exposure risk and environmental contamination. One study found that 64% of vegetables irrigated with treated wastewater contained traces of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), including DEET (a repellent) and triclosan (an antibacterial).

CECs can enter municipal wastewater through bathing, cleaning, and the disposal of human waste and unused pharmaceuticals. By using recycled wastewater in agriculture that contains CECs, there are many associated direct and indirect health effects, such as those resulting from the rise in antibiotic resistance in soil bacteria, as has been previously noted with wastewater contaminated with the antimicrobial pesticide triclosan. (See additional information on triclosan and its cross-resistance with antibiotics here, here, and here.)

In the Daily News titled Chemicals, including Pesticides, in Wastewater Discharge Contaminate Oysters in Pacific Northwest, Beyond Pesticides also reports on the heightened threats to aquatic organisms, and the entire food web, with proximity to wastewater discharge pipes. In a Portland State University study, the authors find that the proximity to wastewater sites determines overall oyster health/condition. Impacts on organisms, such as oysters, can have cascading effects throughout entire ecosystems.

As the Daily News summarizes, although communities around the nation are required to treat their wastewater under the Clean Water Act, the wastewater treatment process does not remove all chemical contaminants, even during high-level treatment processes. The ubiquity of certain compounds makes it difficult to extract all pollutants from the water, which can persist in the water for long periods. Often, wastewater facilities will discharge this “clean” wastewater into nearby water sources. However, the combined impact of contaminated wastewater and chemicals already in waterways has detrimental impacts on aquatic ecosystem health. Moreover, some compounds work synergistically (together) with others to increase the severity of the effect. In addition to adverse health effects on marine organisms, these chemicals harm terrestrial organisms relying on surface or groundwater.

The ubiquitous contamination of harmful chemicals, ranging in persistence and toxicity, throughout soil, water, plants, and within organisms is unacceptable. (See more on body burden here.) Beyond Pesticides’ mission is to eliminate the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in order to protect the environment and all organisms in it, as well as mitigate the current crises of public health, biodiversity, and climate change, with the use of organic land management practices.

In working with only allowed materials recommended by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and codified by USDA’s National Organic Program under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), there are many health and environmental benefits (see here and here). Take the first step in reducing the amount of toxic chemicals that end up in waterways and in wastewater by growing your own organic food and/or buying organic products.

Create nontoxic lawns and landscapes in your own backyard and in your community, as well as take action to Protect All Waters of the U.S. See additional ways to take action and sign up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox here to stay informed.

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

Source:

Bijlsma, L. et al. (2025) Wastewater surveillance for assessing human exposure to pesticides: Investigating populations living near flower bulb fields, Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213343725017865.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 2, 2025) One focus of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission report* is children’s exposure to environmental chemicals and its link to health risks, particularly cumulative risk and chronic disease. With the evidence showing that the current approach to regulating pesticides and other chemicals fails to protect children’s health, it remains to be seen whether next steps will seek an overhaul and reorientation on the United States’ current reliance in chemical-intensive agriculture on hazardous pesticides that have been proven unnecessary by productive and profitable organic food production and land management systems, according to advocates. Beyond Pesticides and advocates are calling on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to promote organic practices and protect children’s health from pesticides through the setting of pesticide tolerances on food, or allowable levels of pesticide residues—taking back an authority given to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under a memorandum of understanding. The Food and Drug Administration, under HHS, is authorized to set tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), and EPA is authorized to register pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The predictable response from “farm organizations”—mostly those closely linked to agrichemical and industrial farm groups—as reported in AgWeb, characterizes the MAHA report as “fear-based rather than science-based information about pesticides.” Meanwhile, coverage in The New York Times, originally reported by NOTUS, raises questions about the reliability of certain scientific studies cited in the MAHA report, with allegations of artificial intelligence (AI) use and inaccurate citations, a problem common with the use of AI information. Beyond Pesticides urges readers to reference the organization’s Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) for the independent, peer-reviewed scientific research for references on most of the health effects of pesticides cited in the MAHA Commission report.

The MAHA report points to:

• The cumulative load of thousands of synthetic chemicals that our children are exposed to through the food they eat, the water they drink, and the air they breathe may pose risks to their long-term health, including neurodevelopmental and endocrine effects. 
• Over 40,000 chemicals are registered for use in the U.S. 
• Pesticides, microplastics, and dioxins are commonly found in the blood and urine of American children and pregnant women—some at alarming levels. 
• Children are particularly vulnerable to chemicals during critical stages of development—in utero, infancy, early childhood, and puberty. Research suggests that for some chemicals, this cumulative load of exposures may be driving higher rates of chronic childhood diseases. 

And finds, “[I]n 2025—28 years after EO 13045 [Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks] was signed—childhood health has largely worsened, and there is a growing concern about the link between environmental health risks, particularly cumulative risks, and chronic disease. Furthermore, in the past nearly 30 years, the chemicals children are exposed to have grown—and no country fully understands how the cumulative impact of this growth impacts health.” 

The report cites research showing adverse effects of pesticides, including cancers, liver inflammation, metabolic disturbances, endocrine disruption, and birth defects. Despite finding that the vast majority of food samples are “compliant with federal standards,” the report does not conclude that federal regulation of chemicals is inadequate.  

Registration of a pesticide that is expected to result in pesticide residues on foods requires non-zero tolerances for pesticide residues on those foods. A 1970 memorandum of understanding (MOU) issued upon the establishment of EPA divided responsibilities for pesticide tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) between EPA and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (now Department of Health and Human Services or HHS).

That MOU, which gave most responsibility for setting allowable pesticide residues in food to EPA, is out of date for the following reasons: 

1. While moving pesticide registration to EPA from the U.S. Department of Agriculture should have, in theory, changed the bias of regulators that favored approval of registrations, in fact, it left a presumption of need that has crippled the pesticide program.  
2. With the ongoing expansion of organic production, that presumption is more questionable than ever. EPA still lacks expertise to judge need (“benefits of registration”). 
3. EPA’s established process for determining health effects depends on data developed by and submitted by the industry without public oversight. This constitutes a strong conflict of interest. 
4. The risk assessment process that EPA uses to determine allowable harm from pesticide exposure does not consider full formulations of pesticide product ingredients, chemical mixtures, those with preexisting conditions and/or vulnerabilities, and critical health outcomes, such as endocrine disruption. 

The growth of organic production demonstrates that the need for pesticides can no longer be presumed. The market for organic food has consistently increased in recent years. U.S. sales of certified organic products hit a record high of $71.6 billion in 2024. The evidence shows that shifting to organic production has benefits for farmers, consumers, and the environment.  

While productivity in organic systems may sometimes be lower than in chemical-intensive agriculture, the difference depends on the crop. The productivity of an organic system is a result of a complex interaction among cultivation practices, cover crops, crop rotations, and manuring—all of which result in improved soil health, microbial diversity, and ecosystem services. Microbial diversity reduces the need for irrigation and chemical inputs by improving water retention, enhancing nutrient uptake, and enhancing resistance to pests and disease, thus resulting in long-term savings to the farmer. 

Furthermore, reduced productivity does not imply reduced profitability because organic products command a significant price premium. Consumers are willing to pay more for organic food because of the health and environmental benefits. As consumers seek more healthful food, they also create a greater demand for organic products. These benefits are real. A systematic review of the scientific literature showed that with even six months of an organic diet, “A significant inverse relationship between organic food consumption and cardiometabolic risk factors, including obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia was observed in the majority of prospective studies.”  

HHS should, based on findings in the MAHA report, propose a new MOU with EPA: 

1. The need for the pesticide should be established by agronomists familiar with organic production methods, subject to a public comment process. Successful cultivation of the crop using organic methods should be considered a rebuttable presumption that the pesticide is not needed, and, therefore, residue tolerances should be set to zero. 
2. Health effects of the pesticide should be established by HHS based on research published in the open literature and reviewed by National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientists. Establishment of a pesticide residue tolerance requires findings on (a) the threatened harm from exposure to the pesticides under consideration for allowance or use, taking into account both data on acute and chronic effects, including endocrine disruption, obtained through regulatory review and an assessment of the independent, peer-reviewed scientific literature; (b) the effect or effects to those with elevated risk factors, including but not limited to children, older people, those with preexisting medical conditions, and organisms in ecosystems that support health; and (c) the number of those who will potentially experience adverse health effects as a result of the decision. 
3. If the agencies agree that registration of the pesticide is needed and that no significant health effects will result, a proposal for a tolerance for the pesticide and its metabolites, with supporting research, must be published in the Federal Register with a 120-day comment period.

📣 Beyond Pesticides is asking the public to >> Tell HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to revise the memorandum of understanding on pesticide residues in food and set protective levels. This action would be a first step toward the goal stated in the MAHA report: “The current regulatory framework should be continually evaluated to ensure that chemicals and other exposures do not interact together to pose a threat to the health of our children.”

Letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.:

The MAHA Report captures the current crisis in American children’s health and shows that the current approach to regulating pesticides and other chemicals is not adequately protective. With pesticide registration under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) can promote the protection of children’s health through its authority to set allowable residues, or tolerances, of pesticides on food—recognizing the productivity and profitability of organic agriculture.

The MAHA report shows: “[t]he cumulative load of thousands of synthetic chemicals that our children are exposed to through the food they eat, the water they drink, and the air they breathe [that] may pose risks to their long-term health, including neurodevelopmental and endocrine effects.” It cites related cancers, liver inflammation, metabolic disturbances, endocrine disruption, and birth defects that have increased over the past 30 years, despite residues that are within legal limits.

The registration of a pesticide for use in food production requires the setting of non-zero tolerances for residues on those foods. A 1970 memorandum of understanding (MOU) issued upon the creation of EPA divided responsibilities for pesticide tolerances between EPA and HHS. That MOU, which gave most responsibility for setting allowable tolerances to EPA, is out of date because: (a) Lack of knowledge of agricultural alternatives left a presumption of need that has crippled the pesticide program; (b) With the ongoing expansion of organic production, that presumption is more questionable than ever; (c) EPA’s established process for determining health effects depends on data developed by and submitted by the industry without public oversight, a strong conflict of interest; and, (d) the risk assessment process that EPA uses to determine allowable harm from pesticide exposure does not consider full formulations of pesticide product ingredients, chemical mixtures, those with preexisting conditions and/or vulnerabilities, and critical health outcomes, such as endocrine disruption.

The growth of organic production demonstrates that the need for pesticides can no longer be presumed. Sales of certified organic products hit a record high of $71.6 billion in 2024. Evidence shows that shifting to organic production has benefits for farmers, consumers, and the environment. Organic is among the most profitable agricultural sectors because consumers understand its real health and environmental benefits. A recent review of the scientific literature showed that with even six months of an organic diet, “A significant inverse relationship between organic food consumption and cardiometabolic risk factors, including obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia was observed in the majority of prospective studies.”

Based on findings in the MAHA report, HHS should propose a new MOU that requires: (1) the need for the pesticide to be established by agronomists familiar with organic production methods, subject to a public comment process; (2) health effects be determined by HHS based on research published in the open, independent peer-reviewed literature and reviewed by NIH scientists, with findings on (a) the threatened harm from exposure to the pesticides, including acute and chronic effects(e.g., endocrine disruption), obtained through regulatory review and review of the independent scientific literature; (b) the effects to those with elevated risk factors, including but not limited to children, older people, those with preexisting medical conditions, and organisms in ecosystems that support health; (c) the number of those who will potentially experience adverse health effects as a result of the decision; and (3) any proposal for a tolerance be published with supporting research in the Federal Register with a 120-day comment period.

Thank you.

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

*For an in-depth analysis of the Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission report by Beyond Pesticides, please see the Daily News post from Friday, May 30, 2025: MAHA Commission Report Raises Health Concerns with Pesticides, Draws Industry Criticism—What’s Next?

Source: The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again (Assessment)

(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2025) The Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission report, Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment, published on May 23, drew criticism from the pesticide industry and agribusiness allies for pointing to independent science that identifies a range of pesticide-induced health hazards.* The Commission, chaired by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is composed of the heads of numerous agencies of the federal government and the White House, from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to the Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller.

The MAHA Commission was established by Executive Order 14212 on February 13, 2025. Despite extensive citations to the science on pesticide hazards, the report includes a section on “Crop Protection Tools,” in which there is a repetition of chemical industry talking points that pesticide residues in food comply with existing tolerances, thus implying that pesticides in food are safe. (See USDA Pesticide Data Program Continues to Mislead the Public on Pesticide Residue Exposure.) However, overall the report’s introduction sets a tone that seeks to catalogue what is identified as the “stark reality of American children’s declining health, backed by compelling data and long-term trends” and sets as a goal proposed efforts that “begin reversing the childhood chronic disease crisis by confronting its root causes – not just its symptoms.” Whether these are just words in a document or will result in changes in policies and practices that are transformational remains to be seen in the administration’s follow-up efforts.

In a section entitled “Corporate Capture and the Revolving Door,” the report notes the influence of the chemical industry over government policy, stating, “The chemical-manufacturing industry spent roughly $77 million on federal lobbying activities in 2024, while 60% of their lobbyists previously held federal posts.” This is a longstanding criticism, having characterized the first and second Trump administrations. The report is notable for what it has ignored, such as the disproportionate adverse effects that the children of farmworkers, frontline communities, and people of color suffer as a result of pesticide exposure. The report’s emphasis on the need to close research gaps, suggesting complementing animal test data with computational biology and other New Approach Methodologies [NAMs], will require critical analysis and meaningful public vetting.

MAHA Commission and Executive Order

The goals of the MAHA Commission are threefold:

• “… study the scope of the childhood chronic disease crisis and any potential contributing causes, including the American diet, absorption of toxic material, medical treatments, lifestyle, environmental factors, Government policies, food production techniques, electromagnetic radiation, and corporate influence or cronyism;
• advise and assist the President on informing the American people regarding the childhood chronic disease crisis, using transparent and clear facts; and
• provide to the President Government-wide recommendations on policy and strategy related to addressing the identified contributing causes of and ending the childhood chronic disease crisis.”

Pesticides & Chemical Mixtures

The second section of the report, “The Cumulative Load of Chemicals in our Environment”, attempts to bridge together the numerous exposure pathways that children face in terms of the variety of chemicals that may lead to adverse health effects in the short- and long-term. For example, the confluence of chemicals recognized in this section, in the context of the existing regulatory systems across the globe, “may be neglecting potential synergistic effects and cumulative burdens, thereby missing opportunities to translate cumulative risk assessment into the clinical environment in meaningful ways.”

Substances of concern mentioned include:

• heavy metals;
• air pollutants (including greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, among others);
• pesticides;
• endocrine-disrupting chemicals;
• waterborne contaminants (including PFAS);
• industrial residues;
• persistent organic pollutants (POPs); and
• physical agents (including microplastics)

While it is notable that glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, and atrazine were specifically cited as examples, these individual pesticides are representative of the systemic regulatory problem pointed out in many parts of the report, given the toxic soup of chemicals permitted for use or regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The MAHA Report cites EPA’s America’s Children and the Environment (ACE) database as a means of “track[ing] chronic childhood disease in children (e.g., asthma, ADHD, autism, childhood cancers, and obesity) and summarizes trends over time for specific environmental exposures (e.g., air pollutants, drinking water contaminants, and chemicals in food)[;]” with “[m]any ACE indicators show[ing] improvements overtime.” Despite these improvements over the past 30 years since ACE was established under the Clinton Administration, “childhood health has largely worsened[.]”

As covered in previous Daily News (see here and here), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary report from previous years continues to mislead the public on the safety of food and agricultural practices in the context of demonstrating potential indicators for the ongoing chronic illness crisis in this country. The reports in recent years have consistently concluded that more than 99% of the produce samples tested showed residues below established EPA benchmark levels. As pointed out by Beyond Pesticides, when USDA uses the report to emphasize the safety of pesticide-laden food, the tolerance setting process has been criticized as highly deficient because of a lack of adequate risk assessments for vulnerable subpopulations, including farmworkers, people with compromised health or preexisting health conditions, children, and a failure to fully assess serious health outcomes such as disruption of the endocrine system (which contributes to numerous serious diseases).

For more information, peer-reviewed literature, and analysis on chemical mixtures, see here.

Artificial Intelligence: Accelerating Runaway Chemical Approvals

In some parts, the MAHA Commission report mirrors efforts in Congress to promote the use of unproven technologies such as artificial intelligence, which may lead to the mass greenlighting of an increased number of toxic chemicals, rather than addressing the health and ecological risks of the tens of thousands currently poisoning people and the planet.

The week before the release of the MAHA report, the House Science, Space and Technology Environment Subcommittee held a hearing on the use of artificial intelligence in accelerating the development and “acceleration” of new approvals of agrichemicals into the market. “New AI models also allow us to accelerate discovery of new classes of crop protection products, like biologicals—nature-based solutions that help farmers grow more food by working alongside traditional crop protection products,” says Brian Lutz, vice president of agricultural solutions, Corteva Agriscience LLC (formerly Dow Chemical) in the hearing. 

A 2025 report, published by Save Our Seeds Foundation, signals a handful of emerging concerns that may lead to vulnerabilities in a highly criticized regulatory system, including data hallucinations, data distortions, the black box effect, and opening the door for “DIY biologists” to develop genetically engineered biomaterial that outpaces the ability for government agencies and watchdogs to properly assess ecological and public health risks. This is akin to placing the cart before the horse, and assuming that there is a dependable steed to steer the cart in the first place.

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

The application of artificial intelligence was also identified by EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) “to help clear backlogs in TSCA [Toxic Substances Control Act] new chemical approvals” and proposed that “organizational improvements provide better tools and capabilities to allow OCSPP to use computational and bioinformatic tools—and eventually artificial intelligence—to streamline and improve the review of chemicals and pesticides.”

See InsideEPA for further information on OCSPP developments, as well as commentary by Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform (EJHA) and Coming Clean Network, assessing why AI is a false solution.

New Approach Methodologies

Similar to the proposed application of AI for the chemical regulatory system, New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are introduced as a next step to “supporting gold-standard scientific research and developing a comprehensive strategy,” rather than a continuation of false solutions that may inevitably disrupt public health if not properly grounded in science.

Rather than updating methodology for rodent developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) to enhance their reliability for scientific analysis, EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is moving toward regular use of NAMs, akin to in vitro assays and in silico models. According to many scientists, this approach will likely result in less protective risk assessments for some pesticides. These methods are favored for their cost-effectiveness, quicker results, and reduced animal use; on the other hand, scientists warn that vivo DNT studies currently have no equivalent substitutes. Public health professionals and regulatory scientists argue that this new methodology may impose drastic consequences. (See relevant Daily News here and here.)

Using NAMs, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently reviewed in vitro DNT tests and highlighted significant gaps in assessing neurodevelopmental processes, such as neuroectoderm formation, peripheral nervous system processes, and astrocyte maturation, among others. Similarly, the European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC) concludes that existing NAMs do not adequately assess cognitive and neurobehavioral outcomes, or learning and memory.

For further analysis on New Approach Methodologies, see this in-depth article produced by the Natural Resources Defense Council—EPA Must Rely on Proven Science: Misuse of New Approach Methodologies (NAMS) Will Harm Workers, Communities, and Ecosystems.

Organic on the Sidelines

Given the GOP’s historical allegiance to commodity crops (corn, wheat, and soybeans) and their trade associations, it is notable that the report questions existing incentive structures for crop insurance:

“Historically, federal crop insurance programs have primarily covered traditional field crops like wheat, corn, and soybeans, while providing much less support for specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery plants,” says the report. It continues, “While specialty crop coverage has been expanding, it still only accounted for 17% of the entire federal crop insurance portfolio by liability during crop year 2017, and subsidies for fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and support for organic foods account for a mere 0.1% of the 2018 Farm Bill.”

While organic food is mentioned in the report in the context of national dietary guidelines in France, it remains to be seen whether the Commission will recommend a meaningful expansion of funding and setting of targets to increase domestic production of organic agriculture.

There are numerous associated benefits for children who consume organic food, as outlined in various peer-reviewed studies. Maintaining a consistent organic diet has reduced toxic pesticide residues in the bodies of U.S. children and adults, based on several studies published in 2019 in Environmental Health, and in two 2015 studies published in Environmental Health Perspectives and by the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health. A particularly noteworthy study published in 2014 in Environmental Research found that organophosphate pesticide metabolites in the urine of adults were reduced after just a week-long organic diet. A 2019 study published in Environmental Health, led by the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, found that organic food consumption among children is directly associated with higher test scores, after measuring fluid intelligence and working memory. Conversely, lower scores on fluid intelligence tests were associated with, among other factors, children’s ultra-processed fast food intake.

The transition to organic food in school cafeterias is not a new topic or policy concern, but a demonstrated alternative to the unhealthy status quo. In a 2004 article published in Pesticides and You, School Lunches Go Organic: Science supports growing movement, numerous examples across the nation demonstrate a pathway forward for broader adoption of organic mandates.

“Stonyfield Farm has sponsored organic programs at schools in Rhode Island, California, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, and Connecticut,” according to the article. Additionally, the authors wrote, “An organic salad bar started at Lincoln Elementary School in Olympia, Washington, has proven so popular and economically feasible, all grade schools in Olympia now have one. California school districts in Berkeley, Santa Monica, and Palo Alto also have organic food programs. In 2004, the Seattle school district adopted H61.01, Breakfast and Lunch Program Procedure, a policy banning junk food and encouraging organic food in school cafeterias.”

See here to learn more about one of the latest efforts in the previous Congress to pass federal legislation to transition the National School Breakfast and Lunch programs to procure organic food for participating schools across the nation.  

Call to Action

“Making America Healthy Again” is contingent on supporting local food systems and making more accessible nutritious, toxic-free food, particularly for the working class, farmworkers, their children, and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities—and their children. This report emerges after USDA canceled the Local Food for Schools (LFS) Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) Cooperative Agreement Program. (See Daily News here.) Contact your U.S. Representative and Senator here to ensure that funding for these programs is made permanent in the next Farm Bill.

Given this report’s stated mention of chlorpyrifos, as well as the recent developments that this pesticide will be listed as a persistent organic pollutant (POP) by the United Nations (see Daily News here), it would be incumbent for the MAHA Commission to recommend to the Trump Administration that the United States join the international community in ratifying the Stockholm Convention to ensure that POPs do not continue to persist without proper regulation.

Public health advocates also believe that MAHA should emphasize the importance of local authority and the democratic right of communities to take stronger action on chemical exposure and regulations, particularly in an era of federal deregulation and attacks on the court system, including stripping away the ability for pesticide injury victims to leverage “failure-to-warn” claims. See the Failure-to-Warn resource hub and the associated actions to learn more. It remains to be seen whether the Commission will signal its opposition to the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (ALUA), which strips states and localities of their authority to allow more restrictive pesticide standards compared to federal policy and regulations. It has been reported that 365 groups, including some that have attacked the MAHA Commission report, recently sent a letter to Congress urging passage of ALUA.

📣 TAKE ACTION—Despite the evidence showing that the current approach to regulating pesticides and other chemicals fails to protect children’s health, the report fails to take the next step—of promoting organic production and land care. Although the registration of pesticides is under the purview of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) can promote organic practices and protect children’s health from pesticides through the setting of pesticide tolerances on food, or allowable levels of residues. >> Tell HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to revise the memorandum of agreement with EPA on pesticide residues in food and set protective levels.

*Recent coverage by New York Times, originally reported by NOTUS, has brought into question the reliability of certain scientific studies cited in the MAHA report over allegations of artificial intelligence use and the generation of fake citations. We urge readers to reference Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD) for the independent, peer-reviewed scientific research for references on most of the health effects of pesticides cited in the MAHA Commission report.

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

Source: The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again (Assessment)

(Beyond Pesticides, May 29, 2025) A study, published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, “investigates genotoxic effects on farmers in Paraíba, Brazil, analyzing buccal mucosa cells [cells from inside the cheek] for DNA and cellular damage,” the authors write. In comparing data from 33 pesticide-exposed agricultural workers to 29 unexposed people in a control group, the researchers report that the “findings revealed significantly higher frequencies of cellular alterations and DNA damage among exposed farmers relative to the control group, with no significant impact from factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, or family cancer history.”

They continue, “These results underscore the genotoxic risks linked to prolonged pesticide exposure and highlight the necessity for stricter regulatory measures.” As Beyond Pesticides documents in Disproportionate Pesticide Hazards to Farmworkers and People of Color Documented… Again, farmworkers have been excluded from labor and occupational safety protection laws since their inception. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defers all policy on pesticide protections to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has been widely criticized for providing inadequate worker protection standards.

This study focuses on workers in Brazil, but represents issues that impact communities worldwide. “The agricultural sector plays a pivotal role in Brazil’s economy, encompassing both family farming for food production and agribusiness for exporting commodities,” the authors state. They continue: “This growth has resulted in a substantial rise in pesticide usage, making Brazil one of the world’s largest consumers of these chemicals. Alarmingly, about 80% of pesticides sold in Brazil lack approval in at least three OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries.” (See here, here, here, and here.)

Farmers, farmworkers, and their families around the world face disproportionate risks from pesticide exposure. (See more here and here.) As the researchers explain, “Farmers are particularly vulnerable to pesticide exposure, frequently experiencing continuous contact over long periods. They are often subjected to multiple pesticide compounds simultaneously, as various substances are applied during planting and harvesting seasons.” (See study here.)

Methodology

To assess the impacts on DNA and cellular health from occupational pesticide exposure, this study uses biomonitoring, a tool for assessing health risks associated with exposure to chemicals and genotoxicity markers that “play a crucial role in assessing the impact of chemical substance exposure on genetic material, encompassing gene mutations and chromosomal damage.” Specifically, the authors use the Buccal Micronucleus Cytome (BMCyt) assay, which they describe as “a minimally invasive method [that] has shown advantages as it is used not only for detecting micronuclei (MN) but also for other nuclear abnormalities (nuclear buds, binucleated cells, condensed chromatin, karyorrhexis, karyolysis, and pyknosis) and for assessing proliferative potential through the frequency of basal cells.”

In the study, the 33 agricultural workers report direct exposure to pesticides in the field, while the 29 individuals from the control group do not. “In terms of pesticide usage duration, 7 respondents (21.21%) reported using pesticides for less than 5 years, 4 respondents (12.12%) have used them for 5–10 years, and 22 respondents (66.67%) have been using pesticides for more than 10 years,” the researchers note.

In disclosing information regarding their exposure, the farmworkers were unable to report specific pesticide dosages or duration of pesticide applications, as they commented that they do not follow product instructions and applications vary by day, crop, and product type. “Additionally, it is important to note that they do not properly use personal protective equipment, which leads to potential pesticide exposure through various routes (e.g., dermal, inhalation, etc.),” the authors say.

The pesticides that the agricultural workers identified as being utilized include the insecticides deltamethrin, methamidophos, methomyl, teflubenzuron, abamectin, imidacloprid, beta-cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, and chlorfenapyr, as well as the herbicides 2,4-D, ametryn, hexazinone, diuron, and glyphosate. Of these active ingredients, the most commonly reported by the farmworkers is 2,4-D.

Once samples of buccal mucosa cells were obtained through cheek swabs from each participant, an analysis of the micronuclei and other nuclear abnormalities was performed under a microscope. The researchers identify DNA and cellular damage by utilizing a damage index, where the damage frequency represents the percentage of cells that suffered DNA damage, and from a comet assay, which “visually assesses DNA damage by scoring comet tail size and intensity, categorizing damage into five levels (0–4) to indicate cell damage severity.”

Study Results

Based on the researchers’ observations of the assays from the agricultural workers’ samples, there are cellular alterations such as micronucleus (broken chromosome fragment within nucleus), cells with nuclear buds (protrusions on nucleus), binucleation (cell with two nuclei), and karyolysis (dissolution/degradation of nucleus). “The frequencies of these alterations found in the cell samples from the farmers showed statistically significant higher values when compared to the control group,” the authors report.

They continue: “The comet assay revealed the presence of genotoxicity in the cells of farmers exposed to pesticides. Based on images obtained through laser confocal microscopy, it is possible to observe the presence of cells with tails, known as ‘comets,’ in the farmer group, which is not seen in the control group.”

In the pesticide-exposed group, a significant decrease in cells without DNA damage is observed, as well as a visible increase in the number of cells with DNA damage (comets). “The comet assay results showed that the farmers experienced a higher level of cellular damage compared to the control group,” the researchers note. “It is important to emphasize that most participants had already been using pesticides for over 10 years… Thus, we may suggest that the genotoxic and cytological effects observed would be related to long-term exposure.”

Previous Research

The authors reference multiple studies that support their data, as well as offer additional plausible explanations for the study results:

• A study “revealed that the frequency of micronuclei among younger participants (ages 19–36) was 0.53%, while in older participants (ages 46–71), it rose to 0.87%. This research also noted a consistent increase in the occurrence of micronuclei with advancing age. Notably, among farmers over 50 years old, there was a marked increase in the frequency of micronuclei, binucleations, and other abnormalities compared to those aged 18–30 years.”
• “Advancing age is a significant factor that may lead to a higher frequency of nuclear abnormalities in rural workers. As individuals grow older, genetic damage can accumulate due to the increase in mutations and a reduced capacity for the body to repair DNA damage.” (See studies here and here.)
• Studies of 2,4-D report “that this pesticide is associated with cellular malformations linked to the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects… with the presence of micronuclei (MN) serving as a genotoxicity indicator and nuclear abnormalities signaling cytotoxic damage, potentially representing nuclear lesions similar to MN. The formation of micronuclei (MN) suggests disruptions in mitotic division, potentially involving chromosome segregation errors and deficiencies in DNA damage repair mechanisms, which can be triggered by oxidative stress induced by pesticide exposure.” (See here, here, here, and here.)
• “[O]rganophosphate pesticides, such as methamidophos, induce toxicity via mechanisms involving DNA damage and the subsequent repair processes.” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• “The literature highlights that glyphosate and its metabolite AMPA can induce genotoxicity and cell death in vitro. Organophosphates react with DNA through electrolytic centers, causing nitrogenous base substitutions, enzyme inhibition, caspase activation, and membrane damage. Similar effects are seen with 2,4-D metabolites, which also trigger apoptosis via caspases and disrupt transcription factors.” (See here and here.)
• “Several studies indicate that rural workers routinely exposed to pesticides show an elevated frequency of MN, binucleated cells (BN), budded cells (BT), and other forms of DNA damage. These findings are consistent with existing literature that underscores the genetic damage associated with prolonged exposure to pesticides.” (See studies here and here.)
• Another study identifies “a significant disparity in the rate of DNA damage between workers involved in pesticide production and individuals not exposed to these chemicals. Specifically, the average damage rate among the workers was 60.8±18.2, contrasted with a much lower rate of 10.5±1.1 in the control group.”

Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News coverage on farmworkers, including EPA’s Worker Protection Standard Fails to Protect Farmworkers’ Health, Report Finds, highlights the long history of health threats, regulatory failures, and structural racism that is imbued in the chemical-intensive agricultural system that feeds the nation and world. The pesticide problem is not unique to farmworkers, but they and their families suffer a disproportionate burden of the hazards. (See additional coverage here.)

As previously shared by Beyond Pesticides, DNA damage is significantly higher in Latinx children from rural, farmworker families than children in urban, non-farmworker families, according to a recent study published by French and American authors in the journal Exposure and Health. Not only do farmworker children test positive for organophosphate pesticides more frequently than non-farmworker children, but the study finds that farmworker children also experience an increased frequency of DNA damage associated with the presence of organophosphate exposure. These results highlight the disparities in exposures and outcomes for children from vulnerable immigrant communities.

Organic Solution

Advocates note that as long as pesticides remain in use, farmworkers and their families will continue to shoulder a disproportionate share of the toxic effects of these chemicals; another in a long line of reasons to shift away from toxic synthetic pesticide use to the adoption of proven organic, regenerative agricultural practices.

Learn more about the benefits of organic agriculture here and here, as well as how to create nontoxic lawns and landscapes in your community here. Are you an artist, writer, or photographer? Help us celebrate the beauty of nature that deserves to be protected from toxic chemicals by submitting your artwork to our Art Page.

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

Source:

Carvalho-Gonçalves, L. et al. (2025) Assessment of genetic damage levels in agricultural workers exposed to pesticides in Paraíba, Brazil, Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1382668925000900.