Action of the Week Archive

 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an open public comment period ending February 20, 2025 on a petition filed by the attorneys general (AGs) of 11* states to prohibit state authority to warn of pesticide hazards and issue product label restrictions, just as the federal government appears to be shutting down or severely cutting back its environmental protection programs. The petition asks EPA to prohibit “any state labeling requirements inconsistent with EPA 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.”

The only conclusion that can be derived from this petition is that the AGs do not care if the people, including farmers, of their states are harmed by pesticides, and they should not be able to seek compensation if they suffer adverse effects. People who argue that the chemical industry is subject to federal or state government overregulation to protect health and safety, are the same people who often argue, like in this petition, that the government should prohibit people from seeking justice in the courts if they are harmed because of inadequate disclosure and government regulation.

>>Tell EPA to protect states' rights to warn citizens of the dangers of pesticides.

While the petition is short and does not cite specifics, it clearly targets California's Proposition 65 warnings on glyphosate (RoundupTM) weed killer products, but could have much broader effect in an anything goes regulatory climate under the Trump administration. For instance, since the mechanism typically used to convey use restrictions is the pesticide product label, prohibiting a state's authority to issue warning labels undermines its regulatory authority. If states cannot convey their restrictions on the label, it is unlikely that a user of the product will be aware of the restrictions. Similarly, the courts have upheld a state's and manufacturer's “duty to warn” of pesticide hazards as a right and responsibility that is not at odds with “misbranding” regulations under federal pesticide law. (See more details on this below.)

In 2019, during the previous Trump administration, EPA told California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) that its label language for glyphosate violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Subsequently, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) explained to EPA:

Proposition 65 is a right-to-know law that requires businesses to provide a clear and reasonable warning prior to exposing people in California to chemicals that have been listed as carcinogens or reproductive toxins. The warnings provide an important public health benefit by allowing individuals to make informed decisions about their exposures to listed chemicals.

Proposition 65 requires the listing “at a minimum” of chemicals that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) places in certain carcinogenicity classifications. In 2015, IARC placed glyphosate in a classification that mandated California's listing of the chemical under Proposition 65. Because glyphosate is now listed as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings if their products that contain glyphosate would result in exposures, unless those exposures fall below a certain level. 

California OEHHA asked EPA whether language citing IARC's classification would be allowed, and, in 2022, the Biden EPA said that with that specificity, it would. While California allows several options for communicating the Prop 65 warning for pesticides, historically, the label has been used to convey warnings about pesticides. In judgments awarding damages to those suffering from cancer as a result of exposure to glyphosate, courts have pointed to the failure to warn users of the hazards. A Pesticides and You article (2005) by H. Bishop Dansby explains the U.S. Supreme Court decision on “failure to warn” in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 03-388, 2005): “Manufacturers have a legal duty to provide adequate warnings about the potential risks associated with their products, including pesticides. This duty arises from the recognition that manufacturers possess knowledge about the potential dangers of their products and have a responsibility to inform consumers about these risks.” 

With regard to pesticide regulation, FIFRA clearly states, “A State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this Act,” which is followed by a clause requiring uniformity of labeling. By focusing on the uniformity of labels, the AG petition would prohibit the state from requiring product labels to warn users of potential hazards, thus subjecting users to greater risk of illness and eliminating the incentive for manufacturers to develop safer products. It should also be noted that many local laws require service providers, such as lawn care operators or exterminators, to provide the labels of pesticide products that will be used in their contracts.

States and local governments are often at the leading edge in protecting people, land, and water from hazards. 

The attack on state authority, as well as local authority, to restrict pesticides is a bottom-line or foundational issue for public health and environmental protection. 

As momentum builds for local restrictions on pesticide use in the face of ongoing poisoning and contamination, it is clear that effective land management does not require toxic pesticide use. Historically, local municipalities have exercised their democratic right to protect public health and safety where state and federal standards are not adequately protective of their residents. EPA should not be telling states and local governments that they cannot exercise this right, one that has been used effectively to regulate smoking, recycling, dog waste, and other standards. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court reached this conclusion in its decision in Mortier (see more and court decision). Further, the AGs in the petition are attempting an end-run around the Supreme Court's decision in Bates (see court decision), in which Dow Chemical unsuccessfully argued that their registration with EPA preempted any litigation against them for the harm caused by their product, and more specifically that FIFRA's labeling requirements preempted cases arguing failure-to-warn or inadequate labeling. Here is Beyond Pesticides' piece on the right of local government in a state that does not preempt its local jurisdictions (municipalities) from restricting pesticides more stringently than the state and the federal government. And, see the Maryland Court decision.
 
The ramifications of any prohibition on state authority to require label changes is extremely broad because the label is typically the mechanism used by federal and state regulatory authorities to communicate legal use restrictions of a pesticide product. If a state is prohibited from conveying pesticide restrictions or warning via the pesticide product label, it is unlikely that the user will, for practical purposes, be aware of the restrictions or warnings.

>>Please submit a comment to EPA asking them to reject the AG petition and support the right of states and local governments to protect their residents, land, and water. . 

The target for this Action is Regulations.gov. (See here.)

*The 11 states filing the petition include: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota. 

Thank you for your active participation! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing. 

Letter to EPA:

Please deny the attorneys general (AGs) petition, which misrepresents the authority and responsibility of state governments in their role to protect public health and safety.

While the petition targets California Prop 65 warnings on glyphosate products, it goes much further in restricting the authority of states to restrict pesticides under FIFRA. In 2019, EPA told California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) that its label language for glyphosate violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Subsequently, OEHHA explained to EPA:

Proposition 65 is a right-to-know law that requires businesses to provide a clear and reasonable warning prior to exposing people in California to chemicals that have been listed as carcinogens or reproductive toxins. The warnings provide an important public health benefit by allowing individuals to make informed decisions about their exposures to listed chemicals.

Proposition 65 requires the listing “at a minimum” of chemicals that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) places in certain carcinogenicity classifications. In 2015, IARC placed glyphosate in a classification that mandated California’s listing of the chemical under Proposition 65. Because glyphosate is now listed as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings if their products that contain glyphosate would result in exposures, unless those exposures fall below a certain level.

California OEHHA asked EPA whether language citing IARC's classification would be allowed, and in 2022, EPA said that with that specificity, it would. While California allows several options for communicating the Prop 65 warnings, historically, the label has been used to convey warnings about pesticides. In jury verdicts awarding damages to those suffering from cancer as a result of exposure to glyphosate, courts have pointed to the failure to warn users of the hazards. A Pesticides and You article (2005) by H. Bishop Dansby explains the U.S. Supreme Court decision on “failure to warn” in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 03-388, 2005): “Manufacturers have a legal duty to provide adequate warnings about the potential risks associated with their products, including pesticides. This duty arises from the recognition that manufacturers possess knowledge about the potential dangers of their products and have a responsibility to inform consumers about these risks.”

With regard to pesticide regulation, FIFRA clearly states, “A State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this Act,” which is followed by a clause requiring uniformity of labeling. By focusing on the uniformity of labels, the AG petition would prohibit the state from requiring product labels to warn users of potential hazards, thus subjecting users to greater risk of illness.

States and local governments often take creative measures to protect people, land, and water from hazards. States and local governments believe in their right to protect their residents from poisoning and contamination, a right that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The only conclusion that can be derived from the petition is that the AGs do not care if the people, including farmers, of their states are harmed by pesticides, and they should not be able to seek compensation if they suffer adverse effects due to a failure to warn on a pesticide label. The courts have upheld a state’s and manufacturer’s “duty to warn” of pesticide hazards as a right and responsibility that is not at odds with “misbranding” regulations under federal pesticide law.

Please uphold the rights of states and deny the AG petition.

Thank you.

In what promises to be a threat to the integrity of federal agencies, President Trump summarily fired at least 17 Inspectors General (IGs) on January 24 across 18 agencies—eliminating, at least for some critical time period, independent oversight of all agency decisions in the new administration. An IG acts independently of the agency head to investigate corruption, fraud, and abuse in the agency and report to Congress. As The Washington Post used to, but no longer displays on its masthead, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” 

>> Tell Congress to ensure the integrity of federal agencies through the appointment of independent Inspectors General.

Although IGs—like department heads—are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the law defines their role to be independent of politics. The Inspector General Act of 1978 states, “There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.” [Emphasis added.] The act also provides that the President may remove an IG, but states, “If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” [Emphasis added.] Because Trump failed to provide the 30-day notice and justification as required by law, some claim that the action is illegal, while others regard the infraction as a technicality.  

However, even some who do not seem especially concerned by the President's dismissal action say that the real impact of the unexpected presidential action will be determined by the replacements of the fired IGs and the time frame in which new appointments are made. The intended effect of the law will be advanced only if the Senate insists on the independence and integrity of the new appointees. 

The now former IG at the Interior Department, Mark Greenblatt (appointed by Mr. Trump five years ago), was quoted in The New York Times: “This raises an existential threat with respect to the primary independent oversight function in the federal government. We have preserved the independence of inspectors general by making them not swing with every change in political party.” 

The independence of the IGs gives them an important role in ensuring the integrity of agency actions. For example, the IG of the Environmental Protection Agency has in recent years investigated and reported to Congress on: pet collars containing pesticides that continue to be used without assurance that there are no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including pets; deviation from established procedures in registering dicamba; EPA's failure to assess risks from endocrine disrupting chemicals; inadequacies of management controls to implement the revised Worker Protection Standard; and failure to follow the typical intra-agency review and clearance process during the development and publication of the January 2021 perfluorobutane sulfonic acid, or PFBS, toxicity assessment. It also reported on programmatic issues, including: emergency exemptions; a special local needs program; transparency of cancer risk assessment; state cooperative agreements; and implementing stronger internal controls to decrease the risk of issuing a pesticide registration that does not comply with regulatory requirements.  

IGs also play a role in protecting whistleblowers who come forward with information about misconduct within the agency, such as lack of integrity in chemical risk assessment. EPA's IG reported on retaliation against whistleblowers in 2024.  

>>Tell Congress to ensure the integrity of federal agencies through the appointment of independent Inspectors General. 

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

Thank you for your active participation! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing. 

↪️ For more information, please stay tuned for the upcoming Daily News post on February 3, 2025.

Letter to U.S. Representative: 

In what promises to be a threat to the integrity of federal agencies, President Trump summarily fired at least 17 Inspectors General (IGs) on January 24 across 18 agencies—eliminating, at least for some critical time period, independent oversight of all agency decisions in the new administration. An IG acts independently of the agency head to investigate corruption, fraud, and abuse in the agency and report to Congress. As The Washington Post used to, but no longer displays on its masthead, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” 

Although IGs—like department heads—are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the law defines their role to be independent of politics. The Inspector General Act of 1978 states, “There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.” [Emphasis added.] The act also provides that the President may remove an IG, but states, “If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” [Emphasis added.] Because Trump failed to provide the 30-day notice and justification as required by law, some claim that the action is illegal, while others regard the infraction as a technicality.  

However, even some who do not seem especially concerned by the President’s dismissal action say that the real impact of the unexpected presidential action will be determined by the replacements of the fired IGs and the time frame in which new appointments are made. The intended effect of the law will be advanced only if the Senate insists on the independence and integrity of the new appointees. 

The now former IG at the Interior Department, Mark Greenblatt (appointed by Mr. Trump five years ago), was quoted in The New York Times: “This raises an existential threat with respect to the primary independent oversight function in the federal government. We have preserved the independence of inspectors general by making them not swing with every change in political party.” 

The independence of the IGs gives them an important role in ensuring the integrity of agency actions. For example, the IG of the Environmental Protection Agency has in recent years investigated and reported to Congress on: pet collars containing pesticides that continue to be used without assurance that there are no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including pets; deviation from established procedures in registering dicamba; EPA’s failure to assess risks from endocrine disrupting chemicals; inadequacies of management controls to implement the revised Worker Protection Standard; and failure to follow the typical intra-agency review and clearance process during the development and publication of the January 2021 perfluorobutane sulfonic acid, or PFBS, toxicity assessment. It also reported on programmatic issues, including: emergency exemptions; a special local needs program; transparency of cancer risk assessment; state cooperative agreements; and implementing stronger internal controls to decrease the risk of issuing a pesticide registration that does not comply with regulatory requirements.  

IGs also play a role in protecting whistleblowers who come forward with information about misconduct within the agency, such as lack of integrity in chemical risk assessment. EPA’s IG reported on retaliation against whistleblowers in 2024.  

Please request a U.S. Government Accountability Office report on the importance of IGs and their independence. 

Thank you. 

Letter to U.S. Senators:

In what promises to be a threat to the integrity of federal agencies, President Trump summarily fired at least 17 Inspectors General (IGs) on January 24 across 18 agencies—eliminating, at least for some critical time period, independent oversight of all agency decisions in the new administration. An IG acts independently of the agency head to investigate corruption, fraud, and abuse in the agency and report to Congress. As The Washington Post used to, but no longer displays on its masthead, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” 

Although IGs—like department heads—are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, the law defines their role to be independent of politics. The Inspector General Act of 1978 states, “There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.” The act also provides that the President may remove an IG, but states, “If an Inspector General is removed from office or is transferred to another position or location within an establishment, the President shall communicate in writing the reasons for any such removal or transfer to both Houses of Congress, not later than 30 days before the removal or transfer.” Because Trump failed to provide the 30-day notice and justification as required by law, some claim that the action is illegal, while others regard the infraction as a technicality.  

However, even some who do not seem concerned by the President’s dismissal say that the real impact of the unexpected presidential action will be determined by the replacements of the fired IGs and the time frame in which new appointments are made. The intended effect of the law will be advanced only if the Senate insists on the independence and integrity of the new appointees. 

The now former IG at the Interior Department, Mark Greenblatt (appointed by Mr. Trump five years ago), was quoted in The New York Times: “This raises an existential threat with respect to the primary independent oversight function in the federal government. We have preserved the independence of inspectors general by making them not swing with every change in political party.” 

The independence of the IGs gives them an important role in ensuring the integrity of agency actions. For example, the IG of the Environmental Protection Agency has investigated and reported to Congress on: pet collars containing pesticides that continue to be used without assurance that there are no unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including pets; deviation from established procedures in registering dicamba; EPA’s failure to assess risks from endocrine disrupting chemicals; inadequacies of management controls to implement the revised Worker Protection Standard; and failure to follow the typical intra-agency review and clearance process during development and publication of the January 2021 perfluorobutane sulfonic acid, or PFBS, toxicity assessment. It also reported on programmatic issues: emergency exemptions; a special local needs program; transparency of cancer risk assessment; state cooperative agreements; and implementing stronger internal controls to decrease the risk of issuing a pesticide registration that does not comply with regulatory requirements.  

IGs also play a role in protecting whistleblowers who come forward with information about misconduct within the agency, such as lack of integrity in chemical risk assessment. EPA’s IG reported on retaliation against whistleblowers in 2024.  

Please vote to confirm only proposed IGs who meet the criteria for independence and integrity required by law. Please request a U.S. Government Accountability Office report on the importance of IGs and their independence. 

Thank you. 

***
Why we TAKE ACTION:

During these times, Beyond Pesticides urges sending a message even to those who refuse to listen. As we strive to adopt the changes essential for a livable future, we must create a record that is based on science, even when the science and the facts are dismissed by those in power. To this end, the failure of action to address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises by those in Congress and the administration, empowers lower levels of government and some corporations to step into the void left by those whose actions or inaction threaten life.

Please feel free to reach out to the Beyond Pesticides team with feedback. And, In light of the current and future threats, we invite you, if you wish, to click on the image below to join us in a moment of cathartic primal scream therapy before finding a light at the end of the tunnel!

 

A public comment period ends today, January 27, 2025, on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) proposed critical habitat rule to protect the rusty patched bumble bee under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This proposal is responsive to the agency's 2024 stipulated settlement agreement resulting from years of advocacy and government review and a 2023 court order (NRDC et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.). The proposal follows a 2017 determination by the agency that lists the bumble bee as an endangered species. (See previous Daily News here, here, here, here, and here.)

>> Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fully protect the endangered rusty patched bumble bee by finalizing its proposed critical habitat rule with strengthening provisions.

The FWS proposal grows out of a species status assessment (SSA) conducted by “15 scientists with expertise in bumble bee biology, habitat management, and stressors (factors negatively affecting the species).” University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign insect ecologist Jason Robinson, PhD concludes in his paper, “Project-specific bumble bee habitat quality assessment,” “As the first social insect listed under the ESA, the listing of RPBB has required new methods for biological assessment. This species has a complex life cycle requiring a mosaic of different habitat types, with each life cycle stage facing unique challenges and threats.” This is why a critical habitat designation is especially important and timely after seven years since the listing.

When FWS issued its listing announcement in 2017, it said, “Causes of the decline in rusty patched bumble bee populations are believed to be loss of habitat; disease and parasites; use of pesticides that directly or indirectly kill the bees; climate change , which can affect the availability of the flowers they depend on; and extremely small population size. Most likely, a combination of these factors has caused the decline in rusty patched bumble bees." There is substantial research demonstrating that neonicotinoid insecticides, working either individually or synergistically, play a critical role in the ongoing decline of bees and other pollinators due to mounting evidence of toxicity.

When FWS announced the endangered species classification for the rusty patched bumble bee, it wrote: “Before it was declared endangered in 2017, the rusty patched bumble bee experienced a widespread and steep decline, with populations plummeting by about 87 percent in the past two decades. . . The cause of the species' drastic decline is unknown, but evidence suggests a harmful interaction between a disease-causing pathogen and exposure to pesticides. Other threats to the insect include habitat loss and degradation, competition and disease introduction from managed and non-native bees, small population genetics, and climate change. The rusty patched bumble bee lives in colonies, which are formed by solitary queens emerging from overwintering sites. The species needs nectar and pollen-producing flowers for food, undisturbed nesting habitat near food sources, and suitable overwintering areas to survive. The final recovery plan for the rusty patched bumble bee includes actions such as land management to improve floral resources and measures to reduce exposure to pesticides and disease-causing pathogens. Raising awareness about the species and engaging private citizens and groups are also key to recovery.” 

In this context, given the scientific findings, FWS must make sure that its designation of critical habitat takes into account all areas that are necessary to the species' restoration, including agricultural areas and unoccupied spaces.

>> Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fully protect the endangered rusty patched bumble bee by finalizing its proposed critical habitat rule with strengthening provisions. 

The target for this Action is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, via comments through Regulations.gov.

Thank you for your active participation! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded us that even the wealthiest of us are dependent on those less fortunate, whose work is not adequately rewarded in our capitalist economy—farmworkers, landscapers, workers in meat-packing and food processing plants, factory workers, hospital workers, sanitation workers—and those workers are disproportionately people of color. So, as we commemorate the legacy of Dr. King as a federal holiday on Monday, January 20, it is fitting to remind our legislators of their duty to protect the most exposed and most vulnerable members of society from the impacts of an economy unnecessarily dependent on toxic chemicals.

>> This Martin Luther King Jr. Day, tell Congress to protect our farmworkers and those at disproportionate risk from toxic chemicals.

Justice for all people converges with the protection of biodiversity, health, and climate. As Dr. King said in his 1967 Christmas sermon, “It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. We are made to live together because of the interrelated structure of reality.” 

If we are not protecting the most vulnerable in society, we ultimately adversely affect the entire society because we are intricately linked in the web of life. This is a day to recognize the importance and value of those who are disproportionately affected by toxic chemical production, transportation, use, and disposal (including those who live in fenceline communities near chemical plants or agricultural fields) redouble our focus on their protection, and adopt practices and policies that no longer support environmental racism. On this day, we recognize that we can all individually shift our personal and community practices to organic management and products, and, in so doing, eliminate the cradle-to-grave exposures that disproportionately affect people of color.

Dr. King's words in his 1967 sermon clearly focus on addressing injustices for disenfranchised people. Similarly, with biodiversity collapse looming, it has become exceedingly clear that the protection of ecosystems requires support for those organisms most vulnerable but essential to all life. And just as we need to recognize our dependence on vulnerable humans and protect them, we must similarly recognize and protect vulnerable members of all species integral to the web of life.

Environmental injustice looms large on the horizon. Workers integral to meeting societal needs—especially in agriculture and landscaping—face the threat of deportation. Pesticide regulation, which has failed even under friendly administrations to protect human health, enhance biodiversity, and prevent climate disasters—is in need of reform in order to protect those at greatest risk, and in doing so, protect us all.

We recognize the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as a new administration takes office. We need to ask all leaders to follow Dr. King's leadership in recognizing the need to protect the most vulnerable among us. 

Here are some actions Congress can take: 

Ensure protection for farmworkers.

• Farmworkers need more protections, not industry-friendly compromises when alternatives are available. Currently, the average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. A recent report, Exposed and At Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworker Safety, by the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law and Graduate School, in partnership with the nonprofit advocacy group, Farmworker Justice, again highlights the systemic racism of our country's pesticide policies. Our nation depends on farmworkers, declared “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure sustenance for the nation and world. Yet, the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers. 
   
• Many farmworkers are migrant workers, and are subject to conditions that would not be permitted for U.S. citizens. The U.S. must sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which would set a moral standard to treat migrant workers like workers who are citizens. 
   
• Prohibit the use of toxic fumigants that endanger farmworkers and their communities.  

Protect all who are at disproportionate risk.  

• Require EPA to begin meaningful dialogue with Native American tribes to learn how pesticide use can be avoided by adopting indigenous practices. When needs can be met without using pesticides, such use causes “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” 
   
• Require that registration decisions take into account cradle-to-grave exposures. Harm done in the manufacture, transportation, and disposal—in addition to use—of pesticides must count as “unreasonable adverse effects.”  
   
• Prohibit the registration of pesticides that threaten children, biodiversity, or the climate. 
   
• Phase out toxic petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers by 2032. 

>> This Martin Luther King Jr. Day, tell Congress to protect our farmworkers and those at disproportionate risk from toxic chemicals. 

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

Thank you for your active participation! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded us that even the wealthiest of us are dependent on those less fortunate, whose work is not rewarded in our economic system—farmworkers, landscapers, workers in meat-packing and food processing plants, factory workers, hospital workers, sanitation workers —who are predominately people of color. So, on Martin Luther King Day, as we commemorate Dr. King, it is fitting to seek better protections for the most exposed and most vulnerable members of society from the impacts of our economy, which is unnecessarily dependent on toxic chemicals 

Justice for all people converges with the protection of biodiversity, health, and climate. As Dr. King said in his 1967 Christmas sermon, “[A]ll life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. We are made to live together because of the interrelated structure of reality.”  

Dr. King’s words in his 1967 sermon clearly focus on addressing injustices for disenfranchised people. Similarly, with biodiversity collapse looming, it has become exceedingly clear that the protection of ecosystems requires support for those organisms most vulnerable but essential to all life. And just as we need to recognize our dependence on vulnerable humans and protect them, we must similarly recognize and protect vulnerable members of all species integral to the web of life. 

Environmental injustice looms large on the horizon. Workers integral to meeting societal needs—especially in agriculture and landscaping—face the threat of deportation. Pesticide regulation, which has failed even under friendly administrations to protect human health, enhance biodiversity, and prevent climate disasters, is in need of reform in order to protect those at greatest risk—and in doing so, protect us all. 

As a new administration takes office, we need to ask all leaders to follow Dr. King’s leadership in recognizing the need to protect the most vulnerable among us.  

Here are some actions I would like to see Congress take: 

1. Ensure protection for farmworkers 

Farmworkers need more protections, not industry-friendly compromises, when alternatives are available. Currently, the average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. Our nation depends on farmworkers, declared “essential workers” during the COVID-19 pandemic, to ensure sustenance for the nation and world. Yet, the occupational exposure to toxic pesticides by farmworkers is discounted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while study after study documents the disproportionate level of illness among farmworkers. 

The U.S. must sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which would set a moral standard to treat migrant workers like workers who are citizens. 

Prohibit the use of toxic fumigants that endanger farmworkers and their communities.  

2. Protect all who are at disproportionate risk.  

Require EPA to begin meaningful dialogue with Native American tribes to learn how pesticide use can be avoided by adopting indigenous practices. When needs can be met without using pesticides, such use causes “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” 

Require that registration decisions take into account cradle-to-grave exposures. Harm done in the manufacture, transportation, and disposal—in addition to use—of pesticides must count as “unreasonable adverse effects.”  

Prohibit the registration of pesticides that threaten children, biodiversity, or the climate. 

Please join me in seeking to phase out toxic petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers by 2032 and replace them with organic management practices that are both effective and cost competitive. 

Thank you. 

EPA is accepting comments on its proposal until February 18, 2025, through Regulations.gov.  
Due to updates to the Regulations website, we are offering a click-and-submit form to the docket! 

***Due to the context, we are providing an extended analysis below for those who wish to delve deep into the issue. To skip below to the Action form, please click here or on the "Action links" (>>) included below!

We have advocated against the use of the weed killer atrazine, and now the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is officially taking comments on whether to issue new restrictions on the chemical's use. As we know, EPA received accolades for its August 7, 2024, decision to ban the weed killer Dacthal (or DCPA--dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate), leaving many people asking, “Why Dacthal and not other very hazardous pesticides?” The weed killer atrazine (in the triazine chemical family) poses similar elevated hazards to people and the environment, has proven to be impossible to contain, and has viable alternatives. Therefore, we need to challenge EPA to apply the same standard that removed Dacthal from the market to the long list of pesticides that are contributing to a health crisis, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency. 

In its current proposal, EPA is choosing to downplay atrazine's risk to ecosystems, allow more contamination with the herbicide, and apply a wishy-washy, ineffective enforcement mechanism. In reevaluating the risk to aquatic systems, EPA has chosen to exclude four of the six experiments that it previously judged to show an effect on aquatic plant communities, which allowed it to increase the allowed concentration of atrazine in surface water from 3.4 ug/L to 9.7 ug/L. If atrazine concentrations exceed that allowed concentration, they will trigger mitigation measures. 

Mitigation is to follow EPA's “herbicide mitigation strategy,” which provides a menu of options providing “flexibility” to pesticide applicators, with no incentive to adopt more ecologically-based approaches such as organic farming and land management. 

EPA is accepting comments on its proposal until February 18, 2025, through Regulations.gov.  

>> EPA must apply the standard of the Dacthal decision to atrazine and issue an emergency suspension and prohibit the use of existing stocks. 

Exposure to atrazine, manufactured by Syngenta, is widespread in the environment. According to EPA, “Pesticide products containing atrazine are registered for use on several agricultural crops, [including] field corn, sweet corn, sorghum, and sugarcane, []wheat, macadamia nuts, and guava, as well as non-agricultural uses such as nursery/ornamental and turf.” It is the second most widely used herbicide in the U.S. after glyphosate (found in Roundup), but banned in the European Union in 2004 and over 40 countries worldwide. Many organizations have called for the chemical to be banned in the U.S. and have joined in litigation against EPA. 

In the case of Dacthal, EPA used the “imminent hazard” clause of the federal pesticide law to immediately suspend the chemical's use. At the same time, the agency is exercising its authority to prohibit the continued use of Dacthal's existing stocks, a power that EPA rarely uses. The last time EPA issued an emergency action like this was in 1979 when the agency acknowledged miscarriages associated with the forestry use of the herbicide 2,4,5-T—one-half of the chemical weed killer Agent Orange, sprayed over people to defoliate the landscape of Vietnam in the war there—with the most potent form of dioxin, TCDD (2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin). The chemical manufacturer of Dacthal, AMVAC Chemical Corporation, can challenge the agency's findings under the law and seek court review, but EPA's action takes effect immediately while any appeal is considered. Meanwhile, EPA has stopped use under 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq., pursuant to section 6(c)(3) (7 U.S.C. 136d(c)(3)). (See Unit IV.) The prohibition on the use of existing stocks is mandated under Section 6(a)(1). 

The timeline for review and action on individual pesticides has taken decades since the 1972 overhaul of nation's pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The law's risk-benefit standard allows for high levels of harm, especially to farmworkers and those handling pesticides, as well as public exposure through residues in food, water, and air. EPA's decisions are based on agency risk assessments that use flawed assumptions and ignore vulnerable populations like children and those with preexisting health conditions—like cancer, endocrine system disruption, neurological illness, and other health effects that are exacerbated by exposure. Amendments to FIFRA in 1996, in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), have done little to reduce the ongoing reliance on toxic chemicals in food production and land management, despite the growth of the $70 billion organic industry—still not considered by EPA as a legitimate alternative to be evaluated when determining the “reasonableness” or “acceptability” of risk under pesticide law. Instead, EPA calculates acceptability of risk in the context of available alternative chemicals. In its press release on the Dacthal decision, EPA said, “In deciding whether to issue today's Emergency Order, EPA consulted with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to understand how growers use DCPA and alternatives to this pesticide.” The agency's consultation with USDA evaluated alternative chemicals, not alternative organic management systems and organic-compatible substances. 

The current mechanism that EPA uses to restrict pesticides—negotiated settlements instead of regulatory action—compromises the health of people and the environment, often disproportionately for people of color and workers, who are the first to be exposed as applicators or agricultural workers. Could the Dacthal decision be a watershed moment to change a regulatory process that allows daily pesticide exposure, poisoning, and contamination at rates that EPA deems acceptable—despite the overwhelming science linking real-world pesticide use (from homes to parks and playing fields, schools, and farms) to dreaded illnesses, biodiversity collapse, and the climate crisis? See Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database and the Pesticide Gateway. 

In making its decision to ban Dacthal, EPA states that it considered: 

1. The seriousness of the threatened harm; 

2. The immediacy of the threatened harm; 

3. The probability that the threatened harm will occur; 

4. The benefits to the public of the continued use of the pesticide; and 

5. The nature and extent of the information before the Agency at the time it makes a decision. 

These criteria could be met for most of the pesticides for which EPA has negotiated settlements with pesticide manufacturers, resulting in partial withdrawals of pesticides from the market and compromises that threaten health and the environment. 

Based on the reasoning in the Dacthal decision, EPA should ban atrazine. 

Atrazine poses immediate serious harms to people and the environment. 
Registration of the endocrine-disrupting herbicide propazine (in the triazine family of frog-deforming endocrine disruptors) was canceled by EPA, eliminating the use of the hazardous herbicide by the end of 2022. However, all pesticides in the triazine class, including atrazine and simazine, have similar properties and should be eliminated from use.

Under an Endangered Species Act review, initiated by EPA only after a lawsuit from health and environmental groups, the triazine chemicals were found to adversely affect a range of species. Propazine was found to harm 64 endangered species, while simazine and atrazine were both likely to harm over 50% of all endangered species and 40% of their critical habitats. EPA finds, “aquatic plant communities are impacted in many areas where atrazine use is heaviest, and there is a potential chronic risk to fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates.” In addition, evidence shows that subsequent life stages or generations of fish are at greater risk of reproductive dysfunction after embryonic/early life exposure to atrazine. 

The triazine class of chemicals also pose significant threats to human health and are particularly concerning in the context of the range of chemicals one may be exposed to in today's world. As Tyrone Hayes, PhD, University of California, Berkeley professor, noted at a presentation at Beyond Pesticides' National Pesticide Forum, “Children in utero may be exposed to over 300 synthetic chemicals before they leave the womb… I would argue that a human fetus trapped in contaminated amniotic fluid is no different than one of my tadpoles trapped in a contaminated pond.”  

Atrazine has been linked to a range of adverse birth outcomes, including smaller body sizes, slower growth rates, and certain deformities like choanal atresia (where nasal passages are blocked at birth), and hypospadias (where the opening of a male's urethra is not located at the tip of the penis). The mechanism of toxicity is perturbation of the neuroendocrine system by disrupting hypothalamic regulation of the pituitary, leading primarily to a disturbance in the ovulatory surge of luteinizing hormone (LH), which results in both reproductive and developmental alterations. Of the numerous adverse effects associated with this disruption, the two that appear to be the most sensitive and occur after the shortest duration (4 days) of exposure are the disruption of the ovarian cycles and the delays in puberty onset.

Despite these endocrine-disrupting effects, EPA reduces the margin of safety and underestimates exposure to children. 

Mitigation measures have not eliminated the harm. 
In November 2020, Beyond Pesticides and allied environmental groups launched a lawsuit against EPA for its intent to reregister the triazine family of chemicals. The agency's interim approval of the herbicides, conducted under the Trump administration, eliminates important safeguards for children's health and a monitoring program intended to protect groundwater from contamination. As is typical with EPA, the agency merely proposed minor label changes in attempts to mitigate risks identified in its registration review. According to a release from EPA, it made the decision not out of concerns relating to human health and environmental protection, but in order to provide “regulatory certainty” for farmers and local officials. 

Although a hefty 200,000 lbs. of propazine were used each year, mainly on sorghum in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, this amount pales in comparison to the over 70 million lbs. of atrazine used throughout the United States. Under an Endangered Species Act review, initiated by EPA only after a lawsuit from health and environmental groups, the triazine chemicals were found to adversely affect a range of species. Propazine was found to harm 64 endangered species, while simazine and atrazine were both likely to harm over 50% of all endangered species and 40% of their critical habitats. 

The public does not benefit from continued registration of atrazine. 
While industry consistently lines up local Congressmembers, former EPA officials, and agrichemical lobbyists to pressure EPA to keep triazines in the market, there is no evidence that the herbicides benefit the farmers these officials claim to represent. According to research published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, banning atrazine would provide an economic benefit to farmers. “The winners,” the research concludes, “in an atrazine free future would include farm workers, farmers and their families, and others who are exposed to atrazine either directly from field uses or indirectly from contaminated tap water along with natural ecosystem that are currently damaged by atrazine.”  

EPA has sufficient information to cancel atrazine. 
EPA has long known about triazine's threats to wildlife, including its ability to chemically castrate male frogs. However, the agency has consistently defended the chemical and sat by while independent researchers like Dr. Hayes, who conducted seminal research on atrazine's endocrine-disrupting properties, are pilloried by chemical industry propaganda. In a Critical Perspectives piece published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Jason Rohr, PhD, provides an in-depth investigation of the atrazine controversy. 

“I argue that the atrazine controversy must be more than just a true story of cover-ups, bias, and vengeance,” he writes in the piece. “It must be used as an example of how manufacturing uncertainty and bending science can be exploited to delay undesired regulatory decisions and how greed and conflicts of interest—situations where personal or organizational considerations have compromised or biased professional judgment and objectivity—can affect environmental and public health and erode trust in the discipline of toxicology, science in general, and the honorable functioning of societies.” 

The Draft Ecological Risk Assessments for the Registration Review of Atrazine, Simazine, and Propazine dated October 5, 2016, found high risks that were supported by EPA's assessments. EPA states, “Based on the results from hundreds of toxicity studies on the effects of atrazine on plants and animals, over 20 years of surface water monitoring data, and higher tier aquatic exposure models, this risk assessment concludes that aquatic plant communities are impacted in many areas where atrazine use is heaviest, and there is potential chronic risk to fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates in these same locations. In the terrestrial environment, there are risk concerns for mammals, birds, reptiles, plants and plant communities across the country for many of the atrazine uses. EPA levels of concern for chronic risk are exceeded by as much as 22, 198, and 62 times for birds, mammals, and fish, respectively. For aquatic phase [stage] amphibians, a weight of evidence analysis concluded there is potential for chronic risks to amphibians based on multiple effects endpoint concentrations compared to measured and predicted surface water concentrations. The breadth of terrestrial plant species and families potentially impacted by atrazine use at current labeled rates, as well as reduced rates of 0.5 and 0.25 lbs. a.i./A, suggest that terrestrial plant biodiversity and communities are likely to be impacted from off-field exposures via runoff and spray drift. Average atrazine concentrations in water at or above 5 μg/L for several weeks are predicted to lead to reproductive effects in fish, while a 60-day average of 3.4 μg/L has a high probability of impacting aquatic plant community primary productivity, structure, and function.”  

The agency acknowledges many risks of concern associated with the uses of atrazine but asserts the remaining serious worker and ecological risks after the adoption of all proposed mitigation measures are outweighed by the benefits of atrazine use. EPA has determined that the chlorotriazines (triazines) and their three chlorinated metabolites share a common mechanism of toxicity, and as such, human health risks were assessed together through a triazine cumulative risk assessment. The mechanism of toxicity is perturbation of the neuroendocrine system by disrupting hypothalamic regulation of the pituitary, leading primarily to a disturbance in the ovulatory surge of luteinizing hormone (LH), which results in both reproductive and developmental alterations. Of the numerous adverse effects associated with this disruption, the two that appear to be the most sensitive and occur after the shortest duration (4 days) of exposure are the disruption of the ovarian cycles and the delays in puberty onset. Importantly, this perturbation manifests after short duration exposure with long-term life-cycle consequences, so it establishes both acute and chronic toxicity levels of concern (LOCs). 

Toxicity and exposure data available to EPA are sufficient to demonstrate that several atrazine uses exceed risk levels of concern. Exposures to children 1-2 years old playing on turf sprayed with atrazine exceed a risk estimate of concern for combined dermal and incidental oral exposures when assuming the maximum labeled rate for spray applications (2.0 lb ai/A). However, a screening aggregate assessment without the FQPA required safety factor was performed assuming that the application rate for turf is reduced to 1.0 lb ai/A, which would not be of concern for 4-day aggregate exposures. Even with this rate reduction, it can be presumed children are still at serious risk. For occupational handlers, EPA identified use scenarios that exceed risk concerns even with the maximum available personal protective equipment and/or engineering controls (proposed mitigation measures). 

Here is how EPA describes its truncated process for DCPA: 

In 2013, the agency issued a Data Call-In (DCI) to AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the sole manufacturer of DCPA, requiring it to submit more than 20 studies to support the existing registrations of DCPA. The required data included a comprehensive study of the effects of DCPA on thyroid development and function in adults and in developing young before and after birth, which was due by January 2016. Several of the studies that AMVAC submitted from 2013-2021 were considered insufficient to address the DCI, while the thyroid study and other studies were not submitted at all. 

In April 2022, EPA issued a very rarely used Notice of Intent to Suspend the DCPA technical-grade product (used to manufacture end-use products) based on AMVAC's failure to submit the complete set of required data for almost 10 years, including the thyroid study. While AMVAC submitted the required thyroid study in August 2022, EPA suspended the registration based solely on AMVAC's continued failure to submit other outstanding data on Aug. 22, 2023, following an administrative hearing.  In November 2023, the data submission suspension was lifted after AMVAC submitted sufficient data. Most DCPA use on turf was voluntarily canceled by AMVAC in December 2023, but unacceptable risks from other uses remained. 

As society and the global community struggle with petrochemical pesticides and their contribution to health threats, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency, EPA must acknowledge that Dacthal is one active ingredient among over 1,000 in 56,000 pesticide products whose uses can be eliminated by the use of organic systems that have now been shown to be effective.  

>> EPA must apply the standard of the Dacthal decision to atrazine and issue an emergency suspension and prohibit use of existing stocks. 

For more information on the dangers of atrazine and its chemical cousins, read Beyond Pesticides comments to EPA, and watch Tyrone Hayes, PhD presentations from former National Pesticide Forum events on YouTube.

By 2032, all petrochemical pesticides must be phased out and replaced by organic systems and substances compatible with the protection of health and the environment and a livable future. 

The target for this Action is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, via comments through Regulations.gov.

Thank you for your active participation! The Action is a multi-step process, so please click submit below to proceed to step two, where you will be able to personalize comments before final submission. The comment maximum limit is 4,000 characters, so it may be necessary to delete some of our prepared message text if editing. 

 

There is no better time than the beginning of a new year to reflect on what we can do as individuals and collectively to have a meaningful effect on our health, the health of our families and communities, and the legacy of a sustainable world. What follows is a simple step you can take for your health and the health of our planet. 

With the publication of a piece by Harvest Public Media at the end of December, the reporter Héctor Alejandro Arzate captures the power of individuals and communities working together to adopt a rather simple change that is crosscutting in its effect on the health, biodiversity, and climate crises of our time—transitioning our parks and public spaces to organic practices. The article, “These Midwest cities are cutting pesticides from public parks with the help of a national nonprofit,” highlights the work of Jen Schroeder, a mother of two children in Kansas City, who wants, simply, her neighborhood park where her children play to be free of toxic chemical use. She saw a flier in her local Natural Grocers store about Beyond Pesticides' Parks for a Sustainable Future Program, reached out to her Kansas City Parks and Recreation Department, and now the city is moving ahead to transition two pilot sites to organic practices. It happened with a simple reaching out to the Parks Department! With the hands-on assistance of Beyond Pesticides, Parks Departments receive a plan and training from a horticulturalist and learn about organic practices that can be applied across all parks and public spaces. See how you can become a Parks advocate!

>> Ask your Mayor, in the new year, to adopt a policy and program for organic management of your community's parks and public spaces. [In the event that your local mayor is not in the system, we invite you to email this message to them personally!]

In protecting children using their community parks, the organic land management program is creating models for cost-effective programs that meet community expectations, while eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. When combined with the growth of certified organic agriculture, the conversion of land management to organic eliminates the petrochemicals associated with endocrine disruption (see a talk by Dr. Tracey Woodruff here) and rising rates of related illnesses, biodiversity decline, and an escalating climate crisis. As the climate crisis causes increasingly erratic weather, more frequent flooding, and widespread fires, organic soil management draws down atmospheric carbon, which reduces the threat of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate disasters. Also, see the effects of synthetic fertilizers. 

There could not be a more important time for us to all engage in this new year's organic journey whether we choose to emphasize organic choices in our diet, lawn and landscape care, or community involvement. Here is more on the reasons why: 

1. Health and Safety: Organic foods and parks are free from harmful pesticides, fossil-fuel-based substances, and toxic chemicals, making them safer and healthier for all ages. Visit Beyond Pesticide's 40 Common Lawn and Landscape Chemicals page to learn more about the health impacts of pesticides in communities. See how you can manage your landscape without petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. 

2. Environmental Stewardship: Organic land management supports practices that protect pollinators, improve soil health, increase biodiversity, and reduce toxic runoff into water bodies. Learn more about how to protect pollinators in your community by reading BEE Protective. 

3. Trust and Transparency: The USDA Certified Organic label ensures strict standards and regulations for organic products, providing trust and transparency for consumers worldwide. We provide oversight for parks that use organic land management. Visit Beyond Pesticide's literature called Save Our Organic to learn more about the power of the organic label and use our Keeping Organic Strong page to keep USDA accountable to the principles and values in the Organic Foods Production Act. 

4. Just Communities: Supporting organic farming practices can benefit local communities and economies, as well as promote responsible animal welfare and fair labor conditions. Organic parks are the ethical choice to promote environmental justice. The Black Institute's Poison Parks report shines a spotlight on New York City's previous reliance on glyphosate-based herbicides and that people of color communities, including landscapers, bear the burden of this toxic chemical's impact. 

5. Climate Resilience: Organic farming often exhibits better performance during droughts and challenging environmental conditions. Watering needs are very site-specific and the type of soil impacts drainage. Once established, a deep root system from organic land management requires less water and results in the drawn down of atmospheric carbon, contributing to efforts to reduce the adverse effects of carbon on climate. 

>> Ask your Mayor, in the new year, to adopt a policy and program for organic management of your community's parks and public spaces.[In the event that your local mayor is not in the system, we invite you to email this message to them personally!]

Letter to Mayor: 

I am writing to urge you to use your leadership in the new year to require as a matter of policy and practice the organic management of our community parks and public spaces. My concern about the management of public spaces—used by children and families, those with health vulnerabilities, pets, and wildlife—stems from the hazardous nature of the petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers commonly used. The adverse health and environmental effects are captured on two factsheets, 40 Commonly Used Lawn Pesticides (https://bp-dc.org/40commonpesticides). With this information, we urge you to advance a policy and management decision to stop the use of these hazardous chemicals and transition our parks to organic practices. 

The factsheets document, with scientific citations, a wide range of diseases and ecological effects linked to pesticides. The underlying analysis identified in the factsheets are based on toxicity determinations in government reviews and university studies and databases. 

Of the 40 most commonly used lawn and landscape pesticides, in reference to adverse health effects, 26 are possible and/or known carcinogens, 24 have the potential to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system, 29 are linked to reproductive effects and sexual dysfunction, 21 have been linked to birth defects, 24 are neurotoxic, 32 can cause kidney or liver damage, and 33 are sensitizers and/or irritants. Regarding adverse environmental effects, 21 are detected in groundwater, 24 have the ability to leach into drinking water sources, 39 are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms vital to our ecosystem, 33 are toxic to bees, 18 are toxic to mammals, and 28 are toxic to birds. 

In adopting organic land management, our community can make an important contribution to solving the threat that petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers pose to biodiversity collapse and the climate crisis. The 2022 United Nations Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) warns that we must adopt policies and practices that reflect the value of Nature’s biodiversity, including pollinators, in supporting human life and activity. This starts with the management of soil and landscapes in our community.  

As the climate crisis causes increasingly erratic weather, more frequent flooding, and widespread fires, organic soil management draws down atmospheric carbon, which reduces the threat of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate disasters. Organic management of our parks enables our community to contribute to solving this existential crisis and elevates our role in climate action. 

Please take advantage of Beyond Pesticides’ offer to assist you and land managers of our community parks in the adoption of organic land management practices through its Parks for a Sustainable Future program. You can contact them at [email protected]. 

I look forward to your reply and working with you in the new year.