(Beyond Pesticides, September 17, 2025) A study in Environmental Science & Technology finds additive effects of a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide (cypermethrin) and two fungicides (azoxystrobin and prochloraz) on biological control, biomass of major invertebrate trophic groups (position in food web), and soil ecosystem processes in arable systems (land suitable for growing crops). The study authors further highlight the failure of pesticide regulations to consider elaborate trophic interactions and pesticide mixtures, as well as additive and synergistic effects within their assessments, calling attention to the complexity of real-world exposures and the lack of research to fully understand the implications of chemical use for agricultural and land management purposes.

“Arable systems have a high dependence on diverse natural biota to support pest control, soil bioturbation, and nutrient recycling,” the researchers write. These communities rely on a balance of organisms within various trophic levels in order to function and provide vital ecosystem services. Disruptions caused by environmental contaminants, such as pesticides to nontarget organisms, impact entire ecosystems and overall biodiversity. As the authors state, current risk assessments underestimate the real-world risks of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers that, despite a wide body of science connecting exposure to deleterious health and environmental effects, are still not fully understood.

There are complex interactions of chemical mixtures that occur as a result of the ”chemical soup” present in the environment, with underlying mechanisms that are incompletely comprehended. Rather than relying on a precautionary approach to protect health and the environment, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) utilizes unenforceable mitigation strategies to “reduce risks” and allows registrations based on insufficient scientific research. The risk assessment incorporates the assumption of 100% compliance with mitigation measures. (See more on the precautionary principle here, here, and here, as well as EPA failures here and here.)

Background and Relevance

The use of pesticides has grown exponentially since World War II, with many wartime chemicals transitioning to the consumer market, including the organochlorines (e.g., DDT) and organophosphates (e.g., malathion, chlorpyrifos). “The potential nontarget effects on biodiversity from these pesticides have required the development of regulatory procedures to mitigate risk,” the authors explain. They continue: “However, there is increasing concern that these fail to adequately capture the real-world consequences. Part of this failing relates to a focus during the regulatory process on single active ingredients, an emphasis on a restricted number of established model species (e.g., nontarget arthropods like honeybees, earthworms, springtails, and enchytraeids) from which risk is inferred and the lack of continuous instruction on the timing and dose of pesticide application.”

The use of a limited group of model species, in particular, is concerning as they “fail to capture how differential species sensitivity propagates through trophic interactions to affect wider system-level processes,” the researchers emphasize. (See more information in Daily News coverage on varying sensitivity between species and risk assessment deficiencies here and here.)

The pesticides included in the experiment are cypermethrin, a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide, and two fungicides, azoxystrobin and prochloraz, which documentation shows cause health and environmental effects ranging from toxicity to aquatic organisms and bees to neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, and oxidative stress.

Study Methodology and Results

The study, performed in an open growing area in Southern England, uses arable communities of pests (aphids and weevils), predators (e.g., beetles, spiders, and mites), and soil biota (including mites and earthworms) to assess interactions between cypermethrin, azoxystrobin, and prochloraz as well as within trophic interactions as a result of exposure to these active ingredients. “This study is intended to provide new insights into the risks posed by pesticide synergisms within the context of trophically complex communities critical to the support of agricultural ecosystem services,” the authors summarize.

They continue: “In this study, we use a model arable mesocosm [controlled, semi-natural experimental ecosystem] approach to test the interacting effects of a widely used pyrethroid cypermethrin in combination with an azole fungicide prochloraz that has an established biochemical mechanism resulting in synergisms. We also tested the effects of the strobilurin fungicide azoxystrobin, for which there is little evidence for synergisms with pyrethroids.”

The results reveal that despite previous research supporting cypermethrin and prochloraz having increased interactions, cypermethrin and azoxystrobin have a greater than additive effect. “The synergism between cypermethrin and prochloraz was relatively small compared to that between cypermethrin and azoxystrobin,” the researchers state. “However, the synergism between cypermethrin and prochloraz was expected due to the inhibition of the cytochrome P450 monooxygenases,” which are proteins essential for metabolism.

The study analyzes the effects of the three pesticides individually and in pairwise combinations to establish how “key aspects of arable farming systems, including aphid pest control by ladybirds, biomass of key trophic levels, overall community food web structure, and soil organic matter recycling” is impacted following exposure. The methodology includes a description of the 35 mesocosms containing blended loam topsoil with organic matter and a seeded soil surface with a mixture of organic powdered oats and dried yeast flakes to provide resources for soil microfauna.

Two months before the application of the pesticides, field beans were transplanted into the soil, and then a sequential addition of arthropod communities began to build up the trophic levels of detritivores (animals that feed on dead organic matter), herbivore pests, and predators. In total, the experiment includes seven treatments ranging from the control (no pesticides) to each active ingredient individually and in pairs.

Assessments following pesticide applications incorporate arthropod sampling and soil sampling, with an assessment of decomposition rates of the breakdown of organic matter by soil macrofauna. Trophic links are also estimated using the WebBuilder function of its statistical package “to predict trophic interactions between the terrestrial and soil arthropod communities for each mesocosm.” These links are based on observed and established species feeding relationships within the mesocosm.

Within the experiment, the arable crop mesocosm system records show 30 taxonomic units (including species, genus, and order classifications), representing a total of 317,064 individuals from the trophic levels of detritivores, herbivores, and predators over the 4-week sampling period. Impacts on the organisms throughout the experiment show:

• Ladybird abundance responds significantly to the interaction between pesticide treatments and sample week, with the lowest numbers recorded with exposure to cypermethrin.
• Predator biomass experiences a significant interaction between pesticide treatment and sample week, suggesting implications for single or acute exposure versus continued exposure.
• “[T]here was in general greater evidence for impacts of all three types of pesticides, with the use of cypermethrin either alone or with the fungicides having negative effects that decreased predator biomass over time. The use of either fungicide alone or in combination also appeared to have net negative effects on predator biomass.” Detritivore biomass declines over time are also noted.
• Within the predator food web architecture, there is a trend for reduced node richness with cypermethrin (alone and in combination with azoxystrobin).
• Additional “changes in the architecture of predatory trophic interactions did show evidence for synergistic effects between cypermethrin and the fungicides.”
• There is a collapse in connectance (measure of network complexity), which represents the proportion of trophic links and is associated with system stability and robustness, which can impact biodiversity and its associated ecosystem processes. (See studies here and here.)
• Nutrient pathways and overall diversity in tropic interactions are affected by all three pesticides, implying “that these critical food webs have reduced functionality, with an equivalent reduction in this metric seen where communities suffer from overexploitation or invasive species.” The results suggest the diversity of nutrient pathways is additive with pesticide exposure.

The authors note that while the data highlights trophic level impacts with all three pesticides, and unexpected additive effects that are highest between cypermethrin and azoxystrobin, “more subtle effects may be occurring, resulting from sublethal behavioral changes (e.g., activity) that may affect their ability to impact soil ecosystem processes.” (See research here and here.) While mesocosms are able to act as an experimental model to study environmental changes under controlled conditions and offer insight, such as for complex interactions between trophic levels, they are inherently artificial and not representative of all factors within natural ecosystems that need to be considered.

Regulatory Deficiencies

As the researchers emphasize throughout the study, agricultural systems apply a wide range of pesticides, which are approved for use through regulatory processes that do not realistically consider all possible combinations and potential interactions between active ingredients. As a result of this, risks to health and the environment are often underestimated, as there is a potential for additive, or even greater than additive (synergistic), effects with pesticide mixtures. (See studies here, here, here, and here.)

The authors describe that, “Such synergistic risks can occur where pesticide active ingredients affect either: 1) the bioavailability of one or more compounds, e.g., by changing its half-life or altering interactions with organic matter to affect sorption; 2) toxicokinetics that change uptake and transport to target sites, e.g., via inhibition of transport proteins, competition for binding sites, metabolism, and/or excretion; or 3) toxicodynamics that change interactions with target sites or affect a species ability to combat the effects of exposure.” (See here, here, and here.)

There is significant potential for synergistic impacts on nontarget organisms, including those providing ecosystem services like pollination, natural pest control, and soil health benefits. However, regulatory assessments do not typically evaluate possible synergistic interactions, as well as the true impacts on community structure, which are highly complex, when exposed to pesticide mixtures.

“We have shown that while insecticide use has arguably predictable consequences for most invertebrates, it is only when consideration is given to complex measures of trophic interactions between species that synergistic risks between pyrethroids and strobilurin fungicides were identified,” the researchers conclude. They continue: “Yet, the current emphasis of pesticide regulatory approaches remains on a limited number of model species while rarely considering how changes in wider community composition can impact complex species interactions. Such interactions have implications for system resilience and ecosystem processes.”

Previous Research on Arthropods

Daily News coverage entitled “Cultivating with Natural Predators Gets Farmers Off the Pesticide Treadmill, According to Study” highlights how many of the pesticides used against insects, including neonicotinoid seed treatments, also kill other beneficial arthropods, as well as other soil invertebrates important to cycling nutrients naturally. The study finds arthropod predators suffer sharp declines in fields applied with pesticides and where seeds have been treated with neonicotinoids, as well as how slug damage can be reduced when natural slug predators are encouraged, allowing farmers to avoid the endless cycle of pesticide dependency, pest resistance, genetically engineered crops, and synthetic fertilizers.

Prior research in Germany, summarized in the Daily News, Study Shows Drastic Loss of Arthropods in German Grasslands and Forests, shows a steep decline of arthropod (insect and spider) populations in grasslands and forests, which adds to the growing body of evidence documenting the ongoing “insect apocalypse.” As noted, it is clear, based on the scientific literature, that the use of pesticides in industrial agriculture is greatly contributing to the rapid decline of insect populations, which then causes cascading impacts throughout the food web, such as with birds and other wildlife.

Support for the Organic Solution

A myriad of studies highlight the importance of insect biodiversity for ecosystem functioning, which is protected through organic land management practices. One study finds uncultivated field margins contain almost twice as many beneficial insects as cropped areas around farm fields, according to research published in the Journal of Insect Science. The study notes that these predators and parasitoids overwinter in diverse vegetation and can provide farmers an important jump start on spring pest problems instead of relying on toxic pesticides.

Another study also promotes the value of natural predators, highlighting how bats are crucial in suppressing pest arthropods in agroecosystems and contribute vitally to sustainable agriculture. (Read more in the Daily News here.) Additional coverage this year of 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.

Visit Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows on Biodiversity page for more research on how population declines are linked to pesticide exposure. As an alternative to these harmful chemicals, Beyond Pesticides advocates for the elimination of all petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers that are insufficiently studied and regulated, putting all organisms, including humans, at risk.

The widespread adoption of organic practices can mitigate these risks by protecting and enhancing biodiversity, safeguarding public health, and mitigating climate change. Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of the organic solution here and here and take action to advance organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies.

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

Source:

Woodcock, B. et al. (2025) Synergistic Pesticide Effects on Complex Arthropod Trophic Interactions in Arable Systems, Environmental Science & Technology. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5c04611.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 16, 2025) As reported in the Daily News on August 28, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it “will hold a public webinar [today], September 16, 2025, at 2:00 PM ET to provide information on the ecological runoff/erosion and spray drift mitigation measures that can be used to protect endangered species from pesticides.” This follows closely behind an earlier announcement of a newly released Pesticide App for Label Mitigations (PALM) mobile tool to assist in implementing these mitigation measures. Despite boasting that the PALM tool is a “one-stop shop” for farmers to use EPA’s mitigation menu, which the agency claims helps to protect nontarget species, environmental critics say that self-directed mitigation without a rigorous reporting and enforcement apparatus fails to meet the level of protection that is necessary under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

As Beyond Pesticides has often reported, mitigation measures are not enforced through recordkeeping, inspections, and certification, and require no accountability from farmers and pesticide applicators. At the same time, EPA assumes compliance with mitigation measures as the basis for meeting statutory standards of reasonable risk from harmful chemicals, despite documented health and environmental harm. As a Daily News article earlier this year points out, living amid chemical pollution creates the need for immediate mitigation measures in an attempt to manage exposure. Mitigation measures, however, are often found to be lacking because of ongoing risks that may be reduced, but not eliminated, despite the availability of nontoxic practices that current policies do not require.

The root cause of these issues is the failure of EPA to adequately assess the lack of pesticide essentiality and pesticide hazards in the face of unprecedented chronic illness diagnoses, biodiversity collapse (pollinators, birds, and butterflies alone), and the climate crisis. In partnership with farmers, community organizers, public health professionals, and some policymakers, the adoption of land management and food supply chain systems rooted in organic principles and criteria are documented to be more protective by addressing threats to health, biodiversity, and climate by eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.

The latest updates to the mitigation menu and PALM tool that EPA has implemented “incorporates information from the Ecological Mitigation Support Document to Support Endangered Species Strategies Version 2.0 (published in April 2025), as well as the Insecticide Strategy and Herbicide Strategy.” Beyond Pesticides’ comments on both strategies can be seen here and here. A previous Daily News post, titled EPA Draft Herbicide Strategy Update Further Weakens Plan to Protect Endangered Species, further describes how EPA strategies are weakening aspects of the agency’s efforts to “protect” endangered species from herbicide use. (See additional coverage on ESA and mitigation measures here, here, here, and here.)

The update to the Herbicide Draft Strategy, specifically, outlines three types of modifications, including “simplifying” its approach, increasing growers’ “flexibility” when applying mitigation measures, and reducing the mitigation measures required in certain situations. By reducing the stringency of the Strategy, advocates are again questioning EPA’s compliance with legal requirements under ESA or protecting endangered species and their habitats in the midst of an unprecedented rate of global extinction. This strategy was finalized in August 2024.

The latest mitigation menu update, as of April 2025, includes additional measures associated with the final Insecticide Strategy. As EPA states: “The mitigation menu does not impose any requirements or restrictions on pesticide use. Rather, pesticide users would access the mitigation menu website only to inform what mitigation measures could be used to achieve the level of mitigation that is required on pesticide labeling.” There is no reporting required to document that these actions were performed. EPA continues to say, “Pesticide users remain responsible for ensuring that all pesticide labeling requirements are met.”

EPA will provide an overview of the changes to the mitigation menu, as well as explain how to navigate the calculation resources, such as the PALM tool, and how these will “improve flexibility for pesticide users by providing options that work best for their situation,” at the webinar today, September 16, 2025. Registration is available here.

In relying on online resources that “assist applicators in determining what mitigation options are available to them, including the spray drift and runoff calculators” and newly released PALM tool, EPA shifts the burden on to farmers and pesticide applicators to properly review product labels and any proposed mitigation measures, identify what is needed for their specific situation, and then implement the measures appropriately, all without the need to report those actions to the agency.

EPA says mitigation tracking is “at the field or farm level” and not required to be submitted to the agency. If working with a technical specialist or conservation program, “Verification can be done through the conservation program and provided to the program enrollee. Verification is not required to be submitted to EPA.” This hands-off approach highlights what environmental advocates identify as a regulatory deficiency within EPA’s program that does not meet the standards of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and ESA, which require compliance with specific enforceable use restrictions that have been delineated on pesticide product labels.

As stated, the current mitigation process does not properly ensure that choosing from a menu of protective measures will meet a protective standard that is recorded and enforced, thus requiring accountability of applicators. Additionally, the mitigations outlined on EPA’s mitigation menu website are reported by users who participated in a test to be cumbersome to navigate, without assurances that the agency will teach, implement, or enforce the new system. The new point system is intended to establish sufficient mitigation to allow pesticide use. However, the expectation of accurate calculations for mitigation measures is placed on applicators who may not be fully versed in math or English. The users in the test identified technological problems with the website, while also commenting on the complexities involved in the process.

On this topic of mitigation, Beyond Pesticides, in Daily News EPA “Mitigation Menu” Called Complex, Raising Doubts about Required Endangered Species Protection, points to advocates of organic agriculture who argue that instead of spending millions of dollars and many years creating mitigation programs that are unenforceable and ineffective, EPA should spend the same amount of time and money supporting farmers in the transition to organic agriculture and in exiting the toxic pesticide treadmill.

Even if the mitigation menu was easier to navigate, these proposed mitigation measures would only lessen the chance of harmful impacts of pesticide use and, more concerning, are entirely voluntary. Beyond Pesticides maintains that practices to eliminate the need for pesticides must be emphasized because so many pest problems are a function of faulty management practices, which cannot be solved with pesticide use. Instead, EPA assumes the need for pesticide dependency, even though the scientific literature and empirical evidence may say otherwise.

Organic agriculture is a viable, productive alternative to the current regulatory system that assumes the need for pesticides due to chemical dependency. Despite this, the marketplace has responded to consumer demand, which has helped build a market valued at over $70 billion in the U.S. and over $230 billion globally. The global organic market is projected to grow to $564 billion by 2030. (See here and here.) Widely adopted organic agriculture and land management is the holistic solution that is necessary to offer the proper protections EPA is required to provide.

Recent studies, as covered in the Daily News, show how organic practices enhance soil health, increase crop and nutritional quality even with weather uncertainty, and can outcompete chemical-intensive fields, as well as provide health benefits with an organic diet. Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic here and here.

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

Beyond Pesticides has issued an Action to: Tell Congress To Stand Up for Health and the Environment.

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

Sources:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (August 14, 2025). EPA Releases New Mobile Tool to Help Farmers Implement Recommended Ecological Pesticide Mitigation Measures. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-releases-new-mobile-tool-help-farmers-implement-recommended-ecological-pesticide.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (August 20, 2025). Register for EPA’s Webinar on Mitigation Measures to Protect Endangered Species from Pesticides. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/register-epas-webinar-mitigation-measures-protect-endangered-species-pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 15, 2025) With residues of the widely used weed killer glyphosate (Roundupᵀᴹ) in the food supply long documented, scientific attention has turned to the synergistic effects of the weedkiller— a magnified effect greater than the individual chemical effects added together. The authors of an article in World’s Poultry Science Journal write, “The synergistic toxic effects of commercial glyphosate formulations and their bioaccumulation in animal tissues are often overlooked in current safety assessments.” Following up on a previous action, Beyond Pesticides is telling Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the agency must consider the effects of pesticides in the context in which they are used and promote the organic alternative. 

Glyphosate residues in animal feed, as well as in water and through other exposure routes from food generally and residential areas, pose risks to both animal and human health, as these residues can bioaccumulate. As previously examined by Beyond Pesticides, the effects of pesticides are not limited to the crops to which they are applied. Synergistic effects of multiple chemical exposures are the rule, rather than the exception.  

With poultry, the herbicide enters the production system through residues in genetically engineered feed. An earlier article in Scientific Reports concludes that glyphosate’s (GLP) “widespread application on feed crops leaves residues in the feed,” while residues are “found to be common in conventional eggs acquired from grocery stores.” In analyzing the biochemical, toxicological, and ecological impacts of glyphosate on poultry, particularly chickens, the authors find a wide body of evidence linking glyphosate and its metabolite (breakdown product) aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) to debilitating hazards that extend beyond mortality. These sublethal effects include disruption of the gut microbiome and gastrointestinal disease; decreased productivity and diminished reproductive health; hepatic and kidney toxicity; growth and developmental impacts, including teratogenicity and embryotoxicity; endocrine disruption and oxidative stress; and impaired immune functions. 

Glyphosate residues in animal feed, as well as in water and through other exposure routes from food generally and residential areas, pose risks to both animal and human health, as these residues can bioaccumulate. With a high reliance on corn and soybeans in the diets of poultry, genetically modified (GM) crops are a significant source of exposure for these animals. The ubiquitous nature of glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms is a result of the widespread application of this toxic chemical in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Over 750 herbicides contain glyphosate as the active ingredient, and it also plays a large role in the production of GM crops, “with approximately 80% of GM crops bred specifically for GLP tolerance.”

Although the effects of glyphosate alone, as have long been documented in the scientific literature, range from negative impacts on biodiversity and the environment to food safety risks and human health implications, the true impacts can only be seen when looking at the whole agroecosystem. EPA’s regulatory processes ignore factors that enhance the toxicity of these already harmful chemicals, such as synergy, mixtures, and “inert” ingredients. “Current safety evaluations mostly concentrate on glyphosate in isolation, overlooking the synergistic toxic effects of commercial formulations and their capacity for bioaccumulation in adipose tissues,” the review’s authors point out.

Fortunately, adopting a systems approach to analyzing risks also reveals the systemic solution—regenerative organic production and land management—that is both successful and a suitable standard of comparison. The only way to truly protect humans, as well as pollinators, insects, birds, and other species, and the biosphere as a whole, is to stop the use of pesticides completely. Converting the world’s agricultural systems to organic would have a tremendous positive impact on threatened populations. 

Letter to U.S. Congress
Recent research on glyphosate demonstrates how people are multiply exposed as the pesticide moves through the food chain. A scientific review in World’s Poultry Science Journal highlights the adverse health effects on avian species from exposure to the widely used weed killer glyphosate throughout poultry production. The herbicide enters poultry production through residues in genetically engineered feed. An earlier article in Scientific Reports concludes that glyphosate’s “widespread application on feed crops leaves residues in the feed,” while residues are “found to be common in conventional eggs acquired from grocery stores.” In analyzing the biochemical, toxicological, and ecological impacts of glyphosate on poultry, particularly chickens, the authors find a wide body of evidence linking glyphosate and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) to debilitating hazards that extend beyond mortality. These sublethal effects include disruption of the gut microbiome and gastrointestinal disease; decreased productivity and diminished reproductive health; hepatic and kidney toxicity; growth and developmental impacts, including teratogenicity and embryotoxicity; endocrine disruption and oxidative stress; and impaired immune functions.

Glyphosate residues in animal feed, as well as in water and through other exposures from food generally and residential areas, pose risks to both animal and human health, as these residues can bioaccumulate. The GM corn and soybeans in the diets of poultry are a significant source of exposure for these animals. The ubiquitous nature of glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms is a result of the widespread application of this toxic chemical in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Over 750 herbicides contain glyphosate as the active ingredient.

Although the effects of glyphosate alone, as have long been documented in the scientific literature, range from negative impacts on biodiversity and the environment to food safety risks and human health implications, the true impacts can only be seen when looking at the whole environment. EPA’s regulatory processes ignore factors that enhance the toxicity of these already harmful chemicals, such as synergy, mixtures, and “inert” ingredients. “Current safety evaluations mostly concentrate on glyphosate in isolation, overlooking the synergistic toxic effects of commercial formulations and their capacity for bioaccumulation in adipose tissues,” the review’s authors point out.

Other studies highlight the need for a broader overhaul of EPA’s current risk assessment process. A November 2023 European study published in Nature challenges “the current assumption of pesticide regulation—that chemicals that individually pass laboratory tests and semifield trials are considered environmentally benign.”

Since interactions and synergism are the rule, pesticides cannot be evaluated based on single-chemical, single-species tests. They must be evaluated in context—that is, the system of chemical-dependent management must itself be questioned. Fortunately, adopting a systems approach to analyzing risks also reveals the systemic solution—regenerative organic production and land management—that is both successful and a suitable standard of comparison. The only way to truly protect humans, as well as pollinators, insects, birds, and other species, and the biosphere as a whole, is to stop the use of pesticides completely. Converting the world’s agricultural systems to organic would have a tremendous positive impact on threatened populations. 

EPA must consider effects of pesticides in the context in which they are used and with reference to the organic alternative.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Recent research on glyphosate demonstrates how people are multiply exposed as the pesticide moves through the food chain. A scientific review in World’s Poultry Science Journal highlights the adverse health effects on avian species from exposure to the widely used weed killer glyphosate throughout poultry production. The herbicide enters poultry production through residues in genetically engineered feed. An earlier article in Scientific Reports concludes that glyphosate’s “widespread application on feed crops leaves residues in the feed,” while residues are “found to be common in conventional eggs acquired from grocery stores.” In analyzing the biochemical, toxicological, and ecological impacts of glyphosate on poultry, particularly chickens, the authors find a wide body of evidence linking glyphosate and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) to debilitating hazards that extend beyond mortality. These sublethal effects include disruption of the gut microbiome and gastrointestinal disease; decreased productivity and diminished reproductive health; hepatic and kidney toxicity; growth and developmental impacts, including teratogenicity and embryotoxicity; endocrine disruption and oxidative stress; and impaired immune functions.

Glyphosate residues in animal feed, as well as in water and through other exposures from food generally and residential areas, pose risks to both animal and human health, as these residues can bioaccumulate. The GM corn and soybeans in the diets of poultry are a significant source of exposure for these animals. The ubiquitous nature of glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms is a result of the widespread application of this toxic chemical in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Over 750 herbicides contain glyphosate as the active ingredient.

Although the effects of glyphosate alone, as have long been documented in the scientific literature, range from negative impacts on biodiversity and the environment to food safety risks and human health implications, the true impacts can only be seen when looking at the whole environment. EPA’s regulatory processes ignore factors that enhance the toxicity of these already harmful chemicals, such as synergy, mixtures, and “inert” ingredients. “Current safety evaluations mostly concentrate on glyphosate in isolation, overlooking the synergistic toxic effects of commercial formulations and their capacity for bioaccumulation in adipose tissues,” the review’s authors point out.

Other studies highlight the need for a broader overhaul of EPA’s current risk assessment process. A November 2023 European study published in Nature challenges “the current assumption of pesticide regulation—that chemicals that individually pass laboratory tests and semifield trials are considered environmentally benign.”

Since interactions and synergism are the rule, pesticides cannot be evaluated based on single-chemical, single-species tests. They must be evaluated in context—that is, the system of chemical-dependent management must itself be questioned. Fortunately, adopting a systems approach to analyzing risks also reveals the systemic solution—regenerative organic production and land management—that is both successful and a suitable standard of comparison. The only way to truly protect humans, as well as pollinators, insects, birds, and other species, and the biosphere as a whole, is to stop the use of pesticides completely. Converting the world’s agricultural systems to organic would have a tremendous positive impact on threatened populations. 

EPA must consider effects of pesticides in the context in which they are used and with reference to the organic alternative.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 12, 2025) A team of Argentinian researchers conducted a study published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology of the combined effects of the herbicide glyphosate and the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin. The researchers observed significantly higher apoptosis in cells exposed to the mixtures than to the individual pesticides—a synergistic response. Apoptosis, also known as programmed cell death, is a standard way that tissues handle damaged cells to remove threats to their function.

The researchers sought to investigate the cellular toxicity of each chemical, individually and in combination, and assessed whether the effects of the mixture were additive or synergistic. Additive effects occur when two individual chemicals amplify the same sort of response, often because the chemicals have similar structures. Synergism can occur when chemicals have different mechanisms of action but work together to create more powerful effects.

Mixtures of pesticides are the least-studied area of research conducted for regulatory purposes. While regulators provide instructions to applicators regarding which pesticides can be applied together and combined in tank mixtures, there is no control over how pesticides travel through the environment once applied, as they flow through the air as spray drift, lodge in soils and water, and are incorporated into organisms via dermal, respiratory, and ingestion pathways. Herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides may affect different pests and have different mechanisms of action, but in combination, they can do even more profound damage to biological systems. Academic scientists are building up a body of research on pesticide mixtures that should trigger alarm – and action – in the regulatory community. See Beyond Pesticides’ archive on synergistic effects for more details.

Nor are chemicals’ harms necessarily confined to single organs or body systems. For example, Beyond Pesticides analyzed a review of reproductive health in August showing that pesticides and PFAS “disrupt the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis (HPG), impair ovarian function, and contribute to reproductive dysfunction through mechanisms such as oxidative stress, hormonal disruption, and epigenetic [gene expression or behavior] modifications,” according to the review authors. “This leads to menstrual irregularities, infertility, and pregnancy complications, as well as increases in the risk of reproductive system disorders such as endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and ovarian cancer.”

The effects of exposure to multiple pesticides are of dire significance for people in agricultural areas. The Midwest is a prime example. A recent report from Investigate Midwest details the consequences in southeastern Missouri. With the University of Missouri, the journalists analyze cancer rates and pesticide usage by county. Missouri, in general, has both very high pesticide use per square mile and very high cancer rates per 100,000 people. The investigators found that the state’s “bootheel” has the highest use of pesticides per square mile, and four of the bootheel counties have the highest cancer rates. Major crops are cotton, soybeans, and rice–crops grown in vast amounts with millions of pounds of pesticides. The investigators cited a study by Isain Zapata and colleagues, finding associations between pesticide use and leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, bladder, colon, lung, and pancreatic cancers; the strength of the associations was rivaled only by smoking. While specific pesticides were associated with specific cancers, neither the journalism investigation nor Zapata’s study attempted to determine the influence of combined exposures, highlighting the urgent need for more research.

The researchers studied the combined effects of cypermethrin and glyphosate because these pesticides are often applied to the same fields and both are found in soils, air, and water. There are some reports that in Argentina, the two pesticides are sometimes combined in tank mixtures or applied at the same time. Cypermethrin kills insects by interfering with neuron function and generating oxidative stress. It has also been found to increase numerous cellular biomarkers of DNA damage in at least three cell types. Glyphosate, the most-used pesticide in the world, is classified as a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and is known to degrade kidney function, affect reproductive health, disrupt gut microbes, and more.

The authors wanted to see whether (and how) the cypermethrin-glyphosate mixture promotes cell death, and, if it damages but does not kill cells, how much it damages their genes. They used separate commercially available formulations of glyphosate and cypermethrin and formulated two mixtures with different ratios from scratch. They tested each formulation on a cell line called Hep-2, which is commonly used to study the effects of pesticides on the respiratory tract, and widely used in studies of viruses, cancer, pharmaceuticals, and genetic engineering.

A test of cytotoxicity and genotoxicity produced significant differences between control cells and all the treated groups – that is, treated groups showed a higher incidence of toxicity indicators like the occurrence of two nuclei, multiple micronuclei, and frequency of abnormal cell division. These types of aberrations are associated with apoptosis.

The researchers also point out that apoptosis is dose-dependent. At lower pesticide doses, cells’ genes may be damaged even though the cell does not die. This can result in long-term issues, including mutations and chromosomal breaks, which can in turn result in cancer.

Overall, the authors write, their study demonstrates “that agrochemical mixtures exert toxic effects on this cell line, and that in most cases, these effects are greater than expected for the individual substances alone.” This means that the old toxicological adage that “the dose makes the poison” is an inappropriate measure for assessing the effects of exposure to mixtures of pesticides. For mixtures, those effects are often more than the sum of their parts.

The fact that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) puts its stamp of approval on both glyphosate and cypermethrin and allows the use of these pesticides in combination identifies a serious deficiency. Both are known or suspected human carcinogens. Both harm insects (directly or indirectly), birds, fish, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, humans, and likely many other organisms. The entire regulatory system is geared toward examining each chemical in isolation. But the real world is awash in uncontrolled combinations of chemicals. As mixtures are the least-studied form of pesticide exposure, those that are additive or synergistic likely represent the most urgent challenge posed by the real-world use of pesticides.

One of the foundational assumptions about synthetic pesticide use is that toxic chemicals can be controlled in the environment. After nearly a century of unbridled release of thousands of chemical compounds into the biosphere, there is abundant evidence that those chemicals move, combine, and degrade in unpredictable ways. They are not controllable in the ways that pesticide companies and regulators claim they are.

EPA continues to foster the massive glyphosate economy and refuses to acknowledge its harms, which are identified by international agencies and the independent peer-reviewed scientific literature. Regarding cypermethrin, egregiously, in its 2021 Interim Registration Review Decision, EPA “decided not to develop unique chemical-specific risk mitigation for the cypermethrins” and “concludes that the cypermethrins provide high benefits for controlling pests in indoor residential areas, outdoor urban areas, and in agricultural crop production…risks may remain to non-target organisms even after mitigation. Any remaining risks are outweighed by the benefits of the cypermethrins’ use” [emphasis added].

On September 8, Beyond Pesticides called on Congress to require EPA to recognize that pesticide exposures occur in the real world in the form of mixtures that often have synergistic effects. The organization’s analysis reviewed multiple lines of evidence, including that the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid, along with infestation with a parasitic mite, synergistically increases honey bee deaths; plastics combined with petrochemical pesticides exacerbate health effects; the fungicide azoxystrobin, combined with natural fungal toxins, synergistically affects liver cancer cells. It is also noted that profound observers of nature and humanity, such as the poet John Donne and the naturalist John Muir, pointed out long ago that all life is interconnected; therefore, synergy is to be expected, not ignored. Here is a letter the public can send to Congress stressing the importance of acknowledging and studying the combined effects of pesticides, plastics, climate change, and other human-induced changes to the biosphere.

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

Sources:
Assessment of cell death and genotoxic potential of glyphosate and cypermethrin formulations, individually and in combination, in HEp-2 cells
Coalova et al.
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 2025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1382668925001905

The unseen harvest: Pesticides, cancer and rural Missouri’s health crisis
Alex Cox, Adeleine Halsey, Kyla Pehr and Savvy Sleevar
Investigate Midwest August 18, 2025
https://investigatemidwest.org/2025/08/18/the-unseen-harvest-pesticides-cancer-and-rural-missouris-health-crisis/

Scientific Studies Identify EPA Deficiency in Evaluating Safety of Toxic Chemical Interactions
Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/09/scientific-studies-identify-epa-deficiency-in-evaluating-safety-of-toxic-chemical-interactions-calls-for-action/

Study Shows Importance of Testing Pesticide Mixtures to Determine Adverse Ecosystem Effects
Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/06/study-shows-importance-of-testing-pesticide-mixtures-to-determine-adverse-ecosystem-effects/

Children’s Health Threatened as Rates of Pediatric Cancers are Linked to Agricultural Pesticide Mixtures
Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/category/statelocal/nebraska/

(Beyond Pesticides, September 11, 2025) A study published in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment finds organic rice paddies in the Mediterranean region have greater ecosystem biodiversity, including increased presence of aquatic microorganisms and insects, than their chemical-intensive counterparts. While not a “cradle-to-grave” or holistic analysis of organic vs. chemical-intensive agriculture (see a similar example in previous Daily News here), the authors note that there is an increase in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) associated with compost use, which replaces synthetic fertilizers. Typically, compost builds biological life in the soil and contributes to a drawing down (or sequestering) of atmospheric carbon. As EPA notes, “[C]omposting lowers greenhouse gases by improving carbon sequestration in the soil and by preventing methane emissions through aerobic decomposition, as methane-producing microbes are not active in the presence of oxygen.”

The transition to organically produced rice in the U.S. has come with challenges. One includes thorny debates over the inclusion of copper sulfate on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, which establishes materials permitted for use in certified organic production under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Under the law, USDA restricts copper sulfate in organic farming as follows: “For use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, use is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent. For use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems and for tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice systems; use is not to exceed one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a time frame agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.” (Reference: 7 CFR 205.601(a)(3), 205.601(e)(4), & 205.601(i))

Certifiers of organic are charged with evaluating the need for copper sulfate use and determining that other preventive means, including cultural practices, have been tried.

It should be noted that copper sulfate, like all allowed substances in organic, is subject to public review and comment on a five-year cycle and must be reviewed by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and voted on to remain on the National List. In chemical-intensive agriculture, by contrast, copper sulfate is registered for use as a fungicide, algicide, a source of copper in animal nutrition, as fertilizer and herbicide, and for seed treatment. It is also used to kill slugs and snails in irrigation and municipal water treatment systems.

As biodiversity, public health, and other planetary boundaries strain under the weight of a fossil fuel and chemical-intensive global economy and society, organic advocates continue to call for the incorporation of climate resilience into organic agriculture with improved soil biology and water retention.

Background and Methodology

The study was conducted in Albufeira Natural Park (ANP), a wetland listed under the intergovernmental treaty Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance since it is considered “a key ecological and economic resource in the region.” There are four sampling sites—a water spring (on the edge of ANP and consisting of aquatic plants [macrophytes]), an organic rice field (manually seeded and fertilized with horse manure), and two chemical-intensive rice fields. The first chemical-intensive rice field, located in the northern area of ANP, was irrigated with reclaimed wastewater and used more pesticides due to issues with weeds, pest pressures, and a seed variety prone to fungal disease. The second chemical-intensive rice field is in the southern area, and it was irrigated with water from Albufera Lake. Researchers gathered three samples from each site throughout the 2021 cultivation cycle, with more specific information on the seeding dates, irrigation regimes, pesticide and fertilizer applications, and drying periods available to review in Section 2.1 of the Materials and Methods section.

The researchers emphasize the significance of this study, given that there has generally been minimal research “explor[ing] the long-term effects of pesticides and conventional rice farming practices—such as intermittent drainage or fertilization—on biodiversity in rice paddies.” In this vein, the researchers reference previous studies suggesting the benefits of organic rice farming (see here, here, and here), however these were all conducted in subtropical regions in Asia; Mediterranean rice paddies, meanwhile, have specific management practices that significantly affects the GHGe [greenhouse gas emissions] of rice production,  “such as post-harvest flooding patterns, straw management, and the type of wetlands previously present on reclaimed land.”

In terms of gathering data on aquatic organisms, researchers engaged in biological sampling and analysis for microbial communities (bacteria and archaea), zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, and emerging insects. Gathered through water and sediment using an EZNA soil DNA kit, researchers tested for phylogenetic diversity (which is considered a measure of biodiversity between species rather than just relying on a given species’ abundance or quantity). Only individuals from the microzooplankton group were gathered after the researchers identified them through a stereomicroscope, filtering samples through 5 liters of water through a zooplankton net. Macroinvertebrates were gathered through a net, preserved in 96 percent ethanol, and biomass measured after drying the samples and removing shells from the assessment. Emerging insects went through a similar sampling process, except that pyramid-shaped nets were used. To test GHG emissions (specifically carbon dioxide and methane), researchers used a tactic employed in previous wetland studies to gather sediment cores to assess the exchange of CO2 and CH4 gases between May and October 2021. More information on the statistical data analyses employed in this study is available for review in Section 2.5.

The authors are based at universities in the European Union, including the University of Alcala, IMDEA Water Institute, and University of Valencia. They declared that “they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.” The study received funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities, Agency of Research, and Recovery and Resilience Facility (which “finances reforms and investments in EU Member States made from the start of the pandemic in February 2020 until 31 December 2026).

Results

“The study….reveals that the structure of aquatic communities is heavily influenced by rice farming practices, with organic rice farming supporting a larger abundance of pollution-resistant zooplankton and a higher diversity and biomass of emerging insects,” says the authors. They continue: “However, organic rice farming was associated with the highest prevalence of fecal microorganisms and contributed more to greenhouse gas emissions during the rice cultivation period due to its manure fertilization regime.”

Key patterns that the authors note for the organic rice field are that it is characterized by higher biodiversity (particularly for insects), higher presence of fecal-associated microbial life (which the authors warn may be “indicating a potential risk of pathogen introduction through manure-based fertilization”), and higher GHGe overall from manure. “Higher insect emergence in the Organic Rice field provide[s] food to riparian arthropod predators, amphibians, and water birds, contributing to energy transfer between aquatic and terrestrial environments,” say the authors. When calculating GHGe, the authors do not consider the emissions associated with synthetic fertilizer production – they only measured the flux of methane and carbon dioxide from the sampling sites and assessed the difference in emissions and potential for carbon sequestration.

Meanwhile, the two chemical-intensive fields generally have low biodiversity, higher presence of aquatic life that are “pollution-tolerant,” and contain moderate-to-high GHGe depending on the water source for irrigation. It is important to note that daily methane emissions were highest in the first conventional rice field relative to all other sites. They also emphasize that “GHG emissions observed in this study are relatively low compared to those reported in other regions.” There are practices identified “to mitigate methane emissions, such as delaying winter flooding or removing straw after harvest to reduce methanogenesis and microbial decomposition, which are key contributors to elevated CH₄ and CO₂ fluxes, respectively.”

Previous Research

As this study lays out in its introduction, there is significant research on the impacts of rice production on ecosystem health and broader biodiversity.

A study published in 2022 in Communications Biology finds that ‘Weedy rice,’ a close relative of cultivated rice that invades rice fields and reduces yields, is rapidly developing herbicide resistance in critical rice growing areas throughout the United States. Researchers note that the root of the issue farmers face is a result of an agricultural approach that relies on a single, streamlined method of weed control. “Just like in the case of antibiotic resistance, the rise of resistance to this particular herbicide will be met with a new technology that relies on a new herbicide,” says study co-author Marshall Wedger, PhD. He continues: “New herbicide-resistant cultivars are already in development, so I expect this process to repeat.”(See Daily News here.) Similar issues have emerged with herbicide- and pesticide-resistance, including waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus), commodity crops like corn, and other “crops” like farm-raised fish and the sea lice pesticide emamectin. More specifically to rice production, a 2016 study published in Scientific Reports and produced by Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies found that the insecticide fipronil significantly reduces the population of adult dragonflies, more so than any other pesticide treatment. (See Daily News here.) This is also a potential public health crisis, as a Consumer Reports-published study in 2012 found “worrisome” levels of inorganic arsenic in rice products across organic and conventional products, challenging advocates to meet this moment of crisis and call for alternatives while also continuing to be critical. (See Daily News here.)

One of the more controversial inclusions to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances is that of copper sulfate. As an antimicrobial and fungicide, its use is permitted in organic certified operations for food/feed crops, including orchard, row, field, and aquatic crops, flowering/non-flowering plants, and trees. Beyond Pesticides has continued to call for the sunset of this material, given the known associated adverse health and ecological effects. (See here for Beyond Pesticides’ comments to the National Organic Standards Board).

The authors of a 2024 case study in Canale D’Aiedda (Italy) published in Scientific Reports, conclude that, “[T]he results of monitoring and modeling activities revealed a chronic risk associated with the presence of Cu [copper] from November to April in several river reaches and acute risk associated to the presence of glyphosate in several reaches mainly in the wet season.”  According to the authors, “The most important factor influencing the chronic risk for Cu were the combination of two factors: the high surface runoff and the Cu applications. The most important factor influencing the glyphosate peaks of concentration is the streamflow.” The NOSB has previously discussed alternative growing systems that would eliminate the need for copper sulfate and made such alternatives a research priority. Copper sulfate is widely used in organic rice production to control algae and an invertebrate known as tadpole shrimp. Most of the world transplants rice seedlings into flooded paddies. Dryland rice production eliminates the need for control of tadpoles, which eat the rice seedlings in flooded fields. Ironically, tadpole shrimp are regarded as a biological control for algae. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

There is a concerted effort in Europe to advance what is being coined as Organic Climate Farming. 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). (See Daily News here.) OrganicClimateNet defines organic climate farming as “an agricultural approach that integrates organic farming’s nature-based and circular principles with climate-conscious practices. This combination provides innovative and impactful solutions to the challenges posed by climate change.

You can take action today by leveraging and sharing Eating with a Conscience, which is a repository including dozens of non-organic fruits, vegetables, and food items to see which pesticides can be used in their production. There are specific sections on rice and wild rice that may be relevant; however, this tool was developed to help you evaluate the impacts on the environment and farmworkers of the toxic chemicals allowed for use on major food crops, grown domestically and internationally. 

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

Source: Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 

(Beyond Pesticides, September 10, 2025) After being criticized by the chemical industry and allied agribusiness and service industry groups on the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) report in May, the strategy document, released yesterday, has tamped down efforts to reform government programs that regulate pesticides. There are no specific recommendations on improving the regulation of pesticides. Rather, the strategy appears to embrace business-as-usual and could even ramp up government efforts to tout the need for pesticides and claims that current regulatory reviews are effective and comprehensive.

In a section of the strategy entitled “Increasing Public Awareness and Knowledge,” the document says: “EPA, partnering with food and agricultural stakeholders, will work to ensure that the public has awareness and confidence in EPA’s pesticide robust review procedures and how that relates to the limiting of risk for users and the general public and informs continual improvement.” This is at odds with the earlier MAHA assessment report which identified pesticides as substances of concern that, citing deficiencies in chemical reviews, “may be neglecting potential synergistic effects and cumulative burdens, thereby missing opportunities to translate cumulative risk assessment into the clinical environment in meaningful ways.”

While the earlier report, Make Our Children Healthy Again: Assessment, cited glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, and atrazine as examples of chemicals of concern, the strategy drops a clear effort to address the systemic regulatory problems 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). 

A section in the strategy, entitled “Cumulative Exposure,” basically identifies a current statutory mandate for EPA under the Food Quality Protection Act (amending the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) to “focus on pesticides acting through a common mode of action.” It remains to be seen what will happen and how long it will take to implement the recommendation in this section: “The EPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and NIH will develop a research and evaluation framework for cumulative exposure across chemical classes.“ However, there is nothing new here unless this strategy addresses chemical mixtures and potential synergistic effects, in addition to additive or cumulative effects.

The strategy embraces chemical dependency in agriculture in a section entitled “Precision Agriculture,” which states, “USDA and EPA will launch a partnership with private-sector innovators to ensure continued investment in new approaches and technologies to allow even more targeted and precise pesticide applications.” The section implicitly extols the productivity benefits of the toxic pesticides identified as problematic in the first MAHA report, pointing to technology as a potential tool to “reduce the total amount of pesticides needed.” The strategy, which suggests government funding through the proposed public-private partnership, “should focus on precision application methods, including targeted drone applications, computer-assisted targeted spray technology, robotic monitoring, and related innovations.”

With the embrace of pesticide dependency as stated in the “Precision Agriculture” section, it remains to be seen whether the section on “Water Quality” could provide an opportunity to assess the hazards of pesticides in the nation’s waterways and drinking water. This section states, “The EPA and USDA, along with other relevant Federal partners and in collaboration with NIH, will assess ongoing evaluations of water contaminants and update guidance and prioritizations of certain contaminants appropriately.” The only example given in this context is “fluoride in drinking water to inform Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations.” While the strategy notes that CDC will “update recommendations” on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in water, no mention is made of a specific assessment of fluorinated pesticides that invade waterways.

In context of the overall strategy, the one mention of organic raises organic integrity concerns that are troubling to organic advocates. In a section entitled “Process Efficiencies and Deregulation” and a subsection “Agriculture Deregulation,” the strategy notes that USDA will, “Streamline organic certification processes and reduce costs for small farms transitioning to organic practices.” One of the key elements that sets organic apart from chemical-intensive agriculture is the inspection and certification requirement that ensures organic consumers that the USDA organic seal is based on a rigorous organic systems plan and compliance with the strict standards that give farmers a price premium. Organic advocates are against deregulation, which is often code for a weakening of standards that would undermine consumer trust in the organic label. The deregulation fever that has taken hold in the current Congress and administration was recently seen with the passage of the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act, H.R. 3898, sponsored by Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) and supported by Republicans only, in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the U.S. House of Representatives. The committee says in its press release on the legislation that it will “Cut Red Tape and Increase Clean Water Act Permitting Efficiency,” but environmental groups explain that it is an attack on the safety of the nation’s waterways, undermining water quality, pesticide oversight, and community right-to-know. A part of this legislation is attached to the House Interior-EPA Appropriations Bill (SEC. 460), passed out of the full Appropriations Committee, and is moving to a floor vote. 

The President’s  Make America Healthy Again Commission Executive Order 14212, issued on February 13, 2025, and the follow-up assessment report in May, included language that promised a broad strategy to protect the health of children with recommendations that addressed “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.” The first line of the report in May characterized it as “a call to action” on a broad range of issues, including toxic chemical and pesticide exposure. A reading of the strategy suggests that pesticides are no longer a concern for children’s health or the current administration. The science would suggest otherwise.

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

Source: Make Our Children Healthy Again: Strategy Report

(Beyond Pesticides, September 10, 2025) Published earlier this year, a review of over 1,700 studies in Nature Communications finds pesticides affect a diverse range of nontarget organisms and contribute to global biodiversity loss. The authors* reveal “negative responses of the growth, reproduction, behaviour and other physiological biomarkers within terrestrial and aquatic systems” for nontarget plants, animals, and microorganisms.

“To our knowledge, there has been no systematic and overarching synthesis of how different types of pesticides affect the diversity of multiple non-target eukaryotic and prokaryotic organisms across all trophic levels,” the researchers write. They continue, “Furthermore, current syntheses have not considered how the impacts of pesticides differ globally across climatic zones or for major mechanisms of exposure, such as those acting in aquatic or terrestrial environments.”

In particular, pesticide regulatory risk assessments analyze a limited range of model species, including rats, zebrafish, clawed frogs, honeybees, and earthworms, among others. As such, they are unlikely to capture the variety of responses to pesticide exposure seen across the diversity of species and communities found in both managed and natural systems,” the authors state.

*Authors include Beyond Pesticides 2023 National Forum speaker Dave Goulson—see the Daily News on his keynote address here.

Research Results

To address these limitations, the authors integrated 20,212 estimates of pesticide effects reported in 1,705 experimental studies from around the world. The research measures the effects of insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides on animals (invertebrates and vertebrates), plants (dicotyledonous, monocotyledonous, and spore-producing), and microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) through laboratory and field experiments.

The studies incorporate pesticide exposure responses from 471 active ingredients (243 insecticides, 104 fungicides, and 124 herbicides) in 830 different species (560 animals, 192 plants, 78 microorganisms) and 129 non-species-level groups. Throughout the research, the results consistently demonstrate that pesticides threaten wildlife and ecosystems beyond the hazards accounted for in risk analyses, highlighting “the limitations of regulatory assessments in predicting real-world hazards like long-term low-level exposure, cumulative effects at the landscape level, and synergistic interactions between active ingredients,” the researchers explain.

For the various nontarget species analyzed, the results all indicate health impacts that affect species survival and progeny. In animals, the studies show overall decreased growth and reproduction, as well as modified behavior, with pesticide exposure. In particular, insecticides negatively impact animals through nervous system functioning, affecting longevity, fecundity, and survival across a range of animal taxa, among other factors.

Fungicide exposure in animals is linked to changes in metabolism and physiological functioning, including intracellular glutathione depletion and decreased cellular respiration. Herbicides also impact animal reproduction and behavior through neurotoxic effects and impacts on metabolism. “Pesticides overall, as well as separately for insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides, perturbed animal biomarkers, including indicators of neurophysiological response and cellular processing,” the authors note. (See studies here and here.)

In plants, pesticide exposure decreases growth, also disturbing plant biomarkers and affecting metabolism, photosynthesis, and transpiration necessary for plants to function. “The decreased growth and reproduction of plants may be linked to reductions in photosynthesis through known modes of action of herbicides, as well as by off-target effects for selected insecticides and fungicides,” the researchers state. “These include impacts on the cell cycle (e.g. abnormal cytoskeletal distribution, tube morphology and microtubule organization), direct or indirect interactions leading DNA genotoxicity and via non-specific cellular reactivity.” (See research here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Microorganism growth and reproduction also decrease with pesticide exposure, as microorganism biomarkers that indicate enzymatic reactions are affected. “The negative responses of microorganism growth and reproduction to fungicides can be linked to impacts on spore germination, germ tube elongation, sporulation, and root colonization, as well as through effects on electron transport and energy metabolism,” the authors explain.

The impacts from insecticides and herbicides are linked to “cellular chemical reactivity leading to intracellular damage of microorganisms, as well as denaturing [disruption or death] of key macromolecules and/or changing cell membrane permeability” based on the scientific literature. (See here and here.)

The authors of the review also “tested whether the predominantly negative effects of pesticides on major taxonomic groups differed among pesticide types, experiment types, exposure media (aquatic or terrestrial), climatic zones, conflict-of-interest status and publication year.” As a result, the same negative trends seen above continued for all pesticide classes.

These analyses, utilizing field-realistic application rates, confirm the strong evidence of deleterious effects to nontarget species following pesticide exposure, regardless of the type of pesticide. Additionally, the authors also find that the negative implications increase as application rates are increased.

“Overall, our synthesis comprehensively shows that insecticides, fungicides and herbicides have broad-scale detrimental effects on all groups of non-target organisms tested,” the researchers summarize. They continue, “Pesticides consistently decreased growth and reproduction across all taxonomic groups, while also eliciting behavioural responses in animals and perturbing multiple endpoints linked to metabolic or physiological status.”

These results within nontarget organisms highlight the broader implications to ecological communities and functions, as well as additional factors that can impact biodiversity such as pesticide mixtures and synergistic effects, that fail to be considered in regulatory assessments. (See more in Daily News Fungicide’s Nontarget Harm to Insect Confirms Deficiency in EPA’s Ecological Risk Assessment, Study Finds, and Research Highlights Regulatory Failures in Addressing Risks to Nontarget Organisms from Rodenticides.)

The authors conclude that the “universal cross-taxa impact” of pesticides is “unsustainable for modern agriculture” and that “[u]nless changes occur, the hazard of severe, unexpected and long-term impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning will remain unacceptably high.”

Additional Scientific Findings

Previous research finds that, at sufficient environmental concentrations, pesticides in all classes affect nontarget organisms “by disrupting their survival, growth, reproduction and behaviour (e.g. detection of stimuli), as well as effects on other metabolic and physiological processes (e.g. biomarkers of neural function or immunity, cellular respiration, photosynthesis).”

Studies report that fungicides “may decrease the biomass of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, affecting their symbioses with higher plants,” while herbicides “may reduce plant pollen viability and carbohydrate metabolism; insecticides (targeting pest herbivores) may cause long-term declines in non-target insect pollinators associated with mass-flowering crops.” (See research here, here, here, and here.)

These impacts are widespread across taxa, with not only studies reporting effects on individual species but “across trophic levels, impacting ecosystem-scale species interactions that may lead to secondary effects,” the researchers note.

Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of deleterious effects on nontarget organisms is extensive. In particular, there is a wide body of science on pollinators and other beneficial insects that are vulnerable to pesticides. Recent Daily News titled Mass Kill of Monarch Butterflies in California Linked to Pesticide Residues in Their Bodies highlights the role of pesticides, synthetic pyrethroids in particular, in causing lethal and sublethal effects to nontarget organisms. (See What the Science Shows on Biodiversity for more information.)

Research earlier this year shows adverse effects of pesticides on nontarget soil organisms, like nematodes, that are essential for soil health and ecosystem functioning. (See Daily News Soil Nematodes Vital to Plant Health Threatened by Nontarget Pesticide Exposure, Study Finds.) Another study on Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) exposed to florpyrauxifen-benzyl suggests that the new herbicide causes oxidative stress (imbalances affecting the body’s detoxification abilities that lead to cell and tissue damage), with specific genotoxic (damage to genetic material) and hepatotoxic (damage to the liver) effects that threaten nontarget aquatic species and biodiversity. (See full coverage here and additional Beyond Pesticides’ resources on pesticide impacts on nontarget organisms here and here.)

Organic Solution

As recently shared in an Action of the Week, transitioning to organic land management and away from petrochemical materials not only protects workers but also aligns with broader goals to protect public health and biodiversity and mitigates the climate crisis. In adopting organic methods that prohibit pesticide use in both food production and land management, we are eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers associated with endocrine disruption and rising rates of a vast number of related illnesses. (See a talk by Dr. Tracey Woodruff as part of the 2024 National Forum Series here, as well as the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)

The public can play a role in the organic solution by reaching out to local decision makers and elected officials, as well as advocating for the transition of community parks, playing fields, and open spaces to organic land management with the assistance of Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program.

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

Source:

Wan, N.-F. et al. (2025) Pesticides have negative effects on non-target organisms, Nature Communications. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56732-x.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 9, 2025) SprayDays California, the pesticide notification and mapping tool run by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), was updated in late August after public backlash (including from farmworkers), which identified inadequate notice of pesticide use to those who work in or live in proximity to agricultural fields. According to a DPR press release from August 28, these changes include attempts to bring down barriers for users so that, in the words of DPR Director Karen Morrison, the department can “provide Californians with access to information and services.”

While public health advocates view notification as a step that may allow people to leave a treatment area or take shelter to reduce exposure, groups continue to express concerns about a focus on notification to the exclusion of addressing the root causes of exposure—chemical-intensive agriculture, despite the viability of organic compatible practices and products. The groups criticize the continuous registration of pesticide active ingredients and product formulations without considering widely available practices and nonchemical and nature-based alternatives to pest management. These include regenerative organic principles and practices that draw inspiration from Indigenous land management and agroecological systems that have thrived in coexistence with nature.

Recent Updates

There are two main changes to California SprayDays from the original proposal, according to the DPR press release. They include:

• “Map-Based Sign-Up: In addition to entering an address, users can now subscribe to notifications by selecting a one-square-mile section on a map, making it easier for those in unincorporated areas to sign up and receive the same information they would if using a recognized address within that section.
• Recent Application Visibility: The pesticide map now highlights one-square-mile sections where applications were scheduled within the past four days. While this information was already available in the system, it is now easier for users to see where recent activity may have occurred.”

DPR announced that over 3,700 users have signed up for notification alerts in heavily agricultural counties, including Kern, Monterey, Santa Cruz, Ventura, and Fresno, with more than 30,000 notifications sent to subscribed users in California. The Center for Farmworker Families estimates that roughly 500,000 to 800,000 farmworkers reside in California as of late 2024, which is roughly corroborated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service’s data finding that California farmers hired 808,000 workers during the week of July 7-13, 2024, “up 3 percent from the July 2023 reference week.”

In addition to DPR not embracing an alternatives assessment in its pesticide registration program, not all people have readily available access to a telephone or computer to subscribe or receive the notification messages from the SprayDays program. 

Farmworkers are continuing to speak up on pesticide use in their communities, even when government leaders fail to take a comprehensive approach to pesticide registration and restrictions. In late August, two farmworker activists in Watsonville, California, Omar Dieguez and Providence Martinez Alaniz, began a 30-day food fast with the goal “to pressure local berry growers to transition to organic farming practices and put an end to the harms caused by pesticide use.” These “local berry growers” include Driscoll’s, a titan of the blueberry industry operating both organic and chemical-intensive fields. According to reporting by Santa Cruz Local, “The hunger strike is an escalation of a local movement against the use of pesticides near schools, headed by the Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture. State law prohibits the use of pesticides within a quarter mile of a school-on-school days, but gaseous fumigants can drift in the wind for miles.”

One highly toxic fumigant, 1,3-D (Telone), is going through the rulemaking process currently “for regulations to restrict 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) use to address cancer risks for occupational bystanders,” according to an August 21 DPR press release. This move comes after years of advocacy, public comments (including from Beyond Pesticides), investigations led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG), and legislative efforts to address runaway pesticide use impacting farmworkers and their children. One of the issues identified is EPA’s failure to conduct an adequate and independent assessment of the cancer effects of 1,3-D.

OIG’s original report, The EPA Needs to Improve the Transparency of Its Cancer-Assessment Process for Pesticides, was issued in 2022 and concluded that EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) engages in secret meetings with industry, elevates unqualified individuals to decision-making roles, uses an untested scientific approach, fails to conduct a simple literature review, and neglects public transparency. (See Daily News here.)

Background

Growing out of the passage of AB 617 Community Emissions Reduction Act in California, passed in 2017, farmworker safety advocates have long been advocating for a pesticide spray notification system. In late 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) began implementation of AB 617, a bill enacted with the stated intent of addressing the air quality crisis in many communities of predominantly people of color, who are disproportionately harmed by toxic chemicals. While the overall goal of the law is to reduce air pollution in these communities, farmworker advocates have sought to operationalize a pesticide spraying notification system to warn communities when nearby spraying is scheduled to take place.

Based on DPR’s website, the agency began developing SprayDays California in 2021 after receiving funding in the state budget. That same year, pilot projects were voluntarily launched in four counties (Stanislaus, Riverside, Santa Cruz, and Ventura), and a two-year public outreach effort culminated in four focus groups and eight public meetings. The UC Davis Center for Regional Change conducted an independent evaluation of the notification system from the four notification pilot projects, echoing some concerns raised by local groups and Beyond Pesticides on guidance for precautionary action and communication on the level of health hazard associated with exposure to the spray. (See here.) In 2023, DPR moved to propose regulations to implement this system across the state, with final regulations approved in December 2024. 

SprayDays California requires that “restricted material pesticides” must be added to the notification system, with a 48-hour minimum notice expected for soil fumigants and a 24-hour notice for all other pesticides in this category. The notifications are sent via email and text messages, with opt-out options available depending on the user’s needs. The pesticide map component of this system organizes pesticide applications into one-square-mile sections, including relevant information, such as pesticide product name, active ingredient(s) name(s), application method (ground, aerial, fumigation, other), number of treated acres, and EPA registration number.

For more information on the history of SprayDays, see the Daily News here when the program was initially launched earlier this year.

Previous Research on Pesticide Drift

There is increasing evidence that pesticides have significant potential for drift and subsequent contamination of nearby environments and people.

Fifteen currently used pesticides (CUPs) and four metabolites (breakdown or transformation products—TP) were found in the marine atmosphere over the Atlantic Ocean in a research study published in Environmental Pollution. Three legacy (banned) pesticides were also discovered. The researchers found empirical evidence for pesticide drift over remarkably long distances to remote environments. The CUPs include the insecticides bifenthrin,  carbofuran, flonicamid, and flupyradifurone; the fungicides cyflufenamid, dicloran,  dimethomorph, fenpropidin, fluopyram, and tebuconazole; the herbicides clopyralid, fenuron, flumioxazin, isoxaflutole, and metamitron; the transformation products metalaxyl metabolite CGA 62826, metolachlor ethane sulfonic acid, metolachlor oxanilic acid, and prothioconazole desthio; and the legacy pesticides 2,4’-DDE, 4,4’-DDD, and hexachloro-benzene. (See Daily News here.)

In a study that may hit closer to home, researchers have detected eighty pesticides (35 insecticides, 29 fungicides, and 11 herbicides, and metabolites) in the ambient air of a rural region of Spain (Valencia) between 2007 and 2024. Despite these dramatic findings, the authors conclude that there is “no [observable] cancer risk,” “no inhalation risk for adults,” and only one pesticide concentration (the insecticide chlorpyrifos) showing “a potential risk to toddlers.” However, the authors did not conduct an aggregate risk assessment that would typically consider all routes of exposure to the individual pesticides detected, including through water, food, and landscapes. (See Daily News here.)

For further coverage of policy developments and scientific research on pesticide drift, see its dedicated Daily News section here.

Call to Action

As highlighted on the Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture (CORA) website, concerned citizens “want the fields near our homes and schools to be converted to organic in order to protect the health of our children and community.” You can take action here by asking your mayor to lead a transition to practices and product procurement that protect workers with criteria that meet organic standards in landscaping and food purchasing. By transitioning to organic product procurement and land management away from petrochemical materials, this effort to protect workers aligns with broader goals to protect public health and biodiversity, and mitigate the climate crisis.

Workers, as well as farmers and consumers, are also facing the existential threat as chemical companies and their allies in Congress continue to attack the viability of “failure-to-warn” liability claims that hold pesticide manufacturers accountable for their harmful products. Beyond Pesticides joined 50 other organizations and businesses across the country to call on Congress to oppose legislation that shields pesticide companies from lawsuits and limits states’ authority to regulate pesticides. (See Daily News here.) Eliminating failure-to-warn claims takes away one of the three legs of accountability in terms of federal pesticide law (registration, labeling, and litigation), allowing manufacturers to hide behind existing weak labels and registration reviews for active ingredients currently on the market, as well as potential future ones that may be submitted for EPA approval.

See here for the joint statement, Protect the Right of Farmers, Consumers, and Workers to Hold Pesticide Companies Accountable for Their Harmful Product. You can also see here for the associated press release, and here to learn more about the dangers of pesticide preemption and failure to warn. You can also take action here by telling your U.S. Senator to co-sponsor S. 2324, the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act, to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide, serving as a potential checkmate to the state-by-state effort led by Modern Ag Alliance to strip away failure-to-warn claims, which are under state-level legal jurisdiction.

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

Sources: California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Santa Cruz Local, CORA, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service

(Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2025) Beyond Pesticides today called on Congress to require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to incorporate real world science into its evaluation of pesticide safety calculations by recognizing that daily exposure involves multiple chemicals and synergistic interactions— a magnified effect greater than the individual chemical effects added together. The organization cites numerous scientific studies that call public attention to this issue; that a realistic assessment of the human and environmental harm potentially caused by pesticides cannot be evaluated based on single-chemical, single-species tests. Given the numerous complexities associated with this type of assessment, the group points to organic land management in agriculture and residential areas as a more cost-effective approach, sending this message to Congress: EPA must consider the effects of pesticides in the context in which they are used and with reference to the organic alternative.

A recent study, covered by Beyond Pesticides in its Daily News, found that the presence of Varroa mites in combination with the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid increases the risk of bee mortality and disrupts the larval gut microbiome. The study found synergy (a greater combined effect) between Varroa destructor, a parasitic mite that attacks and feeds on honey bees, and imidacloprid. The findings were published last month in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, and reinforces the important findings of a study published earlier this year. While there has been debate on whether neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides or Varroa mites (Varroa destructor) are more detrimental to the survival of bees, evidence suggests that neonicotinoids are not only harmful individually but can increase vulnerability to parasitism from mites in western honey bees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees. 

Other examples of synergistic effects of pesticides abound. A review in Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology analyzes studies linking exposure to environmental contaminants with adverse effects on women’s reproductive health. The chemical classes within the review include plasticizers, PFAS, heavy metals, pesticides, organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), microplastics, quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), many of which are related to chemical-intensive land management and can exacerbate health effects through additive or synergistic effects, like microplastics when in contact with petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. 

The scientific literature shows that microplastics (MPs) and pesticides, both ubiquitous throughout the environment, have synergistic effects that threaten aquatic organisms. The most recent study to demonstrate this, published in Ecotoxicology, focuses on the impacts of MPs and chlorpyrifos (CPF), a widely used organophosphate insecticide, on cladocerans, a group of microcrustaceans. A literature review of over 90 scientific articles in Agriculture documents MPs’ increase in the bioavailability, persistence, and toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture. In analyzing the interactions between neonicotinoid pesticides (NNPs) and MPs, a recent study in The Science of The Total Environment finds that neonicotinoids such as thiacloprid (THI) become more bioavailable in soils containing traditional and biodegradable plastics. Increased bioavailability, which quantifies the extent to which organisms are exposed to chemicals in soil or sediment, puts soil microbiota at risk and leaves all consumers susceptible to adverse effects in contaminated food crops. 

A study in Royal Society Open Science shows intraspecific differences (genetic differences of individuals of a species) in wild bumblebees (Bombus vosnesenskii) exposed to an herbicide (glyphosate), a fungicide (tebuconazole), and an insecticide (imidacloprid), with gut microbiome health as a factor. The authors conclude, “These findings suggest that site-specific factors influence pesticide sensitivity and should be considered in ecotoxicological studies of wild bees.” 

Researchers studying a mass mortality event of approximately 200 monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus plexippus) in Pacific Grove, California, point out, there are additional issues in assessing risks to species since “available toxicity values are based on exposure to a single active ingredient, whereas all the sampled monarchs contained residues of multiple pesticides.” Exposure to multiple pesticides can result in additive or synergistic effects, which then enhance toxicity, as has been demonstrated in many studies of pollinator species. 

A common soil arthropod has clearly illustrated how this convergence creates synergistic effects: warming increases pesticide toxicity; pesticide toxicity triggers antibiotic resistance; antibiotic resistance spreads through horizontal gene transfer (movement through the environment to people) and predation.

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.” 

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

Study results published in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology “suggest that combined [pesticide] exposure may further amplify the toxicity and compromise the intestinal barrier.” 

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

A study in Chemosphere, conducted by researchers from the Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in Germany, reveals the varied lethal and sublethal effects of different mixtures of the weed killer glyphosate through tests on the South African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis). After exposing embryos to four glyphosate formulations, mortality, morphological defects, altered heartbeat rate, and impaired heart-specific gene expression are observed. 

In their recent publication in Environmental Pollution, researchers from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany, find the greatest synergistic effects when Daphnia magna are subjected to the insecticide esfenvalerate under conditions experienced with climate change. 

In a study published in Biomedicines, the authors conducted a multi-behavioral evaluation of the effects of three pesticides, both individually and as mixtures, on larvae. The authors state, “Even at low concentrations, pesticides can negatively affect organisms, altering important behaviors that can have repercussions at the population level.” By analyzing effects on individual zebrafish with single compounds and mixtures, this study shows the dangers of pesticides in aquatic systems regarding synergy and the ripples created throughout entire ecosystems. 

Other studies highlight the need for a broader overhaul of the current regulatory review to address critical flaws in EPA’s current ecological risk assessment process. A November 2023 European study published in Nature demonstrates that relying on testing one active ingredient in a laboratory setting misses real-world impacts of pesticides on bees, nontarget pollinators, and a “landscape-level” study finds that typical risk assessment reviews used by EPA and European regulators fail to “safeguard bees and other pollinators that support agricultural production and wild plant pollination.” The authors’ conclusions challenge “the current assumption of pesticide regulation—that chemicals that individually pass laboratory tests and semifield trials are considered environmentally benign” and call into question EPA’s current regulatory assessments based on the western honey bee and its failure to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world as well as the actual devastating impacts to pollinators from the ubiquitous neonicotinoids. 

A study published in Conservation Letters, a journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, exposes critical shortcomings in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ecological risk assessment (ERA) process for modeling the risks that pesticides pose to bees and other pollinators. For the study, “Risk assessments underestimate threat of pesticides to wild bees,” researchers conducted a meta-analysis of toxicity data in EPA’s ECOTOX knowledgebase (ECOTOX), an EPA-hosted, publicly available resource with information on adverse effects of single chemical stressors to certain aquatic and terrestrial species. The meta-analysis found that the agency’s approach, which relies heavily on honey bee data from controlled laboratory studies, drastically underestimates the real-world threats from neonicotinoid insecticides (and likely other pesticides) to native bees and other pollinators. The study “challenges the reliability of surrogate species as predictors when extrapolating pesticide toxicity data to wild pollinators and recommends solutions to address the (a)biotic interactions occurring in nature that make such extrapolations unreliable in the ERA process.”

The organic alternative. Since, as noted by John Muir—and others as long ago as John Donne’s “No Man is an Island”—all life is interconnected, it is no surprise that synergism is the rule, rather than the exception. As noted by Maricel Maffini, PhD, and Laura Vandenberg, PhD, in a commentary in Frontiers in Toxicology, “Current approaches also rely on the assumption that testing chemicals one at a time is appropriate to understand how chemicals act under real-world conditions. Numerous mixture studies, including ones that demonstrated cumulative effects, have disproven this assumption.”

Beyond Pesticides has maintained that the only way to truly protect pollinators, insects, birds, and other species, as well as the biosphere as a whole, is to stop the use of pesticides completely. This questions the system of chemical-dependent management of crops, landscapes, and structures. In this context, it advocates the conversion of the world’s agricultural systems to organic would have a tremendous positive impact on threatened populations. 

Beyond Pesticides invites the public to send the following letter to Members of Congress. (The letter can be sent by clicking HERE.)
Studies demonstrating synergistic interactions between pesticides and other stressors bring to mind John Muir’s wisdom: “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.”

Recent studies show:

The presence of Varroa mites in combination with a neonicotinoid insecticide increases the risk of bee mortality and disrupts the larval gut microbiome; suggesting that neonicotinoids are not only harmful individually but can increase vulnerability to parasitism from mites in western honey bees.

Women’s reproductive health is adversely affected by exposure to environmental contaminants, many of which are related to chemical-intensive land management and can exacerbate health effects through additive or synergistic effects.

Microplastics (MPs) and pesticides have synergistic effects that threaten aquatic organisms. MPs increase the bioavailability, persistence, and toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture, putting soil microbiota at risk and leaving all consumers susceptible to adverse effects in contaminated food crops.

Individual wild bumblebees differ in their response when exposed to an herbicide (glyphosate), a fungicide (tebuconazole), and an insecticide (imidacloprid), with gut microbiome health as a factor.

Researchers studying a mass mortality event of about 200 monarch butterflies in Pacific Grove point to additional issues in assessing risks to species since “available toxicity values are based on exposure to a single active ingredient, whereas all the sampled monarchs contained residues of multiple pesticides.”

A common soil arthropod demonstrates synergistic effects: warming increases pesticide toxicity; pesticide toxicity triggers antibiotic resistance; antibiotic resistance spreads through horizontal gene transfer and predation.

The presence of multiple residues in a single sample of dog or cat food suggests that companion animals may be subjected to combined toxicological burdens that are not yet fully understood.

The interaction of a fungicide and naturally occurring mycotoxins shows synergistic effects, highlighting the complexities of chemical mixtures and potential threats to liver health through dietary exposure to both toxicants and toxins that are not regulated for their interactions.

Combined pesticide exposure may further amplify the toxicity and compromise the intestinal barrier.

Agricultural mixtures are linked to the occurrence of pediatric cancers, specifically brain and central nervous system cancers and leukemia.

Different glyphosate mixtures produce varied lethal and sublethal effects–mortality, morphological defects, altered heartbeat rate, and impaired heart-specific gene expression—on the South African clawed frog.

Daphnia magna experienced synergistic effects when subjected to esfenvalerate under conditions of climate change.

A multi-behavioral evaluation of the effects of three pesticides, both individually and as mixtures, on zebrafish larvae found, “Even at low concentrations, pesticides can negatively affect organisms, altering important behaviors that can have repercussions at the population level.”

Other studies highlight the need for a broader overhaul of the EPA’s current risk assessment process. A November 2023 European study published in Nature challenges “the current assumption of pesticide regulation—that chemicals that individually pass laboratory tests and semifield trials are considered environmentally benign.”

Since interactions and synergism are the rule, pesticides cannot be evaluated based on single-chemical, single-species tests. They must be evaluated in context—that is, the system of chemical-dependent management must itself be questioned. Fortunately, there is an alternative system—regenerative organic production and land management—suitable as a successful, comparable standard.

EPA must consider effects of pesticides in the context in which they are used and with reference to the organic alternative.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 5, 2025) A study in Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry finds permethrin, a commonly used synthetic pyrethroid insecticide, to be disruptive to the gut microbiome, altering microbiota and leading to increased formation of fat cells (adipogenesis) and metabolic disorders. With an aim to “comprehensively elucidate the effects of permethrin on gut microbiota, lipogenesis, and the associated molecular mechanisms,” the study explores the adverse effects of permethrin exposure in adult mice through multiple experiments.

“Our study provides the first in vivo [in a living organism] evidence suggesting a potentially causal relationship between permethrin exposure and the development of obesity, potentially mediated by specific gut microbiota-derived metabolites,” the researchers explain. They continue, “Notably, this work is the first to define a distinct microbiota−metabolite−host axis as a critical mediator of environmental toxicant-induced metabolic dysfunction.”

Permethrin is widely used as an insecticide on crops, such as cotton, corn, and wheat, as well as on livestock, in indoor and outdoor areas, and for treating lice and scabies. Mosquito abatement programs often utilize permethrin, further adding to the various exposure routes of this neurotoxic chemical. (See additional uses and health effects of permethrin in Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management here.)

Since pyrethroids are lipophilic compounds (“fat loving” or having an affinity for fats, oils, and other non-polar substances), they are able to extensively distribute throughout the body and can encompass many vital organs including the liver, adipose tissue, intestines, nervous system, stomach, and kidneys.

Previous research by the study authors demonstrates that permethrin promotes weight gain and exacerbates comorbidities associated with obesity. (See here and here.) Obesity is a chronic metabolic disorder linked to type 2 diabetes, fatty liver, and cardiovascular diseases, and is influenced by the gut microbiome. Any imbalance of gut microbiota can lead to a multitude of adverse health impacts including obesity.

Study Methodology and Results

To determine the effects of permethrin exposure in adult mice, the current study performed multiple experiments that included an insulin and glucose tolerance test, plasma and liver lipid measurements, evaluation of the gut barrier integrity, and intestinal microbial sequencing and analysis.

“To study the effects of permethrin on the development of obesity in the mice model, the permethrin-treated group (Per) was administered permethrin orally to C57BL/6J mice for 12 weeks, while the control group (Con) was maintained on a high-fat diet,” the authors share. As a result, permethrin “significantly raised body weight, epididymal white adipose tissue (eWAT), and liver index without impacting food consumption.” The exposed group also shows a pronounced rise in blood glucose and altered serum levels.

Permethrin exposure induces substantial alterations in the composition of gut microbiota. Not only did exposed mice have greater permeability of the gut epithelial barrier, but “analysis of gut microbiota revealed that following permethrin treatment, there was a notable decrease in the ACE index [a statistical measurement of diversity in the gut microbiome].” Changes in microbiota at the phylum level reveal a marked increase in the proportion of Firmicutes and a significant decrease in the proportion of Bacteroidetes. These changes caused a 151% elevation in the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes (F/B) ratio.

“At the genus level, we observed a notable decrease in the proportion of Intestinimonas, Anaerovorax, Faecalibacterium, Ruminiclostridium, Peptococcus, Bacteroides and UBA1819 within the Per group,” the researchers report. They continue, “Conversely, a notable increase was observed in the proportion of Prevotella_1, Eubacterium_brachy_group, Eubacterium_nodatum_group, Prevotella_7, Ruminococcaceae_UCG-013, Family_XIII_AD3011_group, Family_XIII_UCG-001, and Marvin- bryantia within the Per group.”

These results highlight how permethrin significantly influenced the delicate balance of gut microbiota and can lead to additional health implications and diseases. A follow-up experiment involving fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) further shows the causal role of microbiota in fat accumulation and impacts from permethrin exposure.

The “FMT from permethrin-treated donors induced an imbalance of gut microbiota in mice,” the authors write. In particular, the treatment group shows a 27% increase in Firmicutes abundance, as well as increased lipid accumulation. “[T]ransplanting the intestinal microbiota in sterile mice revealed that microbiota derived from the Per group substantially aggravated the development of obesity and insulin resistance in the subjects via FMT experiments,” the researchers note.

Additional analysis shows permethrin alters the fecal composition of bile acid derivatives, diacylglycerophosphoglycerols, fatty acids, and indoles and their derivatives. The observed lower indole levels could foster obesity and fatty liver progression by regulating lipid oxidation genes. The gut microbial dysbiosis can lead to enhanced intestinal permeability, allowing microbial metabolites to enter the liver and further influence hepatic lipids and promote obesity. (See studies here and here.)

“Hence, permethrin potentially modulated the composition of gut microbiota, thereby affecting the production of SCFAs [short-chain fatty acids] and indole and subsequently initiating lipogenesis, ultimately resulting in obesity, which might provide new insight into the mechanism of permethrin,” the authors conclude.

This study highlights the significant impact of permethrin on the liver and adipose tissue, while mirroring natural exposure patterns and concentrations. “Our study emphasizes the significant impact of permethrin, a common pesticide, on obesity, insulin resistance, and gut microbiota composition in mice,” the researchers summarize. They continue: “We found that permethrin dramatically alters gut microbiota, particularly Firmicute and Bacteroidetes, reducing the production of microbial metabolites (butyrate and indole), which is crucial for preventing obesity… In summary, our current results revealed a causal relationship between the development of obesity and gut microbiota.”

Previous Research

Additional research cited in the current study highlights the molecular mechanisms underlying lipid accumulation that can be affected following pesticide exposure. Particularly, studies show the effects in adipocytes induced by deltamethrin, another pyrethroid insecticide, focusing on cellular-level processes. (See here and here.) Another study of Xenopus laevis exposed to cis-bifenthrin shows “a disturbance within the delicate balance of the gut microbiota and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.” 

Research involving permethrin shows “shifts in gene expression and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) methylation, with the potential to disrupt glutamatergic signaling across generations, thus influencing behavioral patterns,” as well as increases to fatty acid synthesis and adipogenesis. Prolonged exposure to permethrin also provokes liver and kidney damage. (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.)

Previous Daily News coverage connects permethrin with rheumatoid arthritis, adverse effects on women’s reproductive health, impaired memory and learning, thyroid dysfunction, and mortality in birds and butterflies, among others. (See the Daily News archive for permethrin here for additional articles.)

In particular, two studies within the past year also link permethrin, and other pesticides, to impacts on the gut microbiome and higher risks for obesity. See Study Maps the Gut Microbiome and Adverse Impacts of Pesticide Residues and Study Links Numerous Chemical Families of Pesticides to Endocrine Disrupting Effects, Including Obesity for more information.

Organic Solution

To mitigate these health risks, the adoption of organic land management as a holistic solution is imperative. The only way to truly protect health and the environment is to remove the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, especially in agriculture that contaminates food, water, and air.

Organic land management is proven to be a sustainable and profitable alternative to toxic chemical use with higher crop yield, with additional benefits of protecting and enhancing biodiversity, increasing soil health, providing health benefits to those who adopt an organic diet, and mitigating climate change, among others.

To add your voice to the organic movement, take action to tell Congress to stand up for health and the environment. Make The Safer Choice to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides and join the Parks for a Sustainable Future program. You can also sign up to get Action of the Week and Weekly News Update emails sent directly to your inbox and learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic here and here.

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

Source:

Lin, J. et al. (2025) Permethrin Stimulates Fat Accumulation via Regulating Gut Microbiota and Its Metabolites in Mice, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.5c05013.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 4, 2025) A review of agricultural neonicotinoid insecticide regulations, published in Pest Management Science, evaluates the varied approaches being taken for bans and exemption-based restrictions in the European Union (EU), Canada, and the United States (U.S.). Despite an ever-growing and overwhelming body of science linking neonicotinoids (neonics) to adverse effects on pollinators and other nontarget species, the regulations fall short in protecting the environment and wildlife. The review, with the history and current status of neonics, lends further support for a full transition to organic agriculture and land management that removes neonicotinoid exposure routes and subsequent health threats.

With the application of this widely used class of neurotoxic system insecticides increasing, so too has the concern over the long-term chronic effects on pollinators and other species from exposure. This concern, backed by scientific literature, has “led to increased governmental regulations since the mid-2010s, particularly in agricultural settings,” state the authors from Iowa State University and Washington State University. They continue, “These regulations have varied in terms of approach, geography, and timeline, starting with a ban implemented by the European Union (EU) and evolving into exemption-based regulations across two Canadian provinces and five U.S. states as of this writing.”

While designed to control piercing and sucking pests like aphids and whiteflies, neonicotinoid impacts on nontarget species range from sublethal effects on pollinators to aquatic insects and crustaceans as well as birds and mammals, including humans. Scientific literature also shows “evidence that different common neonicotinoid derivative groups pose differing levels of threats, with nitroguanidine neonicotinoids (including clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam, often applied as seed treatments) presenting greater risks to pollinators than the cyanoamidine group (including acetamiprid and thiacloprid, mainly used as foliar applications),” the authors note. The cyanoamidine group, however, are less studied than the nitroguanidine neonicotinoids but have been found to be highly toxic to aquatic insects.

EU Regulatory Cases

Use of imidacloprid in some EU countries was authorized as early 1991, while others, such as thiamethoxam, were introduced throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s. Research began in 2009 and was published four years later documenting impacts on bee health with neonic exposure, leading to EU Regulation 485/2013, which “placed a moratorium on the use of three specific neonicotinoids (imidacloprid and clothianidin, manufactured by Bayer, and thiamethoxam, manufactured by Syngenta) in bee-attractive open-crop fields,” the authors write.

They continue: “Specifically, the use of nitroguanidine neonicotinoids was prohibited in corn/maize, canola, and sunflower crops. Controversy arose, particularly because the decision was contested by agrichemical industries.” This backlash led to subsequent field studies in which the agrichemical industries “contend[ed] that the results demonstrated the in-field safety of neonicotinoids.”

Non-industry scientists and citizens fought back against these claims, leading to a reassessment of evidence on neonicotinoids and bee health that prompted EU Member States to approve a full ban of imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam in outdoor applications. Ban exemptions create loopholes. Between 2019 and 2023, 236 emergency pesticide exemptions were granted, 47.5% of which related to neonicotinoids.

“Following appeals from farmers, beekeepers, and environmental organizations, the decision for pesticide exemptions was reversed in 2023, and it was also determined that individual European countries could not legally grant exceptions for the use of pesticides that the EU has banned, aligning with recommendations by Epstein et al. to stringently limit emergency exemptions,” the authors explain.

Limiting exemptions was in part due to the detection of neonics in aquatic wildlife above environmental quality standards that were deemed safe, as well as the persistence of this class of chemicals in soil and water. As the study notes, “Additionally, research has found high levels of soil and canola nectar contamination, particularly with imidacloprid, even after the 2013 and 2018 bans took place, suggesting that partial bans (i.e. those not extending to non-pollinated crops and indoor use, or granting too many emergency exemptions) may be insufficient to adequately control risks.”

As it currently stands, two neonicotinoids in use are up for renewal evaluation in 2025. It has also been announced that the EU intends to ban the import of products containing any traces of thiamethoxam and clothianidin by 2026.

Regulatory Action in Canada

In the 1990s, neonicotinoids were first used in Canada for the Colorado potato beetle and flea beetle in potatoes and canola. Immediate research began to show negative impacts to bees and pollinators, with agrichemical companies arguing the science was too uncertain to be conclusive. “Nonetheless, the province of Ontario followed the example of the EU in that Ontario attempted to impose a blanket ban on nitroguanidine neonicotinoids, but some restrictions were later rescinded,” the authors recount.

They continue, “Ultimately, Ontario instituted a partial ban based on the precautionary principle, i.e., that a given course of action or technology must be proven safe before it can be used, to reduce agricultural use of neonicotinoids by 80%.” This ban, thanks to involvement from the Ontario Bee Working Group, went into effect on July 1, 2015. Despite pushback from the Grain Farmers of Ontario, the ban stayed in place.

It was decided that farmers wishing to buy and use neonicotinoid-treated seeds must complete a one-time free Integrated Pest Management (IPM) training, complete a pest risk assessment report, and sign an IPM Written Declaration Form stating that they have considered IPM principles to decrease the risk of early season insect damage.

“After reviewing the science, including studies specific to Canada, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), in 2018, proposed a phaseout of all agricultural, ornamental, and greenhouse use of neonicotinoids over the next 3–5 years, the authors state. “However, this proposal was heavily altered by the PMRA in 2021. The PMRA concluded that the neonicotinoids in question were largely acceptable, and only minor mitigations were required, such as restricting their application to seed treatments.” As shared in reporting by Canada’s National Observer, it is alleged that the reversal is a result of “agrichemical company interference and collusion.” Revaluation of neonicotinoid restrictions is ongoing, with a plan to publish any decisions in the 2025–2026 fiscal year.

Québec independently regulates nitroguanidine neonicotinoid use, prohibiting since 2019 the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds for corn and soybean unless growers have a verification of need from an independent agronomist. This ban, as shown in a report by the Québec government, led to a drop in detected neonicotinoids in surface waters from 2018 to 2020. However, most farmers turned primarily to diamides (about 60% of corn fields in 2021) as a replacement, perpetuating the pesticide treadmill. Completely untreated seed were only reported in about 20–30% of fields in 2023. Québec’s current plan is to “subject all insecticide seed coatings—not just neonicotinoids—in corn, soybean, canola, wheat, and barley to regulations, including agronomic justification and prescription by a trained agronomist, to go into effect in 2025.”

U.S. Regulations

In the U.S., as pointed out in many previous Daily News articles by Beyond Pesticides, regulatory actions through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fail to properly address the associated risks from petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Presently, a registration review and amended proposed interim decision through EPA is scheduled on the use of imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, and acetamiprid is expected in 2025.

As the current review notes, the U.S. has been slower to implement restrictions on neonicotinoids than the EU or Canada but specific states have taken additional action. As of 2023, at least 20 states had developed plans or passed legislation to protect pollinator habitats. In the review, efforts from California, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Illinois showcase state-based actions particularly for agricultural uses, while additional states including Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, and Washington have enacted actions pertaining to nonagricultural uses.

California

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), in 2008, began receiving adverse effects disclosures of neonicotinoids on pollinators. Four nitroguanidine neonicotinoids were reevaluated in 2009 but proposed regulations did not go into effect until January 1, 2024, which limited soil and foliar—but not seed-treated—nitroguanidine neonicotinoids in the production of agricultural commodities in 16 fruit, vegetable, and cereal crops.

Minnesota

In 2023, four bills concerning neonicotinoids were signed into law, one of which is directly related to agriculture and involves the use and disposal of pesticide-treated seeds. “As of October 2024, the NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council] led the filing of a legal petition against the MDA, arguing that the MDA has failed to protect Minnesotan citizens’ rights by failing to enact farther-reaching neonicotinoid-treated seed restrictions,” the authors share. “However, the NRDC’s petition was rejected in December 2024.”

New York

The Birds and the Bees Protection Act was signed by the Governor of New York in 2022, which prohibits the use of both nitroguanidine and cyanoamidine neonicotinoids in corn, soybeans, and wheat production. This was anticipated to decrease the use of neonicotinoids in the state by 80–90%. Provisions in this bill, however, do not take effect until 2029.

As covered in Daily News titled Bill to Protect Birds and Bees in New York Raises Political Challenges to Addressing Ecosystem Collapse, legislative efforts to curtail some life-threatening pesticides associated with birds and bees (and other pollinators) decline were weakened in New York State at the end of December 2023 as the governor negotiated and stripped elements of a bill relating to agriculture that had passed the legislature—again illustrating the grip of the agrichemical industry on public policy intended to begin to address the crisis in ecosystem collapse. (See “Study Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse.”) In passing the Birds and Bees Protection Act, New York joined New Jersey, Nevada, and Maine in banning most nonagricultural uses of neonicotinoid insecticides, but, in last-minute changes to avoid the governor’s veto, failed to phase out corn, soybean, and wheat seeds coated with these chemicals.

Rhode Island

Legislation in 2022, and effective as of January 1, 2024, was signed by the Governor of Rhode Island to restrict the use of both nitroguanidine and cyanoamidine neonicotinoids outdoors but contains a provision allowing certified applicators to purchase and use neonicotinoids as long as the plant is not blossoming. “While the National Pest Management Association opposed the bill and appeared to influence a vote delay in the House and Senate, activist groups pushed the legislature to approve it,” the authors note.

Vermont

The Governor of Vermont vetoed a bill that limits nitroguanidine and cyanoamidine neonicotinoids in the state, but the legislature overrode it and the bill was enacted. This requires farmers to get a prescription from their agronomist demonstrating that neonicotinoid-coated seeds are necessary. “The bill explicitly prohibits the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds in soybeans and cereal grains, outdoor application during bloom, and outdoor application to leafy and petiole vegetable crops harvested after bloom,” the authors explain. These provisions will go into effect in 2029, on the condition that the legislation in New York successfully goes into effect as well.

Illinois

In 2024, the Illinois General Assembly passed legislation restricting corn, soybean, and wheat seed treatments with neonicotinoids in both the nitroguanidine and cyanomidine groups (clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, and acetamiprid). These restrictions are also modeled after those outlined by the state of New York.

Overview of Regulations to Date

Despite the growing body of research connecting neonicotinoid exposure to detrimental environmental and health effects, “regulations have spread from the EU to Canadian provinces and, subsequently, to specific US states, becoming increasingly voluntary and less restrictive over time.,” the authors highlight. The industry pressure from agrichemical companies has reduced the effectiveness of regulatory action, with the adoption of voluntary efforts and a myriad of exceptions and exemptions. (See Daily News articles on industry influence here and here.)

Additionally, the replacement of neonics with other toxic chemicals such as pyrethroids or diamides, sometimes at higher usage levels than neonicotinoids, perpetuates the risks to pollinators and other wildlife. “What can we infer from these trends?,” the authors ask. They continue: “For one, the nature of regulation will largely depend on each government’s adherence to the precautionary principle. The EU has taken a highly precautionary approach by instituting a complete ban, while Canadian and US federal agencies have been slow or reluctant to act, leaving regulation mostly to lower-level regional governments.” These regulations have been criticized as insufficient in protecting the environment and all organisms within it, which provides further support for the urgent need to transition all agriculture and land management to organic.

Previous Coverage

As shared in a 2019 Daily News article, Settlement Bans Some Bee-Toxic Pesticides, Requires Public Comment Period on Testing All Pesticide Product Ingredients and Regulating Pesticide-Treated Seeds, plaintiffs in a 2013 lawsuit against EPA made a number of claims related to EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides, its poor oversight of the bee-killing pesticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and its practice of “conditional registration,” as well as labeling deficiencies. The parties in the suit negotiated a settlement, as directed by a federal judge, that was signed in October 2018 and portends some positive movement in curtailing the use of some toxic pesticides [12 products, each of which contains clothianidin or thiamethoxam as an active ingredient] that harm pollinators in particular, as well as other organisms and the environment. Learn more with related coverage from 2023, Groups Challenge EPA on Allowing Toxic Pesticides that Do Not Even Work and Without Its Review.

State-based coverage includes: Nevada Assembly Votes Unanimously To Protect Pollinators, Recognizes Deficiencies of EPA Regulations, Colorado Limits Bee-Toxic Pesticide Use, as EPA Details Harm to Endangered Species, States Step In to Restrict Bee-Toxic Pesticides, California the Latest in Absence of EPA Action, and Vermont Leverages New York Limits on Neonic Insecticides with Deference to Chemical-Intensive Agriculture.

What Can You Do?

• Plant pollinator habitats! Explore Beyond Pesticides’ resources to find ideas for native plants and untreated flowers and dig your pollinator-friendly garden today. Use the Bee Protective Habitat Guide and the Pollinator-Friendly Seed Directory to help!
• Pledge to protect pollinators and produce in your garden by never using chemicals that harm beneficial insects and ladybugs and go organic! Display a Pesticide-Free Zone sign for your yard and show your neighbors that pesticide-free spaces are important for health and the environment.
• Become an Organic Parks Advocate! Engage with your municipal parks department by sharing Beyond Pesticides’ factsheets on Establishing New Lawns and Landscapes and Maintaining Sustainable Lawns and Landscapes. For more support from Beyond Pesticides, sign up to become a parks advocate!

Learn more on the Lawns and Landscapes page on Beyond Pesticides’ website and about the benefits of organic here and here. For more information about becoming an advocate for organic land, see Parks for a Sustainable Future and Tools for Change.

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

Source:

Dentzman, K. et al. (2025) An overview of agricultural neonicotinoid regulation in the EU, Canada, and the United States, Pest Management Science. Available at: https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ps.70126.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 3, 2025) A study in Environmental Entomology shows that habitat and open space near agricultural fields become a killing field of pesticides, threatening biodiversity due to contamination from toxic drift. The study detected 42 pesticides, including several neonicotinoids, which are among the most lethal threats to pollinators. The research reveals the complexity of pesticide flow through the environment and the inadequacy of current methods of protecting nontarget organisms, including honey bees, bumblebees, and hundreds of other species of native bees worldwide. Their catastrophic declines is tied to pesticides in large part and highlights the inadequacy of current pesticide reduction strategies, such as integrated pest management (IPM) and now other loosely defined concepts like “regenerative,” in an attempt to protect the environment and nontarget organisms in chemical-dependent land management and agriculture. (See What the Science Shows on Biodiversity.)

The researchers on the study, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cornell University and Michigan State University, put silicone bands on fence posts in open areas adjacent to highbush blueberry fields on 15 farms in western Michigan. Silicone takes up chemicals in the atmosphere which can then be extracted and analyzed. The fence posts were placed at seven intervals ranging from zero to 32 meters from the blueberry field edges. They were left in place for three weeks in July 2020.

A total of 104 samples from the 15 sites, one for each distance interval, were analyzed. Forty-two pesticides were detected altogether, including several neonicotinoids, which are among the most lethal threats to pollinators. Among the 42 pesticides detected, the herbicide metolachlor is found in all samples, followed by the fungicides azoxystrobin and trifloxystrobin and the herbicide atrazine. Active ingredients detected at the highest concentrations are the insecticides acetamiprid (a neonicotinoid), bendiocarb (a carbamate), malaoxon (a degradate of the organophosphate malathion) and phosmet (an organophosphate). These are found at levels above the upper limit of quantification, that is, higher than the maximum the detection method can confidently identify. The neonicotinoid imidacloprid is also found at very high concentrations. Several fungicides are also detected near or above the upper limit of quantification. Quantification of levels is not always an effective method for determining harm because of the failure of ecosystem studies to fully evaluate mixtures, synergistic effects, nondisclosed “inert,” but chemically and biologically active, ingredients, contaminants in pesticide formulations (including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), among other hazardous complexities.

One very significant result of the study is the finding that distance has no effect on the number of active ingredients detected—in other words, just as many active ingredients are found at 32 meters from the field as at two meters. There are significant differences in the average concentrations of all pesticides at different distances, with longer distance corresponding to lower concentrations, but this is mostly due to the influence of fungicides in the dataset. For the seven insecticides with high concentrations or frequent detections, there is no difference between distances. The organophosphate phosmet, used primarily on orchard fruits and considered the greatest risk to honeybees during fruit ripening, is also found at similar concentrations at every distance measured.

Efforts to reduce pesticide drift are cited as a mitigation measure. The authors write: using different spray nozzles and spray pressure, reducing the volume of the active ingredient, and slowing tractor speed, for example. However, the researchers write, “[A]doption of drift-reducing practices remains limited across most cropping systems.” (The adverse effect of pesticide drift on biodiversity has been widely studied.) Another way pesticides often migrate in air is through volatilization—that is, after application as a liquid they vaporize and travel in the atmosphere. In this study, the highest concentrations of pesticides found away from the target crop were of low volatility, suggesting that any drift that occurred probably did so during initial application and be captured in sizable buffer zones that would still attract and potentially harm biodiversity. (In a related story, see EPA To Allow Dicamba Herbicide Used in Genetically Engineered Crops, Prone to Drift and Weed Resistance.)

Pesticides are also not the only things that drift. Pollen itself, principally from wind-pollinated plants like corn, drifts for long distances. While pollen drift is not so much an issue for insect and bird-pollinated plants, the advent of genetically modified corn (GMO) varieties has nonetheless created problems for pollinating insects: the genetic modifications enable explosive use of pesticides, as the GMO varieties are tolerant of certain herbicides and insecticides and may be resistant to insects and viruses. These pesticides in turn decimate pollinators.

Pollinators collect both nectar and pollen from flowering plants and transport them back to their nests. These are distributed to all members of a social insect colony, and in both social and solitary pollinators the larvae are exposed. The widespread assumption has been that it is mostly pollen, and secondarily nectar, from treated crops that are the source of the pesticide exposures. There has also been an assumption that pollinators’ pesticide exposure from agricultural applications is diluted by the pollen collected from untreated wildflowers. But strikingly, in a 2015 British study of canola fields treated with neonicotinoids, the total concentration of these insecticides in wildflower pollen from field margins was higher than in the pollen from the crop plants. This was not the case for the nectar samples, and the British researchers suggested that the neonicotinoids in the nectar arrived there via soil contamination. Neonicotinoids are highly water soluble and easily make their way into an entire plant through roots, leaves and the plants’ circulatory mechanisms.

From a larger perspective, it is clear that pesticides, including those that directly affect vital pollinators, do not stay put. A study analyzed by Beyond Pesticides last March found that pesticides drifted all the way from the Rhine Valley floor to the tops of surrounding mountains—distances of up to “multiple hundred meters,” according to the authors. Unfortunately, spray drift is only one of the ways that pesticides migrate around landscapes. According to a recent scientific review, neonicotinoids are applied by soil drenching, root irrigation, foliage spray, injection and seed treatment. The British study also found that crops that had been treated with fungicides but not neonicotinoids contained residues of neonicotinoid mixtures, possibly from contaminated machinery used to process treated seeds or their parent crops.

The Michigan blueberry study adds to the growing evidence that the current norms for protective buffers are wholly inadequate. In western Michigan blueberry fields, a typical width is 16 to 20 meters. “Given this, for the majority of wildflower plantings in this region, the entire planting is likely to be within the area where we found no significant reduction in pesticide concentration with distance from the crop field edge,” the authors write. A frequently suggested optimal buffer size to minimize drift is approximately 10-20 meters and based on wind speed at the time of application. The Michigan authors suggest that the few existing wildflower plantings ranging from two to 10 acres near blueberry fields may provide far better protection than small 32-meter strips along field margins.

Beyond Pesticides has a deep archive of information on pollinators, neonicotinoids, spray drift, and hundreds of pesticides. See the report, “No Longer a BIG Mystery: Recent scientific research confirms the role of pesticides in pollinator decline” and our BEE Protective resource for information on stopping the pollinator carnage.

In 2014 a panel of scientists from Britain and The Netherlands published a paper in the Royal Society Proceedings B entitled “A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators.” In it, the authors wrote:

There is clear evidence of the great value of neonicotinoids in agriculture as well as the importance of the ecosystem services provided to agriculture by managed and wild pollinators. Pollinators also have intrinsic importance as components of natural biodiversity that cannot, or can only inexactly, be accorded economic value. In some cases, intelligent regulation of insecticide use can provide ‘win-wins’ that improve both agricultural and biodiversity outcomes but in other cases there will be trade-offs, both within and between different agricultural and environmental objectives.

What is clear a decade later is that there are no “win-wins” and the “trade-offs” are so unbalanced as to threaten the entire world’s food supply and the stability of its large-scale ecological balance.

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

Sources:
Pesticide drift into field margins threatens bee pollinators and other beneficial insects Free
Graham et al.
Environmental Entomology 2025
https://academic.oup.com/ee/article/54/4/835/8161150?login=false

Study Finds High Pesticide Drift Into Wildflower Buffer Zones Near Crop Fields
Andrew Porterfield
Entomology Today 2025
https://entomologytoday.org/2025/08/19/study-high-pesticide-drift-wildflower-buffer-zones-near-crop-fields/

Sampling Finds Pesticides Throughout Environment with Toxic Mixtures from Agricultural Use
Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/03/sampling-finds-pesticides-throughout-environment-with-toxic-mixtures-from-agricultural-use/
Neonicotinoid Residues in Wildflowers, a Potential Route of Chronic Exposure for Bees
Botías et al.
Environmental Science & Technology 2015
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.5b03459?ref=article_openPDF

A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators
Godfray et al.
The Royal Society Publishing Proceedings B 2014
Proceedings Biological Science
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4046413/#s4

Pollinators and Pesticides: Protecting honeybees and wild pollinators
Beyond Pesticides
https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/pollinators/pollinators.pdf

(Beyond Pesticides, September 2, 2025) It did not go without notice to U.S. grassroots environmental and public health advocates that earlier this month, over two million people in France signed a “first of its kind” petition that ultimately prevented the overturning of the country’s ban on bee-killing neonicotinoid insecticides. The action was widely covered in France, including in Le Monde. This uprising, organized by 23-year-old French master’s student Eleonore Pattery, emphasizes the importance of individuals in communities mobilizing people to protect the planet from pesticides that are having a devastating adverse effect on health and the environment.

The grassroots push in France taps into a deep public concern about health and the environment that is emblematic of the level of public engagement needed to thwart the high level of chemical industry, agribusiness, and allied corporate influence that undermines basic protections. Industry interests have long been embedded in federal environmental and public health laws. For example, federal and state pesticide laws (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and similar state laws) allow widespread exposure to toxic chemicals despite the availability of nontoxic alternatives that are both efficacious and cost-effective. Without public engagement, as seen in France, significant improvements in law are constantly under threat of reversal, as was the case with the adoption of state laws preempting the rights of local governments to restrict pesticides and overriding a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding local democratic decision-making on protecting health and the environment. Now, proposals sit before Congress to establish federal preemption of state and local authority to restrict pesticides. With major jury verdicts in the billions of dollars against Bayer/Monsanto in the courts, which establish chemical companies’ liability for their failure to warn consumers of product hazards, the chemical industry to pushing legislation in Congress and the states to create a shield against any future nondisclosure to those harmed.

Rollbacks are now taking place that will have adverse generational effects on health, biodiversity, and climate. A bright spot in Maine, one of the handful of states that have protected local authority to restrict pesticides, exemplified earlier this year the power of local communities coming together to take action, as elected officials and community members organized to protect a local ordinance that bans synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and advances organic land management on public and private property.

Recent Developments

In France, the story begins with legislation passed on July 8, which would have allowed for the use of the neonicotinoid acetamiprid that was originally banned in 2018. The bill was dubbed “Duplomb law” based on the surname of the conservative lawmaker who authored the bill.

“The high court has blocked the key clause of the so-called Duplomb Law, which sought to reauthorize the use of acetamiprid, a pesticide banned in France since 2018 due to its impact on bees and other pollinators,” according to reporting by The European Conservative. They continue: “The Constitutional Council ruled on Thursday [August 7] that the reintroduction of acetamiprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide, was insufficiently regulated by the Duplomb law, noting that it was not limited in time or to a specific sector, and also concerned spraying, which carries a high risk of dispersing harmful substances.”

This would not have been possible without Ms. Pattery’s petition. Once a petition passes half a million in signatures, “the heads of parliamentary groups or parliamentary committees can propose to organize a parliamentary debate on it,” according to reporting by Politico and rules laid out in Article 148 of the Rules of the National Assembly. President Emmanuel Macron signed the modified bill into law on August 12, with French Health Minister Yannick Neuder calling for the European Union (EU) to reassess the potential toxicity of the neonicotinoid on human health, according to reporting by France 24.

Leadership in the European Union and France

In recent years, France and the European Union more broadly have been instrumental in global leadership on pesticide regulations but also in identifying opportunities to advance alternative systems, including organic.

The French government announced in May 2024 a new plan – Ecophyto 2030 – to cut pesticide use in half by 2030, rather than the original plan that was paused as a result of widespread farmer protests across the European Union. (See Daily News here.) France has demonstrated leadership in protecting the public from exposure, being the first country to enforce a strict ban on use in public landscapes and private lawns routinely used by the public in 2022. (See Daily News here.) These public and privately-owned public areas include, but are not limited to, hotels, community gardens, cemeteries, nursing homes and health centers, and sports facilities. There are only some exemptions to this law, including invasive species and serious public health threats. France’s policy initiative set the tone for the European Union-wide target to cut in half the use of overall toxic pesticides by 2030. Environmental and health advocates recognize the importance of EU member states in developing comprehensive policies, given the U.S. deference to corporate interests and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) then-Secretary Tom Vilsack’s rejection of coordinating with the EU Farm to Fork (F2F) initiative. Meanwhile, France was one of several nations to vote in favor of the EU ban on the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides (clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam) on all field crops in 2017. Separate from the EU-wide policy, France set the tone by maintaining one of the strongest neonic bans in the EU back in 2018, amidst potential threats to relax the ban.

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). The four overarching goals of this Network, according to their website, are:

1. To engage farmers in climate organic farming;
2. To enhance the capacity for climate organic farming;
3. To develop smart policies & consumer engagement; and
4. To foster a climate-neutral and resilient Europe

OrganicClimateNET is one of several EU-funded initiatives aimed at expanding organic agriculture in Europe. OrganicTargets4EU tracks opportunities and obstacles to meet EU and member state-specific national organic targets in the service of fulfilling the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies. Additionally, through the facilitation and curation of Organic Knowledge Hubs, farmers, advocates, journalists, policymakers, the general public, and other stakeholders can access data, studies, and other information relating to crop production, animal husbandry, food chain management, environment and society, and farm management. (See Daily News here.) See another Daily News, New European Union Organic Regulations Increase Rigor of Import Standards, to learn more about recent policy changes to EU organic regulations that went into effect in January 2025.

“The share of the EU’s agricultural land under organic farming increased from 5.9% in 2012 to 10.5% in 2022 as a result of an increasing demand for organic products and policy support,” according to European Environmental Agency data. France has increased at a similar rate to the EU-wide adoption of organic in this same period.

Previous Research

A 2023 study published in Environmental Health by researchers at Stockholm University and the Centre for Organic Food and Farming in Uppsala builds on earlier work that documents deficiencies in information provided to EU regulators by manufacturers. They identify nine studies on developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) that had been submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) but were not disclosed to EU authorities. According to the research, seven of these studies would have “actual or potential regulatory impact.” According to the authors, “Of the nine undisclosed DNT studies, three were sponsored by Bayer and performed in their own laboratory. Three studies were sponsored by Syngenta and performed in their Central Toxicology Laboratory. One study each was sponsored by Nissan Chemicals and Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha (ISK), and these were performed at Huntingdon Life Sciences. For the remaining study, the sponsor and laboratory are unknown to us.” This study is yet another example of industry capture of regulatory agencies designed to serve the public interest. (See Daily News here.)

This disturbing pattern of regulatory capture continues as the scientific literature continues to provide additional evidence on the toxic health and environmental impacts of pesticides. Researchers at the University of Caxias do Sul in Brazil identified 29 peer-reviewed scientific studies with statistically significant findings that tie pesticide use to cancer diagnoses in agricultural populations across the world, including France. This literature review includes findings from clinical trials, as well as epidemiologic, case-control, and experimental studies. (See Daily News here.) Researchers in Luxembourg and France detect 69 biomarkers of pollutants and pesticides—12 of which are banned—in hair samples from over 200 French children. Data was provided for this study originated from 3.5-year-old children recruited from the Étude Longitudinale Française depuis l’Enfance (ELFE) [French Longitudinal Study since Childhood] cohort. (See Daily News here.) Regulatory agencies should embody the precautionary principle to avoid long-term exposure and bioaccumulation of pesticide compounds. Health officials in France learned this lesson the hard way in 2023, just one year after a slew of pesticide restrictions and policies were signed into law, when they found that a majority of drinking water samples tested by the government contained the presence of the highly toxic fungicide chlorothalonil (banned in the EU since 2019). (See Daily News here.)

Research institutions in France, including Université de Rennes, Université de Paris-Saclay, L’Institut Agro Rennes-Angers, European Society for Agronomy, France’s National Research for Agriculture (INRAE), published research this year on the ecological and public health benefits of organic farming. The researchers conducted this study on forty winter wheat fields at “Zone Atelier Armorique,” also known as the Long-Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) site in north-western France. Twenty of the fields are organically managed, and the other twenty are not. “Indeed, under organic farming, no phytosanitary products are used on wheat, and nitrogen inputs are lower despite the use of organic manure () (). In all responding phyla, as expected, increasing nitrogen and phytosanitary inputs had a detrimental effect on species richness and shaped sequence-cluster composition (),” the researchers explain, as the beneficial impacts of the low-to-zero input approach of organic farming systems. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

There are various actions that you can take to realize a more sustainable future.

You can sign up here to become a Parks for a Sustainable Future advocate, collaborating with us to make change in your community by moving your town, city, or county beyond pesticide reliance for public green spaces.

You can see here to sign up for the Weekly News Update and Action of the Week to stay updated on ways to take action, from the local to the international.

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

Source(s): The European Conservative, Le Monde, European Environmental Agency, Politico, Rules of the National Assembly, France 24, Tennessee Lookout, Mountain State Spotlight, and Maryland Matters

(Beyond Pesticides, August 29 – September 1, 2025) It is recognized, especially on Labor Day, that the adverse effects of pesticides, with the preponderance of science accumulating every day, put workers (those who handle pesticides and are exposed through inhalation and skin absorption) at elevated risk above rates in the general population. The harm to workers is exacerbated by additional and cumulative exposure to pesticides that occurs through daily life—residues in food, water, and landscapes. Beyond Pesticides is reaching out to its network and urging people and organizations to: On Labor Day, ask your Mayor to lead a transition to practices and product procurement that protect workers with criteria that meet organic standards in landscaping and food purchasing. 

With the dismantling of federal government programs charged with establishing protections and ramping up deregulation of the chemical, agribusiness, and allied industries, safety strategies for workers who are the backbone of society fall to local governments and people whose decisions should not result in hazardous worker exposure to toxic pesticides. Municipality and school district purchasing of food grown with toxic chemicals results in poisoning of farmworkers, their children, and their communities. Purchasing and applying toxic lawn care products or contract services results in hazardous exposure for landscapers. Since there are alternatives compatible with organic standards that can and do replace toxic products, the transition can happen immediately. 

By transitioning to organic product purchasing and land management and away from petrochemical materials, this effort to protect workers aligns with broader goals to protect public health and biodiversity, and mitigate the climate crisis. 

According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), “A variety of occupations such as agricultural workers, groundskeepers, pet groomers, and fumigators are at risk for exposure to pesticides, including fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, fumigants, and sanitizers.” Tracking and documenting pesticide exposure cases of farmworkers is now being severely curtailed, through cuts to the Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) pesticide surveillance program—the only national program tracking pesticide-related illnesses and death. Beyond Pesticides reported in June that 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, and 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 data on pesticide hazards to workers and their families is extensive. Earlier this year, it was reported that DNA damage is significantly higher in Latinx children from rural, farmworker families than in children from urban, non-farmworker families, according to French and American researchers publishing in 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. 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. See here, here, and here. 

Pesticide exposure for landscapers results in a range of health threats. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database identifies over 2,100 studies that link pesticide exposure to cancer, reproductive dysfunction, Parkinson’s disease, birth defects, asthma, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease. 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. 

In transitioning to organic and protecting farmworkers and landscapers from pesticides used in food production and land management, respectively, communities and people are eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers associated with endocrine disruption (see a talk by Dr. Tracey Woodruff here) and rising rates of a vast number of related illnesses. 

The public can reach out to local decision makers, elected officials, and transition community parks, playing fields, and open spaces to organic land management with the assistance of Beyond Pesticides’ Parks for a Sustainable Future program. Last week, as a part of a nationwide push to stop the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, the City of Excelsior, Minnesota joined dozens of communities across the country to begin a pilot to transition its city park land sites to organic land management.  

Letter to Mayors:

On Labor Day, I’m writing to ask you to lead a transition to practices and product procurement that protect workers with criteria that meet organic standards in landscaping and food purchasing.

It is recognized, especially on Labor Day, that the adverse effects of pesticides, with the preponderance of science accumulating every day, put workers (those who handle pesticides and are exposed through inhalation and skin absorption) at elevated risk above rates in the general population. The harm to workers is exacerbated by additional and cumulative exposure to pesticides that occurs through daily life—residues in food, water, and landscapes.

With the dismantling of federal government programs charged with establishing protections and ramping up deregulation of the chemical, agribusiness, and allied industries, safety strategies for workers who are the backbone of our society fall to local governments and people whose decisions should not result in hazardous worker exposure to toxic pesticides. Municipality and school district purchasing of food grown with toxic chemicals results in poisoning of farmworkers, their children, and their communities. Purchasing and applying toxic lawn care products or contract services results in hazardous exposure for landscapers. Since there are alternatives compatible with organic standards that can and do replace toxic products, the transition can happen immediately.

By transitioning to organic product purchasing and land management and away from petrochemical materials, this effort to protect workers aligns with broader goals to protect public health and biodiversity, and mitigate the climate crisis.

The data on pesticide hazards to workers and their families is extensive. Beyond Pesticides earlier this year reported that DNA damage is significantly higher in Latinx children from rural, farmworker families than in children from 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. 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.

Pesticide exposure for landscapers results in a range of health threats. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database identifies over 2,100 studies that link pesticide exposure to cancer, reproductive dysfunction, Parkinson’s disease, birth defects, asthma, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease. 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.

In transitioning to organic and protecting farmworkers and landscapers from pesticides used in food production and land management, respectively, we are eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers associated with endocrine disruption and rising rates of a vast number of related illnesses.

Thank you for leading.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2025) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 12, 2025, released a statement, “EPA Announces Action to Protect Endangered Species from Insecticide Methomyl,” in which the agency announced label changes for methomyl, a carbamate insecticide, with mitigation measures that are being criticized as allowing great risks to biodiversity and human health. The label changes, following the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) final biological opinion issued on January 1, 2024, actually establish mitigation measures to be determined by applicators using the Bulletins Live! Two website prior to use. EPA claims that this grower determined action will meet the standards of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by “reduc[ing] runoff and spray drift from treated areas into species’ habitats.” However, the process does not include monitoring and oversight to determine whether the rigorous standards of ESA are being met. The agency says that mitigation tracking is “at the field or farm level,” but it is not required to be submitted to the agency.

EPA announced on August 20 that it is holding a 90-minute public webinar on September 16, 2025, at 2:00 PM ET to provide information on the ecological runoff/erosion and spray drift mitigation measures that can be used to protect endangered species from pesticides. Register here.

As also shared in the methomyl announcement: “In addition to the measures required by NMFS, EPA approved an action initiated by a methomyl registrant to reclassify the last remaining non-restricted use pesticide (RUP) methomyl product as a RUP. All methomyl products are RUPs and may only be applied by certified applicators.” While this classification acknowledges methomyl’s toxicity and heightened risks in not allowing the general public to purchase or apply products containing the active ingredient, it allows application by a certified pesticide applicator or an individual working under their direct supervision, in which on-site supervision is not required—an allowance that has been widely criticized as insufficient to ensure safety protection.

Covered in a previous Daily News, improper handling of RUPs can lead to death. Four children, ages 7-17, died after a toxic RUP was illegally applied under their house in Amarillo, Texas. This incident is one of many that demonstrate the deficiency of managing risks of highly toxic chemicals by labeling them “restricted use.” It has been Beyond Pesticides’ position that chemicals with acute and chronic toxicity should not be available on the market, even with restrictions. When regulatory determinations are made, the reality of misuse, accidents, and compliance under 100% with label instructions is not considered, thus endangering health and the environment.

EPA’s biological evaluation for methomyl in 2021 determined that “use of the pesticide according to label instructions was ‘likely to adversely affect’ at least one animal or plant for 1,098 listed species and 281 designated critical habitats.” After consulting with NMFS, the agency developed its own biological opinion in 2024 for methomyl, only covering species under NMFS’s purview, and “concluded that the use of methomyl is ‘likely to adversely affect’ 61 species and 56 critical habitats.”

NMFS’s conclusions, with the substantially lower numbers for species and critical habitats likely to experience adverse effects, led to the current label changes and mitigation measures. EPA states, “NMFS determined that, with the inclusion of mitigation measures, the registered uses of methomyl will not result in jeopardy determinations for species under NMFS jurisdiction.”    

The prediction that no jeopardy or adverse effects will occur for listed species or designated critical habitats relies solely on the successful implementation of mitigation measures with the use of products containing methomyl. However, as stated, this strategy does not properly ensure that these measures are followed, as there is no enforcement or accountability required from applicators.

Additionally, these mitigations are outlined on EPA’s mitigation menu website, which users in a test run reported navigating is so cumbersome and convoluted that the agency cannot ensure that it can be taught, implemented, or enforced. The system uses a point system to determine sufficient mitigation to allow pesticide use. However, the expectation of accurate calculations for mitigation measures is placed on applicators who may not be fully versed in math or English. The users in the test complained of technological problems with the website, while also commenting on the complexities involved in the process.

On this topic of mitigation, Beyond Pesticides, in Daily News EPA “Mitigation Menu” Called Complex, Raising Doubts about Required Endangered Species Protection, continues in saying advocates of organic agriculture argue that instead of spending millions of dollars and many years creating mitigation programs that are unenforceable and ineffective, EPA should spend the same amount of time and money supporting farmers in the transition to organic agriculture and in exiting the toxic pesticide treadmill.

Even if the mitigation menu were easier to navigate, these proposed mitigation measures only lessen the chance of harmful impacts of pesticide use and, more concerning, 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. Added complexity does not equate with added safety, say environmental advocates, concluding that the current proposed mitigation measures for methomyl are insufficient to protect the health of wildlife, as well as public health and the environment.

Methomyl, as seen in Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management, is linked to endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, and kidney/liver damage, among other adverse effects. In this year alone, Daily News coverage of scientific literature associates methomyl with sleep disorders and DNA/cellular damage in farmers and farmworkers, as well as reproductive system effects such as heavy menstrual bleeding in adolescents with prenatal exposure. (See the methomyl Daily News archive here.)

Further highlighting the risks associated with exposure to methomyl, recent research published in the last month shows cardiovascular effects in aquatic organisms and toxicity to consumers of chlorine-treated drinking water.

In Science of The Total Environment, the study authors show in zebrafish larvae that methomyl induces developmental malformations, triggers cardiac toxicity, inhibits normal development of the vascular system, activates immune responses, and increases oxidative stress. To confirm that the vascular toxicity is applicable to humans as well, the researchers use human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) as an in vitro model and also find adverse effects. “These findings provide novel insights into the environmental and toxicological effects of methomyl and highlight its potential risk of accumulation in aquatic systems,” the authors conclude.

In Water Research, the interaction between methomyl and its transformation products with chlorine, widely used as a disinfectant during the treatment of drinking water, is investigated for direct and indirect toxicity. Both methomyl and its transformation products have the same mode of action and inhibit acetylcholinesterase (AChE).

“Here, we investigated changes in anti-AChE activity during chlorination of a solution containing methomyl, a carbamate insecticide,” the study authors say. They continue, “The activity was assessed in the presence (indirect toxicity) and absence (direct toxicity) of metabolic activation.” As a result, chlorinated samples retain both direct and indirect toxicities, with the indirect toxicity attributable solely to residual methomyl and direct toxicity originating from residual methomyl and two transformation products.

Both of these recent studies are pertinent, as pesticides used in agriculture and landscape management are transported to water bodies in runoff. Not only does this directly expose aquatic organisms, but river water is often used in treatment plants as a source of drinking water. (See studies here, here, and here.)

“[S]ince most pesticides are not effectively removed by conventional treatment processes, they can remain in the treated water, even after the final addition of free chlorine for disinfection,” the researchers say. “Consequently, they can react with the free chlorine, leading to the formation of various transformation products (TPs) [that] can be toxic.” (See additional research here, here, and here.)

Organic practices offer a holistic approach to sustainable agriculture and land management. Instead of allowing the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers that contain active ingredients with documented toxicity, like methomyl, and relying on unenforceable mitigation measures to “protect endangered species,” the organic solution is documented to be profitable and with higher crop yield, protects and enhances biodiversity, increases soil benefits, provides health benefits to those who adopt an organic diet, and mitigates climate change, among others.

Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic here and here. Sign up to get Action of the Week and Weekly News Update emails sent directly to your inbox here, and become a Parks Advocate through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program to get involved in your community’s transition to organic.       

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

Sources:

Lee, H. et al. (2025) Methomyl-induced developmental and cardiovascular toxicity in zebrafish via immune response, oxidative stress, and apoptosis, Science of The Total Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969725018558.

Matsushita, T. et al. (2025) Methomyl, a carbamate insecticide, forms oxygenated transformation products that inhibit acetylcholinesterase upon chlorination, Water Research. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135425009765.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2025). EPA Announces Action to Protect Endangered Species from Insecticide Methomyl. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-announces-action-protect-endangered-species-insecticide-methomyl.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 27, 2025) A study published in European Journal of Agronomy finds that “organic farming equals conventional yield under irrigation and enhances seed quality in drought, aiding food security.”

For decades, organic advocates have heard from defenders of chemical-intensive agriculture that organic farming is not commercially attainable for widespread adoption and cannot compete on productivity and profitability at a commercial scale. At the same time, chemical manufacturers, chemical-dependent farmers, and their allies greenwash their products (e.g., active ingredients, full formulations, and pesticide-treated seeds) and practices by insisting in regulatory comments, contract science studies, and lobbying campaigns that they are necessary for climate-smart, sustainable, regenerative, and/or integrated pest management agriculture and land management.

In this context, the chemical industry alliance is now pushing deregulation, preemption of state and local authority to restrict pesticides, and immunity from lawsuits for the harm caused by their products and practices. An expansive coalition of farmers, farmworkers, conservationists, medical professionals, Indigenous communities, and environmental and public health advocates is fighting back, including Beyond Pesticides.

Background and Methodology

The researchers tested twelve common bean genotypes of Phaselous vulgaris L., with eight local [Basque Country] landraces (defined by Oxford Language as “a local cultivar [plant] or animal breed that has been improved by traditional agricultural methods”), which are “generally grown under rainfed conditions.” The other four landraces are commercial varieties commonly cultivated in Spain and the European Union. “Under rainfed conditions, the common bean seeds received only minimal water at the beginning of the season to ensure the seedlings’ survival (Table 1),” say the authors in describing the distinction between the two watering protocols. They continue: “The irrigation regime was defined by the seasonal climatology (Table 1). In 2016 and 2017, the irrigated subplots received three complementary irrigations of 12 mm each and two in 2018.”

“The trials were conducted in experimental fields in Arkaute, Alava [a hamlet],” according to the researchers. “In this area, the months with the lowest precipitation (July and August) coincide with the flowering and grain-filling stages of common beans, which are developmental stages more susceptible to drought, thus influencing crop production .  . .” They engaged in field trials during three growing seasons (2016, 2017, and 2018), with soil analyses included pH levels, organic matter (soil), soil health indicators (e.g., nitrogen, nitrate, phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, calcium, sodium, carbon/nitrogen ratio, and texture. The design of the field plots considered management system (organic or chemical-intensive), water use (human-made irrigation or rainfed), and bean genotype. For further details, see Section 2.3, “Experimental design and growth conditions.”

The seeds were analyzed in an elemental analyzer and an isotope ratio mass spectrometer to determine water-use efficiency and nitrogen fixation, respectively. Carbon isotope discrimination refers to the plant “discriminating” between the lighter CO2 isotope and the heavier one to assess water-use efficiency. The efficiency of photosynthesis in the bean genotypes was measured in light-adapted leaves with a portable fluorimeter at the pod-filling stage. Yield was measured per hectare after the harvest; seed quality, meanwhile, was measured by the balance of protein, fat, carbohydrates, fiber, and energy value. Information on statistical data analysis can be found in Section 2.7. 

The authors in this study are based in plant biology, environmental science, and chemistry departments at the University of the Basque Country (Spain), Auburn University (U.S.), and Czech Advanced Technology and Research Institute: Catrin (Czech Republic). The study was supported by various research projects funded by the Basque Government. As the role of artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more commonplace in academic and research environments, it is important to note that there is a section in this article entitled: “Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process.” To that end, researchers used ChatGPT to edit language, and after doing so, they reviewed, edited, and take responsibility for the final results. Moreover, the authors declared “that the research was conducted without any financial or non-financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”

Results

Local landraces were specifically promising, according to the researchers, because they balanced resilience to elevated heat with superior nutritional quality. The study results, when comparing current variable irrigation conditions, conclude that conventional seeds watered through irrigation demonstrated the highest yields and caloric value; however, organic seeds under rainfed conditions promoted protein, fiber, and nitrogen fixation. The authors note that the choice of variety (genotype) matters more in organic seeds for efficient use of sunlight through photosynthesis (the underlying biological mechanism that contributes to yield results in plants), suggesting that breeding could potentially offset any category of disadvantage that organic systems may have.

Overall, the authors note that, “Our findings highlighted organic farming as a promising management strategy to improve common bean quality, even under the seasonal pressure induced by climate change.” They continue: “Moreover, seeds from organic farming showed higher fat content, particularly notably in 2016, where a higher seed energy value was also observed.”  

“Moreover, our study confirms that Δ13C [carbon isotope discrimination] is an effective marker for selecting stress-tolerant genotypes for heat or the combination of drought-heat stresses,” the authors mention in the conclusion. They explain how analyzing a local landrace genotype, found in both organic and conventional fields, brought them to this conclusion. “Specifically, the local genotype AA emerges as one of the most tolerant and productive genotypes under rainfed conditions, whose seeds showed the highest fat and protein content in organic rainfed conditions.”

There were a handful of local organic landraces that matched the yields of commercial varieties under stress-like conditions, such as drought, acknowledging the role that organic seed production can play in climate action for agricultural systems. Rainfed plots were found to have the most volatility when it came to rainfed organic fields, given the uncertainty of nature and emerging weather patterns.

Previous Research

Organic seed production as an alternative to pesticide-treated seeds has been a longstanding priority for the organic movement, as well as environmental and public health advocates interested in transforming the current broken system. Organic Seed Alliance published a report in 2016 finding that the supply of organic seeds is not keeping up with the rising demand for organic products (see Daily News here); they found that vegetable farmers who grow on less than ten acres use, on average, 75 percent organic seed, while growers who farm over 480 acres use only 20 percent organic seed. This gap persists to this day.

Interdisciplinary research from inside and outside of the U.S has compared organically managed and chemical-intensive agriculture management. The Rodale Institute, Ohio State University, and Tennessee State University determined in a recent study based on field trials that organic grain cropping systems contain higher concentrations of total nitrogen and soil organic carbon, exceeding those found in conventional, chemical-intensive systems. (See Daily News here.) This study is an extension of the Rodale Institute’s Farming System Trial (FST), a 40-year-long field study published in 2020 with the overarching goal of “[a]ddress[ing] the barriers to the adoption of organic farming by farmers across the country.” The FST finds:

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

In the international context, the results of a sixteen-year field trial based in Central Kenya determined higher crop yield stability in low-input organic systems with previously degraded soil than in high-input organic and nonorganic agricultural systems. (See Daily News here.) The production of organic bananas in the Caribbean nation of Martinique was determined to outcompete chemical-intensive counterparts in terms of microbial decomposition, according to research by the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD). (See Daily News here.)

For more information and the Daily News archive covering pesticide-coated seeds and organic/non-treated alternatives, see here.

Call to Action

Organic advocates follow the lead of Indigenous farmers and land stewards, farmer-peasant movements, food sovereignty and environmental justice advocates in the necessity to relinquish corporate control of seed production. For millennia, communities across the globe have exchanged seeds and cultivated local breeds to accommodate their microclimatic, soil, and related conditions.

Moving toward organic seed production is not just a matter of biodiversity, climate, and public health protections, but most importantly about maintaining and supporting the diversity of cultural foodways that are inextricably linked to seeds. This is about local authority and autonomy.

There are numerous resources for accessing alternatives to pesticide-treated seeds. Consider reviewing resources by the Organic Seed Alliance, which “ensures an abundant and diverse supply of ecologically grown seed, tended in perpetuity by skilled and diverse communities of seed stewards.” Beyond Pesticides has several resources, including a brief documentary on this issue called Seeds That Poison. Please see the Pollinator-Friendly Seeds and Nursery Directory, a resource where you can find companies and nurseries that grow and distribute organic seeds across the U.S.

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

Source: European Journal of Agronomy

(Beyond Pesticides, August 26, 2025) A scientific review in World’s Poultry Science Journal highlights the adverse health effects on avian species from exposure to the widely used weed killer glyphosate (Roundupᵀᴹ) throughout the process of poultry production. The herbicide enters the poultry production system through residues in genetically engineered feed. An earlier article in Scientific Reports concludes that glyphosate’s (GLP) “widespread application on feed crops leaves residues in the feed,” while residues are “found to be common in conventional eggs acquired from grocery stores.” In analyzing the biochemical, toxicological, and ecological impacts of glyphosate on poultry, particularly chickens, the authors find a wide body of evidence linking glyphosate and its metabolite (breakdown product) aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) to debilitating hazards that extend beyond mortality. These sublethal effects include disruption of the gut microbiome and gastrointestinal disease; decreased productivity and diminished reproductive health; hepatic and kidney toxicity; growth and developmental impacts, including teratogenicity and embryotoxicity; endocrine disruption and oxidative stress; and impaired immune functions.

The effects of glyphosate, as have long been documented in the scientific literature and covered by Beyond Pesticides here, range from negative impacts on biodiversity and the environment to food safety risks and human health implications. Residues of both glyphosate and AMPA “have been detected in soil, crops, animal feed, poultry, and water sources, prompting scrutiny of their long-term effects,” the authors state. They continue: “Studies indicate that glyphosate disrupts enzymatic pathways, particularly by inhibiting the cytochrome P450 system, leading to oxidative stress, endocrine disruption, and mitochondrial dysfunction. It has been linked to liver and kidney toxicity, gut microbiota alterations, reproductive harm, developmental defects, and possible carcinogenicity, though regulatory agencies remain divided on its classification as a carcinogen.” The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a part of the World Health Organization, has classified glyphosate as having cancer-causing properties, as have independent peer-reviewed scientific studies. (See more here and here.)

The ubiquitous nature of glyphosate residues throughout the environment and within organisms is a result of the widespread application of this toxic chemical in forestry, agriculture, landscaping, and gardening. Over 750 herbicides contain glyphosate as the active ingredient, and it also plays a large role in the production of genetically modified (GM) crops, “with approximately 80% of GM crops bred specifically for GLP tolerance.”

Glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) formulations contain not only glyphosate but other inert (nondisclosed) ingredients, such as adjuvants that increase toxicity. A common adjuvant in GBH products is polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), which researchers have found can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells.

Effects on Poultry

Glyphosate residues in animal feed, as well as in water and through other exposure routes, pose risks to both animal and human health, as these residues can bioaccumulate and biomagnify throughout the food chain. With a high reliance on corn and soybeans in the diets of poultry, GM crops are a significant source of exposure for these animals.

“The presence of GLP residues in poultry feed raises concerns about potential health effects on birds, including disruptions in gut microbiota, oxidative stress, and overall productivity,” the authors write. They continue: “Globally, approximately 57% of maize grain and 85% of soybean production are directed towards animal feed. Several studies have investigated the effects of feeding glyphosate-tolerant GM crops to various livestock species. Research has included dairy cows, cattle, and chickens, highlighting the potential impact of glyphosate residues on poultry growth performance, immune function, and reproductive health.” (See Daily News here and here with coverage of studies on contaminated meat.)

Hepatic and Kidney Toxicity

Studies show that the kidney and liver are among the first organs to be affected by alimentary poisoning/foodborne illness. Additional research shows glyphosate residues in food can then impact various systems in animals, including the liver, intestine, kidney, and lung, as well as alter enzyme activity. (See here and here.)

In a study of hatched chickens exposed to glyphosate alone and in Roundupᵀᴹ shows “histopathological alterations in the kidneys and liver, along with imbalances in serum parameters and various biochemical changes in these organs, which could potentially impair their function.”

Oxidative Stress

Exposure to glyphosate can induce oxidative stress and lipid, protein, and DNA damage. Previous research (see here, here, and here) shows how glyphosate and AMPA are genotoxic and linked to oxidative damage. One study shows that glyphosate increases the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in the liver and small intestine of chickens. Chronic exposure to products containing glyphosate in broiler breeders (stock chickens) weakens eggshells and delays embryo organ growth, with oxidative stress as the cause.

Gastrointestinal Toxicity

Glyphosate diminishes the bioavailability of cytochrome (CYP) enzymes, which are crucial for metabolism, in the organs of chickens. One study shows that glyphosate specifically inhibits CYP P450 enzymes in chickens’ livers and small intestines. Chicks exposed to glyphosate also have compromised liver function and altered lipid metabolism, further causing oxidative stress and deposits of fat in blood and liver tissues due to heightened expression of lipogenesis-related genes, as a result of its disruptive effect on cytochrome P450 enzymes.

Additional studies (see here, here, and here) show disruption of the gut microbiome in livestock and poultry, where glyphosate reduces beneficial bacteria and enhances resistance in pathogenic strains. These impacts can lead to the onset of chronic gastrointestinal diseases. In a study of the intestinal structure of chicks, glyphosate has been shown to impair the intestines, reduce antioxidant capacity, induce inflammation, and cause the downregulation of genes in the small intestine.

Impact on Reproduction

Previous research shows that chronic exposure to herbicides containing glyphosate can impact the survival, growth, activity, and reproduction of organisms, including chickens. (See here, here, and here.) A study of roosters with chronic, subtoxic exposure to glyphosate shows reduced plasma testosterone and a decline in their reproductive peak. Another study finds “significant effect on the histopathological [diseased tissue] characteristics of the rooster testes as well as sperm motility, the key determinant of rooster sperm quality.” Additional research shows altered sperm in roosters when fed a diet containing glyphosate that leads to “metabolic disorders in the offspring, most likely due to epigenetic effects.”

Glyphosate Implications for Productivity and Performance

Several studies have classified glyphosate-based herbicide formulations as teratogenic, causing developmental abnormalities in a fetus or embryo, and embryotoxic, causing harm or death to embryos during development. In a study of quails, glyphosate was found to accumulate inside the eggs, causing damage to lipids (fats) in the brains of the developing embryos. This study also reveals that residues of glyphosate in food also slows plumage development and lingers in eggs, muscles, and livers of the birds.

Another study of chickens shows “exposure to GLP led to a significant reduction in the expression of key productivity-related genes.” Exposure directly in the eggs of chickens to GBHs induces teratogenic effects with negative effects on embryonic growth and development, as well as embryo mortality. (See research here and here.)

Changes in blood parameters, adverse effects on digestive tract development, and reduced body weight are noted in chickens exposed to glyphosate. Reproductive and developmental impacts regarding eggshell quality and embryo development are also associated with levels of both glyphosate and AMPA within egg yolk. Yet another study shows a decline in hatchability is associated with higher levels of glyphosate residues in feed among broiler breeders.

Regulatory Deficiencies and the Organic Solution

Despite mounting scientific evidence that continues to link glyphosate to adverse effects in a wide range of species, current regulations fail to protect health and the environment. The regulatory processes, such as those utilized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), also ignore factors that enhance the toxicity of these already harmful chemicals, such as synergy, mixtures, and inert ingredients. “Current safety evaluations mostly concentrate on glyphosate in isolation, overlooking the synergistic toxic effects of commercial formulations and their capacity for bioaccumulation in adipose tissues,” the authors point out.

They continue: “Furthermore, the heightened toxicity of commercial glyphosate formulations, influenced by co-formulants such as POEA [polyoxyethylene tallow amine], in conjunction with glyphosate’s interference with gut microbiota, cytochrome P450 enzymes, and endocrine functions, emphasises the necessity for cumulative risk assessments and long-term studies that account for species variability, bioaccumulation, and synergistic effects.”

These inadequacies in the regulation of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers support the urgent need for the widespread adoption of safer alternatives. The holistic approach of organic agriculture and land management protects all organisms, including humans, and the environment through the elimination of harmful toxicants and the focus on building soil health. This also mitigates the current crises of biodiversity, public health, and climate change, among other benefits.  

Previous Daily News pieces showcase how organic meats are also safer for consumption. See Conventional Meats Contaminated with Multi-Drug Resistant Bacteria, at Significantly Higher Rates than Organic Meats and Conversion to Organic Poultry Farming Lowers Risk of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria for more information. Additional research shows that organic poultry farming has both health and financial benefits. Two studies reveal the potential for organic poultry farming to significantly reduce the risk to human health from food pathogens, as well as the cost to society of treating and eliminating those pathogens.

To learn more about how you can support the organic solution, see here and here. For the latest information on science, policy, and action, sign up now to get our Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox.  

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

Source:

Fathi, M. et al. (2025) Glyphosate in poultry production: health risks, toxicity, and environmental impact, World’s Poultry Science Journal. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00439339.2025.2542410.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 25, 2025) What the Republican-led Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the U.S. House of Representatives calls legislation to “Cut Red Tape and Increase Clean Water Act Permitting Efficiency” is being roundly criticized by environmental groups as an attack on the safety of the nation’s waterways. On June 25, the Committee passed the Promoting Efficient Review for Modern Infrastructure Today (PERMIT) Act, H.R. 3898, sponsored by Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), which makes sweeping changes to the Clean Water Act (CWA) with serious consequences that will undermine water quality, pesticide oversight, and community right-to-know, according to environmental advocates. The PERMIT Act, now moving through Congress, is a package of over 15 anti-clean water bills and poses an extreme threat to clean water protections, thwarting to the goals of CWA.  

Beyond Pesticides is calling on the public to Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to oppose H.R. 3898, the “PERMIT Act.”

Ever since CWA became law in 1972 to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” the definition of the “Nation’s waters,” aka “waters of the U.S.” or “WOTUS,” has been cloaked in controversy. This controversy is coming to a head again as the Trump administration revises regulations in which the Biden administration attempted to interpret the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (2023) in a way that is consistent with the goals of CWA.  

The declaration of goals and policy in CWA begins:  The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that, consistent with the provisions of this Act—  

(1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;  

(2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983;  

(3) it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited; . . .  

Section 502(7) of CWA defines the term “navigable waters,” which delineates the jurisdiction of CWA regulation to be “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” thus removing the nexus to navigability in earlier law. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “The Clean Water Act itself does not expand further on the meaning of ‘waters of the United States.’ Instead, the Corps [Army Corps of Engineers] and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have expounded on this phrase through agency guidance and regulations, which federal courts have struck down on various occasions as failing to satisfy statutory or constitutional requirements.”

The CRS further explains:  

In debating the 1972 amendments that created the Clean Water Act, some Members of Congress explained that they intended the revised definition to expand the law’s jurisdiction beyond traditionally navigable or interstate waters. The conference report states that the “conferees fully intend that the term ‘navigable waters’ be given the broadest possible constitutional interpretation unencumbered by agency determinations which have been made or may be made for administrative purposes.” And during debate in the House on approving the conference report, one Representative explained that the definition “clearly encompasses all water bodies, including streams and their tributaries, for water quality purposes.” Courts have frequently referred to the act’s legislative history when interpreting its jurisdictional reach, but they have not always agreed on the import of this history.  

As a result, the jurisdiction of EPA and delegated state and tribal entities to protect water quality has varied according to the politics of the administration in power at the time. There is clearly a need to clarify the scope of CWA protections. In the last Congress, H.R. 5983, introduced by U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen and 131 co-sponsors, would have provided the needed clarity. 

Science also has a role to play. Bodies of surface water do not exist as independent entities. Intermittent streams flow into rivers and lakes. Ponds, ditches, and wetlands may feed lakes and streams either directly or through groundwater. Contaminants of intermittent or ephemeral water bodies can affect wildlife dependent on them, as well as the waters to which they are connected. The toxic soup in many U.S. waterways is unsustainable and threatens the foundation of many food chains. Imbalances in aquatic environments can ripple throughout the food web, creating trophic cascades that further exacerbate health and environmental damage. Studies of major rivers and streams find that 90% of fish, 100% of surface water samples, and 41% of major aquifers contain one or more pesticides at detectable levels. Almost 90% of water samples contained at least five or more different pesticides. Furthermore, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports at least 143 pesticides and 21 pesticide transformation/breakdown products (metabolites) in the groundwater of over 43 states.  

Promoted as a way to “streamline” permits for industry and development, the PERMIT Act weakens critical clean water protections, by: 

1. Cutting protections for streams and wetlands. The bill redefines which waters are protected, removing safeguards for many small streams, wetlands, and seasonal (ephemeral) waterways, allowing them to be polluted, filled in, or destroyed with no consequences. It would codify the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (2023) in a way that is inconsistent with the goals of CWA.  
2. Allowing political appointees to exclude waters. Top officials at EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers could exclude any waters they choose from protection, without public input, science, or oversight. 
3. Prioritizing cost savings for polluters over science-based water quality standards. Contrary to the spirit of the CWA, EPA would have to consider cost to polluters, rather than relying on science to set water quality standards. Unsafe pollution could be labeled “safe” just because cleanup is expensive. 
4. Discouraging advancements in reducing wastewater pollution, resulting in outdated standards. The bill limits EPA’s ability to require regular updates to water pollution control standards based on advancements in technology.  The requirement to use best available technologies would be replaced by reliance solely on only those treatment technologies already widely used in the US. 
5. Removing State and Tribal Power. The bill narrows states’ and tribes’ authority to consider the broader impacts of an entire project on local water quality, forcing them to make decisions based solely on specific permit discharges. It strips away the power of states and tribes to review big federal projects like pipelines or dams, rejecting them or adding conditions that protect local water, leaving decisions to federal agencies with less voice to people living in impacted communities. 
6. Increasing the Use of Outdated Pollution Standards. Extending the permit duration from 5 to 10 years, eliminating the opportunity to apply improved science and technology, and allowing polluters to continue using outdated pollution limits and treatment standards, while reducing opportunities to provide public input. 
7. Protecting polluters instead of the environment by: Authorizing sweeping “general” pollution permits with fewer safeguards, and exempting pesticide spraying, fire suppression chemicals, and agricultural runoff from permitting and accountability. Eliminating responsibility for failure to report harmful pollutants in discharges, opening the door for dangerous chemicals like mercury or PFAS (“forever chemicals”) to end up in water with no consequences. 
8. Exempting pesticide discharges from CWA permits if the product is registered under FIFRA. This removes the only mechanism for site-specific protections, monitoring, and public notice of pesticide pollution. By removing CWA permit requirements for pesticides, it legalizes pollution without accountability, eliminates public notice and comment, and strips communities of recourse when their water is at risk. 

Letter to U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators:
H.R. 3898, the “PERMIT Act” makes sweeping changes to the Clean Water Act (CWA), with serious consequences for water quality, health and environmental protection, and community right-to-know.

The PERMIT Act (H.R. 3898) is a package of over 15 anti-clean water bills and poses an extreme threat to clean water protections, in contradiction to the CWA’s goals and objectives. Promoted as a way to “streamline” permits for industry and development, the bill weakens critical clean water protections by:

1. Cutting protections for streams and wetlands. The bill redefines which waters are protected, removing safeguards for many small streams, wetlands, and seasonal (ephemeral) waterways, allowing them to be polluted, filled in, or destroyed with no consequences. It would codify the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA (2023) in a way that is inconsistent with the goals of CWA. 
2. Allowing political appointees to exclude waters. Top officials at EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers could exclude any waters they choose from protection, without public input, science, or oversight.
3. Prioritizing cost savings for polluters over science-based water quality standards. Contrary to the spirit of the CWA, EPA would have to consider cost to polluters, rather than relying on science to set water quality standards. Unsafe pollution could be labeled “safe” just because cleanup is expensive.
4. Discouraging advancements in reducing wastewater pollution, resulting in outdated standards. The bill limits EPA’s ability to require regular updates to water pollution control standards based on advancements in technology.  The requirement to use best available technologies would be replaced by reliance solely on only those treatment technologies already widely used in the US.
5. Removing State and Tribal Power. The bill narrows states’ and tribes’ authority to consider the broader impacts of an entire project on local water quality, forcing them to make decisions based solely on specific permit discharges. It strips away the power of states and tribes to review big federal projects like pipelines or dams, rejecting them or adding conditions that protect local water, leaving decisions to federal agencies with less voice to people living in impacted communities.
6. Increasing the Use of Outdated Pollution Standards. Extending the permit duration from 5 to 10 years, eliminating the opportunity to apply improved science and technology, and allowing polluters to continue using outdated pollution limits and treatment standards, while reducing opportunities to provide public input.
7. Protecting polluters instead of the environment by: Authorizing sweeping “general” pollution permits with fewer safeguards, and exempting pesticide spraying, fire suppression chemicals, and agricultural runoff from permitting and accountability. Eliminating responsibility for failure to report harmful pollutants in discharges, opening the door for dangerous chemicals like mercury or PFAS (“forever chemicals”) to end up in water with no consequences.
8. Exempting pesticide discharges from CWA permits if the product is registered under FIFRA. This removes the only mechanism for site-specific protections, monitoring, and public notice of pesticide pollution. By removing CWA permit requirements for pesticides, it legalizes pollution without accountability, eliminates public notice and comment, and strips communities of recourse when their water is at risk.

Please oppose H.R. 3898, the “PERMIT Act.”

Thank you.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2025) Legislative language moving through Congress—intended to prevent farmers, consumers, and workers from holding pesticide manufacturers accountable for the harm caused by their toxic products—is being opposed by a broad coalition of farmers, beekeepers, consumers, environmentalists, and workers with the release today of a joint statement opposing a dramatic change in a fundamental legal right. The document, Protect the Right of Farmers, Consumers, and Workers to Hold Pesticide Companies Accountable for Their Harmful Products, is joined by 51 organizations, coalitions, businesses, and leaders representing tens of thousands of members and communities. The legislation at issue is hidden in a provision of the Appropriations bill (Section 453) that has passed through the Appropriations Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and is headed for a vote of the full House in the next couple of weeks, followed by the U.S. Senate.

The Appropriations provision is being pushed by chemical companies in the wake of extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto, amounting to billions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages, for “failure-to-warn” liability claims involving glyphosate (Roundupᵀᴹ) weed killer products. The pesticide has been classified as cancer-causing by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (a part of the World Health Organization).

As stated in the joint document, the coalition’s goal is to uphold the right of farmers, consumers, and workers to hold pesticide manufacturers responsible for their failure to warn about the harm caused by their products. The coalition is calling on Congress to:

• REJECT the provision, section 453, adopted in the House Interior-EPA Appropriations and full Appropriations Committee, in the final House bill;
• REJECT the language of section 453 being attached to the Senate Appropriations bill; and
• REJECT section 453 language from being incorporated in the final Appropriations bill.

The joint document focuses on five elements that are identified as critical to the protection of public health and safety in a climate of deregulation and reductions in federal funding for environmental and related programs. These include:

• Legacy. The courts have long served as a venue for farmers, consumers, and workers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for their failure to warn about the hazards of their products, including potential chronic adverse health outcomes, on the product label.
• Label. EPA pesticide product labels are not required to display long-term effects like cancer and reproductive problems that are linked to exposure.
• Legal. Section 453 in the House Appropriations bill would, in the future, prohibit cases like those filed by those harmed by glyphosate (Roundup™), who have won jury verdicts and compensation.
• Lasting. The House bill language removes the incentive for chemical manufacturers, under threat of compensatory and punitive damages, to develop safer products or remove products altogether — slowing the critically necessary shift to effective, less- and non-toxic land and building management practices and products to protect health and the environment.
• Law. Legislative history added to the bill in the committee will do little to ensure a fully functioning EPA and court redress.

A Broad Movement

“With the massive dismantling of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs by the current administration, Congress has been seeking, through Appropriations bill provisions, to limit court oversight, which in many cases serves as the only backstop for public health and environmental protections,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

“The challenges facing farmworkers are profound; from exposure to limited protections, our communities are already at the margins, with women and children shouldering the most severe impacts of forced pesticide contact,” said Mily Trevino-Sauceda, executive director of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas,  “This legislation would reduce their access to justice with this inhumane introduction of pesticide immunity shield language. There is no victory in harming the very workforce that feeds this nation.”

“Once you understand the pesticide registration process, the need to hold registrants accountable becomes very apparent,” said Richard Coy, third-generation commercial beekeeper and vice president of Coy’s Honey Farm, Inc. “In my opinion, legislation that impedes accountability is bad policy.”

“EPA pesticide product labels are often inadequate or inaccurate. Yet this dangerous legislation would shield pesticide companies from accountability for any harm their chemicals may inflict,” said Diane Rosenberg, president of Iowa Alliance for Responsible Agriculture and Jefferson County Farmers and Neighbors. “This is flat out wrong. Congress should protect vulnerable farmers, not multibillion-dollar chemical companies.”

“Farmers and consumers have long had venues, like courts, to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for their failure to warn about the health harms of their products. State laws have also historically been able to help protect the health of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers from health-harming pesticides,” said Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environment’s (ANHE) executive director, Katie Huffling, DNP, RN, CNM, FAAN. “We urge Congress to both develop and maintain a system that truly protects farmers, farmworkers, and consumers; a system that holds pesticide manufacturers responsible for their failure to warn about the harm caused by their products and a system that supports the development of safe and effective, less- and non-toxic products to protect health and the environment.”

“As Missourians, we see industry’s influence everywhere—on our highways, in our mailboxes, and on our screens—reminders of how aggressively they shape public opinion and policy,” said Ethan Duke, co-founder and co-director of Missouri River Bird Observatory. “At the Observatory, we’ve seen efforts like Section 453 have consequences for the welfare of our fields, waterways, and bird populations. Section 453 would silence communities and strip away one of the few tools people have to hold industry accountable for the harm they cause to both human health and the natural world.”

“Farmworkers are on the front line of pesticide exposure,” says Jeannie Economos, coordinator of the Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project at Farmworker Association of Florida. “In my 30 years of working with farmworkers, I have heard heartbreaking stories of health effects that farmworkers, their children, and/or their families have experienced. Farmworkers deserve fair treatment and justice!”

This groundswell of support emerges from a diverse range of voices, including environmental, conservation, climate, public health, and biodiversity groups, and includes farmers, beekeepers, businesses, medical professionals, farmworkers, farmers, and community-based groups. “We also know that there are significant disproportionate impacts that women and children face, not to mention farmworkers, agricultural, rural, working-class, and majority Black Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) communities, as documented in the scientific literature,” said Max Sano, Beyond Pesticides’ senior policy and coalitions associate.

Implications If Section 453 Passes

Bayer/Monsanto and the chemical and agribusiness group Modern Ag Alliance are leading the charge on efforts in Congress and state legislatures across the country to create immunity from failure to warn litigation. In this context, the chemical industry has successfully lobbied for what environmentalists and legal experts have called a weak federal pesticide law (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act—FIFRA), and then argues in court when sued for damages that their products are in compliance with pesticide registration standards and therefore they are protected from litigation. Juries have ruled that chemical manufacturers failed to provide adequate warning through their product labeling, given the independent peer-reviewed science, including what the company knew or should have known, and a clinical assessment of the harm caused to the plaintiff.

Under the Appropriations language moving through Congress, the only permitted EPA-approved label language must be consistent with a human health assessment or carcinogenicity classification previously approved by EPA—freezing in place EPA’s position on a pesticide for possibly decades, and eliminating the ability to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for damages. The bill language states: “None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action…” without conducting an entirely new assessment—which takes “no less than four years, and sometimes over 12,” according to EPA. [The bill language is found here. Search on Section 453.]  Under this provision, industry will argue that they, as registrants of pesticide ingredients, are unable to disclose potential harms that are different from the EPA-approved label. The industry is also pushing to amend the Farm Bill with similar language that shields chemical manufacturers from lawsuits on the harm caused by their products.

Signatories represent all 50 states and the District of Columbia, including the following:

Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments (ANHE), Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, American Bird Conservancy (ABC), American Sustainable Business Network (ASBN), Bee Squared Apiaries, Beyond Pesticides, Beyond Toxics, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Center for Environmental Health (CEH), Center for Farmworker Families (CFF), Center for Food Safety (CFS), Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Center for Progressive Reform (CPR), Children’s Environmental Health Network (CEHN), Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls (CAAN), Clean Water Action, Coming Clean Network, Coy’s Honey Farm Inc., CT Pesticide Reform, Farmworker Association of Florida (FWAF), Farmworker Self-Help, Friends of the Earth (FOE), Green America, Iowa Alliance for Responsible Agriculture (IARA), Jefferson County Farmers and Neighbors, Inc. (JFAN), Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA), Maryland Ornithological Society, Maryland Pesticide Education Network (MPEN), Maryland Votes for Animals, Missouri Coalition for the Environment (MCE), Missouri River Bird Observatory (MBRO), Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC), Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Association (NODPA), Northeast Organic Farming Association of Massachusetts (NOFA-Mass), NOFA-NJ, NOFA-NY, NOFA-VT, Norwalk River Watershed Association (NRWA), Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), Organic Consumers Association (OCA), People & Pollinators Action Network (P&PAN), Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network (PANNA), People Organized in Defense of Earth and Her Resources (PODER), Pollinate Minnesota, Pollinator Pathway, Pollinator Stewardship Council (PSC), Rachel Carson Council (RCC), Re:Wild Your Campus, Toxic Free North Carolina (TFNC), Valley Improvement Projects (VIP).

For a copy of the joint statement, please click here.

For a copy of the press release, please click here.

Additional Calls to Action

To stay informed on the latest updates on Congress, scientific literature, and other programmatic areas, consider signing up for Action of the Week and Weekly News Update. You can see all of Beyond Pesticides Resources compiling decades of research, analysis, and models for systemic change into actionable hubs.

U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324) earlier this summer, amending FIFRA to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide. The public can take action to generate support for this legislation.

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

Source: Fact Sheet – Protect the Right of Farmers, Consumers, and Workers to Hold Pesticide Corporations Accountable; Fact Sheet – Endorsing Organizations

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2025) The presence of Varroa mites in combination with the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid increases the risk of bee mortality and disrupts the larval gut microbiome, according to a study of the synergy (a greater combined effect) between Varroa destructor, a parasitic mite that attacks and feeds on honey bees, and imidacloprid. The study in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology adds to the growing body of science on the severely declining bee population by investigating the toxic effects of both the parasites and pesticide stressors in honey bees (Apis mellifera). “Given that V. destructor may increase bees’ sensitivity to imidacloprid by compromising their physiological health and immunity, this study systematically assesses the effects of V. destructor infestation and imidacloprid exposure on honey bee survival, detoxification enzyme activity, and gut microbiota,” the authors explain.

The intestinal tract and gut microbiome are crucial for digestion, metabolism, nutrient absorption, immune regulation, and pathogen defense. Within honey bees, the gut microbiome is “highly susceptible to external environmental stressors, such as pesticide exposure and parasitic infections [and] these disturbances can lead to microbial imbalances, ultimately affecting bee health.” (See studies here and here.)

Previous research earlier this year, captured in Daily News Variability in Effect of Pesticides on Bumblebee Survival Tied to Gut Microbiome Health, shows intraspecific differences (between individuals of a species) in wild bumblebees (Bombus vosnesenskii) exposed to an herbicide (glyphosate), a fungicide (tebuconazole), and an insecticide (imidacloprid), with gut microbiome health as a factor. Additional coverage (see here, here, here, and here) highlights studies that show how pesticide exposure disturbs and shifts the abundance of certain microbes in the bee gut microbiome. These disturbances primarily occur in one of two ways—either by directly harming microbes or indirectly harming the host (bee) and subsequently shifting the microbiome.

Studying environmental stressors in combination is an important area of research, as organisms are not subjected to contaminants or parasites singularly. As the current study points out, “Honey bee health is affected by a variety of environmental factors, with Varroa destructor parasitism and pesticide exposure being important factors contributing to colony decline.” The loss of honey bees, and other pollinators, threatens crop productivity, natural plant diversity, and insect diversity.

The decline of pollinators is a major ecological crisis and contributes to the “insect apocalypse” currently occurring. There is a complex interplay of multiple factors in this decline, including pesticide exposure from chemical-intensive agriculture and land management, parasite infestations, and habitat degradation, among others. “Among the many stressors, pesticides and parasites are considered the primary drivers of the severe decline in honey bee populations,” the study authors note. (See more on What the Science Shows on Biodiversity.)

Neonicotinoid insecticides, in particular, are linked to adverse impacts on pollinators. Imidacloprid is associated with increased risks to not only pollinators but to human health and other wildlife as well. (See Daily News coverage on pollinators and imidacloprid here and here.)

Studies show that exposure to low doses of imidacloprid can impair honey bee cognition, foraging behavior, navigation, and overall survival. (See here, here, here, here, and here.) “While prolonged low-dose exposure may not cause immediate mortality, it can weaken their immune system, making them more susceptible to pathogens and other environmental stressors,” the researchers state. They continue, “[O]ur previous research further demonstrated that imidacloprid reduces the survival and learning ability of young bees, disrupts gut microbiota diversity, and leads to metabolic imbalances.”

Varroa mites parasitize honey bee larvae, pupae, and adults by extracting nutrients from them. Infestations of these mites “weakens individual bees, disrupts their growth and development, and ultimately compromises the health of the entire colony.” When combining this weakened state with exposure to pesticides, the honey bees experience cascading adverse health effects.

The current study collected honey bees from a research apiary, assessed the degree of Varroa destructor infestation across the colony, and selected colonies that were categorized as highly infested (if rates exceeded the threshold of 20%). Both forager bees and larvae to rear and become newly emerged bees were included for the acute (7-day) and chronic (14-day) exposure tests. After assessing mortality throughout the experiments, DNA extraction and sequencing was also conducted to analyze the intestinal flora of the honey bees.

“Our results showed that imidacloprid significantly reduced bee survival and that the synergistic effect of V. destructor and imidacloprid further exacerbated the risk of bee mortality,” the authors say. The data shows that as imidacloprid concentrations increase, the mortality rate of bees also increases. “This indicates that imidacloprid is highly toxic to bees, especially when exposed for a long period of time or at high concentrations, and can significantly reduce the survival rate of bees,” the researchers state. (See studies here and here.)

They continue, “At the same time, the presence of V. destructor reduced the resistance of bees to pesticides and exacerbated bee mortality, suggesting that V. destructor infestation may have a synergistic effect with pesticide exposure.” (See additional studies here and here.) The analysis also shows impaired immune defenses through altered enzyme activity levels, as well as reduced diversity of gut flora in the newly emerged bees. “These results indicated that V. destructor infection significantly affected the gut flora composition of newly emerged bees, especially the abundance of Proteobacteria and Firmicutes changed significantly, accompanied by significant fluctuations of some key genera,” the researchers explain.

The combination of exposure to Varroa mites and imidacloprid “significantly altered the diversity and composition of the flora in the intestinal tract of honeybees compared to healthy bees,” which is consistent with other studies that suggest these implications occur as a result of physical damage, immune system suppression, or pathogen transmission from the mites that may indirectly alter the microbial community of honey bees, thereby affecting immune function and overall health. (See here and here.)

The authors hypothesize that the suppression of immune and detoxification pathways leads to the bees’ inability to metabolize or resist the toxic effects of imidacloprid and results in impacts on survival. “This study shows that V. destructor infection and imidacloprid exposure significantly affect honey bee survival, gut enzyme activity, and the diversity and function of the gut microbiota through synergistic effects,” they conclude. “V. destructor may exacerbate immunosuppression and physiological damage in honey bees by altering the structure of their gut flora, while imidacloprid exposure may respond to toxicants by enhancing detoxifying enzyme activity, but may also lead to damage to the immune system.”

Beyond Pesticides, in a similar Daily News titled Neonicotinoid Insecticides Contribute to Honey Bee Vulnerability to Parasitic Varroa Mites, previously covered a 2024 study published in the Journal of Insect Science that addresses the debate on whether neonicotinoid insecticides or Varroa mites are more detrimental to the survival of bees. The evidence suggests that neonicotinoids are not only harmful individually but can increase vulnerability to parasitism from mites in western honey bees, showing heightened risks with combined exposure.

Additional research cited in the current study includes:

• One study finds V. destructor infestations “reduce bees’ tolerance to pesticides, making them more susceptible to pesticide-induced mortality.”
• Studies (see here and here) find synergistic and additive effects of acetamiprid, another neonicotinoid insecticide, and parasites on honey bees, with bee mortality risk increasing as the number of stressors rises.
• “Similarly, exposure to both chlorothalonil [an organochlorine fungicide] and V. destructor significantly reduced worker survival, with observed synergistic effects.” (See study here.)
• Research also indicates that exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides such as thiamethoxam increases parasitism and heightened risks to honey bee populations.

To mitigate these adverse health effects, Beyond Pesticides urges the widespread adoption of organic agriculture and land management. Not only does this holistic solution remove the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers that threaten honey bees and other pollinators, but it also protects and enhances biodiversity and mitigates both the climate change and public health crises.

For more information on the direct impacts of organic practices on pollinators, see Study Adds to Wide Body of Science Highlighting Benefits of Organic for Insect Biodiversity. Additional health and environmental benefits are available here and here.

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

Source:

Wang, Y. et al. (2025) Varroa destructor infestation amplifies imidacloprid vulnerability in Apis mellifera, Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048357525003293.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2025) As a part of a nationwide push to stop the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with the City of Excelsior, Minnesota, and Osborne Organics, announced the transition of city park land sites to organic land management. Under its program, Parks for a Sustainable Future, Beyond Pesticides underwrites the development of organic transition plans and staff training on holistic practices. The goal of the program is to advance practical, resilient, cost-effective management techniques that confront urgent threats to public health, biodiversity, and climate that are exacerbated by toxic pesticide and fertilizer use. See the link to our press release here. 

Excelsior City Councilmember Jennifer Caron said, “Excelsior has embarked on an exciting first step in organically managing our public parks and minimizing runoff into the lake.” Ms. Caron added: “By participating in the Parks for a Sustainable Future grant program with Beyond Pesticides, the city is learning how to eliminate herbicides, insecticides, and other pesticides on sites in the Commons, including the Ballfield and Great Lawn. The result will be a healthier Commons, particularly in areas heavily used by people, pets, and pollinators alike.”  

Kevin Quinn, parks and natural resources manager for Excelsior, said: “Working with Beyond Pesticides to help improve the health of our park system reminds me of the popular quote: ‘Treat the Earth as if your life depends on it—because it does.’ Organic lawn care is a new adventure for the City of Excelsior, and we are very fortunate for the opportunity to make this transition with such a dedicated and knowledgeable team of professionals, city residents, and volunteers.”  

The program received an initial push from community member, advocate, and horticulturist Colleen Lockovitch. Ms. Lockovitch started the Uncommon Gardeners volunteer group to maintain and care for public pollinator gardens planted by the City over the past four years.  

The program: Beyond Pesticides, through its program, has collaborated with dozens of communities across the country to transition parks, playing fields, and public spaces to organic land management by providing in-depth training to assist community land managers in transitioning three public demonstration sites and the knowledge necessary to eventually transition all public areas in a locality to these safer practices.

Steve Bernstein/Above Lake Minnetonka

The City: The City of Excelsior—located on Lake Minnetonka with a population of 2,335—is a popular regional recreational destination 15 miles southwest of downtown Minneapolis, attracting tens of thousands of visitors annually. All three demonstration sites for the program are immediately adjacent to Lake Minnetonka in the historic Excelsior Commons [135 Lake Street in Excelsior, MN]. The 13-acre park, whose origins date to the founding of the City, hosts open recreational areas, picnic sites, playgrounds, two swimming beaches, tennis courts, baseball fields, a band shell, a bathhouse, public restrooms, and docking for public lake access.  

The sites in the program:

• The Great Lawn: Recently resodded as part of the Pavilion and Plaza projects, this 113,400 square-foot site serves as a high-visibility centerpiece. Every summer, the Great Lawn hosts a popular concert series every other week—drawing between 2,000 and 7,000 attendees—as well as an annual 4th of July celebration. Designated for daily recreation, the Great Lawn is where residents and visitors can walk their dogs, play frisbee, gather at the picnic tables, and sit on benches or blankets to celebrate the Bay with friends and family.

• Commons Ballfield: This high-traffic ballfield, slated to be regraded and resodded as part of the Ballfield redesign project, is a historic feature of the Commons. At approximately 55,555 square feet, the WPA-era ballfield seating from the 1930s provides an incredible view of the lake. Beyond Pesticides, in partnership with the City and technical consultant Osborne Organics, will guide the ongoing installation and organic land management of the natural turf field, used daily during the summer months by men’s and women’s baseball and softball leagues.  

• The Shoreline: The Shoreline, a passive-use area of the Commons measuring approximately 14,000 square feet, is used for yoga and community classes. It is lined with benches that provide a place for people to fish, sit, and enjoy an expanded view of Lake Minnetonka, far beyond Excelsior Bay. As no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides are currently in use, given the site’s proximity to the lakeshore, the Parks for a Sustainable Future program will focus on upscaling the condition of the grass through organic land management. 

“We are excited to be working with the City of Excelsior on organic land management practices that protect community health and the environment, including bees, butterflies, and birds, and support efforts to mitigate climate change and biodiversity decline,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. 

Jennifer Caron/Activist Colleen Lockovitch

In the words of Ms. Lockovitch, transitioning away from the use of harmful chemicals, like petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, is vital to cultivating habitats for wildlife. “In every public garden I have managed, we never used synthetic fertilizers or any type of pesticide,” said Lockovitch. “Prioritizing the growth of diverse and chemical-free gardens benefits everyone. I am so proud of the City of Excelsior for its commitment to transition away from using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. We owe it to the lake, the ecosystems, and the entire community to take care of it the right and healthy way. Healthy lawns and gardens start out with healthy soils.”  

“Excelsior has embarked on an exciting first step in organically managing our public parks and minimizing runoff into the lake,” Ms. Caron adds. “By participating in the Parks for a Sustainable Future grant program with Beyond Pesticides, the city is learning how to eliminate herbicides, insecticides, and other pesticides on sites in the Commons, including the Ballfield and Great Lawn. The result will be a healthier Commons, particularly in areas heavily used by people, pets, and pollinators alike.” 

The Parks for a Sustainable Future program launched in time to organically welcome thousands of guests to the historic Excelsior Commons for the popular summer series “Concerts in the Commons,” hosted next on August 20 and August 27 at 6:30 PM CT, and “Cinema in The Commons,” featuring a family-friendly movie on August 22 and September 5 at 8 PM CT.  

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! 📣 Click here to take the first step and become a Parks Advocate!

ℹ️ For more information on the program launch, and to learn more about how YOU can bring the Parks for a Sustainable Future Program to a community near you, please contact Rika Gopinath, Community Policy and Action Manager at [email protected]!  

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. 

Updated—Parks Flyer 3.24.25 by Beyond Pesticides

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2025) A new study from Argentina highlights the importance of applying the concept of the exposome (total exposures over lifetime) as a scientific framework, the value of biomonitoring, and findings of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The study documents the presence and effects of pesticides on maternal and fetal health during pregnancy. The results show that pregnant Argentine women are exposed to dozens of pesticides, and that certain mixtures of these chemicals are associated with harm to pregnancy outcomes, especially among rural women.

The exposome, the authors write, comprises the “non-genetic factors that may be involved in the development or aggravation of human disease. The prenatal exposome includes all environmental chemicals that the mother is exposed to during pregnancy (maternal exposome) and those chemicals that reach the placenta and fetus from the maternal circulation (fetal exposome).” The authors emphasize that understanding the exposome almost by definition requires studying mixtures of environmental chemicals rather than analyzing the effects of each in isolation.

The second important aspect of the study is its use of biomonitoring. The researchers analyzed urine samples from 90 pregnant women in various gestational stages from rural and urban regions of Argentina. The researchers also collected demographic information from the women, including education levels, agrochemical use, diet, smoking, and alcohol and drug use.

They tested the samples for 74 pesticides and found a total of 39. Eighty percent of the samples had detectable pesticides. Just over half of the pesticides were insecticides, about a third were fungicides, and nearly 18% were herbicides. Just over 60% are registered in Argentina; about 13% are unregistered, and a quarter of those found are banned there.

The fungicide vinclozolin, used in Argentina on fruits, vegetables, wine grapes, and chia plants (a type of Salvia), was the most frequently detected pesticide. This study reports the presence of vinclozolin for the first time in a biomonitoring study in Argentina. It is a possible human carcinogen also noted for its anti-androgenic effects, and thus is a factor in feminizing male animals. The second and third most common pesticides are the pre-emergent herbicide propazine, which is related to atrazine and used on ornamental plants in greenhouses, and the organophosphate insecticide and acaricide triazophos, which is applied to fruit and cereals. Both, also possibly carcinogenic to humans, have not been previously reported anywhere in maternal samples. Triazophos is banned in Argentina and the European Union. It is not registered in the U.S. and is being phased out in many regions. In all, a quarter of the pesticides detected in the current study are banned in Argentina, and this may be evidence not only of their continued use in some places, but also of their persistence in the environment. This highlights the extreme importance of both rapidly stopping the use of current highly toxic and persistent pesticides and preventing registration of new ones.

About two-thirds of the samples contained mixtures of the various pesticides detected, with a combination of fungicides and insecticides showing up in about a fifth of the samples and another fifth containing mixtures of herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides.

Regarding mixtures, the authors write, “When analyzing pregnancy outcomes in relation to the environmental exposome, it is essential to consider mixtures rather than individual pesticides. In this regard, we have found that samples from complicated pregnancies associated with fetal development had a higher number of pesticides.” Previous research has shown associations between the number of pesticides in cord blood and low birth weight, pesticide mixtures in maternal urine and smaller fetal head circumference, and multiple neonicotinoids in maternal urine and gestational diabetes.

There were few differences between the rural and urban women demographically, such as age, body mass index, education level, and diet. About half of the rural women reported using home insecticides during pregnancy compared to 39% of urban women. More rural women had mixtures of pesticides, but the researchers did not view the difference as striking. However, there were some important differences between the two groups.

Overall, about a third of the pregnancies were problematic, producing gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and anemia in the women and preterm birth, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), low birth weight, and congenital anomalies in the fetuses. Here, the urban-rural divide was striking: nearly half the rural women had adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to 19% of the urban women, and fetal development and growth were more common complications for rural women. There is a strong association between IUGR and the number of pesticides in the women’s urine, as was the occurrence of triazole fungicides, particularly tebuconazole, in this group. Tebuconazole is a known reproductive toxicant. In vitro studies have shown that it interferes with certain cellular processes affecting placental and fetal development, and exposure to tebuconazole results in low birth weight and feminization of male fetuses in rats.

The authors suggest a number of reasons for the higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes among rural women. Rural women live closer to crop fields and thus may have additional exposures beyond those common to urban women as well. The authors write that “the exposome in rural areas may contribute to adverse health outcomes in pregnant women and fetuses.” Further, they note, there is much less access to health care, especially prenatal care, in rural areas.

The Argentinian study adds to the abundant evidence that pesticides harm women’s health, and women’s reproductive health in particular, as well as offspring at every stage of development. See Beyond Pesticides’ Birth/Fetal Effects section of our Pesticide-Induced Diseases database. This resource provides links to numerous studies detailing the effects on pregnancy of everything from malathion and chlorpyrifos to paraquat and imidacloprid.

While there are limitations to the current study, including a small sample size, the collection of only a single urine sample per participant, and a mixture of pregnancy phases among the women, it demonstrates the usefulness of biomonitoring as a means of expanding and deepening the scientific understanding of pesticides’ global impacts. The concept of the exposome is especially helpful because it acknowledges that no one is exposed to just one thing at a time, in one life stage, and that environmental exposures to a plethora of external influences are cumulative over a lifetime, beginning at conception and sometimes producing their harms decades after they occur. In particular, it is urgent that we get an accurate picture of how mixtures of pesticides affect biological systems. The outdated, ineffectual toxicological framework entrenched in pesticide regulation and supported by the pesticide industry must give way to a more realistic and precise means of assessing the true effects of pesticides.

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

Sources:

Pesticide exposure as prenatal exposome: A biomonitoring study in pregnant women from Argentina
Racca et al
Chemosphere 2025
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40570729/

On International Women’s Day, Pesticide Risks to Women’s Health Call for Urgent Transition to Organic
Beyond Pesticides, March 7th, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/03/on-international-womens-day-elevated-pesticide-risks-to-womens-health-support-urgent-need-for-transition-to-organic/

Exposure to Glyphosate Herbicide Adversely Affects Perinatal Health, Study Finds
Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/02/exposure-to-glyphosate-herbicide-adversely-affects-neonatal-health-study-finds/

Pesticide Exposure Contributes to Preterm Births and Low Birth Weight
Beyond Pesticides, November 18, 2021

Pesticide Exposure Contributes to Preterm Births and Low Birth Weight

Agrichemicals in surface water and birth defects in the United States
Winchester et al
Acta Paediatrica 2009
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2667895/?tool=pubmed

(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2025)  With pesticide manufacturers pushing to stop cancer victims (and others suffering adverse effects) from suing them under longstanding ”failure to warn law,“ U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) is proposing to uphold this unequivocal right to protection. Senator Booker has introduced the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324) to protect the rights of farmers and consumers to hold pesticide manufacturers responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products. This effort comes in the wake of congressional and state legislative attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims that are taking place in response to extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by glyphosate weed killer products like Roundup.ᵀᴹ

📣 Beyond Pesticides, with allied organizations across the U.S., is asking the public to “Tell your U.S. Senator to co-sponsor S. 2324, the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act.” This bill will amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA) to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide. 

Despite growing peer-reviewed scientific evidence linking widely used pesticides to a host of health harms, including cancers, birth defects, endocrine disruption, Parkinson’s disease, and infertility, the chemical industry and its allies in elective office are pushing to deny victims access to the courts. Led by its lobbyists in state legislatures and in Congress, the pesticide industry is seeking legal immunity—a liability shield—for failing to disclose its products’ hazards. 

The Need for Court Action in the Face of EPA Dismantling  
With the massive dismantling of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs by the current administration, Congress has been seeking, through appropriations bill provisions, to limit court oversight, which in many cases serves as a backstop for public health and environmental protections. Provisions in the House appropriations bill would, in the future, prohibit cases like those filed by victims of glyphosate (Roundupᵀᴹ), who have won large jury verdicts and compensation. The language removes the incentive for chemical manufacturers, under threat of accountability for compensatory and punitive damages, to develop safer products or remove products altogether. Therefore, it slows the critically necessary shift to less- and non-toxic land and building management practices to protect health and the environment. Legislative history added to the bill in the committee will do little to ensure a fully functioning EPA and court redress.  

Immunity from lawsuits on chemical companies’ failure to warn about their products’ hazards.  
With Bayer/Monsanto leading the charge, the chemical industry has successfully lobbied for a weak federal pesticide law and then tried to hide behind the law when sued for damages, telling the courts that their products are in compliance with pesticide registration standards and therefore they are not liable for harm. Juries have ruled that chemical manufacturers failed to provide adequate warning through their product labeling, given the independent peer-reviewed science, including what the company knew or should have known, and a clinical assessment of the harm caused to the plaintiff.  

However, the Interior and Environment Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted to support a bill on July 15 that includes language that provides total pesticide immunity language, blocking farmers and consumers from suing chemical manufacturers when they fail to disclose the harm that their products cause and block states from providing information on product harm beyond EPA-approved language. (See Section 453.) The Subcommittee’s bill was then incorporated into the full Appropriations Committee bill on July 22. 

Chemical companies—many foreign-owned—are seeking liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused. Syngenta, a subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned company ChemChina, reached a $187.5 million settlement in 2021 for paraquat-related Parkinson’s disease claims. Monsanto, now owned by Germany’s Bayer, has paid billions of dollars to settle lawsuits linking Roundupᵀᴹ (glyphosate) to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. If legislation shields companies from liability for its failure to warn, it would leave farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and other injured individuals without recourse for the harms caused by these toxic substances.  

Therefore, Senator Booker proposes, “Rather than providing a liability shield so that foreign corporations are allowed to poison the American people, Congress should instead pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to ensure that these chemical companies can be held accountable in federal court for the harm caused by their toxic products.”  

Letter to U.S. Senators
I am writing to ask you to cosponsor U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) bill, the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324), to protect the rights of farmers and consumers by holding pesticide manufacturers responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products. This bill has been introduced in the wake of congressional and state legislative attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims that are taking place in response to extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by glyphosate weed killer products like Roundup.ᵀᴹ

The bill will amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA) to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide.

Despite growing peer-reviewed scientific evidence linking widely used pesticides to a host of health harms, including cancers, birth defects, endocrine disruption, Parkinson’s disease, and infertility, a coordinated effort is being led by pesticide manufacturers in state legislatures and in Congress seeking legal immunity—a liability shield—for these big corporations.

With the massive dismantling of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs by the current administration, Congress has been seeking, through appropriations bill provisions, to limit court oversight, which in many cases serves as a backstop for public health and environmental protections. Provisions in the House appropriations bill would, in the future, prohibit cases like those filed by victims of glyphosate (Roundupᵀᴹ), who have won large jury verdicts and compensation. The language removes the incentive for chemical manufacturers, under threat of accountability for compensatory and punitive damages, to develop safer products or remove products altogether, slowing the critically necessary shift to less- and non-toxic land and building management practices to protect health and the environment. Legislative history added to the bill in the committee will do little to ensure a fully functioning EPA and court redress. 

As Bayer/Monsanto leads the charge, the chemical industry successfully lobbied for a weak federal pesticide law, FIFRA, and then tried to hide behind the law when sued for damages, telling the courts that their products are in compliance with pesticide registration standards and therefore they are not liable for harm. Juries have ruled that chemical manufacturers failed to provide adequate warning through their product labeling, given the independent peer-reviewed science, including what the company knew or should have known, and a clinical assessment of the harm caused to the plaintiff.  

However, the Interior and Environment Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted July 22 to support a bill that includes language (Sec. 453) providing total pesticide immunity language, blocking farmers and consumers from suing chemical manufacturers when they fail to disclose the harm that their products cause and blocking states from providing information on product harm beyond EPA-approved language. 

Chemical companies—many foreign-owned—seek liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused. Syngenta, a subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned company ChemChina, reached a $187.5 million settlement in 2021 for paraquat-related Parkinson’s disease claims. Monsanto, now owned by Germany’s Bayer, has paid billions of dollars to settle lawsuits linking RoundupTM (glyphosate) to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. If legislation shields companies from liability, it would leave farmers, farmworkers, and other injured individuals without meaningful recourse for the harms caused by these toxic substances.

Please co-sponsor the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324).

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senator Cory Booker [sponsor]: 
I am writing to thank you for sponsoring the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324), to protect the rights of farmers and consumers by holding pesticide manufacturers responsible for the harm caused by their toxic products. This bill has been introduced in the wake of congressional and state legislative attacks on “failure-to-warn” liability claims that are taking place in response to extraordinary jury verdicts against Bayer/Monsanto for harm caused by glyphosate weed killer products like Roundup.ᵀᴹ  

The bill will amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA) to create a federal right of action for anyone who is harmed by a toxic pesticide.  

Despite growing peer-reviewed scientific evidence linking widely used pesticides to a host of health harms, including cancers, birth defects, endocrine disruption, Parkinson’s disease, and infertility, a coordinated effort is being led by pesticide manufacturers in state legislatures and in Congress seeking legal immunity—a liability shield—for these big corporations.  

With the massive dismantling of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs by the current administration, Congress has been seeking, through appropriations bill provisions, to limit court oversight, which in many cases serves as a backstop for public health and environmental protections. Provisions in the House appropriations bill would, in the future, prohibit cases like those filed by victims of glyphosate (Roundupᵀᴹ), who have won large jury verdicts and compensation. The language removes the incentive for chemical manufacturers, under threat of accountability for compensatory and punitive damages, to develop safer products or remove products altogether, slowing the critically necessary shift to less- and non-toxic land and building management practices to protect health and the environment. Legislative history added to the bill in the committee will do little to ensure a fully functioning EPA and court redress.   

As Bayer/Monsanto leads the charge, the chemical industry successfully lobbied for a weak federal pesticide law, FIFRA, and then tried to hide behind the law when sued for damages, telling the courts that their products are in compliance with pesticide registration standards and therefore they are not liable for harm. Juries have ruled that chemical manufacturers failed to provide adequate warning through their product labeling, given the independent peer-reviewed science, including what the company knew or should have known, and a clinical assessment of the harm caused to the plaintiff.   

However, the Interior and Environment Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted July 22 to support a bill that includes language (Sec. 453) providing total pesticide immunity language, blocking farmers and consumers from suing chemical manufacturers when they fail to disclose the harm that their products cause and blocking states from providing information on product harm beyond EPA-approved language.   

Chemical companies—many foreign-owned—seek liability shields because they know the harm their products have already caused. Syngenta, a subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned company ChemChina, reached a $187.5 million settlement in 2021 for paraquat-related Parkinson’s disease claims. Monsanto, now owned by Germany’s Bayer, has paid billions of dollars to settle lawsuits linking Roundup ᵀᴹ (glyphosate) to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. If legislation shields companies from liability, it would leave farmers, farmworkers, and other injured individuals without meaningful recourse for the harms caused by these toxic substances.  

Again, thank you for your leadership in sponsoring the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act (S. 2324) to protect the rights of farmers and consumers.  

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