(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2025) In analyzing current scientific literature and data on glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), a research article in Environmental Sciences Europe finds that glyphosate (GLY) persists in bones before reentering the bloodstream. The mechanisms in which GLY interacts with important cells for development, called hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), and breaks and rearranges DNA offer a possible explanation for the heightened risk of cancer, specifically blood cancers like non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), myeloma, and leukemia.

“Existing data on GLY/GBH metabolism and genotoxicity provide critical insights into how exposures may be contributing to blood cancers,” according to the study’s author, Charles Benbrook, PhD. Dr. Benbrook continues: “A significant portion of GLY reaching blood moves quickly into bone marrow and then bone, where it can bioaccumulate and persist… Data reviewed herein suggest that a portion of the GLY excreted by most people on a daily basis can be traced to the shedding of calcium-GLY complexes in bone back into the blood supply.”

This allows for near-constant contact between glyphosate molecules and hematopoietic stem cells, which are immature cells that can develop into any type of blood cell. Mutations in hematopoietic stem cells can cause blood cancers to emerge. Those at disproportionate risk with GLY exposure, such as farmworkers and pesticide applicators, likely have “hundreds of million, if not billions of GLY molecules in bone marrow for every hematopoietic stem cell,” Dr. Benbrook states, highlighting the connection between GLY exposure and blood cancer risk.

There is a wide body of science on pesticide-induced diseases, with a multitude of studies focusing on GLY/GBH exposure. (See more coverage from Beyond Pesticides here and stay tuned for an in-depth analysis on recent research connecting agrichemical mixtures and pediatric cancer.) These studies confirm that products containing glyphosate can trigger oxidative stress, impair DNA, and increase cancer risk. (See previous Beyond Pesticides coverage here, here, here, and here.) The mechanisms behind these effects are not fully understood, but research, including Dr. Benbrook’s article, showcases potential pathophysiologic bases (combining pathology and physiology) for better understanding the extent to which GLY impacts organisms down to the molecular level.

History of Glyphosate

As the review highlights, GLY is “the most heavily applied pesticide ever brought to market… No other pesticide in history has come close to such extensive worldwide use.” The widespread utilization of this pesticide endangers not only pesticide applicators, but farmers, farmworkers, and their families, those who live near agricultural land, and the general public that consumes food and beverages containing GLY residues.

With its wide use, glyphosate exposure raises concern for all organisms and the environment. As Dr. Benbrook says, “Excessive reliance on GLY has brought on several problems. These include the emergence and spread of resistant weeds, loss of terrestrial biodiversity, water contamination, and declining soil health.”

GLY exposure, and subsequent research, span many decades. The debate over the carcinogenicity of GLY has persisted for over 40 years, but regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) “are among several regulatory authorities that have concluded that dietary exposure to active substance glyphosate is unlikely to pose cancer risk.” Dr. Benbrook continues in saying, “But substantial data show that applicators of formulated glyphosate-based herbicides are often exposed dermally to much higher levels of GLY and that repeated dermal exposure episodes over many years heightens cancer risk.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)

There are many regulatory deficiencies, and dermal exposure to GLY is just one of them. As the review shares: “The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) in the U.S. EPA has largely ignored dermal exposures to GBHs in the still ongoing reregistration review cycle… [T]he OPP concluded that applicator and occupational exposure and risk assessments were not necessary. This OPP judgement, and the 0.1 mg/kg occupational exposure threshold, are not based on studies capable of detecting the impacts of GLY/GBH on hematopoietic stem cells.”

In a previous article by Dr. Benbrook, he analyzes independent research reviewed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) and reports “~ 80% produced some evidence supportive of an association between GLY/GBHs and DNA damage.” Despite this finding, EPA has continued its registration of GLY. “The OPP relied on mostly negative genotox/mechanistic studies on glyphosate technical carried out by GBH registrants, and the agency dismissed or ignored multiple in vivo studies reporting evidence of genotoxicity and/or oxidative stress following exposure to GBHs, including some studies in exposed human populations,” Dr. Benbrook notes.

Additional independent research (see here and here) of GBHs highlights evidence linking GBH exposures to cancer outcomes. More specifically, as Dr. Benbrook states, “Papers published since the completion of the EPA and IARC reviews have enhanced the weight-of-evidence supporting a linkage between GBH exposures and some hematopoietic cancers.” (See studies here and here.)

Review of Study Data

To explore his hypotheses regarding how GLY storage occurs in bones and how the prolonged interaction with hematopoietic stem cells heightens the risk of blood cancers, Dr. Benbrook critiques animal bioassays and epidemiologic studies that “link GLY/GBH exposure to heightened risk of blood cancers, and possibly other pathologies.”

The research he reviews shows adverse impacts on both human and animal health, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia, DNA damage, reduced birth weight, dysbiosis in gut microbiota, impaired development in children, and more. Additional areas of concern highlighted by studies involve surfactants in pesticide formulations, as well as the metabolites (breakdown products) of GLY. The implications of these finding are enormous since many biomonitoring studies focused on GLY “show that a majority of people, usually 70–90% or more of individuals tested, have detectable levels of GLY and/or its primary metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in their urine or blood,” Dr. Benbrook shares. (See studies here, here, here, here, and here, as well as previous Daily News coverage on GLY contributing to body burden here and here.)

He continues: “[D]ietary exposures and risk assessments should, but often do not, include data on levels of AMPA in food and beverages. This is because once sprayed on a food crop, the GLY in a GBH breaks down to AMPA incrementally over time. Many epidemiological studies report stronger associations between AMPA levels in human biofluids and adverse health outcomes, compared to associations between GLY and the same adverse outcome.”

Dr. Benbrook also states: “[T]he impact of GLY and AMPA on the etiology of cancer must be evaluated taking into account the impacts of other chemicals. Exposures to complex mixtures can augment oxidative stress, disrupt the repair of damaged DNA, and trigger other adverse genetic and epigenetic effects that, in turn, alter the impacts of GLY and AMPA on cancer and other health outcomes. Moreover, such effects can occur at doses well-below current safety thresholds.”

Results noted in the review article include:

• “An analysis of GLY/GBH genotoxicity studies published since the completion of the 2015 OPP and IARC GLY oncogenicity reviews found that 24 of 33 assays on technical GLY were positive, and 58 of 61 were positive in assays testing GBHs (overall, 82 positives out of 94 assays, or 87%).”
• An “in-depth quality analyses of genotoxicity and endocrine disruption revealed strong and consistent positive findings… [GBHs] elicited a stronger effect in both human and animal systems when compared to glyphosate alone…the highest quality studies in humans and human cells consistently revealed strong evidence of genotoxicity.”
• A Monsanto-commissioned GLY and GBH dermal penetration study “tested penetration rates through rat skin for pure GLY and a formulated GBH and reported that almost ninefold more GLY in the formulated product moved through rat skin compared to pure GLY.”
• “Substantial GLY metabolism data show that within minutes of entering the bloodstream, GLY moves into bone marrow, and then laterally through bone tissue and back into general circulation.”
• GLY lingers longer in bones than in blood and other tissue. In four rat metabolism studies, “the largest percentage of the delivered dose of GLY at study termination is retained in bone… The results highlight the degree to which bone is the tissue in which GLY bioaccumulates and where it remains for an extended period of time.”
• An unpublished Monsanto study in 1983 “demonstrates that over time GLY remains at significantly higher levels in bone marrow compared to blood plasma… These pharmacokinetic findings are consistent with insights gained from [more recent] rat metabolism studies.”

HSCs and Risk of Blood Cancers

This review focuses on understanding the mechanisms by which exposure to GLY contributes to the risk of hematopoietic cancers based on the current scientific literature. The metabolism data regarding GLY shows its propensity to bind to calcium and become immobilized within bones before reentering the blood stream. This occurs through chelation (a type of bonding), allowing GLY molecules to remain in the body for an extended period of time. 

In identifying GLY as a genotoxic threat that lingers in bones, Dr. Benbrook’s hypothesis connects the compound with heightened blood cancer risks. “An extensive literature exists on the specific genetic abnormalities typically associated with the etiology of blood cancers,” the review states. “This literature, coupled with published studies on the genotoxicity of GLY and GBHs, helps explain where and how GLY and the coformulants in GBHs can come into contact with HSCs and possibly trigger damage to DNA.”

Dr. Benbrook continues: “Importantly, GLY has been shown to induce double-strand DNA breaks in human lymphocytes at low doses. Double-strand breaks result in the sort of gene rearrangement and genetic changes typically seen in human NHL… Damage to the DNA in HSCs and progenitor B cells can also lead to several subtypes of leukemia.” Additional studies corroborate this, such as the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), which finds greater leukemia incidence associated with GLY exposure. (See studies here, here, and here.)

Organic Solution

The science showing adverse health effects to humans and wildlife with pesticide exposure is vast, as is data supporting organic alternatives for land management. While current pesticide registration processes are lacking, as highlighted above (and in previous coverage here, here, here, and here), it is more concerning that they do not consider substitutive methods that mitigate threats to all organisms and ecosystems.

Organic agriculture, without the use of GLY/GBHs and other harmful chemicals, provides health and environmental benefits while combatting current crises of biodiversity and climate change in a holistic manner. Help support Beyond Pesticides’ mission of transitioning to a world free from toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by becoming a member today. Stay up to date with the latest science and policy developments with the Daily News Blog and sign up to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates straight to your inbox here.

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

Source:

Benbrook, C. (2025) Hypothesis: glyphosate-based herbicides can increase risk of hematopoietic malignancies through extended persistence in bone, Environmental Sciences Europe. Available at: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-025-01057-1.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2025) The National Park Service (NPS) recently announced a settlement agreement regarding the management of northern California’s Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) that will result in the closure of 12 out of 14 historic dairy and cattle ranches, including those organically managed, within the park. This decision comes after nearly a decade of legal disputes and negotiations between environmental groups, ranchers, and the NPS. Ending 170 years of family ranching, displacing multi-generational farmers—at least 90 farmworker families—and abandoning 77 historic ranch buildings. Critics lambast the agreement as devastating local organic agriculture and food production in West Marin County, which is essential for creating long-term climate solutions.

Over the decades since PRNS’ inception, local and national environmental groups have litigated against ranchers and the National Park Service, including demanding range expansion for the native tule elk, which were reintroduced to the park by NPS in the 1970s. However, the removal of these farms, and the accompanying loss of local food production, will have extreme long-term negative impacts on the local community and the environment, according to many environmental advocates.

As Andy Naja-Riese, executive director of the Agricultural Institute of Marin, puts it, “The greatest threat to the tule elk is not cattle; it’s global climate change, and what we can all do [to fight that threat] is preserve our local food system… We need to stop vilifying and attacking animal agriculture. Animal agriculture, when done right through organic, climate-smart, and regenerative practices, is a climate solution.”

Background and History

Across the 70,000 acres of PRNS, NPS leases 18,000 to commercial beef and dairy ranches, many to the same families who have lived and ranched on the land for generations. When Point Reyes National Seashore was established in 1962, a compromise allowed existing ranches to continue operating under NPS lease agreements to balance the continuation of historic agricultural practices with the preservation of natural landscapes. Some ranches are even listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The ideal farming and ranching conditions of the expansive coastal prairie are not only due to long growing seasons, moist, cool conditions adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, but also, as NPS’ history of the region describes, “most likely the byproduct of burning, weeding, pruning, and harvesting for at least two millennia by Coast Miwok and their antecedents.” Today, approximately 20 multigenerational farming families remain in the park with approximately 200 farmworkers and their families.

This settlement agreement follows years of wrangling between Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Resource Renewal Institute as plaintiffs against NPS and individual ranchers. The plaintiffs first filed a lawsuit against NPS in 2016 for water quality violations resulting from ranch operations in the park. While the first lawsuit was settled, the group brought a second lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the recently renewed 20-year leases violated NPS’s legal obligations to the natural environment.

Negotiations between the parties were stalled until 2022 when two groups of beef and dairy ranchers, including the Point Reyes Seashore Ranchers Association, joined the mediation effort. In 2023, The Nature Conservancy joined the negotiations, bringing the funding necessary to finalize an agreement. In January 2025, NPS announced a settlement agreement in which six dairy and six beef ranches will close within 15 months—former leaseholders will be compensated through a $30 million settlement fund. In a last-minute addition, 90 ranch employees and their families will receive compensation and relocation assistance.

Among the multiple concerns voiced by advocates is the apparent lack of transparency in the negotiation process or the settlement agreement itself. “I think that for me, the big challenge is that a decision was made for us, without us,” said Mr. Naja-Riese. Unlike all other NPS planning processes, local stakeholders—including farmworkers and local business owners whose livelihoods will be decimated—were not invited to participate. The amounts of the lease buy-outs, severance packages, and relocation assistance also have not been disclosed. During a town hall meeting on January 11 hosted by U.S. House Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) to announce the mediated settlement, a wide range of local stakeholders spoke with anger and concern about the secretive mediation process that excluded key stakeholders as well as the dramatic impact the closure of the ranches will have on the wider West Marin County community and economy. Jasmine Bravo, a local advocate, asked, “I’m just wondering if you all have a plan for a workforce after the residents who live on ranches have been evicted, and you lose Isabel at the clinic, and my sister at the clinic, and Gabriel Romo at the bank, and everyone who works at the grocery stores and makes your food?”

[Notably, some local indigenous representatives of the Miwok tribe protest their lack of inclusion. Long-term management of the tule elk herd remains one of the outstanding questions. Others are concerned as the herd, free from competition with cattle and absent natural predators, may quickly exceed the land’s ability to support it—hunting is not allowed within the borders of the national park.]

Post Settlement: The Future of PRNS and Resulting Impacts

In the wake of the ranching operations, the landscape of PRNS will look decidedly different. The Nature Conservancy has agreed to “co-manage” the restoration of the 16,000 acres of former ranch land as a “Scenic Landscape,” which will be opened to use by the tule elk, as well as other wildlife, although how this effort will be funded has not been disclosed. Liebe Patterson, a long-time donor to The Nature Conservancy declined to contribute to the buy-out fund for that very reason. As the Press Democrat reports, Ms. Patterson said, “…my concern was, it doesn’t take care of the problems. It just removes the ranchers from the seashore. It doesn’t clean up the waterways. It doesn’t manage the grasslands to keep them from becoming a fire hazard. It was just to buy out the leases.”

Over the last several decades, many of the ranches slated for closure, such as Mendoza and BN Ranch, have become leaders in organic and regenerative agriculture, as well as Marin Sun Farms, a certified organic and Animal Welfare Approved facility. Marin Sun Farms is one of six beef ranch operations to close and also operates the last remaining USDA-inspected slaughterhouse in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

The impact of these closures goes beyond the Point Reyes Seashore, with significant economic and food production implications. Straus Family Creamery, which operates its own certified organic farm and creamery just outside PRNS and has long been at the forefront of organic dairy farming, sources a third of its organic milk from the ranches in the park. Second-generation owner Albert Straus works closely with PRNS ranchers to pioneer a range of internationally recognized innovative practices with the goal of bringing its operations—and those of its organic dairy suppliers—to carbon neutrality by 2030. According to Straus, “What I’ve tried to do is create a sustainable organic farming model that is good for the earth, the soil, the animals, and the people working on these farms, and helps revitalize rural communities.”

[In 2013, Straus Organic Dairy Farm became the first dairy farm in California to develop a carbon farm plan, with the Marin Carbon Project, updated in collaboration with the Marin Resource Conservation District and the Marin Agricultural Land Trust. Their practices reduced overall carbon emissions by experimenting with red seaweed cattle feed, implementing the use of a biodigester, and switching to electric farm vehicles, some of which are powered by methane captured from cattle operations and converted to fuel for farm vehicles. Straus currently provides technical expertise and assistance for ranches to develop their own “carbon farm plan.”]

Albert Straus, founder of Straus Family Creamery, which manages the organic dairy, points out that climate change is wreaking havoc on traditional dairy and cattle operations. “By getting rid of these small family farms, we’re forcing dairy farms to get bigger and bigger and the whole food system to be less environmentally friendly and produce lower-quality food that’s not organic,” Mr. Straus said in 2023. “I think this could be the demise of our farming and food system.”

Many local farming practices that will be terminated ultimately provide ecosystem benefits that are compatible with environmental conservation, with the ranchers supported by local conservation groups, including the Marin Agricultural Land Trust and Marin Conservation League. “The farmers and ranchers and farmworkers and the people who grow our food are environmentalists, and we need to start a conversation about agriculture environmentalism,” concludes Mr. Naja-Riese.

Late Breaking Lawsuit

A new legal challenge emerged on February 21, 2025, when attorney Andrew Giacomini filed a federal lawsuit to block the ranch closures, alleging a “conspiracy” between the National Park Service and The Nature Conservancy. The suit claims that the agencies deliberately created uncertainty for ranchers and that “the National Park Service, Acting Director, and Regional Director conspired with the Conservancy to pay off the departing ranchers in exchange for the ranchers relinquishing their rights to 20-year leases and instead leasing the ranchers’ property to the Conservancy.”

The complaint focuses on the displacement of over 90 residents, mostly Latino families, many of whom have lived on these properties for decades. Also, ranchers reportedly face reduced compensation if residents remain on their properties after operations cease. The suit was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The Path Forward to a Livable Future

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for the transition to organic and regenerative agricultural systems to urgently address the environmental and health challenges posed by conventional agriculture. The situation at PRNS serves as a critical reminder of the need to support and expand these practices. As we face the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, it is imperative that we prioritize agricultural systems that work in harmony with nature rather than against it. The loss of PRNS ranches represents not just a loss of local food production, but also a setback in the advancement of sustainable agricultural practices that are crucial for our future.

Beyond Pesticides joins advocates calling on policymakers, environmental organizations, and the public to recognize the vital role that organic agriculture can play in addressing our most pressing environmental challenges (see the recent decision by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which diverts public attention away from organic with a weakly definition of ‘regenerative agriculture’). Rather than viewing agriculture and conservation as opposing forces, we must seek solutions that integrate sustainable food production with ecosystem preservation. As Marin Agricultural Land Trust remarks, “The story of agriculture in Marin County has never been a straight line. Instead, it is a story of innovation and resilience, of ranchers and farmers who have faced challenges and stepped into the role of changemakers – from organic dairies to regenerative ranches to artisanal cheese visionaries.”

Join Beyond Pesticides in taking action to end the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers! The path forward includes increased support for research and implementation of organic and regenerative-organic practices, as well as policy measures and financial support for farmers making the choice to transition to certified organic agriculture. In reflecting on the impacts of this litigation’s mediated settlement that will inexorably change this multi-generational agricultural community in Point Reyes, let us use this moment to redouble our efforts. It is not just about preserving a way of life or a local food system—it is about charting a course in pursuit of a livable future for ourselves, our neighbors, our communities, and for the generations to come.

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

Sources:

Point Reyes National Seashore Announces Revised Record of Decision for General Management Plan Amendment and Settlement Agreement on the Management of Ranching on Park Lands, National Park Service announcement, January 8, 2025.

Secret deal brokered by The Nature Conservancy to end ranching era in Point Reyes National Seashore faced opposition from outset, The Press Democrat, February 8, 2025.

Inside the secret Nature Conservancy deal to end ranching in Point Reyes National Seashore, The Press Democrat, January 29, 2025.

2025 Record of Decision: General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement: Settlement Agreement, Point Reyes National Seashore, National Park Service website, January 8, 2025.

Historic Agreement on Cattle Ranching and Wildlife Management at Point Reyes National Seashore Ends Decades of Conflict, The Nature Conservancy announcement, January 9, 2025.

2021 Record of Decision: General Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement,  Point Reyes National Seashore, National Park Service, September 13, 2021.

Reducing Cow Methane Emissions, Straus Family Creamery website.

Can Point Reyes National Seashore Support Wildlife and Ranching Amid Climate Change? Civil Eats, October 17, 2023.

Judge halts controversial fence removal in Point Reyes, SF Gate, December 10, 2024.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 25, 2025) A literature review of over 90 scientific articles in Agriculture documents microplastics’ (MPs) increase in the bioavailability, persistence, and toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture. The interactions between MPs and pesticides enhance the threat of pesticide exposure to nontarget organisms, perpetuates the cycle of toxic chemical use, and decreases soil health that is vital for productivity.

“The increasing presence of MPs in agricultural ecosystems has raised concerns about their impact on pesticide bioavailability, efficacy, and environmental behavior,” says study author Kuok Ho Daniel Tang, PhD, a global professor in the Department of Environmental Science at the University of Arizona. He continues, “These synthetic particles interact with pesticides through adsorption and desorption processes, altering their distribution, persistence, toxicity, and uptake by plants and other organisms.”

Microplastics in the Environment

As Beyond Pesticides has previously reported, microplastics are ubiquitous and threaten not only human health but all wildlife in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The universal distribution of plastics means that they cannot be avoided. Humans and other organisms take up plastics in the form of microparticles and nanoparticles by inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact every day. Microplastics are about the width of a human hair; nanoplastics are much smaller, about twice the width of a DNA strand. Larger pieces of plastic are ground down to these tiny sizes by weathering, temperature, biological processes, and chemical conditions. (See additional Daily News coverage on microplastics here, here, here, and here.)

In agriculture, the primary sources of microplastics are plastic mulching, coatings on pesticides, and fertilizers such as biosolids, in addition to the particles carried to the fields by wind and water. As Dr. Tang says: “MPs are defined as plastic fragments measuring less than 5 mm in size and can either result from the breakdown of larger plastic waste (secondary MPs) or be produced intentionally for specific uses (primary MPs), like in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and industrial applications. Owing to their diminutive size, durability, and widespread presence, MPs have been recognized as a global pollutant that can interact with various environmental contaminants, including pesticides.”

Recent research on interactions with antibiotics shows that MPs can act as a vehicle, “extending their presence in the environment and aiding in the development and spread of antibiotic-resistance genes,” Dr. Tang states. (See studies here and here.) He continues, saying that these results have led to “growing concern that the co-occurrence of MPs and pesticides may exacerbate the environmental risks associated with these contaminants through complex physicochemical interactions.”

The interaction between MPs and pesticides depends on various factors, such as the physical and chemical properties of both the MPs and pesticides involved, as well as the environmental conditions they are subjected to, including pH, temperature, salinity, and organic matter content. The pervasiveness of a pesticide in the environment after contact with MPs can be altered based on their modes of action, including systemic pesticides that are absorbed by plants and transported throughout their tissues and contact pesticides that kill pests with direct contact.

Adsorption and Bioavailability

Bioavailability of pesticides represents “the extent to which a pesticide is accessible to organisms or biological systems, such as plants, microbes, or animals, for absorption, uptake, or interaction,” Dr. Tang shares. “It determines how effectively a pesticide can exert its intended effects, such as killing pests or controlling weeds, and it also influences the pesticide’s potential for environmental contamination and toxicity,” he continues. Through the interaction with MPs, the bioavailability of pesticides can be altered by the mechanism of adsorption, where particles from the pesticides can adhere to the plastic’s surface.

Relevant studies find:

• “Aged microplastics have higher surface areas for adsorption, thus reducing pesticide bioavailability. This decreases the effectiveness of systematic and contact pesticides.”
• MPs cause atrazine to dissipate in soil, preventing it from reaching targeted plants.
• “Higher pesticide adsorption also increases the persistence of pesticides, as indicated by their extended degradation half-lives.”
• “MPs exhibited strong adsorption for all three compounds (azoxystrobin, picoxystrobin, and pyraclostrobin)” and modified residual behaviors.
• [T]he extent of pyraclostrobin’s adsorption to MPs greatly affected its presence in black bean seedlings.” (See studies here and here.)
• Interactions with MPs show a “marked increase in the adsorption of the highly hydrophobic fungicides azoxystrobin and tebuconazole in the soil.”
• “MPs, particularly tire fragments, may reduce the bioavailability of chlorpyrifos.” (See study here.)
• “Germination rates of crops such as lettuce significantly declined in the presence of MPs combined with neonicotinoid insecticides. This trend was more pronounced with aged MPs, likely due to their enhanced ability to adsorb pesticides.”

When microplastics influence the uptake of pesticides, they can cause a decline in pesticide effectiveness that results in lower agricultural yields and higher costs of having to apply more pesticides. This creates a reliance on toxic chemical usage that threatens health and the environment and increases costs for farmers, given reduced pesticide product efficacy. This review helps to highlight the significant negative effect of microplastics on pesticide bioavailability that “prompt the application of more pesticides to achieve the desired level of crop protection, which bears cost and environmental consequences,” Dr. Tang comments.

Pesticide Persistence

Persistence of chemicals, including pesticides, refers to the duration they stay active in the environment within the soil, in water and air, or on vegetation before decomposing. “Usually, persistence is measured through the half-life (T½), which signifies the time required for half of the pesticide to decompose,” the study explains. MPs can alter the half-life of chemicals, as is referenced in scientific literature.

Study results include:

• “MPs could greatly extend the degradation half-lives of atrazine, azoxystrobin, epoxiconazole, metolachlor, myclobutanil, simazine, tebuconazole, and terbuthylazine in aquatic environments… For instance, the half-life of terbuthylazine was notably increased from 31.8 days to 45.2 days when exposed to a concentration of 10 g/L of MPs.”
• “In degradation experiments, MPs substantially prolonged the persistence of herbicides in aquatic environments, from 86.6–231 days in the control to 346.5–886.2 days in water.”
• “The introduction of MPs led to a reduction in the residues of 3,5-dichloroaniline in the soil and its availability for biological uptake, consequently resulting in an increased persistence of 3,5-dichloroaniline within the soil environment.” (See studies here and here.)
• “Certain findings indicate that MPs can greatly impede the breakdown of pesticides in aquatic environments, resulting in increased persistence of these chemicals in water.” (See studies here and here.)
• “MPs inhibited chlorpyrifos degradation, extending its half-life and reducing its breakdown rate. This prolongs the pesticide’s active period and raises concerns about soil contamination and off-target effects.”
• By MPs reducing the bioavailability of fungicides, “this extended their persistence in the soil and diminished the absorption of these chemicals by maize plants.”

Soil Health

Crop production and food security rely on healthy soils, which can be adversely impacted by pesticides. (See previous coverage here.) The scientific literature contains research showing that the interactions between MPs and pesticides can exacerbate these environmental impacts.

This includes:

• Adverse impacts on soil structure and cohesion. (See here and here.)
• Effects on the ability of soil to retain water. (See here.)
• Affected presence of soil nutrients, such as organic matter, and microorganisms. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
• Decreased microbial activity in the soil. (See here and here.)

Pesticide Toxicity

While the majority of current literature focuses on lower bioavailability of pesticides as the most prominent adverse impact of organism interaction with MPs, there are studies that find an increase in toxicity of pesticides that come into contact with organisms.

Studies report:

• “[T]oxicity observed in the MPs after herbicide adsorption being markedly greater than in those without herbicides.”
• “[A]ged MPs demonstrated increased toxicity when paired with neonicotinoids… This enhancement in toxicity is attributed to the ability of aged MPs to absorb higher amounts of neonicotinoids, thus increasing their harmful effects.”
• Nontarget organisms, many of which provide beneficial ecosystem services, are negatively impacted by MPs. Earthworms, which enhance soil health in ways that leads to better crop productivity, have reduced enzyme activity and oxidative harm as a result of combined exposure to MPs and imidacloprid. This exposure “reduced their weight gain and antioxidant enzyme activity, potentially impairing their ecological role in agriculture.” (See study here.)
• Also in earthworms, exposure to “MPs and carbendazim led to a significant drop in biomass, indicating a potential interaction effect. Furthermore, simultaneous exposure triggered synergistic reactions, ranging from oxidative stress to alterations in critical organs like the body wall, intestines, and reproductive systems. A comparison of various indicators showed that the seminal vesicles and ovarian follicles were the most affected during the combined exposure.” (See study here.)
• The presence of MPs “not only heightened chlorpyrifos accumulation in radishes but also diminished the fresh root biomass of the plants.”

A Path Forward

Organic agriculture negates microplastic–pesticide interactions that influence pesticide performance, soil health, and environmental safety. In adopting organic methods for land management, it provides a holistic solution that focuses on soil health while also protecting the health of all organisms. Organic agriculture embodies an ecological approach to farming that does not rely on or permit toxic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, genetically modified organisms, antibiotics, sewage sludge, or irradiation. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) works to continuously improve upon these standards and acts as a lifeline from the government to the organic community as it considers input from the public regarding organic integrity. In this context, Beyond Pesticides has commented to the NOSB that it should phase out the use of plastic in its certification production systems and in the packaging of organic food.

Visit Keeping Organic Strong to learn more about the 2025 NOSB meeting, as well as our 2024 comments that include plastics in organics as a research priority. Reference our previous action regarding plastics in farming, water, and food, and stay informed on other opportunities to engage by signing up to receive our Action of the Week and Weekly News Update emails.

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

Source:

Tang, K. (2025) Effects of Microplastics on Bioavailability, Persistence and Toxicity of Plant Pesticides: An Agricultural Perspective, Agriculture. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/15/4/356.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 24, 2025) The sweeping firing of federal workers, including an estimated 200,000 probationary employees (under one to two years of employment), will have a broad impact on programs to protect health and safety as well as the environment, leaving a critical need for local and state government to fill some of the gaps in critical programs, where possible. A headline in Science magazine warns, “Mass firings decimate U.S. science agencies,” and the dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences at Oregon State University told Oregon Public Broadcasting, “We’ve lost half of our teams, and all of these up-and-coming young scientists. . .so it’s like we’ve lost the next generation of scientists in agriculture and natural resources.” The same applies to important positions across the federal government, affecting every aspect of work necessary to protect public health and biodiversity and address the climate crisis. In response to President Trump’s executive orders and actions, there has been, as The New York Times reports, “new lawsuits and fresh rulings emerging day and night,” raising what experts fear may become a constitutional crisis.

With the upheaval in the federal government, attention turns to the importance of state and local policies and programs that protect health and the environment. State legislatures have historically stepped in at various times to act to ban or restrict pesticides when the federal government fails to act. Pesticides, including DDT, chlordane, EDB, and DBCP, were first banned by a state or states before EPA took regulatory action. According to Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, “We now need states and local government to respond to the seriousness of the current existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises and take holistic action that fills the tremendous gap caused by a critical disruption of federal environmental and public health programs.”

>> Tell state legislators to focus on ecosystem protection, not just individual pesticides.

Over the past several years, state legislatures have led the charge on public safety and neonicotinoid regulations. The State of New York adopted the Birds & Bees Protection Act in January 2024 to ban the use of neonicotinoid insecticides by 2029; Vermont followed suit with a nearly identical bill. New Jersey and Maine are additional East Coast states that have the strongest laws on the books to eliminate all outdoor (nonagricultural) uses of bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides. In addition, many local governments have adopted ordinances protecting pollinators within their jurisdictions and governing pesticide use in parks, public places, and both public and private property.

As Connecticut considers similar legislation, Beyond Pesticides submitted comments to the legislature urging a “more robust response to an ecological crisis that is defined by a large body of peer-reviewed scientific findings,” instead of taking a “whac-a-mole” approach to addressing hazardous pesticides. The testimony states: “It is important that the proposed legislation prioritize ecological pest management practices, best defined in federal law as ‘organic,’ as the alternative that must be assessed as an alternative to the use of neonicotinoids and related compounds because of the numerous deficiencies in the evaluation of pesticides by EPA on which the State of Connecticut relies for determinations of safety… Continued dependence on pesticides, as the current bill language allows, fails to respond to the pesticide treadmill effect that elevates pest populations by depressing ecological balance while increasing pest resistance to pesticide applications and reducing plant resiliency to pest populations.” 

In addressing specific chemicals or classes of chemicals—such as neonicotinoids, glyphosate, and dicamba—legislators must point to many other reasons for addressing pesticides at a state and local level, beginning with the failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry out its mission to protect human health and the environment. In registering and reregistering pesticides, EPA routinely allows uses of chemicals that harm humans, other organisms, and ecosystems. According to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), whether those harms are “unreasonable” depends on a weighing of costs and benefits. EPA starts with the position that farmers cannot farm without these toxic chemicals, an assumption that clouds and undermines the regulatory process and keeps farmers on the pesticide treadmill. In its Draft Herbicide Strategy Framework update, EPA says, “Without certain pesticide products, farmers could have trouble growing crops that feed Americans and public health agencies could lack the tools needed to combat insect-borne diseases” However, organic farmers are not reliant on these pesticides, challenging the necessity or “benefits” of pesticides and chemical-intensive farming. 

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

>> Tell state legislators to focus on ecosystem protection, not just individual pesticides.

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

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

Organic practices preserve natural lands and biodiversity. Natural forests are more effective than tree plantations in sequestering carbon. Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, which also reduces dependence on petroleum-based pesticides. Organic farms are required to “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife, as required by §205.200 of the regulations and per the §205.2 definition of Natural resources of the operation.” 

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

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

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

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

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

Undefined “regenerative” agriculture falls short by ignoring the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health and ecosystem services caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients and for the heat and energy-driving chemical reactions.    

We need a national land management plan.  Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, reduces dependence on petroleum-based pesticides, and is more effective in sequestering carbon. Biodiversity buffers against damage from climate change by allowing systems to evolve with changing conditions. Preserving natural lands and transitioning farms to organic production should be the cornerstones of combating climate change.   

While all these changes are needed at a national—indeed, international—level, the current political climate makes it unlikely that these changes will be adopted by Congress and federal agencies. It is therefore crucial for state and local legislatures to step into the vacuum they have created. States can be a proving ground for changes that are urgently needed. In advancing legislation to eliminate individual bad-actor chemicals that have caught public attention, the language can include (or amendments can be attached) that: 

1. Defines “delineated allowable substances” as a part of the state pesticide registration process.” as a part of the state pesticide registration process. These allowed substances may include:   
   
   (a) Natural, organic or “non-synthetic.” A substance that is derived from mineral, plant, or animal matter and does not undergo a “synthetic” process as defined in the Organic Foods Production Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6502(21), as the same may be amended from time to time. 
   (b) Pesticides determined to be “minimum risk pesticides” pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and listed in 40 C.F.R. § 152.25(f)(1) or (2), as may be amended from time to time. 
2. Eliminates chemical fertilizers that adversely affect soil health and the natural cycling of nutrients necessary for plant resiliency, thus decreasing vulnerability to plant diseases, infestation, and drought conditions; 
3. Establishes clear and enforceable definitions; 
4. Requires a systems plan (establishes a baseline for management practices intended to create resiliency and prevent pests); 
5. Creates a rigorous standard for allowed/prohibited substances list with a mechanism for incorporating real-time data on hazards and alternatives into reevaluation of allowed list, which should follow the process laid out in the Organic Foods Production Act; 
6. Incorporates a certification and enforcement system (third party enforcement); 
7. Maintains a process for public participation to ensure a feedback loop for continuous improvement; and 
8. Allocates adequate funding to ensure elements are carried out in a robust way. 

>> Tell state legislators to focus on ecosystem protection, not just individual pesticides.

Message to Governor and state legislators:
As the public looks for opportunities to advance policies and programs that protect health and the environment in the absence of federal programs, state legislatures are considering bills that zero in on individual pesticides. While these efforts help to educate the public on the systemic hazards of pesticides—and show individual pesticides to be the poster children for regulation that is inadequately protective—they offer an opportunity to address crises in human disease and biodiversity collapse and more broadly effect change at the state level facilitating a transition to regenerative organic practices that are healthy for ecosystems and people.

In addressing specific chemicals or classes of chemicals legislators must point to many other reasons for addressing pesticides at a state and local level, beginning with the failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry out its mission to protect human health and the environment. In registering and reregistering pesticides, EPA routinely allows uses of chemicals that harm humans, other organisms, and ecosystems. According to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), whether those harms are “unreasonable” depends on a weighing of costs and benefits. EPA starts with the position that farmers cannot farm without these toxic chemicals, an assumption that clouds and undermines the regulatory process and keeps farmers on the pesticide treadmill. Not true. Organic farmers are not reliant on these pesticides. Organic practices must be used as the yardstick against which so-called “benefits” of pesticides are measured.

Organic agriculture can mitigate climate change. Agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. According to the International Panel of Climate Change, agriculture and forestry account for as much as 25% of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

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

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

The National Organic Program provides for clarity and enforceability, while remaining open and transparent to growers, consumers, and the public at large. 

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

We need to shift to 100% organic farming immediately. Please advance legislation that both eliminates individual bad-actor chemicals that have caught public attention and includes the following language:

1. Define “delineated allowable substances” as a part of the state pesticide registration process that may include:

(a) Natural, organic or “non-synthetic” as defined in the Organic Foods Production Act, 7 U.S.C. § 6502(21). 

(b) Pesticides determined to be “minimum risk pesticides” and listed in 40 C.F.R. § 152.25(f)(1) or (2).

2. Eliminate chemical fertilizers that adversely affect soil health and the natural cycling of nutrients;
3. Establishes clear and enforceable definitions;
4. Require a systems plan as a baseline for management;
5. Create a rigorous standard for allowed/prohibited substances list, which should follow the process laid out in the Organic Foods Production Act;
6. Incorporate third party enforcement;
7. Maintain a process for public participation to ensure a feedback loop for continuous improvement; and
8. Allocate adequate funding.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 21, 2025) The prospects for rational environmental policies in the U.S., including commitments to biodiversity and public health protections, are in disarray as the Trump administration sweeps through the federal government without any evaluation of program importance or effectiveness. At the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the destruction is likely to derail or reverse reasonable decisions to ban or restrict numerous toxic chemicals and to bury concern for ecosystem-wide harms.

On biodiversity, President Trump has killed a major report, the National Nature Assessment, that had been due for completion on February 11. The assessment is part of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which produces the national climate assessment, but it was created by an executive order issued under President Biden rather than by Congress. More than 150 experts, including federal employees and volunteers from academia, nonprofits, and businesses, reviewed the state of the nation’s lands, water, and wildlife. The assessment is a U.S.-specific version of a recent global report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), covered here by Beyond Pesticides. The IPBES details the many steps that can be taken at every level of the problem to preserve the ecosystem services on which all human activity depends. The contents of the National Nature Assessment are not yet available, but its U.S. authors are determined to independently publish their report as soon as possible.

The picture in Europe is very different. Indeed, the European Commission states, “Human health depends on the quality of our environment. Therefore disruptive transformations of healthy and resilient ecosystems pose a threat to human health and wellbeing.” The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) continues to develop regulations that are much more protective of human health and biodiversity than the U.S. federal government. For example, EFSA is working on two updates to policies that seek to minimize such disruptions: a guidance document for member states on terrestrial ecotoxicology and a guidance document for assessing indirect effects on biodiversity in “agro-environmental conditions.”

The terrestrial ecotoxicology revision extends consideration of pesticides’ effects on nontarget arthropods in addition to bees, in-soil organisms and nontarget plants. The guidance will also require attention to species sensitivity, consideration of all available data, and refinement of the risk reduction tools already available. The directive on indirect effects includes determining how biodiversity is shaped by trophic interactions, that is, predator-prey, herbivory or parasitic relationships that may transfer pesticides and their metabolites throughout the agricultural environment. 

Biodiversity is declining catastrophically worldwide, so addressing the toxic processes adding to the decline is an urgent matter. There has been mixed news as to the social, economic and political will to do so internationally. Last October, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity held their 16^th meeting (COP16) in Cali, Colombia. The Convention is a legally binding treaty entered into force in 1993. The United States is the only nation that has not signed it (not counting the Vatican). The Cali meeting ended “in disarray,” according to EuroNews because agreement could not be reached on how a pact finalized at COP15 to protect 30 percent of nature “will be achieved or funded.” (See Daily News of December 9, 2022, for an analysis of what was at stake as of COP15.) The World Resources Institute’s Crystal Davis told EuroNews that “wealthier countries’ pledges at COP16 fell far short of what is needed to meet their commitments. And almost no progress has been made on repurposing nature-harming subsidies.” Once again, some help came from Europe—Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, and the UK agreed to provide €200 million to implement biodiversity protection. The only involvement of a North American government was a pledge from the Canadian province of Quebec.

The U.S. thus remains outside international commitments to biodiversity at anywhere near the scale required to address the problem. The E.U. continues to plug away at the slow pace of diplomacy and internal politics by updating its ecotoxicology and biodiversity protocols. These sorts of methodological advances are unlikely to occur in U.S. environmental regulation, where testing and risk assessment protocols are mired in procedural resistance from the pesticide industry. At best, domestic progress is made by the two-steps-forward, one-step-back method.

The Trump administration has shown its (predictable) hand in an initial press release from new EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, where the emphasis is almost entirely on encouraging business investment and keeping investors from “having to face years-long, uncertain, and costly permitting processes that deter them,” and only secondarily “partnering with businesses to follow the necessary steps to safeguard our environment.”

Despite the headwinds, Beyond Pesticides remains committed to holding environmental agencies to account for their policies that fail to protect humans and the biosphere. For example, we applauded EPA’s emergency ban last August of the herbicide Dacthal and urged EPA to apply its reasoning on Dacthal to its current regulatory review of atrazine. These are two pesticides that clearly affect both humans and ecosystems. Dacthal disrupts fetal thyroid development, has been linked to cancer, including childhood leukemia, and is toxic to bees, fish, and other aquatic organisms. Atrazine, an endocrine disruptor, is disastrous in the environment (toxic to fish and amphibians, and widespread in drinking water) and has been banned in the E.U. since 2004. Yet in Daily News of January 13, we showed that, regarding atrazine, EPA is choosing to “apply a wishy-washy, ineffective enforcement mechanism. In reevaluating the risk to aquatic systems, EPA has chosen to exclude four of the six experiments that it previously judged to show an effect on aquatic plant communities.”

[NOTE:You can still make your voice heard on atrazine. The public comment period for action is still open. It appears that the comments will remain open through April 4, 2025, at 11:59 PM EDT at Regulations.gov. Beyond Pesticides’ Action Link also works.]

Beyond Pesticides has long been concerned with EPA’s management of the agency’s Congressionally-mandated Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), which, if effective, would provide adequate reasoning to rescind registration for many of the pesticides that are both ecotoxic and harmful to humans, thus supporting the twin goals of biodiversity and public health. Last year we provided comments to EPA regarding its proposed modifications to the EDSP, which would limit the program’s scope to humans and only certain pesticide active ingredients, while also limiting the types of data to be included. The shortsightedness of considering humans only is stunning. If there is one thing we know about hormone systems, they are present in every organism from humans to social amoebae and bacteria (some bacteria naturally produce plant hormones, and genetically engineered E. coli have been used to make human insulin since 1982). Ignoring the millions of species of mammals, insects and other arthropods, reptiles, fish and microscopic animals that make up the biosphere is a colossal error. Moreover, it is logically incoherent–many of the assays used in the EDSP are conducted using non-humans such as amphibians, which shows that the science itself demonstrates commonality among species.

Beyond Pesticides also pointed out that proceeding with the modification plan would violate the Food Quality Protection Act/Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, all likewise Congressionally-mandated. The latter law also presumes there is inherent risk and the burden of registrants is to prove otherwise. These are points to bear in mind as the Trump administration attempts to circumvent the authority of Congress in shaping federal agencies.

Human health and ecosystems health cannot be separated. Pesticides that harm ecosystems harm humans. EPA’s various approaches to evaluating and registering pesticides, while administratively separated into, for example, human endocrine disruption and aquatic toxicology, very often involve the very same chemicals. Rarely is there acknowledgment that removing the chemicals would remove the risks in every siloed assay and therefore remove the overall problem.

Stay informed on organic and participate in the standard setting process of the National Organic Standards Board through Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong Campaign. Our food systems must recognize this and transition to organic—holistically beneficial, diversified, socially and culturally just, and climate-stabilizing. It is only by acknowledging the inseparable connections between ecosystems, food system sustainability, and human health will the oncoming existential crisis be averted. And these values will not be incorporated unless regulations and policies change. They can be changed.

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

Sources:

Outline for the revision of the terrestrial ecotoxicology guidance document and for the development of an approach on indirect effects
EFSA Technical Report Version 1.0
January 2025
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2025.EN-9216

EFSA Environmental risk assessment of pesticides
https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/environmental-risk-assessment-pesticides

Trump Killed a Major Report on Nature. They’re Trying to Publish It Anyway.
Catrin Einhorn
New York Times, February 10, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/climate/nature-assessment-trump.html

Public Urged To Tell EPA That It Is Time To Stop Killing Biodiversity with the Weed Killer Atrazine
Beyond Pesticides, January 13, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/01/public-urged-to-tell-epa-that-it-is-time-to-stop-killing-biodiversity-with-the-weed-killer-atrazine/

It’s Time for EPA to Protect the Ecosystem and Move Against the Weed Killer Atrazine
Beyond Pesticides Action Call
https://secure.everyaction.com/-eTCDcOYdEqmmXWyJULsaA2?contactdata=&nvep=&hmac=&emci=9a6ee4c4-94cf-ef11-88d0-0022482a9d92&emdi=ea000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&ceid=

The ‘People’s COP’ for Biodiversity Saw Suspension in High-Level Negotiation but Strength from the Private and Public Sectors 
Maiko Nishi
Land Conservation Network, January 15, 2025
https://landconservationnetwork.org/the-peoples-cop-for-biodiversity-saw-suspension-in-high-level-negotiation-but-strength-from-the-private-and-public-sectors/

‘Nobody should be okay with this’: COP16 ends in confusion with no consensus on nature funding
Lottie Limb
EuroNews April 11, 2024
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/11/04/nobody-should-be-okay-with-this-cop16-ends-in-confusion-with-no-consensus-on-nature-fundin

Report Links Biodiversity, Water, Food, and Health In Critique To Avert Escalating Crises
Beyond Pesticides, January 7, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/01/report-links-biodiversity-water-food-and-health-in-critique-to-avert-escalating-crises/

EPA’s Momentous Decision to Ban the Weed Killer Dacthal/DCPA: An Anomaly or a Precedent?
Beyond Pesticides, August 8, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/08/epas-momentous-decision-to-ban-a-pesticide-an-anomaly-or-a-precedent/

UN Again Calls for Action as Biodiversity Deterioration Worsens Worldwide
Beyond Pesticides, December 9, 2022
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2022/12/biodiversity/

(Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2024) Researchers at the University of Oregon found that the rollout of genetically engineered corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years.” Their results “suggest the introduction of GM [genetically modified] seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.”

The conclusions of this study emerge as fossil fuel advocates, including President Donald Trump, are mobilizing to pioneer “energy dominance” despite the market movement toward renewable energy. Just as chemical-intensive farmers and land managers continue to spray synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, a successful rollout of alternatives must rely on feeding the soil rather than the plant.

Advocates continue to demand that elected officials and regulators embody the precautionary principle and scientific integrity in decision-making. Given the hostile federal climate on anything relating to holistic solutions, communities are coming together to move beyond input-dependent land management systems and adopt organic criteria of allowed and prohibited substances, mandatory public comment process, independent third-party certification, and a federal advisory board (National Organic Standards Board) consisting of farmers, environmentalists, consumers, scientists, economists, researchers, and other stakeholders, with binding recommendations to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary.

Background and Methodology

The authors of this study, Edwin Rubin, PhD, and Emmett Reynier, are researchers at the University of Oregon Department of Economics. Mr. Reynier is a current PhD candidate in environmental economics and a Fellow at the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Research. Dr. Rubin is an assistant professor with degrees in agricultural and resource economics, statistics, agricultural economics, and mathematics.

“Our primary analyses focus on the over 10 million births that occurred between 1990 and 2013 in rural U.S. counties or involved mothers residing in rural counties—as defined by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA),” says Dr. Rubin and Mr. Reynier. “We focus on this subset as it represents the births most likely to be impacted by the increase in glyphosate intensity and exposure induced by the release of GM seeds.”

The birth data consists of over 10 million infants from the National Vital Statistics System, an intergovernmental database sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The glyphosate use data originated from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Pesticide Synthesis Project, which tracked glyphosate intensity at the county level between 1992 and 2017. The suitability of genetically engineered crops (the quantity of yield) for corn, wheat, and soybeans was measured based on the Global Agro-Ecological Zones modeling framework (GAEZ) developed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN-FAO).

The researchers use two empirical approaches: The reduced form difference-in-differences (DID) approach and the two-stage approach. The DID approach identifies the policy impact, and the two-stage approach captures the direct impact of glyphosate, given the number of variables in play. Both approaches attempt to identify differences in external factors (“exogenous variation”) that may be contributing to differences in perinatal (the weeks preceding and proceeding birth) health outcomes at the county-to-county level. For more information on the methodology and empirical approaches, see here.

Results

The first method (DID approach) compared counties with higher and lower suitability ratings for growing GE crops. Before 1996, both types of counties had similar quantities of glyphosate residues and similar baby weights. After 1996, counties with higher crop suitability had significantly higher glyphosate use, and the babies in these areas weighed less on average.

The second method (two-stage approach) looked at the actual impact of glyphosate use. At the average amount used in 2012, the study found that glyphosate exposure reduced baby birthweights by about 29–30 grams and shortened pregnancies by about 1 to 1.5 days. There were also more cases of babies being born with very low weights and prematurely.

The study also found that not all babies were affected in the same way. When the researchers grouped babies by normal birth weight, they saw that the most vulnerable babies (first decile) lost up to 75 grams relative to the 6 grams lost for the least vulnerable babies. In addition, babies born to Black mothers, female babies, and those born to unmarried parents were at higher risk of adverse developmental effects.

Overall, the study strongly suggests that the rollout of glyphosate-tolerant seeds contributed to the exponential increase in glyphosate use, which in turn led to poorer health outcomes for infants in rural areas. This finding builds on decades of serious concerns raised by independent scientists, public health professionals, farmers, farmworkers, and concerned parents on the trajectory of the U.S. public health and food systems.

Existing Literature

There are decades of peer-reviewed studies and scientific literature pointing to linkages between severe health impacts and exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.

A study published in the Journal of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety in 2024 documented, for the first time, the presence of the herbicide glyphosate in human sperm. The study looked at 128 French men with an average age of 36 years who tested positive for glyphosate in their blood. Seventy-three out of the 128 men were found also to have glyphosate in their seminal plasma. Not only that, the amount of glyphosate in seminal plasma was nearly four times higher than what was detected in the blood. Glyphosate has also been linked to toxicity to pollinators and birds, as well as links to cancer (Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma), endocrine disruption, reproductive harms, kidney and liver damage, neurotoxicity, birth and developmental effects, among other adverse health effects. See the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management entry for glyphosate to learn more.

See glyphosate and genetic engineering sections in the Daily News for further analysis. For more resources on genetic engineering and risks to public health, see here.

Call to Action

There is a bipartisan push this year in state legislatures across the nation looking to prohibit glyphosate use or restrict its use to some degree, including bills in California, Connecticut, Hawai’i,  Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Rhode Island, and Texas. Advocates welcome the introduction of legislation as communities have urged for decades and continue to demand action to address issues around glyphosate, given the known risks. However, they also acknowledge past battles on individual active ingredients (e.g., chlorpyrifos, dicamba, paraquat) or groups of active ingredients (e.g., organophosphates, neonicotinoids) have not necessarily succeeded in eliminating toxic chemical use.

On the brink of the second Trump administration, a legal victory in early December overturned a rule issued under the first Trump administration to “practically eliminate oversight of novel GE technology and instead let industry self-regulate,” as characterized by the Center for Food Safety (CFS). (See Daily News here.)

You can act now by calling on Congress to ensure the integrity of federal agencies through the appointment of independent Inspectors General. (See the Action of the Week here.)

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

Source: PNAS

(Beyond Pesticides, February 19, 2025) In Global Ecology and Conservation, a study of bat species in organic desert date palm plantations highlights the invaluable ecosystem services these beneficial organisms provide. “Bats are crucial in suppressing pest arthropods in agroecosystems, contributing vitally to sustainable agriculture,” the study authors share, which makes supporting bat populations important not just for biodiversity but to help enhance their roles in pest management.   

There are various studies connecting organic agriculture and the value it provides for bats and their ecosystem services. (See studies here, here, and here.) While many studies also recognize bat species threatened by pesticides, habitat loss, and climate change, “the importance of bats in agriculture in extreme environments, such as deserts, has received far less attention,” the researchers state. (See previous coverage on pesticide exposure and bats here and here.) They continue, “Date palm plantations represent one of the few productive systems in hyper-arid regions,” noting the study’s novel design.

The date palm, primarily grown throughout the Middle East and North Africa, is one of the earliest domesticated fruit trees. “The date palm cultivation’s monocultural nature increases susceptibility to pest infestations due to limited plant diversity, involving 112 mite and insect species.” Managing these pests effectively is important for crop production, which is where bat species step in to provide an essential service.

Utilizing natural predators for pest management helps shield nontarget organisms from the negative effects of pesticides, while still protecting productivity. “Insectivorous bats are well known for their ability to control arthropod pests in agroecosystems, and there is increasing evidence of the economic benefits this provides, ranging from local to larger scales,” the researchers state. (See studies here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

In observing the activity and species richness of bats in an organically managed plantation in Arava Valley, Israel, the authors find: “edge specialist species concentrate their efforts where they are most needed, particularly in areas with higher productivity. This capacity to forage where food is most available is especially pronounced in desert environments, where trophic resources are rare and concentrated at sites such as date palm plantations.”

Also of note is that, as the researchers say, “Bats in this plantation exhibited higher species richness than in conventionally managed plantations.” This emphasizes how bat species choose to forage on organically managed land and spend their time in areas that benefit most from the pest management services they provide.

Many bat species, such as Eptesicus bottae, Hypsugo ariel, Pipistrellus rueppellii, and Otonycteris hemprichii, have been recorded as effective pest suppressors in date palm plantations since they consume a wide variety of pests. Their diets include different pest moth species, Dubas bug, and spider mites, which all threaten date palms.

“Given their role in natural pest suppression, enhancing conditions for these bats to thrive will likely boost pest control,” the authors point out. They continue: “This highlights the importance of protecting bats beyond the plantation, as most roosts are likely found in nearby rock crevices or buildings. Protecting bats across larger landscapes supports biodiversity conservation and pest suppression, making it a win-win strategy, as shown in studies from temperate regions.”

Within this study, the authors report: “[A]ll bat species consumed nine of the sixteen known date pest species, highlighting their important role in pest control. This [highlights] the considerable potential of bats in date palm plantations for delivering valuable ecosystem services, making them essential allies in mitigating yield loss from key pests.”

The bat activity within the organic date palm plantation study site, which spans over 100 hectares, was recorded from July to September 2022. Through acoustic recordings, 13 species were identified as spending the majority of their time in the older, sheltered plots where pest pressure is highest. The results “show that bats concentrate their foraging activity in the most productive areas in date palm plantations, fulfilling their role as effective pest suppressors.”

The researchers also note species-specific foraging dynamics. “Both total activity and species-level activity of Eptesicus bottae, Hypsugo ariel, Pipistrellus rueppellii, and Pipistrellus kuhlii were highest in these internal, high-stand productive areas, emphasising the precision of bats in delivering ecosystem services,” they say.

Variations in species richness with weather conditions, such as wind, also occur. “Wind may affect foraging bats by reducing prey availability and making flight more difficult and energetically costly,” the authors share. “Understanding the interplay between habitat and wind could help manage the spatial patterning of cultivation to direct bat foraging activity to the most vulnerable areas, enhancing pest control,” they say.

These study results help inform strategies for agricultural land to enhance attraction from bat species. By designing organically managed plantations, with wind buffering and available water sources, critical bat foraging areas can be maintained that promote their vital pest management services. The researchers conclude: “As farming systems evolve, balancing high production with ecological sustainability is crucial. Natural enemy management enhances pest control by promoting beneficial organisms and reducing chemical inputs.”

As Beyond Pesticides has previously reported, the foraging of bats is highly beneficial to humans. These organisms not only consume mosquitoes that can carry diseases, such as West Nile virus, Eastern equine encephalitis, Zika virus, malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and others, but their management of pests protects millions of dollars in agriculture. As declines in bat populations and other pollinators continue to occur, it is becoming increasingly clear that the ecosystem services provided by bats cannot be adequately replaced by human activities. These species are needed as integral to biodiversity as well as agricultural production.

The path forward to protect beneficial organisms such as bats, along with all wildlife, the environment, and human health, is organic land management. Help support Beyond Pesticides’ mission of transitioning to a world free from toxic pesticides by becoming a member today.

Organic agriculture provides health and environmental benefits while combatting current crises of biodiversity and climate change. Learn more about the impacts of pesticides on health with the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database and safer alternatives here and here.

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

Source:

Russo, D. et al. (2025) Precision foraging: Bats in organic desert palm plantations hunt where it is most needed, Global Ecology and Conservation. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235198942500068X.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 18, 2025) With petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers linked to the climate crisis and extraordinary threats to health and biodiversity, recent actions by the Trump administration are highlighting the critical importance of local and state action to mitigate the hazards. On this point, the headline of a National Public Radio article published last week says, ”Trump funding freeze could leave communities on their own as climate threats grow.” Previously, President Trump as a candidate called climate change a “hoax” and has targeted “‘every one’ of President Biden’s policies designed to transition the United States away from fossil fuels,” according to The New York Times. The Guardian reported last October after Hurricane Helene, “As the hurricane continued to ravage the region over the weekend, the former president dismissed global warming in a Saturday speech, and the following day referred to the climate crisis as “one of the great scams of all time.” When considering the historic Palisade fires that began in January in southern California, according to The Guardian, John Abatzoglou, a climatologist at the University of California, Merced, said, “Climate change is adding fuel to the fire and it is absolutely outpacing our ability to adapt in certain areas.”

With the apparent absence of federal programs to curtail escalating health and environmental crises, New York State Senator Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick (R-NY) has introduced legislation would establish state support to end agricultural dependency on the pesticides and fertilizers contributing to the climate crisis. The legislation, S1306, would exempt farmland that is in transition to certified organic practices from property tax for up to three years. Creative proposals like this will be critical to the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that contribute to existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises. 

Reuters’ P.J. Huffstutter and Leah Douglas reported that: “[T]he U.S. Department of Agriculture has frozen some funding for farmers as it goes through a sweeping review, despite assurances from the Trump administration that programs helping farmers would not be affected in the government overhaul. The impact has been immediate and wide-ranging, from cash assistance for ranchers to fix cattle watering systems to help for corn growers wanting to plant cover crops that curb wind erosion.” Among the funding programs affected are several upon which organic farmers depend, including the Organic Certification Cost Share Program (OCCSP), which helps organic farms and businesses offset certification costs. Without it, certification costs will increase significantly in 2025 and may force some farms to abandon organic certification altogether. 

>> Tell your state legislators and the governor to support the transition to organic with state tax policy.

In view of the uncertainty introduced by the federal funding freeze and the documented benefits of transitioning to organic production, states need to step in to support and incentivize organic as a common good that protects health and the environment and saves taxpayer costs associated with the externalities of chemical-intensive farming. These costs include those associated with fires, floods, and severe weather; daily health and cleanup expenses associated with contamination of air, land, and water; crop and productivity losses; and depressed ecosystem services (including loss of pollinators). 

State legislation like S1306 and grassroots-powered action have become more important in tackling these urgent health and environmental crises. Incentives to adopt organic practices are one important and effective way to stop the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) while enhancing the health of soil microbial life and the drawdown of atmospheric carbon sequestration. 

• If you are a New York resident, consider reaching out to your elected officials to voice your support for S1306.
• If you live in another state, ask your governor and state legislators to promote similar legislation. 

>> Tell your state legislators and governor to support the transition to organic with state tax policy. 

Letter to Governor and State Representative and Senator  (see letter for New York residents below)
Reuters’ P.J. Huffstutter and Leah Douglas reported that “the U.S. Department of Agriculture has frozen some funding for farmers as it goes through a sweeping review, despite assurances from the Trump administration that programs helping farmers would not be affected in the government overhaul. The impact has been immediate and wide-ranging, from cash assistance for ranchers to fix cattle watering systems to help for corn growers wanting to plant cover crops that curb wind erosion.” Among the funding programs affected are several upon which organic farmers depend, including the Organic Certification Cost Share Program (OCCSP), which helps organic farms and businesses offset certification costs. Without it, certification costs will increase significantly in 2025 and may force some farms to abandon organic certification altogether.

In view of the uncertainty introduced by the federal funding freeze and the documented benefits of transitioning to organic production, states need to step in to support and incentivize organic as a common good that protects health and the environment and saves taxpayer costs associated with the externalities of chemical-intensive farming. These costs include those associated with fires, floods, and severe weather; daily health and cleanup expenses associated with contamination of air, land, and water; crop and productivity losses; and depressed ecosystem services (including loss of pollinators).

As the public looks for opportunities to advance policies and programs that protect health and the environment in the absence of federal programs, New York state Senator Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick (R-NY) has introduced legislation (S1306) that would exempt farmland that is in transition to certified organic practices from property tax for up to three years. State legislation like S1306 has become more important in tackling the urgency of the health, biodiversity, and climate crises. Incentives to adopt organic practices are one effective way to address the crises by eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) and enhancing the health of soil microbial life, which enhances atmospheric carbon sequestration.

Please introduce or cosponsor a bill in our state, similar to the New York bill, to promote widespread transition to organic practices, filling gaps left by action at the federal level.

Thank you.

Letter to Governor and State Representative and Senator (see letter for the residents of other states below)
Reuters’ P.J. Huffstutter and Leah Douglas reported that: “[T]he U.S. Department of Agriculture has frozen some funding for farmers as it goes through a sweeping review, despite assurances from the Trump administration that programs helping farmers would not be affected in the government overhaul. The impact has been immediate and wide-ranging, from cash assistance for ranchers to fix cattle watering systems to help for corn growers wanting to plant cover crops that curb wind erosion.” Among the funding programs affected are several upon which organic farmers depend, including the Organic Certification Cost Share Program (OCCSP), which helps organic farms and businesses offset certification costs. Without it, certification costs will increase significantly in 2025 and may force some farms to abandon organic certification altogether.

In view of the uncertainty introduced by the federal funding freeze and the documented benefits of transitioning to organic production, states need to step in to support and incentivize organic as a common good that protects health and the environment and saves taxpayer costs associated with the externalities of chemical-intensive farming. These costs include those associated with fires, floods, and severe weather; daily health and cleanup expenses associated with contamination of air, land, and water; crop and productivity losses; and depressed ecosystem services (including loss of pollinators).

As the public looks for opportunities to advance policies and programs that protect health and the environment in the absence of federal programs, New York State Senator Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick (R-NY) has introduced legislation (S1306) that would exempt farmland that is in transition to certified organic practices from property tax for up to three years. State legislation like S1306 has become more important in tackling the urgency of the health, biodiversity, and climate crises. Incentives to adopt organic practices are one effective way to address the crises by eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) and enhancing the health of soil microbial life, which enhances atmospheric carbon sequestration.

Please support S1306. Request a hearing on the bill: https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2025/S1306

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 14, 2025) A study in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology finds that organic food consumption lowers the risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Heart health is important not just on Valentine’s Day, but every day. While celebrating with friends and family, consider spreading love in ways that promote long-term health and wellness with an organic meal paired with organic flowers and chocolates.

Eliminating exposure to petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, such as with an organic diet, mitigates disease risks including brain and nervous system disorders, cancer, endocrine disruption, and cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this latest study, the scientists and doctors analyze registered diagnoses of ASCVD from the Danish National Patient Register in comparison with the diets of a cohort of middle-aged women and men from the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health study.

The eligible study participants, including 41,407 men and women of which 5,365 developed ASCVD, filled in a detailed 192-item food frequency questionnaire and a lifestyle questionnaire on their consumption of organic vegetables, fruit, dairy products, eggs, meat, and bread and cereal products. The authors report that the results show overall organic food consumption is associated with a 6% lower incidence rate of ASCVD. For specific food categories, statistically significant results are noted for eggs in both men and women, as well as bread and cereal products in men being associated with lower ASCVD incidence.

Dietary habits are an important factor for heart health and may influence disease risk. The researchers explain this study’s novelty in saying, “Previous investigations of the role of dietary factors in prevention of ASCVD have focused on specific foods and nutrients, without distinguishing between production practices such as organic versus conventional produce.”

This study adds to the ever-growing body of science that has linked pesticide exposure to negative effects on cardiovascular health for many decades. The findings reinforce scientific understanding that heart disease is preventable and eliminating toxics in diet can play an important role in reducing a major public health threat. As the authors report, “Worldwide, CVD collectively remain the leading cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and death in adults over 50 years.”

The researchers reference previous studies relating to cardiovascular disease that show:

• “Occupational and/or environmental exposure to organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides has previously been associated with a higher risk of important [CVD] factors such as hypertension, metabolic syndrome and also a higher risk of myocardial infarction.” (See studies here and here.)
• Studies (see here and here) associate pesticides with the “potential to influence energy homeostasis with disruption of glucose and lipid metabolism which may increase the risk of ASCVD.”
• “[O]rganically produced foods have higher levels of polyphenols, omega-3 fatty acids, and lower levels of cadmium and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Both polyphenols and omega-3 fatty acids may exert a variety of beneficial health effects and have been associated with a lower risk of CVD in observational studies.” (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.)
• A French study finds higher organic food consumption is associated with a lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome and “with individual markers of cardiometabolic health including lower levels of fasting glucose, waist circumference, blood pressure, and triglycerides.”   

As the study results find organic bread and cereal products are associated with lower incidence of ASCVD in men, this raises the topic of sex-specific pesticide effects. (See previous Daily News coverage here and here.) As an explanation of these results, the researchers share, “Previous research suggests that men are generally more prone to CVD risk factors such as oxidative stress and inflammation than women and that men tend to have higher baseline levels of these conditions.”

Overall, including all food groups, the authors find that an organic diet benefits both men and women and supports prior research. (See study here and Daily News coverage here and here.) The researchers postulate that these health benefits from consuming organic foods may be attributed to lower levels of pesticide residues, as these compounds can cause oxidative stress and inflammation that increase disease risk.

This Valentine’s Day, protect your heart, and show those you love how much you truly care, by choosing organic foods and gifts. Unfortunately, most gifts come at a cost much higher than the one on the price tag. Conventional roses and chocolate sold in the U.S. are produced using toxic pesticides, with little regard for the workers or the environment. (See studies of pesticide residue on flowers here, here, and here, as well as the benefits of organic chocolate here, here, and here.)

Ensure that any flowers and chocolates you choose to buy are organic or opt for other creative ways of expressing your love. A hand-crafted card, picture collage, poem, or even a special homemade, organic dinner are all ways to show someone you care, while also spreading love to the environment and society. 

Happy Valentine’s Day! 💕 💕 💕 💕 💕

This Valentine’s Day—Become a Member!
When you join Beyond Pesticides, you add your voice to the urgent movement to eliminate fossil fuel-based pesticide use within the next 10 years, and help put a stop to toxic emissions, exposure, and advocate for public health and the environment. Help us continue to raise the alarm about the climate crisis, biodiversity decline, and health challenges, and promote the solution: organic agriculture and land management. Join today to be part of organic solution! You will also receive the latest edition of Pesticides and You as a part of your membership! Your membership and any additional contributions are tax-deductible.

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

Source:

Andersen, J. et al. (2025) Organic food consumption and the incidence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health cohort, European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurjpc/zwaf057/8003732.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 13, 2025) After months of deliberations and a public comment period, the California State Board of Food and Agriculture (SBFA) on January 10, 2025, formalized a definition of “regenerative agriculture” that is being widely criticized as undermining the transition of agriculture to certified organic practices that eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. The call for the urgent and widespread adoption of organic land management is advanced by those who see organic practices—with its focus on soil health management, a national list of allowed and prohibited substances, an enforcement system, and a prohibition on genetically engineered seeds and plants, synthetic fertility and biosolids—as the only way to effectively address the current health, biodiversity, and climate crises. Nonetheless, the Board’s recommendation, accepted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), loosely defines regenerative agriculture as “an integrated approach to farming and ranching rooted in principles of soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem resiliency.”

The  15-member SBFA advisory board, appointed by the governor, unanimously finalized a recommendation formally defining “regenerative agriculture,” concluding two years’ worth of workgroups and stakeholder engagement. The proposal, addressed to Secretary Karen Ross, fulfills a Board project outlined in California’s Ag Vision for the Next Decade. It is now the accepted definition of California’s Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). CDFA how points to the definition, saying, “This recommendation is to inform State Agencies, Boards and Commissions on CDFA’s definition of regenerative agriculture as it relates to state policies and programs. This is not a definition for certification.”

The CDFA definition fails to include specific practices or measurable outcomes, and declines to include organic certification as foundational to “regenerative.” It lacks enforceable standards and an acceptable materials (inputs) list, like those required in organic certification, under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The definition has drawn sharp criticism from organizations including Beyond Pesticides, who argue that the definition is a ‘masterwork in greenwashing.’  “Because there isn’t a definition of allowable practices and materials to which people can be held accountable, those practicing ‘regenerative agriculture’ may continue to use synthetic fertilizers, genetically engineered crops, or biosolids,” remarks Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

The Problem with CDFA’s Approach

Mr. Feldman highlights the core issue: “Strategies that allow continued use of toxic substances undermine the soil biology and biodiversity critical to healthy plants.” The CDFA definition fails to establish accountability by omitting a clear standard for inputs, such as OPFA’s National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. This omission leaves room for practices like synthetic fertilizer use, genetically engineered crops, biosolids, and synthetic pesticides—all explicitly banned in organic systems.

While the CDFA definition of regenerative is not intended for use in a certification process or legal statute, critics argue that without specific, measurable goals, the new definition remains open to interpretation and greenwashing.  In Civil Eats reporting, Rebekah Weber, policy director for California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) states, “I could survey 100 farmers and show them this definition and they would each have a different interpretation of what this means, and the verification and accountability pieces just aren’t there.”

By not including verifiable outcomes, the new definition also fails to meet the recommendations provided by the Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The panel, composed of subject matter experts from around the state, was asked to provide input regarding the definition. A May 2023 letter from the panel to SBFA Chair Don Cameron repeatedly emphasized the need for “providing measurable and verifiable outcomes.” 

CDFA’s reliance on other frameworks, like California’s Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) Roadmap and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) further exacerbates the problem. As Beyond Pesticides previously critiqued in its analysis of California’s SPM  Roadmap, IPM allows for continued reliance on toxic chemicals under the guise of “sustainability.” Without a prohibition on synthetic inputs, including synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, regenerative agriculture risks has become another vague term, subject to the interpretation of individual practitioners, that prioritizes some degree of change over transformative solutions. 

Background

CDFA’s definition of regenerative agriculture evolved from priorities identified in Ag Vision, a 10-year plan for California’s agricultural industry, led by SBFA and published by CDFA in 2023. From the vision statement: “California agriculture is growing opportunity—for farmers and ranchers, farmworkers, individuals and communities—and is demonstrating leadership on climate action.” The 10-year plan repeatedly calls for the use of regenerative practices “that enhance ecosystems and improve the land,” also without best practices or enforceable standards. Instead, the recommended definition by SBFA lists examples of eight “target outcomes of regenerative agriculture,” including: building soil health; reducing reliance on pesticides; protecting animals in agriculture; building healthy, local communities; protecting spiritual and cultural traditions; and maintaining a positive impact on the economic vitality/livelihoods of farmers and ranchers. While the Ag Vision report states “‘regenerative terminology is gaining traction and support like never before due in part to the belief that ‘regenerative’ moves beyond the philosophy of ‘do no harm’ to one of making things better,” efforts to create a robust definition for ‘regenerative’ that actually does no harm were thwarted, due to the influence of chemical-intensive farming interests.

In a state with over 1,500 types of soil and 400 crops, the core challenge in crafting a definition of regenerative organic was—as Tom Chapman, co-chief executive of the Organic Trade Association, put it in a recent Civil Eats article—“whether to go narrow and meaningful, or wide but not that deep.” Ultimately, under pressure from large-scale farms and conventional agriculture industry groups, the working group chose the latter. Instead of upholding a truly regenerative-organic approach that eliminates synthetic inputs and allows healthy soil to sustain itself, the definition’s language was softened. A key example: an early draft seeking to “eliminate” reliance on pesticides—a fundamental principle of organic farming—was watered down in the final draft to a mere “reduction” in reliance.

For those invested in chemical-intensive farming, this dilution ensures the debate remains centered on incremental input substitutions, rather than a fundamental shift in farming practices. The industry’s grip is evident in the framing of soil health as simply a starting point, rather than an achievable outcome of eliminating synthetic chemicals. “In agriculture, nothing is one size fits all, so the adoption of systems has to be realistic for each particular kind of crop,” said Renee Pinel, president of Western Plant Health, a trade organization representing fertilizer and pesticide manufacturers. By positioning synthetic inputs as indispensable, Ms. Pinel reinforces the notion that transitioning away from them is unrealistic, a supposition belied by the success and size of California’s current organic certified agricultural production.

This argument—a familiar refrain from the chemical industry—keeps the focus on substituting one product for another, rather than embracing proven regenerative-organic methods that eliminate the need for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides entirely. Instead of recognizing that healthy soil, managed regeneratively, can sustain itself without chemical inputs, the agrichemical industry perpetuates the idea that farmers must always have a synthetic crutch. By keeping the conversation locked in a framework of gradual “product swaps,” rather than supporting a full transition to organic-regenerative systems, chemical-intensive agriculture ensures its own continued dominance—at the expense of a truly sustainable future, human health, and biodiversity, as climate impacts from industrial agriculture accelerate.

David Bronner, CEO of Dr. Bronner’s soaps, wrote a relevant comment in a 2017 blog, maintaining the following: “ ‘[R]egenerative’ is going to go the way of ‘sustainable’ and mean whatever anyone wants it to mean…we are shortchanging the regenerative movement’s ability to fix and elevate the organic movement to its true regenerative potential, versus catering to lower bar low-chemical-input no-till agriculture with cover crops. The latter is hugely important and commendable, but insofar as any amount of synthetic fertilizer and pesticide is used, another term such as ‘sustainable no-till’ is a better descriptor. As soon as we go away from organic as the floor, we go down the rabbit hole of having to decide which chemical inputs can be used in what amounts and when. We should reserve ‘regenerative’ as the gold standard and incentive for true holistic no-chemical-input ‘regenerative organic’ agriculture. If we don’t, then there’s no incentive to improve toward the holistic regenerative goal.”

 Greenwashing and Consumer Confusion Concerns

Critics argue that CDFA’s definition opens the door to greenwashing and consumer confusion by allowing industrial agriculture to adopt minimal soil health practices while continuing harmful chemical use. In permitting genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops under the regenerative definition, heavy use of weed killers is permitted. As reported by Beyond Pesticides, companies including ADM, Cargill, Danone, General Mills, Tyson, Unilever, Walmart, and more have committed to millions of acres of “regenerative” agriculture in their supply chain with target dates ranging from 2024 to 2050. In 2019, industrial food titan General Mills committed to converting one million acres of farmland to regenerative practices by 2030. Their strategy allows for the transitional use of glyphosate-based herbicides in their regenerative agriculture strategy, which does not align with organic standards of proving that restricted pesticides have not touched land for three years. Beyond Pesticides warns that an aspirational definition of regenerative practices, widely advertised as good for health and the environment, will derail efforts to address clearly defined organic standards. As Mr. Feldman remarked, “It’s disingenuous to claim you can regenerate soil health while still using synthetic inputs.” The absence of enforceable standards allows industrial players to market themselves as sustainable without adopting more rigorous standards.

Confusion regarding the difference between organic and regenerative is another concern of farmers and advocates. Consumers may erroneously assume that “regenerative” products are equivalent to organic and have not been grown with and do not contain harmful chemicals. Moreover, that confusion may bleed over into the marketplace. “Organic farmers have to meet strict requirements. And now they will be in the same marketplace as a ‘regenerative’ farmer who is being subsidized by the state of California, but there isn’t verification behind that word? That’s an unfair market advantage,” according to California Certified Organic Farmers policy director Rebekah Weber.

 California’s Sustainable Pest Management Roadmap: A Parallel Failure and Missed Opportunity

California is uniquely positioned to lead on agricultural sustainability, but its failure to ground regenerative agriculture in organic principles undermines this potential. Organic certification provides a proven framework for soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem resilience through clear prohibitions on petrochemical inputs. As Beyond Pesticides argues, organic agriculture is already delivering on many of the promises attributed to regenerative systems. The Real Organic Project alongside businesses such as Patagonia, Lundberg Family Farms, Dr. Bronner’s, and Good Earth Natural Foods have echoed this sentiment in public comments, emphasizing that regenerative agriculture must start with organic standards. Straus Organic Creamery’s Albert Straus has also offered an incentive program for farmers to replicate Straus organic practices, which reduce greenhouse gas emissions (see here and here) while improving soil health—critical components of any climate-smart agricultural system.

The issues with CDFA’s regenerative definition mirror those found in California’s Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) Roadmap, released in 2023. The roadmap identifies goals like eliminating “priority pesticides” by 2050 but fails to address the urgent need to phase out synthetic fertilizers and pesticides comprehensively. Beyond Pesticides criticized this timeline as far too slow, given the escalating crises in biodiversity loss, climate change, and public health. SPM also lacks a holistic approach to soil health management. As Mr. Feldman observed, “An SPM program that is a genuinely holistic response…must proscribe the currently ubiquitous use of synthetic fertilizers as well as pesticides.” Without these prohibitions, both SPM and regenerative agriculture risk perpetuating chemical-intensive systems under new branding.

The Path Forward

According to organic producers and advocates, to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the regenerative movement, CDFA must revise its definition of regenerative to require organic certification as a baseline. This would prohibit synthetic fertilizers, pesticides (including herbicides and insecticides), biosolids, and genetically engineered crops—practices incompatible with genuine soil regeneration. Building on organic standards would provide transparency and accountability while ensuring alignment with environmental and public health goals. As Mr. Feldman aptly puts it: “The public is really calling for organic, whether they know it yet or not.” By grounding regenerative agriculture in organic principles, California can lead the way toward truly sustainable food systems that protect biodiversity, mitigate climate change, and safeguard human health.

Widespread adoption of organic and certified organic regenerative agriculture breaks agricultural dependence on chemical-intensive methods, freeing farmers from the relentless cycle of toxic synthetic inputs and the pesticide treadmill. The public has an important role to play in this transition! Learn more about organic and regenerative-organic agriculture, and “vote” with your wallet organically. Create market demand by purchasing trusted labels for certified organic (see here and here) and regenerative organic certified food and products.

Join Beyond Pesticides in fighting to end the use of fossil fuel-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and push for urgent adoption of regenerative-organic and organic agriculture as necessary actions to meet the existential threats to human health, the environment, and of climate change, exacerbated by chemical-intensive agriculture.

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

Sources:

What ‘Regenerative Agriculture’ Means. Sort of, Civil Eats, February 5, 2025.

Letter to Secretary Karen Ross, CDFA, January 10, 2025.

CDFA BOARD RECOMMENDATION: Defining Regenerative Ag for State Policies and Programs, CDFA announcement, January 10, 2025.

Defining Regenerative Agriculture for State Policies and Programs, CDFA website, accessed February 12, 2025.

Ag Vision for the Next Decade, CDFA report, 2023.

To Make Regenerative Meaningful, It Must Require Organic Certification as a Starting Point, according to Advocates, Beyond Pesticides Daily News, May 28, 2024.

Study Shows Value of Organic Practices in Lowering Environmental Impact of Agriculture, Beyond Pesticides Daily News, May 23, 2024.

Defining “Regenerative Agriculture” in California, Dr. Bronner’s All-One blog, April 2, 2024.

Regenetarians Unite: How the Regenerative Agriculture and Animal Welfare Movements Can End Factory Farming, Restore Soil and Mitigate Climate Change, Dr. Bronner’s All-One blog, March 7, 2017.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 12, 2024) New York state Senator Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick (R-NY) introduced a bill (S1306) that would exempt farmland that is in transition to certified organic practices from real property tax for up to a three-year period. This bill was reintroduced in the state legislature at a time when many federal organic programs remain unfunded amid stalled Farm Bill negotiations (see here for previous Action of the Week calling on Congress to fund federal organic programs) and farmers continue to struggle with the cost of certification, paperwork, and access to land. The legislation recognizes the importance of supporting and incentivizing organic as a common good that protects health and the environment and saves taxpayer costs associated with,

• Externalities of chemical-intensive farming, from costs associated with fires, floods, and severe weather;
• Daily health and cleanup expenses associated with contamination of air, land, and water; and 
• Crop and productivity losses and depressed ecosystem services (including loss of pollinators).

The public is looking for opportunities to push forward holistic policies as executive orders suspend diversity, equity, and inclusion in federal agency staffing and programming, as well as the shuttering of government websites and databases mentioning climate change or environmental justice.

As Beyond Pesticides shifts gears into 2025, state legislation, like S1306, and grassroots-powered action have become more important in tackling the urgency of the health, biodiversity, and climate crises. Incentives to adopt organic practices are one effective way to address the crises by eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) and enhancing the health of soil microbial life, which enhances atmospheric carbon sequestration.

Background and Bill Analysis

This legislation is designed to establish criteria for the parameters of a “real property tax exemption” for organic or transitional organic farmers. There are several key features of this bill to consider, including the land eligibility for exemption and eligibility carveouts.

Key Features

• Eligibility for exemption is capped at three years;
• Participating farms must attain organic certification per National Organic Program (NOP) standards to remain eligible;
• In any given tax year, the real property tax exemption would either be capped at 50% of the total value of the farm operation in an agricultural district OR 50% of the total value of the farm operation eligible for an agricultural assessment;
• Land on the farm operation property must be in agricultural production to be eligible for each year; and
• Eligibility criteria for exemption can go beyond 50% cap for certified/transitional farmers in areas declared by governor as a “disaster emergency” in a given year.

Further Analysis

The legislation states, “[T]hat portion of the value of land of a farm operation which is in the process of being certified by an organic certification authority accredited by the United States department of agriculture for the production of organic crops, livestock and livestock products shall be exempt from real property taxation for a period not to exceed three years.” Eligible land must be certified organic by the end of this three-year period. Advocates welcome this language as it creates an incentive structure for farmers who may otherwise find financial considerations to be an impediment to transition.

The bill continues, “The land eligible for such real property tax exemption shall not in any one year exceed fifty percent of the total assessed value of such farm operation which is located on land used in agricultural production within an agricultural district or fifty percent of the total assessed value of such farm operation eligible for an agricultural assessment pursuant to this section and section three hundred six of this article where the owner of such land has filed an annual application for an agricultural assessment.”

This legislation has been introduced in the New York State legislature in sessions going back to 2009, but has not moved out of committee.

The legislative language introduces flexible support systems into the legal code for farmers “located within an area which has been declared by the governor to be a disaster emergency in a year in which such tax exemption is sought and in a year in which such land meets all other eligibility requirements for such tax exemption set forth in this subdivision.” This flexibility comes in the form of permitting eligible organic farmers to have more than 50% of total assessed value exempted from property tax, per some further stipulations. For example, the eligible land cannot exceed the total acreage damaged or destroyed during that given disaster emergency declaration in specified area(s) of the state. Ultimately, the total acreage eligible for this exemption would be left up to the Commissioner of Agriculture.

Existing Support

Economists and organic advocates agree that developing an incentive structure to transition to and maintain organic certification is a critical barrier to widespread adoption given the high short-term costs associated with shifting land management systems.

Be it federally or statewide, there is much more incentive to engage in chemical-intensive farming and land management programs given the structure of federal crop insurance and other subsidy programs. (See previous Daily News here for further analysis here on the Federal Crop Insurance Program.) A research campaign spearheaded by researchers at New York University conducted a survey of organic farmers in the United States, providing critical feedback on modifying existing agricultural support programs in the Farm bill. (See Daily News here.)

Experts say that agricultural tax exemptions can “knock thousands off your property tax bill.” However, there are some barriers to consider, including whether the operation is full- or part-time, zoning rules, among other factors. In recent years there have been several changes in agricultural tax exemptions at the state-level, including new laws that went into effect in 12 different states in 2024, according to an analysis by the National Agricultural Law Center. Farmers will also be impacted if Congress allows provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) to sunset at the end of 2025. An analysis of the Act by the law firm Warner, Norcross, and Judd finds the effect of the expiring provisions will be two-fold:

1. Income tax will be impacted, including a 15.6% increase (or $2,283) in tax liability for farms making between $150,000 and $350,000 in gross cash farm income. Farms earning over $5 million will see a 5.4% increase (or $27,588) going into 2026; and
2. Estate and gift tax will be impacted, including slashing the current gift and estate tax exemption (13.61 million) in half going into 2026.

Call to Action

With federal regulations of pesticides expected to be curtailed under the Trump administration, advocates are activated and looking for opportunities to push the needle on eliminating toxic pesticide-dependent food and land management systems.

If you are a New York resident, consider reaching out to your elected official voicing your support for S1306. See Keeping Organic Strong to monitor updates, recommendations, and opportunities to engage in the Spring 2025 NOSB public meeting.

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

Source: New York State Senate

(Beyond Pesticides, February 11, 2025) In a Science of The Total Environment study, scientists test over 100 blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) and great tit (Parus major) birds’ nests for pesticide residues in comparison with the number of dead offspring and unhatched eggs within the nest. Fur-lined nests, from animals treated with ectoparasitic chemicals, expose birds to compounds that can impact reproductive success. The authors found fipronil, a phenyl pyrazole insecticide, in all nests, with the majority also containing the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid and synthetic pyrethroid insecticide permethrin. The data shows higher insecticide levels are linked to increased offspring mortality and threaten biodiversity.

This study highlights an important exposure route that is overlooked. “Although not all bird species use fur for nest building, a substantial number do, especially cavity-nesting species,” the researchers share. “Previous research found that 74% of studied woodland bird species in central Europe incorporated fur into their nests.” Many bird species in the U.S. also line their nests with fur, such as black-capped chickadees, tufted titmice, and chipping sparrows.

While there is a wide body of science showing reproductive effects from pesticides, the researchers highlight the study’s novel design, saying, “To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have been performed to detect and quantify veterinary ectoparasitic drugs in the fur used for nest-building and explored the potential associated effects in these bird species.” They continue, writing, “The environmental impact of insecticides used as ectoparasitic treatments for companion animals is not well understood, since they are not subject to detailed environmental risk assessment.”

Many veterinary treatments include active ingredients that are banned from agricultural use in the European Union but are still prevalent in the U.S. in both residential pest management and agriculture, increasing the risk of exposure for nontarget organisms such as birds. As the authors state: “Farm livestock and companion animals such as dogs and cats are routinely treated with chemicals such as pyrethroids (e.g., permethrin and cypermethrin) and avermectin insecticides (e.g., ivermectin). Other products, including neonicotinoid insecticides like imidacloprid (banned as a plant protection product in the EU in 2018) and the phenylpyrazole insecticide fipronil (banned for agricultural use in 2013), continue to be widely used for veterinary ectoparasitic treatments for pets.”

“These chemicals are frequently applied topically, sometimes monthly, in the form of shampoos, spot-on treatments, sprays, or impregnated collars,” they continue. “An estimated 80% of dogs and 82% of cats are treated against fleas using an insecticide at least once per year.” These include products such as Frontline®, with the main active ingredient fipronil, and Advocate®, which contains imidacloprid. (See additional resources related to pets and pesticides here, here, here, here, and here, as well as previous coverage on Seresto® pet collars here.)

Since residues from these chemicals can persist on an animal’s fur for extended periods of time, this allows toxic compounds to be dispersed into the environment and come into contact with wildlife. Certain species of birds, in particular, are exposed to these insecticides as they collect animal fur to provide an inner lining to their nests, which impacts the adults, eggs, and nestlings.

Within the study, which analyzes 103 nests collected from September to October 2020 across the United Kingdon, the authors detected 17 out of the 20 insecticides in the screening. The number of insecticides per nest ranges from two to eleven, leaving no nests pesticide-free. “Fipronil, imidacloprid, and permethrin were detected in 100%, 89.1%, and 89.1% of samples, respectively,” the researchers report.

The three active substances found in the highest concentrations include the neonicotinoid dinotefuran, synthetic pyrethroids permethrin, and cypermethrin. “Overall, a higher number of either dead offspring or unhatched eggs was found in nests containing a higher number of insecticides, higher total concentration of insecticides or a higher concentration of fipronil, imidacloprid or permethrin, suggesting that contact exposure of eggs to insecticides in nest lining may lead to mortality and lower reproductive success,” the authors conclude.

They continue, “[T]he number and total concentration of insecticides found in nests, along with the concentrations of fipronil, imidacloprid, and permethrin when considered separately, predicted a higher number of unhatched eggs and/or dead offspring for both bird species together or great tits alone.” The researchers suspect the heightened effects seen in great tits is due to the amount of hair and fur within their nests as compared to the blue tits. Blue tit nests tend to be constructed with more bark and feathers, highlighting behavior-dependent exposure variations between bird species.

The authors also note that the effects seen in this study may not represent the full impact of pesticide exposure from residues within the nests, saying: “Blue tit and great tit adults tend to clean up the nests of any unhatched egg or dead chicks before the end of the breeding season when nests where collected. Thus, we likely underestimate the actual number of unhatched eggs and dead chicks of the studied nests.”

The effects on global bird populations from pesticides has been studied since the 1960’s when Rachel Carson brought attention to the matter through her book Silent Spring. Research continues to note impacts on nontarget organisms from beneficial insects that provide ecosystems services to all wildlife that is necessary in preserving biodiversity.

This study “adds to an already long list of evidence for negative environmental effects from pesticides, in particular fipronil and imidacloprid,” the researchers say. Additional studies find:

• Systemic insecticides impact pollination, soil biota, and aquatic invertebrate communities. (See study here.)
• “Fipronil has been associated with adverse effects on birds, including reduced levels of sex hormones in Japanese quails (Coturnix japonica), and reduced immune responses in red-legged partridges (Alectoris rufa).” (See studies here and here.)
• “Exposure to imidacloprid has been linked to adverse effects in birds, causing mortality following consumption of treated seeds, with sublethal doses leading to reductions in clutch size and delayed laying date in red-legged partridges.” (See studies here and here.)
• Permethrin causes reduced body weight in chicken embryos, as well as morphological abnormalities (See studies here and here.)

In summation, the authors share: “This research reveals that ectoparasitic treatments for pets and livestock can serve as a route of insecticides exposure for birds, potentially affecting eggs and chicks in nests. This raises questions about the environmental impact of veterinary drugs, which seems to have been underestimated compared to their agricultural counterparts.”

They continue, “The study emphasizes the need for comprehensive risk assessments of active substances, considering properties like water solubility, biodegradability, environmental persistence, and toxicity to non-target species, as well as dermal toxicity.” Regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), must be required to properly assess all current and future pesticides for not only impacts on beneficial species but all wildlife and human health. It is imperative that risk assessments consider the better solution to toxic chemicals that exist with organic land management.

The holistic approach that organic practices offer provides a healthy alternative to the detrimental effects of chemicals that pollute the environment and all organisms within it. Organic land management protects all species, including pollinators that are crucial to agricultural and economic productivity and food security, and also mitigates the crises of biodiversity and climate change.

Take action to advance organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies and be part of the organic solution by becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides and supporting our mission today.

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

Source:

Tassin de Montaigu, C. et al. (2025) High prevalence of veterinary drugs in bird’s nests, Science of The Total Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969725000737.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 10, 2025) With the shutting down of key federal government programs, Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to speak out, especially on issues that preserve state and local authority to protect public health and safety in the absence of adequate federal standards. In this context, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a petition with a proposed policy that would, if adopted, prohibit states from issuing warnings of pesticide hazards, like cancer, on product labels. EPA is taking public comment through February 20, 2025, on the petition, filed by the Republican attorneys general (AGs) of 11* states.  The petition asks EPA to prohibit “any state labeling requirements inconsistent with EPA findings and conclusions from its human health risk assessment on human health effects, such as a pesticide’s likelihood to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm.” [*The 11 states filing the petition include: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested comment to EPA (due by February 20 at 11:59 pm EST):
Please deny the attorneys general (AGs) petition, which misrepresents the authority and responsibility of state governments in their role to protect public health and safety.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 7, 2025) With the strong associations established in epidemiologic studies and a dearth of evidence on the actual mechanisms by which pesticides inflict their damage on the brain, a new meta-analysis identifies studies that pesticides can overwhelm cells’ defenses against them, interfere with cell communication in the brain, and disrupt the epigenetic (gene function) regulation of gene expression. In the journal Nucleus, Bilal Ahmad Mir, PhD and colleagues at the University of Kashmir in Srinagar, India, review what is known at the molecular level about pesticides’ role in brain cancer.

Brain cancer is a heavy burden for its victims and their families, and attributing a cause is, as with many diseases, fraught with difficulty. But there are strong clues: For example, farming is a known risk factor. In a 2021 meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies between 1998 and 2019, analyzed here by Beyond Pesticides, farming was associated with a 13% increase in the risk of brain cancer. For farmers whose specific exposure to pesticides was documented in the studies, the increase jumped to 20 percent. So there is some reason to point a finger at synthetic chemicals.

But agricultural workers are not the only ones at risk. According to a systematic review, in 2019 brain cancer was the 10th leading cause of death in the general population. For men 20 to 39, brain cancer was the leading cause of cancer deaths. This was about twice the rate for women. For children it is even worse: central nervous system tumors, which have a high mortality rate, are the most common childhood cancer; these and leukemia comprise more than half of all malignancies in children.

In 2023, Beyond Pesticides analyzed a review finding that, for children aged 0 to 14, the brain tumors classed as astrocytomas were more strongly associated with maternal and et al. exposures to pesticides during pregnancy than with children’s postnatal direct exposure. Importantly, most exposures occurred at home, not in agricultural settings, and brain tumors in children under five have been linked to flea and tick products. But parental exposure to pesticides at work also poses a risk to children.

The brain, only two percent of the body’s mass, uses 15-20 percent of all the energy the body generates via aerobic metabolism, so oxygen homeostasis is of utmost importance. It is clear that pesticides induce the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are implicated in many diseases. In the brain, two important communication pathways can be disrupted by ROS: gap junctions, which are direct connections between cells allowing for transfer of molecules such as neurotransmitters, and synapses, where electrical signals travel between neurons. The brain is especially vulnerable because it needs both significant amounts of oxygen and higher levels of iron and copper than the rest of the body. These metals easily react with oxygen, and their balance must also be carefully maintained. Dysregulated iron is implicated in cancer metastasis. Too much copper also fosters cell proliferation and metastatic potential. A further concern is that pesticides are easily and rapidly fat-soluble, leading to their accumulation in the brain’s high levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids.

Many pesticide families have been demonstrated to produce ROS: organophosphates (chlorpyrifos, quinalphos, dichlorvos); organochlorines (paraquat, dieldrin); and pyrethroids (permethrin), for example.  

Many have multiple ways of harming cells. For example, the authors note that paraquat crosses the blood-brain barrier, creates ROS in the intercellular fluid and induces oxidative damage in the hippocampus region of the brain and in neurons. It crosses the placenta, where it severely damages the fetal dopamine system. The weed killer araquat also interferes with the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+ and NADH) process, which involves enzymes crucial for regulating mitochondrial energy generation, the oxygen-iron and oxygen-copper reactions, signal transduction, genomic stability, gene expression regulation, circadian clock management, immunity, and inflammation.

Paraquat is still registered in the U.S. for farm use but banned in more than 70 other countries. In addition to its connection with brain cancer, it is strongly implicated in Parkinson’s disease. In October, Beyond Pesticides called for EPA to ban paraquat using the same reasoning the agency employed to ban dacthal in August.

Epigenetics presents another route for pesticides to damage brain cells. The term refers to ways that gene expression can be controlled by non-gene molecules that attach to the DNA double helix and wrap it around structures called histones. Methyl molecules are a powerful means of preventing gene expression, and the dysregulation of methylation is a primary process in cancer induction. Pesticides generating ROS can lead to hypermethylation, preventing detoxification and allowing the formation of tumors. According to Dr. Ahmad Mir and colleagues, “Taken together, pesticide-induced ROS production may significantly alter the epigenome by targeting various enzymes involved in regulating the expression of various genes involved in detoxification and metabolic processes.” These epigenetic changes can have multigenerational effects.

“The excessive use of pesticides,” write Dr. Ahmad Mir and colleagues, has led to “grave health consequences to humans.” The authors conclude that “the sale and usage of carcinogenic pesticides should be completely banned.”

Considered by itself, the epidemiologic evidence of pesticides’ harms demands that these chemicals be eliminated. The links between pesticides and brain cancer demonstrate this. The combination of epidemiologic evidence and the emerging molecular, mechanistic evidence of pesticides’ influence on cancers, including brain cancer, make it clear that our food system should stop clutching at the crutch of synthetic chemicals and shift to organic agriculture as soon as possible.

In the meantime, you can reduce your exposure to pesticides. See, for example, Lawns We Can Live With – Caution: Children at Play, a factsheet from Safer Pest Control Project. See also Beyond Pesticides’ Action of the Week Archive for the latest concrete actions you can take to affect policy, along with our deep archive of research on pesticides’ human and ecosystem health effects and information about both buying organic and organic farming.

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

Sources:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13237-024-00529-8
Unraveling the toxic link between pesticides and brain cancer: a review on molecular mechanisms, signaling pathways and future research trends
Ahmad et al.
The Nucleus 2025

All Pesticide Classes Increase the Risk of Central Nervous System Tumors in Children
Beyond Pesticides, September 21, 2023
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2023/09/all-pesticide-classes-increase-the-risk-of-central-nervous-system-tumors-in-children/

Environment Becomes Heredity
by Valerie Brown
Pacific Standard Magazine (fka Miller-McCune)
July 14, 2008
https://psmag.com/news/environment-becomes-heredity-4425/

Study Adds to 40 Year Analysis Linking Brain Cancer to Pesticide Exposure
Beyond Pesticides, September 23, 2021
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/09/study-adds-to-40-year-analysis-linking-brain-cancer-to-pesticide-exposure/

Role of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance in generational toxicology
Nilsson et al.
Environmental Epigenetics, Volume 8, Issue 1, 2022
https://academic.oup.com/eep/article/8/1/dvac001/6529222

Living Within 2.5 Miles of Chemical Farming Increases Risk of Childhood Brain Tumors
Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2021
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/04/living-within-2-5-miles-of-chemical-farming-increases-risk-of-childhood-brain-tumors/

Moms’ Pesticide Use Increases Risk of Childhood Brain Tumors
Beyond Pesticides, October 5, 2017
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2017/10/moms-pesticide-use-increases-risk-childhood-brain-tumors/

Study Adds to 40 Year Analysis Linking Brain Cancer to Pesticide Exposure
Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/04/ten-years-of-scientific-studies-find-association-between-childhood-cancer-and-pesticide-exposure/

Research of Pesticide Metabolites in Human Brain Tumor Tissues by Chemometrics-Based Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Analysis for a Hypothetical Correlation between Pesticide Exposure and Risk Factor of Central Nervous System Tumors
Louati et al.
ACS Omega 2023
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.3c04592

(Beyond Pesticides, February 6, 2024) Months after publishing a June 2024 study regarding concentrations of pesticides discovered in legal (and illegal) cannabis products in California, the Los Angeles Times has released a follow-up exposé highlighting extensive pesticide contamination, including from “hidden” pesticides that regulators have not monitored. The authors conclude that in California’s legal weed market, over half of available smoking products are found to contain hidden chemicals—toxic pesticides present in products but not regulated or monitored by state authorities.

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

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

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

Given that cannabis is often used for medicinal purposes, the fact that EPA is not evaluating pesticide residues in tobacco raises grave concerns when a state points to its regulation as guidance. GAO stated in its report (p3), Pesticides on Tobacco: Federal Activities to Assess Risks and Monitor Residues, states the following: “[E]PA has generally concluded that the low levels of residues measured in tobacco smoke do not pose short-term health concerns. EPA does not assess the additional risk of either intermediate- or long-term exposure to pesticide residues in smoke because of the severity and quantity of health effects associated with the use of tobacco products themselves. In addition, the agency does not include short-, intermediate-, or long-term exposure to residues on tobacco in its assessments of total exposures to the pesticides. Officials and experts with whom we spoke generally agreed that pesticide residues on tobacco could incrementally increase health risks, though some also said the known harm from using tobacco products dwarfs any potential effect from exposure to pesticide residues in the smoke.”

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

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

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

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

Since the federal government classifies cannabis as a Schedule 1 narcotic, it is not recognized as a legal agricultural crop under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Consequently, EPA has not assessed the safety of any pesticides for use on cannabis plants, nor has it established tolerances or exemptions for pesticide residues on cannabis. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) allows a pesticide product to be used on cannabis only if its active ingredient is exempt from federal residue tolerance requirements and either exempt from federal registration requirements or registered for a use that is broad enough to include use on cannabis plants.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the contamination is so widespread that there is not enough clean weed to supply the vape market. Half of all vape products tested positive for pesticides not approved for use on cannabis; one example, pymetrozine, a reproductive toxicant and carcinogen banned in Europe, is present in 31% of vape products tested.. When confronted with the results, one cannabis company executive said that they were not in violation of state regulations as there is no testing requirement or residue limit for pymetrozine.

In addition, the investigation identifies instances when the state was notified of the usage of illegal pesticide products but failed to act. Not only did farmers in Santa Cruz county apply pymetrozine, but its illegal use was reported to the state via monthly pesticide use reports; however, there was no response from regulators. While CDPR uses a software program to flag pesticide use reports when a potentially illegal use is reported, the Los Angeles Times article highlights hundreds of reports not flagged by the system, support, resulting in non-enforcement of what appears to be extensive illegal usage.

Furthermore, even if the state chose to respond, there is no established process cited to identify the source and extent of contamination, in order to mount a response. The California Department of Cannabis Control has established a tracking system (operated by METRC, a state vendor) to collect information on every plant from “seed-to-sale,” which, in theory, could provide a means of tracking and removing contaminated products from the marketplace. However, the Los Angeles Times article found the system to be completely inadequate for tracking the distillate used in vapes, which can be made up from parts of hundreds of plants.

Since the above mentioned report in June 2024, the state’s Department of Cannabis Control has recalled hundreds of products from sale, primarily due to whistleblower complaints. However, early efforts by California regulators to establish a pesticide surveillance program were dropped; subsequently, a recent proposal to add ten chemicals to the mandatory screening list was subsequently whittled down to eight chemicals.

Attempts have been made to establish an organic certification program for cannabis products at the state level and in the marketplace. Since cannabis is illegal and classified as a Schedule I narcotic under federal law, it cannot be certified as “organic” under the National Organic Program and carry the USDA organic label. As of 2025, cannabis is legal for recreational use in 24 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia, and for medical use in 40 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Some states have taken steps to address this regulatory gap. The states of Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia have adopted regulations emphasizing less-toxic methods of cannabis cultivation, prioritizing practices that avoid or prohibit pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides has pointed to these state-level initiatives are essential in the absence of federal guidance, presenting an opportunity for states to incentivize environmentally friendly and health-conscious cultivation practices.

California introduced stricter oversight with a series of laws enacted in 2018, requiring pesticide residue testing for cannabis products. In 2021, California state law required Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to establish a certification program for cannabis that is comparable to the National Organic Program and the California Organic Food and Farming Act. Notably, only the National Organic Program can authorize use of the word “organic” on product packaging. This California OCal Registration Program, establishes a “comparable-to-organic” certification for cannabis products to enhance consumer trust in the state’s marijuana industry. However, Beyond Pesticides points out challenges with this program, particularly the need for more stringent scrutiny of inhalation and skin absorption risks for all cannabis users, especially medical patients. Advocates argue that California consumers would benefit from a dedicated OCal Standards Board to review pesticide and processing material restrictions in the context of cannabis consumption.

Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides, underscores the importance of addressing gaps in data collection for evaluating cumulative pesticide exposure risks from inhalable cannabis products. In Environmental Health Perspectives, Feldman emphasizes the need for a precautionary approach: “If [the California Department of Pesticide Regulation] does not have this kind of data, which is extremely expensive to produce and evaluate, then it should use its statutory authority to embrace a precautionary approach. They are establishing a false sense of security regarding the allowed residues, given that they have not looked at the aggregate cumulative risk of dietary and nondietary exposure in combination with cannabis residue.”

In January 2025, cannabis industry leaders established a nonprofit—the Environmental & Consumer Compliance Organization (ECCO)—to provide certification to those products that test for more than 200 chemicals. Some advocates observe that the multitude of certifications, including some that include and go beyond comparable organic certification standards, like national certifier Sun and Earth may confuse consumers and producers alike.

Ultimately, the regulatory gap presented by the legal status of cannabis federally raises critical concerns about potential pesticide exposure: from residues introduced through inhalation, ingestion, or absorption, to occupational risks for workers involved in its cultivation and identified harms to wildlife environmentally. In the absence of federal guidelines, Beyond Pesticides argues that any synthetic pesticide use on cannabis is effectively illegal under current federal law: “In the absence of federal regulations governing pesticides in cannabis production, the use of pesticides not registered by [EPA] is understood to be illegal.”

Beyond Pesticides urges all cannabis regulatory agencies to adopt an enforceable organic systems approach, mirroring the standards of certified organic agriculture, which prohibit synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Additionally, the organization encourages states to adopt laws or regulations that require an organic systems approach to cannabis cultivation. This precautionary strategy has become increasingly vital, rather than relying solely on detecting and regulating prohibited pesticide residues in cannabis; implementing a framework that mandates adherence to national organic soil management standards would be a more responsible approach.

For detailed information on how pesticide residues in marijuana may affect your health, refer to Beyond Pesticides’ reports: Pushing for Organic Cannabis as Industry Grows and Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options (and here). If you suspect that you or someone you know has been exposed to pesticides, consult our Pesticide Emergencies resource. Additional insights into the health impacts of herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides, and fungicides are also available on our website.

For further guidance on organic crop production, explore the organic agriculture page from Beyond Pesticides. To support the alignment of organic standards with the principles and requirements of the Organic Foods Production Act, visit our Keeping Organic Strong (KOS) initiative. KOS offers a straightforward vehicle for the public to provide input on critical issues addressed by the National Organic Standards Board and the National Organic Program under the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

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

Sources

New tests find ‘hidden’ pesticides in more California weed brands. Regulators ignored warnings, Los Angeles Times, December 19, 2024

Search your stash: 538 cannabis pesticide tests show what’s in your weed, Los Angeles Times, December 19, 2024

Cannabis conundrum: Legal doesn’t mean clean; illicit isn’t always dirty, Los Angeles Times, December 19, 2024

Contaminated weed in you, Los Angeles Times, June 14, 2024

How dirty is your weed? A joint investigation finds high levels of pesticides in products, Los Angeles Times, WeedWeek, June 14, 2024

California recalls cannabis vape many months after it was told of contamination, Los Angeles Times, June 26, 2024

Consumers Left High and Dry: Public Health Issues Persist with Cannabis Products and Production Practices, Beyond Pesticides Daily News, February 7, 2024

Pushing for Organic Cannabis as Industry Grows, Beyond Pesticides, Pesticides and You, Winter 2018-2019

Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options, Beyond Pesticides, Pesticides and You, Winter 2014-2015

Into the Weeds: Regulating Pesticides in Cannabis, Environmental Health Perspectives, April 25, 2019

(Beyond Pesticides, February 5, 2025) A study in PLOS One finds acute and chronic impacts of nontarget toxicity on the American burying beetle, Nicrophorus americanus, with neonicotinoid insecticide exposure. In assessing environmentally relevant concentrations of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid with N. americanus, the researchers note both mortality and behavioral effects that leave the species at high risk of predation. These effects mean the American burying beetle “may be at greater risk to insecticide exposure than previously thought and vulnerable to episodic, low-dose neonicotinoid exposure,” the authors say. This data sheds important light on a species that has been listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as threatened.

Burying beetles provide important ecosystem services within the environment such as “burying carrion, increasing available nutrients in soil, and expediting carrion decomposition, while acting as a food source for secondary consumers,” the researchers state. (See more on ecosystem services and beneficial insects here, here, and here.) The N. americanus species are habitat generalists and can be found in grasslands, wet meadows, and forested areas that neighbor agricultural lands and introduce the beetles to pesticide drift and soil residues.

While acute and chronic effects vary in duration and severity, pesticide exposure resulting in both of these “cause[s] negative impacts on beneficial terrestrial insect taxa,” the researchers state. They continue, “Beyond mortality, behavioral indicators of toxicity are often better suited to assess sublethal effects of residual concentrations in the environment.”

An assessment of low levels of imidacloprid in N. americanus shows how “sublethal levels can result in a wide range of detrimental behavioral effects at the population-level, which may increase mortality from predation in natural settings. Behaviors associated with feeding, predator avoidance, mobility, sensory perception, and navigation are among the most affected by neurotoxic compounds, as they are linked to insect neurophysiology and biochemistry.”

While various other studies (see here, here, and here for examples) document behavioral effects in insect species with neonicotinoid exposure, the authors find that “few studies report the impacts of neonicotinoids, both lethal and sublethal endpoints, on nontarget beetle taxa.” This study is novel in that it provides the first neonicotinoid toxicity data for a species of burying beetles that are currently inadequately protected in North America.

The authors state: “Prior to N. americanus being listed as an endangered species, researchers suggested that the widespread use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) may have initially contributed to steep population declines. Since then, few studies have discussed or even considered the toxicity of specific insecticide active ingredients to N. americanus.”

Studying the impacts of this pesticide exposure on various species is vital, as taxa-specific sensitivity can occur. This has been documented in bee species (see Daily News coverage here), as well as in a previous beetle study with imidacloprid. In the study, soldier beetles are documented as being ten times more sensitive to neonicotinoids than ladybird beetles. This highlights an important deficiency in current risk assessments, as model species used do not represent all species that can experience nontarget pesticide exposure. See more on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failures here, here, here, here, and here.

The researchers report: “Once common across eastern North America, N. americanus distribution has reduced by more than 90%, remaining in only six states with the largest populations concentrated in Oklahoma and Nebraska. [USFWS] first listed N. americanus as an endangered species in 1989; however, the USFWS recently reclassified N. americanus as threatened in 2020, citing a diminished threat of extinction in its current range.”

They continue: “Current and historical causes of N. americanus decline include habitat loss to agricultural and urban development, changes in the availability of carrion resources (birds and small mammals), light pollution, and pesticide use… However, concurrent risks of nontarget pesticide exposure to N. americanus were not included in the Species Status Assessment.” This led the authors to design a study assessing neonicotinoid exposure in the American burying beetle.

The study itself uses four nominal concentrations including a control group and groups exposed to 60, 120, and 240 ng/µL solutions of imidacloprid. The treatment groups are subjected to either single LD10 doses or repeated LD10 doses (two separate LD10 doses 48 hours apart). As a result, the researchers find both effects of mortality and behavioral impairments in N. americanus beetles.

“Over a ten-day period of monitoring, N. americanus experienced 30% mortality after a single exposure to the nominal LD10 and repeated exposure caused an increase to 50% mortality, supporting time-cumulative toxicity of this class of insecticides,” the authors report. They continue, “Beyond mortality, our data demonstrate significant behavioral alterations after a single and repeated LD10 application of imidacloprid, which may put N. americanus at greater risk of starvation, desiccation, or predation.”

In noting erratic movement after low level imidacloprid exposure, the researchers highlight how behavioral responses are key factors that should be considered with environmental risk assessments. “Behavior is fundamentally linked to individual fitness, which may influence population level effects, and is a sensitive indicator of pesticide exposure,” they state. “In the present study, behavioral responses of imidacloprid-exposed beetles were significantly different from the controls, with a single LD10 dose prompting greater distance traveled and at greater velocity than repeated LD10 doses,” the authors summarize.

Neonicotinoid insecticides are broad-spectrum pesticides that “represent the largest market share of any insecticide class at 27% worldwide with at least 140 crop uses,” the researchers note. “Specifically, neonicotinoid-coated seed treatments are the most widely adopted crop protection strategy, especially for common field crops. However, it is estimated that greater than 90% of the neonicotinoid active ingredient applied could move from the site of application via runoff and/or particulate matter.”

With neonicotinoids being transported in runoff and persisting in soil, this subjects nontarget organisms, such as the American burying beetle, to sublethal effects and mortality. According to the authors, “Depending on the soil characteristics and light exposure, neonicotinoid active ingredients can bind and persist in soil for months or years, potentially leading to incidental soil contact and soil-water ingestion by burying beetles.” (See studies here and here.)

As the researchers conclude, “Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA], the US EPA is responsible for ensuring that registered pesticide use does not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, including listed species and their critical habitats; however, the US EPA has yet to meet the Endangered Species Act criteria for over 95% of all registered pesticides.” EPA must be required to properly assess all current and future pesticides for not only impacts on beneficial species that provide ecosystem services but all wildlife.

To ensure that EPA stands up to the standards of FIFRA and protects health and the environment, participate in the “EPA Must Review Complete Data for All Pesticides” Action of the Week before February 10. Additionally, a better solution to toxic chemicals exists with organic land management and also needs to be considered in these risk assessments. The holistic approach with organic practices provides a healthy alternative to the detrimental effects of chemicals that pollute the environment and all organisms within it.

Protecting all beneficial species, including pollinators, from pesticides is crucial to agricultural and economic productivity, as well as food security. Take action to advance organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies and be part of the organic solution by becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides today.

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

Source:

Cavallaro, M. et al. (2025) Neonicotinoid exposure causes behavioral impairment and delayed mortality of the federally threatened American burying beetle, Nicrophorus americanus, PLOS One. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0314243.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 4, 2024) Adopting a fully organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in urine within just two weeks “by an average of 98.6%” and facilitate faster DNA damage repair relative to a diet of food grown with chemical-intensive practices, according to findings from a randomized clinical trial published in Nutrire. The authors explain that their finding “is likely due to two main factors: the presence of compounds characteristic of [an organic] diet, which may have high levels of antioxidants that can protect DNA and also induce DNA repair [], and the absence or decrease in the incidence of pesticides in this type of diet, which are recognized for their genotoxic effects and have the ability to affect the genetic repair system of organisms [].”

Public health professionals and affected families continue to sound the alarm on the unprecedented rates of chronic illnesses, many linked to pesticide exposure, as well as the urgency in developing solutions that acknowledge the connection to policies governing agriculture, nutrition policies, and public health.

Background and Methodology

The purpose of this study is to identify any relationships in health effects of chemical-intensive versus organic diets in a two week-period. More specifically, the authors say the purpose of the research is “to determine the content and concentration of insecticides, hepatic and protein indicators in the urine; analyze the genetic damage; and evaluate DNA repair capacities in the blood of persons who ate conventional diet compared to persons who ate organic diet.”

The study was conducted by a multidisciplinary team of researchers at the Federal University of Rio Grande in Rio Grande, Brazil. There were no competing interests declared from the authors, and they received funding support to carry out this study from the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (also known as CAPES Foundation) and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development.

This study is a double blind randomized controlled trial, meaning that neither the researchers nor the participants knew who was going to be assigned to each group, minimizing bias. The 14-day-study took place at the University in a location of the city “far from pesticide applications.” All participants were university students between 18- and 40-years-old and without chronic or non-communicable diseases or autoimmune diseases. Individuals who were breastfeeding, pregnant, or smoking/alcohol abuse habitats were excluded. Initially, each participant took part in a “7-day washout period” before the trial began, so both groups received the identical diet of food grown with chemical-intensive (conventional) practices. The conventional group consisted of 25 individuals, while the organic group consisted of 24 individuals. All food for the organic group was sourced from companies with organic certification, with fruit and vegetables sourced from certified local farmers. For both conventional and organic, main meals (lunch and dinner) were prepared by university staff and additional snacks/beverages were provided as requested by participants.

Blood and urine samples were gathered on the first day before the first meal and the fifteenth day of the study to assess potential differences in DNA damage [a comet assay measuring damage and repair markers at the microscopic level], which is the study’s metric for determining the extent to which organic or conventional diets can impact human health. The research identified 24 pesticides across all 49 participants in this study. See Table 2 (page 6 of 11) for more information on the insecticide classes and levels found both pre- and post-intervention.

Results and Main Findings

The authors conclude: “[A]n average reduction of 98.6% in pesticide levels was observed for the organic diet, while the average reduction for the conventional diet was 66.2%. Out of the 24 insecticides detected in the organic group, only three were found after the intervention (aldrin , fipronil, and mirex), while in the conventional group, the detected metabolites after the intervention were Phenothrin-1 and Phenothrin-2.” The researchers continue, “The levels of pyrethroid insecticides decreased from 4.6 µg/L to non-detectable levels in the organic group and increased from 0.18 to 0.34 µg/L in the conventional group.”

Advocates are concerned by these results given the persistence of banned pesticides, particularly organochlorine insecticides that take significantly longer to break down and offer chances to bioaccumulate, in the environment. For example, a 2021 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that long-term exposure to aldrin has been found to lead to increased risk of developing monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) (blood disease) that likely precedes multiple myeloma (blood cancer). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned mirex in 1978 due to possible links to cancer, based on findings at the time from various animal studies linking to cancer and the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) designation of mirex as a probable carcinogen. (See here for the original EPA Health Effects Statement for further breakdown.) Fipronil is not a banned pesticide; in fact, it is one of the most commonly used insecticides used both indoors and in outdoor land management. (See here for Daily News on ecosystem impacts of fipronil.)

Those who followed the organic diet had a “higher percentage of DNA damage repair” after the two-week intervention. “In our study, the organic diet showed a significant increase in both DNA damage repair capacities () compared to the conventional diet, with a significant increase in base excision repair mechanism [the process of DNA glycosylase acting like genetic decomposers to cut and remove damaged lesions] (Table 4).”

There is a growing body of literature (see here, here, and here) that demonstrates the restorative properties of an organic diet.

Existing Research

Medical researchers have documented the linkages of toxic pesticide exposure and various adverse health effects. A 2023 study published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology builds on existing research (here, here, and here) finding that long-term exposure to glyphosate can promote the occurrence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) through diet by causing liver inflammation and oxidative stress. Advocates continue to question the siloed approach of the food regulatory system given the findings of this 2023 study, in which the authors confirm that NAFLD occurred at levels within toxicological limits, which are doses of glyphosate classified as causing no adverse effects or No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). Glyphosate’s impact on the gut microbiome has been the focus of investigation in several studies (Covered in Daily News here, here, here, and here), finding that it can disrupt healthy gut bacteria, lead to underlying immunological suppression due to its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, among other adverse neuroendocrinological impacts.

None of this surprises advocates, given the years of information from U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary on pesticide residue data in the U.S. supply chain which show pesticide exposure through the food supply. A review of seven years of PDP data show that 20% of the foods tested pose a “high risk” to the public and 12 specific commodities are so dangerous that children or pregnant people should not eat more than one serving per day, according to Consumer Reports analysis. (See Daily News here.)

The rise in these adverse health effects do not exclusively pertain to glyphosate. In fact, there are many studies linking other chemicals and chemical mixtures playing a significant role in elevating avenues for risk. These health risks include potentially neurotoxic impacts and neurodevelopmental delay of children exposed pre- and postnatally to pyrethroid insecticides (see Daily News here), as well as long-term exposure to organophosphorus pesticides as a disruptor for the human gut microbiome (see Daily News here).

A 2019 study published in Environmental Health finds that pesticide+ residues are found four times as frequently in conventionally grown food as in organically produced counterparts. A separate study published in 2023 in Scientific Reports finds that plant-based diets might increase pesticide residue exposure compared to meat-heavy diets, finding that a plant-based diet that is nutritionally equivalent to a conventional omnivore diet may increase the risk of pesticide residue exposure. The study finds that a plant-based diet leads to an increase in consumption of dried fruit, legumes, soy, whole grains, vegetables, and oil, which–while nutritionally adequate–corresponds with an increase in pesticide residue exposure since fruits, vegetables, legumes, and cereals exhibit the highest levels of pesticide residues. Pesticides of concern that were identified and test for in these studies include neonicotinoids, organophosphates, pyrethroids, and 2,4-D.

In spite of the challenges that lay ahead, advocates remain optimistic given mounting research on the kaleidoscope of benefits of an organic diet. A 2023 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives finds urinary levels of glyphosate significantly decrease through an organic diet for pregnant individuals living further than 0.5km (~1640ft) from an agricultural field. However, the study finds that adopting an organic diet among pregnant individuals living closer than 0.5km to an agricultural area does not significantly decrease glyphosate levels, indicating alternative sources of contamination outside of diet. A 2020 study published in Environmental Research finds that glyphosate levels can be reduced by up 70% after just one week into a fully organic diet.

Take Action

Parents, physicians, and community members are relieved to know that shifting to an organic diet not only has been found to dramatically reduce pesticide residue levels in your body, but also supports your body’s genetic healing process. Consumers should not face the brunt of paying the price premium that comes with purchasing certified organic or regenerative organic products just to avoid poisoning themselves with potentially harmful residues.

See here to learn more about the health benefits of organic agriculture and criteria for land management systems. See here for a recent Action of the Week to tell U.S. EPA to completely review data for all registered pesticides. The deadline to submit a comment is February 10^th at 11:59pm Eastern.

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

Source: Nutrire

(Beyond Pesticides, February 3, 2025) As a result of executive orders on January 20, 2025 and subsequent actions by the Trump administration, the public airwaves have been flooded with presidential proclamations, some of which have been subject to legal action and outrage. While the president has issued dozens of executive orders dismantling programs—from the environment to foreign aid, the impact of the orders on the functioning of an independent government workforce has been raised by those targeted.

On January 29, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) filed a lawsuit that “asserts that President Trump illegally exceeded his authority in attempting to unilaterally roll back a regulation that protects the rights of civil servants,” according to an AFGE press release. The release continues, “The suit also names the Office of Personnel Management for its role in failing to adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act in its attempts to roll back this same regulation.” According to AFGE National President Everett Kelley, “AFGE is filing suit with our partner union today to protect the integrity of the American people’s government,”

On January 27, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair and Commissioner Charlotte Burrows, having served since 2015 and confirmed through July 2028, along with a colleague, was fired by the president. Her attorney, Lisa Banks, said, “Removing Commissioner Burrows from her position, a full three and half years before the expiration of her term at the EEOC, is just the latest political attack we have seen from President Donald Trump in his coordinated effort to strip-mine the federal government. His efforts will not only significantly weaken the functioning of the EEOC—an independent agency dedicated to equal opportunity for all employees—it will weaken the civil rights protections afforded American workers in workplaces across the country.”

It has long been accepted that independent oversight of government decisions is essential to the integrity and credibility of those decisions. However, President Trump summarily fired at least 17 Inspectors General (IGs) on January 24 across 18 agencies—eliminating, at least for some critical time period, independent oversight of all agency decisions in the new administration. An IG acts independently of the agency head to investigate corruption, fraud, and abuse in the agency and report to Congress. As The Washington Post used to but no longer displays on its masthead, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” (See Jurist News.)

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

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

It has been reported that Phyllis Fong, the U.S. Department of Agriculture IG for 22 years, had to be escorted from her office by security after saying that her firing does not follow comply with the law. Hannibal Ware, chairperson of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, said, “Congress specifically established the authorities and structure of the IGs to safeguard their vital oversight role, by mandating independence under the IG Act. Removals inconsistent with the law are a significant threat to the actual and perceived independence of IGs.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 31, 2025) A recent cross-sectional study in Heliyon highlights the link between sleep disorders in Thai farmers and pesticide exposure. The authors find pesticide exposure as an important risk factor for sleep disorders after surveying 27,334 farmers over the age of 20 who had work experience for at least five years.

The importance of sleep health is reflected both physically and mentally, as studies find “sleep deficiency increase[s] mortality and various health complications, including hypertension, obesity and type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, mood disorders, and neurodegenerative disorder.” Additional studies find that these issues are compounded when sleep health is affected by environmental factors such as pesticide exposure. (See previous Beyond Pesticides’ coverage here and here.)

The researchers report: “The study found a positive association of 19 individual pesticides (twelve insecticides, two herbicides, and five fungicides). Some associations demonstrated a dose-response pattern. Additionally, the study revealed that women are at a higher risk of sleep-related issues with pesticide exposure compared to males. These results not only substantiate existing literature but also unveil several new individual pesticides that may impact sleep health.”

Focusing on study participants in Thailand, which is “characterized by heavy pesticide use and minimal protective measures, presents unique exposure circumstances that offer an opportunity to study the effects of pesticides,” the authors note. The farmers live in the three provinces in the north of Thailand that are the largest in terms of agricultural area, population, and pesticide use. Thai agriculture, according to the researchers, “accounts for about thirty percent of the workforce, [and] depends heavily on pesticides to control of weeds, insects, and fungi.” This places farmers and farmworkers with an elevated risk to the toxic effects of pesticides.

Within the study, consent forms and questionnaires were given to the randomly selected participants between October 2020 and February 2021. The questions were originally developed under the Agricultural Health Study from the U.S. and have been used in many cross-sectional studies. Historical pesticide exposure was assessed and the participants were placed into two groups for each pesticide of exposed and unexposed. 38 individual pesticides are included in the study, falling into several categories. The authors share that this encompasses “seven organochlorine pesticides, eight organophosphates, four carbamates, three other insecticides, seven herbicides, and nine fungicides. These pesticides were chosen based on findings from previous studies that indicated a connection to sleep health and their common usage in Thailand.”

The reported pesticide exposure was compared to sleep disorder diagnoses, as confirmed with hospital records. “In this study, sleep disorder (F51) refers to a group of diseases including insomnia (F510), hypersomnia (F511), disorders of the sleep-wake cycle (F512), sleepwalking (F513), night terrors/sleep terrors (F514), nightmares (F515), and other sleep disorders (F518, F519).”

The study results show that there is a significant association with sleep disorders for insecticide exposure between 116.1–442.5 days. A higher risk with fungicide and molluscicides exposure is noted with any use between 1.2–9030.0 days. The researchers report: “For individual pesticides, significant associations were observed in 19 out of 38 individual pesticides. There were twelve insecticides, including three organochlorine insecticides (chlorpyrifos, chlordane, dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane [DDT]), five organophosphates (ethyl p-nitrophenyl phenylphosphorothioate [EPN], folidol, methamidophos, mevinphos, profenofos), three carbamates (carbaryl, carbofuran, methomyl), and imidacloprid.”

Overall, the study shows that the female group displays higher associations with sleep disorders. Significant associations are also noted for “two herbicides (diuron and paraquat) and five fungicides (benomyl, Bordeaux mixture, carbendazim, copper sulphate, metalaxyl). The association for some chemicals, e.g., chlorpyrifos, DDT, endosulfan, carbosulfan were in a dose-response pattern.”

The authors summarize these results, saying: “This study revealed a significant connection between historical pesticide use and sleep disorders. Remarkably, this association persisted even after adjusting for demographic variations and potential confounding from exposure to other pesticides.”

Notable research on sleep health that the authors reference include:

• “A recent study in Almeria reported a higher risk of insomnia among farmers who did not wear gloves or masks when using pesticides.”
• “Results from a well-designed follow up study among mother-adolescent pairs found sleep health of adolescents could be linked to pesticide exposure during pregnancy.” This study also “reported 3-PBA, a pyrethroid insecticide, to associate with insufficient sleep and trouble sleeping.”
• “In an Agriculture Health Study in the US, a study found pesticide exposure to associate with dream-enacting behaviors or parasomnia. This finding was consistent with a previous US study which reported pesticides used at home could be associated with insufficient sleep and trouble sleeping among adults.” See studies here and here.
• “A study from Uganda reported acute pesticide exposure to increase risk of sleep problems, sleep inadequacy and snoring.” This study also finds the “fungicide mancozeb and herbicide glyphosate to increase risk of sleep problems” and a higher risk of sleep disorders among females.
• “In China, a study found greenhouse farmer with high cumulative pesticide exposure to have a short sleep duration, poor sleep quality, and difficulty sleeping.”
• “Pesticides influence the acetylcholine, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and serotonin pathways, which are critical for sleep regulation. Disruption of these pathways may result in sleep disturbances by impairing the normal sleep-wake cycle.” See study here.
• “Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including specific herbicides and fungicides, may modify hormone levels (e.g., melatonin, cortisol) that play a direct role in regulating circadian rhythms and sleep patterns.”
• “Research indicates that pesticides may stimulate the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and inflammatory cytokines, potentially affecting brain regions involved in sleep regulation, including the hypothalamus.”
• “Previous studies also found a higher sleep problem among those exposed to organophosphate ester, carbamate insecticide as a group, and carbofuran.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)
• “In animal studies, researchers found that paraquat increases oxidative stress, a condition that can decrease the length of the sleep-wake cycle and disrupt sleep consolidation.”

Despite the Heliyon study not considering other potential risk factors for sleep disorders, such as body mass index (BMI), chronic disease, stress, or other psychological issues, this is a novel study that supports existing research linking pesticide exposure to sleep disorders. “A notable strength of this study lies in its collection of exposure information for various pesticides, coupled with the use of medically diagnosed diseases confirmed by ICD-10 [a medical classification list by the World Health Organization (WHO)], which is considered more accurate than relying on self-reported outcomes. The results provide valuable insights into the effects on sleep health in a developing country like Thailand, where pesticides are extensively used with minimal exposure prevention,” the researchers state.

The authors continue: “This study serves as a robust comparison group for results from studies conducted in other parts of the world. The impact of pesticides on sleep health deserves increased attention, considering that sleep deficits might be an underlying cause of various health problems and compromise the overall well-being of individuals. This significance is heightened by the widespread use of pesticides as chemicals.”

In finding an association between occupational pesticide exposure and sleep disorders, this research contributes to the wide body of science highlighting the threats of pesticides to human health. In order to protect the health of humans and all organisms within the environment, organic land management practices are needed.

Organic agriculture provides a holistic solution that not only protects farmers and farmworkers, who are at disproportionate risk, but all organisms who are exposed to toxic chemicals through oral, dermal, and inhalation routes. To learn more about the benefits of organic, see here and here. For information about specific pesticides and alternatives, visit the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management. Take action and have your voice heard by participating in the Action of the Week, where you can weigh in 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.

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

Source:

Juntarawijit, C. et al. (2025) Pesticide exposure and sleep disorder: A cross-sectional study among Thai farmers, Heliyon. Available at: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(24)17154-X.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 30, 2025) A research article in Biology Letters, published by The Royal Society, finds that the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid disrupts survival and reproductive patterns in Bombus impatiens bumblebees. The study adds to the wide body of science highlighting how exposure to pesticides “can result in immediate mortality or cause long-term detrimental effects on pollinators‘ health, lifespan and reproductive success,” the authors state.

The researchers performed two experiments to assess the effects of various concentrations of imidacloprid, one of which focuses on bees during diapause, a period of dormancy. “Wild bees, which provide the majority of pollination services worldwide, undergo an annual life cycle that includes a winter diapause, that can span over 75% of their life cycle and during which their metabolism, growth and development are halted,” the authors note. They continue: “The time spent in diapause can have lasting effects on pollinator fitness and their ability to establish nests or colonies in the following spring. This period is especially critical for social bee colonies, which are founded by a single queen after diapause and play a vital role in large-scale pollination.”

Exposure to pesticides during diapause can occur while bee species overwinter in contaminated soils. In the U.S., many pesticides are highly water-soluble and are found in many nontarget plants, such as in the pollen, nectar, and soil that bee species encounter. (See additional coverage on soil pesticide residues here, here, and here.) “Diapause is a critical period in the life cycle of most bees with profound effects on their health. Exposure to sublethal doses of pesticides may increase bees’ resistance to stress/cold during diapause but may also trade off with reduced reproductive performance later in life,” the researchers state.

They continue: “Bumblebees are annual and social pollinators of great importance to pollination of agricultural and wild crops. A single queen starts a nest in the spring and can produce up to several hundreds of workers at the peak of the season. Towards the end of the summer, the colony produces sexuals [drones and worker bees], and only the new queens (gynes) survive the winter by entering a diapause of six to nine months following mating.”

In this study, the authors assess hormesis in bumblebees with imidacloprid exposure. Hormesis is “a general adaptive response characterized by low-dose stimulation and high-dose inhibition, where overcompensation or stimulation occurs after homeostasis is disrupted,” they denote. By feeding bees different concentrations of imidacloprid and examining “(i) the effect of imidacloprid on longevity and reproduction of gynes, males and workers and (ii) how imidacloprid exposure affects gynes’ diapause survival length,” the researchers find hormetic stress responses in Bombus impatiens.

Twelve colonies of bees were used in the first experiment while six colonies were used in the second experiment. Within the first experiment, the control groups were not subjected to any pesticides, while the treatment groups were fed concentrations of either 6, 60, 150, 300, or 600 ppb of imidacloprid. “These concentrations were chosen to cover both field-realistic and LD50 [lethal] doses of imidacloprid shown to cause mortality within days in other species of bees,” the researchers report. Mortality and the total number of offspring produced were recorded until all bees died.

In the second experiment, gynes (new queens) were collected and “provided pesticide-free sugar solution for the first 3 days, then divided into treatment groups and received either 0, 6 or 60 ppb imidacloprid during days 3-6 after emergence [and] [g]ynes were then weighed and placed in cold storage” and checked weekly for survival until all died. This experiment represents the process of diapause.

As a result, the authors note that imidacloprid treatments higher than 150 ppb reduce survival in gynes, workers, and males. The number of offspring produced was also highest in the control group, showing that even low concentrations of imidacloprid, such as the field-realistic doses of 6 and 60 ppb, can impact reproduction.

In summarizing these results, the authors state: “As anticipated, bee longevity and reproductive performance declined with increasing concentrations of imidacloprid. However, when gynes were exposed to sublethal concentrations and subsequently entered diapause, their survival was greater compared with the control, demonstrating a classic hormetic response. Notably, a recent study showed that bumblebee gynes actively seek out pesticide-contaminated soil, potentially indicating an adaptive strategy to enhance their fitness.”

Similar to previous study results, within the second experiment there was a higher proportion of gynes that survived diapause in the treatment groups versus the control group. This reflects hormetic responses that allow organisms to survive unfavorable conditions. The researchers postulate that a “mechanism linking pesticide exposure to greater diapause survival involves its effects on thermal tolerance and metabolism, possibly enhancing cold resistance at the cost of reduced reproductive performance later in life… Pesticides are known to affect the expression of heat shock proteins [HSPs], and several studies have shown that pesticide exposure alters heat or cold tolerance… Sublethal pesticide exposure often impairs reproduction even without increasing mortality, suggesting a trade-off between detoxification and reproduction.”

Studies show that HSPs “act to protect organisms from various environmental stressors such as heat, cold, desiccation, toxins, pathogens, and others. In this regard, levels of transcripts and translated proteins encoded by HSP genes can be used as biomarkers to monitor cellular and physiological responses to various environmental stimuli.” Another study finds hormetic responses in insects along with an increased expression of detoxification genes, allowing insects to withstand higher levels of pesticides.

Hormetic responses to stressors such as pesticides have been documented to enhance performance in some areas but may reduce the fitness of the next generation. While additional research is needed to determine the full consequences of their enhanced detoxification abilities, studies do show that there is a cost for the hormetic stress responses including decreased reproduction in future generations. (See more on multigenerational effects here.)

One study finds that “Osmia bees exposed to anoxia hormesis exhibit improved flight, mating and longevity compared with controls, yet their offspring experience developmental delays and incomplete adult emergence.” Another study finds that: “exposure to neonicotinoids affected Osmia females and reduced the reproduction of their offspring, even when the offspring were raised in a pesticide-free environment. This highlights the complex, diverse and long-lasting effects of pesticides on pollinators and the potential stimulatory effect they may have in addition to their harmful effects.”

Pollinators provide ecosystem services and are essential for food security but face threats from habitat loss, pesticide exposure, climate change, and many other factors. One of the largest chemical threats is from neonicotinoids. “Although their use in Europe has been banned or restricted, they are still very popular in the United States, with 24% of the global insecticide market. On top of that, they are highly soluble in water, persist in the soil and of a particular danger to diapausing bees,” the authors note.

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

The researchers conclude that: “[T]he accumulation of pesticide residues in soil is frequently overlooked in standard assessments, leading to incomplete evaluations of pesticide safety. To fully understand the impact of pesticides on pollinators, it is essential to assess their effects across all life stages and account for the varying vulnerabilities throughout the insect life cycle… Not accounting for these hormetic effects can skew survival tests, causing underestimations of the risks neonicotinoids pose to beneficial pollinators. Additionally, without a thorough understanding of the latent effects of pesticides and the trade-offs between diapause survival and post-diapause performance, the full extent of the problem remains unclear, potentially undermining conservation efforts and agricultural policies. This is particularly critical for social bees, such as bumblebees, whose populations depend heavily on the successful emergence of individuals from diapause.”

As an alternative to harmful petrochemical pesticides, crop production practices can consider pollinator preservation, which in turn protects food security and biodiversity, by employing organic land management strategies. Organic agriculture is the solution that not only eliminates exposure to toxic synthetic pesticides for pollinators but also supports soil health and the health of all organisms, including humans.

In previous coverage, Beyond Pesticides reports how researchers find that organic farming provides the highest benefit to bees, as organic practices lead directly to lower parasite load and higher colony growth. See more on the benefits of organic land management here and make The Safer Choice to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides.

Image: Art Page submission from Marion Yaglinski, “Bumblebee on Oriental Chives.”

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

Source:

Amsalem, E., Derstine, N. and Murray, C. (2025) Hormetic response to pesticides in diapausing bees, Biology Letters. Available at: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2024.0612.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 29, 2025) A team of researchers recently discovered the benefits of using natural biofertilizers and biostimulants in the production of tomatoes, the results of a two-year study featured in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. When the researchers added a biofertilizer consisting of fungi and bacteria, and/or a biostimulant made of algae, the tomato plants grew bigger, faster, and produced significantly more (and sweeter) fruit than plants that received neither treatment. This research, published in August 2024, adds to a growing body of evidence that non-synthetic, natural fertilizer alternatives can support a global transition away from the toxic chemical treadmill of modern commercial farming. 

[A note about the definition of plant biostimulants. They are substances or microorganisms that enhance natural plant processes, improving resource efficiency, stress tolerance, and overall growth without directly providing nutrients or controlling pests. There is ongoing confusion regarding a lack of a set definition, as some biostimulants overlap in function with fertilizers or biocontrol agents. The definition of biofertilizers—also referred to as inoculants, bioinoculants, or bioformulations—are products containing beneficial microorganisms in active or inactive forms. These microorganisms, applied singly or in combination, colonize the rhizosphere or plant tissues to enhance nutrient availability (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) and uptake, ultimately improving plant growth and crop productivity. See here and here]. 

Also known as “plant growth-promoting microorganisms” (PGPM), microbial biofertilizers consist of naturally occurring soil microorganisms, such as rhizobacteria and fungi. By forming symbiotic relationships with a plant’s root system, previous studies have shown that they can enhance plant growth and increase a plant’s tolerance for stressors such as drought and disease, which could serve as an entry towards transitioning to organic agricultural practices worldwide.

As Emanuele Radicetti, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Ferrara, Italy, explains, “There is an urgent need to develop sustainable agroecosystems that can ensure sufficient crop yield over a long-term period. Biofertilisers are gradually emerging as a promising, nature-based alternative that reduces agroecosystem inputs by enhancing organism interactions.”

Methods and materials

The study, “Impact of sustainable agronomic practices for the improvement of agricultural production,” investigates the effects of plant growth-promoting microorganisms (PGPMs) and algae-based biostimulants on the growth and yield of tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in organic farming systems. The experiment was conducted on an organic farm in Ferrara, Italy, over the 2022 and 2023 growing seasons. The researchers hypothesized that the combined application of plant growth-promoting microorganisms (PGPMs) and algae-based biostimulants could improve organic tomato production in organic production (which uses no synthetic fertilizer or pesticides). This study adds to the growing evidence that organic food production practices can be optimized for higher yield, growth, and quality without petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.  The study objectives were threefold:

1. Evaluate the effects of PGPMs on plantlet establishment under field conditions;
2. Assess the impact of combined PGPM and algae-based biostimulant application on tomato growth; and,
3. Investigate how the integrated use of PGPMs and algae-based biostimulants affects tomato yield and fruit quality.

The two treatments of microbial biofertilizers and one biostimulant are

• Microbial biofertilizer PGPM_1 (MICOSAT F®) contains mycorrhizal fungi (Glomus spp.), Trichoderma spp., Agrobacterium radiobacter, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Pochonia chlamydosporia, Trichoderma harzianum, Streptomyces spp., and Pichia pastor, produced by CCS Centro Colture Sperimentali, Aosta, Italy.
• Microbial biofertilizer PGPM_2 (MYCOUP) contains Glomus iranicum var. tenuihypharum (1%) and rhizosphere bacteria, produced by BIOGARD Division, Bergamo, Italy.
• Algae-based biosimulant was derived from spent low-salinity BG11 medium used to cultivate the green microalga Neochloris oleoabundans UTEX 1195, produced by the University of Ferrara botanical lab, applied at a concentration of 0.5% and 1.0%.

Treatment applications

Microbial Biofertilizers: Applied at transplanting, with PGPM-1 at 10 kg/ha and PGPM-2 at 3 kg/ha, delivered via drip irrigation five days after transplanting. In addition, no inoculated tomato plants were cultivated as control group (No_PGPM).

Algae-Based Biostimulants: Foliar applications were made at 15 and 30 days post-transplant, using 0.5% and 1% concentrations. Control plants did not receive any biostimulants (No_Biost).

Control group details

The control groups for both microbial biofertilizers (No_PGPM) and biostimulants (No_Biost) are essential for establishing baseline comparisons, and the experiment design allows testing of two concentrations of biostimulants alone, PGPM formulations alone, and in combination with biostimulants against a control with no biofertilizer (PGPM) or biostimulant used.

Organic farm site description

The experiment was conducted at the organic F.lli Baretta farm in Ferrara, Italy. The site features a mild thermos-Mediterranean climate with an average annual rainfall of 617 mm. The soil conditions are suitable for organic agriculture (most recently for organic wheat production). Soil properties include:

34.4% sand, 49.0% silt, and 16.6% clay, pH of 7.8. 1.13% organic matter. 1.29% total nitrogen.

Results and improved impacts on yield and quality

PGPMs contribute to improved fruit size and sugar content. Biostimulants enhance fruit color and lycopene levels. The combination of treatments significantly increases marketable fruit yield, minimizes unmarketable produce, and elevates overall fruit quality. The control treatment (No_PGPM + No_Biost) provides a baseline for tomato production without any amendments. These control plots exhibit the lowest growth and yield metrics.  

Natural biostimulants developed from algae are also being developed for use in organic agriculture. Easily applied as a foliar spray, biostimulants provide the natural compounds necessary for plant growth and, in comparison with conventional agricultural products, are not only environmentally friendly but more cost-effective. “Algae extracts are considered a rich source of plant biostimulants and provide a renewable option for improving crop quality and yield,” explained Dr. Radicetti. “Even at low doses they have the capacity to support plant development, especially under stressed conditions, which are becoming more frequent with climate change.”

The results of the study, stunning the researchers, demonstrate a significant increase in plant health and fruit yields; 30 days after transplanting the samples, seedlings treated with biofertilizer exhibited higher fresh and dried biomass, more and bigger leaves, longer and denser roots, and increased height compared to the control group. Plants treated with the highest concentration of the algae biostimulant and/or one of the two tested biofertilizers produced the greatest yield of fruit and the greatest number of marketable tomatoes averaging 63-67 tons per hectare. Conversely, the least amount of marketable fruit came from the control plants that received neither biostimulant nor biofertilizer: 26 tons of fruit per hectare. Plants dosed with the 0.5% concentration offered an intermediate yield of 42-46 tons per hectare.

Organic fertilizers have been used throughout the history of agriculture and, adding to the body of science, this research indicates that highly effective organic alternatives to petrochemical synthetic fertilizers conceivably could be relied used effectively on a massive scale. In the words of Dr. Radicetti, “There is an urgent need to develop sustainable agroecosystems that can ensure sufficient crop yield over a long-term period… Biofertilizers are gradually emerging as a promising, nature-based alternative that reduces agroecosystem inputs by enhancing organism interactions.” These “fertilizers” feed the biological life in the soil, and do not directly feed the plants.

Commercial industry falls short 

The global soil health industry, valued in the billions, has seen rapid expansion as farmers and gardeners seek eco-friendly solutions to enhance crop yields and soil sustainability, such as the PGPM biofertilizers featured above. However, recent reporting by Harvest Public Media illustrates that certain commercial PGPM products fall short of their promises. As noted by Celia Llopis-Jepsen, a reporter with the Kansas News Service and the creator and host of the environmental podcast “Up From Dust,” most biofertilizers and related products are not subject to mandatory independent testing or even thorough self-regulation in the U.S. As a result, their potential benefits, well-documented in scientific research, often fail to translate into reliable commercial applications. Adopting a structure similar to the Organic Food Production Act and the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) could provide a solution, as this framework has been effective in supporting the integrity of the U.S.-certified organic food sector by incorporating independent third-party inspections, transparent decision-making process open to public comment, and a system for continuous improvement, including review of approved inputs and products.

Such a system for plant growth-promoting products would help ensure that their scientific potential is fully realized in practice. Without these measures, the benefits promised by biofertilizers and other PGPMs may remain underutilized, leaving farmers and consumers with fewer dependable, environmentally sustainable options. See a recent article for a meta-analysis of globally sourced commercial mycorrhizal inoculants.

The appeal of soil microbes amid concerns over synthetic fertilizers

The growing interest in soil microbiomes is driven in part by dissatisfaction with synthetic fertilizers, which, while boosting yields, have caused environmental harm, including groundwater contamination and the expansion of the Gulf of Mexico’s “dead zone.” As Beyond Pesticides has reported, synthetic fertilizers cause demonstrated environmental harm, negative climate impacts, decreased soil carbon sequestration, and devastating harm to farmers.  As Harvest Public Media reports, many growers are turning to microbial products, drawn by their potential to enhance soil health and reduce dependency on chemical inputs.

Some commercial synthetic fertilizer products, including from The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, allegedly mislead consumers on the hazardous nature of their fertilizer products, which are marketed as “eco-friendly” and “sustainable,” while containing sewage sludge (biosolids) contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).  In October 2024, Beyond Pesticides filed suit in two cases, Beyond Pesticides v. Miracle-Gro Co. and Beyond Pesticides v. GreenTechnologies, LLC, in D.C. Superior Court. The complaint cites test results showing PFAS residues in the companies’ fertilizers and numerous scientific studies on the adverse effects of PFAS to public health, wildlife, and pollinators. “Companies that market hazardous substances while claiming environmental and health benefits are misleading consumers who seek out products to protect themselves, their families, and the ecosystems in which they live,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Our litigation seeks to put a stop to this deceptive practice in the marketplace, where there are products and practices that are truly healthful and protective of nature,” Mr. Feldman continued. Update as reported in the New York Times: EPA finally acknowledges unsafe levels of PFAS in “sewage sludge” fertilizers.

Organic and regenerative-organic agriculture and the importance of organic fertilizer

Scientific research proves the benefits and importance of organic fertilizers. As reported by Beyond Pesticides for example, a July 2024 study in Biology and Fertility of Soils highlights the benefits of organic farming for soil health, showing it restores ecological functions degraded by chemical-intensive practices. Organic fertilizers boost beneficial protistan predators and maintain sustainable predator-prey dynamics in the soil microbiome. In contrast, chemical fertilizers disrupt these relationships, reinforcing the case for transitioning to organic agriculture.

In addition to supporting a healthy soil ecosystem, Beyond Pesticides continues to issue a clarion call for ending the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and to accelerate the transition to organic farming. Organic agriculture and land management are essential to mitigating the existential threats of the climate crisis. Under organic management, healthy soil can absorb and store 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre foot of soil annually, translating to approximately 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre drawn down from the air and sequestered into the soil. [A fact often overlooked by policy makers in generating climate strategies or members of the public seeking to fight climate change is that carbon-sequestering soil practices are federally mandated in certified organic agriculture.]

The challenge lies in overcoming entrenched economic interests in the petroleum and chemical industries that perpetuate chemical-intensive farming and land management practices. Beyond Pesticides advocates for national grassroots collaboration to reframe public discourse and advance systemic change through organic land management. The organic approach operates on the precautionary principle, rejecting toxic chemicals in favor of sustainable methods to meet agricultural and landscaping goals.

The focus on soil health is a basic principle in organic agriculture that directly applies to all land management, including organic lawn and landscape care. See Beyond Pesticides’ website to learn about lawns and landscapes, hazards in common lawn pesticides, and safer alternatives, including organically compatible fertilizers. Please visit the Tools for Change page to learn how to organize your community to end pesticide use and adopt organic land care.

You can contribute to this transition by choosing certified organic food, supporting local organic farmers at markets, and practicing organic land care. Join Beyond Pesticides in fighting to protect the importance of organic integrity—and why public engagement is needed to ensure the National Organic Standards Board upholds strict rules regulating organic agriculture.

Join us in taking action on organic integrity by clicking here and see here for more topics for action.

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

Sources:

Microbial biofertilizers and algae-based biostimulant affect fruit yield characteristics of organic processing tomato, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, published on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry, August 31, 2024

Researchers stunned by results after utilizing unconventional farming tactic: ‘We were fascinated’, The Cool Down, November 6, 2024

Meta‐analysis reveals globally sourced commercial mycorrhizal inoculants fall short, New Phytologist, November 21, 2024

Researchers make stunning discovery after examining farmland treated only with organic fertilizers for decades: ‘[Will] help us to move forward’, The Cool Down, October 13, 2024

Microbial biofertilizers and algae-based biostimulants found to boost tomato crop yield and quality, Phys.org, Society of Chemical Industry, October 1, 2024

Plant Biostimulants: Definition and Overview of Categories and Effects, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) publication, May 2019

Biostimulants 101, Small Farm Sustainability Iowa State University Extension

Lawsuit Targets Scotts Miracle-Gro for Claiming PFAS-Tainted Products Are “Eco-Friendly” and “Sustainable,” Beyond Pesticides Daily News, October 10, 2024

Study Shows Value of Soil Microbiome, Nurtured in Organic Farming, Harmed by Chemical-Intensive Ag,  Beyond Pesticides Daily News, August 9, 2024

Petrochemical Pesticides, Fertilizers, and Plastics Linked to Dire Health Effects while Alternatives Are Available, Beyond Pesticides Daily News, March 14, 2024

(Beyond Pesticides, January 28, 2025) Beyond Pesticides is urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to move more cautiously in  its proposal for “streamlined . . . registration review decisions for several biopesticides,” subject to a public comment period through February 10, 2025. The organization is raising EPA review process concerns. The organization states: “Although the biopesticides listed in EPA’s proposal for streamlining the registration review process for ‘low risk biopesticides’ can be considered relatively low risk compared to conventional pesticides, the precedent for relying on the original or previous registration data and review is troublesome. EPA’s rationale for registration review—that ‘science is constantly evolving, and new scientific information can come to light at any time and change our understanding of potential effects from pesticides,’ should guide the agency in its decisions—especially when previous decisions have depended on limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or adverse incidents reported.” 

While Beyond Pesticides advocates for allowance of pesticides compatible with organic standards that are protective of human health, biodiversity, and healthy ecosystems, it urges EPA to establish rigorous standards in its registration review of these materials. The issue of biopesticide review is made complicated by the broad definition that the agency uses for the term. EPA uses the following definition for “biopesticides”:

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

In the context, the mechanisms at work and the biological and chemical effects, while viewed as important alternatives to petrochemical pesticides, require careful evaluation, according to the Beyond Pesticides comments. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides has urged EPA to drop PIPs from its definition of biopesticides because of widespread insect resistance to valuable ecologically based materials and indiscriminate disruption of the ecosystem. (See Tell EPA that Biopesticides Must Be Redefined.) Furthermore, it is Beyond Pesticides’ position, also incorporated into the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), that any pest management inputs used in ecological-based farming systems (e.g., organic farming) must be only one part of an organic systems plan that focuses primarily on building soil health and enhancing biodiversity, (often referred to as ecosystems services), foundational to plant health, resilience, and prevention of disease and infestations. However, biopesticides are often discussed in the scientific literature as a substitution for synthetic petrochemical pesticides or to be used alongside synthetic chemical controls in an Integrated Pesticide Management (IPM) system. (See “Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: A case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides.”) Organic advocates maintain that without a holistic approach, land managers remain on a pesticide treadmill and undercut ecological balance necessary in organic systems.

Because EPA considers the four “biopesticides” in its proposal to be “low risk,” “[t]he Agency is proposing that no further registration review is necessary for these biopesticides at this time.” Although the biopesticides listed in EPA’s proposal for streamlining the registration review process for “low risk biopesticides” can be considered relatively low risk compared to conventional pesticides, the precedent for relying on the original or previous registration data and review is troublesome.

>> Tell EPA to do full registration reviews for all pesticides. 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct a registration review of all registered pesticides every 15 years. EPA explains, “[S]cience is constantly evolving, and new scientific information can come to light at any time and change our understanding of potential effects from pesticides.”

The four biopesticides to which this proposal pertains are alpha methyl mannoside (a plant growth regulator to improve the growth of a range of crops); Duddingtonia flagrans strain IAH 1297 (to break the cycle of parasitic nematode infections in grazing animals); Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate 1906 (to protect greenhouse tomatoes from other viruses); and sheep fat (to repel animals like deer from ornamentals, trees, shrubs, and other plants). When considering the listed biopesticides in the proposal, EPA’s summaries are predominantly dependent on limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or adverse incidents reported. The absence of adverse effect evidence is not evidence of no adverse effects.

For alpha methyl mannoside, all human health data requirements were satisfied by a combination of data, waiver rationales, and the bridging of information from guar gum where high concentrations of mannose polymers are present. For ecological effects, all nontarget toxicology data requirements have been satisfied through guideline studies that demonstrated low acute toxicity for birds, mammals, aquatic organisms, invertebrates, and plants. EPA has concluded that adverse effects are not anticipated to birds, mammals, freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, insects, and nontarget plants. Curiously, the agency also determined that effects to federally listed threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitats are not expected from these uses. However, the mode of action for alpha methyl mannoside, as a plant growth regulator, is to stimulate growth of treated plants. It is unclear why stimulating the growth of listed plant species, if exposed, or plants in the critical habitat of a listed species either plant or animal, if exposed, would not be potentially problematic or negatively affected by excessive growth. This seems worthy of more in-depth consideration as many herbicides function by excessive growth stimulation of target weeds, which can pose serious risks to nontarget plants.

For Duddingtonia flagrans strain IAH 1297, the registrant requested consideration of the history of safe use, the global ubiquity of D. flagrans, and the rationale based on literature sources to satisfy the data requirements for avian toxicity, wild mammal toxicity, aquatic organism testing, nontarget plant testing, and nontarget insect testing. EPA accepted the data waiver requests.

Similarly for Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate 1906, scientific rationale was submitted and accepted to satisfy data requirements for Avian oral, Avian inhalation, Wild mammals, Freshwater fish, Freshwater invertebrates, Estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, Nontarget insects, Honey bees, and Nontarget Plant toxicity/pathogenicity testing. Additionally, some nontarget plant testing, persistence in soil, persistence in water, algal toxicity, duckweed growth inhibition, and vegetative vigor studies were submitted. The results from the nontarget plant testing study are considered supplemental due to several deficiencies in the study, and it is not robust enough to conclude a lack of hazard for nontarget plants. The aquatic plant studies did not adequately describe the positive controls used, why the virus was not detectable at the start of the experiments, and did not describe the concentration (lg/L) of Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate 1906 treatment in the Algal toxicity test which may have caused minimal growth inhibition.

EPA distinguishes three classes of biopesticides—biochemical, microbial, and plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs). The agency says, “Because it is sometimes difficult to determine whether a substance meets the criteria for classification as a biochemical pesticide, EPA has established a special committee to make such decisions.” “Biopesticides” are often assumed to be safer than “conventional” pesticides because they are assumed to be “natural.” However, EPA’s definition of biopesticides—”derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals”—does not mean that they are “natural.” Many of them would not qualify as “nonsynthetic” inputs in organic farming because the organic law requires consideration of manufacturing processes. Since some biopesticides—for example, pheromones—occur in minute quantities naturally, they are produced through chemical synthesis for commercial use. Such synthetic chemicals must be recommended by the National Organic Standards Board before they can be used in organic production and processing. Some microbial pesticides and PIPs would not be allowed because they result from genetic engineering.

>> Tell EPA to do full registration reviews for all pesticides. 

Suggested comment to EPA:
Although biopesticides in the proposal for streamlining the registration review process for “low risk biopesticides” can be considered low risk compared to conventional pesticides, the precedent for relying on the original or previous registration data and review is unacceptable.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act requires that EPA conduct a registration review of all registered pesticides every 15 years. EPA states, “[S]cience is constantly evolving, and new scientific information can come to light at any time and change our understanding of potential effects from pesticides.”

EPA’s summaries concerning Alpha methyl mannoside; Duddingtonia flagrans strain IAH 1297; Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate 1906; and sheep fat are predominantly dependent on limited actual data, data waiver request rationales, and purported absence of new data or reported adverse incidents. Absence of adverse effect evidence is not evidence of no adverse effects.

All human health data requirements for alpha methyl mannoside were satisfied by a combination of data, waiver rationales, and data from guar gum where high concentrations of mannose polymers are present. EPA concluded from guideline studies that adverse effects are not anticipated to birds, mammals, freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, insects, and nontarget plants. Although the agency also determined that effects to federally listed threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitats are not expected from these uses, the mode of action as a plant growth regulator is to stimulate growth of treated plants. It is unclear why stimulating growth of listed plant species or plants in a critical habitat of a listed species, either plant or animal, would not result in negative impacts. This seems worthy of more in-depth consideration, as many herbicides function by excessive growth stimulation of target weeds, posing serious risks to nontarget plants.

For Duddingtonia flagrans strain IAH 1297, the registrant requested consideration of the history of safe use, the global ubiquity of D. flagrans, and a rationale based on literature sources to satisfy the data requirements for avian toxicity, wild mammal toxicity, aquatic organism testing, nontarget plant testing, and nontarget insect testing. EPA accepted the data waiver requests.

Similarly for Pepino mosaic virus, strain CH2, isolate 1906, scientific rationale was accepted to satisfy data requirements for avian oral, avian inhalation, wild mammals, freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, nontarget insects, honey bees, and nontarget plant toxicity/pathogenicity testing. Some nontarget plant testing, persistence in soil, persistence in water, algal toxicity, duckweed growth inhibition, and vegetative vigor studies were submitted. The nontarget plant testing study has several deficiencies and is insufficient to support a lack of hazard for nontarget plants. The aquatic plant studies did not adequately describe the positive controls used, why the virus was not detectable at the start of the experiments, and did not describe the concentration of the treatment in the algal toxicity test which may have caused minimal growth inhibition.

The EFSA 2021 peer review of the sheep fat risk assessment found toxicity data were not available for any group of nontarget organisms. A low acute and chronic risk to birds and mammals was presumed. Toxicity data to assess the chronic risk to aquatic organisms was deemed unnecessary.

Although these biopesticides may be considered low risk compared to conventional pesticides, relying on the original or previous registration data and review is problematic.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
I am writing in support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s proposed critical habitat rule to protect the rusty patched bumble bee under the Endangered Species Act. This proposal is responsive to the agency’s 2024 stipulated settlement agreement resulting from years of review and a 2023 court order (NRDC et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.). The proposal follows a 2017 determination by the agency that lists the bumble bee as an endangered species.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.