(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2026) Yesterday, U.S. Senator Boozman (R-AK), chair of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, released the Senate GOP Farm Bill, the Agricultural Act of 2026, with provisions that undermine public and environmental health, according to farm, farmworker, and environmental advocates. The bill, drafted without input from Senate Democrats, redefines underlying standards and practices to increase dependency on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture. Rather than investing in organic agriculture and supporting farmers’ transition to nontoxic practices—in response to health, biodiversity, and climate crises, as well as the high cost of synthetic fertilizers—the bill reduces oversight of organic production by loosening inspection and certification requirements.  

The text is largely the same as the version passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in April, the Farm, Food, and National Security of 2026 (H.R. 7567). The House vote made history when 73 Republicans joined the majority of the Democratic caucus to strip out a pesticide manufacturers’ liability shield (Section 10205), federal preemption of state and local pesticide laws (Section 10206), and the weakening of bedrock environmental law and their ability to regulate pesticides (Section 10207). [A decision is expected this week or next in a case before the Supreme Court, Monsanto v. Durnell, in which Bayer/Monsanto argues that they have no responsibility under pesticide law to have warned on their product labels those who have been harmed by product use.] 

The Senate GOP Farm bill will adversely affect a wide range of social and conservation issues, including the protection of family farms, food security, and environmental and public health, according to a cross-section of groups representing these interests. Overall, critics say, the Republican bill increases dependency on petrochemical fertilizers (which contribute to escalating toxic pesticide use), ignores hunger (despite a historically large $186 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program/SNAP), dismisses the notion of a fair, responsible, and accessible family farm safety net, and rolls back successful conservation investments. A markup on the Senate Farm Bill is expected before the Senate’s August recess. 

Poison Pill Provisions in Senate GOP Bill 

Subtitle C, Part 1, of Title X, entitled Regulatory Reform, contains the following provisions that weaken the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), undermine environmental protections, and threaten the health of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers.

• Section 10201 [Section 10201 in House bill]: Exemption of safety review. Permanently exempts dozens of hazardous chemicals used in industrial agriculture from human health and environmental safety reviews that are currently required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. In addition, by expanding the incorporation of biological materials in plants as pesticides, with Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs), resistance in target and nontarget organisms builds, undermining the value of organic-compatible materials in organic agriculture. 

• Section 10203 [Section 10203 in House bill]: Weakens protection of endangered species. Undermines the integrity of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in an unprecedented manner by delaying protections for threatened and endangered species against dangerous pesticides by giving an internal interagency workgroup a de facto veto on any efforts to protect endangered species from pesticides. The provision will certainly delay and weaken critical conservation measures despite the “no take” prohibition under the ESA for threatened and endangered species. 

• Section 10207 [Section 10204 in House bill]: Pushes the deadline for pesticide reviews and years of missing critical safety reviews. Delays the review of hundreds of pesticides for harms to human health, endangered wildlife, and endocrine disruption until 2031, leaving potentially dangerous pesticides on the market and in widespread use without any updated protective measures. 

• Section 10209 [Section 10202 in House bill]: Diminishes and delays regulatory authority under pesticide law. Weakens and delays efforts to protect children, farmworkers, and public health from dangerous pesticides by giving unprecedented authority to the USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy and pesticide manufacturers to review and potentially veto any environmental or human health safeguards determined to be necessary by EPA. Undermines the health-based standard for setting allowable pesticide residues (tolerances) in food by considering the availability of alternative chemicals. 

• Section 10210 [Section 10211 in House bill]. Threatens collection of information on farming practices. Discontinues statutory funding of the previous Farm Bill for surveys, which provide baseline information to communities and farmers to inform practices and outcomes—particularly problematic during a period of severe budget cuts and agency dismantling. 

Additional poison pill sections that remain in the Senate draft version include: 

• Focus on Precision Agriculture as the Alternative Food System Approach: The Senate Farm Bill—throughout the Conservation Title (Title II), including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program subtitle (Subtitle B), the Credit Title (Title V), the Rural Development Title (Title VI), the Research Title (Title VII), and in the Miscellaneous Title (Title XII)—will codify continued reliance on petrochemical fertilizers through the promotion of “precision agriculture.” With the use of drones, satellites, and artificial intelligence, precision agriculture is touted by the industry and USDA as a great environmental achievement, focused on soil biology and lower or variable application rates of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers—but ignores the dramatic damage it causes to soil biology, complex biological communities, and the economic value of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services that naturally cycle plant nutrients. 

• Closing of USDA Beltsville National Bee Laboratory and Related Research. This Farm Bill does not address the USDA reorganization plan, including the devastating implications of shutting down research facilities at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Beltsville, Maryland, including the Bee Research Laboratory (aka Bee Lab). Maryland’s Congressional delegation has pointed out that the closing of BARC is also illegal. By moving forward with the decommissioning of BARC, USDA is violating several provisions laid out in the Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture Appropriations Act, enacted into law on November 12, 2025, including a clear directive to USDA to keep BARC open. 

• SNAP Cuts Remain in this Bill. The Senate GOP Farm Bill would continue to codify the initial statutory changes from last summer’s reconciliation bill H.R.1, including shifting the costs to state governments while minimizing cost-share from the federal government from 50 percent to 25 percent, expanding work requirements to 64 years of age from 54 years of age, prohibiting non-citizens from accessing the program, among other deleterious impacts that could be address in this legislation. 

Poison Pill Provisions to Monitor  

While the most toxic sections of Subtitle C, Part 1, of Title X, were stripped from the House-passed version of the bill, it is important to note that there may be attempts to include the following type of language into the Senate-side version through the conference committee process (from the original House Agriculture Committee bill): 

• Section 10205: Immunizes pesticide companies from their duty to warn the public about dangerous chemicals in their pesticide formulations, potentially eliminating access to the federal courts for thousands of individuals with cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and other health issues scientifically linked to pesticide exposure. See Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards.  

• Section 10206: Eliminates the six-decade-old authority of state and local governments to implement additional local and state-focused restrictions on the use of dangerous pesticides to protect children, farmworkers, pollinators, public health, and the environment. 

• Section 10207: Erases important, long-standing safeguards to protect people and wildlife from pesticide pollution discharged directly into waterways through the Clean Water Act Pesticide General Permit (“PGP”), though the broad language would exempt pesticide approvals from the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and other bedrock environmental laws. 

The Save Our Bacon Act (Section 12006 in the House), which is a continuation of the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act from the previous Congress (see Daily News here and here), was not included in the Senate draft; however, this does not stop industry interest in seeing the language introduced as an amendment. This language would undermine local and state food safety and animal welfare laws currently on the books. In a follow-up to their analysis of EATS in 2023, Harvard Law School’s Animal Law and Policy Program published a report earlier this year outlining their analysis of Section 12006 in H.R. 7567. Critics of this language are concerned on a number of fronts, including but not limited to: 

• Use of undefined terms that will “require judicial interpretation to determine their exact meaning and application, creating lengthy uncertainty for producers and regulators.”

• Broad implications beyond “covered livestock”, which could implicate sectors ranging from “animal feed, animal vaccines, livestock reproductive materials, and other livestock input industries.” 

• Preempts +700 state food laws, undermining the authority of local governments to respond to crises and support their own constituents 

***
Pollinator Week 2026 [Thursday]—Parks for a Sustainable Future—Become an Advocate!

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

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

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

Banner image credits—Featuring the “Art of Life”, from top to bottom and left to right: Sam from Easton, MD, “Oscar, the Bee”; Trix from Petersburg, NY, “Monarch Caterpillar on Common Milkweed”; Evan from Melbourne Beach, FL, “Winged Watcher”; Jocelyn from Contoocook, NH, “Life on a Leaf… Blooms and Buzz!”; Ashley from Oxford, MI, “Butterflies Forever”; Sara from Denton, MD, “Pollen Song”; Janet from Concord, MA, “Spring is Coming”; and, Stephanie from Hamilton, OH, “Butterfly.”

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 23, 2026) With new medications (including those containing GLP-1-receptor-agonist or glucagon-like peptide-1) exploding onto the market to treat obesity and serious related health threats, it is easy to lose sight of critical policy issues that allow the ongoing introduction of obesogenic pesticides and other chemicals (endocrine disrupting chemicals that affect metabolism and fat storage) into the food supply. The science on obesity has found that the most common form is attributable to a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

Because there are many factors, the blame for the obesity epidemic cannot be attributed solely to diet broadly, but may relate directly to pesticide and toxic chemical exposures, including chemical residues in food, that may lead to Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney failure, a breakdown of cartilage and bone within joints, and other metabolic disorders. An increasing body of research shows that exposure to certain pesticides and environmental contaminants initiates various changes in metabolism leading to obesity—not only in the exposed person, but also in offspring.  

With all the media attention on a medical cure for obesity, Beyond Pesticides has launched an action to: Urge lawmakers and policymakers to support policies that contribute to obesity prevention by eliminating endocrine disrupting chemicals and promoting the growth of organic food production.

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases at the National Institutes of Health cites data that finds, “Obesity is a chronic disease that affects more than 4 in 10 adults in the United States, and nearly 1 in 10 Americans have severe obesity.” With about 43% of adults classified as overweight or obese, a long list of recognized health impacts, and many finding that restricting calories and increasing exercise do not help them lose weight, people are increasingly turning to pharmaceutical approaches to weight loss. One study states that  medications with GLP-1 “can reduce body weight in obese patients by between 15% and 25% on average after about 1 year.” Obesity drugs come with side effects. An increasing body of science suggests that a societal focus on preventing obesogen use would help to reduce the need for clinical intervention.

Bruce Blumberg, PhD, University of California, Irvine, first hypothesized the theory on the role environmental chemicals play in promoting obesity in 2006. (See Daily News and The Obesogen Effect.” Coining the term “obesogen,” Dr. Blumberg found that a chemical his team was researching for other issues, a now-banned broad-spectrum biocide/pesticide called tributyltin (TBT), happened to be make laboratory mice fat. Since then, research on the issue continues to expand significantly, and government bodies such as the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences have recognized the role pesticides and other chemicals play in weight gain and the global obesity epidemic. 

Obesogens are endocrine disrupting chemicals that promote obesity following exposure. Endocrine disruption in general and obesity specifically are public health concerns, and there is a wide body of science linking pesticide and other chemical exposures to these effects. The current list of identified environmental obesogens includes pesticide active ingredients such as thiamethoxam, atrazine, permethrin, and glyphosate, as well as contaminants and other ingredients that may be found in pesticide products, such as dioxins, phthalates, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), alkylphenols, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In addition to the effects of a single obesogen, two or more obesogens may have a synergistic effect, as shown by the interaction of tributyltin (TBT) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS). Among the implicated chemicals are those known to leach from plastic food packaging materials. 

Obesogens have a diverse spectrum of actions. They are defined functionally as chemicals that promote obesity by increasing the number of fat cells and/or the storage of fat in existing adipocytes. Obesogens can also act indirectly to promote obesity by shifting energy balance to favor calorie storage, by altering basal metabolic rate, by altering gut microbiota to promote food storage, and by altering hormonal control of appetite and satiety.  

These changes may occur as a result of direct exposure, in utero exposure, or because of genetic or transgenerational effects. J.J. Heindel, PhD, and others find that susceptibility to obesity starts during development (in utero and the first few years of life), and that obesogens alter developmental programming, disrupting the set point for weight gain later in life. As stated by the researchers, “[I]t is well documented that while it is possible to lose weight and keep it off for an extended time, the vast majority of people will gain the weight back, perhaps indicating they are fighting against a set point or sensitivity to develop these metabolic problems that favors calorie storage over the long term.”  

The inability of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prevent exposure to obesogens through the use of pesticides is one more failure of the agency to carry out its mandated consideration of endocrine disrupting pesticides. It is evidence of a failed pesticide regulatory system that does not consider and promote nontoxic and beneficial alternatives, such as organic agriculture and land management—which the agency could do under its mandate to protect against “unreasonable adverse effects” to people and environment in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

While childhood obesity is recognized as a serious problem, the National School Lunch Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—although improved by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010—still provides lunches laced with obesogenic pesticides. To take meaningful steps against childhood obesity, school lunches must be organic. 

Beyond Pesticides action: Urge lawmakers and policymakers to support policies that contribute to obesity prevention by eliminating endocrine disrupting chemicals and promoting the growth of organic food production.

Letter to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contrary to popular opinion, the blame for the obesity epidemic cannot be attributed solely to diet broadly, but links directly to pesticide and toxic chemical exposures, including residues in food, that may lead to Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney failure, a breakdown of cartilage and bone within joints, and other metabolic disorders. An increasing body of research shows that exposure to certain pesticides and environmental contaminants initiates various changes in metabolism leading to obesity—not only in the exposed person, but also in offspring.

With about 43% of adults classified as overweight or obese, a long list of recognized health impacts, and many finding that restricting calories and increasing exercise do not help them lose weight, people are increasingly turning to pharmaceutical approaches to weight loss. These drugs come with side effects that may also be harmful. An increasing body of science suggests that a societal focus on prevention, targeting contaminants, would be a more effective strategy and reduce the need for clinical intervention.

Since Bruce Blumberg, PhD, first hypothesized the obesity-promoting role of environmental chemicals in 2006, research on the issue continues to expand significantly, and government bodies such as the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences recognize the role pesticides and other chemicals play in the global obesity epidemic.

Obesogens are endocrine disrupting chemicals that promote obesity following exposure. Endocrine disruption in general and obesity specifically are public health concerns, and there is increasing science linking pesticide and other chemical exposures to these effects. The current list of identified environmental obesogens includes pesticide active ingredients such as thiamethoxam, atrazine, permethrin, and glyphosate, as well as contaminants and other ingredients that may be found in pesticide products, such as dioxins, phthalates, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), alkylphenols, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In addition to the effects of a single obesogen, two or more obesogens may have a synergistic effect, as shown by the interaction of tributyltin (TBT) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS).

Obesogens promote obesity by increasing the number of fat cells and/or the storage of fat in existing adipocytes. They can also act indirectly to promote obesity by shifting energy balance to favor calorie storage, by altering basal metabolic rate, by altering gut microbiota to promote food storage, and by altering hormonal control of appetite and satiety.

These changes may occur as a result of direct exposure, in utero exposure, or because of transgenerational effects. J.J. Heindel, PhD and others find that susceptibility to obesity starts during development (in utero and the first few years of life), and that obesogens alter developmental programming, disrupting the set point for weight gain later in life. As stated by the researchers, “[I]t is well documented that while it is possible to lose weight and keep it off for an extended time, the vast majority of people will gain the weight back, perhaps indicating they are fighting against a set point or sensitivity to develop these metabolic problems that favors calorie storage over the long term.”

EPA has failed to carry out its mandated consideration of endocrine disrupting pesticides and thus failed to prevent exposure to obesogens. The pesticide regulatory system fails to consider and promote nontoxic and beneficial alternatives, such as organic agriculture, as mandated in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to protect against “unreasonable adverse effects” to people and the environment.

Please ensure that pesticide risk assessments include the harms arising from exposure to obesogens. Please also ensure that the baseline against which “benefits” of pesticides are measured is organic agriculture.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Congress
Contrary to popular opinion, the obesity epidemic cannot be attributed solely to diet broadly, but links directly to pesticide and toxic chemical exposures, including residues in food, that may lead to Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney failure, a breakdown of cartilage and bone within joints, and other metabolic disorders. Research shows that exposure to certain pesticides and environmental contaminants initiates various changes in metabolism leading to obesity—not only in the exposed person, but also in offspring.

With about 43% of adults classified as overweight or obese, a long list of recognized health impacts, and many finding that restricting calories and increasing exercise do not help them lose weight, people are increasingly turning to pharmaceutical approaches to weight loss. These drugs come with side effects that may also be harmful. An increasing body of science suggests that a societal focus on prevention, targeting petrochemical contaminants, would be a more effective strategy and reduce the need for clinical intervention.

Since Bruce Blumberg, PhD first hypothesized the obesity-promoting role of environmental chemicals in 2006, research has expanded significantly, and government bodies such as the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences recognize the role pesticides and other chemicals play in the global obesity epidemic.

Obesogens are endocrine disrupting chemicals that promote obesity following exposure. The current list of identified environmental obesogens includes pesticide active ingredients such as thiamethoxam, atrazine, permethrin, and glyphosate, as well as contaminants and other ingredients that may be found in pesticide products, such as dioxins, phthalates, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), alkylphenols, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In addition to the effects of a single obesogen, two or more obesogens may have a synergistic effect, as shown by the interaction of tributyltin (TBT) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS).

Obesogens promote obesity by increasing the number of fat cells and/or the storage of fat in existing adipocytes. They can also act indirectly to promote obesity by shifting energy balance to favor calorie storage, by altering basal metabolic rate, by altering gut microbiota to promote food storage, and by altering hormonal control of appetite and satiety.

These changes may occur as a result of direct exposure, in utero exposure, or because of transgenerational effects. J.J. Heindel, PhD and others find that susceptibility to obesity starts during development, and obesogens alter developmental programming, disrupting the set point for weight gain later in life. As stated by the researchers , “[I]t is well documented that while it is possible to lose weight and keep it off for an extended time, the vast majority of people will gain the weight back, perhaps indicating they are fighting against a set point or sensitivity to develop these metabolic problems that favors calorie storage over the long term.”

EPA has failed to carry out its mandated consideration of endocrine disrupting pesticides, including obesogens. The pesticide regulatory system fails to consider and promote nontoxic and beneficial alternatives, such as organic agriculture, as mandated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to protect against “unreasonable adverse effects” to people and the environment.

While childhood obesity is recognized as a serious problem, the National School Lunch Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) still provides lunches laced with obesogenic pesticides. To take meaningful steps against childhood obesity, please ensure that school lunches are organic.

Please ensure that EPA’s pesticide risk assessments include the harms of obesogens and that the baseline against which “benefits” of pesticides are measured is organic agriculture.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture
Contrary to popular opinion, the blame for the obesity epidemic cannot be attributed solely to diet broadly, but links directly to pesticide and toxic chemical exposures, including residues in food, that may lead to Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney failure, a breakdown of cartilage and bone within joints, and other metabolic disorders. An increasing body of research shows that exposure to certain pesticides and environmental contaminants initiates various changes in metabolism leading to obesity—not only in the exposed person, but also in offspring.

With about 43% of adults classified as overweight or obese, a long list of recognized health impacts, and many finding that restricting calories and increasing exercise do not help them lose weight, people are increasingly turning to pharmaceutical approaches to weight loss. These drugs come with side effects that may also be harmful. An increasing body of science suggests that a societal focus on prevention, targeting contaminants, would be a more effective strategy and reduce the need for clinical intervention.

Since Bruce Blumberg, PhD, first hypothesized the obesity-promoting role of environmental chemicals in 2006, research on the issue continues to expand significantly, and government bodies such as the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences recognize the role pesticides and other chemicals play in the global obesity epidemic.

Obesogens are endocrine disrupting chemicals that promote obesity following exposure. Endocrine disruption in general and obesity specifically are public health concerns, and there is increasing science linking pesticide and other chemical exposures to these effects. The current list of identified environmental obesogens includes pesticide active ingredients such as thiamethoxam, atrazine, permethrin, and glyphosate, as well as contaminants and other ingredients that may be found in pesticide products, such as dioxins, phthalates, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), alkylphenols, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In addition to the effects of a single obesogen, two or more obesogens may have a synergistic effect, as shown by the interaction of tributyltin (TBT) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS).

Obesogens promote obesity by increasing the number of fat cells and/or the storage of fat in existing adipocytes. They can also act indirectly to promote obesity by shifting energy balance to favor calorie storage, by altering basal metabolic rate, by altering gut microbiota to promote food storage, and by altering hormonal control of appetite and satiety.

These changes may occur as a result of direct exposure, in utero exposure, or because of transgenerational effects. J.J. Heindel, PhD, and others find that susceptibility to obesity starts during development (in utero and the first few years of life), and that obesogens alter developmental programming, disrupting the set point for weight gain later in life. As stated by the researchers, “[I]t is well documented that while it is possible to lose weight and keep it off for an extended time, the vast majority of people will gain the weight back, perhaps indicating they are fighting against a set point or sensitivity to develop these metabolic problems that favors calorie storage over the long term.”

EPA has failed to carry out its mandated consideration of endocrine disrupting pesticides and thus failed to prevent exposure to obesogens. The pesticide regulatory system fails to consider and promote nontoxic and beneficial alternatives, such as organic agriculture, as mandated in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), to protect against “unreasonable adverse effects” to people and the environment.

Please ensure that pesticide risk assessments include the harms arising from exposure to obesogens. Please also ensure that the baseline against which “benefits” of pesticides are measured is organic agriculture.

Thank you.

Image: Art of Life Page submission from Jesse Yow, “Honeybee Pollinating Citrus Blossom.”

(Beyond Pesticides, June 22, 2026) National Pollinator Week, June 22-26, 2026, celebrates all pollinators and the ecosystem services they provide. With a theme of “Life on a Leaf… From Bloom to Buzz! An Organic Solution for Plants and Pollinators” and in recognition of the importance of pollinators and biodiversity to a healthy environment and healthy people, Beyond Pesticides announces a week of activities and actions! 

Pollinators—bees, butterflies, birds, bats, and other organisms—make a critical contribution to plant health, crop productivity, and the preservation of natural resources, but their existence is threatened by pesticide-contaminated habitats! Throughout the week, we will suggest actions that you can take to promote the health of pollinators.  

The first step is providing a safe place for pollinators to live, eat, reproduce, and take refuge from predators and adverse weather, which can include establishing pollinator-friendly plants as both habitats and food sources. 

Monday—Juneteenth and Environmental Justice 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously stated, “All life is interrelated.” Justice for all people converges with the protection of biodiversity, health, and climate. If we are not protecting the most vulnerable in society, we ultimately adversely affect the entire society because all people are intricately linked through the web of life. By tapping into the power of working together, we can continue to move forward, as Dr. King says to do, in creating a sustainable future for all through implementing environmental justice with the widespread adoption of organic agriculture and land management.  

As Pollinator Week follows closely after the celebration of Juneteenth on June 19, now is the time to renew our commitment to environmental justice while seeking the adoption of transformational policies and practices that recognize the urgency to address disproportionate harm inflicted by toxic pesticide use that affect all life. Those fighting for environmental justice understand that the harms inflicted by toxic chemical production, use, and disposal cause disproportionate adverse effects on people of color—from fenceline communities near chemical production plants to the hazardous and inhumane working conditions in agricultural fields, and the siting of toxic waste dumps, resulting in elevated risk factors for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) from toxic pesticide exposure.     

Amid the overwhelming evidence of disproportionate harm from pesticides to people of color in marginalized communities from pesticide exposure that result in deleterious health effects, captured in studies and research spanning decades [and tracked by Beyond Pesticides!], there is a solution that eliminates pesticide dependency and helps to address environmental injustice—organic agriculture, land, and building management. See the 2026 Juneteenth Daily News from Thursday, June 18, 2026, for more information. 

What can we do? You can speak up for environmental justice and urge your U.S. Representative and Senators to ensure funding for meaningful programs that aim to protect essential workers who grow our nation’s food, as well as the health of their loved ones. As an example, see our previous Action of the Week: >> Tell Congress to restore funding that protects the health of farmers, farmworkers, and their families. 

Tuesday—Cultivating An Organic Safe Haven for Pollinators 

As Doug Tallamy, PhD, entomologist, conservationist, and professor at the University of Delaware, says: “Welcome bugs into your yard. You might just save the world.” With pollinators responsible for over 80% of the world’s flowering plants, it’s no wonder we are fighting to protect them. Pollinators are important members of various land ecosystems; therefore, how we manage these ecosystems and landscapes plays a critical role in long-term pollinator health. The expansion of urban, suburban, and agricultural areas reduces pollinator habitat and access to food, while intensive chemical use harms these beneficial organisms. Pesticide applications expose bees, birds, butterflies, and more to acute and sublethal levels of pesticides, which can result in reproductive abnormalities, impaired foraging, and even death.  Please see our brief introduction to pollinators here!   

If you want to grow your own vegetables/fruits to eat or flowers for pollinators, make sure that your seeds and plants are free from harmful pesticides. Often, seeds and plants in many garden centers across the country are grown from seeds coated with toxic fungicides and bee-harming neonicotinoid pesticides or drenched with them. Ensure a pesticide-free garden by planting organic seeds and plants!   

Synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides lead to undesirable conditions that restrict water and air movement in the soil. High nitrogen fertilizers can disrupt the nutrient balance, accelerate turf growth, increase the need for mowing, and contribute to thatch buildup. See Spring Into Action for why going organic is beneficial for not only pollinators but all other organisms (including humans!) as well.  

Want to plant your own organic garden? Well, Beyond Pesticides offers a guide on how to Grow Your Own Organic Food, including a resource page on steps to take before planting. Find companies and nurseries that grow and distribute organic seeds and plants here: Seed and Plant Directory Brochure.  

Have a problem with unwanted plants (e.g., weeds) taking over your yard and garden? Beyond Pesticides’ guide on how to Read Your Weeds allows you to identify weeds in your lawn and suggests nontoxic or least-toxic solutions. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Ecological Management of Invasive Species is a great resource for weed management. Many plants that are considered weeds have beneficial qualities. Try to develop a tolerance for some weeds in your garden. For instance, clover is considered a typical turf weed, but it thrives in soil with low nitrogen levels, compaction issues, and drought stress. See Taking a Stand on Clover: The benefits of clover to bees, soil biology, and water quality to learn more. 

What can we do?  Take action, and encourage your community to develop an integrated roadside vegetation management program for roadside management. Cut, girdle, mow, or use grazing animals whenever possible as a mechanical means to eradicate unwanted vegetation. Establish a roadside wildflower program that plants native flower and grass species, especially those that are attractive to bees and other pollinators. Avoid pesticides such as 2,4-D, glyphosate (Roundup), dicamba, picloram, and triclopyr for roadside management so as not to create ecological traps that harm pollinators. Look to our Pesticide Gateway page for more information! 

What else can we do? Order a Pesticide-Free Zone sign to showcase your organic yard or garden, share resources with your community, and share photos of pollinators on social media with the hashtags #PollinatorWeek or #ProtectPollinators—then submit them to Beyond Pesticides’ Art of Life Page!  

Wednesday—Spread the Buzz 

Beyond Pesticides advocates for widespread adoption of organic management practices as a social good and key to protecting pollinators and the environment. We have long sought and encouraged a broadscale marketplace transition to organic practices, local, state, and federal policies that prohibit the use of toxic synthetic pesticides, and a systems-based approach that is protective of health and the environment. (See BEE Protective for more information.)  

Since 2006, honey bees and other pollinators, in the U.S. and worldwide, have experienced ongoing and rapid population declines. This continuing crisis threatens the stability of ecosystems, economies, and the food supply: one-third of the food we eat requires pollination, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

A 2026 study of honey bee colonies in Florida and California, published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, finds elevated mortality from pesticide residues, including those that have been documented to threaten pollinators. As the authors describe, “While bees die from multiple, often interacting, stressors, here we show single contributors at levels capable of causing acute harm.” The presence of miticides, fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides within the bee colonies, including in the bodies of dying bees, further highlights pesticides as drivers of bee declines. (See more here.)  

What can we do? Take Action! The Trump administration’s U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is shutting down its research facilities at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Beltsville, Maryland. Among those facilities is the Bee Research Laboratory (aka Bee Lab), which conducts research that has been essential in raising issues critical to the health of honey bee colonies, responding to crises, and helping beekeepers maintain an adequate healthy supply of bees for the pollination of crops. The Bee Lab is not the only federal pollinator program to face funding cuts or dismantling. Also facing threats to funding are the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area, which includes the USGS Bee Lab, other USGS research centers, and U.S. Forest Service research stations.   

>> Tell Congress and USDA to preserve the Beltsville agricultural research facilities that support farming and beekeeping nationwide.  

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

Check out the BEE Protective Habitat Guide, the Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity resource, which offers hints about increasing biodiversity, and the Pollinator-Friendly Seed Directory. 

Thursday—Parks for a Sustainable Future—Become an Advocate! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday—Pollinator Protection Starts with Organic Practices 

In light of EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from pesticides, the lives of those essential insects, birds, and mammals are increasingly dependent on state and local laws in the absence of federal programs that are currently being dismantled or severely cut. In particular, bird species are crucially important for preserving biodiversity, as well as providing ecosystem services such as pollination and mosquito management. Protection of birds and their habitats allows for other organisms, including humans, to prosper.   

Mosquito season is upon us! Not only is spraying flying mosquitoes the most ineffective way to prevent mosquito problems, but it is also counterproductive because it eliminates some of our most attractive and helpful allies—birds. 

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

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

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

What can we do? Attract birds to your yard to keep mosquitoes from feasting on you and take local action! >> Tell your Governor and Mayor to ensure ecological management of mosquitoes by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten mosquito predators. 

Since interactions and synergism are the rule, pesticides cannot be evaluated on the basis of single-chemical, single-species tests. They must be evaluated in context—that is, the system of chemical-dependent management of crops, landscapes, and structures must itself be questioned. Fortunately, there is an alternative system—regenerative organic production and land management—that is both successful and a suitable standard of comparison. The only way to truly protect pollinators, insects, birds, and other species, as well as the biosphere as a whole, is to stop the use of toxic pesticides completely. Converting the world’s agricultural systems to organic would have a tremendous positive impact on threatened populations. >>Tell EPA, FDA, and Congress that regulations must consider the effects of pesticides in the context in which they are used and with reference to the organic alternative. 

What else can we do? Use safer personal mosquito repellents. (See How To Repel Mosquitoes Safely for more information.) Spread the word to your neighbors on safer mosquito management with Beyond Pesticides’ doorknob hanger, Manage Mosquitoes This Season without Toxic Chemicals. 

For additional information and resources, featured Freaky Pollinators & Plants That Attract Them for each day of the week, and both the historical and current science on pollinators and pesticides, see the Pollinator Week 2026 webpage. 

Happy Pollinator Week!  

Banner image credits—Featuring the “Art of Life”, from top to bottom and left to right: Sam from Easton, MD, “Oscar, the Bee”; Trix from Petersburg, NY, “Monarch Caterpillar on Common Milkweed”; Evan from Melbourne Beach, FL, “Winged Watcher”; Jocelyn from Contoocook, NH, “Life on a Leaf… Blooms and Buzz!”; Ashley from Oxford, MI, “Butterflies Forever”; Sara from Denton, MD, “Pollen Song”; Janet from Concord, MA, “Spring is Coming”; and, Stephanie from Hamilton, OH, “Butterfly.”

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18-19, 2026) Friday, June 19 is Juneteenth, a commemoration of the abolition of slavery and a celebration of human freedom. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr proclaimed. This truth raises societal concerns of continuing systemic environmental racism and institutional failures of predominantly white institutions and the need to protect those at disproportionate risk, specifically Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities, from agricultural and industrial pollution.

[Juneteenth is a celebration of freedom for the last 250,000 enslaved people in Galveston, Texas, but it is also a reminder that justice has not historically been “swift” or complete for Black Americans. The holiday commemorates the abolition of slavery in Texas on June 19, 1865, two and a half years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Juneteenth, officially recognized as a federal holiday since 2021, commemorates the arrival of Union soldiers in Galveston, Texas, to free enslaved people per the Emancipation Proclamation that was issued two and a half years prior. While June 19, 1865, does not mark the legal end of slavery nationwide, it was a crucial moment in the fight for freedom and continues to highlight the ongoing fight for human rights, equality, and environmental justice.]

In addition to elevated rates of adverse health effects, disproportionate impacts of chemical and pesticide exposure result in nutrition and medical injustice. “More than 1 in 3 Black (36.5 percent) adults age 18 and older reported household food insecurity in the last 12 months [as of January 2026],” according to findings from the 2025 sample of Urban Institute’s Well-Being and Basic Needs Survey (WBNS). In this same category, just 18.1 percent of white adults reported food insecurity. Black older adults with the age of 65 and over “were nearly three times as likely as older white adults to report food insecurity in 2025.” According to the American Cancer Society, “Black women are 40% more likely to die of breast cancer than white women and are twice as likely to die if they are younger than 50.”

Access to food is considered a human right, including access to food that is not poisoned with agricultural chemicals designed to kill. However, common use of toxic pesticides in the production of crops causes harm to those who eat residues of the chemicals on their food, but also to workers engaged in its production, to communities contaminated by chemicals that move from the fields to the air, land, and water, and to those living near chemical manufacturing that causes exposure to factory emissions. The Eating With a Conscience database documents the poisonous pesticides allowed in the production of over 90 fruits, vegetables, and common food items, identifying the broad range of pesticides to which people are exposed. In this context, public health and environmental advocates continue to call for a significant public investment in the transition to organic crop production and land management systems that eliminate the chemical harm from petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer production, use, and disposal.

Peer-Reviewed Science on Disproportionate Harm
Two pieces, International Journal of Environmental Justice Research and BMC Public Health, underscore the disproportionate impacts that Black individuals and communities face from pesticide exposure. In the first piece, researchers review 128 peer-reviewed papers with an environmental justice lens on the disparities associated with pesticide exposure. One of the main citations, Pesticides and environmental injustice in the USA: root causes, current regulatory reinforcement and a path forward, finds that Black and Mexican American populations face five times higher pesticide exposure relative to white Americans, after assessing biomonitoring data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1999 and 2016.

There are additional key findings relevant to this discussion:

• Chemical biomarker concentrations among U.S. women using NHANES data are at elevated levels in African American and Mexican American women compared to non-poor non-Hispanic White women. (Donley et al 2022)
• Disease burden and associated costs with DDT-related legacy compounds are disproportionately concentrated in non-Hispanic Blacks, relative to their share of national population. For example, “non-Hispanic Black [individuals] bore most of the cost ($201.7 million or 74.5% of the total), while representing only 11.8% of the target population.” (Attina et al. 2020)

In the second paper, researchers, including Jabeen Taiba, PhD, utilize data from two separate indices—pesticide use data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide National Synthesis Project and demographic and housing data based on the American Community Survey 5-year estimates conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The top high-risk pesticide counties are broken down into 143 counties across the 32 states, with the top states including Illinois (15), North Carolina (13), Michigan (10), California (9), Ohio (9), Indiana (8), Iowa (8), and Pennsylvania (6). Many of these same counties also face high socioeconomic vulnerability, like in California, Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, and Illinois.  More research must be done to contextualize this data in the context of aggregate baseline pollution via other exposure routes otherwise not considered in the registration of new active pesticide ingredients or review of existing pesticide registrations.

Previous Coverage
The disproportionate impacts of cancers, including breast cancer, and pesticide exposure. A University of Michigan study finds a link between elevated rates of breast cancer incidents and chemical exposure from pesticides among African American women. Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women, causing the second most cancer-related deaths in the United States. However, breast cancer outcomes differ significantly among women of various races/ethnicities, with African American women being 40 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than women of any other race. Furthermore, the incidence of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC)—an aggressive, incurable, breast cancer subtype—is approximately three-fold higher in non-Hispanic Black women (NHBW) compared to non-Hispanic White women (NHWW). Although past studies suggest genetic and environmental factors interact to produce these differences in breast cancer outcomes, genetic factors only play a minor role, while disparities (differences) in external factors (e.g., chemical exposure) may play a more notable role.

This study highlights the significance of understanding how chemical exposure drives disease outcomes and increases disease risk, especially for more virulent diseases that disproportionately impact specific communities. Prior research finds that differences in chemical exposure may explain racial disparities for several illnesses, and growing evidence suggests common chemical exposure patterns influence the risk of breast cancer. Therefore, advocates point to the need for national policies to assess exposure hazards’ involvement in disease development and diagnosis. The study researchers i note: “[…]African American women are disproportionately exposed to chemicals with breast cancer-associated biological activity at doses relevant to human exposure. Future studies should aim to analyze pathways and genes identified as active at biologically relevant concentrations as more (EPA) ToxCast assay data [chemical effects on many biological processes] becomes available. […]These experiments will help to inform whether [the] integration of exposure data from NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) with biological activity data from Toxcast is a relevant methodology to identify hazardous chemicals that may be involved in the development and prognosis of breast cancer.”

The study identifies 44 chemicals with considerable exposure inequalities, by race, that have biological activity concerning breast cancer. Aggressive cancer subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer and others—all of which African American women are more likely to die—have stem-cell-like properties that allow pesticides to dysregulate hormonal pathways. The very chemicals for which this study finds racial disparities in biomarker concentrations also target specific stem cell-related genes, including AHR, SOX1, GLI1, and HIF-1A, responsible for normal bodily regulation and function. (See Daily News here.)

As covered above, the 2021 BMC Public Health study, published in 2021, documents evidence that people in U.S. BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities, as well as those living in low-income communities, endure a high disproportionate rate of exposure to pesticides and a subsequent elevated risk of harm. It finds that such disparities exist in both urban and rural communities, and at all points in the pesticide “life cycle,” from manufacture to application. A section of Beyond Pesticides’ “Retrospective 2021: A Call to Urgent Action” is devoted to such inequities. Section IV, “Disproportionate Pesticide Harm Is Racial Injustice: Documenting Victimization: Structural Racism,” reviews Beyond Pesticides’ 2021 coverage of environmental injustice. It also calls for urgent action on federal and state “evaluations that go into toxic chemical regulation . . . to reform and replace the current regulatory decision-making process, which is empirically racist, with one that acknowledges and cares for those with the highest real-world vulnerabilities and exposure[s].” (See Daily News here.)

There are also examples of regulatory failures compounding themselves disproportionately in adversely impacted communities. Four banned organochlorine pesticides (OCP) are present in over 60% of a cohort of reproductive-age, black women in Detroit, according to a study published in Environmental Research by Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH). OCPs are lipophilic (fat combining/dissolving), environmentally steadfast chemicals linked to harmful health effects. This study stresses the importance of monitoring pesticide accumulation, particularly regarding environmentally persistent chemicals and their metabolization via indirect exposure routes. The study highlights the significance of water monitoring—especially in light of historically disproportionately high hazards for people of color (e.g., Flint, Michigan)—and testing sources prone to OCP contamination. The researcher remarks, “The sources that we identified as potential OCP correlates should be tested for pesticide contamination,[…] especially drinking water.” (See Daily News here.)

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced on March 12, 2025, that the agency would be shutting down its Environmental Justice and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices and staff at ten of the regional offices and the headquarters in Washington, D.C. Administrator Zeldin declared that this move implemented President Donald Trump’s Executive Order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”

In response to the admininstration’s ending of environmental justice programs, ten Democratic U.S. Senators—led by Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) and including Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR)—are co-sponsoring the Empowering and Enforcing Environmental Justice Act of 2025 to Congress that would codify funding for environmental justice offices in the Department of Justice. (See Sen. Padilla’s press release here.) Senators Duckworth and Booker—founding co-chairs of the Senate Environmental Justice Caucus—also issued the following statement:

“Underserved communities in rural, urban and tribal areas already shoulder the brunt of the climate crisis and environmental injustice. These cuts and reversals will make it even harder for these communities to address some of our nation’s toughest challenges, including removing lead pipes, cleaning up dangerous toxins, addressing legacy pollution that has led to higher cancer, asthma and death rates, and tackling the climate crisis that threatens our health and collective planetary future….With so much at stake, we urge them to immediately reverse course and prioritize public health before billionaires’ wealth. Making it harder for Americans to breathe safe air and drink clean water is not making America great or healthy again.” (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action
You can take action by subscribing to the Weekly News Update and Action of the Week to receive updates each week! If you would like to review previous Actions of the Week that are still live, see the Action of the Week Archive.

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

Sources: International Journal of Environmental Justice Research and BMC Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2026) A study out of Michigan State University reviews robust county-level data on pesticide use and breast cancer incidence rates, determining that there are “modest positive associations” in rural counties in the United States. The findings were published in Cancer Causes & Control.

Public health and environmental advocates cite the proliferation of published, peer-reviewed research, like this new study, in support of a societal imperative to eliminate harmful agrichemicals and transition to organic practices. The U.S. and countries worldwide have standards for certified organic production, similar to the U.S. Organic Foods Production Act, that establish required practices, a national list of allowed and prohibited substances, public oversight and a stakeholder board with authority over allowed inputs, certification and inspection of on-farm practices, and an enforcement system to ensure standards compliance. There is limited federal investment in growing the organic sector, despite its productivity, profitability, and protection of healthy ecosystems. The study adds to the body of science that illustrates dramatic deficiencies in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) under which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal statutes fall short in addressing the complex exposure patterns and adverse human and environmental effects, while allowing widespread harmful pesticide uses, including those that are currently banned in the European Union, Brazil, Japan, among others.

Methodology and Main Findings

The study includes 2,457 counties after excluding counties with missing pesticide (77 counties) or breast cancer incidence data (609 counties, including entire states such as Minnesota, Virginia, Kansas, and Nevada). Researchers used data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide National Synthesis Project, which estimates county-level use of agricultural pesticides in kilograms. Cumulative average use data between 2001 and 2015 were used, covering 38 pesticides grouped into eight chemical classes: carbamates, neonicotinoids, organochlorines, organophosphates, phosphonates, pyrethroids, triazines, and miscellaneous:

• Carbamates: Aldicarb, Carbaryl, Lindane, and Propoxur.
• Neonicotinoids: Acetamiprid, Clothianidin, Dinotefuran, Imidacloprid, Thiacloprid, and Thiamethoxam.
• Organochlorines: Dicofol, Endosulfan, and Methoxychlor.
• Organophosphates: Azinphos-Methyl, Bensulide, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, Dicrotophos, Dimethoate, Disulfoton, Ethoprophos, Fenamiphos, Malathion, Naled, and Parathion Phorate.
• Phosphonates: Glufosinate and Glyphosate.
• Pyrethroids: Cypermethrin, Fenpropathrin, and Permethrin.
• Triazines: Atrazine, Propazine, and Simazine.
• Miscellaneous: Fosetyl, Terbufos, Tribufos, and Triclopyr.

While facing unprecedented cuts and elimination of core functions, the USGS website states that the agency will publish annual pesticide-use estimates for “approximately 400 compounds, from 2018-2022″ sometime this year. This is a significant expansion of their previous tracking of just 72 compounds as of 2019, which would allow for an expansion of the critical research conducted in the study.

Data for breast cancer incidence rates were gathered through the National Cancer Institute’s State Cancer Profiles between 2016 and 2020. A latency period of 5-15 years was built between pesticide exposure data (2001-2015) and the health outcome (in this case, cancer) window (2016-200) in order for the findings to be consistent with prevailing epidemiologic evidence. Counties are classified into rural or urban based on U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. The methodology, which can be found in more detail on pages 2-4 of the study PDF, considered confounding variables such as smoking, unemployment, residential mobility, poverty level, and education status.

The main findings for this study include:

• Rural Counties Disproportionately Impacted. Rural counties have a statistically significant relationship between higher breast cancer incidence rates and endocrine-disrupting pesticide exposure. The adjusted rate ratio (aRR), or a comparison of breast cancer incidence rates in counties with higher versus lower pesticide use after adjustments for confounding variables, was 1.02. In other words, there is a 2 percent higher breast cancer incidence rate in rural counties based on the 38 pesticides highlighted in this study.
• Neonicotinoids and Phosphonates. These two classes of pesticides, the latter of which includes glyphosate and glufosinate, show a specific significant positive association with higher rates of breast cancer after adjusting for confounding variables.
• Individual Pesticide-Level Analysis. Thiamethoxam (neonicotinoid) and chlorpyrifos (organophosphate) show a statistically significant relationship with higher rates of breast cancer.
• Higher Pesticide Use, Higher Breast Cancer Risk. In rural counties, the highest use of pesticides had meaningfully higher breast cancer incidence relative to the counties with the lowest documented pesticide use. The authors refer to the top third of highest pesticide counties as the top tertile, where tertiles are used to break data into three sets. The aRR for the highest tertile is 1.06, meaning there was a six percent higher breast cancer incidence in counties with the most annual pesticide use estimates.
• Pesticide Use Trends. Neonicotinoids, phosphonates, and pyrethroids are increasingly used between 2001 and 2015, whereas carbamates, organochlorines, organophosphates, triazines, and the selected miscellaneous pesticides are generally decreasing in use.

Previous Coverage

There are numerous investigations into the connection between pesticide use and exposure and breast cancer, as documented in the peer-reviewed literature.

Published in PLOS ONE, research in Brazil “analyzed the impact of occupational/ household chronic exposure to pesticides on the clinicopathological profile of breast cancer in rural women from Paraná southwest, a predominantly rural landscape with large pesticide uses,” finding that “pesticide exposure favors the occurrence of more aggressive breast cancer.”  The women in the exposed group “reported spending at least 50% of their lives working with pesticides and having direct contact with these substances at least once a week,” with activities such as washing items contaminated with pesticides, preparing and diluting concentrated pesticides, and spraying diluted pesticides on crops. “Furthermore, 94% of the women in the exposed group reported performing these tasks without using PPE [personal protective equipment], not even gloves,” the researchers say.  Among other findings, exposed patients have a higher prevalence (32.83%) of the more aggressive Luminal B subtype of breast cancer. Additionally, pesticide exposure also leads to higher disease recurrence and chemoresistance as compared to unexposed individuals. (See Daily News here.)

Women with occupational pesticide exposure have elevated rates of breast cancer, according to a study in Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology. Based on an analysis of clinicopathological data from 188 affected women, the study authors demonstrate “that occupational exposure to pesticides modifies the clinical presentation of disease in breast cancer patients, depending on their age at disease onset, affecting cytokine production, especially in those exhibiting early age at diagnosis.”  (See Daily News here.) A study published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety finds that the commonly used herbicide, atrazine, promotes breast cancer development through suppression of immune cell stimulation and thus function, and upregulation of enzymes mediating tumor development. (See Daily News here.) The endocrine-disrupting potential of pesticides for breast cancer is of serious concern. For example, a study published in Chemosphere adds to the growing body of research demonstrating the endocrine (hormone) disrupting effects that glyphosate has on breast cancer development. Exposure to the herbicide glyphosate and other glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) at high concentrations mimics the estrogen-like cellular effects of the powerful naturally occurring estrogen17β-estradiol (E2), altering binding activity to estrogen receptor α (ERα) sites, thus causing fundamental changes in breast cancer cell proliferation (abundance). (See Daily News here.)

Published in Science of The Total Environment in May 2024, researchers conducted a comprehensive literature review of population-based studies that find strong linkages between direct and acute pesticide exposure and elevated risk of breast cancer (BC).  Insecticides—specifically malathion, chlorpyrifos, terbufos, chlordane, and dieldrin—are the predominant group of pesticides in the studies reviewed; however, Carolina Panis, PhD, and coauthor Bernardo Lemos, PhD, indicate the need to track the life-long exposure implications for female agricultural workers and pesticide applicators on other widely-used pesticides, including atrazine and glyphosate. “Ten of the eleven selected studies reported at least one significant association between some aspect of pesticide exposure and BC risk,” the researchers report in summarizing their results. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

You can take action by subscribing to the Weekly News Update and Action of the Week to receive updates each week! If you would like to review previous Actions of the Week that are still live, see the Action of the Week Archive.

Beyond Pesticides engages with communities and local governments across the nation through the Parks for a Sustainable Future Program to transition public parks and playing fields to organic land management. You can become a Parks Advocate today and bring about the organic transition to your community!

To review additional research on the relationship between pesticides and public health, please visit the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, including the section on breast cancer.

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

Source: Cancer Causes & Control

(Beyond Pesticides, June 16, 2026) If there is one take-home message regarding reducing risk of childhood leukemias and brain cancers, it is to avoid exposure to pesticides during pregnancy—especially indoor insecticides such as flea and tick products, including DEET, household plant and commercial pesticide treatments, and proximity to pesticide applications in agriculture. A review by researchers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center and School of Natural Resources in Omaha considered 88 epidemiological papers published between 1980 and 2022 on pediatric cancer and environmental pesticide exposure and found elevated rates of pediatric cancers associated with pesticide exposure. The reviewers assessed the known associations between the risk of childhood leukemia and brain tumors and their or their parents’ exposure to pesticides, pesticide breakdown products and mixtures. They asked how important known exposures in drinking water were to the children’s risk, and whether genetics is a primary influence on cancer development.

The researchers found that the risk of childhood brain tumors increased 1.5 times if pest control products were applied during the entire year before conception. High-grade glioma risk was four times higher when pesticides were applied during pregnancy. Prenatal exposure to flea and tick products raised risk, especially for children diagnosed under the age of five, and risk doubled if the mothers directly handled the flea and tick products. The number of pets treated magnified the risk, as did the number of applications. In one reviewed study, exposure to insecticides was more closely correlated with (acute lymphocytic leukemia) ALL if the exposure occurred during pregnancy than when the child was three years old. 

Pediatric cancer is the second leading cause of death in children five to nine years old and third leading cause from ages 10-14. One case of childhood cancer can cost nearly a million dollars in medical expenses and lost parental income, the authors write. Brain cancer is the second most common childhood cancer, and the leading cause of child mortality. Of childhood cancers, leukemia is the most common among children 0-14, and ALL accounts for 25-35% of all childhood cancers.

The latency period for these childhood cancers is clearly short, suggesting that prenatal influences, including intense environmental exposures, and particular genetic susceptibilities may be factors. Most blood and brain cancers occur in children under 10, with a sharp peak in children two to five, whose ability to surmount the challenge is hampered by their weaker capacity for detoxifying chemicals and the vulnerability of rapidly developing organs targeted by the diseases. Moreover, young children, especially those under five, are far more directly exposed to all kinds of contaminants in their homes than older children and adults, and this includes various insecticides—the authors cite the fungicide sulfuryl fluoride, the multi-target compound methyl bromide, and the insecticide classes pyrethroids, organophosphates, and carbamates in particular.

Pesticide exposures of pregnant women are of extreme concern. They not only harm the mother, but pesticides can cross the placental barrier and directly affect the fetus as well. The prenatal exposures and even preconception exposures may be the most critical for risk of brain cancers and leukemias.

With respect to drinking water exposures, the reviewers analyzed a study of pesticides in Maryland groundwater that found that a mixture of nitrates (fertilizer components) and the herbicides atrazine and metolachlor produced nearly 7.5 times the risk of leukemia, brain and spinal cord, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and bone cancer in exposed children than in unexposed children. Although there is little specific research on prenatal pesticide exposures in drinking water, a 2025 Italian rat study found that in three groups treated with different dosages of glyphosate, there was a dose-related increase in the incidence of both benign tumors and malignancies, including leukemia, in both sexes, with early-life onset and premature death. Forty percent of the leukemia deaths occurred within the rats’ first year of life.

The genetic connection to leukemias and brain cancers is less clear than the environmental exposures. An estimated 10-20% of pediatric cancers are attributable to alterations in the parental germ cells, but only about 5% of ALL cases are thought to be genetically related—and of these, most result from “genetic damage induced by environmental exposures,” according to the authors of the current review. Over the last 40 years, childhood leukemia incidence has increased by about 35%, especially among Latino children, according to a 2021 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences/EPA report on children’s environmental health. This suggests that environmental factors must play a much bigger role in childhood cancer incidence than strict genetic inheritance. But such factors, including pesticides, can damage DNA by scrambling chromosomes during replication, activating cancer-related genes or inactivating tumor suppressor genes. So even mechanisms that appear to be genetic can have their source in toxic chemical exposures.

This review echoes a previous one by the National Institute of Pediatrics and National Polytechnic Institute analyzed by Beyond Pesticides in 2024. That meta-analysis of 174 studies found that “more than 80% of the epidemiological studies show positive associations [with forms of childhood cancer] and pesticide exposure,” and, of those, about a third found positive associations of pre- and post-natal pesticide exposure with leukemia and neuroblastoma, a childhood cancer of immature sympathetic nervous system cells. Of the studies in that meta-analysis focusing on pesticides, more than half involved parental and prenatal exposures, reinforcing the evidence that the preconception and prenatal periods of reproduction are the most vulnerable phases of life for both parent and child. Anybody who is worried about reproductive success and children’s thriving must consider the ubiquity of pesticides in homes, water, air, and food. Eliminating them from the environment would be an efficient way to sharply reduce the stress, heartbreak and expense of childhood cancers.

See Beyond Pesticides’ explainer “Pesticides and Children Don’t Mix” for further information. See also resources on less toxic methods of controlling fleas and ticks.

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

Sources:

Environmental Pesticide Exposure in the Etiology of Pediatric Brain Tumors and Leukemia: A Scoping Review of Epidemiological Studies
VanDeSteeg et al.
International Journal of Cancer 2026
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.70546

Ten Years of Scientific Studies Find Association Between Childhood Cancer and 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/

Dire Pediatric Cancer Risk Linked to Pesticide Mixtures, Laws To Protect Children Found To Be Lax
Beyond Pesticides, December 3, 2025
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2025/12/dire-pediatric-cancer-risk-linked-to-pesticide-mixtures-laws-to-protect-children-found-to-be-lax/

In Utero Origins of Acute Leukemia in Children
De Smith and Spector
Biomedicines 2024
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/12/1/236

(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2026) An Action released by Beyond Pesticides is asking federal legislators to co-sponsor a bill that will prohibit certain toxicants in plastic food packing materials. The group is asking U.S. Senators and Representatives to cosponsor H.R.9231/S.4724, the No Toxics in Food Packaging Act. 

Toxic substances moving from food packaging materials into packaged foods present a significant health risk. Packaging materials—including plastics, metals, glass, and paper—often contain additives, residual solvents, and the building blocks of molecules (monomers) that can contaminate food when they move into it.  

Many of these substances, as well as their degradation products, can produce adverse effects ranging from endocrine disruption to cancer and reproductive toxicity and have been shown to move into food and be present at levels exceeding regulatory limits. The mechanisms by which chemicals transfer or migrate from plastic include diffusion, volatilization, permeation, convection, solvent extraction, and heat transfer. In addition to inadvertent migration, food packaging may also be purposely chosen to be “active”—which may absorb or release substances.  

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly adopted UNEA Resolution 5/14 entitled “End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument.” With the Trump Administration shutting down environmental programs and exiting from collaborative international environmental agreements, the work of the world community has taken on elevated importance, given the urgency of health, biodiversity, and environmental crises; so, too, has the work going on at the state level and in local communities across the U.S. The interconnectedness of the pesticide and plastic problems was brought into focus recently with a scientific review of articles showing elevated pesticide hazards linked to plastic contamination. A literature review in Agriculture, covering over 90 scientific articles documents how microplastics increase the bioavailability, persistence, and toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture. (See Daily News.)

Food packaging materials affect organic products as well as those produced by chemical-intensive agriculture, so consumers who carefully read labels and choose products with organic ingredients may still find them contaminated by chemicals migrating from containers. Beyond Pesticides and others have alerted the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) about the hazards of plastic in organic production and handling. Elimination of plastic packaging (which contains many of the chemicals listed in this bill) in organic production and handling should be a priority of the NOSB. 

The No Toxics in Food Packaging Act, introduced by U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), takes a first step to eliminating toxic substances that are known to migrate from food packaging. It identifies 15 chemicals or chemical classes that are some of the most dangerous toxic chemicals migrating from food packaging and food processing materials—targeting chemicals that have been linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other serious health risks. These chemicals—which include PFAS, orthophthalates, and bisphenols—would be “deemed to be unsafe for use as food contact substances.” Notably, the bill defines PFAS as a “perfluoroalkyl substance or a polyfluoroalkyl substance that contains at least 1 fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom,” the definition used internationally, though not currently by U.S. regulatory agencies, which are much more limited in their definition. The law will go into effect two years after enactment. 

*Additional cosponsors of the No Toxics in Food Packaging Act include U.S. Representatives Nanette Barragán (CA-44), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-At Large), Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Stephen Lynch (MA-08), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), as well as U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

People are telling their U.S. Senators and Representative to cosponsor H.R.9231/S.4724, the No Toxics in Food Packaging Act. 

 In other plastics news, there are many uses of plastic—from artificial turf to plastic mulch to water pipes—that release toxic chemicals in use and micro- or nanoplastics as they degrade and should be eliminated. However, one broad class of plastic can be singled out because it is destined for immediate disposal—and disintegration into microplastics. Single-use plastics are therefore the target of statewide legislation that has been passed in Vermont and New Jersey. Beyond Plastics has drafted a model a model bill for statewide and local legislation to eliminate single-use plastics. This bill bans many of the most common sources of single-use plastic pollution—plastic bags, plastic straws, stirrers, splash guards, polystyrene, and balloon releases. 

Letter to Congress
Toxic substances move, or migrate, from food packaging materials into packaged foods and present a significant health risk. Packaging materials—including plastics, metals, glass, and paper—often contain additives, residual solvents, and monomers that can contaminate food when they move into it. 

Many of these substances, as well as their degradation products, can produce adverse effects ranging from endocrine disruption to cancer and reproductive toxicity and have been shown to move into food and be present at levels exceeding regulatory limits. Migration mechanisms include diffusion, volatilization, permeation, convection, solvent extraction, and heat transfer. In addition to inadvertent migration, food packaging may also be chosen to be “active”—which may purposely absorb or release substances. 

Unfortunately, food packaging materials affect organic products as well as those produced by chemical-intensive agriculture, so consumers who carefully read labels and choose products with organic ingredients may still find them contaminated by chemicals migrating from containers.

The No Toxics in Food Packaging Act, introduced by U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (CT-03), takes a first step in eliminating toxic substances that are known to migrate from food packaging. It identifies 15 chemicals or chemical classes that are some of the most dangerous toxic chemicals from food packaging and food processing materials—targeting chemicals that have been linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other serious health risks. These chemicals—which include PFAS, orthophthalates, and bisphenols—would be “deemed to be unsafe for use as food contact substances.” Notably, the bill defines PFAS as a “perfluoroalkyl substance or a polyfluoroalkyl substance that contains at least 1 fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom,” the definition used internationally, though not currently by U.S. regulatory agencies, which are much more limited in their definition. The law will go into effect two years after enactment.

Please help eliminate dangerous chemicals in our food by cosponsoring the No Toxics in Food Packaging Act [H.R.9231/S.4724].

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2026) In a literature review published in Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, researchers assessed 27 peer-reviewed studies conducted between 2011 and 2025 on the adverse impacts of insecticides, including neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, organophosphates, chlorpyrifos, and fipronil. Across agricultural and suburban environments, pesticides were detected in the majority (88 percent) of samples. This review builds on the continuous flow of science that highlights the adverse impacts of synthetic pesticide dependency on ecosystems and wildlife that are essential to global biodiversity.

Main Findings

The researchers, based at a variety of research institutions in Jordan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, and India, refined their search to 27 studies after screening for geographic diversity and empirical robustness; for example, they excluded studies that did not include empirical data, relied solely on nonagricultural contexts, or only assessed exposure through urban wastewater exclusively.

Toxicological data assessed include pesticide occurrence, toxicity, and biological responses. This literature review is not a meta-analysis, but rather a narrative synthesis of various findings.

The main findings include:

• Documented Widespread Pesticide Occurrence. In the United States, based on data collected between 2013 and 2017, 88 percent of water samples contained pesticides, with a median of 18 compounds across all sites and 24 at agricultural sites, peaking between the months of May and July. (Covert et al., 2020). Great Lake tributaries show 96 percent of samples testing positive for pesticide residue, with a median of 16 compounds detected year-round. (Oliver et al., 2023)
• Sediment and Algal Mixtures as Exposure Pathways for Contamination. Glyphosate and one of its breakdown products (AMPA) were detected in periphyton (algal mixtures) at 50 percent and 30 percent of Ontario agricultural drain sites, respectively. Researchers have determined that mayfly survival, a pivotal source of energy for various aquatic organisms, can be compromised due to exposure. (Ijzerman et al., 2023) In Japan, the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid was found in the sediment of 66 of 90 sites with evidence of fipronil metabolite persistence. (Furihata et al., 2019)
• Exceeding Regulatory Thresholds in Multiple National Contexts. In the U.S., 60.9 percent of agricultural samples exceeded both chronic and acute benchmarks set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (Covert et al., 2020) In small water bodies in Germany, 22 percent of samples exceeded legally acceptable concentrations. (Lorenz et al., 2025) The story for German protected streams was more dire—70 percent of stream samples exceeded legally acceptable concentrations, largely driven by fipronil (9 times the limit) and imidacloprid (6 times the limit). (Schweiger et al., 2025)
• Measurable Impacts Below Regulatory Benchmarks. In U.S. wetlands, sediment equivalents (NI-EQs) of neonicotinoids drove chronic insect effects (including adverse impacts on species abundance and richness), even when water concentrations remained below acute EPA benchmarks. Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tested water and sediment levels for potential impacts of thiamethoxam (neonicotinoid)-coated and fungicide-coated seeds on benthic organisms in Missouri floodplains between 2016 and 2017. (Kuechle et al., 2022)
• Developmental and Immunotoxicity in Fish. As mentioned above, there is evidence of sublethal effects to fish embryos due to pesticide drift. In Costa Rica, fish exposed to agricultural drift exhibit elevated biomarker levels, with macroinvertebrate abundance lowest at sites with the highest concentration of pesticides. Researchers sought to understand the ecotoxicity of agrichemical pesticide runoff from pineapple, rice, and banana plantations on the aquatic biodiversity of the Madre de Dios River watershed. (Echeverría-Sáenz et al., 2018)
• Undermining Ecosystem Services. Pesticides have demonstrated disruption of ecosystem services and basic functioning. For example, Japanese rice-paddy mesocosms reduce macrophytes by 25–51%, with phytophilous predators being most sensitive. Researchers in this study highlight the importance of assessing the impacts of indirect agrichemical exposure on species traits of aquatic predatory insects found in rice paddies to more adequately “predict the realistic risks of [these threats] in nature.” (Hashimoto et al., 2019) Glyphosate drift into semi-natural ponds causes persistent species richness reduction among zooplankton (a critical food source for aquatic insects), among other deleterious impacts on these aquatic environments in Canada. For example, “taxon richness decreased in more contaminated ponds [and] failed to recover.” (Hébert et al., 2021)
• Toxic Mixtures Contribute to Multi-Stressor Interactions. The neonicotinoid thiacloprid combined with synthetic fertilizers altered microbial, phytoplankton, and chironomid communities in an additive manner that is not considered in single-stressor (individual pesticide or fertilizer) studies. (Beentjes et al., 2022) Urban streams that feed into the Amazon demonstrate high invertebrate risk from a multitude of compounds banned in the European Union, including chlorpyrifos, diuron, atrazine, and terbuthylazine. (Rico et al., 2022)

Previous Coverage

The U.S. regulatory system fails to assess the cumulative impacts of toxic pesticides, fertilizers, PFAS, and other exposure mechanisms based on potential additive or synergistic impacts.

A University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) report, Building Capacity for Robust Pesticide Regulation: Part I – Cumulative Impacts, underscores the critical gaps in federal and state pesticide law and the opportunity for comprehensive reform to strengthen cumulative impact assessments for pesticide products. The main goal for this specific report is to develop a toolbox of scientific methodologies/approaches for California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and the local permitting process by county agricultural commissioners (CACs) to engage in more comprehensive and cumulative impact assessments under their purview. Before going into legal and regulatory history, the authors first distinguish between some key concepts, including cumulative exposure, cumulative risk, cumulative impact, and pesticide mixtures. 

Cumulative exposure refers to the various pathways (e.g., soil, air, water) and routes (e.g., ingestion, dermal, inhalation) through which pesticide exposure occurs. Cumulative risk is the combined risk from multiple exposures, with cumulative impact stacking on additional dimensions (or “stressors,” as the report refers to them), including socio-economic status or heat stress, among others.

The report also describes three types of pesticide mixtures, some of which individuals or communities simultaneously face. These include the following:

• Product mixtures, where one registered pesticide product is a pre-mixed formulation of multiple active ingredients, “inert” or “other” nondisclosed ingredients, adjuvants, and other substances. For example, the new (as of 2024) Roundup Weed and Grass Killer “Exclusive Formula” consists of triclopyr, fluazifop, and diquat—three different active ingredients registered with EPA within one product.
• Field mixtures, where multiple pesticide products are added to a tank and simultaneously sprayed on crops—either because the EPA-registered label is “silent with respect to mixing, leaving the decision to the grower or applicator,” or “the application instructions on the product label require or encourage mixing with other pesticides or with materials such as emulsifiers or wetting agents.”
• Coincidental mixtures, when separate applications from individual pesticide products and field mixtures from adjacent fields form into new combinations that could lead to additive (synergistic) or subtractive effects.

In terms of the various pesticide mixtures, the report offers different recommendations based on product mixtures, field mixtures, and coincidental mixtures. Beyond Pesticides notes that risk assessment methodology, unless it is considered in the context of a rigorous alternatives assessment, begins with the mostly false assumption that petrochemical pesticides are needed (or are essential) to achieve cost-effective pest management, agricultural productivity and profitability, and quality of life, when, in fact, this may not be the case. Therefore, improved risk calculations, while important to characterizing the harm and the gaps in fully assessing adverse effects associated with pesticide use, still impose some level of harm deemed by the government to be acceptable. For more information, see Daily News, Report Describes Complex Cumulative Risk Assessment Proposal to Implement California Law.

The decades-long chemical dependency crisis on top of the climate crisis is wreaking havoc on biodiversity in increasingly shocking outcomes. For example, researchers from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany, analyze exposure to the pyrethroid insecticide esfenvalerate with two nonchemical environmental factors: elevated temperature and food limitation. In their recent publication in Environmental Pollution, the authors find the greatest synergistic effects when dapnids/water fleas, referred to as Daphnia magna (D. magna), are subjected to esfenvalerate under these aforementioned, climate-exacerbated conditions. (See Daily News here.) A separate study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials by scientists at six Chinese universities and research centers examines the convergence in springtails (Folsomia candida)—tiny insect-like animals that live in soils worldwide and are commonly used as laboratory subjects. The researchers exposed springtails to the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid at three concentrations and three temperatures. In addition to measuring the springtails’ direct mortality, the researchers also investigated the microbes in the animals’ guts, checking for expression of genes involved in antibiotic resistance. The evidence is unequivocal: imidacloprid exposure at a soil temperature consistent with current and expected warming (30°C, or 86° F) killed significant numbers of springtails. This common soil arthropod has clearly illustrated how this convergence creates synergistic effects: warming increases pesticide toxicity; pesticide toxicity triggers antibiotic resistance; antibiotic resistance spreads through horizontal gene transfer (movement through the environment to people) and predation. The consequences, not yet fully understood, are nevertheless emerging from accumulating research. (See Daily News here.)

Synergistic effects also translate into the multi-faceted stressors that face beneficial organisms that undergird agricultural systems, including honey bees and earthworms. For example, a study published in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology finds that the combination of Varroa mites with the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid increases the risk of bee mortality and disrupts the larval gut microbiome, stressing a synergistic effect (a greater combined effect) between Varroa destructor, a parasitic mite that attacks and feeds on honey bees, and imidacloprid. (See Daily News here.) A study of earthworms published in Environmental Science & Technology highlights that chemical mixtures can have both synergistic and species-specific effects, threatening the soil microbiome and overall soil health. In exposing two species, Eisenia fetida and Metaphire guillelmi, to the weed killer glyphosate alone and in combination with urea, a synthetic fertilizer, the researchers find enhanced toxicity with co-exposure as well as varying health effects between the two species. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

There are multiple actions that you can take to urge elected officials and regulators to shift gears and embrace the precautionary approach to pesticide use in the United States.

• Tell EPA, FDA, and Congress that regulations must consider the effects of pesticides in the context in which they are used and with reference to the organic alternative. The target for this Action is the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the Department of Health and Human Services.
• Tell Congress, FDA, and EPA that it is past time to stop the manufacture and use of all organophosphate pesticides, which damage the nervous system and brain at low levels. The target for this Action is the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under the Department of Health and Human Services.
• Accurately define and ban PFAS pesticides, starting in California. Don’t let EPA dismiss the serious health and environmental threat with a definition that defies international standards. This action targets Congress and EPA, and, for California residents, it additionally targets California state Senators.

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

Source: Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2026) A study of honey bee colonies in Florida and California, published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, finds elevated mortality from pesticide residues, including those that have been documented to threaten pollinators. As the authors describe, “While bees die from multiple, often interacting, stressors, here we show single contributors at levels capable of causing acute harm.” The presence of miticides, fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides within the bee colonies, including in the bodies of dying bees, further highlights pesticides as drivers of bee declines.

By sampling both dying bees and in-house bees for chemical residues, the researchers are able to compare symptomatic colonies and control colonies. The authors note, “Our findings differ from previous screenings, which cast a broad net, screening agrochemicals in colonies nationwide, and not necessarily from impacted operations.” This study, however, shows the presence of specific pesticide residues in commercially managed colonies after die-off incidences. The neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid, in particular, is widely detected and found in high levels, with the researchers identifying the compound as the largest contributor to bee death.

Background

Scientific literature linking pesticides, including neonicotinoids, to adverse impacts on pollinators continues to mount, as do the devasting population declines of pollinators and other insects. This “insect apocalypse” has been reported with one-quarter of the global insect population lost since 1990. As professor of biology, researcher, and author, Dave Goulson, PhD, University of Sussex, says, the drastic decline in insect populations that is occurring threatens all ecosystems. In an essay in Current Biology, he states, “Insects are integral to every terrestrial food web, being food for numerous birds, bats, reptiles, amphibians and fish, and performing vital roles such as pollination, pest control and nutrient recycling. Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems will collapse without insects… we may have failed to appreciate the full scale and pace of environmental degradation caused by human activities in the Anthropocene.”

As the study authors point out, both managed and wild pollinators deliver crucial ecosystem services, most notably pollination, and interact “across diverse landscapes to enable reproduction in nearly 75% of the world’s flowering plants.” (See study here.) The European honey bee, Apis mellifera, is both a wild and a managed pollinator in North America and is considered a generalist pollinator, meaning it visits a wide variety of plant species to feed on nectar and pollen.

With the reliance on chemical solutions, such as in chemical-intensive agriculture, harmful pest management practices threaten pollinators and overall insect biodiversity. Bees encounter pesticides directly and indirectly as they forage, which can then act synergistically (causing a greater combined effect) with other chemicals and stressors (like parasites) to cause declines in health.

Study Methodology and Results

The researchers screened 132 colonies from 23 commercial beekeeping operations in Florida and California after they experienced heightened colony losses. In sampling bees and their products (wax and bee bread, a fermented mixture of flower pollen, nectar, and bee saliva) for chemical residues, the results show high levels of chemical residues in all colony matrices. The colonies in Florida were sampled during or right after mass bee die-offs and before transport to California while colonies in California were sampled at the start of almond pollination. Most notably, levels of miticides (applied directly by beekeepers), as well as fungicides, were the most abundant for all colonies.

While residues of herbicides and insecticides varied between colonies, imidacloprid contributes 99.9% to overall hazard quotients (HQ). In finding imidacloprid in high prevalence and high levels in a subsample of dying bees, this highlights “a survivorship bias, where dying bees had active ingredients known to have acute toxicity to bees,” while survivors within the hive did not experience the same exposure and subsequent residues prior to sampling.

Additional results include:

• “A higher prevalence of each pesticide class was detected in adult bees from California than bees collected in Florida. Herbicides were detected in 1.5% of adult bees from Florida, while 50% of bee samples collected in California had detectable levels of herbicides. Insecticides were detected less frequently in adult bee bodies from Florida (27.3%) than in adult bee bodies from California (80%).”
• Beekeeper-applied miticides are detected in higher concentrations and frequencies in bees, wax, and bee bread samples from Florida than any other class of pesticides. Similarly, miticides are also detected at the highest frequency in California adult bee samples. Among the miticides, amitraz is the most frequently observed miticide, appearing in the majority of samples in all colony matrices.

Research finds that miticides increase the vulnerability of hives to pesticides and other stressors. It is not surprising that miticides are found in the hives, as the literature shows that mite problems increase with bee exposure to neonicotinoids. A 2024 article in Entomology Today, a publication of the Entomological Society of America, highlights the important findings of a study published earlier in the same year in the Journal of Insect Science showing elevated mite problems associated with neonicotinoid exposure. While there has been debate on whether neonicotinoid insecticides or Varroa mites (Varroa destructor) are more detrimental to the survival of bees, evidence suggests that neonicotinoids are not only harmful individually but can increase vulnerability to parasitism from mites in western honey bees. The Entomology Today article reads: “Some researchers and organizations have pointed to neonics as directly harming bees. Others have pointed to other issues, like Varroa mite infestation, as more hazardous to honey bee populations.” There is scientific evidence supporting each claim, as both cause stress to bee species that can lead to population decline. The study in the Journal of Insect Science, however, is “the first experimental field demonstration of how neonicotinoid exposure can increase V. destructor populations in honey bees and also demonstrates that colony genetic diversity cannot mitigate the effects of neonicotinoid pesticides.” 

The presence of Varroa mites in combination with imidacloprid increases the risk of bee mortality and disrupts the larval gut microbiome, according to a study of the synergy between V. destructor, a parasitic mite that attacks and feeds on honey bees, and imidacloprid. The study, published in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, adds to the growing body of science on the severely declining bee population by investigating the toxic effects of both the parasites and pesticide stressors in honey bees. (See Daily News here.)

The current study results highlight that honey bees are “exposed to significant levels of pesticides via all colony matrices, consistent with multiple large-scale nationwide screenings since 2010.” (See here, here, and here.) With the detection of imidacloprid in all of the affected operations in this study, at levels that are higher than those documented for causing acute toxicity, this shows the immense threats to pollinator populations with the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, as well as other pesticide products.   

“[E]xposures with extreme-high risk HQ cores are likely to be impacted by acute toxicities,” the researchers summarize. They continue: “The current scientific consensus assumes bee declines reflect multiple, often interacting, stressors, leading to a ‘death by a thousand cuts.’ Indeed, surveys of honey bees in decline have shown multiple potential actors, from viruses to gut parasites and chemical stress as potential causes. This study shows that honey bees can be exposed to concentrations of singular stressors at levels known to cause acute harm and loss of life.” Acute mortality, as well as sublethal and synergistic effects, all contribute to declines in pollinator populations. From mass bee die-offs where dead bees are found to documented impacts to navigation that could prevent bees from returning to the hive, many effects are occurring that threaten bee survival.

Previous Research

This study is consistent with findings from previous scientific literature, including a multi-year, national analysis of pesticide residues. (See study here.) Additional recent research documents the adverse effects of pesticides on bee health and survival. In a study published in Environmental Pollution, researchers detected 15 currently used pesticides (CUPs)—including 10 pesticide compounds detected but not applied within the study’s managed fields— in the pollen of beehives in an environment meant to reflect a typical honey bee foraging range. The detection of pesticides that were not directly applied within the study’s target radius demonstrates the pervasiveness of pesticide drift into soils, streams, and bodies. The findings are particularly concerning, given the toxicity hazards to honey bees associated with pesticide exposure in this study and bolstered by other studies, resulting in documented threats to their health. (See more here.)

In the Daily News article entitled Insecticides Gravely Threaten Honey Bee Gut Microbiome, Study Findings Expand on Previous Research, a study published in Insects finds threats to Italian honey bees (Apis mellifera ligustica) following exposure to insecticides with contrasting toxicity levels. Both the high toxicity and low toxicity compounds impact honey bee gut bacteria and gut microbial composition, showing how even “reduced risk” insecticides can have sublethal effects and jeopardize pollinator health. Additional research finds that neonicotinoid insecticides cause deadly overheating behavior and reproductive dysfunction in honey bees. (See here and here.)

A study of two pollinator species, honey bees and small carpenter bees (Ceratina calcarata), finds oxidative stress—an imbalance between antioxidant defenses and excess reactive oxygen molecules (species), or ROS—resulting from exposure to non-living (abiotic) stressors, such as synthetic chemicals, leading to cell damage. Regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), do not routinely evaluate oxidative stress as a standalone or required endpoint in standard pesticide registration protocols. In comparing pollinator responses to different pesticides and pest control management practices, the lowest levels of OX are exhibited in organically managed systems. (See Daily News here.)

The Organic Solution

Rich biodiversity is imperative for ecosystem functioning. Insects, such as honey bees, are invaluable for pollination, which many plants depend on for survival and reproduction, including those in food production. The role of pollinators in global crop yields and biodiversity in natural ecosystems, however, is gravely threatened by environmental contaminants, as documented in the current study and a wide body of other peer-reviewed, independent research.

As a solution, organically managed systems can help protect and support pollinator populations. One study, published in Global Ecology and Conservation, builds on the breadth of existing research in recent years that underscores the adverse public health and biodiversity effects associated with a food system that is drenched in synthetic chemicals, as well as additional evidence of the ecological and economic benefits of organic agriculture. In investigating the biodiversity of agricultural landscapes in organic and nonorganic areas in “bee hotels,” the researchers find that there is a positive correlation between organically managed fields and numerous indicators of improved pollinator health, including an increase in bee abundance, species richness, and diversity. (See Daily News here.)

To learn more about the effects of pesticides on bees, other pollinators, and other beneficial organisms, visit the What the Science Shows on Biodiversity resource page. Adopt pollinator-friendly practices for Protecting Honey Bees and Wild Pollinators From Pesticides as you Spring Into Action this season. For additional benefits of organic, see Study Highlights Benefits of Organic Agriculture for Pollinator Health, Building on Existing Research.

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

Source:

Lamas, Z. et al. (2026) Chemical residues in declining commercial honey bee colonies, Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1382668926001262.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2026) Adding to the wide body of science connecting the weed killer paraquat to deleterious health and environmental effects, Investigate Midwest recently released an investigative news article connecting air emissions of paraquat from chemical plants in the Mississippi Basin to Parkinson’s disease, among other adverse health effects. The herbicide is also fatal to humans with a single sip, as documented in the article, entitled “This herbicide is so toxic it’s been banned in over 70 countries. But plants in the South are releasing it into the air.” 

In capturing the story of Wayne County, Mississippi, where approximately 20,000 people live surrounded by forest and farmland, Investigate Midwest sheds light on the connection between the Sipcam Agro plant that processes and emits paraquat. The plant is located in the county with among the highest U.S. rates of Parkinson’s disease deaths, the top 7% of all U.S. counties. 

Background on Paraquat 

Paraquat has been on the market since the 1960s, created by a predecessor of Syngenta. In March of this year, Syngenta announced it would stop producing paraquat in the UK after thousands of lawsuits, primarily by farmers and farmworkers, cite Syngenta’s failure to warn of adverse health effects like Parkinson’s disease. Stopping the production of paraquat in the UK will not prevent paraquat from entering the U.S., as “other companies and other facilities—like the one in Wayne County—will fill the gap, likely increasing the amount of paraquat they handle.” 

According to previous data from the U.S. Geological Survey, approximately 11 to 17 million pounds of paraquat were sprayed annually in 2017, which may be much higher in recent years. Despite bans in over 70 countries, including China, Brazil, and throughout the European Union (EU), the U.S. continues to utilize paraquat in agriculture. With inaction in the U.S. through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states are stepping in with bans. (See more on regulatory deficiencies here.)  

Just this year, 13 states have introduced bills to ban or restrict paraquat. Most recently, the ban in Vermont successfully passed on May 26, making it the first state to implement a paraquat ban. This bill will ban the use or sale of paraquat starting on November 1 of this year, while farmers can get written exceptions for certain crops until the end of 2030.  

Research has proven that paraquat is not needed for agriculture. A 2023 study, published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, finds that “eliminating paraquat will save lives without reducing agricultural productivity,” further supporting additional scientific literature that showcases the viability of alternative agricultural and land management practices, such as with organic. (See here.) 

Despite decades of research and campaigns to remove paraquat from the U.S. market, this chemical continues to be used domestically, sprayed on millions of acres of farmland each year. “About 35% of large commercial farms in the U.S. now use paraquat to kill weeds and dry up crops for harvest, often soybean, corn and cotton,” the Investigate Midwest article points out. “It can quickly clear large tracts of land without having to pay laborers to till [or adopt intercropping or mulching systems typically used in organic management]. Use of the cheap, broad-spectrum herbicide has more than tripled between 2006 and 2017, a surge the EPA has attributed to a rise in resistance to another popular herbicide called glyphosate, also known as Roundup.” Swapping one poison for the other when resistance occurs, or as individual compounds are banned, perpetuates the pesticide treadmill and ignores the availability of safer alternatives.  

Paraquat Emissions 

While paraquat is not produced in the U.S. due to manufacturing costs being much lower in other countries, millions of pounds of paraquat enter the U.S., mainly through the southern states. As the article states: “The majority of paraquat entering the U.S. between 2017 and 2024 – 398 million out of 583 million pounds – came through the Port of New Orleans… The number of shipments has also been increasing. In 2006, the Port of New Orleans imported 14 shipments of paraquat. By 2016, it was 144 shipments, and in 2025, 449, averaging more than one a day, according to data provided by Coming Clean, a nonprofit environmental health collaborative. Most of those shipments were by Syngenta.” 

The chemical plant in Wayne County, Mississippi, is allowed by law to emit paraquat, as it is not a federally regulated air pollutant. Since Sipcam Agro took over the facility in 2023, in 2024, “airborne emissions soared to over 47,000 pounds: enough paraquat to treat a tract of land larger than the city of Atlanta. The plant released a combined 81,667 pounds of the toxic herbicide into the air in 2023 and 2024. They were reported as fugitive emissions, likely meaning they unintentionally leaked during the industrial processes.” Notably, Wayne County’s Parkinson’s mortality rate averages at 21.5 per 100,000 people, while the nationwide average is 11.5. 

This plant continues to emit “tens of thousands of pounds of paraquat into the air, exposing workers and nearby residents,” which encompasses hundreds of households within a mile of the plant, where the majority are Black. This highlights the disproportionate risks that fenceline communities face, further causing environmental injustices to minority populations that live in close proximity to these chemical plants. 

Previous Research 

Paraquat exposure can cause a range of health effects, particularly neurological disorders. Long-term paraquat exposure has even been linked to lung scarring. A 2024 study, published in International Journal of Epidemiology, finds that people living within 1,600 feet of a paraquat application site have 91% higher odds of developing Parkinson’s. Another study, published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, finds that people living on the same water service system as a golf course have double the odds of developing Parkinson’s. (See Daily News here.) 

Earlier this year, as documented in Daily News coverage entitled As Litigation and Settlements Mount for the Weed Killer Paraquat, Advocates Call for a Ban and Alternatives, the first U.S. jury trial on paraquat against global chemical companies Syngenta Crop Protection, Chevron U.S.A., FMC Corporation, and their predecessors was scuttled due to a settlement on the eve of the case being heard in court. The complaint describes what is known about the associations between paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease. There are numerous hallmarks of Parkinson’s that can be linked back to the effects paraquat has, based on the known science and evidence at the time of its registration with EPA and subsequent production, manufacturing, sale, and marketing. The lawyers for the plaintiffs explain:  

“It has been scientifically known since the 1960s that Paraquat (due to its redox properties) is toxic to the cells of plants and animals. The same redox properties that make Paraquat toxic to plant cells and other types of animal cells make it toxic to dopaminergic neurons in humans—that is, Paraquat is a strong oxidant that interferes with the function of, damages, and ultimately kills dopaminergic neurons in the human brain by creating oxidative stress through redox cycling. ” 

The report, Designed to Kill: Who Profits from Paraquat, and accompanying interactive storymap, unpacks the supply chain of the infamous herbicide paraquat and underscores the true costs of pesticide products, from manufacturing to use in the fields. This report is part of a larger initiative, the Pesticide Mapping Project—“a collaborative research series that illustrates the health and climate harms of pesticides across their toxic lifecycle: including fossil fuel extraction, manufacturing, international trade, and application on vast areas of U.S. land.” (See Report on Weed Killer Paraquat Identifies True Hazard Costs from Manufacturing to Use.) 

In a previous Action of the Week, Beyond Pesticides challenges EPA to apply the same standard that removed Dacthal from the market to the long list of pesticides that are contributing to a health crisis, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency, including paraquat. While EPA received accolades for its August 7, 2024, decision to ban the herbicide Dacthal (or DCPA—dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate), it also leaves many people asking, “Why Dacthal and not other very hazardous pesticides?” Paraquat, for example, poses similar elevated hazards to people and the environment, has no antidote, and has viable alternatives. Therefore, EPA must apply the standard of the Dacthal decision to paraquat and issue an emergency suspension and prohibit use of existing stocks.  

A review published in Ecotoxicology, covered in Paraquat—The Continuing Environmental Threat Among All Species, reiterates what past studies have repeatedly stated: the herbicide paraquat has profound adverse effects on wildlife at environmentally relevant concentrations. Moreover, these adverse effects span beyond the wild areas, as exposure to this highly toxic herbicide also impacts the health of people working with this chemical (e.g., pesticide applicators) or living adjacent to areas of chemical use. The review investigated paraquat in the environment, the chemical’s toxicity to nontarget species, and significant data gaps. Overall, the long-term risks of environmental paraquat contamination for human and ecological communities can be challenging since the potential chronic effects from extended use are nearly unstudied. Most concerning is that paraquat is immobile in soil and remarkably hydrophilic (remaining in water columns and sediment), thus having a long environmental half-life with nonselective toxicity. Although the review highlights that nontarget plants are most at risk from environmentally relevant concentrations of paraquat, vertebrates, and invertebrates still receive nonselective toxicity mainly through oxidative stress, with the review noting that paraquat has one of the highest acute toxicity values among all herbicides. (See Beyond Pesticides’ previous regulatory comments on paraquat here, as well as additional Daily News coverage here.) 

A Holistic Solution 

Banning paraquat is just one piece of a larger systemic issue. There is an urgent need for a widescale transition to alternative pest management systems for both agricultural and land management practices. Organic methods, as defined by federal law, can protect the health and wellbeing of not only local communities working with or living near pesticides, but all wildlife and ecosystems as well.  

Take action by buying, growing, and supporting organic food to eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic agriculture offers numerous health and environmental benefits, which can eliminate the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. For more information on how organic is the right choice for all individuals, see the Beyond Pesticides resource, Eating with a Conscience.   

Additionally, you can sign up to receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Update emails to stay notified on ways to engage in actions that expand organic land management in agricultural contexts and on public green spaces, parks, and playing fields. See Parks for a Sustainable Future to learn more about bringing organic to your community. 

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

Source: 

Nolan, D. (2026) This herbicide is so toxic it’s been banned in over 70 countries. But plants in the South are releasing it into the air., Investigate Midwest. Available at: https://investigatemidwest.org/2026/05/18/this-herbicide-is-so-toxic-its-been-banned-in-over-70-countries-but-plants-in-the-south-are-releasing-it-into-the-air/.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2026) In a new literature review published in Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing, researchers identify 10 peer-reviewed studies with a statistically significant relationship between pesticide exposure and declines in cognitive function among agricultural workers. The cognitive deficits adversely impact their daily functioning and safety on the job. These adverse impacts include disruptions to visual memory, attention, language speaking, and perceptual-motor function. Two of these studies specifically compare chemical-intensive and organic farmers, finding a relationship between less synthetic pesticide exposure and improved neurological and cognitive outcomes.

While more data is needed to produce precise dose-response estimates by active ingredient/chemical mixture, the findings support a precautionary approach to pest management decisions and transitioning to organic land management, a trend that is increasing across the U.S. and worldwide.

Main Findings

The researchers identify 12 studies published between 2016 and 2023 that assessed pesticide impacts—“including insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, bactericides, rodenticides, and nematodes”—on various areas of cognitive function in agricultural workers, with 10 of those studies showing a statistically significant relationship. The main findings include:

• Two studies compare organic and chemical-intensive farmers, with one study focused on Costa Rica (Mora et al., 2022) and the other focused on the United States (Khan et al., 2018). Both studies identify that conventional farmers face more significant cognitive and neurological declines relative to organic farmers; however, researchers point out that more robust research is necessary, given that the population sizes were small and there were significant age gaps between groups. The U.S.-based study tested 357 farmers (200 conventional and 157 organic) using a cross-sectional methodology.
• A slew of neurobehavioral symptoms, including headaches, short-term memory loss, concentration difficulties, fatigue, and palpitations are linked to pesticide exposure. Pesticide spraying frequency, use of personal protective equipment, and smoking habits did have a statistically significant correlation to neurobehavioral performance. This study focused on farmers in Nepal with age groups ranging from 18-57 years, mixed nutritional status, among other factors. (Tiwari et al., 2022)
• In gathering urine samples of 48 agricultural workers (organic and conventional farmers in Costa Rica), researchers determined that “working memory in the prefrontal cortex was compromised by excessive pesticide exposure” for the conventional farmers. (Mora et al., 2022)
• Long-term exposure (greater than 10 years) was associated with 2.6-times higher risk of neurocognitive disorders compared to short-term exposures. This study was conducted in Indonesia with 66 participants ranging from 40 to 60 years-old who were exposed to insecticides for a minimum of two years. (Laksmidewi et al., 2020)
• Organophosphate pesticides are particularly associated with memory impairment and detrimental impacts on attention. Researchers associate this relationship with a decrease in acetylcholinesterase (AChE), the enzyme critical to the transmission of nerve impulses. Researchers tested 95 seasonal cotton workers in Egypt between the ages of 12 to 21 years-old based on exposure to insecticides, herbicides, and rodenticides. (Rohlman et al., 2016)

“In order to detect early signs and inform agricultural workers about the cognitive effects of pesticide exposure, occupational health nurses should do routine health examinations,” according to the authors in their recommendations section of the review. They continue: “Planning training courses on exposure reduction, the use of personal protective equipment, and appropriate pesticide usage (personal and environmental precautions) is also essential.” More broadly, public health and environmental advocates argue that the transition to organic land management is critical and that occupational health nurses are uniquely positioned to serve in this advocacy role, given their expertise on the known (and unknown/suspected) harms of chemical exposure.

Previous Coverage

The disproportionate risks of pesticide exposure to farmer and farmworker communities continue to drive calls for holistic reforms and a transition to less toxic- and organic systems, as borne out in various investigative research and studies.

In a study on early life exposure to a pesticide mixture, researchers analyze sex differences in cardiometabolic outcomes from prenatal and early life. The study was conducted by an international team of scientists led by Ana M. Mora, M.D., of the Center for Environmental Research and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, using data from the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) cohort—a long-term project covering more than 20 years and 300,000 biological samples of Latino mothers and children in an agricultural community. (See Daily News here.) CHAMACOS has served as a model institution for compiling pesticide exposure data in Monterrey County, California for decades. See Daily News here and here for additional examples.

Pesticide exposure in agricultural communities is also a crisis of women’s health in the United States. In a study of birth outcomes in Arizona, published in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, researchers find that preconception and prenatal exposure to certain carbamates, organophosphates, and pyrethroids increases the risk of lower Apgar scores, a metric used to assess neonatal health at one minute and five minutes after birth. The results reveal that exposure to “several pesticide active ingredients at any point during preconception and/or pregnancy were associated with increased odds of low Apgar scores: the carbamates carbaryl and formetanate hydrochloride; the organophosphates diazinon and tribufos; and the pyrethroid cypermethrin.” This multi-institutional study, led by the University of Arizona with researchers from Harvard Chan School of Public Health and UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, provides novel insights, as it incorporates pesticide exposure over a 15-year period both before conception and throughout pregnancy. (See Daily News here.)

Similar, startling results have also been recorded in California communities. A California-based population study published in BMC Public Health finds that “7.5 [percent] of all pregnant people in California who gave birth in 2021 lived within 1 km [kilometer] of agricultural fields where OP pesticides [organophosphates] had been used during their pregnancy. . .” Despite a 54 percent decrease in overall use of the neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyrifos in the state between 2016 and 2021, after a statewide ban on the organophosphate insecticide in 2016, researchers found that in one California county, “more than 50 [percent] of pregnant people lived within 1 km of OP pesticide use.”

Significant disparities in exposure to pesticides are found, “with Hispanic/Latine, young people, and residents of the predominantly fruit and vegetable growing Central Coast region being most likely to live near OP pesticide applications during pregnancy.” The authors suggest that “regulatory changes to limit use or restrict applications in close proximity to residential areas could have a substantial public health benefit on children’s brain development.” (See Daily News here.)

DNA damage is significantly higher in Latinx children from rural, farmworker families than children in urban, non-farmworker families, according to a recent study published by French and American authors in the journal Exposure and Health. The study assesses pesticide exposure and DNA damage in 45 Latinx children ages 10 to 12 from rural, farmworker families (30) and urban, non-farmworker families (15). Participants were selected from a larger study, Preventing Agricultural Chemical Exposure (PACE5)—a community-based research project by the North Carolina Farmworkers Project and Wake Forest University School of Medicine that examines the health and cognitive effects of pesticide exposure in children. (See Daily News here.)

Internationally, farmworkers also face adverse health effects due to pesticide exposure. A 2025 study, published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, “investigates genotoxic effects on farmers in Paraíba, Brazil, analyzing buccal mucosa cells [cells from inside the cheek] for DNA and cellular damage,” the authors write. In comparing data from 33 pesticide-exposed agricultural workers to 29 unexposed people in a control group, the researchers report that the “findings revealed significantly higher frequencies of cellular alterations and DNA damage among exposed farmers relative to the control group, with no significant impact from factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, or family cancer history.” (See Daily News here.) In a separate literature review, researchers identify 29 peer-reviewed scientific studies with statistically significant findings that tie pesticide use to cancer diagnoses based on data from clinical trials, as well as epidemiologic, case-control, and experimental studies. Population groups in this study are represented by impact participants in the United States, Brazil, India, France, Egypt, Columbia, Ecuador, Mexico, Italy, and Spain. (See Daily News here.)

In a recently published comparative analysis published in The Lancet Planetary Health, researchers highlight the pervasiveness of pesticide pollution in organic and nonorganic farms in Latin America (Costa Rica) and Africa (Uganda). While pesticides were detected in nearly all participating farmers, there is a significant relationship between lower biomarker concentrations (often correlating with less contamination) in urine samples of organic farmers relative to non-organic farmers. The researchers also identify older farmers as having higher herbicide and insecticide concentrations. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

One of the best ways to reduce pesticide dependency is to use the power of your dollar! See Eating With a Conscience to identify over 90 different common fruits, vegetables, and other wholefood products that are best to purchase organic.

You can all subscribe to receive the Action of the Week and Weekly News Update in your inbox so that you can take strategic actions calling for change from the local to international. For example, you can tell Congress, FDA, and EPA that it is past time to stop the manufacture and use of all organophosphate pesticides, which damage the nervous system and brain at low levels.

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

Source: Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing

(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2026) When the Trump administration announced that it was shutting U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Beltsville, Maryland, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) released the following statement:

“This is a betrayal of American farmers, and an attack on the federal workforce that will severely damage services that the American people depend on. We are disappointed but not surprised that the Trump administration is continuing its attacks on the federal workforce, this time through wasting taxpayer dollars to relocate key USDA facilities. Let us be clear: these haphazard, unlawful relocations do not save taxpayer dollars or improve agency efficiency. We’ve seen this tactic before, and we know that it only results in brain drain, crushed morale, and cuts to vital programs American farmers depend on. We will continue to stand up for the dedicated federal workers who provide critical services to our nation as they navigate these relocations, mass firings, and the administration’s continued attacks on the civil service.”

In the face of this action, which is now taking place, Beyond Pesticides has released an action to tell Congress and USDA to preserve the Beltsville agricultural research facilities that support farming and beekeeping nationwide. 

Among the facilities closing down is the Bee Research Laboratory (aka Bee Lab), which conducts research that has been essential in raising issues critical to the health of honey bee colonies, responding to crises, and helping beekeepers maintain an adequate healthy supply of bees for the pollination of crops. The Bee Lab is not the only federal pollinator program to face funding cuts or dismantling. Also facing threats to funding are the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area, which includes the USGS Bee Lab, other USGS research centers, and U.S. Forest Service research stations. A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, USDA’s Decision to Relocate Research Agencies to Kansas City Was Not Fully Consistent with an Evidence-Based Approach, on previous relocations during the first Trump adinistration disputed most of the justifications used by USDA to save taxpayer money and improve contact in the field with stakeholders.

This pollinator research is important, but losses to science, agriculture, and health from the closure of BARC go much further. BARC research groups cover: 

• Hydrology and Remote Sensing 
• Animal Parasitic Diseases 
• Adaptive Cropping Systems  
• Environmental Microbial and Food Safety  
• Animal Genomics and Improvement  
• Animal Biosciences and Biotechnology  
• Bee Research  
• National Germplasm Resources 
• Invasive Insect Biocontrol and Behavior 
• Genetic Improvement for Fruits and Vegetables 
• Molecular Plant Pathology  
• Soybean Genomics and Improvement  
• Systematic Entomology 
• Sustainable Perennial Crops 
• Sustainable Agricultural Systems 
• Food Quality  
• Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology 

In addition: 

• USDA’s investment of more than $170 million in BARC facility modernization and upgrades over the last decade would be lost. 
• Staff losses at BARC will be significant. In the 2019 relocation of the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA lost 85% of its staff, and a recent survey of ERS and NIFA employees suggests that over three-quarters of employees will not relocate. The local union representing BARC anticipates that at least this many Agricultural Research Service (ARS) employees would not relocate. 
• BARC research contributes to food security and food affordability through its work on food and animal production, animal health, food safety, improved crop management practices, soil health, and plant diseases. 
• The Northeast Region served by BARC—from Virginia to Maine—includes the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, with about 83,000 farms.  These farms collectively produce over $10 billion annually in agricultural sales and grow over 50 different commodities, from staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy to specialty crops like fruits and vegetables. 
• BARC’s closure is opposed by the public. Of the public comments USDA received about BARC, 92% expressed strong opposition to closure of this critical agricultural research facility. 
• Relocating research may not be physically or technologically viable so ongoing studies will lost. 

Maryland’s Congressional delegation has pointed out that the closing of BARC is also illegal. By moving forward with decommissioning BARC, USDA is violating several provisions laid out in the Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture Appropriations Act, enacted into law on November 12, 2025, including a clear directive to USDA to keep BARC open.

Specifically, in this law, Congress: 

• Made clear its intent for BARC to continue to operate by stating in the report accompanying the bill: “the agreement supports the continued operation of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.” 
• Further clarified this intent by providing USDA with $6 million in funding for construction and facilities improvements at BARC, to implement building and infrastructure updates that support BARC’s continued operation. 
• Prohibited closure or consolidation of the resources or locations of any existing USDA Agricultural Research Service labs and facilities without the prior notification and approval of the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate—approval that has not been obtained by USDA. 
• Barred USDA from reorganizing or relocating an office or employees without the prior notification and approval of the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate—approval which has not been obtained by USDA. 

It is extremely troubling that, instead of working with Congress on a sensible plan to modernize BARC, the Department is pursuing a short-sighted effort to close a facility of critical importance to U.S. agriculture and food security.  

Tell Congress and USDA to preserve Beltsville agricultural research facilities that support farming and beekeeping nationwide. 

Letter to U.S. Congress:
USDA is shutting down its research facilities at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC)—including the Bee Research Laboratory, which conducts research that has been essential in raising issues critical to the health of honey bee colonies, responding to crises, and helping beekeepers maintain a healthy supply of bees for the pollination of crops. The Bee Lab is not the only federal pollinator program to face funding cuts. Also facing threats to funding are the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area, which includes the USGS Bee Lab; other USGS research centers; and U.S. Forest Service research stations.

Pollinator research is important, but losses to science, agriculture, and health from the closure of BARC go much further. BARC research groups cover:

*Hydrology and Remote Sensing
*Animal Parasitic Diseases
*Adaptive Cropping Systems 
*Environmental Microbial and Food Safety 
*Animal Genomics and Improvement 
*Animal Biosciences and Biotechnology 
*Bee Research 
*National Germplasm Resources
*Invasive Insect Biocontrol and Behavior
*Genetic Improvement for Fruits and Vegetables
*Molecular Plant Pathology 
*Soybean Genomics and Improvement 
*Systematic Entomology
*Sustainable Perennial Crops
*Sustainable Agricultural Systems
*Food Quality 
*Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology

In addition:

*USDA’s investment of more than $170 million in BARC facility modernization and upgrades over the last decade would be lost.

*Staff losses at BARC will be significant. A recent survey of ERS and NIFA employees suggests that over three-quarters of employees will not relocate. The local union representing BARC anticipates that at least this many ARS employees would choose not to relocate.

*BARC research contributes to food security and food affordability through work on food and animal production, animal health, food safety, improved crop management practices, soil health, and plant diseases.

*The Northeast Region served by BARC includes the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, with about 83,000 farms.  These farms collectively produce over $10 billion annually in agricultural sales and grow over 50 different commodities, from staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy to specialty crops like fruits and vegetables.

*Of the public comments USDA received, 92% expressed strong opposition to closure of this critical agricultural research facility.

*Relocating research may not be physically or technologically viable and undermines ongoing studies.

Maryland’s Congressional delegation points out that the closing of BARC is also illegal. In decommissioning BARC, USDA violates several provisions laid out in the FY 2026 Agriculture Appropriations Act, enacted into law on November 12, 2025, including a clear directive to USDA to keep BARC open.

Specifically, in this law, Congress:

*States: “the agreement supports the continued operation of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.”

*Provides USDA with $6 million in funding for construction and facilities improvements at BARC, to implement building and infrastructure updates that support BARC’s continued operation.

*Prohibits closure or consolidation of the resources or locations of any existing USDA ARS labs and facilities without the prior notification and approval of the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate—which has not been obtained by USDA.

*Barred USDA from reorganizing or relocating an office or employees without the prior notification and approval of the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate—which has not been obtained by USDA.

It is troubling that, instead of working with Congress on a sensible plan to modernize BARC, USDA is pursuing a short-sighted effort to close a facility of critical importance to U.S. agriculture and food security. I urge you to ensure USDA abandons this effort and supports BARC.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S Secretary of Agriculture
In shutting down research facilities at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC)—including the Bee Research Laboratory, USDA is undermining research that is essential in raising issues critical to improving the health of honey bee colonies, responding to crises, and helping beekeepers maintain a healthy supply of bees for the pollination of crops. The Bee Lab is not the only federal pollinator program to face funding cuts. Also facing threats to funding are the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area, which includes the USGS Bee Lab; other USGS research centers; and U.S. Forest Service research stations.

Pollinator research is important, but losses to science, agriculture, and health from the closure of BARC go much further. BARC research groups cover:

*Hydrology and Remote Sensing
*Animal Parasitic Diseases
*Adaptive Cropping Systems 
*Environmental Microbial and Food Safety 
*Animal Genomics and Improvement 
*Animal Biosciences and Biotechnology 
*Bee Research 
*National Germplasm Resources
*Invasive Insect Biocontrol and Behavior
*Genetic Improvement for Fruits and Vegetables
*Molecular Plant Pathology 
*Soybean Genomics and Improvement 
*Systematic Entomology
*Sustainable Perennial Crops
*Sustainable Agricultural Systems
*Food Quality |
*Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology

In addition:

*USDA’s investment of more than $170 million in BARC facility modernization and upgrades over the last decade would be lost.

*Staff losses at BARC will be significant. A recent survey of ERS and NIFA employees suggests that over three-quarters of employees will not relocate. The local union representing BARC anticipates that at least this many ARS employees would choose not to relocate.

*BARC research contributes to food security and food affordability through work on food and animal production, animal health, food safety, improved crop management practices, soil health, and plant diseases.

*The Northeast Region served by BARC includes the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, with about 83,000 farms.  These farms collectively produce over $10 billion annually in agricultural sales and grow over 50 different commodities, from staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy to specialty crops like fruits and vegetables.

*Of the public comments USDA received, 92% expressed strong opposition to closure of this critical agricultural research facility.

*Relocating research may not be physically or technologically viable and undermines ongoing studies.

Maryland’s Congressional delegation points out that the closing of BARC is also illegal. In decommissioning BARC, USDA violates several provisions laid out in the FY 2026 Agriculture Appropriations Act, enacted into law on November 12, 2025, including a clear directive to USDA to keep BARC open. Specifically, in this law Congress:

*States: “the agreement supports the continued operation of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center.”

*Provides USDA with $6 million in funding for construction and facilities improvements at BARC, to implement building and infrastructure updates that support BARC’s continued operation.

*Prohibits closure or consolidation of the resources or locations of any existing USDA ARS labs and facilities without the prior notification and approval of the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate—which has not been obtained by USDA.

*Barred USDA from reorganizing or relocating an office or employees without the prior notification and approval of the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate—which has not been obtained by USDA.

It is troubling that, instead of working with Congress on a sensible plan to modernize BARC, USDA is pursuing a short-sighted effort to close a facility of critical importance to U.S. agriculture and food security. I urge you to abandon this effort and support BARC.

Thank you.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides. Image credit: ART Collection / Alamy.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2026) With increasing research covered by Daily News showing pesticides linked to epigenetic effects (alter gene expression), the mechanism has far-reaching implications for protecting health and the environment. It also raises issues related to the regulatory review process, which is inadequate in assessing this mechanism. Since the discovery of DNA, a principle called the “central dogma” has dominated genetics. This dogma states that genetic processes are a one-way street: only changes to DNA in germ cells (eggs and sperm) trigger processes in RNA and then proteins to effect changes in tissues and cells throughout the body. Any suggestion that environmental exposures, for example, could alter gene expression except in the first, exposed generation, was dismissed as “Lamarckian” and unscientific. And only changes to genes themselves could be inherited.

The theory of epigenetics began developing in the 1950s, and it gradually became clear that gene expression was modifiable by external factors. Cells do have numerous ways of choreographing genes, determining which ones are turned on and off at which times and in which places. In fact, this choreography is absolutely necessary for the development of an individual from pre-conception through fertilization and the progress of an embryo to a fetus to a newborn.

Epigenetics is conserved across every domain of life, from archaea and bacteria to humans. Epigenetic mechanisms do not change genes themselves, but they manage that vast library of potential tools that cells and whole organisms have to work with. The gene may be selfish, as Richard Dawkins, PhD, famously claimed, but it is highly regulated by the rich tapestry of other cellular agents and influenced by many external factors.

Epigenetic mechanisms consist mostly of a small set of molecules that attach to particular sites along the DNA helix, controlling whether proteins can access a gene and activate it. External forces—food, toxicants, pharmaceuticals, reproductive status, and other hormonal states—can affect how molecules attach to the DNA helix and regulate gene expression. The epigenetic unit of most interest is the methyl molecule, which attaches to the helix often at points where cytosine and guanine are connected by a phosphorus bridge, known as CpG islands. These sites play profound roles in numerous diseases, including metabolic and autoimmune disorders, blood cancers and tumors, as well as reproductive disorders.

In the late 1990s, it was discovered that interference with epigenetic processes during development could have consequences for ensuing generations. There are three generations defined as “multigenerational epigenetic inheritance”: A pregnant woman’s exposure to a fungicide, for example, would affect not only her and her embryo or fetus, but also her offspring’s children, because a female develops all the eggs she will ever produce while a fetus, and they will be exposed to the substance while she is in utero. A male fetus’s machinery for producing sperm later will also be configured in utero in response to the fungicide. Thus, those three generations have all been directly exposed to a disruptive substance. From the fourth generation on—the founding mother’s great-grandchildren—the process is “transgenerational” rather than “multigenerational”; those descendants have never been directly exposed, yet multiple types of damage continue to manifest. 

Michael Skinner, PhD, a systems biologist emeritus at Washington State University and a pioneer of transgenerational epigenetics, has now shown that these effects can persist for 20 transgenerational iterations—and they change over time. Dr. Skinner has long worked with the fungicide vinclozolin, used on fruit, beans, onions, and turf, and to control residential mold. It is an endocrine disruptor with reproductive effects, a possible carcinogen, toxic to aquatic organisms, and a sensitizer/irritant. It is a potent anti-androgen, meaning that it damages normal male development of reproductive structures, reducing fertility. Vinclozolin and its metabolites attach to androgen receptors, suppressing the function of testosterone and a suite of related steroid hormones.

Dr. Skinner’s experiments with a lineage of Sprague-Dawley rats are carefully structured to track the effects of exposure during development. He outbreeds each generation to an unexposed mate to avoid confusion and complications from inbreeding. Because the number of eggs produced by females is relatively small compared to the number of sperm produced by males, the researchers use only sperm to follow the epigenetic consequences in each generation, although they observe the effects in both male and female offspring. They analyze both the DNA methylation patterns and the physical health of each generation.

The results of Dr. Skinner’s most recent research, published on February 17 in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, are heartbreaking and horrifying. The effects, Dr. Skinner and his colleagues suggest, accumulate over time, disturbing reproduction from many angles. Over 20 generations, mating failure increases. In males, every generation experiences significant levels of apoptosis (programmed cell death) in testicular cells destined to produce sperm. Although this trend stabilizes through the 17^th generation, after that, apoptosis spikes. Male fertility declines overall. The female rats experienced severe and fatal difficulties during labor, which was often prolonged beyond exhaustion, and their pups usually died. These parturition abnormalities begin to appear in about the 14^th generation and worsen through the 23^rd generation. The Skinner group notes that most of the female rats suffering from labor distress are also obese or overweight. These conditions raise cholesterol, and high cholesterol can disrupt and inhibit uterine contractions.

But reproduction is not the only domain affected. As the authors write, “The modified germline epigenome influences the epigenetic profiles of embryonic stem cells and will subsequently affect the epigenomes of all somatic cells in the next generations (emphasis added). This means that all tissues, not just reproductive organs, are influenced by that original exposure. In addition to ovarian, prostate, and testis pathologies, the researchers find sharp increases in kidney pathologies in both sexes between the first transgeneration and the 23^rd. Sprague-Dawley rats are susceptible to kidney disease as they age, but these pathologies emerge at one year.

Dr. Skinner has also demonstrated epigenetic transgenerational effects of exposure to DDT, glyphosate, atrazine, dioxin, DEET, permethrin, methoxychlor, hydrocarbons and plastics-derived compounds. He published a study in 2023 in which he exposes the first gestating female rat to vinclozolin, her gestating daughter to jet fuel, and her gestating granddaughter to DDT to try to determine the cumulative transgenerational epigenetic effects of multiple toxicant exposures. The fifth, or first transgenerational descendants, experience significant spikes in testicular, prostate, kidney, and ovarian diseases as well as obesity. The transgenerational females, in particular, suffer from multiple diseases—33 out of 47 female animals compared to 17 out of 50 males.

Clearly, given the evidence from both Dr. Skinner’s earlier research and the current study, the transgenerational epigenetic effects of chemical exposures affect males and females differently, but both likely contribute to the increasingly severe reproductive problems faced by thousands of species, including many wildlife species, shellfish, and insects, in addition to humans. (Not everyone accepts the principle of heritable epigenetic patterns. For a skeptical view of transgenerational epigenetics, see University of Edinburgh professor Adrian Peter Bird’s critique here. But see also Beyond Pesticides’ granular analysis of Dr. Skinner’s current study here.)

The question of whether and how many more than 20 generations these disastrous effects persist remains unanswered. Things appear to get worse with each generation, but the researchers also suggest that epigenetic changes can eventually result in phenotypes with adaptive traits, and DNA methylation patterns can become stable enough to qualify as heritable evolutionary mutations. But Dr. Skinner’s body of research shows that a beneficial outcome from exposure to a pesticide cannot be expected any time soon. If the sorts of effects he is finding in rats are extrapolatable to humans, the consequences over 20 generations will last for 500 years.

Given the current social concern about falling birthrates and declining fertility, it is curious that few analysts consider environmental factors. For example, a May 26 piece by Derek Thompson in The Atlantic suggests phones, contraception, social media, Weltschmerz, and housing costs, but wrote nary a word about the exposome.

Yet, the evidence that the consequences of environmental exposures can be transmitted epigenetically to ensuing generations continues to accumulate and adds enormously to the urgency of eliminating pesticides and other chemical exposures in the environment. The best thing you can do for yourself, your family, and your environment is to eat organic, grow organic, and support regenerative/organic agriculture. See Beyond Pesticides’ action brief on the Farm Bill, currently under consideration in the Senate. Tell your elected representatives and local authorities to build a sustainable agricultural sector that can produce healthy people, healthy livestock, healthy plants, and healthy wildlife in perpetuity.

***
“Climate change is no longer a future threat: it is reshaping life across the planet.” — UNEP

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

Sources:
Stability of epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult-onset disease and parturition abnormalities
Korolenko et al.
PNAS 2026
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2523071123

Ancestral plastics exposure induces transgenerational disease-specific sperm epigenome-wide association biomarkers
Thorson et al.
Environmental Epigenetics, 2021
https://academic.oup.com/eep/article/7/1/dvaa023/6208501?searchresult=1

Studies Find Genetic and Epigenetic Effects from Pesticide Exposure, Threatening Future Generations
Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2026
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2026/03/studies-again-find-genetic-and-epigenetic-effects-from-pesticide-exposure-threatening-future-generations/

Epigenetics Archive
Beyond Pesticides
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/category/diseasehealth-effects/epigenetic/

Meta-Analysis Catalogues Pesticides’ Adverse Impact on How Genes Function
Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/04/meta-analysis-catalogues-pesticides-adverse-impact-on-how-genes-function/

(Beyond Pesticides, June 4, 2026) In a study published in Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, researchers in Brazil find that organic farming coupled with agroecological conservation practices “promote[s] biodiversity in agricultural landscapes.” The proxy for biodiversity in this study is anurans, a type of frog or toad native to the Brazilian Pampa—a section of the South American Pampas grasslands, a globally underrecognized biodiversity hotspot. According to a scientific report reviewed by Mongabay in 2024, “nearly a third of the Brazilian portion…has been lost since 1985, largely to agricultural expansion and forestry plantations.”

In the U.S. context, public health and environmental advocates continue to call for the transition to organic land management as a solution that validates the ecosystem services that biodiversity-forward agricultural systems can provide under values-aligned stewardship.

Methodology and Main Findings

The authors in this study, researchers at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, surveyed 26 artificial ponds across 16 family farms with different land management systems—9 organic farms and 7 conventional farms—located in the Serra do Sudeste region of the Brazilian portion of the Pampa grasslands. All farms were sampled three times during the 2023 to 2024 breeding seasons (twice in the October to November 2023 period and once in March 2024). The metrics used to assess biodiversity include species richness (number of frogs per pond/farm) and functional diversity (via traits analyzed, including: activity period, use of habitat, body size, larval type, and spawning site). Functional diversity is assessed using a respected methodology known as the Petchey & Gaston (2006) Index. It is important to note that this does not necessarily account for functional evenness (the spread of a given species distributed across functional roles/niches within a given ecosystem) or functional divergence (location within a space where the most abundant species inhabit). For further details on this aspect of the methodology, please see page 4 of the study PDF.

In terms of the landscape analysis, the composition is quantified in two spatial scales, one to assess the structure of the local habitat around individual ponds (200-meter buffer) and the second to assess the broader landscape (500 meters around the center points of any given farm).

On the primary objectives of this study, the authors state, “We aimed to compare taxonomic, functional, and beta diversity, as well as community composition of anurans between organic and conventional agroecosystems in the Brazilian Pampa.” They continue: “Additionally, we evaluated how local habitat characteristics of ponds and landscape composition at different spatial scales influence diversity patterns and community assembly.” In the context of this study, this metric is used to characterize potential differences in species richness on organic farms versus chemical-intensive systems. Researchers defined “conventional” farming as systems that use pesticides and high land-use intensity, whereas “organic” systems rely “on natural alternatives for pest and soil management, lower chemical inputs, and reduced land-use intensity.”

The main findings of this study include:

• Species Recorded around Organic Farms vs. Conventional. A total of 20 native anuran species (plus one exotic species, Aquarana catesbeiana) are recorded across the study; organic farms host 20 species while conventional farms host 17 species, with four species (Boana faber, Leptodactylus mystacinus, Limnomedusa macroglossa, and Rhinella achavali) found exclusively in organic systems.
• Organic Farms Statistically Significant Species Richness at the Pond Scale. Artificial ponds in organic systems support higher species richness than conventional.
• Organic Farms Outcompete Conventional on Functional Diversity. Researchers find a statistically significant relationship between organic systems and functional diversity. Moreover, organic farms adjacent to native forest patches have the highest values in this biodiversity metric, whereas plantation forestry (“silviculture cover”) does not have a statistically significant relationship. In other words, organically managed systems that are grown in sync with nature rather than industrial models demonstrate higher functional diversity.
• Notable Analysis on Functional Diversity from Study Authors. “At broader spatial scales, landscape context emerged as a key driver of functional diversity. While landscape composition within 200 m of ponds was not associated with diversity metrics, functional diversity at the farming level increased with forest cover in organic systems. This scale-dependent response suggests that local breeding habitats alone are insufficient to maintain functional diversity and that access to surrounding natural habitats is critical for sustaining a wider range of ecological strategies (Ribeiro et al., 2017; Moreira et al., 2020). Forest patches likely function as refuges and sources for recolonization, enhancing functional complementarity in organically managed landscapes (Ribeiro et al., 2017).”

Previous Coverage

The research just in the past year alone continues to mount on the relationship between thriving biodiversity and organically managed agroecological systems.

In the context of the Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI) in Rajasthan province, India, research published in Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition determines that long-term organic management enhances various soil health indicators to a greater degree than conventionally managed systems. The organic soil qualities include greater microbial diversity, increased microbial biomass carbon (MBC), higher dehydrogenase activity (DHA), and higher alkaline phosphatase activity (ALP), among other favorable outcomes. (See Daily News here.) In the Ben Tre Province of Vietnam, researchers published their findings in Environmental Technology & Innovation, finding that organically managed coconut farms significantly improve soil health across numerous markers when compared with conventional (chemical-intensive) plantations. Organic plots are found to have better porosity and bulk density, meaning lower compaction and better aeration, to support air and water movement through the soil system; in addition, at a system-level, organic plots show stronger correlations between organic matter, nutrients, microbes, and enzyme activity than chemical-intensive coconut plots. (See Daily News here.)

Meanwhile, moving to the European continent’s Sicilian citrus orchards, research published in Microbiological Research finds that organic farming enhances microbial diversity in citrus orchard soil systems, both in terms of nutrient cycling and aiding in the development of more complex microbial networks pivotal to biodiversity. One notable result from this study is that organic systems harbor more complex and diverse microbial communities in their soils, as evidenced by higher fungal alpha diversity in organic soils and higher species richness under organic land care. Additionally, organic management promotes various nutrient cycling capacities (inorganic nitrogen consumption and organic phosphorus assimilation) and soil fertility functions (carbon content and carbon fixation). (See Daily News here.)

There are also pollinator benefits associated with organically managed systems. For example, a study of organic tomato agroecosystems with managed and wild bees, published in Apidologie, affirms the importance of protecting natural systems to support organisms that contribute to crop productivity. (See Daily News here.) Researchers in Germany and Brazil investigated the biodiversity of agricultural landscapes in organic and nonorganic areas in “bee hotels,” finding that there is a positive correlation between organically managed fields and numerous indicators of improved pollinator health, including an “increase in bee abundance, species richness, and diversity.” (See Daily News here.)

There are also climate resilience benefits of organic farming and food systems. In a literature review of peer-reviewed research published in the Cambridge University publication Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, researchers at the Institute for Applied Agriculture Research (Germany) and Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems (Arizona State University, USA) have determined that organically managed systems have better performance indicators under climate-induced stressors, emit less nitrous oxide emissions, increase overall soil organic carbon, and reduce overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The researchers also point out the potential socio-ecological benefits of organic management systems, including their potential for building local and regional food systems. In terms of climate mitigation findings, Organically managed systems reduce indirect CO2 emissions largely due to the avoidance of synthetic fertilizers. (See cited studies here and here.) Additionally, organic agriculture increases soil organic matter, offering potential long-term offsets for agricultural emissions more broadly. (See cited studies here and here.) In terms of climate adaptation, organic systems have been found to emphasize local seed breeds and genetic diversity, lending to climate adaptation potential relative to the chemical-intensive status quo. (See cited studies here, here, and here.) (See Daily News here.) An Egypt-based study published in Scientific Reports highlights the benefits of organic agriculture in comparison to different farming systems over five years in four crops (maize, tomato, faba bean, and potato). “Soil carbon sequestration is a long-time storage of carbon in soil which represents 70% of the carbon in land,” the authors note. They conclude, “Therefore, the main aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the agricultural practice systems on the soil carbon sequestration and properties, productivity, water consumption, soil carbon sequestration, CO₂ emission and cost of some agricultural crops.” (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

To review additional research on the relationship between transitioning to organic systems and biodiversity, please visit What the Science Shows on Biodiversity.

You can take action by subscribing to the Weekly News Update and Action of the Week to receive updates each week! If you would like to review previous Actions of the Week that are still live, see the Action of the Week Archive.

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

Source: Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation

(Beyond Pesticides, June 3, 2026) A study, published in PeerJ today, by researchers from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the U.S. and the University of Pisa in Italy, finds that the widely used fungicide fludioxonil and its breakdown products, including a ‘forever chemical’ per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substance (PFAS), threaten environmental and human health. Through a review of scientific literature (from 2021-2025) of the ecological and health effects of fludioxonil, the authors find evidence of this chemical’s mechanisms of toxicity, including oxidative stress, that are enhanced as it degrades in the environment. Oxidative stress occurs when there is a disruption of normal cell-signaling and molecular damage, leading to an imbalance of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and free radicals (unstable oxygen molecules) that the body is unable to detoxify. In particular, sunlight exposure causes fludioxonil to break down into a PFAS that is linked to adverse health implications for the environment, wildlife, and humans. 

One of the authors, Warren Porter, PhD, is a board member for Beyond Pesticides and presented at the 2021 National Pesticide Forum. Dr. Porter is an emeritus Professor of Integrative Biology and an Ardath and Robert Rodale Professor of Environmental Toxicology, with previous research showing that combinations of commonly used agricultural chemicals in concentrations that mirror levels found in groundwater can significantly influence immune, endocrine, and neurological health in animals. His research also links pesticide exposure in utero to impaired learning, changes in brain function, and altered thyroid levels. 

Importance and Background 

Fludioxonil, originally developed by Ciba-Geigy (now Syngenta) in 1993, was created as a preservative and anti-fungal coating for seed storage before being registered as a multi-use fungicide. The original data indicated that fludioxonil “functioned by acting directly upon a single enzyme, a kinase that was unique to specific species of fungi,” which suggested that the compound would not harm nontarget organisms. Fludioxonil was also described as being “resistant to UV photolysis/hydrolysis [degradation pathways using sunlight] and free from concerns regarding toxic synergy with other pesticides,” which led to an increase in usage for a myriad of applications. 

In the U.S. alone, fludioxonil is registered for use on over 900 different types of plants, including a wide array of field and vegetable crops, fruit trees, berries, herbs, and grasses. This compound can be used for large-scale applications with sprayers on crops to prevent fungal infections during growth, as well as in post-harvest applications to prevent mold in transport. One study finds that fludioxonil is among the seven pesticides most likely to reach consumers through residues in food, while additional research shows this fungicide is frequently found in imported produce at levels that surpass regulatory limits. 

“The highly hydrophobic fungicide is particularly difficult to wash off of produce, ensuring that a substantial percentage of the fungicide used in treatment remains on food at time of consumption,” the review authors state. As they point out, even though fludioxonil is often added to produce after it has been boxed for shipment, it is not considered a food additive by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is only regulated through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA, however, “does not distinguish this form of concentrated application from pesticides that may take days or even weeks to be degraded in the field, detoxified or leached from the surface of produce by natural actions of sunlight, wind, rain and metabolism by microorganisms,” leaving high levels of this pesticide on products that are directly ingested by consumers. 

Methodology and Results 

In this review, the researchers analyze evidence that fludioxonil poses a threat to both ecosystems and human health within scientific literature. The results reveal that the mechanism of toxicity that causes adverse effects is based on the fungicide’s ability to induce oxidative stress by exhausting levels of glutathione (GSH). 

Through the research available in peer-reviewed articles, patents, and policy documents, among others, fludioxonil is shown to disrupt GSH homeostasis, which serves to buffer against oxidative stress. “Glutathione depletion via fludioxonil may thus comprise a key mechanism for its toxicity in living organisms,” the authors explain.  

They continue: “It should be emphasized here that the biological functions of GSH are critically important as this tripeptide serves as the master antioxidant in animals, plants and fungi, protecting them from oxidative damage derived from stress, pollution and disease.” (See research here and here.) 

This process is particularly driven by a breakdown product of fludioxonil that is formed under the UV radiation present in sunlight. As the researchers share, “Of note, while the toxicity of many pesticides is reduced by environmental forces such as the UV rays in sunlight, fludioxonil seems to behave in the opposite manner.” (See here.) The breakdown products generated after exposure to sunlight are “approximately 100-fold more toxic than the parent compound,” highlighting the additional concerns as pesticide active ingredients degrade in the environment. 

Previous Research 

A 2018 survey by the Environmental Working Group of pesticide levels in common brands of baby food finds that the levels of fludioxonil significantly exceed the Maximum Residue Level (MRL) established by EPA. A repeat of the study in 2023 again finds fludioxonil, and other pesticides, present in multiple baby food samples. (See Daily News here.) Additional studies cited within the review find that nontarget organisms are also at risk, including aquatic organisms, phytoplankton, plants, bacteria, benthic macroinvertebrates, amphibians, honey bees, terrestrial earthworms and nematodes, and large mammals, including humans. 

A Daily News post, entitled Widely Used Fungicide Found to Adversely Affect Enzyme Common to All Cells, documents how a study in Scientific Reports, with research led by Tristan Brandhorst, PhD (an author on the current study), sheds light on a mechanism of toxicity for fludioxonil as it acts on a sugar-metabolizing enzyme common to all cells. This mechanism threatens all organisms, proving the initial claims that fludioxonil acts solely on specific species of fungi incorrect. Additional research by Dr. Brandhorst suggests that fludioxonil also decreases the human body’s ability to defend itself against illnesses, like COVID-19, and promotes disease permanency. This lack of bodily defense against disease is linked to the pesticide-induced reduction in the antioxidant GSH, further supported by the current review. 

Although previous studies report that fludioxonil disrupts hepatic (liver), endocrine, and neurological systems, the mode of action by which this fungicide causes these issues only recently came to light. According to research by Dr. Brandhorst, fludioxonil may impede the antioxidant GSH from protecting the body from illnesses while prompting disease endurance, as GSH is a natural antioxidant important in blood pressure and glucose regulation, preventing the formation of free radicals which damage cells in hypertension and diabetes mellitus. However, the endocrine disruption properties of fludioxonil can cause intracellular GSH deficiency, resulting in oxidative stress that influences the development of diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease, liver disease, cancer, diabetes, and more. A decrease in GSH biosynthesis and/or an increase in depletion of the intracellular GSH pool can impair oxidation-reduction homeostasis and promote oxidative stress that may account for individual susceptibility to a disease like COVID-19. (See Daily News here, as well as additional coverage on fludioxonil here.) 

The Path Forward 

Removing all petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers will protect the environment, all wildlife, and human health. Having fungicides like fludioxonil on crops, during and after harvest, leads to deleterious impacts on the soil, ecosystems, and all organisms, with heightened risks associated with PFAS breakdown products when fludioxonil is degraded by sunlight. The health and environmental threats associated with this fungicide, as well as all other pesticide active ingredients, are far beyond the “unreasonable adverse effects” as outlined by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

Food choices have a direct effect on the health of the environment and those who grow and harvest what consumers eat. That’s why food labeled “organic” is the right choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, protection of farmworkers and farm families, and stewardship of the earth.  

It is important to eat organic food—nurtured in a system of food production, handling, and certification that rejects hazardous synthetic chemicals. USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, assuring consumers that toxic, synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health. This eliminates commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic—pesticides that contaminate water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish, and other wildlife. 

Adopting a fully organic diet can also reduce pesticide levels within the body, as well as facilitate faster DNA damage repair, according to findings from a randomized clinical trial published in Nutrire. (See Study Demonstrates Health Benefits of Organic Diet Over That Consumed with Toxic Pesticides for more information.) Learn about additional health and environmental benefits of organic practices here and here, as well as how to Grow Your Own Organic Food. 

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

Source: 

Roelans, L., Brandhorst, T, Tonelli, M., Chiellini, G., and Porter, W. (2026) Breakdown products of the fungicide Fludioxonil may account for observed environmental impact: potential implications for human health, PeerJ. Available at: https://peerj.com/articles/21290/.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 2, 2026) “Show me what democracy looks like; this is what democracy looks like” is a common chant at rallies across the United States and worldwide when people come out to express their outrage at the complacency of the political system to address current societal hardships and inequities. On the eve of the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the state of U.S. politics has become especially divisive and polarized. One area of agreement, however, that continues to break through the fractious political climate was on display recently in South Carolina, when the state’s House of Representatives unanimously passed a House Resolution encouraging local communities to transition to organic land management across the state earlier this spring. This action serves as one signal among many of widespread agreement that the protection of people and the environment from pesticides has bipartisan support.

Passed in March, H.5305 was introduced by William G. “Bill” Herbkersman (R) and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of over 100 House members. State Representative Herbkersman is chair of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee. The Resolution seeks to “encourage counties, municipalities, and other political subdivisions of the State, including school districts” to establish the adoption of organic practices as a priority. While falling far short of a mandate, environmental and public health advocates view this as a foundational shift in the right direction toward building broader momentum for the transition to pest management in sync with biodiversity, public health, climate resilience, and prosperity, rather than actively undermining these critical pillars of American society.

The Resolution begins with a recognition that there is a shared public good in ensuring safe shared community spaces, stating, “South Carolina’s public lands, parks, roadside corridors, and waterways are shared community assets.” The Resolution continues, “Routine synthetic pesticide and herbicide applications create avoidable exposure pathways for residents, workers, and wildlife, and increase stormwater and watershed risks.” Additionally, it says: “The use of organic practices can help create and maintain healthy landscapes and ecosystems while reducing chemical dependence.”

The Resolution emphasizes the public health and environmental risks of pesticides, the stewardship opportunity and examples of local ordinances in other contexts, and the benefits of organic practices. Also identified are local ecological concerns, including monarch butterfly and honey bee populations facing pesticide and chemical pressures, in addition to growing community demand for safer pest management on parks and playing fields, athletic fields, and rights-of-way.

The Resolution expresses bipartisan solidarity for pesticide accountability, similar to a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives in April that struck from the House Agriculture Committee-passed Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026 provisions weakening protections from toxic pesticides, with 73 Republicans representing 25 states joining with Democrats. See here for a vote tally on the amendment introduced by U.S. Representative Anna Luna (R-Florida), which was identical to the Protect Our Health Amendment, introduced by Representative Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) and Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine).

Model Policies

Most states have explicitly preempted local governments from restricting pesticides on both private and public lands at the behest of the chemical industry after the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mortier (1991) (see court decision) upheld the right of local jurisdictions to restrict pesticides under federal pesticide law. This does not stop local and state governments from banning or regulating pesticides on public land, as advocates have successfully organized to adopt ordinances across the United States, including New York City, New York; Maui, Hawai’i; Stamford, Connecticut; and Montgomery County and Baltimore, Maryland, among numerous others. The ordinances embrace organic management standards and allowed materials under relevant sections of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA),

One model policy that advocates point to includes various local ordinances in Maine, including the coastal town of Falmouth. Maine does not preempt the authority of local political subdivisions from restricting pesticides more stringently than the state. Several years after the adoption of the original lawn care ordinance in Falmouth, Maine (2020), the town’s Conservation Commission studied the issues, the Town Council held hearings, and public input was collected, leading to the town’s adoption of a stronger ordinance with an effective date that was later extended to 2026. See here for the testimony of Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, delivered to the town council of Falmouth at an April 2024 hearing. This followed landmark policy adopted first in South Portland and then in Portland, Maine.

The updated Falmouth ordinance, like the ones in South Portland and Portland, embraces the core purpose of protecting health and the environment, while extending the ordinance’s restrictions to all petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer users (residents, commercial groups, and licensed applicators).

The model ordinance is explicit in restricting substances to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances in OFPA and updated by the National Organic Standards Board. Synthetic substances are banned under OFPA unless they are listed on the National List. For example, the bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides, always highly toxic to ecosystems and human health, are prohibited under OFPA’s allowed and prohibited list. For additional information on Falmouth, Maine, please see the following Daily News, Community Votes Down Ballot Initiative To Repeal Local Pesticide Restrictions in Maine.

In Massachusetts, as distinguished from Maine, there is a circuitous (some would argue undemocratic) process for local communities to pass ordinances on private and public lands. Four towns—Orleans, Wellfleet, Truro, and Eastham— have passed local ordinances; however, the home rule petition process prevents these common-sense protections from going into effect until both chambers of the legislature approve the measures. On many matters, ranging from the incorporation of a new fire department, establishing a real estate transfer fee for local properties, or prohibiting the use of a pesticide that is not prohibited statewide, actions of local governments—after voting on a measure by the locality’s governing body—must go through review by the State Attorney General’s office and both chambers of the state legislature before becoming local law.

For our model ordinance in Massachusetts, please see here. If you are a Massachusetts resident, take action to pass a local ordinance in your town.

Previous Coverage

The core criteria of organic land management, as defined by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), are sixfold:

1. Definition clarity and enforceability;
2. Creation of a Systems plan to establish a baseline for pest management practices
3. Rigorous standard for allowed/prohibited substances list;
4. Certification and enforcement system (third-party enforcement);
5. Bi-annual Public Comment Process
6. Funding

In the agricultural context, the Rodale Institute determined significant benefits of organic versus conventional agriculture (See Daily News here and here):

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

Researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) arrive at similar findings, according to data published in the Journal of Environmental Quality. They reported that a 4-year organically managed corn-soybean-oat system reduces nitrogen (N) loads by 50 percent with corn and soybean yields “equivalent to or higher than conventional [chemical-intensive] in most years.” The findings from a 7-year study comparing nitrate loss in organic and chemical-intensive management found that organically managed perennial pasture reduced nitrogen loads significantly. The study, which focused on nitrate pollution in agriculture that harms biodiversity, threatens waterways, drinking water, and public health, and releases nitrous oxide (an extremely potent greenhouse gas), was conducted at USDA’s National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment. See Daily News here.)

Consumption of organic food has also been found to reduce pesticide levels in humans, according to multiple studies. (See Daily News here and here.) One recent analysis leveraging data from University of Michigan’s Health and Retirement Study (HRS) – “a longitudinal panel study that surveys a representative sample of more than 20,000 Americans over the age of 50 every two years” —as well as an HRS supplemental study, the Health Care and Nutrition Study (HCNS)— “utilizing validated Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQ) to assess food consumption and nutritional status, conducted in 2013” – found that consumption of organic animal-based and plant-based foods is positively associated with higher cognitive scores. (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

Integrated pest management without strict criteria for synthetic input elimination will only perpetuate pesticide poisoning and contamination. See Defining a Strong IPM or EPM Program to learn how to engage with decision-makers in your community, your state legislature, or Congress.

Beyond Pesticides engages with communities and local governments across the nation through the Parks for a Sustainable Future Program to transition public parks and playing fields to organic land management. You can become a Parks Advocate today and bring about the organic transition to your community!

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

Source: H.5305

(Beyond Pesticides, June 1, 2026) In the face of U.S. government inaction, the California state Assembly last week passed legislation to phase out existing agricultural uses and ban new uses of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) pesticides. The legislation, AB 1603, which accurately defines PFAS pesticides in accordance with international standards, does allow continued residential, school and park, playing field, and community PFAS pesticide use (including mosquito spraying). The bill now moves on to the state Senate.

While advocates say the bill is an important step forward, they point out that the legislation is one of many examples that compromises public and environmental health, as pesticide-associated cancer, degenerative diseases, multigenerational effects, and ecosystem decline escalate. This attack on health and the environment is happening at the same time that organic agriculture and land management prohibits the use of PFAS pesticides and all the petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers with profitable and cost-effective practices.

The California victory paves the way for state action as regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuse to act on clear scientific findings identifying devastating health and environmental threats. In this context, the bill serves as a call for all states to push for this type of legislation in all statehouses across the country, in the U.S. Congress, and, at EPA. Communities, on the frontline of public health and environmental protection, are increasingly phasing out all toxic pesticide use and advancing organic land and building management systems, which include eliminating all PFAS pesticide use.

ℹ️ [For community leaders interested in advancing cost-effective practices instead of a lengthy and often compromised whack-a-mole, chemical-by-chemical approach, see Beyond Pesticides’ model local pesticide policy and implementation plan. Beyond Pesticides assists communities through its Parks for a Sustainable Future program and other pest prevention programs, and collaborates through its organic agriculture and Keeping Organic Strong program.]  

PFAS chemicals have become the new DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic. 

Through an action, Beyond Pesticides is calling for accurately defining and banning PFAS pesticides, starting in California, and asking Congress and EPA to stop dismissing the serious health and environmental threat of these pesticides with the current PFAS definition, which defies international standards. 

Because of their toxicity and persistence, the agrichemical industry looks to PFAS chemicals for new pesticides. Given the likelihood of water contamination, there is public health concern that drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) having the potential to cause adverse health effects.  

EPA continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, which is supported by scientists and by the international forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and its resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for evaluating pesticides, and EPA should not allow PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD to be registered. 

Recent research by independent scientists finds, “[T]he biggest contributor to PFAS in pesticide products was active ingredients and their degradates. Nearly a quarter of all US conventional pesticide active ingredients were organofluorines and 14% were PFAS, and for active ingredients approved in the last 10 years, this had increased to 61% organofluorines and 30% PFAS.” 

Fortunately, legislators in the California Assembly passed a bill (AB 1603) that adopts the OECD definition of PFAS and states that no one shall, “Use, or market, for agricultural use a pesticide that contains any of the PFAS pesticide ingredients;” or “Manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale in commerce, a pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains any of the PFAS pesticide ingredients.” It now moves to the state Senate. The bill states findings on the hazards of PFAS, their presence in the California environment, and their presence in food grown in California. The agricultural use of PFAS is responsible for this widespread contamination, but PFAS ingredients are also found in the excluded products with “uses to treat pets, livestock, and other animals to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fleas, mites, ticks, heartworms, or other insects, parasites, or organisms.” Using California pesticide use data, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) calculates that farmers applied 15 million pounds of PFAS pesticides across all 58 California counties between 2018 and 2023. Based on the state’s Surface Water Database and other releases, PFAS pesticides were also found in up to 50% of California surface water samples, and in about 45% to 55% of sediment samples, according to an EWG analysis. 

But, California is not unique. This is a serious nationwide problem and EPA continued in the last year to register new PFAS pesticides, in addition to ignoring the need to clean up existing contamination.

The PFAS pesticide now bill faces a crucial vote in the California Senate. Because of the state’s importance in agriculture, adoption of AB 1603 by California would have national impact, even if the legislative action is restricted to agricultural pesticides and all new uses, as the bill is currently worded. The OECD chemical definition of PFAS states: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.” This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that regulatory bodies like EPA do not include in their definitions.

Thus, while the OECD defines PFAS as industrial chemicals that have at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom—which is a carbon atom with two or three fluorine atoms attached to it— EPA has narrowed the definition to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms. 

More on PFAS: 
EPA links PFAS to an increased risk of many health effects, including decreased fertility and hypertension in pregnant people; increased risk of prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; hormonal irregularities; elevated cholesterol and risk of obesity; and reduced immune system response. Like DDT, PFAS residues are persistent in food and drinking water, with over six million U.S. residents regularly encountering drinking water with PFAS levels above the EPA health advisory of 70 ng/L. Therefore, PFAS are detectable in almost all of the U.S. population—disproportionately afflicting people of color communities—and have implications for human health. From epigenetic to immunotoxic effects, there is a wide range of health implications with PFAS exposure. Because of their ubiquitous use, studies report that PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Like DDT, the effects of PFAS endure through generations—pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta.   

EPA and other federal regulators have been behind the curve in preventing and responding to the threats posed by PFAS compounds. Despite evidence on the dangers of PFAS stretching as far back as the 1950s, federal agencies failed to respond as the plastics industry continued use of the material in new products. Now, EPA is similarly expanding PFAS use with the registration of pesticides in the PFAS group.   

The detection of any level of PFAS is cause for concern, and the parallels with DDT continue. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge (biosolids) to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS have made their way into the environment and human bodies. PFAS are even present in remote environments like the Arctic, Antarctica, and the Eastern European Tibetan Plateau. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream, which highlights PFAS as a chronic danger to people that demands urgent regulatory action. Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. In a literature review published in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety earlier this year, the authors highlight a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and endocrine-disrupting pesticides (EDPs) showing epigenetic effects from exposure, as the chemicals imitate the action of endocrine hormones and lead to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. In summarizing these results, the researchers state, “As a class of particularly representative endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances potentially leads to adverse health effects, including hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer.” These effects result from complex mechanisms that are not yet fully assessed in EPA’s pesticide registration process, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed before products are approved.   

Meanwhile, EPA continues to register PFAS pesticides through its normal registration review process. (See Daily News At Odds with Intl Regulatory Bodies, EPA Defines Away PFAS Problem, Allows Widespread Contamination.) The latest pesticide proposed for EPA registration, epyrifenacil (agricultural weed killer), joins cyclobutrifluram (soil fungicide/nematicide), isocycloseram (household and agricultural insecticide), diflufenican (lawn and agricultural weed killer), and trifludimoxazin (agricultural weed killer), making a total of five PFAS pesticide proposals in 2025 that have been associated with national and worldwide contamination of food, land, and water. Two of these, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, have been approved as of last fall.

Beyond Pesticides is calling for accurately defining and banning PFAS pesticides, starting in California, and asking Congress and EPA to stop dismissing the serious health and environmental threat of these pesticides with the current PFAS definition, which defies international standards.

Californians, Tell Your State Senator:

Please support passage of AB 1603 to restrict PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) pesticides, now under consideration in the state Senate. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the state of California continue to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence, which is supported by scientists and by the international forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and its resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for evaluating pesticides, and EPA should not allow PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD to be registered.

PFAS chemicals have become the new DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic. Because of their toxicity and persistence, the agrichemical industry looks to these chemicals for new pesticides. Given the likelihood of water contamination, it is disturbing that drinking water health advisories issued by EPA show PFAS levels as low as .02 parts per trillion (ppt) have the potential to cause adverse health effects for public health. 

Recent research by independent scientists finds, “[T]he biggest contributor to PFAS in pesticide products was active ingredients and their degradates. Nearly a quarter of all US conventional pesticide active ingredients were organofluorines and 14% were PFAS, and for active ingredients approved in the last 10 years, this had increased to 61% organofluorines and 30% PFAS.”

Fortunately, legislators in the California Assembly have passed a bill (AB 1603) that adopts the OECD definition of PFAS and states that no one shall “Use, or market, for agricultural use a pesticide that contains any of the PFAS pesticide ingredients;” or “Manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale in commerce, a pesticide registered for agricultural use that contains any of the PFAS pesticide ingredients.” It now moves to the state Senate. The bill states findings on the hazards of PFAS, their presence in the California environment, and their presence in food grown in California. The agricultural use of PFAS is responsible for this widespread contamination, but PFAS ingredients are also found in the excluded products with “uses to treat pets, livestock, and other animals to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate fleas, mites, ticks, heartworms, or other insects, parasites, or organisms.” I urge you to consider removing the restriction to agricultural pesticides.

Because of the state’s importance in agriculture, adoption of SB 1603 by California would have national impact, even if restricted to agricultural pesticides.

The OECD chemical definition of PFAS states: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.”  

This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that regulatory bodies like EPA do not include in their definitions.  

Thus, while the OECD defines PFAS as industrial chemicals that have at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom—which is a carbon atom with two or three fluorine atoms attached to it EPA—has narrowed the definition to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms. 

I urge you to support SB 1603 and move for its passage in the state Senate. Thank you.

Letter to Congress:

Legislation is urgently needed to restrict PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) pesticides. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence, which is supported by scientists and by the international forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and its resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for evaluating pesticides, and EPA should not allow PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD to be registered.

PFAS chemicals are the new DDT. Once hailed as a miracle solution for agriculture and public health, DDT became recognized as the antithesis of that—a highly toxic, persistent chemical whose effects endured through generations. PFAS substances have a wide variety of uses—from nonstick pans to waterproofing fabrics to firefighting foams to pesticides—and similarly lead to the characterization as “miracles.” PFAS also share the hazardous characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic.

Like DDT, PFAS residues persist in food. Over six million U.S. residents regularly drink water with levels above the EPA health advisory level, with a wide range of health implications. PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Like DDT, the effects of PFAS endure through generations—pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta. 

Federal agencies have failed to respond as the plastics industry continues to use the material in new products. Now we are seeing an expansion of use with the registration of PFAS pesticides. 

Parallels with DDT continue. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge (biosolids) to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS have made their way into the environment and human bodies—even in remote environments like Antarctica. CDC has determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream. 

Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. A literature review published this year highlighted a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) showing epigenetic effects leading to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. In summarizing these results, the researchers state, “As a class of particularly representative endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances potentially leads to adverse health effects, including hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer.” These effects result from complex mechanisms not yet fully assessed in EPA pesticide registration, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed. 

Instead of eliminating fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA attempts to define away the problem. The internationally accepted definition of PFAS states: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.” This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that EPA does not include in its definition—narrowed to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.

It is time to act on lessons learned from DDT. Please take urgent action to eliminate PFAS.

Thank you.

Letter to EPA:

Action is urgently needed to restrict PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) pesticides. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to ignore the widely accepted definition of PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence, which is supported by scientists and by the international forum, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). EPA’s current definition is at odds with the prevalent scientific thinking of scientists worldwide who have challenged the agency’s position and its resulting risk assessments. The OECD definition should be used as a basis for evaluating pesticides, and EPA should not allow PFAS pesticides, as defined by OECD to be registered.

PFAS chemicals are the new DDT. Once hailed as a miracle solution for agriculture and public health, DDT became recognized as the antithesis of that—a highly toxic, persistent chemical whose effects endured through generations. PFAS substances have a wide variety of uses—from nonstick pans to waterproofing fabrics to firefighting foams to pesticides—and similarly lead to the characterization as “miracles.” PFAS also share the hazardous characteristics of DDT. Like DDT, PFAS are persistent, leading to the nickname “forever chemicals,” and they are highly toxic.

Like DDT, PFAS residues persist in food. Over six million U.S. residents regularly drink water with levels above the EPA health advisory level, with a wide range of health implications. PFAS compounds are detectable in infants, children, and pregnant women. Like DDT, the effects of PFAS endure through generations—pregnant women can readily transfer compounds to the developing fetus through the placenta. 

As a regulatory agency, EPA has failed to respond as the plastics industry continues to use the material in new products. Now we are seeing an expansion of use with the registration of PFAS pesticides. 

Parallels with DDT continue. From widespread presence in farm fields and sewage sludge (biosolids) to contaminated water bodies throughout the U.S., PFAS have made their way into the environment and human bodies—even in remote environments like Antarctica. CDC has determined that almost all Americans have some level of PFAS in their bloodstream. 

Like DDT, PFAS are implicated in endocrine disruption. A literature review published this year highlighted a multitude of studies on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) showing epigenetic effects leading to gene damage and multigenerational adverse effects to health. In summarizing these results, the researchers state, “As a class of particularly representative endocrine-disrupting chemicals, the accumulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances potentially leads to adverse health effects, including hormonal disruptions, developmental issues, and cancer.” These effects result from complex mechanisms not yet fully assessed in EPA pesticide registration, creating a major deficiency in the regulatory review of pesticides that must be addressed. 

Instead of eliminating fluorinated pesticides—persistent and highly toxic compounds defined as PFAS internationally—EPA attempts to define away the problem. The internationally accepted definition of PFAS states: “PFASs are defined as fluorinated substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom (without any H/Cl/Br/I atom attached to it), i.e., with a few noted exceptions, any chemical with at least a perfluorinated methyl group (−CF3) or a perfluorinated methylene group (−CF2−) is a PFAS.” This definition of PFAS encompasses gases, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals, many of which can degrade to form additional PFAS, such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), that EPA does not include in its definition—narrowed to those containing two fully fluorinated carbon atoms.

It is time to act on lessons learned from DDT. Please do not register PFAS pesticides, as recognized internationally.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 29, 2026) In a new study published in Environmental Pollution, researchers detected 15 currently used pesticides (CUPs)—including 10 pesticide compounds detected but not applied within the study’s managed fields— in the pollen of beehives in an environment meant to reflect a typical honey bee foraging range.

The detection of pesticides that were not directly applied within the study’s target radius demonstrates the pervasiveness of pesticide drift into soils, streams, and bodies. In this context, public health and environmental advocates continue to call for a wholesale transition to organic land management.

The findings are particularly concerning given the toxicity hazards to honey bees associated with pesticide exposure in this study and bolstered by other studies, resulting in documented threats to their health—as reviewed in this Daily News below.

Methodology and Background

Researchers at the University of Bern and Agroscope, the Swiss government’s agricultural research arm, conducted this research with agricultural land-use data for 2023 and 2024 from the Zurich (provincial/Canton) government. The study area was defined as a 2-kilometer radius around the hive placement site, with 4 active hives over the course of a two-year period (April 10, 2023, through May 3, 2024). The land use within the target site was roughly 42 percent agricultural, 16 percent forestland, 21 percent urban built environment, and 16 percent urban green space. There are detailed pesticide application records available for just 9 percent of the agricultural use area. Five honey bee (Apis mellifera carnica) hives were installed and positioned in Agrocope-managed fields.

To gather samples, pollen traps were set on each hive and activated one per week for a 24-hour period to minimize any colony stressors. Each sample consisted of 2 grams of pollen per colony, which were combined into a single 10-gram pooled sample per week. The goal with this approach is to create a composite sample of exposure across foraging areas and provide sufficient data on site-level pesticide contamination. For more details on the methodology and statistical analysis, please see pages 8-11 of the study PDF.

Out of the 50 target currently-used pesticides (CUPs) screened by the researchers, 15 (or 30 percent) were detected across both sampling seasons, including the neonicotinoid insecticide Acetamiprid, herbicides Prosulfocarb, Terbuthylazine, and fungicides Difenoconazole and Mandipropamid.

The core findings can be broken down into several groups:

• Applied CUPs Detected in Pollen. Acetamiprid is one example of a pesticide detected following applications to rapeseed in both 2023 and 2024. In 2023, it was applied on April 5 and detected in the first available sample (April 28), with concentrations ranging 0.5–3.0 µg/kgdw and declining gradually thereafter. In 2024, concentrations were notably higher (0.6–9.6 µg/kgdw), peaking at 9.6 µg/kgdw on April 26 following a March 15 application. There was no detectable contamination following Acetamiprid applications to potato fields, which is notable given the exposure pathway of pollen at the focus of this study.
• CUPS Detected but not Applied in Agroscope Fields. Ten CUPs were found in pollen despite no application records within the Agroscope-managed fields, suggesting broader contamination and pesticide drift. These include the insecticides Spirodiclofen and Chlorpyrifos, fungicides (Azoxystrobin, Mepanipyrim, Cyprodinil, Trifloxystrobin, Fluopyram, and Fludioxonil), the fungicide metabolite desthio-prothioconazole, and the pesticide synergist Piperonyl butoxide to boost toxicity.
• Persistence Beyond Application Periods. Acetamiprid was detected in samples for several weeks after pre-flowering application, challenging the toxic regulatory status quo that permits the application of insecticides before flowering based on the purported claim that it adequately protects pollinators.
• Off-Target Contamination of Non-Crop Fauna. Pesticide residues were detected in the pollen of untreated, non-crop plants within the Agroscope-managed areas, including dandelions, bird cherry, and other wildflowers.
• Pesticides and Climate Change: Seasonal and Meteorological Influences. The 2024 season was notably more humid than the 2023 season, which created conditions that could likely promote fungal disease pressure, in turn leading to further synthetic fungicide applications.

Previous Coverage

The intersection of the climate crisis and pollinator health has never been clearer than in the latest peer-reviewed science. A study of ecotoxicity risk from neonicotinoid insecticides, published in Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, finds that chemicals in this class of pesticides, particularly Dinotefuron, increase the body temperature of Apis mellifera (European honey bee) and subsequently accelerate the translocation (movement) of contaminants into hives by the honey bees. The research indicates that neonicotinoids affect acetylcholine receptors in the nervous system, leading to an “elevation in octopamine titer [neurotransmitter/hormone] and subsequent increase in the body temperature of honeybees,” the authors report. They continue: “Furthermore, we observed a considerable upregulation [of] the expression of a flight gene flightin in honeybees. This gene accelerates the homing behavior of honeybees and facilitates the rapid and frequent transport of neonicotinoid pesticide-contaminated nectar to the hive.”

In describing their results, the researchers state: “For the first time, we propose that neonicotinoid pesticides accelerate the homing ability of honeybees by affecting their body temperature, which leads to more neonicotinoid pesticides entering the hive and explains the prevalence of neonicotinoids and at higher concentrations in terms of their effects on the honeybee body temperature that enhances homing.” This accelerated movement of neonicotinoid pesticides into honey bee hives heightens the toxicity hazards to honey bee populations. (See Daily News here.)

A study of two pollinator species, honey bees (Apis mellifera) and small carpenter bees (Ceratina calcarata), finds oxidative stress (OX)— an imbalance between antioxidant defenses and excess reactive oxygen molecules (species), or ROS—resulting from exposure to non-living (abiotic) stressors, such as synthetic chemicals, leading to cell damage. Regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), do not routinely evaluate oxidative stress as a standalone or required endpoint in standard pesticide registration protocols. In comparing pollinator responses to different pesticides and pest control management practices, the lowest levels of OX are exhibited in organically managed systems, as described in the research published in Physiological Entomology. (See Daily News here.) Another study published in Insects finds threats to Italian honey bees (Apis mellifera ligustica) following exposure to insecticides with contrasting toxicity levels. Both the high-toxicity and low-toxicity compounds impact honey bee gut bacteria and gut microbial composition, showing how even “reduced risk” insecticides can have sublethal effects and jeopardize pollinator health. As the authors point out, “Honey bees depend on a small but highly specialized community of gut bacteria that help them digest food, resist infections, and cope with environmental stress.” (See Daily News here.)

Pesticide contamination is a global threat. A study published last year in Science of The Total Environment reports widespread pesticide contamination collected from beehive monitoring across the European Union (EU). “This study has produced the first EU-wide distribution map of terrestrial pesticide contamination and demonstrates widespread pesticide contamination of EU environments,” the authors write. The study, led by a cohort of citizen-scientists, documents pesticide drift across the European continent. The results found that 188 of the 429 targeted pesticide compounds were detected in noninvasive, in-hive passive samplers (APIStrips) across 27 EU countries between May and August of 2023. This finding emerges at a time when public health and environmental advocates raise concerns about the European Union’s backtracking on commitments to reduce pesticide use by 2030, although the European Commission announced in July 2025 that “the use and risk of chemical pesticides has decreased by 58% by 2023 [from the 2015-2017 reference period], while the use of more hazardous pesticides fell by 27% over the same period.” (See Daily News here.)

The benefits of organic versus chemical-intensive land management have continued to emerge in the latest science. Researchers in Germany and Brazil investigated the biodiversity of agricultural landscapes in organic and non-organic areas in “bee hotels,” finding that there is a positive correlation between organically managed fields and numerous indicators of improved pollinator health, including an “increase in bee abundance, species richness, and diversity.” This study was published in Global Ecology and Conservation. (See Daily News here.) A study of organic tomato agroecosystems with managed and wild bees, published in Apidologie, affirms the importance of protecting natural systems to support organisms that contribute to crop productivity. The study finds that the strategy of introducing social bees, even those native to other nearby areas, to enhance pollination in open-field conditions provides no direct benefits to the crops that are better served by wild bees. In evaluating the addition of Melipona quadrifasciata stingless bees, not native to the study site, for assisted pollination of tomato plants cultivated in open organic fields, the researchers note that “the presence of M. quadrifasciata hives did not influence fruit quality, indicating that wild bees primarily drove pollination benefits.” (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

To learn more about the science on pesticides and how they impact ecosystem functioning, see What the Science Shows on Biodiversity. Learn more about your potential exposure to toxic pesticides and chemicals in over 90 non-organic crops, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and related items in the Eating With a Conscience database.

You can also take action by telling EPA, FDA, and Congress that regulations must consider the effects of pesticides in the context in which they are used and with reference to the organic alternative.  

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

Source: Environmental Pollution

(Beyond Pesticides, May 28, 2026) Researchers from France and Germany, as published in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, find that declines in bird populations are strongly linked to their diets, with insectivorous birds experiencing the greatest impacts. “Overall, our results emphasize the strong association between insecticide use and insectivorous bird declines,” the authors state. They continue: “We found a consistent negative association between insecticide use and population trends of insectivorous birds, the most abundant group, regardless of migration strategy. This pattern suggests indirect effects linked to the depletion of insects as a food source.”

In analyzing bird population trends in France over 15 years and comparing bird responses across diets and pesticide types, this study highlights the negative association between insect population declines and insectivorous bird population declines that are linked to agricultural intensification.

Study Background
The impacts of pesticides on birds, as described on Beyond Pesticides’ resource page, can occur through various routes of exposure. Birds can be exposed to pesticides directly through ingestion of seeds that have been treated with pesticides, or indirectly through consumption of small insects and other animals that have ingested the pesticides themselves, leading to secondary poisonings of the birds. They can also be indirectly affected through declines in insect populations, as shown in the current study. When insect populations are reduced, this natural food source for birds is also reduced, creating cascading trophic effects.

The adverse effects of pesticide use on bird populations cannot be understated. The latest State of the Birds 2025 report finds concerning news for bird species across the country. As the article reports: “Whether they hop around the prairie, dabble in wetlands, flit through forests, or forage along the shore, birds are suffering rapid population declines across the United States… If these habitats are struggling to support bird species, it’s a sign that they’re not healthy for other wildlife, or even humans—but working to restore them will have benefits across ecosystems.” (See more here.) Additionally, a 2025 study in Science of The Total Environment shows pesticide residues in birds’ nests correlate with higher numbers of dead offspring and unhatched eggs. The data reveals higher insecticide levels are linked to increased offspring mortality and threaten biodiversity. (See here.)  

In recent Daily News, Pesticide Contamination Moves Through the Food Web, From Aquatic Insects to Terrestrial Birds and Bats, international researchers find increasing threats to both aquatic and terrestrial food webs with insect transmission of pesticide residues from water to land. As the researchers explain, insects with aquatic and terrestrial phases act as vectors, transferring pesticides from water bodies into terrestrial food webs. The study results illustrate that pesticide contamination occurs through the ingestion of contaminated prey from aquatic systems, as all of the substances recovered in the fecal samples are detected in the water bodies within the study region, and highlight how the transfer of pesticides from emerging insects to other species in the food web further threatens biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.

Methodology and Results
In the current study, the researchers examine trends in common bird populations as they relate to pesticide toxicity. Bird data obtained from the French Breeding Bird Survey, conducted between 2008 and 2022, shows the annual abundance of common bird species. “Using long-term monitoring of 81 breeding bird species encompassing four contrasting diets across 2783 plots in France over a 15-year period, together with a national database of pesticide sales, we assessed the negative effects of pesticide exposure with several novel features,” the authors report. The results show pesticides as a key driver in bird population dynamics, impacting birds directly and indirectly through insect declines.

Notably, an increase in insecticide use by only one gram per hectare, per year correlates with decreased insectivorous bird abundance by 0.16–0.28% per year. As the researchers summarize: “Our study reveals a clear negative association between pesticide use and the trends in total abundance of birds, which depends both on bird diet and pesticide type. Consistent negative associations were observed between the trend in total abundance of hawking and gleaning insectivorous birds and the trends in insecticide use, regardless of their migration strategies.” [Hawking is a feeding strategy of catching flying insects in mid-air, while gleaning incorporates plucking invertebrates, such as spiders, caterpillars, or beetles, directly from a surface.] These results are supported by previous research that shows negative associations between insecticides and the decline of insectivorous birds. (See here, here, and here.) Research shows that the depletion of insect prey is also linked to reduced reproductive success in birds. (See here, here, here, and here.)

Previous Coverage
The adverse effects on birds, insects, and other wildlife from pesticide exposure have been widely documented by peer-reviewed, independent scientific literature. The delicate balance of biodiversity required for ecosystem functioning is severely disrupted with environmental contaminant exposure, particularly with impacts on insects and other pollinators that cause cascading impacts throughout the food web.

Research in 2019, published in Science, estimated a net loss of nearly 3 billion birds since 1970. The authors “report widespread population declines of birds over the past half-century, resulting in the cumulative loss of billions of breeding individuals across a wide range of species and habitats.” The study shows that “declines are not restricted to rare and threatened species—those once considered common and widespread are also diminished. These results have major implications for ecosystem integrity, the conservation of wildlife more broadly, and policies associated with the protection of birds and native ecosystems on which they depend.” Despite these staggering results that had advocates calling for action, over five years later, bird populations are still declining. As mentioned in Daily News, the decline in bird populations reflects overall ecosystem health that is directly impacted by harmful agricultural practices. These issues have been of concern for decades, back to when Rachel Carson warned the world how insidious pesticide use can be. She wrote in Silent Spring:

“For each of us, as for the robin in Michigan or the Salmon in the Miramichi, this is a problem of ecology, of interrelationships, of interdependence. We poison the caddis flies in a stream and the salmon runs dwindle and die. We poison the gnats in a lake and the poison travels from link to link of the food chain and soon the birds of the lake margins become its victims. We spray our elms and the following springs are silent of robin song, not because we sprayed the robins directly but because the poison traveled, step by step, through the now familiar elm leaf-earthworm-robin cycle. These are matters of record, observable, part of the visible world around us. They reflect the web of life — or death — that scientists know as ecology.”

An additional study in Science measured local population abundances of 261 North American bird species between 1987 and 2021 and the speeds at which the species’ populations rose or fell. (See Daily News here.) The study was based on data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, a program of the U.S. Geological Survey in coordination with the Canadian Wildlife Service. The researchers note that agricultural intensification and land use changes have been linked to changes in bird populations, and they integrate a set of related indicators, including climate, habitat, and human impacts, with the observational data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey. (See more on coverage of birds here and insects here.)

The Organic Solution
Birds, insects, and all other organisms, including humans, can be protected with the full elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. A study published in Environmental Pollution, in analyzing the role of neonicotinoid insecticide exposure on bird populations in France before and after the 2018 ban of neonicotinoids, highlights not only the significant negative effects of imidacloprid use on insectivorous bird abundance but the weak recovery of bird populations. The research shows that despite the ban, the persistent nature of imidacloprid, as well as the continued use of other petrochemical pesticides that have adverse effects on bird species, continues to impact populations of all types of birds and other wildlife, leading to cascading impacts on biodiversity. These results confirm that pesticide bans of single active ingredients or pesticide classes are not enough to ensure full biodiversity recovery to protect all species. (See Daily News here.)

Banning single active ingredients or pesticide classes fails to address the larger issue of dependence on chemical-intensive practices, where the elimination of one toxic chemical leads to replacing it with another, potentially more toxic, chemical. In this case, the pesticide treadmill continues to be perpetuated, and full-scale recovery of any wildlife species requires a systems-wide transition to organic land management to be implemented.

Given the urgent need to protect health and the environment, now is the time to adopt the organic solution, which science has proven is more productive and cost-effective than chemical-intensive methods. More importantly, organic practices prevent pesticide risks and protect and enhance biodiversity, safeguard public health, and mitigate climate change. Visit the Eating with a Conscience database to learn more about why food labeled “organic” is the right choice.

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

Source:

Perrot, T. et al. (2026) Declines in insectivorous bird abundance are related to increasing agricultural insecticide use, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167880926002343.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 27, 2026) In a perspective analysis published in Frontiers in Agronomy, researchers at the University of Nebraska and Serbia’s Maize Research Institute point out the growing availability of organic-compatible herbicide controls (referred to as bioherbicides) as an opportunity to “complement crop diversification and improve soil health, they may serve as a foundational component of agroecological cropping systems, driving a transition toward reduced external inputs and strengthening essential ecosystem services for long-term sustainability.”

The researchers distinguish between biopesticides based on their mode of action, regulatory status, including whether they are compliant to federal organic standards as defined under Organic Food Production Act (OFPA), the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, and guidance from the National Organic Program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The article references biopesticides listed by the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI), which undertakes its own review process contingent on three core factors, according to the authors:

• Must not be prohibited on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, as defined here;
• Manufacturing process does not include prohibited methods (genetic engineering, ionizing radiation, etc.); and
• All ingredients are compliant with organic standards and do not have any prohibited contaminants (contamination of crops, soil, and water with heavy metals or other toxins).

This distinction is critical given active attempts in Congress and federal agencies to enable greenwashing and undermine corporate accountability. For example, there is an ongoing effort to change/amend regulatory definitions of pesticide-related compounds in Section 10201 of the House-passed Farm Bill so that they are exempt from the standard registration review process under federal pesticide law, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). (See Daily News here and action alert here for further information.)  Similarly, the organic community also staved off a multi-year effort to permit the use of synthetic materials (“compost feedstocks”) in the January 2026 National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting. (See Daily News here.)

It should be noted that, under the NOP’s classification of materials guidance (NOP 5033, 2016), natural and synthetic are clearly defined as follows:

4.5 Materials Derived from Agricultural Products

Materials derived from agricultural products may be agricultural or nonagricultural, depending on the manufacturing and processing methods used.

The decision tree, NOP 5033-1, includes questions to differentiate between chemical reactions caused by naturally occurring biological processes, such as composting, fermentation, use of enzymes, and by heating or burning biological matter (e.g., cooking, baking, etc.).

Agricultural materials that are chemically changed due to allowed agricultural processing methods (e.g., cooking, baking, etc.) do not result in the classification of the processed agricultural product as synthetic.

4.6 Extraction of Nonorganic Materials

Some materials are produced using manufacturing processes that involve separation techniques, such as the steam distillation of oil from plant leaves. Separation and extraction methods may include, but are not limited to, distillation, solvent extraction, acid-base extraction, and physical or mechanical methods (e.g., filtration, crushing, centrifugation, or gravity separation).

For purposes of classification of a material as synthetic or nonsynthetic, a material may be classified as nonsynthetic (natural) if the extraction or separation technique results in a material that meets all of the following criteria:

• At the end of the extraction process, the material has not been transformed into a different substance via chemical change;
• The material has not been altered into a form that does not occur in nature; and
• Any synthetic materials used to separate, isolate, or extract the substance have been removed from the final substance (e.g., via evaporation, distillation, precipitation, or other means) such that they have no technical or functional effect in the final product.

4.7 Products of Naturally Occurring Biological Processes

Products of naturally occurring biological processes, such as fermentation and composting, are statutorily considered natural and nonsynthetic. Examples of nonsynthetic materials produced from naturally occurring biological processes include vinegar, citric acid, compost, gibberellic acid, and spinosad. Additional examples are provided in Table 1 of NOP 5033-1.

NOP has also published Guidance on Materials for Organic Crop Production (2016).

Background and Main Findings

The researchers in this article broadly define bioherbicides as “weed control agents derived from phytopathogenic microorganisms, plant- or synthetic-derived compounds (discussed later in this review), or their natural metabolites.” The main groups of bioherbicide classifications include microbial fungi, microbial bacteria, microbial viruses, essential oils, allelochemicals, natural products, and fatty acid-based substances. There are numerous challenges and features of biopesticides the authors refer to, including:

• Bioherbicides hold different modes of action based on the group. For example, essential oils “[r]apidly disrupts cell membrane integrity (burn-through)” or “inhibits respiration and reduces chlorophyll content” and fatty acid-based bioherbicides like pelargonic acid and ammonium nonanoate “disturb cell membranes.”
• Some bioherbicides like pelargonic acid have been available on the market for over a decade, whereas others have limited data due to their relatively new status, which could slow adoption/prohibition into organic systems that could benefit from new inputs if they comply;
• Regulatory protocols for bioherbicide approval in the European Union and United States differ widely, with EU regulations for bioherbicides (and pesticides more broadly) adopting the precautionary approach, whereas the United States adopts a risk-based certification system based on permissible levels of exposure. (See EU regulations here for their approval criteria for active )
• Bioherbicides require a greater volume of product relative to synthetic inputs based on their inherently positive quality for not translocating across other plants or insects that are central to scrutiny for many EPA-registered pesticides, such as neonicotinoid insecticides.

It is important to note that federal organic law sets strict evaluation criteria for allowed synthetic and prohibited natural materials, with a required holistic assessment to protect against adverse effects (related to material production, use, and disposal), ensure compatibility with organic systems, and determine material essentiality— distinguishing it from the federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which focuses on narrow risk assessments associated with use only. Elements of review include:

1. “The substance cannot be produced from a natural source and there are no organic substitutes;
2. The substance’s manufacture, use, and disposal do not have adverse effects on the environment and are done in a manner compatible with organic handling;
3. The nutritional quality of the food is maintained when the substance is used, and the substance, itself, or its breakdown products do not have an adverse effect on human health as defined by applicable Federal regulations;
4. The substance’s primary use is not as a preservative or to recreate or improve flavors, colors, textures, or nutritive value lost during processing, except where the replacement of nutrients is required by law; and
5. The substance is essential for the handling of organically produced agricultural products.

As the researchers state, and upon a closer analysis, there are a handful of organic-compliant bioherbicides with peer-reviewed literature identifying their efficacy data for weed-killing potential:

• Essential or horticultural oil-derived inputs have competitive reported efficacy data based on recent research, including a 50-90 percent efficacy rate of manuka oil on various weeds, including rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum), sterile coat (Avena sterilis), and crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) (Travlos et al., 2020) and a 92-100 percent efficacy rate of cinnamon oil on common tumbleweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). (Campiglia et al., 2007).
• Ammonium nonanoate, a fatty acid-based input, had an 88-98 percent efficacy rate on spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus), tumbleweed (Amaranthus albus), carpetweed (Mollugo verticillata), and Palmer’s pigweed (Palmer amaranth). (Parkash et al., 2022 ; Webber et al., 2010). However, it is annotated (or limited) to “use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops” (§ 205.601(b)(1) and “soaps, insecticidal” (§ 205.601(e)(8)).

Previous Coverage

While the green revolution is often heralded in conventional agriculture circles as the key agricultural innovation of the last century, recent research finds that biological controls likely had a bigger beneficial impact on world crop production. The study, Ecological Pest Control Fortifies Agricultural Growth in Asia–Pacific Economies, published in Nature Ecology and Evolution, makes the case that the introduction of predators to manage non-native pest species was just as important as the introduction of new cereal grain varieties. “Our work constitutes an empirical demonstration of how insect biological control helped solidify the agrarian foundation of several Asia-Pacific economies and, in doing so, places biological control on an equal footing with other biological innovations such as Green Revolution germplasm,” said study co-author Michael Furlong, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Australia. (See Daily News here.)

In a 2021 study published in Phytoparasitica, a promising new biocontrol agent for the tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima)—considered an invasive species in the U.S. and Europe by some—was recently discovered by French-based scientists at USDA. The finding centers on a small mite of the Eriophyidae family, Aculus mosoniensis, which has been found to feed on tree of heaven. The finding is encouraging for the future management of this species in conjunction with balanced ecosystems. “In Europe, this Eriophyid mite is considered one of the most promising biological control agents of tree-of-heaven,” said Javid Kashefi, senior support scientist at the European Biological Control Laboratory (EBCL) in France. “This finding provides encouraging evidence that the geographic occurrence of this species is expanding in the continent.” (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)—a stakeholder board created by Congress to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on organic standards under USDA and manage the list of allowed materials in organic production—met earlier this month. Join with Beyond Pesticides in advocating for continuously improving organic standards on issues such as:

1. Microplastics should not be broadcast into organic crops and orchards. Pear ester is a chemical kairomone (chemical signals) synthesized to be structurally and functionally identical to a volatile substance emitted by mature and ripening pears and other fruits. It attracts codling moths and is used in various ways to control them. Pear ester should be added to the National List with an annotation that describes its use and prohibits use of a product microencapsulated in plastic: “use of pear ester is limited to passive traps/monitors and not for use in microencapsulated formulations.”
2. Chitosan is a material in search of a market in organic. It is a synthetic material that is not well characterized—and different forms have radically different uses. It is not necessary for organic production, and the NOSB has a Technical Review that summarizes many allowed substances for the petitioned use in wine made with organic grapes.
3. Limits should be placed on the use of chlorine in livestock drinking water. Chlorinated drinking water is unavoidable for anyone using public water supplies, but many livestock producers supply drinking water from wells, cisterns, or ponds. The NOSB should propose guidance and/or instructions for certifiers regarding the application of this use in the various situations faced by livestock producers, including “shocking” wells with high concentrations of chlorine. The NOSB must perform a comprehensive review of cleaning, disinfecting, and sanitizing materials that can support annotations for these materials on the National List.
4. E-Commerce must provide all information about organic products that is required by law. Probably every organic consumer who has shopped online has encountered product names, including the word “organic” or descriptions of products as “organic” or containing organic ingredients, and wondered whether that description is true. There is inconsistency between the requirements for a product offered for sale by a “brick and mortar” establishment and the requirements in eCommerce, and this inconsistency provides an opportunity for fraud. The requirements for eCommerce should be brought into line with those for physical establishments. The NOSB must immediately identify any obstacles to eliminating this loophole and propose a rule change that will address them.

For more information on organic, please see Beyond Pesticides’ organic program page. and Keeping Organic Strong page. For additional information on organic-compatible products, see Pesticide Products Compatible with Organic Landscape Management and Fertilizers Compatible with Organic Landscape Management.

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

Source: Frontiers in Agronomy

(Beyond Pesticides, May 26, 2026) Earlier this month, with global attention focused on 12 known or suspected cases of hantavirus, including three deaths, on a cruise ship expedition in the South Atlantic, issues of rodent management, vector control, and disease transmission have made headlines around the world. The incident raises important questions about rodent biology, identification of virus location, method of disease transmission, cleaning practices, and ultimately control and prevention measures that are not harmful to people, wildlife, and ecosystems. The incident also shines a spotlight on the critical importance of the United States’ collaboration in international organizations, particularly the World Health Organization (WHO), in a world of international travel (18 on the ship live in the U.S.), where transmissible diseases extend beyond countries’ borders. With the Trump Administration defunding international programs and withdrawing from WHO, most medical experts agree that the world and U.S. residents are at heightened threat from transmissible diseases that move throughout the world. (See U.S. Abandons International Collaboration on Existential Health Challenges at Time When Most Needed.)

In this context, Beyond Pesticides has launched a local campaign to Tell local officials to use good sanitation and management to prevent rodent problems and not use hazardous rodenticides. 

In the cases of this M/V Hondius cruise incident, the first important issue is to identify the virus, where it is found, and how it is transmitted. According to WHO, “It is a rare but severe disease that can be deadly. Although uncommon, limited human-to-human transmission has been reported in previous outbreaks of Andes virus (a specific species of hantavirus).” Moreover, “Andes virus, found in South America [primarily Argentina and Chile], is a currently known hantavirus for which limited human‑to‑human transmission among contacts has been documented,” according to WHO’s Hantavirus “Key fact” factsheet. The individual, who boarded the ship on April 1 from its port of departure in Ushuaia, Argentina, after three months of travel in Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, was the first to show symptoms on April 6 and died on April 11. On May 2, a cluster of patients showed symptoms, which are expressed as severe respiratory distress.

The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) set the following protocol: “ECDC has classified all people on board the ship and for the purpose of disembarkation and repatriation to be high-risk contacts; Monitoring/quarantine up to six weeks (42 days); Day 0 = 10 May 2026. [Please note: this follows discussions between ECDC and Member States on 12 May. This text previously stated that Day 0 was 6 May.]; High-risk contacts: self-quarantine, daily symptom monitoring, test if symptomatic; Low-risk contacts: passive monitoring; isolate and test if symptoms develop.” News outlets are reporting passengers have returned to several states, including, including Arizona, California, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia.

From the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the U.S.: “On May 18, 2026, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed that 18 recently repatriated U.S. passengers from the M/V Hondius cruise ship were requested to remain at the Nebraska Quarantine Facility through May 31, 2026, which would be the 21-day mark of their monitoring period. Since the passengers disembarked from the ship, three additional cases of hantavirus have been identified — one each in France, Spain, and recently, Canada.” Two passengers who had chosen to leave quarantine were issues mandatory order signed by CDC’s Acting Director and issued under the Public Health Service Act and implementing regulations (42 CFR parts 70 and 71). According to CDC, “Quarantine is a public health measure, available at the federal, state, and county level, and used as necessary to protect communities.”

In the U.S. since 1993, people in the Four Corners area of the U.S. Southwest—the area where Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah meet— have faced periodic outbreaks of a different species from the hantavirus on the cruise ship and is not transmitted by people, known as the “New World” hantaviruses. According to CDC, “They are most commonly transmitted (spread) to humans [only] through contact with infected rodents (e.g., urine, droppings, saliva). Rarely, infection can occur from rodent bites or scratches.” 890 cases have been recorded nationwide since 1993, when surveillance began under the Nationally Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS). Although the virus is found outside the Southwest, the ecology of the rural areas of the region—including geography, climate, housing patterns, and close human contact with deer mice, the vector—produces ideal conditions for the disease to flourish. Understanding this ecology can help prevent hantavirus outbreaks in humans, as well as other rodent-borne diseases. 

Much of the rural American Southwest offers ideal habitat for deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), who do well in semi-arid environments, grasslands, woodpiles, sheds, cabins, and outbuildings, and carry the virus without becoming sick themselves. Weather patterns of abundant moisture following drought lead to increased rodent activity. Climate change may also affect risk. The American Southwest has experienced sharper shifts between drought and heavy rainfall. These conditions may periodically boost rodent populations. Wildfires and habitat disturbance may also affect how rodents interact with human communities. 

Because people typically become infected by inhaling viral particles from these rodents’ urine, feces, or saliva, it is critical that precautionary steps are taken while cleaning a remote cabin infested with wild rodents—ways to avoid infection. Vacuuming or sweeping up areas that may have been contaminated by live or dead rodents is discouraged because the activity releases viral particles into the air.

Instead, while cleaning:
*Wear gloves.
*Spray the contaminated area with the disinfectant or bleach solution until very wet, and let it soak for at least 5 minutes. 
*Use paper towels, a sponge, or a mop to clean up the contaminated area. 
*Wear an N95 mask to provide another level of protection. 

While deer mice may be mostly a rural problem, other rodents—including rats and house mice—affect urban dwellers. Rats and mice contribute to approximately 55 different diseases, including a diverse range of pathogens from viruses to parasitic worms. Unfortunately, facility managers often choose to deal with rodent infestations by primarily setting out poison (rodenticide) baits. Rodenticides are hazardous and pose a very dangerous threat to children and animals, making them either very sick or causing death if ingested. A significant number of peer-reviewed studies document the toxic nature of rodenticides. Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) have been found in the tissue of various aquatic and terrestrial organisms, leading researchers and conservationists to increasingly scrutinize the role of toxic pesticide drift from bait stations to streams, forests, and other habitats.

An ecological approach to urban rat management begins by considering the reasons that rats are in an area in the first place. Such an approach would focus on improving the quality of life in low-income areas of degraded housing and other public amenities. Thus, an ecological approach to urban rodent management involves solving social problems as well as scientific problems. It also requires accepting that mice and rat problems can be a symptom of another problem.  Rodents in structures are symptoms of other problems because they are always a factor of “upstream determinants” like weak building codes, disrepair resulting in entry points, or inadequate landscaping practices. Municipal rodent problems are also always unique, with different outbreak sources, conditions, and goals, making clear best practices for rat management a function of conditions on the site. 

A review outlines a new paradigm in rodent management. It begins with mapping out the rat problem in the region, “to highlight, for example, where rats are considered problematic, who is vulnerable, who is resilient, what policies are in place to address them and do they work better in some areas, and which municipal departments and sectors of the urban environment are affected.” This new approach emphasizes the improvement of overall community health, rather than focusing on rodents as symptoms of a problem that occurs in a vacuum. In doing so, a community may be able to successfully use different intervening actions—such as proper waste disposal, keeping livestock out of water bodies, and alterations to butchering practices. 

Beyond Pesticides advises the following: Tell local officials to use good sanitation and management to prevent rodent problems. In the event that your local mayor is not in the system, we invite you to email this message (included below) to them personally. 

[Also, see commentary from Beyond Pesticides, January 2026: On Public and Environmental Health and Worldwide Collaboration. You can take action and tell Congress to support and fund international organizations critical to the global health of humans and the biosphere, AND Tell Governors/Lieutenant Governors to join (as well as thank them for joining) the Governors Public Health Alliance and to expand their support for international agencies that protect biodiversity and mitigate the climate crisis (IUCN, IPBES, and IPCC).]

Mayor or Local Official
Recent news concerning the hantavirus highlights the importance of addressing rodent problems with a socio-ecological approach. 

Since 1993, people in the Four Corners area of the U.S. Southwest have faced periodic outbreaks of hantavirus. Although the virus is found elsewhere, the ecology of the rural Southwest—including geography, climate, housing patterns, and close human contact with deer mice—produces ideal conditions for the disease to flourish. Understanding this ecology can help prevent hantavirus in humans, as well as other rodent-borne diseases. The problem raises issues of rodent management in our community and ensuring that we adopt practices that offer control, but do not harm human health and the environment.

Hantavirus is mostly carried by wild rodents—unlike the Andes strain infecting people on the cruise ship MV Hondius. People typically become infected by inhaling viral particles from these rodents’ urine, feces, or saliva—for instance, while cleaning a remote cabin infested with wild rodents. Vacuuming or sweeping up areas that may have been contaminated by live or dead rodents is discouraged because the activity releases viral particles into the air.

Instead, community education is needed to ensure that basic protective practices are followed, such as:
*Wear gloves. 
*Spray the contaminated area with the disinfectant or bleach solution until very wet, and let it soak for at least 5 minutes.
*Use paper towels, a sponge, or a mop to clean up the contaminated area.
*Wear an N95 mask to provide another level of protection.

While deer mice may be mostly a rural problem, other rodents—including rats and house mice—affect urban dwellers. Rats and mice contribute to approximately 55 different diseases, including a diverse range of pathogens from viruses to parasitic worms. Unfortunately, facility managers often set out poison (rodenticide) baits. Rodenticides are hazardous and pose a dangerous threat to children and animals, possibly resulting in illness or death. A significant number of peer-reviewed studies document the toxic nature of rodenticides. Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) have been found in various aquatic and terrestrial organisms, leading researchers and conservationists to increasingly scrutinize the role of toxic pesticide drift from bait stations to streams, forests, and other habitats. 

An ecological approach to urban rat management begins by considering the reasons that rodents are in an area in the first place. Such an approach would focus on improving the quality of life in low-income areas of degraded housing and other public amenities—thus addressing social problems as well as scientific problems and accepting that rat problems can be a symptom of another problem, such as weak building codes or inadequate landscaping practices. This approach begins by mapping out the rat problem in the region, to highlight where rats are considered problematic, who is vulnerable, who is resilient, what policies are in place to address them, and with what success. Affected municipal departments and sectors of the urban environment need to be identified. This approach emphasizes the improvement of overall community health, rather than focusing on rodents as a problem that occurs in a vacuum. In doing so, a community may be able to successfully use different intervening actions—such as improved building codes, making needed repairs that seal entry points, and proper waste disposal and sanitation practices—to prevent rodent problems.

I urge you to adopt an ecological approach to preventing rodent problems.

Thank you.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 22, 2026) On Memorial Day, those who served and died in the armed forces are remembered for their ultimate sacrifice. And the victims of war are memorialized. Of critical note are the effects of war, that extend beyond the battlefield to those who return home or remain in the aftermath with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and ultimately take their lives by suicide, as well as those exposed to deadly chemicals that caused premature death.

A 2022 study finds, “ VA [Veteran Affairs] patients with current or past diagnosis of PTSD have been found to have an unadjusted rate of 50.7 deaths by suicide per 100,000 person years of risk, compared to a rate of 13.2 in the general adult population.” This statistic can be evaluated in the context of a recent observational cohort study to be in print in August 2026 that focuses on exposure to toxic substances and suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs) through the analysis of data from 248,926 U.S. veterans enrolled in the Million Veteran Program (MVP). In comparing self-reported exposures to nine toxicants, including Agent Orange, chemical/biological weapons, anthrax vaccine, solvents/fuels, petroleum combustion products, lead, other metals, pesticides, and open-air burn pits, and mental health records, the researchers find that military veterans with higher toxic exposures are more likely to have STBs. The study, reviewed in Daily News, will be published in Psychiatry Research,

Exposure to organophosphates, used as a chemical weapon in the Gulf War, is linked to suicide. A study published in August 2024 in the journal Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety has found that exposure to organophosphorus pesticides (OPPs) is correlated with increased suicidal thoughts in some people. This study is just the latest in a long line of studies from around the world that have linked pesticide exposure to mental health conditions, including sleep disorders, depression, and suicidal ideation (SI). Research finds a strong causal evidence that Gulf War Illness (GWI) is the result of exposure to sarin gas, an organophosphate nerve agent used as a chemical weapon during the Gulf War.

Findings, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, have important implications for the hundreds of thousands of American service members suffering from a constellation of chronic symptoms. “Quite simply, our findings prove that Gulf War illness was caused by sarin, which was released when we bombed Iraqi chemical weapons storage and production facilities,” said Robert Haley, MD, lead author of the study and epidemiologist at University of Texas Southwestern. (See Daily News.)

A literature review of military personnel links their toxic exposure to poorer mental health outcomes. The review, written by medical professionals and researchers throughout the U.S. and published in Medical Care, analyzes the existing literature on associations between military environmental exposures (MEEs) to contaminants, including pesticides, and mental health (MH) outcomes. “We used evidence mapping methodology to systematically search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and PTSDpubs for studies of toxic exposure during military service and psychiatric outcomes, which included psychiatric diagnoses, psychiatric symptoms, and neurocognitive functioning,” the authors explain. The 49 studies in the review, covering chemical exposures for military members, involve chemical munitions from the Gulf War era and Agent Orange (the weed killer or defoliant) from the Vietnam War era that are associated with symptoms of depression, PTSD, and anxiety, among others. “Overall, available evidence suggests that veterans reporting environmental toxic exposures may report relatively high levels of mental health needs,” the researchers report.

Exposure to toxic chemicals also can lead to death after service members return home or victims remain in the aftermath of war. In passing The Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (PACT Act), Congress recognized that chemical exposure through burn pits used during the Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of the Southwest Asia theater of military operations, caused deadly diseases. In fact, President Biden attributed his son’s death from brain cancer in 2015 to his exposure to burn pits in Iraq during the war. Burn pits, a common practice, were open-air combustion of chemicals, tires, plastics, medical equipment, and human waste, according to the VA. The Department of Defense says it has closed most burn pits and is planning to close the remainder. PACT Act has a long list of presumptive conditions for deadly diseases, including but not limited to (see Military.com for expansive list here): Cancers of the brain, head, neck, and nervous system; Brain and nervous system disorders (i.e., Parkinson’s Disease); Sarcomas; Spinal cord cancers; Gastrointestinal cancers; Kidney cancers; Lymphomas; Melanomas; Pancreatic cancers; Reproductive cancers; Respiratory cancers; and, various non-cancer conditions (High blood pressure/hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, among others.)

From the Veterans Administration: Help Prevent Suicide; Know about suicide prevention resources:

• Visit the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline website.
• Call 988.
• For the Veterans Crisis Line, dial 1 after being connected.

While helping a suicidal person can be a difficult process, remember that the assistance you provide could save someone’s life. If you think someone may be suicidal, you can directly ask him or her. Contrary to popular belief, asking someone if they are suicidal will not put the idea in their head.

Often the most difficult part of obtaining treatment is the initial call to a mental health professional. It is usually easier for a suicidal individual to accept professional help if they have assistance with this part of the process. For help making referrals see Get Help in a Crisis.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides; featured image attribution: JO1 Gawlowicz, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 21, 2026) An important study by cancer researchers in Barcelona, Spain at once shows a path forward in illuminating the long-term, multi-generational, health damage from pesticide exposures and demonstrates how extraordinarily dilatory U.S. agricultural regulators are in protecting public health. The study, “Epigenetic fingerprints link early-onset colon and rectal cancer to pesticide exposure,” found a robust association between methylation markers (for gene expression associated with cancer) and exposure to a number of pesticides, with the herbicide picloram having the strongest link. Other pesticides with strong associations include the weedkillers atrazine, glyphosate, nicosulfuron, and insecticide esfenvalerate. Colon cancer is expected to double, and rectal cancer to quadruple, in this young age group by 2030. This sharp contrast between age groups suggests that environmental exposures, rather than strictly genetics, are involved.

The authors are concerned with the alarming rise in early onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) not only in the highly developed world but also in less-industrialized countries. This increase appears to be connected with age cohorts and the differences in lifestyle and environmental exposures between older and younger cohorts. According to a commentary on the study by researchers from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in the U.S., the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) declined steadily in people born between about 1890 and 1950 and then began to rise again. We are now at a point where people born after 1990 are diagnosed at two to three times the rate of those born in 1950.

Early CRC onset is defined as diagnosis before age 50, and among the known risk factors are “family history of colorectal cancer, a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) such as ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease, and environmental and lifestyle-related factors such as lack of exercise, obesity, smoking, and alcohol consumption,” according to the Dana-Farber Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer Center.

The Barcelona researchers focused on methylation biomarkers to analyze the generational differences between CRC patients. Methylation is part of a complex system of gene regulation, called epigenetics, that controls which genes are switched off and on in individual cells and tissues. Epigenetic processes do not change genes themselves, but deeply influence the patterns of DNA expression. In recent years methylation status has become the target of extreme scientific interest, because too much or too little methylation in the wrong places affects cancer induction and development, along with chromosomal stability and other important genetic processes. Abnormal methylation is very common in CRC. The researchers developed methylation risk scores (MRSs) based on DNA sites known to influence cancer.

The Barcelona researchers used methylation data from The Cancer Genome Atlas, an archive of cell samples from 33 types of cancers. The archive contains genomic, epigenomic, transcriptomic and proteomic data. The depth and breadth of this data are extremely useful, because while tissue samples over time from conception to adulthood are rarely available, “the epigenome accumulates damage beginning in the gamete’s preconception, continuing through fertilization, prenatal development, and longitudinally throughout the lifetime of an individual,” according to a review by researchers at the University of Michigan. This provides an unparallelled forensic record whose potential is just being realized.

The current study includes MRSs for lifestyle factors such as alcohol consumption, smoking, obesity, birthweight, cannabis use, and education level. Environmental factors include exposures to air pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, PCBs, and particulates) and 14 herbicides and insecticides. The researchers then compare the scores between a set of EOCRC patients and a group of late-onset colorectal cancer (LOCRC) patients.

The data analysis produced 63 MRSs for comparison between age groups. Positive associations emerge between EOCRC and exposure to four pesticides, PCBs, and particulates. In particular, the herbicide picloram stands out, and the significant association with early onset cancer holds up through numerous validation processes. The researchers note that their analysis supports the reliability of using the MRSs as “proxies for true pesticide exposure,” meaning that this method can now be applied with confidence to capture evidence of pesticide exposures that are currently difficult to reach.

In addition, the study examines pesticide use intensity together with EOCRC incidence rates using population data from seven states and found 27 pesticides with significant associations to EOCRC. This gives the researchers an independent measure to compare with and refine the epigenomic data.

Picloram is used mostly on pastures and rangeland to kill plants that compete with food for grazing animals, as well as on wheat, barley and oats, and in forests, rights-of-way, and other noncrop areas. According to EPA’s 2021 Interim Registration Review Decision, about 650,000 pounds of picloram were applied to about fiv million acres a year between 2014 and 2018. Pasture and rangeland accounted for 95% of those acres.

EPA’s only concern with picloram is the possibility that it may be contaminated with the carcinogen hexachlorobenzene. The EPA review found “no acute or chronic risks of concern for mammals” and no acute risk for birds, reptiles or adult honey bees. It did express some concern about chronic risk for bee larvae and birds, but merely notes the need for further studies. The review also reports numerous instances of compost contamination from used animal bedding and manure, with adverse consequences for ornamental plants and some food plants such as sunflowers, tomatoes, cucumber, soybeans and sugar beets. And while the review notes that “picloram and its salts are mobile and persistent,” it finds “no risks of concern” for fish, marine invertebrates or aquatic plants. EPA characterizes picloram as being of moderately to low toxicity to marine life. However, the chemical is not fully evaluated as mixture of chemicals that make up the formulation, as noted by the Australian and New Zealand “Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.” The guideline report points to a matter of ongoing exposure, stating: “Picloram does not bind strongly to soil (KOC values of 0.026–100 L/kg). This property (combined with its low volatility, high solubility and high persistence) means picloram has a high potential to leach to groundwater and enter surface water (USEPA 1995, EFSA 2009, Tu et al. 2001, APVMA 2015, NCBI 2020). Once picloram has reached groundwater, it is unlikely to degrade, even over several years (USEPA 1995).” On a historical note, a  4:1 mixture of the 2,4-D and picloram herbicides, known as Agent White, was used as a jungle defoliant in Viet Nam war, along with Agent Orange (a mixture of 2,4-D and the herbicide 2,4,5-T).

Picloram was synthesized by Dow Chemical Company chemists in the early 1960s and first registered by EPA in 1964. The European Union recently extended its registration approval until 2028. Picloram acts by binding to cell receptors for the most common plant growth hormone, indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), producing chaotic cell division and plant death. It is not correct to assume, as both regulators and pesticide corporates have done, that IAA pertains only to plants. IAA is ingested by mammals and produced by gut microbiota. According to a 2025 review in The FASEB Journal, IAA has numerous effects on human health, including exacerbating chronic kidney disease, liver stress and cardiovascular disease, but also has some potential protective effects against oxidative stress, inflammation and lipid metabolism. Picloram’s effects on the presence and activity of IAA in nontarget organisms are largely unknown, but as with the weed killer glyphosate’s effects on everything from cancer to reproduction to brain health, the failure to consider unintended consequences of pesticides including picloram rings loud and clear.

The coincidence of picloram and the reversal of the CRC curve in the early 1960s is highly suggestive. The Barcelona authors note that, “If the use of picloram in crops started in the mid and late twentieth century, then current patients with LOCRC were not exposed during their childhood, whereas cases of EOCRC were and have been for a longer part of their lives, which could explain our results.”

Dana-Farber experts point out in their online commentary that the study has several limitations. In its population-level analyses of pesticides, it relied on self-reported exposure data. The epigenomic data was derived from a small sample from The Cancer Genome Atlas of patients who were all males of European ancestry. Further, the MRSs for pesticide exposures are very new compared to those proven to reflect smoking exposure. However, in a parallel perspective in Nature, they wrote that the Barcelona study “lends support to the growing concerns regarding the role of pervasive environmental contaminants on early-onset cancer risk. In reality, picloram is only one of innumerable synthetic chemicals introduced during the post-World War II industrial expansion, as growth of the petrochemical industry in the 1950s drove their large-scale production and global environmental dissemination.”

It is difficult to calculate unintended consequences given that many diseases, including cancers, take decades—even generations—to manifest after early exposures to toxic chemicals. But the consequences are starting to be seen in the preserved cellular record, and with this knowledge comes the responsibility to adopt regulatory restrictions that stop causing the harms.

A further consideration in the context of this forensic resource is parallel emerging evidence that epigenetic changes to germ cells—sperm and eggs—acquired at any phase of life are transmissible to ensuing generations. Research by Michael Skinner, PhD, at Washington State University establishes that in mice exposed to the fungicide vinclozolin in the first generation produced reproductive abnormalities in the mice’s great-grandchildren. Dr. Skinner’s team has now identified 19 chemicals that produce transgenerational epigenetic damage, including eight pesticides. These changes involve DNA methylation. More ominously, Dr. Skinner’s recent work has extended the timeline to the 20^th generation, which continues to show “the generational stability of epigenetic inheritance over twenty generations in a mammalian model system; however, new pathology in later generations involving parturition abnormalities was also observed. The generational stability of transgenerational effects observed in this study has implications for human health, particularly regarding environmental toxicant exposures, reproductive health disorders, and disease susceptibility.”

Taken together, the Barcelona evidence and its innovative methodology, the existing epidemiological record, and the striking transgenerational evidence of harm by pesticides creates a moral imperative, one that the Barcelona authors call “a compelling rationale for addressing lifestyle and environmental exposures to mitigate EOCRC risk, highlighting the importance of both personal and policy-level interventions.”

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

Sources:

Epigenetic fingerprints link early-onset colon and rectal cancer to pesticide exposure
Maas et al.
Nature Medicine 2026
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-026-04342-5.pdf

Dana-Farber Experts Offer Perspective on Link Between Pesticide Exposure and Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute April 30, 2026
https://www.dana-farber.org/newsroom/news-releases/2026/dana-farber-experts-offer-perspective-on-link-between-pesticide-exposure-and-early-onset-colorectal-cancer

Studies Find Genetic and Epigenetic Effects from Pesticide Exposure, Threatening Future Generations
Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2026
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2026/03/studies-again-find-genetic-and-epigenetic-effects-from-pesticide-exposure-threatening-future-generations/

Beyond Pesticides
Daily News Blog Archive – Epigenetics
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/category/diseasehealth-effects/epigenetic/
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/category/diseasehealth-effects/epigenetic-effects/

Epigenetics and the exposome: DNA methylation as a proxy for health impacts of prenatal environmental exposures
Colwell et al.
Exposome 2023
https://academic.oup.com/exposome/article/3/1/osad001/7008330

Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management
Beyond Pesticides
https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/pesticide-gateway

Picloram
Beyond Pesticides Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management
https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/pesticide-gateway?chemfind=picloram

Picloram
Interim Registration Review Decision
Case Number 0096
September 2021
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0740
www.regulations.gov