(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2025) When Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. announced last week that he is directing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to explore rulemaking to review substances in food affirmed by the food companies to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), he said he is “committed to promoting radical transparency to make sure all Americans know what is in their food.” The issue of independent review of the food industry’s GRAS declarations has long been the subject of critiques raising public health concerns. As this issue emerged, on another food safety issue, Beyond Pesticides is asking  FDA to use its broad authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to “ensur(e) that human foods and animal feeds are safe” from residues of pesticide mixtures, in light of new troubling scientific data.

Under various memoranda of understanding between FDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) going back decades, FDA could consult with EPA on food safety issues ignored by the agency, including  recent data published in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, which “suggest that combined [pesticide] exposure may further amplify the toxicity and compromise the intestinal barrier.” Where EPA fails to consider exposure to mixtures of pesticides in people’s diet, Beyond Pesticides sees a role for FDA to recommend regulatory action.

>> Tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to instruct FDA to recommend tolerances for mixtures of pesticides. 

On the GRAS concern, Beyond Pesticides raised the issue when telling the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) that it could not, by law, allow GRAS substances without a thorough independent review. Beyond Pesticides, whose executive director served on the NOSB, cited a comprehensive review (2011) of the U.S. food additive regulatory program, which found that 60% of food safety decisions allowing substances in food are made by manufacturers and a trade association: “Overall, federal agencies made approximately 40% of the 6000 safety decisions allowing substances in human00pm food. These decisions allowed an estimated 66% of the substances currently believed to be used in food. Manufacturers and a trade association made the remaining decisions without FDA review by concluding that the substances were generally recognized as safe (GRAS).”

The U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) reported on FDA’s regulation of food additives, particularly GRAS items in its report, Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safety (2010). The GAO found:

• “FDA’s oversight process does not help ensure the safety of all new GRAS determinations. FDA only reviews those GRAS determinations that companies submit to the agency’s voluntary notification program—the agency generally does not have information about other GRAS determinations companies have made because companies are not required to inform FDA of them.”
• “FDA has yet to issue a final regulation for its 1997 proposed rule that sets forth the framework and criteria for the voluntary notification program, potentially detracting from the program’s credibility.”
• “FDA is not systematically ensuring the continued safety of current GRAS substances. While, according to FDA regulations, the GRAS status of a substance must be reconsidered as new scientific information emerges, the agency has not systematically reconsidered GRAS substances since the 1980s.”
• FDA has also not generally responded to concerns raised by individuals and public interest groups. “In fact, FDA has decided on the validity of these concerns in only 1 of 11 cases. In addition, FDA does not know to what extent, or even whether, companies track evolving scientific information about their GRAS substances.”
• “FDA’s approach to regulating nanotechnology allows engineered nanomaterials to enter the food supply as GRAS substances without FDA’s knowledge.”…FDA encourages, but does not require, companies considering using engineered nanomaterials in food to consult with the agency regarding whether such substances might be GRAS. Because GRAS notification is voluntary and companies are not required to identify nanomaterials in their GRAS substances, FDA has no way of knowing the full extent to which engineered nanomaterials have entered the U.S. food supply as part of GRAS substances.

Back to pesticide mixtures. The researchers in the study cited above found that the toxic effects of the insecticides abamectin and spirodiclofen, as well as the fungicide fluazinam, individually and in combination caused serious adverse effects to the intestines, raising an alarm not considered by EPA. In exposing mice and in vitro colorectal cells to these pesticides, both singularly and in mixtures, the results show the disruption of intestinal functions caused by the interaction of pesticides in mixtures. These findings highlight the need to assess potential synergistic effects of pesticide mixtures as a part of the regulatory review process. FDA may recommend regulatory action in this regard. 

>> Tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to instruct FDA to recommend tolerances for mixtures of pesticides. 

“Currently, most studies investigating the effects of pesticide residues on the barrier function of Caco-2 cells [human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells used as a model of the intestinal epithelial barrier] concentrate on the exposure to a single residue, while the potential toxic effects arising from the concurrent presence of multiple pesticide residues remain largely overlooked,” the authors say. As previously reported, scientists and health advocates have urged prioritizing further studies on the effect of mixtures on organisms for many decades, given that exposure in the environment is not limited to a single pesticide at a time.  

“[R]ecent studies have increasingly highlighted the toxic effects of abamectin on non-target organisms and human cells,” the researchers state. The combination of pesticides is widely used due to widespread resistance among red spider mites to individual pesticides. The interaction effects of commonly used pesticides remain largely unexplored. This study exposes a mechanism for the synergistic effects of concurrent exposure to a combination of pesticides and highlights the importance of considering synergy in risk assessments. “These findings enhance our understanding of the interactions among multiple pesticide residues and further clarify the complexity of these interactions and their impact on human exposure,” the authors conclude. (See additional coverage on health effects from pesticide mixtures here and here.)  

Additional research referenced in the study supports the findings of intestinal damage from pesticide exposure. This includes: 

• The insecticide imidacloprid, which “induces disruption of the intestinal epithelial barrier, specifically through the down-regulation of tight junction protein complexes” and has enhanced toxicity against the gut microbiota in mice with co-exposure to zinc oxide. (See studies here and here.) 
• The insecticide chlorpyrifos, which is “observed to disrupt the integrity of the gut barrier in mice, resulting in increased entry of lipopolysaccharides into the body.” (See study here.) 
• The fungicide carbendazim, which when combined with epoxiconazole or fluazinam has synergistic effects in Caco-2 cells, according to a study in Food Chemistry. 

The findings are very concerning, given that pesticide residues in food are introduced directly to the intestines. As the researchers note, “The intestinal tract functions as a congenital barrier for homeostasis, preventing pathogenic bacteria, toxins, and other harmful substances from entering the body.” They continue: “Pesticides ingested through the diet are absorbed and transported into the human body, directly interacting with intestinal epithelial cells. This exposure results in alterations to cell permeability and integrity, ultimately compromising the barrier function of these cells.” 

The complex interactions among pesticide mixtures are not fully understood but represent a significant threat to human health The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fails to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world. Risk assessments have been highly criticized as inadequately addressing the full range of adverse effects that put human health and the health of all organisms at risk. (See more on regulatory deficiencies here and here.) 

Scientists and advocates have long asked EPA to evaluate and regulate full formulations of pesticides, and their mixtures, instead of assessing active ingredients singularly. As the body of knowledge base evolves, so should the systems for assessments that are meant to inform decisions that have a wide impact on human and ecosystem health. 

Given both the known and still unevaluated effects of pesticides, including the impact of mixtures and synergistic effects, Beyond Pesticides urges the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032. As a holistic solution, organic land management practices offer both health and environmental benefits, with proven commercial viability and effectiveness in both agricultural and nonagricultural uses. 

>> Tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to instruct FDA to recommend tolerances for mixtures of pesticides.  

Letter to Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Under your authority to protect the safety of the food supply from pesticide residues, it is critical that you recommend the setting of tolerances for pesticide mixtures, an area of health concern not currently considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Study results published in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology “suggest that combined [pesticide] exposure may further amplify the toxicity and compromise the intestinal barrier.” The researchers found that the insecticides abamectin and spirodiclofen, and the fungicide fluazinam, individually and in combination cause serious disruption of intestinal functions caused by the interaction of pesticides in mixtures. These findings highlight the need to assess potential synergistic effects of pesticide mixtures as a part of the regulatory review process. Under memoranda of understanding with EPA, please instruct the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to recommend tolerances based on combined exposure when pesticides are used together.

“Currently, most studies investigating the effects of pesticide residues on the barrier function of Caco-2 cells [human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells used as a model of the intestinal epithelial barrier] concentrate on the exposure to a single residue, while the potential toxic effects arising from the concurrent presence of multiple pesticide residues remain largely overlooked,” the authors say. This study exposes a mechanism for the synergistic effects of concurrent exposure to a combination of pesticides and highlights the importance of considering synergy in risk assessments and the setting of pesticide tolerance to protect health. 

Additional research referenced in the study supports the findings of intestinal damage from pesticide exposure, including disruption of the intestinal epithelial barrier by imidacloprid, enhancing toxicity of zinc oxide to gut microbiota; disrupt the integrity of the gut barrier in mice by chlorpyrifos, resulting in increased entry of lipopolysaccharides into the body, and synergistic effects of carbendazim combined with epoxiconazole or fluazinam in Caco-2 cells. 

The findings are very troubling, since pesticide residues in food are introduced directly to the intestines. As the researchers note, “The intestinal tract functions as a congenital barrier for homeostasis, preventing pathogenic bacteria, toxins, and other harmful substances from entering the body.” They continue: “Pesticides ingested through the diet are absorbed and transported into the human body, directly interacting with intestinal epithelial cells. This exposure results in alterations to cell permeability and integrity, ultimately compromising the barrier function of these cells.”

The complex interactions among pesticide mixtures are not fully understood but represent a significant threat to human health. EPA fails to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world. Risk assessments have been highly criticized as inadequately addressing the full range of adverse effects that put human health and the health of all organisms at risk. Since establishing tolerances for pesticide residues is the responsibility of FDA, I ask you to require FDA to set tolerances based on combined exposure when pesticides are used together.

Given both the known and still unevaluated effects of pesticides, including the impact of mixtures and synergistic effects, petrochemical pesticides can be better regulated through the setting of tolerances and replaced by organic land management practices, which have proven commercial viability and effectiveness in both agricultural and nonagricultural uses.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 14, 2025) Beyond Pesticides celebrates the life and legacy of Joan Dye Gussow, EdD, a leader in the organic and local food movements for decades. Dr. Gussow passed away at 96 years young on Friday, March 6, at her home in Rockland County, New York.

As the matriarch of the “eat locally, think globally” movement (New York Times), Dr. Gussow embodied what it means to practice what you preach with decades of experience in pesticide-free, regenerative organic gardening, where she grew seasonal produce for her own consumption.

In her book, The Feeding Web, Gussow explains why gardening matters:

“Food comes from the land. We have forgotten that. If we do not learn it again, we will die….Are we not, in fact, more helpless than any people before us, less able to fend for ourselves, more cut off from sources of nourishment? What would we do if we could not get to the supermarket?”

Dr. Gussow represents the values of community- and people-first organic principles in food and land management systems. By 1971, the year after she published her first book on the relationship between nutrition and children’s performance in school, Dr. Gussow was invited to testify before Congress about Saturday morning cereal commercials and the confusing, harmful messages they send to children and families about food.

Dr. Gussow emphasized that organic, regenerative, sustainable food systems, and ecologically based land and pest management, mean very little if they do not support local communities, and she understood that as a leading thinker not just about food systems, but also about how unfettered consumerism is counterintuitive to planetary health.

Highlights from the 37^th Pesticide Forum in NYC

Dr. Gussow delivered a keynote speech at Beyond Pesticides’ 37^th National Pesticide Forum hosted at the New York Academy of Medicine on April 5-6, 2019. The following highlights some excerpts that not only stand the test of time but offer critical insight into how to achieve a more sustainable future.

“Way back in the 1950s, over 60 years ago, the purveyors of a post-World War II arsenal of novel pest-killing chemicals knew that resistance to those chemicals would occur so that farmers who became dependent on any single product would regularly need to shift to something new.

“They also knew, now that [Rachel] Carson had pointed it out, that the poisons of which we were trying to exterminate, everything we viewed as threatening to us or to our crops, were working their way up the food chain that we sat on top of, poisoning on their way lots of other things in the environment besides the particular pest being targeted. It’s important to keep in mind that at the time the book was published, almost 40 years ago, lots of non-chemical approaches to controlling crop pests had been familiar to professionals for decades, among them the development of insect-resistant strains of crops, insect pathogens, biological control, sterile males, hormonal control of insect growth, alteration of farming practices, organic production, for example, mechanical devices, the use of resistant crop plants, and so on.”

“All of which is to say that our agriculture is more deeply trapped in a chemical web than we were before GMOs were invented as a solution. And it wasn’t as if no one knew. As Iowa State University’s 2012 Herbicide Guide for Iowa Corn and Soybean Production stated, ‘History has proven time and time again that herbicide-based weed management will inevitably fail.’”

“The percentage of U.S. crop acreage planted to Roundup ready corn, cotton, and soy went from zero in 1996 to 90%. That’s the percent of acreage involved in genetically engineered crops. Herbicide use went through the ceiling. By that time, just as many observers had predicted, superweeds, untouchable by the herbicide, had invaded more than half of U.S. farms [2013]. It looked like it was time to try another approach.

Right? Wrong. Monsanto, slipping out from under its increasingly damned reputation, folded into Bayer, which introduced two new genetically stacked versions of soy. One resistant to both glyphosate and an older, more toxic pesticide called 2,4-D, and another resistant to a truly lethal old pesticide called dicamba.

Dicamba-resistant soy was widely planted, almost immediately, and because the pesticide is extremely volatile and moves off to places where it isn’t sprayed, we’ve already seen a picture of what happens to peach trees. Dicamba has already caused widespread damage in surrounding fields and backyards to fruits, vegetables, commercial and residential gardens and trees, including orchard trees. It has put some farmers out of business, and others have been forced to buy dicamba-resistant seed because they can’t afford to risk losing their soybean crop, and by planting the variety that they really want to, which is a wonderful marketing method.”

Reflecting on Women’s Month

Dr. Gussow understood the dangers of relying on a product substitution model for pest management and the corrosive nature of pesticide manufacturers and moneyed interest in undermining the regulatory system meant to protect public health and the environment.

That begins said, March is Women’s History Month, and we find it an honor to celebrate the legacy and impact of Gussow as a leader who recognized the importance in moving beyond siloes to address the cascading crises of biodiversity collapse, public health fragility, and climate change before they were part of the broader discourse.

Beyond Pesticides recognizes the importance of amplifying and highlighting leadership for women and femme-identifying individuals at a time when women’s health is under threat by the continuous use of toxic petrochemical-based pesticides. See a recent Daily News, On International Women’s Day, Pesticide Risks to Women’s Health Call for Urgent Transition to Organic, to learn more on the disproportionate risks that women faced from a failed regulatory system that does not embody the precautionary principle.

See the latest Action of the Week to tell Congress to insist on eliminating pesticides that endanger women’s health. 

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

Sources: New York Times

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2025) Study results published in Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology “suggest that combined [pesticide] exposure may further amplify the toxicity and compromise the intestinal barrier.” The researchers studied the toxic effects of the insecticides abamectin and spirodiclofen, as well as the fungicide fluazinam, individually and in combination. In exposing mice and Caco-2 cells to these pesticides, the results show the disruption of intestinal functions and highlight the need to assess potential synergistic effects of pesticide mixtures as a part of the regulatory review process. 

Effects on the intestinal barriers of mice represent a threat to “the first line of defense against the external environment,” the researchers say. The intestinal mucosal epithelial structure plays an important role in preventing harmful substances from entering the intestines and causing damage to cells. 

[Caco-2 cells represent a human cell line, derived from a colon cancer patient’s tissue, and mimic the small intestine. These cells are vital in research as a model of the intestinal epithelial barrier.] 

“Currently, most studies investigating the effects of pesticide residues on the barrier function of Caco-2 cells concentrate on the exposure to a single residue, while the potential toxic effects arising from the concurrent presence of multiple pesticide residues remain largely overlooked,” the authors say. As Beyond Pesticides has previously reported, scientists and advocates have urged prioritizing further studies on the effect of mixtures on organisms for many decades, given that exposure in the environment is not limited to a single pesticide at a time.  

“[R]ecent studies have increasingly highlighted the toxic effects of abamectin on non-target organisms and human cells,” the researchers state. The combination of pesticides has been widely used due to widespread resistance among red spider mites to individual pesticides. The researchers continue: “Currently, research predominantly focuses on individual exposure to pesticides, while the interaction effects of three commonly used pesticides remain largely unexplored. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the potential interaction effects of abamectin, fluazinam, and spirodiclofen pesticides with high detection rates in actual samples on the impairment of intestinal barrier function and transepithelial transport.” 

The study subjected both mice and Caco-2 cells to concentrations of the three pesticides, representing acceptable daily intake (ADI) values as well as environmental exposure concentrations. After 28 days, histopathological changes in the colon of the mice were evaluated. For the Caco-2 cell cultures, viability assays and an analysis of gene expression were performed.  

Findings from the histopathological analysis (a microscopic examination of tissues) “suggest that exposure to both individual and combined pesticides may induce structural damage to the mouse colon, with fluazinam and spirodiclofen exposure further exacerbating this damage,” the authors report.  

Between the mouse models and cell assays, treatment with the pesticide mixtures shows compromised intestinal integrity as well as changes in the transport and uptake of the chemicals. The study reports: “[A]nalysis of mouse intestines revealed synergistic damage in those exposed to a binary mixture of abamectin, fluazinam, and spirodiclofen… The studies on the transport in Caco-2 cells revealed that the combined exposure to abamectin and spirodiclofen resulted in transport amounts that were 5.37 and 19.98 times greater than those observed with individual exposures, respectively.” These results highlight how the uptake of chemicals into cells can differ not only between single pesticides but also when exposure occurs in combination.  

The effects of pesticide mixtures seen in this study highlight the importance of considering synergy in risk assessments. “These findings enhance our understanding of the interactions among multiple pesticide residues and further clarify the complexity of these interactions and their impact on human exposure,” the authors conclude. (See additional coverage on health effects from pesticide mixtures here and here.)  

Additional research referenced in the study supports the findings of intestinal damage from pesticide exposure. This includes: 

• The insecticide imidacloprid, which “induces disruption of the intestinal epithelial barrier, specifically through the down-regulation of tight junction protein complexes,” and has enhanced toxicity against the gut microbiota in mice with co-exposure to zinc oxide. (See studies here and here.) 

• The insecticide chlorpyrifos, which is “observed to disrupt the integrity of the gut barrier in mice, resulting in increased entry of lipopolysaccharides into the body.” (See study here.) 

• The fungicide carbendazim, which when combined with epoxiconazole or fluazinam has synergistic effects in Caco-2 cells, according to a study in Food Chemistry. 

The findings are very concerning, given that pesticide residues in food are introduced directly to the intestines. As the researchers note, “The intestinal tract functions as a congenital barrier for homeostasis, preventing pathogenic bacteria, toxins, and other harmful substances from entering the body.” They continue: “Pesticides ingested through the diet are absorbed and transported into the human body, directly interacting with intestinal epithelial cells. This exposure results in alterations to cell permeability and integrity, ultimately compromising the barrier function of these cells.” 

The complex interactions among pesticide mixtures are not fully understood but represent a significant threat to human health. As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, there is persistent failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adequately regulate mixtures of chemicals to which organisms are exposed in the real world. Risk assessments have been highly criticized by Beyond Pesticides as inadequately addressing the full range of adverse effects that put human health and the health of all organisms at risk. (See more on regulatory deficiencies here.)  

Scientists and advocates have long asked EPA to evaluate and regulate full formulations, and their mixtures, instead of assessing active ingredients singularly. As science and the knowledge base evolve, so should the systems for assessments that are meant to inform decisions that have a wide impact on human and ecosystem health.  

Given both the known and still unevaluated effects of pesticides, including the impact of mixtures and synergistic effects, Beyond Pesticides urges the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032. As a holistic solution, organic land management practices offer both health and environmental benefits, with proven commercial viability and effectiveness in both agricultural and nonagricultural uses. 

Interested in transitioning your community to organic? Become a Parks Advocate through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program. You can also help protect yourself and your family by Eating with a Conscience and making The Safer Choice to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides. 

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

Source: 

Liu, Z. et al. (2025) Transport mechanisms of pesticide mixtures impairing intestinal barrier function in mice, Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048357525000690. 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2025) Earthjustice filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging the Department’s alleged illegal purging of datasets, resources, and pertinent information that organic farmers rely on to carry out their operations, according to the complaint filed on February 24, 2025.

The deletion of public data compounds the numerous threats facing organic and regenerative organic farmers across the nation. The uncertainty associated with the starting and then stopping of tariffs has led to surges in costs and supply chain challenges. Meanwhile, core organic programs, including the Organic Certification Cost Share Program, Organic Data Initiative, and Organic Certification Trade and Tracking Program, remain unfunded, leaving huge uncertainties for the organic sector moving forward. The administration has canceled the spring meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the Congressionally-mandated board established to guide the setting of standards and materials on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.

In theory, organic farmers and public and environmental health advocates align with some of the stated objectives of the Make America Healthy Again Commission (MAHA), established by executive order on February 13, 2025. MAHA’s stated efforts to “drastically lower….chronic disease rates and end…childhood chronic disease” would be undermined by the administration’s failure to support organic farmers who produce foodstuffs without the use of toxic petrochemical-based pesticides. It has been widely reported in the media that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “has vowed to crack down on dyes in the food industry and to reduce pesticides in the farm and agriculture industry,” which he can do through the tolerance-setting process at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Continue Reading »

(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2025) A study in Toxics analyzes ipconazole, a triazole fungicide often used as a coating on treated seeds and as a foliar treatment on the leaves of plants. “Triazole pesticides are widely used throughout the world, but their abuse causes toxic effects in non-targeted organisms,” the researchers state. In the current study, unintended reproductive effects are noted in male sheep (ram) and pigs (also known as porcine or swine). This research focuses on the impact of ipconazole exposure on spermatozoa (sperm) in two mammal species and finds spermiotoxicity through significantly reduced sperm viability, as well as alterations in enzyme and gene expression related to fertility. 

“To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the cytotoxic effect of the triazole ipconazole on mammalian spermatozoa,” the authors share. This analysis utilizes semen samples from the Reproductive Biotechnology Laboratory of the Major National University of San Marcos in Lima, Peru, the university where six of the nine researchers are Faculty of Veterinary Medicine.  

“The sperm were exposed to ipconazole concentrations of 1, 5, 10, 50 and 100 µM, and to a control without ipconazole,” they say. Similar concentrations have been used in previous cytotoxicity studies with ipconazole. One, a 2023 Toxics study, finds reduced cell viability, oxidative stress, and cell death, specifically in SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells, that suggests ipconazole exposure as a factor for neurotoxicity and neurodegeneration. 

The study evaluated a range of cell functions to determine adverse health outcomes. The latest Toxics study utilized sperm viability, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production (critical to the central nervous system), superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity (an enzyme critical to the regulation of oxygen), and catalase activity assays, as well as an analysis of gene expression through qPCR (which stands for quantitative polymerase chain reaction and is a technology used for measuring DNA). 

As a result of the experiment, the authors report: “Ipconazole led to a significant decrease in cell viability and a significant increase in ROS generation, as well as several changes in catalase and SOD activity. It also altered the molecular expression of structural and oxidative stress biomarkers in spermatozoa of both species.”  The alterations in the molecular mRNA expression of structural biomarkers include PRM1, ODF2, AKAP4, THEG, SPACA3, and CLGN, which are related to fertility in males. 

“Ipconazole-induced oxidative stress has been demonstrated experimentally in vitro and in vivo,” the researchers note. They continue: “Data from this study suggests that ipconazole is able to alter the oxidative state by inducing ROS production and reducing or increasing the activity of the antioxidant enzymes SOD and catalase in porcine and ram spermatozoa. Overall, the oxidative effect (ROS generation) of ipconazole was higher in porcine spermatozoa than in ram spermatozoa, even reaching up to 3 times higher ROS levels compared to the control group.” 

The authors also relay that there was an overexpression of BAX (cell death) and ROMO1 (oxidative stress) mRNA, which shows the ability of ipconazole to cause epigenetic changes in mammals. Overall, these results indicate that “the fungicide triazole is involved in cellular, enzymatic and molecular alteration of porcine and ram spermatozoa, and is possibly a factor in the development of infertility in male mammals,” they conclude. 

Previous research finds triazole pesticides cause various health effects in terrestrial and aquatic nontarget organisms including humans and wildlife. Other pesticide classes are also documented as impacting sperm and fertility. Relevant results highlighted in the current study include: 

• “Agrochemicals such as pesticides can alter seminal parameters, with total sperm count, motility and morphology being the most frequently worsened.” (See study here.) 

• “There is a strong association between decreased sperm concentration and the presence of pyrethroid, organophosphate [OP], BPA and phthalate pesticide metabolites in urine… Synthetic pyrethroids, OPs and phthalates have also been found to cause sperm aneuploidy and an altered X:Y ratio.” (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.) 

• Difenoconazole, when administered to rats, reduced sperm numbers in all treated groups. 

• “[C]ontinuous exposure to penconazole reduces testosterone levels, causes spermatogenic alterations, and impairs Sertoli and Leydig cell morphology.” (See study here.) 

• Triazole compounds impact chick testicular functions “by reducing cell viability, steroidogenesis and lactate production. Furthermore, the exposure of spermatozoa to triazoles causes a decrease in sperm motility, and an increase in sperm abnormalities and ROS production.” 

• “[T]ebuconazole caused a decrease in the number of germ cells and increased oxidative stress-related genes in fetal mouse testis.” (See study here.) 

• Exposing sperm cells to pesticides “induces the expression of oxidative stress and cell death such as BAX.” (See studies here, here, and here.) 

• “[T]he additive mixture of tebuconazole and econazole induced ROS-dependent cytotoxicity in TM4 Sertoli cells.” 

There is a level of complexity here that is not adequately addressed in regulatory processes within the United States (U.S.). While ipconazole is not registered for use in the European Union as of 2023 due to concerns about its impact on the environment and risks to agricultural workers, there are still permitted uses in seed treatments and for ornamental plants and turf in the U.S. Additionally, many other triazole fungicides are registered for use despite evidence of endocrine disruption. Triazole pesticides, as a class of fungicides, exhibit common mechanisms of toxicity often disregarded in risk assessments. 

The wide body of science presented in this study, as well as previous coverage from Beyond Pesticides on the impacts of pesticides on sperm, infertility, and other sexual and reproductive dysfunction, showcases the myriads of health threats that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not consider in their chemical registration processes. (See more on EPA failures and regulatory deficiencies here.)  

To mitigate these threats from harmful chemicals, alternative land management options need to be considered. There is the existence of an alternative—an organic production system—that does not harm human health, other species, or ecosystems and, in addition, helps to mitigate climate change. In all its regulatory decisions, EPA must switch to using organic production as a yardstick, denying any application for a toxic chemical in which organic production delivers a successful replacement. 

Organic agriculture provides health and environmental benefits, as well as protects and enhances biodiversity. (See recent coverage on the health benefits of organic diets here and here.) Learn more about choosing organic food through Eating with a Conscience, and consider buying organic products (on a budget!) or growing your own organic food. 

Beyond Pesticides’ mission is rooted in protecting healthy air, water, land, and food for ourselves and future generations by eliminating petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. We are working for holistic change in food production and land management—from farms to homes, gardens, parks, playing fields, and schools. Join as a member today or give now to help support our work in 2025. 

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

Source: 

Falero, C. et al. (2025) Oxidative and Molecular–Structural Alterations of Spermatozoa in Swine and Ram Exposed to the Triazole Ipconazole, Toxics. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/13/3/176. 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 10, 2025) Following International Women’s Day, celebrated on March 8, 2025, the poignant findings on women, gender, and hazardous substances in a United Nations report raise critical issues of concern and cause for urgent action to phase out petrochemicals. The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, by Marcos Orellana, was delivered to the 79^th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in July 2024.

Excerpts from the report follow:

“Women make up roughly 60 to 70 per cent of the agricultural labour force in developing countries where pesticides and pesticide handling are especially poorly regulated. In Zambia, for example, two thirds of the labour force is engaged in agriculture, and 78 per cent are women farmers and peasants. Women there play a significant role in pesticide application, often without any or adequate personal protective equipment, especially during activities such as weeding, harvesting, and washing pesticide-laden clothes.”

“In higher-income countries, women who do agricultural work are often poor and/or migrants; pesticides are one of many dimensions of marginalization and damage to their well-being. The European agriculture sector uses many seasonal and migrant women from Northern Africa, for example. Strawberries have some of the highest pesticide residues in the European Union, and women working with strawberries have also reported trafficking and sexual abuse.”

“Some of the most serious impacts of exposure to pesticides concern female reproductive health damage. Exposures to hazardous pesticides during pregnancy can cause miscarriages, premature births, birth anomalies and low birthweight. In one study in Argentina, women exposed to chlorpyrifos experienced miscarriage at 4.7 times the rate of other women. Men also face reproductive damage from pesticides, for example reductions in sperm quality. A recent Brazilian study found that pesticides generated a wide spectrum of reproductive health problems, such as male and female infertility, endocrine disruption, some types of cancer, germ cell mutations, damage to pregnancy and fetal development, effects on child development and puberty and transgenerational effects, among others.”

The regulation of (or failure to restrict) toxic chemicals poses disproportionate harm to women. Pesticides’ adverse effects on women, inadequate regulatory recognition of elevated pesticide risks to women, and the gaps in research related to pesticides and women’s health must empower a louder and larger driving force in the elimination of petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use and transition to organic practices. 

Among the most compelling reasons to act to eliminate petrochemical pesticides is the data, collected by the American Cancer Society, which establishes that breast cancer is the most common cancer in the U.S. (2024). We know from the large number of studies that toxic chemicals, and pesticides in particular contribute significantly to this tragic reality. Genetic factors play only a minor role in breast cancer incidences, while exposure to external environmental factors (i.e., chemical exposure) may play a more notable role. For breast cancer, one in ten women will receive a diagnosis, and genetics can only account for five to ten percent of cases. Therefore, it is essential to understand how external stimuli—like environmental pollution from pesticides—can drive breast cancer development.  

Most types of breast cancers are hormonally responsive and thus dependent on the synthesis of either estrogen or progesterone. Hormones generated by the endocrine system—and the synthetic chemicals that mimic them—greatly influence breast cancer incidents among humans. Several studies and reports, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, identify hundreds of chemicals as influential factors associated with breast cancer risk. 

>> Tell Congress to insist on eliminating pesticides that endanger women’s health. 

Pesticides disproportionately affect women’s health in many ways, including ovarian and breast cancer, spontaneous abortion, stillbirths, and other negative birth outcomes, developmental effects, and adverse neurodevelopment (brain function and development) among infants. Notably, many of these health effects are hormonally responsive. Chemicals that act like hormones—endocrine disruptors—may cause or contribute to these problems. 

Endocrine disruptors (EDCs) are chemicals that can, even at low exposure levels, disrupt normal hormonal (endocrine) function. Endocrine disruptors function by: (1) mimicking the action of a naturally produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; (2) blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of natural hormones; or (3) affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism, and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones. 

EDCs include many pesticides, exposures to which have been linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. EDCs can wreak havoc not only on humans but also, on wildlife and ecosystems. 

In 1996 Congress required EPA to determine whether pesticides disrupt the endocrine system of humans and other organisms. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in February 2024 issued a proposal for modifying its approach to the implementation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). On October 11, EPA published a notice of a proposed partial settlement agreement and consent decree in response to a suit by the Center for Food Safety on behalf of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, et al. challenging the agency’s failure to test and regulate endocrine-disrupting pesticides. 

EPA’s proposal was an abrogation of EPA’s responsibilities under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act / Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FQPA/FFDCA) as well as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Limiting the scope of the EDSP to humans, certain pesticide active ingredients only, and limiting the types of data to assess ED effects is contrary to the Congressional intent and requirements in these statutes. It is also a reversal of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) advice and the agency’s original EDSP implementation policy and science decisions.  

While the consent decree does commit EPA to testing for estrogenic effects in conventional pesticide active ingredients, it falls far short of addressing the full range of endocrine disrupting effects of all pesticide ingredients, as is required to protect human health and the environment. The February 2024 comments of Beyond Pesticides detail these requirements.

Under FIFRA, a pesticide is presumed to pose an unreasonable risk until reliable data demonstrate otherwise. If EPA lacks the data and/or resources to fully evaluate endocrine risks to human health and wildlife, then it is obliged to suspend or deny any pesticide registration until it has sufficient data to demonstrate no unreasonable adverse endocrine risk. 

The history and status of endocrine disruption research are summarized in Beyond Pesticides’ comments and the October 29, 2024 Daily News post. Evidence that synthetic chemicals can mimic or otherwise interfere with natural hormones has existed for over half a century. Although early attention was given to estrogen mimics, it soon became apparent that the homeostatic function of the endocrine system—which regulates and balances physiological functions—can be disrupted at many sites and hormone systems.  

>> Tell Congress to insist on eliminating pesticides that endanger women’s health. 

Endocrine disruption as a phenomenon affecting humans and other species has been critically reviewed by several authors. A common thread weaving across these reviews is the notion that chemicals that may disrupt the endocrine systems of humans and wildlife may be pervasive in contaminating their habitats. A pandemic of endocrine-related disorders from attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, diabetes, obesity, childhood cancers, testicular cancer in young men, infertility, male dysgenesis syndrome, hypospadias, low sperm count, loss of semen volume and sperm quality, and increased risk of testicular and prostate cancer can be connected with endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). All these disorders have been increasing in incidence and can be traced back to prenatal exposure to EDCs. 

Endocrine pathways are largely conserved across species and, thus, are not species- or taxa- specific. It is well-known that thyroid endocrinology in particular is well conserved across vertebrate taxa. This includes aspects of thyroid hormone synthesis, metabolism, and mechanisms of action. Thyroid hormones are derived from the thyroid gland through regulation of the HPT axis, which is controlled through a complex mechanism of positive and negative feedback regulation. Multiple pathways contribute to the synthesis of thyroid-releasing hormone, including thyroid hormone signaling through feedback mechanisms; leptin and melanocortin signaling; body temperature regulation; and cardiovascular physiology. Each pathway directly targets thyroid-releasing hormone neurons. Based on the conservation of endocrine pathways, it is well understood that the ecological assays (the frog assay in particular) are often more sensitive and equally relevant to mammalian assays in informing risk assessors on whether a chemical can perturb and cause adverse endocrine outcomes in the human population and vice versa. 

FQPA amends FIFRA to ensure potential endocrine-disrupting effects are considered in agency risk assessments to fulfill the FIFRA mandate that a pesticide registration will not cause unreasonable adverse effects. This applies to humans and wildlife and to all pesticide chemicals as defined in FIFRA including “all active and pesticide inert ingredients of such pesticide.” SDWA addresses drinking water contaminants as well. EPA must make use of all available scientifically relevant endocrine disruption research findings and avoid deviating from established international efforts for screening/testing endocrine disruptors that incorporate human and wildlife-relevant studies. Recognizing that mammalian data informs potential endocrine disruption in other vertebrate taxa (avian, amphibian, fish) and vice versa, the agency should not decouple the mammalian from other vertebrate assays in EDSP screening.  There are more than 50 different ecological and mammalian assays included in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Conceptual Framework for screening/testing endocrine disrupting effects, and there are additional assays being developed for consideration as well. So, the agency should not limit the range or types of data to be used, but as FQPA prescribes use “appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information.”

Many studies have long demonstrated that childhood and in-utero exposure to DDT increases the risk of developing breast cancer later in life. Many current-use pesticides and chemical contaminants play a role in similar disease prognoses, including mammary tumor formation. Recent research from the Silent Spring Institute links 28 different EPA-registered pesticides with the development of mammary gland tumors in animal studies. Many of these chemicals are endocrine disruptors and thus have implications for breast cancer risk. 

A 2020 study reveals that exposure to acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors like organophosphates (OP) can cause sex-specific differences in depression symptoms among adolescent girls through endocrine disruption. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that, in the general population, OP exposure causes an increased risk of total cancer for female non-smokers, breast cancer for female smokers, and prostate cancer for male smokers from OP exposure.  

>> Tell Congress to insist on eliminating pesticides that endanger women’s health. 

Proper prevention practices, like buying, growing, and supporting organics, can eliminate exposure to toxic pesticides. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, as it curtails the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Regenerative organic agriculture nurtures soil health through organic carbon sequestration, preventing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture.

For more information on why organic is the right choice, see the Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.  

Letter to the U.S. Congress
In furtherance of the 2025 International Women’s Day (IWD) goal of accelerating action, please commit to eliminating the ways in which the regulation of (or failure to restrict) toxic chemicals pose disproportionate harm to women.

Pesticides disproportionately affect women’s health in many ways, including ovarian and breast cancer, spontaneous abortion, stillbirths, and other negative birth outcomes, developmental effects, and adverse neurodevelopment (brain function and development) among infants. Notably, many of these health effects are hormonally responsive. Chemicals that act like hormones—endocrine disruptors—may cause or contribute to these problems.

Endocrine disruptors (EDCs) are chemicals that can, even at low exposure levels, disrupt normal hormonal (endocrine) function. Endocrine disruptors function by: (1) mimicking the action of a naturally produced hormone, such as estrogen or testosterone, thereby setting off similar chemical reactions in the body; (2) blocking hormone receptors in cells, thereby preventing the action of natural hormones; or (3) affecting the synthesis, transport, metabolism, and excretion of hormones, thus altering the concentrations of natural hormones.

EDCs include many pesticides, exposures to which have been linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. EDCs can wreak havoc not only on humans but also on wildlife and ecosystems.

In 1996 Congress required EPA to determine whether pesticides disrupt the endocrine system of humans and other organisms. EPA has so far failed to carry out the Congressional mandate.

According to data from the American Cancer Society, breast cancer is the most common cancer in the U.S. (2024). Genetic factors play only a minor role in breast cancer incidences, while exposure to external environmental factors (i.e., chemical exposure) may play a more notable role. For breast cancer, one in ten women will receive a diagnosis, and genetics can only account for five to ten percent of cases. Therefore, it is essential to understand how external stimuli—like environmental pollution from pesticides—can drive breast cancer development. 

Most types of breast cancers are hormonally responsive and thus dependent on the synthesis of either estrogen or progesterone. Hormones generated by the endocrine system—and the synthetic chemicals that mimic them—greatly influence breast cancer incidents among humans. Several studies and reports, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, identify hundreds of chemicals as influential factors associated with breast cancer risk.

Many current-use pesticides and chemical contaminants play a role in similar disease prognoses, including mammary tumor formation. Recent research from the Silent Spring Institute links 28 different EPA-registered pesticides with the development of mammary gland tumors in animal studies. Many of these chemicals are endocrine disruptors and thus have implications for breast cancer risk.

A 2020 study reveals that exposure to acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors like organophosphates (OP) can cause sex-specific differences in depression symptoms among adolescent girls through endocrine disruption. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that, in the general population, OP exposure causes an increased risk of total cancer for female non-smokers, breast cancer for female smokers, and prostate cancer for male smokers from OP exposure. 

In order to protect women, please insist that EPA deny the registration of any pesticide unless it is shown NOT to cause endocrine disruption.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2025) In honor of International Women’s Day on Saturday, March 8, 2025, Beyond Pesticides sheds light on the disproportionate risks to women from toxic chemicals that are often unaccounted for and even dismissed throughout pesticide regulatory review and the underlying statutes. In a roundup of Daily News coverage in 2024, as well as the most recent scientific studies in 2025, on the scientific links between pesticide exposure and adverse effects in women, this article highlights the growing inequities in pesticide threats to women’s health. 

Women farmers and farmworkers are particularly excluded when assessing pesticide risks. As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, a study published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine finds that pesticide exposure, especially during puberty, can play a role in ovarian cancer development among female farmers. Although there are many studies that evaluate the risk for cancers among farmers, very few scientific articles cover the risk of ovarian cancer from pesticide exposure. 

Additionally, this study suggests the role of hormones in ovarian cancer prognosis and development, highlighting an association with endocrine disruption. Endocrine disruption can lead to numerous health problems in multiple organ systems, including hormone-related cancer development (e.g., thyroid, breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular), reproductive dysfunction, and diabetes/obesity that can span generations. 

It must be noted that breast cancer, according to the American Cancer Society, “is the most common cancer in women in the United States, except for skin cancers. It accounts for about 30% (or 1 in 3) of all new female cancers each year.” Hundreds of thousands of breast cancer diagnoses occur each year. The American Cancer Society estimates for 2025 include approximately 316,950 new cases of invasive breast cancer and 42,170 deaths, as a result of breast cancer, in women. Beyond Pesticides has extensively covered the wide body of science linking pesticide exposure to breast cancer here and here. 

In other scientific literature, a recent cross-sectional study in Heliyon highlights the link between sleep disorders in Thai farmers and pesticide exposure while also revealing that “women are at a higher risk of sleep-related issues with pesticide exposure compared to males,” the researchers report. (See Daily News coverage here.) 

Additional research published in Environmental Pollution reports the effects of the widely used insecticide chlorpyrifos (CPF) on gut dysbiosis in women, with more pronounced impacts in pregnant women. In noting intestinal imbalance in both non-pregnant and pregnant women, the study “enhances our understanding of the health risks associated with CPF exposure in women, with implications for maternal and fetal health, and underscores the importance of considering physiological states such as pregnancy in toxicological research.” 

Sex-specific health implications from pesticides within a multitude of studies showcase how males and females can experience different effects from exposure. These differences can be attributed to variations in hormone levels and reproductive organs that can be adversely affected by endocrine-disrupting chemicals. A recent study in Biology of Sex Differences regarding different clinical features between men and women states, “Despite widespread recognition of these differences, females are under-represented in clinical and experimental studies.” In analyzing sex and gender differences in the molecular etiology of Parkinson’s disease, the authors find transcriptomic (relating to RNA, gene expression, and cell/tissue regulation) and epigenetic (changes in gene expression and cell function without DNA alterations) differences in men and women. This highlights how variations between men and women in gene regulation and hormones can impact disease outcomes.  

The study also notes the gender bias associated with pesticides that are correlated with Parkinson’s diagnoses, compounded by biological differences. The authors conclude: “In addition to the gender-based likelihood of exposure, pesticides and neurotoxins interact with biological sex-related factors. Higher levels of adipose tissue in females compared with males increase the risk for pesticide absorption and later release into the bloodstream. Changes in estrogen levels during pregnancy, breastfeeding, and menopause also affect susceptibility to negative health effects of pesticide exposure. Finally, pesticide exposures may interact with genetic and epigenetic factors differently in each sex.” (See additional coverage on sex-specific effects in mammals here.) 

A report by the American Cancer Society, titled “Cancer Mortality Continues to Drop Despite Rising Incidence in Women; Rates of New Diagnoses Under 65 Higher in Women Than Men,” finds disparities in cancer deaths and diagnoses for not only women but by race and ethnicity. The report highlights, “Despite overall declines in cancer mortality, death rates are increasing for cancers of the oral cavity, pancreas, uterine corpus, and liver (female).”  

As Beyond Pesticides previously stated, if we are not protecting the most vulnerable in society, we ultimately adversely affect the entire society because we are intricately linked in the web of life. Pesticide regulation, which has failed—even under friendly administrations—to protect human health, enhance biodiversity, and prevent climate disasters, is in need of reform in order to protect those at greatest risk, and in doing so, protect the general population.  

The research that connects pesticides, such as glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba, to heightened risks in women and their children of cancer risk, developmental delays, neurotoxicity, infertility, negative birth outcomes, and diabetes is overwhelming. Of the subset of studies analyzed over the past year, noteworthy coverage includes: 

• A study published in Environmental Research finds an association between adverse neurodevelopment (brain function and development) among infants and exposure to the herbicide glyphosate during pregnancy (gestational). (Daily News available here.)      

• In a first-of-its-kind series of biomonitoring studies published in Agrochemicals, researchers identified the presence of the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D in all pregnant participants from both cohorts in 2010-2012 and 2020-2022. (Daily News available here.) 

• Published in Science of The Total Environment, a comprehensive literature review of population-based studies finds strong linkages between direct and acute pesticide exposure and elevated risk of breast cancer. Included in these studies are women who worked in chemical-intensive agricultural settings, directly sprayed pesticides in their at-home gardens, and/or handled pesticide-contaminated clothing. (Daily News available here.) 

• Pesticide exposure is linked to negative birth outcomes in a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The researchers correlate mothers living within 500 meters of any pyrethroid, organophosphate, or carbamate insecticide applications during specific windows before and during pregnancy with stillbirth. (Daily News available here.) 

• A comprehensive literature review in Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety links a heightened risk of spontaneous abortion with pesticide exposure, allowing the researchers to highlight an important public health issue and raise concerns for maternal contact with the harmful chemicals in pesticide products. (Daily News available here.) 

• In a Frontiers in Public Health review article, researchers report on the wide body of science connecting adverse effects to the female reproductive system, such as infertility and related diseases including endometriosis, premature ovarian insufficiency, and endocrine axis dysregulation, with exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. (Daily News available 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.” (Daily News available here.) 

With the fight for proper representation for women in all aspects of life, the need for equitable scientific research in both toxicology studies and clinical trials is clear, according to health advocates. According to the Katz Institute for Women’s Health: “Medical research has left women in the dark for years… Failing to take extraordinary steps to ensure women are well represented in clinical trials and to assess differences between sexes in medical therapy leaves a lot of women’s health up to chance.” The absence of women in important research is “limiting biological understanding and contributing to health inequities and social injustice,” according to a study in Cell Reports Medicine. 

Beyond Pesticides has long since covered the regulatory deficiencies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the Daily News post titled “Human Health Disregarded with Obsolete Regulations and Risk Management, Researchers Find,” it is highlighted how assessments relying on outdated principles and expectations put human health at risk. Gender inequalities within these assessments are one of many data gaps that threaten human health. (See more on EPA failures here.) 

On International Women’s Day—and every day—pesticides’ adverse effects on women, inadequate regulatory recognition of elevated pesticide risks to women, and the gaps in research related to pesticides and women’s health must empower a louder and larger driving force in the elimination of petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use and transition to organic practices. In commemorating women in science, take a look at “Sí, se puede”—Letter and Reflection From the Women of Beyond Pesticides. Happy International Women’s Day to all! 

In furtherance of the 2025 International Women’s Day (IWD) goal of accelerating action, Beyond Pesticides asks you to consider the ways in which the regulation of (or failure to restrict) toxic chemicals poses disproportionate harm to women. On this day, and every day, pesticides’ adverse effects on women, inadequate regulatory recognition of elevated pesticide risks to women, and the gaps in research related to pesticides and women’s health must empower a louder and larger driving force in the elimination of petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer use and transition to organic practices. >> Tell Congress to insist on eliminating pesticides that endanger women’s health. 

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

Sources: 

Abou Diwan, M. et al. (2025) Effects of Chlorpyrifos on gut dysbiosis and barriers integrity in women with a focus on pregnancy and prebiotic intervention: Insights from advanced in vitro human models, Environmental Pollution. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749124022504.  

Schaffner, S. et al. (2025) Sex and gender differences in the molecular etiology of Parkinson’s disease: considerations for study design and data analysis, Biology of Sex Differences. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13293-025-00692-w.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2025) A proposed change to a model pesticide ordinance in the city of Portland, Maine was soundly defeated on Monday, March 3 after public engagement and a near-unanimous city council vote. In a 6-1 vote, the council rejected the school district’s request for a waiver under the city’s pesticide use ordinance to use the insecticide chlorantraniliprole/acelepryn (diamide insecticide). A campaign to reject the waiver was led by Avery Yale Kamila, cofounder of Portland Protectors, and supported by Beyond Pesticides.

Portland passed a landmark Pesticide Use Ordinance in 2018 and a synthetic fertilizer ban over five years later. As stated in Beyond Pesticides testimony to the council, “Key to [the Portland ordinance’s] passage was an understanding that Portland was not going to take a product substitution approach to land management, replacing a toxic pesticide with an “organic” pesticide, but that it was facilitating the adoption of an organic systems approach that used allowed inputs (defined in the ordinance) when necessary.” The ordinance refers to allowed materials under federal organic certification law. The Landcare Advisory Committee, created by Portland’s ordinance, recommended the toxic pesticide use waiver with some objections, raising questions among city council members about the need for strengthening the ordinance to ensure support for the rigorous adoption of organic land management practices to prevent pest problems.

In its testimony, Beyond Pesticides said: “The recognition that creating sustainable fields, lawns, and landscapes requires a holistic approach to land management is central to the passage and updating of the ordinance. We urge that the City Council reject the amendment to the ordinance that will allow the chemical’s use and constitute a serious setback for the City’s sustainability efforts.”

The events in Portland illustrate that public policy and health protections are continually subject to pressure from those who want to take a chemical-intensive approach to land management. In fact, continuous engagement and education are required, given the turnover of elected officials and continual campaigning by those committed to chemical-intensive practices, either because they have not been trained in organic land management or they have a vested interest in using toxic chemicals.

Background

The City of Portland is part of a growing number of communities that have adopted ordinances that restrict pesticides by limiting their use to a list of allowed substances established under federal organic law. The adoption of the Portland ordinance followed the adoption of similar laws in Ogunquit, neighboring South Portland, and other jurisdictions like the City of Takoma Park and Montgomery County, both in Maryland. Thirty-four jurisdictions throughout Maine have restricted pesticides, including on public and private property. South Portland and Portland have adopted a holistic approach to land management by also banning petrochemical fertilizer use—since that use undermines the natural cycling of nutrients in the soil that requires building back organic matter and feeding microorganisms in the soil that solubilize nutrients for uptake by grass and other plants.

In support of Portland’s legislation when it was being debated, the council received a letter from 31 medical and science professionals, who said, “As health professionals, it is our contention based on the molecular and microbiologic actions of these synthetic land care pesticides that the continued use of them must be challenged, banned, and replaced by practices and products that are not harmful to people and the environment.”

Maine policymakers continue to adopt the precautionary principle and understand the importance of moving beyond siloes in promulgating public policy, as evidenced by numerous pieces of legislation passed in recent years. Through the adoption of this policy, communities express the importance of responding to the current existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises that are exacerbated by the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.

In an attempt to preempt Maine municipalities from adopting their pesticide restrictions, the chemical and pest control industry sought unsuccessfully to enact a statewide pesticide preemption law (LD 1853) in 2018. In April 2021, the Maine legislature passed, and Governor Janet Mills (D-ME) signed, a new law that will prohibit use of neonicotinoid pesticides with the “active ingredient[s] dinotefuran, clothianidin, imidacloprid or thiamethoxam used for application in outdoor residential landscapes such as on lawn, turf or ornamental vegetation.” A few months after this win, however, Governor Mills vetoed legislation prohibiting the aerial use of glyphosate and other dangerous herbicides in forestry practices.

(See Daily News, Portland, ME Becomes an Organic City, Banning Toxic Pesticides on Public and Private Property, for historical context.)

The Connecticut Example on Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

A similar effort to weaken previously adopted pesticide restrictions occurred in Connecticut when legislation was introduced in 2012 to repeal the state’s ban on toxic pesticide use on school grounds with an amendment calling for “integrated pest management” (IPM), a practice that allows the use of toxic pesticides without any meaningful restrictions. Through public engagement, communities fought back and defeated the measure.

Because of IPM’s reliance on pesticides and its failure to meet its original goals of moving away from pesticide dependency, Beyond Pesticides began advocating for the adoption of organic policy and practice in the early 1980s. A 2021 study authored by previous IPM practitioners and advocates worldwide concluded, “More than half a century after its conception, IPM has not been adopted to a satisfactory extent and has largely failed to deliver on its promise. . . . Despite six decades of good intentions, harsh realities need to be faced for the future. . . . IPM has arguably reached its limits.”

The researchers determined that the failures of IPM are sixfold:

1. The plethora of definitions of IPM has meant confusion and varying interpretations of the concept by practitioners;
2. There have been inconsistencies between IPM concepts and practices and public policies;
3. Commonly, there is a lack of basic understanding by farmers of the ecological concepts behind IPM;
4. In many IPM programs, chemical controls remain a cornerstone, and their use as a “last resort” is rarely adopted by farmers;
5. IPM research has been paltry, both in scientific and programmatic realms; and
6. “Ecology” has been inadequately prioritized in IPM.

(See Daily News, IPM (Integrated Pest Management) Fails to Stop Toxic Pesticide Use, for further analysis.)

Parks for a Sustainable Future

Beyond Pesticides is collaborating with communities across the nation to advance organically managed land management systems on public green spaces, including parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields. Community discussion on this underscores the importance of building and sustaining awareness of the importance of organic land management and food systems as chemical and pest control interests push the introduction of weakening amendments, even years after a policy is passed.

See here to learn more about the process to become an advocate for the Parks for a Sustainable Future program and transition your community into a petrochemical-free zone! If you are a local government official interested in learning more about how to participate in the program, see here.

See Action of the Week from earlier this year to ask your mayor to adopt a policy and program for organic management of your community’s parks and public spaces. 

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

Source: Portland Press Herald

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2025) Legislation in the state of Washington (Senate Bill 5474) is moving forward to establish a first-in-the-nation Organic Action Plan to “expand opportunities for organic, regenerative, climate-smart, and sustainable producers.” If passed, this bill would build on California’s trailblazer status as a leader in cultivating the expansion of the organic marketplace. Advocates hope that in developing the Plan, Washington will follow in the footsteps of California and European Union by setting targets for total cropland under certified organic management and bridge the gap between climate, public health, and biodiversity.

As federal funding cutbacks continue to impact farmers’ ability to leverage resources and grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), organic and transitional farmers are eager to see states like Washington take responsibility and improve the financial viability of farmers. Mike Stranz, vice president of advocacy at National Farmers Union, spoke to Brownfield Ag News when visiting the Wisconsin Farmers Union town hall meeting on February 21 echoing these concerns, saying, “A lot of conservation and climate initiatives, a lot of local foods initiatives and programs, dollars for those were halted and cut short even as farmers and ranchers were making improvements or holding up their end of the deal.”

Protecting and strengthening organic standards is a key priority for Beyond Pesticides, and issues before the National Organic Standards Board at the upcoming Spring meeting will be covered on the organization’s Keeping Organic Strong webpage. The public’s voices will be critical to ensure that USDA protects organic amid the wanton firings of federal workers and cuts to federal programs.

Structure of Original Bill

The originally filed legislation, SB 5474, has three core pillars:

1. Organic Action Plan: The Washington Department of Agriculture (WDA) will be tasked to develop a written report to submit to the legislature no later than June 1, 2027.
2. Microgrant Program: WDA will contract with a relevant nonprofit to administer grants of up to $25,000 for new and beginning farmers, with prioritization listed for Black, Indigenous, and farmers of color, as well as farmers employing regenerative and climate-smart practices, including those that facilitate greenhouse gas reduction, carbon sequestration, soil health, biodiversity, among other criteria.
3. Organic Certification Support: Under their authority of managing the state organic certification program, the WDA Director will be empowered to modify certification fees to provide flexibility for struggling farmers, both existing organic certified and those making or intending to begin the transition.

The legislation is based on five key findings:

1. Washington state has a diverse agricultural sector, with over 15 million acres producing 300 different crops. Chemical-intensive, industrial agriculture is dominated by monoculture farming that degrades soil, water, and ecosystem health, and inevitably human health. Underscoring the vibrance of the state’s agricultural sector is a helpful tool for advocacy because it establishes a starting point for potential skeptics who may fabricate claims that this bill is anti-farmer.
2. Consumer demand for organic in the state has grown steadily year over year, by a factor of 10 to 15 percent annually between 2010 and 2025. Organic skeptics tend to point to misleading or outright false arguments that organic is not viable economically and that consumers are put off by the price. The most recent USDA Census corroborates this argument that, between 2017 and 2022, total organic product sales in the U.S. jumped by 24 percent despite the supply chain disruptions borne from the COVID-19 pandemic.
3. Numerous sustainable agriculture practices can improve economic, human, and ecosystem health, including regenerative, climate-smart, and organic. Despite this, nonchemical-intensive forms of agriculture have not had the same political value as their conventional counterparts.
4. The price of certification is a “significant expense” and a barrier to transitioning farmers to organic. Identifying the problem establishes a launching point to propose the solution.
5. Regulatory and financial obstacles for organic and transitional farmers in the state of Washington need to be removed.

A version of this bill was introduced in the 2024 legislative session with significant support from the organic and regenerative farming sector, led by the Coalition for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture, an initiative of Tilth Alliance (an affiliate of the National Organic Coalition, of which Beyond Pesticides is a member).

Committee Recommendations & Changes

As the bill moves through the committee process, the latest draft, SB 5474-5, removes the provision for the microgrant program. A report submitted by the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee mentions several other strikes from the original bill, including removing “the requirement that the organic agriculture action plan identify ways to improve partnerships between organic producers and financial institutions.” The new draft also removes “intent language concerning the effects of certain agricultural practices.” According to comments and feedback from legislators on the bill during public hearings on February 3 and February 20, concerns were expressed about the bill, given budget concerns raised about limited funding at the state level.

Because of the limited public support of organic as a social good through grants and tax policy, the cost of organic has largely been out of reach for low- and moderate-income households. As a result, it has long been criticized as elitist and exclusionary to the working class and consumers of color. A similar critique extends to the accessibility of certification for farmers. According to 2017 Agricultural Census data (the last collection to have updated information on racial and ethnic demographics), 92% of organic farm owners identify as White; meanwhile, fewer than 1% of organic farm owners identified as Black or African American, and 0.5% identified as American Indian or Alaska Native. (See National Organic Coalition resources here.)

Advocates argue that rolling back provisions in the bill will undermine the foundational intent “to identify and remove existing regulatory and market barriers that are preventing agricultural producers from integrating organic and regenerative practices and accessing certified organic markets.” However, given that this bill is still in the early stages of the legislative process and the overarching structure appears to remain intact, advocates still see plenty of opportunities to incorporate this microgrant program in a different capacity after/once the legislation is passed and signed into law.

Organic as a Climate, Biodiversity, and Public Health Solution

For regular readers of the Daily News, it will come as no surprise that the benefits of farmland managed with organic standards and criteria are justified by numerous peer-reviewed scientific literature and field tests. The Rodale Institute has conducted the longest-running North American field study comparing organic to chemical-intensive grain-cropping and reported in 2022 impressive productivity and profitability benefits based on four decades of data collection:

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

German researchers last year found that organic farming provides significant benefits to honeybees, along with the presence of diverse flowering plants in and near monoculture fields, according to an analysis of 16 agricultural landscapes in Lower Saxony and northern Hesse that had different combinations of semi-natural habitat, organic practices, and annual and perennial flower strips. Organic methods of honeybee and biodiversity stewardship have been found to match or outcompete conventional, chemical-intensive practices, according to a study led by Pennsylvania State researchers in 2023. There are also plenty of opportunities to support ecosystem stability while farming organically, as proven in a recent study on bats.

See Why Organic? to learn more about the health, ecological, and environmental justice benefits of organic agriculture. See Beyond Pesticides’ National Forum session, Tackling the Climate Emergency (November 29, Session 3 recording) with a presentation by Rodale Institute’s Andrew Smith, PhD and coauthor of several landmark reports on soil biology and carbon sequestration — including the Farming Systems Trial — 40-Year Report.

Call to Action

Organic integrity is at a crossroads. California is attempting to define sustainable agricultural programs, including regenerative agriculture funding programs, without mentioning organic standards, practices, or criteria. Beyond Pesticides has written extensively about the risks of greenwashing in legislation, despite decades of advocacy to develop an industry that is now valued at roughly $70 billion.

A bill in New York, S1306, would exempt farmland that is in transition to certified organic practices from real property tax for up to a three-year period.

As energy shifts to the state level, advocates continue to diligently review proposed bills in different legislatures. Simultaneously, Beyond Pesticides continues to track the NOSB meetings to ensure that existing organic standards are preserved, offer recommendations to improve trust in the label, and provide the public with how-to guides and sample comments to offer a starting point to engage in the process.

See Keeping Organic Strong to learn more and prepare for the Spring 2025 public comment process. Tell your state legislators and governor to support the transition to organic with state tax policy reform.

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

Source: Washington State Legislature

(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2025) A study in GeoHealth of pediatric cancers in Nebraska links exposure to agricultural mixtures with the occurrence of these diseases. The authors find statistically significant positive associations between pesticide usage rates and children with cancer, specifically brain and central nervous system (CNS) cancers and leukemia.

“Our study is the first to estimate the effect of an agrichemical mixture on the pediatric cancer rate in Nebraska,” the study authors share. “One significant advantage of our study is that we identified the pesticide consistently applied over 22 years in Nebraska counties and then estimated the overall mixture effect of these pesticides on pediatric cancer.” The elevated effect of pesticide mixtures, a reality that is not evaluated in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide registration program, was reported in Oecologia (2008), documenting harm to amphibian populations even if the concentration of the individual chemicals is within limits considered acceptable. (See additional coverage here.)

There is a wide body of science highlighting the disproportionate risk of adverse health effects in children with pesticide exposure. Their small size and developing organ systems, propensity to crawl and play near the ground, tendency for frequent hand-to-mouth motion, and greater intake of air and food relative to body weight make them particularly susceptible. These risks additionally increase from “agricultural activities in nearby fields (such as [with] agricultural drift, volatilization, and wind erosion) and the transportation of pesticides into the home by family members who are occupationally exposed (e.g., through clothes and shoes),” the researchers say.

Methodology and Results

In analyzing data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Pesticide National Synthesis Project in combination with diagnoses through the Nebraska cancer registry, the study authors find associations between 32 agrichemicals and pediatric cancer. The data encompasses frequently applied pesticides from 1992 to 2014 in 93 Nebraska counties, as well as pediatric cancer diagnoses among children <20 years of age from the same years.

The authors report, “We observed a statistically significant positive association between the 32 agrichemicals and overall pediatric cancer and subtypes.” They continue, saying that the 11 subtypes include “leukemias, lymphomas, and reticuloendothelial neoplasms, all brain and central nervous system (CNS) neoplasms, neuroblastomas, and other peripheral nervous cell tumors, retinoblastoma, renal tumors, hepatic tumors, malignant bone tumors, soft tissue, and other extraosseous sarcomas, germ cell tumors, and other malignant epithelial neoplasms.”  

The agrichemicals assessed in the study are among those most commonly used in the selected Nebraska counties. The researchers note: “Predominantly applied herbicides included 2,4-D, atrazine, alachlor, acetochlor, and glyphosate, followed by insecticides such as chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, esfenvalerate, and others. Atrazine, 2,4-D, trifluralin, picloram, and permethrin were categorized as IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer] Group 3 carcinogens or classified as not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans. At the same time, glyphosate was labeled as a type 2A carcinogen [probably carcinogenic] by IARC. Despite their classifications, numerous human and animal studies have reported these agrichemicals to be carcinogenic to humans.”

[Disregarding decades’ worth of scientific research on pesticides as carcinogens, many regulatory agencies fail to properly label these toxic chemicals as such. Currently, EPA disagrees with IARC and independent scientists and concludes that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans. In Beyond Pesticides’ recent Daily News article on glyphosate, the connection between blood cancers and glyphosate is explored, offering potential mechanisms to explain how glyphosate causes cancer.]

The study results show: “that every 10% increase in pesticide mixture was associated with a 36% increase in the rate of brain and other CNS cancers in children. The magnitude of this association was slightly greater for brain and other CNS cancers than for overall cancer and leukemia.” The pesticides, notably mostly herbicides, contributing the most to this joint association of agrichemical mixtures and cancer rates include dicamba, glyphosate, paraquat, quizalofop, triasulfuron, and tefluthrin.

As highlighted in a U.S. Right to Know article, “The findings raise concerns about the long-term health impacts of pesticides on children, particularly in agricultural regions, and add to growing evidence that pesticide exposure contributes to childhood cancer.”

Pesticides and Cancer

As Beyond Pesticides states, “Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.” A multitude of studies connect exposure in children, who are especially vulnerable to pesticides, with developmental delays, asthma, learning disorders and neurological damage, and cancer, among other diseases. (See more Daily News coverage on children here, as well as the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.)

“Cancer has been one of the major causes of death in children globally, and the incidence has been increasing in recent times,” the study authors note. They continue: “In the United States, it has been the second most common cause of death among children aged 1–14 years and the fourth most common cause among adolescents (aged 15–19 years), and about 1 in 260 children has been diagnosed with cancer before the age of 20 years.”

While incidence rates of childhood cancer can vary across the country and throughout the world, many areas, such as those with large amounts of land devoted to agriculture, have higher-than-average incidence rates. In assessing the connection between pesticide usage and the occurrence of cancer, the researchers note the importance of focusing on pesticide mixtures compared to single pesticides.  

“Several studies have explored the environmental, genetic, and social risk factors for childhood cancers, as well as the association between pediatric cancer and individual waterborne agrichemicals in Nebraska,” the authors share. “However, individuals are exposed to a chemical mixture, and by studying individual chemicals in isolation, we will underestimate the cumulative effects of co-exposures within the mixture.”

“The current study expands upon the findings of Ouattara et al. (2022), which focused on the association of individual chemicals with pediatric cancer in Nebraska and, encountered limitations due to the confounding influence of co-pollutant exposures and investigation of only three cancer subtypes,” the researchers state. They continue, “We have addressed these limitations by exploring the impact of exposure to a mixture of agrichemicals, supporting our initial hypothesis that such exposure is a significant risk factor for the development of pediatric cancer.”

Assuming single pollutant exposure ignores the reality that humans, and all other organisms, are subjected to many different chemical mixtures. “[B]y studying individual chemicals in isolation, we will underestimate the cumulative effects of co-exposures within the mixture,” the researchers conclude. The interactions of pesticide mixtures can result in “synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects, influencing the health of ecosystems and living organisms.”

This study, while supporting previous research findings on carcinogenic pesticides, also expands on the scientific literature by identifying certain pesticides as risk factors for pediatric cancer that have not been considered carcinogenic in the past. EPA does not consider the pesticides within this study (dicamba, glyphosate, paraquat, quizalofop, triasulfuron, and tefluthrin), which are found to be associated with increased cancer rates from agrichemical mixture exposure, as carcinogens. This raises concerns about the current regulatory processes that do not adequately assess harmful chemicals and ignore peer-reviewed scientific evidence regarding pesticides and their mixtures.

The Organic Solution

The answer to protecting children and all future generations lies in organic land management. Organic practices focus on health—by prioritizing soil health, the health of all organisms and the environment are also protected. The “National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances” managed by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) outlines what substances can be used in organic crop and livestock production and is continuously improved upon through scientific research and public input.

Visit the Keeping Organic Strong page to learn more about organic regulations and farming practices, as well as updates on the next NOSB meeting for this spring. Discover the health and environmental benefits of organic here and here, and make The Safer Choice to protect you and your family.

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

Source:

Ferdinand, P. (2025) Agricultural pesticide exposure linked to childhood cancers, study says, U.S. Right to Know. Available at: https://usrtk.org/healthwire/pesticide-exposure-linked-to-childhood-cancers/.

Taiba, J. et al. (2025) Exploring the Joint Association Between Agrichemical Mixtures and Pediatric Cancer, GeoHealth. Available at: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GH001236.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2025) When the United Nations (UN) adjourned the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee to develop an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), said, “The world’s commitment to ending plastic pollution is clear and undeniable.” She continued, “Here in Busan [Korea], talks have moved us closer to agreeing on a global legally binding treaty that will protect our health, our environment, and our future from the onslaught of plastic pollution.” In March 2022, the UN 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 United States. 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. Because of their widespread infiltration into the environment and the bodies of all organisms, including humans, plastics contamination requires a holistic strategy to protect life— with consideration given to practices and chemical use that reduce or eliminate harm. Pesticides and other toxic chemicals are adsorbed (adhered) to microplastics, resulting in bioaccumulation and widespread contamination.  

This adds to the complexity of the pesticide problem, a part of the complex interactions of pesticides in the environment and human body that is largely ignored by federal regulatory agencies. While most environmental policies attempt to clean up or mitigate health threats, accumulating data on the harm associated with plastics and related contamination reinforces the necessity for all government agencies to participate in a comprehensive strategy to eliminate plastics and pesticides. However, with drastic cuts and uncertainty at the federal level, the public must look for state and local opportunities to advance policies and programs that protect health and the environment. 

>> Tell your governor and state legislators to pass a “beyond plastics” bill to reduce harm from microplastics and their interaction with pesticides and other toxic chemicals AND >> Tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to use the Federal Food and Drug Administration to get plastics out of food. 

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. 

Beyond Pesticides is working to get plastics out of organic agricultural production, processing, and packaging, and out of food production in general. The use of natural organic materials in compost and mulch is foundational to organic. Beyond Pesticides has urged the National Organic Standards Board to call for the elimination of plastic in organic to be a research priority so that restrictions can be adopted as soon as possible. See Beyond Pesticides’ comments. 

Please note that some states have passed harmful preemption laws that prevent the banning of plastic bags and other items in local municipalties. Click here to find out which states have passed a preemption law for plastics. If so, you will not be able to pass the Beyond Plastics bill and should focus on trying to get your state to strike down its preemption law. (See here for background on preemption of local pesticide restrictions.) 

There are many uses of plastic in food production and packaging that release toxic chemicals and micro- or nanoplastics. This has created a public health threat. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2024) found that out of a total of 257 patients completing the study, polyethylene was detected in the carotid artery plaque of 150 patients (58.4%), with a mean level of 2% of plaque; 31 patients (12.1%) also had measurable amounts of polyvinyl chloride, with a mean level of 0.5% of plaque. Microplastics have also been found in human lungs, blood, feces, breast milk, the brain, and placenta. 

Highly hazardous PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are leaching out of plastic containers and contaminating food products, according to research published in Environment Technology and Letters. The data confirm the results of prior research focused on the propensity of PFAS to contaminate various pesticide products through storage containers. 

The evolving science on plastics contamination and their interaction with pesticides is yet another reason to transition to holistic land management systems that take on the challenge of eliminating hazardous chemical use. Organic land management policy creates the holistic systems framework through which plastics can be eliminated in agriculture. Again, eliminating plastic is important not only because of the direct effects of plastic pollution on human health and the environment, but also because they provide a vehicle for antibiotics, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals to enter into our bodies and the ecosystem, often with enhanced toxicity.  

>> Tell your governor and state legislators to pass a “beyond plastics” bill to reduce harm from microplastics and their interaction with pesticides and other toxic chemicals AND >> Tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to use the Federal Food and Drug Administration to get plastics out of food. 

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

Letter to governor and states legislators
A recent literature review in Agriculture covering over 90 scientific articles documents how microplastics increase the bioavailability, persistence, and toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture. Because of their widespread infiltration into the environment and the bodies of all organisms, including humans, plastics contamination requires a holistic strategy to protect life— with consideration given to practices and chemical use that reduce or eliminate harm. Pesticides and other toxic chemicals are adsorbed (adhered) to microplastics, resulting in bioaccumulation and widespread contamination. 

This adds to the complexity of the problem, which is largely ignored by federal regulatory agencies. While most environmental policies attempt to clean up or mitigate health threats, accumulating data on the harm associated with plastics and related contamination reinforces the necessity for all government agencies to participate in a comprehensive strategy to eliminate plastics and pesticides. Unfortunately, with drastic cuts and uncertainty at the federal level, we must look for state and local opportunities to advance policies and programs that protect health and the environment.

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 bill (https://bp-dc.org/ beyond-plastics-bill) for statewide 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.

The evolving science on plastics contamination and their interaction with pesticides is yet another reason to transition to holistic land management systems that take on the challenge of eliminating hazardous chemical use. Organic land management policy creates the holistic systems framework through which plastics can be eliminated in agriculture. 

Again, eliminating plastic is important not only because of the direct effects of plastic pollution on human health and the environment, but also because they provide a vehicle for antibiotics, pesticides, and other toxic chemicals to enter into our bodies and the ecosystem, often with enhanced toxicity.

Please introduce legislation based on the Beyond Plastics model bill.

Thank you.

Letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
A recent literature review in Agriculture covering over 90 scientific articles documents how microplastics increase the bioavailability, persistence, and toxicity of pesticides used in agriculture. Because of their widespread infiltration into the environment and the bodies of all organisms, including humans, plastics contamination requires a holistic strategy to protect life— with consideration given to practices and chemical use that reduce or eliminate harm. Pesticides and other toxic chemicals are adsorbed (adhered) to microplastics, resulting in bioaccumulation and widespread contamination. 

This adds to the complexity of the problem, which is largely ignored by federal regulatory agencies. While most environmental policies attempt to clean up or mitigate health threats, accumulating data on the harm associated with plastics and related contamination reinforces the necessity for all government agencies, with the Department of Health and Human Services leading, to participate in a comprehensive strategy to eliminate plastics and pesticides. 

There are many uses of plastic in food production and packaging that release toxic chemicals and micro- or nanoplastics. This has created a public health threat. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2024) found that out of a total of 257 patients completing the study, polyethylene was detected in carotid artery plaque of 150 patients (58.4%), with a mean level of 2% of plaque; 31 patients (12.1%) also had measurable amounts of polyvinyl chloride, with a mean level of 0.5% of plaque. Microplastics have also been found in human lungs, blood, feces, breast milk, the brain, and placenta. 

Highly hazardous PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are leaching out of plastic containers and contaminating food products, according to research published in Environment Technology and Letters. The data confirm the results of prior research focused on the propensity of PFAS to contaminate various pesticide products through storage containers. 

Please use your authority to instruct FDA to eliminate through regulation microplastics from our food and water supply.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 28, 2025) It is well established that children are more vulnerable than adults to environmental insults such as pesticides, from conception onward. Children living in agricultural areas are exposed differently from those in urban areas. A study of rural children by researchers at Mexico’s Universidad Atónoma de Nayarit compared two communities located less than a quarter of a mile from agricultural fields with one control community located more than a mile away. The study shows that children in the field-adjacent towns are clearly exposed to pesticides and are experiencing cellular distress as a result. The state of Nayarit is on the west coast of Mexico near Mazatlan.

Rural children encounter aerial application, spray drift, and erosion. If their parents are agricultural workers and especially if they apply pesticides, they bring home residues on their clothes. Residential storage of pesticides and small children’s propensity to play in the dirt and put things in their mouths exacerbate their exposure. Urban children get hit by pesticides in their homes, schools, and parks.

The researchers took blood and urine samples from 431 children aged six to 12 and collected questionnaires as to pesticide exposures from the parents or guardians. They assayed the samples for biomarkers known to be linked to various cellular stressors, principally oxidative stress (OS) triggered by reactive oxygen species. A very common result is inflammation, which contributes in multiple ways to chronic and acute diseases in numerous neurological, digestive tract, cardiovascular, and other systems.

The biomarkers included five indicators of OS: lipid peroxidation via malondialdehyde (MDA), a chemical that causes cell membrane permeability and forms compounds called adducts with DNA, which can trigger gene mutations; 8-OHdG, an OS agent that also forms adducts with DNA that precondition genes for mutation; the immune system messengers called cytokines, which are a sign of inflammation; and six dialkylphosphates (DAP), which are a family of pesticide metabolites.

The researchers found that the DAPs, the MDA, and the 8-OHdG concentrations were significantly higher in children from the field-adjacent towns compared to the more distant one. One cytokine (a type of interleukin) was elevated in one of the two nearer towns. One DAP, DETP, was the most commonly found pesticide metabolite. According to a 2021 Thai study, DETP is a marker of exposure to numerous pesticides.

Nayarit grows tobacco, sorghum, corn, beans, sugar cane, and mango, and numerous harmful pesticides are used in abundance. These include diazinon (banned in the U.S.), chlorpyrifos, and permethrin on beans, carbofuran and acetochlor on sugar cane, and carbaryl, malathion, and even the Stockholm Convention-banned endosulfan on mangoes. Neonicotinoids are increasingly used on sorghum, corn, and mangoes, while atrazine is common on corn and sugar cane.

The study did not connect these results with specific pesticides or provide any epidemiological evidence of health effects in the children. Further, it provided only a snapshot in time rather than a series of samples that could offer a more precise picture of chronic exposures.

Tobacco is a particularly concerning crop. Eighty percent of Mexico’s tobacco is produced in Nayarit. A 2006 study conducted there of children as young as five years old who work in tobacco fields and sheds, where families also sleep, found the children’s acetylcholine levels significantly depressed. This is a familiar outcome of organophosphate and carbamate exposures and interference with acetylcholine is known to be neurologically toxic. Tobacco is especially risky, the authors noted, because its leaves exude nicotine resin which can hold the equivalent of 30 applications of chemicals and is easily absorbed through the skin.

Children in agricultural areas are not the only children exposed to pesticides. There is ample evidence of urban children’s exposure as well. The main difference may be the chemical types. A 2023 study of low-income urban and rural Latino children in North Carolina found the urban children were mostly exposed to organochlorines, which are no longer widely used but are very persistent, whereas the rural children were exposed to organophosphates and pyrethroids, which are still used in agriculture. Unexpectedly, there was some suggestion in their results, although not conclusive, that the organochlorine exposures resulted in more cognitive impairment than the organophosphates, which would imply that urban children being exposed to persistent pesticides may be at higher risk for neurological damage than rural children exposed to currently-used pesticides. Thus, health advocates say there is little comfort to be gained from assuming that only some children suffer the health consequences of exposure. Most children are exposed. There is likewise cold comfort in assuming that banned pesticides are no longer damaging people and ecosystems.

The Nayarit studies provide a window into the plight of some of the world’s poorest children, whose labor is being exploited and whose futures are mortgaged to pesticides. Nor are pregnant women and fetuses safe from the effects. Organochlorines, organophosphates, neonicotinoids, and pyrethroids have all been shown to adversely affect fetuses. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database is a rich source of information on hundreds of pesticides and their health effects, including on the most vulnerable among us. See also our Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture page for ways to reduce exposures to children and adults.

The current political situation puts environmental and public health protection for children and adults in the cross-hairs. On February 25, new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced that he intends to fire 65 percent of EPA employees, eliminating nearly 10,000 jobs, according to The New York Times. In January, Trump appointed Nancy Beck, a veteran of EPA during his first administration, to head the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Beck is also a veteran executive of the industry influence group the American Chemistry Council. While Beyond Pesticides has certainly been critical of EPA decisions for decades, a world with even an inefficient EPA in it is preferable to one crippled by anti-scientific ideologues.

To prevent this, make your voice heard. In recent weeks, citizens have raised objections en masse to staff firings and program cancellations across the executive branch. Members of Congress can be prodded into action by constituents. Call or write your elected officials at all levels of government and let them know that you demand a functioning EPA and policies supporting human and ecosystem health and that eliminating pesticides is the policy our country needs to pursue. See USA.gov to get contact information for federal elected officials. Also, do not lose sight of local, state, and regional efforts to reverse the tide of pesticide harms. Our U.S. Pesticide Reform Policy map shows numerous locations in the U.S. where positive steps have been taken. For example, the city of Spokane, Washington, banned the use of neonicotinoids on city properties in 2014. The sound and fury at the national level need not extinguish citizen action.

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

Sources:

Environmental exposure to pesticides is associated with oxidative stress, oxidative DNA damage, and elevated interleukin-8 in a child population
José Antonio Aguilar-Bañuelos et al
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, February 18, 2025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668925000316

Environmental Protection Agency Will Lose 65 Percent of Staff, Trump Says
Lisa Friedman
The New York Times, February 26, 2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/26/climate/trump-epa-layoffs.html?searchResultPosition=2

Exposure of young children working on Mexican tobacco plantations to organophosphorous and carbamic pesticides, indicated by cholinesterase depression
Gamlin et al.
Child: Care, Health and Development, 25 October 2006
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00702.x

The Assessment of Organophosphate Pesticide Exposure among School Children in Four Regions of Thailand: Analysis of Dialkyl Phosphate Metabolites in Students’ Urine and Organophosphate Pesticide Residues in Vegetables for School Lunch
Anurak Wongta et al.
Toxics. 2022 Jul 29;10(8):434. doi: 10.3390/toxics10080434
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9416577/

Tobacco’s profit, workers’ loss?
Valerie Brown
Environmental Health Perspectives, 1 May 2003
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.111-a284

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

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

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

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

History of Glyphosate

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of Study Data

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

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

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

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

Results noted in the review article include:

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

HSCs and Risk of Blood Cancers

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

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

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

Organic Solution

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

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

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

Source:

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

*** Beyond Pesticides has recently received an insulting broadside from an environmental group; click here to read the original email and a response from the organization that includes a deep history of Beyond Pesticides’ commitment to ecological and organic farming practices in local food systems that are just. 

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

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

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

Background and History

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

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

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

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

[Notably, some local indigenous representatives of the Miwok tribe protest their lack of inclusion [in the mediated settlement process—Updated from original text on February 27, 2025.] Long-term management of the tule elk herd remains one of the outstanding questions. Others are concerned as the herd, free from competition with cattle and absent natural predators, may quickly exceed the land’s ability to support it—hunting is not allowed within the borders of the national park.]

Post Settlement: The Future of PRNS and Resulting Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Late Breaking Lawsuit

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

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

The Path Forward to a Livable Future

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reducing Cow Methane Emissions, Straus Family Creamery website.

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

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

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

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

Microplastics in the Environment

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

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

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

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

Adsorption and Bioavailability

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

Relevant studies find:

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

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

Pesticide Persistence

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

Study results include:

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

Soil Health

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

This includes:

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

Pesticide Toxicity

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

Studies report:

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

A Path Forward

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2025) Researchers at the University of Oregon found that the rollout of genetically engineered corn in the early 2000s, followed by exponential increases in glyphosate-based herbicides, “caused previously undocumented and unequal health costs for rural U.S. communities over the last 20 years.” Their results “suggest the introduction of GM [genetically modified] seeds and glyphosate significantly reduced average birthweight and gestational length.”

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

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

Background and Methodology

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

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

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

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

Results

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

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

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

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

Existing Literature

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

Source: PNAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Valentine’s Day! 💕 💕 💕 💕 💕

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

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

The Problem with CDFA’s Approach

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

 Greenwashing and Consumer Confusion Concerns

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

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

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

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

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

The Path Forward

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 12, 2025) New York state Senator Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick (R-NY) introduced a bill (S1306) that would exempt farmland that is in transition to certified organic practices from real property tax for up to a three-year period. This bill was reintroduced in the state legislature at a time when many federal organic programs remain unfunded amid stalled Farm Bill negotiations (see here for previous Action of the Week calling on Congress to fund federal organic programs) and farmers continue to struggle with the cost of certification, paperwork, and access to land. The legislation recognizes the importance of supporting and incentivizing organic as a common good that protects health and the environment and saves taxpayer costs associated with,

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

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

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

Background and Bill Analysis

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

Key Features

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

Further Analysis

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

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

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

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

Existing Support

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

Source: New York State Senate