(Beyond Pesticides, April 11, 2025) In a new report by Save our Seeds/Foundation on Future Farming, a consortium of EU-based scientists and bioethicists raise concerns about the implications and threats of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) for genetic engineering. Artificial intelligence will impact all aspects of society, including the acceleration of genetic editing tools that may lead to increased risks of harmful traits/genetic data being incorporated into products on the global marketplace. Organic farmers, conservationists, and public health professionals who collaborate with Beyond Pesticides grow increasingly concerned about the long-term impacts of deregulation and ongoing federal funding freezes and firings on needed regulatory oversight of the tech sector, including AI.

Review of Save our Seeds Report

So, what is artificial intelligence (AI)?

AI is a broad field that focuses on building machines and systems that can think, learn, and solve problems—incorporating elements of human behavior. It powers things like voice assistants, self-driving cars, and recommendation systems on apps like Netflix or Spotify. In short, AI is designed to understand information, make decisions, and complete tasks intelligently.

Generative AI, however, is an extension of AI focused on creativity. The main goal is to generate new content—whether in writing, photography, video, music, or computer code. Tools like ChatGPT and DALL·E can produce original stories, artwork, or designs based on the inputted information. While traditional features of AI were designed to support summation, light analysis, and automation, generative AI imagines and invents new content. The allegory that comes to mind is AI as the problem-solver and generative AI as the creator.

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into the genetic engineering of biological life is transforming the agribusiness sector. Developers have adapted AI architectures from models to interpret biological “languages,” given the sweeping quantity of gathered data on plant DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolites in recent years. As a result, AI tools have become both descriptive and generative, capable of analyzing and summarizing datasets, proposing predictions, and designing functional DNA, RNA, and protein sequences, including “new-to-nature” sequences.

Depending on the genetic data entered, AI models can fall into at least four categories highlighted by the authors of this report:

• Protein Models: These models can analyze proteins, simulate their interactions, and redesign their functions. Notably, Google’s AlphaFold has made significant contributions to this field, earning recognition for its advancements.
• DNA Models: Since 2021, large language models trained on DNA sequences have been developed. Among them, AgroNT, a collaboration between Google and Instadeep released in late 2023, stands out for being trained on 10 million genome sequences from 48 plant species.
• RNA Models: While AI models trained on human RNA sequences exist, it is anticipated that plant-based RNA models will be developed soon, with models like scGPT based on single-cell RNA sequencing data. Scientists writing on ScGPT last year in Nature said, “Our findings illustrate that scGPT effectively distills critical biological insights concerning genes and cells.”
• Multimodal Models: Developers are now working on multimodal AI systems capable of processing multiple forms of biological data, integrating DNA, RNA, and protein data for comprehensive analysis.

CRISPR-Cas remains foundational to gene editing, and developers have modified existing and new AI tools to optimize this process. These tools assist researchers in identifying optimal genetic targets, suggesting effective sequences to guide RNA, and selecting suitable CRISPR-cutting enzymes as a means to what the authors refer to as an increase in the precision and efficiency of gene editing. The use of AI has also expanded CRISPR’s capabilities to include quantitative trait engineering, permitting the control of gene expression levels and the potential to influence complex quantitative traits. Gene expression is pivotal to understanding why some are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, but also the basics of cell structures.

“Large seed companies such as Corteva, Bayer, BASF, and Syngenta are increasingly using AI tools in their genetic engineering programmes,” according to the authors in this report on agrichemical corporations’ infiltration into the space. They continue: “To complement their in-house AI expertise, these companies are also partnering with specialised firms. For instance, BASF and Corteva have initiated collaborations with Tropic Biosciences, which owns proprietary AI technology. Syngenta has teamed up with Instadeep and Biographica, while Bayer is supporting startups Ukko and Amfora, both of which combine AI and CRISPR technologies to develop new plant varieties.”

On the one hand, proponents of its use argue that AI enhances the precision and efficiency of CRISPR-based gene editing, expanding its capabilities beyond traditional gene knockouts (an alteration in the genome resulting in reduced or eliminated function of a protein (genetic alteration that results in a reduced or abolished function of a protein, RNA, or other genetic products; see Oxford University definition here.)

However, the report highlights four critical, non-exhaustive vulnerabilities of existing AI in the realm of genetic engineering, including:

“Lower skill threshold” conundrum

Generative AI significantly lowers the barrier to entry for performing complex genetic engineering tasks. While this could democratize plant building by reducing infrastructure and technology costs, it also opens the door to lower quality science, as individuals without adequate scientific training—such as students or “DIY biologists” —might accidently create or release genetically modified/engineered biomaterial with unpredictable or hazardous traits without regulators even knowing where to look. This could happen even by those with extensive scientific training.

The black box effect

Generative AI models typically operate as “black boxes”—the tools provide new content without revealing the rationale underpinning the decision-making process. This lack of transparency is particularly dangerous in genetic engineering, where unintended biological consequences can go easily unnoticed, threatening biodiversity, public health, and climate resilience.

Data hallucinations

Generative AI is capable of producing palatable, yet factually invalid or irrelevant results, known as “hallucinations.” In the context of genetic engineering, these inaccuracies could lead to faulty designs or misinformed decisions, which in turn could lead to the development of GE plants with harmful traits being developed and released into ecosystems and on farmland, public lands, and other forms of private property.

Data distortions

AI systems, generative and otherwise, tend to rely on large datasets for training their models to produce original content. If these sets contain errors or biases, whether from the complexity of the biological systems genetic scientists are aspiring to emulate or basic human error, methodological or otherwise, the resulting predictions may also be skewed.

The overarching concern emerging from this report is the risk that plants with undesirable traits could be engineered and released into the environment prematurely, without proper regulatory or scientific oversight to account for potential errors.

Artificial Intelligence: Friend or Foe to Organic?

There is significant literature (see studies below) on the role of AI and machine learning to “optimize” or “reduce” the use of pesticides, which enables the petrochemical pesticide industry to continue business as usual. There are also misconceptions about organic that may threaten its integrity in the long-term, such as a study published by researchers at Oxford University and Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir, who call for the use of AI to enable consumers with a “a ‘third’ choice and create a new food label, ‘organically-grown GM produce’.”

However, there are also a series of studies from research institutions across the globe emphasizing the importance of AI in fixing capacity gaps in organic agriculture, be it from the perspective of soil health data gathering in European Union and Morocco-based research studies or protecting product integrity by mitigating fraud, discussed in a study published in 2024 by researchers at the Institute for Global Food Security. There is also the potential to employ AI and machine-learning tools (e.g., drones, sensors), it is argued, to address other issues that organic farmers face, such as tracking pesticide drift from off-site sources through sensors, a potential remedy to ensure adherence to standards, real-time pest monitoring and management tools accessible from a phone, and AI projections of weather and climatological data, soil moisture levels, crop health monitoring, and other data aggregation that could render toxic pesticide use unnecessary.

Call to Action

Organic advocates and farmers view federal decision-making as inadequate to protect against GE contamination and subsequent health risks. There is a bipartisan consensus in Washington to promote genetic engineering, made evident in the Biden Administration-published report that promotes genetic engineering, “The Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology—Plan for Regulatory Reform under the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology,” which followed efforts of previous administrations going back to the Clinton Administration. (See Daily News here.)

The issue of genetic engineering spans beyond the concern of food production. In 2022, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the introduction of millions of GE mosquitoes in California and Florida (see Daily News here) alongside the continuous use of prophylactic synthetic insecticide spraying (including sumithirin and bifenthrin) amid outbreaks of deadly arborviruses, such as West Nile and Eastern Equine Encephalitis (see Beyond Pesticides press release here and associated Action of the Week here), which exacerbates insect and weed resistance to toxic chemicals and pesticides.

Policymakers in countries like Kenya and Mexico are standing up to this threat by implementing the precautionary principle into legislative and regulatory decision-making. Just last month, the Mexican legislature signed into law a constitutional amendment prohibiting GE seeds, a direct rebuke to ongoing trade threats and attacks by the Trump Administration. See the recent Daily News post, Mexico Rejects U.S. Forcing Genetically Engineered Corn on Country under Trade Agreement, for analysis of the nearly 2,000-page scientific dossier underpinning the nation’s decision to prohibit GE corn and glyphosate use.

The Spring 2025 meeting for the National Organic Standards Board is a time for the public to speak out on the future of the U.S. food system. The meeting will be held virtually from April 29 to May 1. Written comments are due by April 28, with public comment webinars scheduled for April 22 to April 24 from 12-5pm EDT. See this week’s Action of the Week to submit public comments (see Daily News here) and our Keeping Organic Strong webpage to stay updated on how to engage in the public comment process to strengthen integrity in organic standards!

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

Source: Save Our Seeds

(Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2025) The Los Angeles Board of Supervisors has voted to declare today, April 10, Dolores Huerta Day, honoring the lifelong efforts of social justice activist Dolores Clara Fernández Huerta on the celebration of her 95th birthday. In the words of Chair Pro Tem Hilda L. Solis, according to Colorado Boulevard, “Dolores Huerta’s contributions to Los Angeles County and to Latinos across the country have inspired generations of leaders fighting for justice for all. Now more than ever, we honor Dolores Huerta for her work as one of the most influential labor activists of our time… may her legacy continue to light a fire in us all.” 

Ms. Huerta, in accepting the recognition, noted, “I accept this on behalf of Los Angeles’ working people, especially our immigrant community, whose labor supports families and children. The Supervisors have gone above and beyond to assist immigrants, and as we face challenges ahead, it’s vital to continue supporting their bold, compassionate leadership for our most underserved communities.” 

This action follows prior recognition from then Acting Governor of California Eleni Kounalakis in 2024 and the state of Washington in recognizing Ms. Huerta’s decades of leadership. It comes in the wake of the Trump administration’s attacks on farmworkers and others fighting for farmworker justice. [As Beyond Pesticides covered in a recent Daily News post, on March 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency would be shutting down the Environmental Justice and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices and staff at ten of the regional offices and the Washington D.C. headquarters, allegedly in response to the president’s executive order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”]

A Lifetime Legacy from a Legendary Activist 

A schoolteacher-turned-activist and daughter of a farmworker, Ms. Huerta was inspired to action by hungry farm children in her classroom, organizing farmers and farmworkers before cofounding the Stockton chapter of the Community Service Organization (CSO) and the Agricultural Workers Association. After meeting activist César Chávez, the team founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) in 1962—the precursor of the United Farm Workers’ Union (UFW)—ultimately resulting in the passage of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which “protects the rights of agricultural employees to make their own decisions about whether or not they want a union to negotiate with their employer about their wages, hours, and other working conditions.”  

As lead organizer for the historic Delano grape boycott of 1965, for example, she convinced more than 17 million consumers to stop buying grapes in support of workers’ demands for collective bargaining rights, despite interference by the U.S. government in purchasing grapes to send to U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Nonetheless, the campaign succeeded, and Ms. Huerta led the negotiations that followed to secure collective bargaining agreements between the California grape industry and UFW. 

A recipient of the Eleanor Roosevelt Human Rights Award and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Ms. Huerta remains a champion of equity and environmental justice, despite the ethnic and gender bias she faced throughout her career. Author and organizer Randy Shaw, in the 2017 documentary, Dolores, credits Ms. Huerta and her collaborators for helping to lay the groundwork for the concept of “Environmental Justice”: “The Environmental Justice movement said that certain environmental hazards are disproportionately impacting on people of color,” Mr. Shaw highlights, continuing that, “It wasn’t simply stopping DDT, but it was also making the larger point, you’re only allowing this because of who the workers are, and their race and class background.” 

In an interview with Civil Eats, Ms. Huerta described her theory of change—embodied in the mission of the Dolores Huerta Foundation that she founded in 2002—as building “leadership in low-income communities and organize people so that they can have a sense of their own voices and their own power… once they understand this process and they have the power to change policy—and politicians—they really feel empowered and they want to go on and keep organizing. It’s wonderful. I call it ‘magic dust.’” 

Dolores Huerta has been spreading this “magic dust” for over seven decades. 

**** 

The fight for pesticide regulation is inextricably linked to the fight for immigrant rights. Beyond Pesticides will continue to speak out and monitor progress on inequities related to pesticides, agriculture, farmworker well-being, and the health of BIPOC communities in the U.S. For current reporting on matters related to environmental justice, please see Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News archives on Environmental Justice. 

In support of farmworkers and the families of these essential workers behind bringing our food from farm to table, Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach, transitioning away from the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in land management and agriculture by transitioning to organic as part of a holistic system. 

Furthermore, given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies, families, chemical occupational workers, and the agricultural sector can apply these methods to promote a safe and healthy environment. For more information on the benefits of organic for both consumers and farm workers, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Image credit: John Mathew Smith & www.celebrity-photos.com from Laurel Maryland, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Sources: Colorado Boulevard, The Cascadia Advocate, Civil Eats, NPR, Newsroom, Dolores Huerta Foundation, People For the American Way, Dolores (2017 film); Beyond Pesticides Daily News [Washington and California to Celebrate First Annual Dolores Huerta Day on April 10;“Sí, se puede”—Letter and Reflection From the Women of Beyond Pesticides]

Michals, E. by D. (n.d.). Biography: Dolores Huerta. Dolores Huerta Biography. https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/dolores-huerta 

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2025) On March 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency would be shutting down the Environmental Justice and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices and staff at ten of the regional offices and the headquarters in Washington, D.C. Administrator Zeldin declared that this move implemented President Donald Trump’s Executive Order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”

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

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

Communities across the nation continue to contend with the whiplash of the Trump administration, as government programs are threatened generally, and those that mention climate change or environmental justice are specifically targeted. See a recent Daily News, Earthjustice Lawsuit Seeks to Defend Organic Farmers as Federal Funds Are Cut and Programs Eliminated, to learn how organic and conventional farmers are adversely affected by federal funding cuts and the culling of publicly available climate science.

Biden EPA Legacy Under Threat

Community leaders, public and environmental health advocates, and the broader public view executive orders like this as flying in the face of over three decades of efforts across various presidential administrations going back to the Clinton Administration to address environmental injustice. In 1994, three executive orders “provided direction to federal agencies [including EPA] to incorporate environmental justice considerations in their policies and programs, within the bounds of existing statutes[,]” according to Congressional Research Service (CRS) records. “By themselves, these [Executive Orders] do not establish federal law, but are presidential directives that instruct the implementation of existing law,” CRS said.

There is a long history of incorporating the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) into budgetary analysis, regulatory actions, and federally funded projects. In EPA’s 2023 Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, the agency finds: “National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine reports provide evidence of how the impacts of climate change create potential environmental justice concerns (NRC 2011, National Academies 2017). For a recent detailed discussion of climate change impacts in the U.S. and their intersection with environmental justice concerns, see the 2021 Climate Change and Social Vulnerability report (EPA 2021e).” Harvard Law School’s Environmental & Energy Law Program houses a regulatory tracker, which contains a history of the Biden Administration’s track record through 2023, as well as the history of GHG pricing beginning in the Obama Administration.

In January 2024, the World Resources Institute conducted a climate action progress tracker, finding the Biden Administration to have made several pivotal achievements, including the following:

• “Set target to cut emissions by at least 50% by 2030;
• Pass a major climate-smart stimulus package [Inflation Reduction Act] after COVID-19; [and]
• Tackle super pollutants.”

On the subject of scientific integrity, advocates see that little has changed in ensuring sound science in EPA decision-making on pesticide and chemical regulations. There was a public comment period that closed in early 2024 (see the Action of the Week) following the Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking. EPA published an updated version of the agency’s Scientific Integrity Policy in January 2025, just days before the administration transition. (See Action of the Week here for an archive of the Beyond Pesticides’ actions.) The policy had not been updated since 2012.

According to the EPA website, “Scientific integrity is the adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities. Inclusivity, transparency, and protection from inappropriate influence are hallmarks of scientific integrity.”

Advocates continue to be skeptical of the implementation of this new policy given various investigations resulting in shocking discoveries about regulatory misconduct, including a 2021 report for The Intercept, “The Department of Yes: How Pesticide Companies Corrupted the EPA and Poisoned America,” highlighting scandalous behavior for a regulatory agency, including but not limited to:

• Burying an EPA report warning about glyphosate linkages to cancer;
• Neglecting evidence that links exposure to a neonicotinoid insecticide and neurological damage;
• Dismissing widely acknowledged science linking malathion exposure to cancer; and
• Normalizing the waiving of significant numbers of toxicity tests “at the request of industry.”

Environmental Justice through Justice40 Initiative

Another Executive Order signed on January 27, 2021, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,” put into place commitments to put teeth into these Executive Orders (EOs), leading to the creation of the Justice40 Initiative. The goal of Justice40 was transformational in that it aimed to dedicate “40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal climate, clean energy, affordable and sustainable housing, and other investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution.”

An independent analysis by Resources for the Future, “an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, D.C,” of 445 Justice40 covered programs released by the White House in April 2023 finds the implementation of EJ commitments was at different stages with a significant amount of funding already distributed.

For example, 30 percent of the programs (133 programs) reviewed are “not making information about their activities available to the public.” However, 98 of the programs are considered to fall under the category of “full implementation and achievement of the 40 percent goal,” representing the second highest category. It remains to be seen what the full impact of Justice40 has been in moving forward. According to data provided by the Biden Administration, over 500 programs received more than $30 billion in funding under Justice40 as of the end of 2022.

An additional action the Biden Administration took through this EO was the establishment of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) with the goal of “bring[ing] greater visibility to EJ issues across the federal government, but will provide EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) with an excellent partner for providing horizon-expanding EJ advice and recommendations to our government’s leadership.” For many communities across the nation, the move to suspend these councils comes alongside the fact that the current Trump Administration’s Cabinet makeup consists of over one dozen billionaires. See the analysis by Public Citizen (January 2025) on this subject, which has raised ongoing concerns about corporate accountability.                                                                               

Call to Action

As environmental justice and climate funding are under threat and communities face the brunt of environmental, public health, and biodiversity crises, advocates are dedicated to holding elected officials accountable for protecting institutions designed to serve people with specific attention to those at disproportionate risk.

Congress should respond to President Trump’s firing of federal watchdog offices across the government by ensuring the integrity of federal agencies through the reappointment of independent Inspectors’ General. (See Daily News here.)

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

Sources: Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides, April 8, 2025) A comprehensive literature review in Environment & Health analyzes evidence from human biomonitoring, epidemiological studies, and toxicological studies that link adverse effects on women’s reproductive health, specifically impacting the ovary, to pesticide exposure. In examining the scientific literature, consisting of over 200 studies performed in the last 25 years, the authors find pesticide exposure threatens women’s health through ovarian dysfunction.

“Epidemiological studies have shown that pesticide exposures are associated with early/delayed menarche [first occurrence of menstruation], menstrual cycle disorders, early menopause, long time to pregnancy, polycystic ovary syndrome, primary ovarian insufficiency, infertility, and implantation failure in women,” the researchers state. They continue, “Both in vivo [in animals] and in vitro [in cells] studies have shown that exposure to pesticides disrupts the estrous cycle, reduces the follicle pool, alters hormone levels, and impairs oocyte [egg] maturation.”

These reproductive implications are noted with many different classes of pesticides, such as insecticides, including organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), organophosphates (OPs), pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids, as well as herbicides and fungicides. The authors, however, comment on present research gaps: “Much of the available epidemiological evidence focuses on legacy insecticides, such as OCPs, and a subset of insecticides that are still in use but in decline, such as OPs. Little research has been done on relatively newer insecticides whose use is increasing, such as neonicotinoids. Compared to insecticides, fewer studies have been conducted on herbicides and fungicides, although biomonitoring data show that these agrochemicals are also detected at relatively high rates in human biological samples.”

Despite the disproportionate amount of scientific literature available for all types of pesticides, the evidence shows common mechanisms of action of these different chemicals on ovarian function. The researchers report that these mechanisms include effects on steroid receptors, hormone synthesis, oxidative stress, inflammation, epigenetic modifications, and signaling pathways.

The ovaries, crucial for female reproduction, provide many functions that include producing eggs/oocytes and synthesizing steroid hormones such as estrogen and progesterone, which play a role in maintaining reproductive tissue, regulating ovarian function and ovulation, and establishing pregnancy. These vital functions are threatened by pesticide exposure, which as the researchers state, “can interfere with steroid hormone synthesis by altering the activity and expression of key enzymes involved in steroidogenesis, leading to ovarian dysfunction.”

Numerous studies, as highlighted in the literature review, show that pesticide exposure “can induce oxidative stress, inflammation and apoptosis [cell death] in ovarian cells, leading to DNA damage, altered gene expression and impaired ovarian function.” These studies cover various impacts on ovaries including abnormal estrous/menstrual cycles, reduced follicle numbers/diminished ovarian reserve, changes in hormone levels, disrupted oocyte maturation, decreased ovarian weight, reduced fertility, and increased risks of ovarian disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and premature ovarian insufficiency (POI). “As many ovarian diseases are of unknown etiology, there is growing concern about the contribution of environmental factors to ovarian dysfunction,” the authors say. These studies provide evidence that pesticide exposure represents a large threat to women’s reproductive health.

Insecticides

Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs)

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, for the most part, organochlorine insecticides, including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), are no longer used worldwide but the legacy of their poisoning and contamination persists. OCPs are primarily made up of chlorine atoms, classified as persistent organic pollutants due to their toxic longevity in the environment. Although many countries ban most organochlorine compounds, OCPs remain in the soil, water, and air at levels exceeding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards.

Within the literature review, the researchers share the following relevant study results:

• A study in Spain shows “people living in areas of high pesticide use had a significantly higher risk of ovarian cancer and dysfunction.”
• “Exposure to OCPs has been linked to the adverse effects on IVF outcomes, including pregnancy rate, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, embryo quality and live birth rate.”
• Pregnant mice exposed to DDT in a transgenerational study led to offspring with an increase in PCOS-like ovarian cysts.
• Lindane exposure in pregnant mice “resulted in a significant reduction in the number of germ cells in embryonic ovaries.” (See study here.)

Organophosphates (OPs)

In a previous Daily News, Beyond Pesticides shares that organophosphates are a family of insecticides derived from World War II nerve agents. They are cholinesterase inhibitors, meaning that they bind irreversibly to the active site of an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, acetylcholinesterase (AChE), inactivating the enzyme. Due to this, OPs are often linked to neurological diseases and mental illness, but, as highlighted in the literature review, can also induce reproductive effects.

Studies note:

• Women with “combined levels of DEP [diethylphosphate] and DETP [diethylthiophosphate] in urine samples were significantly associated with irregular menstrual cycles.”
• Higher urinary DETP levels are also “correlated with longer time to pregnancy and increased odds of infertility.” (See study here.)
• Diazinon “showed greater oocyte toxicity, as this OP caused a reduced survival rate of mouse oocytes and inhibited the maturation of porcine (pig) oocytes at lower concentrations.” (See here and here.)
• Levels of diazinon and chlorpyrifos are “negatively associated with the number of retrieved eggs and the implantation rate.”
• Rats exposed to chlorpyrifos show “reduced body weight, impaired ovarian redox homeostasis and decreased the serum levels of estradiol, progesterone and LH [luteinizing hormone].” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• In vitro studies of chlorpyrifos show inhibited oocyte maturation and fertilization.
• Acute malathion exposure in rats “disrupted ovarian redox homeostasis, induced apoptosis and destroyed cell structure.” (See study here.)
• Malathion treatment in in vitro studies “had adverse effects on the survival, quality and maturation rate of oocytes, and on in vitro fertilization and embryo development of fertilized oocytes.” (See here, here, and here.)

Pyrethroids

Pyrethroids, as documented by Beyond Pesticides, are evidenced to cause a myriad of health and environmental effects. (See additional coverage here.) As these insecticides are rapidly metabolized in the body, their metabolites (breakdown products) often serve as markers of pyrethroid exposure. The most commonly and frequently detected pyrethroid metabolite is 3-phenoxybenzoic acid (3-PBA).

Studies of pyrethroids, and their metabolites, within the review highlight reproductive effects including:

• “A case-control study showed that urinary concentrations of 3-PBA were positively associated with the risk of POI in Chinese women.”
• Rats exposed to fenvalerate exhibit “decrease[s] in ovarian and body weights, and reduced numbers of preantral follicles and corpus luteum in adult female offspring.” (See study here.)
• Cypermethrin and lambda-cyhalothrin exposure in adult female “resulted in an abnormal estrus cycle, a decrease in ovarian weight, follicle and corpus luteum numbers, decreases in serum levels of estradiol, progesterone, FSH [follicle-stimulating hormone] and LH, and an increase in follicular atresia.” (See here, here, and here.)
• “Oral exposure of rats to permethrin at doses of 20 mg/kg and 40 mg/kg disrupted ovarian follicular and subcellular structures with increased ovarian cell apoptosis.”
• “Gestational exposure of mice to a mixture of eight commonly used pyrethroids at ADI [Acceptable Daily Intake] doses caused abnormal ovarian development and function, including a decrease in the number of primary follicles and estrogen levels, an increase in follicular atresia and FSH levels in adult female offspring.”
• “[I]n vitro treatment with cypermethrin or deltamethrin delayed maturation of fully grown oocytes, disrupted oocyte meiotic maturation, impaired oocyte mitochondrial functions, and induced oocyte apoptosis and autophagy [process that regulates cell death].” (See studies here and here.)
• Exposure to bifenthrin in rat cells can significantly inhibit the production of progesterone and other hormones. (See here and here.)

Neonicotinoids

While there is a wide body of science connecting neonicotinoids to impacts on pollinators, this is considered a relatively new class of insecticides that lacks extensive research on human health effects. The researchers note: “Although there are no epidemiological data on the relationship between neonicotinoid exposure and women ovarian health, experimental studies have shown the effects of neonicotinoids on mammalian ovaries. A few in vivo studies have demonstrated the ovarian toxicity of imidacloprid, the most extensively used neonicotinoid insecticide.”

They continue, “Human exposure to neonicotinoids and their metabolites is mainly through diet intake and absorption, as residues of neonicotinoids and their metabolites have been frequently detected in food, surface water and drinking water, and indoor dust.” While studies involving human subjects are limited, research in mammals provides evidence of threats to women’s health from these chemicals.

Evidence of reproductive effects from neonicotinoid exposure includes:

• Imidacloprid, in rat studies, decreased ovarian weight and altered hormone levels in mothers and their offspring, which shows transgenerational effects. (See studies here and here.)
• A study of imidacloprid exposure for 30 days in female rats also reveals clumping of oocytes.
• “Thiamethoxam exposure reduced ovarian weight and decreased preovulatory follicles with increased atresia in female mice.” (See study here.)
• Chromosomal damage in cultured mammalian oocytes is noted with imidacloprid and acetamiprid.

Herbicides

While the majority of studies related to ovarian dysfunction focus on insecticide exposure, there are toxicological studies that report adverse effects of herbicides on mammalian ovarian development and function. (See Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of herbicides here.) The research cited below on atrazine and glyphosate showcases the threats to reproduction from herbicides based on current scientific literature.

Atrazine

• “Women in areas where atrazine was used extensively were more likely to report irregular and longer menstrual cycles than women in areas where atrazine was used sparingly.” (See study here.)
• “Another study of 17 Chinese women who worked on the atrazine production line in a pesticide factory for 3 months showed that levels of urinary atrazine metabolites and serum estradiol were increased, while the length of the menstrual cycle and especially the ovulatory phase were shortened.”
• Rats exposed to atrazine have decreased levels of estradiol and progesterone, as well as increased testosterone levels.
• Additional studies in rats with atrazine exposure reveal oxidative stress, bleeding within the spaces between cells, and degenerative changes in the ovaries. (See here and here.)

Glyphosate

• Female mice exposed to glyphosate “caused decreased ovarian size or weight, increased ROS [Reactive Oxygen Species] levels, apoptosis and follicular atresia, decreased estradiol production with inhibited oocyte maturation.” (See here, here, here, and here.)
• “[G]lyphosate inhibits oocyte maturation, and increases oxidative stress, apoptosis and autophagy in oocytes”.
• An in vitro study shows that glyphosate reduces hormone proliferation and production.

Fungicides

Fungicides are also underrepresented in scientific literature for reproductive impacts. “Although some studies have suggested that fungicide exposure may have deleterious effects on female reproduction, human data on associations between fungicide exposure and ovary-related outcomes remain scare,” the authors state. This broad class of pesticides is connected to various other acute and chronic health and environmental effects, as documented by Beyond Pesticides. Regarding implications of fungicide exposure to ovaries, the below studies note effects from mancozeb and vinclozolin exposure.

Mancozeb

• “Toxicological evidence has shown that mancozeb, the most commonly used EBDC [ethylenebisdithiocarbamate], is an ovarian toxicant. Exposure of mice to mancozeb at doses of 500 mg/kg-800 mg/kg reduced litter size and ovarian weight, disrupted the estrous cycle with fewer healthy follicles and increased atresia.” (See studies here and here.)
• Increased ovarian cell death and fewer oocytes are observed in female mice after gestational and lactational exposure to mancozeb. (See here and here.)

Vinclozolin

• Female rats exposed to vinclozolin promoted the presence of ovarian cysts in their offspring (which resembles PCOS in women) and severely reduced primordial follicles (which resembles POI in women). The studies also note changes in DNA methylation, showing how these “epigenetic modifications appear to trigger changes in gene expression profiles, ultimately leading to dysregulation and an increased disease susceptibility in the affected offspring later in life.” (See here and here.)
• “Both in vivo and in vitro exposure to vinclozolin delayed follicular progression and oocyte meiotic differentiation in fetal mouse ovaries.”
• Female rats exposed to vinclozolin for 14 days exhibited lower ovarian weight, irregular estrous cycles, and altered hormone levels. (See study here.)

The Need for an Organic Solution

These results highlight the reproductive threats that multiple classes of pesticides pose, which are often not included in regulatory risk assessments. (See more on regulatory deficiencies and EPA failures here.) These health implications, while needing to be studied further as the researchers note, can also be diminished with organic land management practices. By transitioning to a world that does not rely on petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, as is Beyond Pesticides’ mission, the health of all organisms (including humans and wildlife) is safeguarded while also protecting and enhancing the environment by mitigating the crises of biodiversity and climate change.

To learn more about human health and specific pesticides, visit the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database and Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management. For least toxic control of pests in your home and garden, visit ManageSafe™ and make The Safer Choice. Interested in transitioning your community to organic? Sign up for the Parks for a Sustainable Future program as a Parks Advocate.

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

Source:

Wang, L., Ma, X. and Liu, J. (2025) Adverse Effects of Pesticides on the Ovary: Evidence from Epidemiological and Toxicological Studies, Environment & Health. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/envhealth.4c00243.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2025) Throughout the year and historically, the science and policy deficiencies captured by the Daily News paint a dramatic picture of the issues that support the need for strong organic standards on a range of issues, some of which will be under consideration by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) when it receives public comments through Monday, April 28. Organic advocates are gearing up to participate in the hearing process and the semi-annual meeting of the NOSB to protect and enhance the integrity of defined, certified, and enforceable organic standards as an alternative to harmful chemical-intensive practices.

Because of USDA’s delay in scheduling the NOSB meeting, board members will not have time to review public comments unless they are submitted as soon as possible before the start of the board meeting on April 29. So, Beyond Pesticides is encouraging members of the public to comment early.

There are public comment webinars on April 22 and 24 and a deliberative hearing from April 29 through May 1, that concern how organic food is produced. A draft meeting agenda is available here; a more detailed agenda with proposals is available here.

• Sign up for a 3-minute oral public comment timeslot to let the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) know how important organic is by Wednesday, April 9! Remember, oral comment sign-ups fill up fast! Links to the virtual comment webinars will be provided approximately one week before the webinars. 
   
• Written comments must be submitted through our “click and submit” form or via Regulations.gov by 11:59 pm EDT on Monday, April 28, but please get them in as early as possible!

The NOSB is responsible for guiding USDA in its administration of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), including the materials allowed to be used in organic production and handling. The role of the NOSB is especially important as organic land management protects the ecosystem, mitigates climate change, and enhances health. 

>> Click here to submit your comments to the National Organic Standards Board by Monday, April 28!

***UPDATE on April 10, 2025—With the critical nature of the issues discussed this spring and the truncated schedule of the NOSB comment period, we acknowledge that we did not leave enough room to adequately allow for personalization, which is a vital component of reaching out to protect the integrity of organic. Due to system requirements, this “click-and-submit form” allows for a 4,000-character limit on the comments; however, the limit when submitting directly to Regulations.gov is 5,000 characters. If interested in adding edits, we encourage the public to directly “copy and paste” our comments to Regulations.gov, which will allow for edits without deleting more of our comment text. 

The NOSB plays an important role in bringing the views of organic consumers and producers to bear on USDA, which is not always in sync with organic principles and not giving sufficient support to the critical need to end the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. There are many important issues on the NOSB agenda this spring. For a complete discussion, see the Keeping Organic Strong and the Spring 2025 Beyond Pesticides’ issues webpages.

Here are some of Beyond Pesticides’ high-priority issues for the upcoming meeting: 

• Compost made in organic production should use plant and animal waste, and not synthetic materials that could introduce hazardous contaminants like PFAS and microplastics. The current regulations require compost to be made from manure and plant wastes, allowing only synthetics on the National List—that is, those that have specifically been approved by the NOSB and USDA through a public comment process. The only synthetic inputs into compost that are currently allowed are newspaper and other paper. A petition seeks to allow “compost feedstocks” that might include, for example, “compostable” food containers.  
  
  Both organic and nonorganic farms have been taken out of production because of PFAS contamination, and microplastics can have a synergistic effect with PFAS. Even worse are potential contaminants we don’t know. Current PFAS contamination came from past use of biosolids not known to be a source of “forever chemicals.” Biosolids—fortunately never allowed in organic production—should be a lesson to remember. The NOSB must protect organic production by denying the petition to allow synthetic “compostable materials.” 
   
• The NOSB is considering a proposal to eliminate nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) in iodine products used in livestock. Iodine is frequently formulated as iodophors—with surfactants or complexing agents. Iodophors may contain nonylphenols (NPs) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), as well as other alkylphenols (APs) and alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs), which are endocrine disruptors with impacts on many species, including gender changes. Breakdown of certain APEs may lead to toxic effects in treated livestock and applicators. Organic alternatives include ethanol or essential oils for some uses. Other natural alternatives identified by the TR include udder washes containing essential oils, vinegar, natural acids, nisin for teat dips, and natural ethanol. Other substitutes include chlorhexidine, alcohols, hydrogen peroxide, essential oils, and other chlorine materials. EPA has approved the following for use in Design for the Environment disinfectant products: citric acid, hydrogen peroxide, l-lactic acid, ethanol, and isopropanol. Some disinfectant TRs identify some alternative practices for some uses–steam sterilization and UV radiation. The iodine TR says, “The risk of mastitis incidents is significantly reduced when producers maintain a clean and dry environment for the animals. Frequently changing the animal’s bedding material and/or using inorganic bedding (i.e., sand) may also reduce environmental contamination with these bacteria. In addition, providing a healthy, balanced diet to the animal and ensuring the cleanliness of milking implements are important steps for maintaining healthy udders.”  
  
  The Livestock Subcommittee (LS) has scaled back its original proposal to prohibit APEs to one that prohibits only NPEs. We believe it is important to add an annotation to prohibit the use of APEs and APs in organic production; APEs are suspected endocrine disruptors and proven aquatic toxins. As described by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, “[A]lkylphenols are a group of chemicals comprising a substantial number of substances ranging from cresol (C1-alkylphenol) to phenols with up to four linear or branched constituent groups of varying chain lengths. However, the ethoxylated versions of alkylphenols of any commercial significance (detergents, emulsifiers) are in reality limited to C8-, C9- and C12-compounds [octyl-, nonyl-, and dodecylphenols]. . .”  The National List should restrict iodine materials to those “without octylphenol, nonylphenol, dodecylphenol, octylphenol ethoxylate, nonylphenol ethoxylate, or dodecylphenol ethoxylate.”
   
• The NOSB should use the review (or sunset) process to eliminate nonorganic ingredients in processed organic foods. Materials listed in §205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that may comprise 5% of organic-labeled processed foods. The intent of the law is to allow restricted nonorganic ingredients (fully disclosed and limited) when their organic form is not available. However, materials should not remain on §205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and we can now grow virtually anything organically. The Handling Subcommittee needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, “Could you supply the need if the organic form is required?” The materials on §205.606 up for sunset review this year are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be taken off the National List of allowed materials. 
   
• Finally, no issue is more urgent than the need for the NOSB to evaluate so-called “inert” ingredients in the products used in organic production to ensure that they meet the criteria in OFPA. The NOSB, which is responsible for giving direction to the National Organic Program (NOP) at USDA, has passed repeated recommendations instructing NOP, to replace the generic listings for EPA Lists 3, 4A, and 4B “inerts” with specific substances approved for the use. NOP must allocate resources for this project. Recent appropriations have increased for NOP, and some of this money must be used for the evaluation of “inert” ingredients to ensure compliance with the law and to maintain the integrity of the USDA organic label. 
  
  
• OFPA provides stringent criteria for allowing synthetic materials to be used in organic production. In short, the NOSB must judge—by a supermajority—that the material would not be harmful to human health or the environment, is necessary to the production or handling of agricultural products, and is consistent with organic farming and handling. These criteria have been applied to “active” ingredients, but not to “inert” ingredients, which make up the largest part of pesticide products—up to 90% or more. 
  
  A comparison of the hazards posed by active and “inert” ingredients used in organic production reveals that in seven of 11 categories of harm, more “inerts” than actives pose the hazard. The NOSB and NOP must act on “inerts” NOW and refuse a blanket relisting of List 4 “inerts.”

Submit a comment at Regulations.gov OR use click-and-submit form linked below! 

Click here to submit your comments to the National Organic Standards Board by Monday, April 28. 

Comment to NOSB:

Compost made in organic production should use plant and animal waste, and not synthetic materials that could introduce hazardous contaminants like PFAS and microplastics. The current regulations require compost to be made from manure and plant wastes, allowing only synthetics on the National List—that is, those that have specifically been approved by the NOSB and USDA through a public comment process. The only synthetic inputs into compost that are currently allowed are newspaper and other paper. A petition seeks to allow “compost feedstocks” that might include, for example, “compostable” food containers.

Both organic and nonorganic farms have been taken out of production because of PFAS contamination, and microplastics can have a synergistic effect with PFAS. Even worse are potential contaminants we don’t know. Current PFAS contamination came from past use of biosolids not known to be a source of “forever chemicals.” Biosolids—fortunately never allowed in organic production—should be a lesson to remember. The NOSB must protect organic production by prohibiting synthetic “compostable materials.”

The NOSB is considering a proposal to eliminate nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) in iodine products used in livestock. Iodine is frequently formulated as iodophors—with surfactants or complexing agents. Iodophors may contain nonylphenols (NPs) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), as well as other alkylphenols (APs) and alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs), which are endocrine disruptors with impacts on many species, including gender changes. There are many organic, natural, and allowed alternatives. In addition, providing a healthy, balanced diet to the animal and ensuring the cleanliness of milking implements are important steps for maintaining health udders.”

The original proposal has been scaled back to prohibit only NPEs. It is important that the annotation prohibit the use of C8-, C9- and C12-APEs and APs in organic production. They are suspected endocrine disruptors and proven aquatic toxins. The National List should restrict iodine materials to those “without octylphenol, nonylphenol, dodecylphenol, octylphenol ethoxylate, nonylphenol ethoxylate, or dodecylphenol ethoxylate.”

The NOSB should use the review (or sunset) process to eliminate nonorganic ingredients in processed organic foods. Materials listed in §205.606 in the organic regulations are nonorganic agricultural ingredients that may comprise 5% of organic-labeled processed foods. The intent of the law is to allow restricted nonorganic ingredients (fully disclosed and limited) when their organic form is not available. However, materials should not remain on §205.606 if they can be supplied organically, and we can now grow virtually anything organically. The NOSB needs to ask the question of potential suppliers, “Could you supply the need if the organic form is required?” The materials on §205.606 up for sunset review this year are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be taken off the National List of allowed materials.

Finally, no issue is more urgent than the need for the NOSB to evaluate so-called “inert” ingredients in the products used in organic production to ensure that they meet the criteria in OFPA. The NOSB has passed repeated recommendations telling NOP to replace the generic listings for EPA Lists 3, 4A, and 4B “inerts” with specific substances approved for the use. The law provides stringent criteria for allowing synthetic materials to be used in organic production:  that the material would not be harmful to human health or the environment, is necessary to the production or handling of agricultural products, and is consistent with organic farming and handling. These criteria have been applied to “active” ingredients, but not to “inert” ingredients, which make up the largest and often most toxic part of pesticide products.

The NOSB must refuse a blanket relisting of List 4 “inerts.”

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2025) In March, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced the launch of SprayDays California, “a first-of-its-kind statewide system designed to provide transparent, accessible and timely notifications and information about the use of specific pesticides[,]“ according to the agency’s press release. The state says that notification will occur in “advance of the scheduled use of California restricted material pesticides in production agriculture.”

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

The idea behind notification programs and transparency in government is that it enables those potentially exposed to take precautionary measures to reduce exposure, which may or may not be possible given the ability of people, workers, or families to secure adequate protection from drift and the chemicals’ intrusion into homes, schools, and other buildings.

However, requirements for public disclosure of toxic pesticide ingredients have historically had the effect of encouraging pesticide users and manufacturers to find less hazardous products or ingredients. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a policy to require chemical companies to disclose on pesticide product labels inert (typically undisclosed chemicals) ingredients “of toxicological concern” (List 1 inert ingredients), they began removing the toxicants from their products. Under this policy, the label is required to disclose the following: “This product contains the toxic inert ingredient (name of inert).”

The specific active ingredients (some categories overlap) that are now required for monitoring and submission to SprayDays include the

• 23 existing federally restricted use pesticides;
• Handful of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 18 pesticides for limited-time “emergency exemption,”
• “Pesticides formulated as a dust, labeled to permit outdoor use, and packaged in containers of more than 25 pounds,” except those that are exempt under California Section 6402 “exempt” pesticides (under California law) for certain uses;
• 105 pesticides labeled on the Groundwater Protection List;
• Among “certain other pesticides” listed in subsection E. (See here for further information.)

According to EPA’s Active Pesticide Product Registration Informational Listing (APPRIL), there are over 56,000 registered pesticide products with over 1,000 approved active ingredients.

In an era of federal deregulation, funding freezes and deep cuts, and elimination of public data, this California program is providing an incredible public service for frontline and fenceline communities to access more information on pesticide use. Living amid chemical pollution creates the need for immediate mitigation measures in an attempt to reduce exposure. Mitigation measures, however, are often found to be lacking because of ongoing risks that may be reduced, but not eliminated, despite the availability of nontoxic practices that current policies do not require.

Beyond Pesticides has written extensively that focusing on mitigation efforts (buffer zones, notification systems, etc.) fails to identify the root cause being the failure of EPA to adequately assess the lack of pesticide essentiality and pesticide hazards in the face of unprecedented chronic illness diagnoses, biodiversity collapse (pollinators, birds, and butterflies alone), and the climate crisis. In partnership with farmers, community organizers, public health professionals, and some policymakers, we believe that adopting land management and food supply chain systems rooted in organic principles and criteria translates to a pesticide-free future.  

Background on Notification System

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

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

Critical Analysis of Pesticide Notification Systems

“This is a first-in-the-world pesticide notification system,” says Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) Co-Director Angel Garcia in a CPR blog post on March 25, 2025. “Since California uses more pesticides than any other state, including more than 130 pesticides that are not approved in the European Union, farmworker communities have demanded a ‘heads up’ in order to take measures to reduce the risk of exposure to our loved ones. We need far better protections from the State, but this is a giant step forward toward transparency about toxic pesticide use.”

While advancing a strategy to transition chemical-intensive agriculture to certified organic practices, Beyond Pesticides has supported mitigation measure policies, including neighbor and public notification systems, across the nation for years (see previous Daily News and Actions of the Week here, here, and here). Additional examples include federal rulemaking, such as the proposed Draft Herbicide Strategy Framework for pesticide spraying in designated critical habitats; additionally, the organization mobilized in the state of Michigan in 2024 in support of a neighbor notification bill in the state legislature. Beyond Pesticides has also mobilized the public in California in 2023 before this new program was finalized to ensure that DPR would require exact field locations and commit to improvements suggested by communities directly impacted by potential sprayings.

This last point was a concern shared by several local groups and individuals, including Irene Gomez – a resident of Oxnard, CA, and member of the Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety – Ventura County (CAPS 805). “When my community in Nyeland Acres had the pilot notification project, our biggest issue was that you couldn’t find out exactly where the pesticides would be applied – which farm? That’s still a problem with Spray Days,” says Ms. Gomez. “You can only know pesticides are being applied within a square mile, but not whether it’s coming from behind your house, across the street, or even a mile away.”

The issue of knowing exactly where and when a pesticide application is occurring is critical to public safety for communities living near or around spray zones, particularly in the California context where a significant quantity of the toxic fumigant 1,3D (Telone) is sprayed in some instances for dozens of acres in one given logged application; for instance, as of April 1, 2025, there are three restricted material pesticide applications planned on approximately 24.2 acres of farmland in Tulare County – all Telone.

There are several additional components about which DPR will likely face questions from the public, including the notification system’s omission of general use pesticides, despite known health risks, whether SprayDays applies to nonagricultural pesticide applications (e.g., mosquito spraying, structural/indoor use, privately-owned public land, private homes, homeowner associations (HOAs), etc.). Concerns of lackluster public participation and privacy concerns have also emerged, as evidenced in a review of several of the pilot notification systems in Stanislaus, Riverside, Santa Cruz, Ventura, and Tulare counties, reported by The Modesto Bee in February 2024.

“During the pilot program in Grayson [Stanislaus County], only 46 people out of the community’s nearly 800 adult residents enrolled in the notification system, according to Stanislaus County Agricultural Commissioner Linda Pinfold,” as reported in the article. Farmworker and immigrant communities, as shared by Bianca Lopez of the environmental justice nonprofit Valley Improvement Project as well as others, are concerned about the way in which personal information would be used to undermine their ability to maintain residence in the country.

Another issue is limiting the scope of the program to “intended” or “scheduled” versus actual pesticide applications. According to the program’s frequently asked questions page, “Not all scheduled pesticide applications included on SprayDays will occur.” In terms of instilling public trust in real-time information on applications appearing on the platform, some advocates are concerned about the flexibility and possible discrepancy between projected and actual pesticide use: “If the intended application is approved by the county agricultural commissioner, a grower or applicator has up to four days following the scheduled application date to start the pesticide application,” the policy says. On the topic of the one-square-mile sections on the pesticide map, DPR settled on this decision after pushback from Farm Bureau and other chemical-intensive industrial farmers out of fear that protestors would disrupt their farming operations if more specific details were publicly listed.

Beyond Pesticides has covered the fundamental flaws in similar types of mitigative, rather than preventive, efforts in a 2018 Daily News, Protections from Agricultural Pesticide Drift over Schools Take Effect in California, in the context of developing pesticide buffer zones for California schools. In this context, intense pressure from the industry led to the weakening of the draft proposed regulation. For example, the original proposal required growers to give schools 48-hour notice of any pesticide use planned within a quarter mile. This was removed from the final regulation, leaving only the requirement to provide general notice to schools of possible pesticide use over the year. At that time, concerned parents and advocates said it was unacceptable for DPR to water down already insufficient protections.

“I told my daughter: When I die, I want this [SprayDays California] to be on my tombstone. I want everyone to know that I fought for you, your future, your family and their future,” says Byanka Santoyo, community organizer at the Center on Race, Poverty, & the Environment, one of over 200 coalition partners working on this notification system over the course of a decade, according to reporting by Environmental Health News. Critics of the notification system acknowledge the thousands of hours, blood, sweat, and tears that have gone into developing this novel monitoring system while understanding the limitations of mitigation measures and the need to urgently transition agriculture to nontoxic practices.

As is the case with buffer zones putting the onus on school systems and those farming without toxic chemicals, so too do public notification systems place the burden on rural, farmworker, and working-class communities of color who are expected to easily access a system with known flaws. Instead, pesticide use is no longer a fixed variable in 21st-century agriculture with a $70 billion organic sector demonstrating an alternative pathway forward. See Daily News, Recent Census Shows 24 Percent Jump in Organic Sales; Integrity Issues before Organic Board, for analysis before the Fall 2024 NOSB meeting and recent trends in the organic sector.

Pesticide Drift and Health Effects

Various peer-reviewed studies and reports highlight the ecological and human health impacts of chemical-intensive food systems. Pesticide harms for exposed children include:

• Higher risk of childhood leukemia linked to pesticides commonly used in vineyards (See Daily News here.)
• A literature review of over 200 studies finds racialized disparities in neurodevelopmental disorders a matter of environmental justice. (See Daily News here.)
• There are statistically significant positive associations between pesticide usage rates and children with cancer, specifically brain and central nervous system (CNS) cancers and leukemia. (See Daily News here.)

Pesticide drift contaminates soil in urban and “natural”/rural environments equally, based on a 2023 study published by an international group of scientists spanning all continents. (See Daily News here.) Pesticide drift is also a threat from indoor agricultural facilities such as greenhouses; a 2020 study finds that children living near floricultural greenhouses spraying organophosphate and carbamate pesticides exhibit reduced activity of the acetylcholinesterase enzyme (AChE) and abnormal functioning of the nervous system. (See Daily News here.) Additionally, pregnant women living within just 2.5 miles of chemical-intensive farming face an increased risk of their children developing central nervous system (CNS) tumors. (See Daily News here.)

There are calls for alternative systems, including organic agriculture, as made clear in an Environmental Pollution literature review of numerous studies from North and South America, Africa, Europe, and Asia in late 2024. (See Daily News here.)  

Call to Action

Advocates continue to look for regulatory pathways built into existing federal pesticide law to expedite the registration review process for toxic pesticides. While it is valuable to develop tools for the most at-risk communities and workers to protect themselves and their loved ones from exposure, Beyond Pesticides continues to support these efforts coupled with structural changes to risk assessment and organically managed land and food systems. See the previous Daily News, Beyond Pesticides Makes Science-based Case that It Is Imperative to Phase Out Pesticides in a Decade, to learn more about our mission to eliminate toxic petrochemical-based pesticides and fertilizers from food and land management systems by 2032.  

The Spring 2025 meeting for the National Organic Standards Board will be held virtually from April 29 to May 1. Written comments are due by April 28, with public comment webinars scheduled for April 22 to April 24 from 12-5pm EDT. See Keeping Organic Strong to stay tuned for more information and learn how to engage in the public comment process to strengthen integrity in organic standards!

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

Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2025) As highlighted by Beyond Pesticides in recent comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chlorpyrifos (CPF) has been under scrutiny for decades due to associated adverse health effects, noted particularly in the extensive and consistent scientific evidence of neurotoxic dangers to children’s health. The latest research on CPF, published in Environmental Toxicology and Genes & Diseases, reveals additional threats to the immune system and male reproduction that are not captured in current EPA risk assessments of chlorpyrifos and raises serious health questions, given that residues are found throughout the food supply.

CPF, a widely used organophosphate insecticide in agriculture, is a cholinesterase inhibitor that binds irreversibly to the active site of an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, acetylcholine esterase (AChE), inactivating the enzyme. Many insecticides, including organophosphates and carbamates, target AChE, causing them to be highly toxic to both insects and mammals that have this enzyme as a crucial part of their nervous systems. The history of chlorpyrifos exemplifies the failure of pesticide law and policy, as this chemical, among many others, not only has direct adverse health effects but is contributing to the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and disproportionate levels of illness in people of color communities.

The study in Environmental Toxicology, performed by researchers in Taiwan, notes: “Although chlorpyrifos poses considerable risks to the environment and human health, it is still used in many countries. This pesticide has various toxic effects on humans, including neurotoxicity, reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity, and organ damage caused by oxidative stress and DNA damage.” Their results add immunotoxicity to this list, as they find that chlorpyrifos induces apoptosis (cell death) in macrophages (a type of white blood cell vital in immune system functions).

As the authors state, “[F]ew studies have comprehensively analyzed the direct effects of chlorpyrifos on macrophages and the immune response. Thus, this study aims to investigate the cytotoxic effects of chlorpyrifos on macrophages, with a focus on elucidating the molecular mechanisms underlying chlorpyrifos-induced apoptosis through intrinsic and extrinsic apoptotic pathways.” Evaluating immunotoxic impacts of CPF is important, as the immune system is responsible for protecting the body against infections and diseases caused by pathogens.

“Macrophages, key players in the immune system, are responsible for engulfing pathogens, presenting antigens, and releasing cytokines to regulate immune responses,” the researchers share. They continue: “Chlorpyrifos exposure affects macrophages first because they play the role of sentinels. Chlorpyrifos-induced macrophage apoptosis can impair immune function, weakening the body’s ability to fight infections and maintain tissue homeostasis.”

In using a murine (rodent) macrophage cell line exposed to concentrations of CPF, the authors report reduced cell viability, an increase in the proportion of apoptotic (controlled cell death) and necrotic (uncontrolled cell death) cells, an upregulation of the expression of death receptors, disrupted mitochondrial function, and the imbalance of proteins. “Chlorpyrifos induced cytotoxicity and apoptosis in a concentration-dependent manner,” the researchers state. They continue: “The simultaneous activation of both apoptotic pathways represents a novel finding, highlighting the strong proapoptotic effect of chlorpyrifos on macrophages through multiple mechanisms. Our findings offer compelling evidence of chlorpyrifos’ multifaceted toxic effects.”

These results add to the wide body of science on public health implications from CPF exposure. In referencing the scientific literature, the authors include:

• “[S]tudies have reported that chlorpyrifos caused neurotoxicity and hepatotoxicity in SH-SY5Y, HepG2, and PC12 cells by inducing DNA damage, oxidative stress, and apoptosis.” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• Organophosphates “not only cause immediate harm but also persist in the environment, entering the food chain and exposing humans to long-term health risks, such as chronic toxicity.”
• “Studies on developmental toxicity have revealed that exposure to these pesticides during pregnancy may disrupt fetal neurodevelopment, leading to cognitive impairments, such as reduced intelligence, attention deficits, and hyperactivity.” (See here and here.)
• “[P]rolonged or substantial exposure to these pesticides can reduce lymphocyte levels and weaken the immune system, thereby increasing the risks of infections and blood cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma in humans, particularly agricultural and industrial workers.” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• “Chlorpyrifos has been demonstrated to inhibit AChE activity in the nervous systems of Wistar and Sprague–Dawley rats; this pesticide led to behavioral abnormalities in the rats and reduced the reproductive potential in the male animals.” (See here and here.)

In a similar study, the latest research in Genes & Diseases also finds reproductive impacts with CPF exposure. After subjecting male Sprague-Dawley rats to different concentrations of chlorpyrifos for 30 days, as well as cell cultures, assays, RNA sequencing, and additional analyses, the researchers report disruption in the blood-testis barrier (BTB) and abnormal spermatogenesis (the process of producing sperm cells).

As the authors mention, “CPF can enter animals and humans through dermal contact, ingestion, and the food chain, leading to its accumulation, metabolism, and subsequent toxic effects.” In studying the effects of chlorpyrifos—and its main metabolite, 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP)—in mammals, this research provides insight into the mechanisms in which organophosphates can alter important functions such as reproduction.

The study results show impaired spermatogenesis through sperm deformation and a lower number of sperm in the exposed rats, as well as a decreased expression in the testes of PLZF and Stra8, important markers involved in sperm production. The researchers highlight that, “[P]repubertal exposure to CPF resulted in abnormal testicular morphology, decreased sperm count and quality, and BTB integrity impairment, suggesting that CPF resulted in abnormal spermatogenesis by disrupting BTB integrity.”

Additional analyses, such as with RNA sequencing, confirm that CPF exposure triggered ferroptosis in testes and Sertoli cells based on gene expression. Ferroptosis is a specialized cell death triggered by an imbalance between iron and lipid metabolism. Sertoli cells form the blood-testis barrier, which supports spermatogenesis. Alterations in gene expression that promote ferroptosis and impact Sertoli cells play a vital role in the impairment of male reproduction, as the researchers also report in previous literature. (See studies here and here.)

“In this study, we confirmed that CPF and TCP promoted ferroptosis in vivo [in rats] and in vitro [in cell cultures],” the authors conclude. The results demonstrate how chlorpyrifos exposure compromises BTB integrity through ferroptosis and leads to abnormal spermatogenesis. “Our findings provide novel insights into understanding the mechanisms of CPF-induced male infertility,” the researchers postulate.

The study also highlights previous relevant research, sharing:

• “[R]ecent studies have revealed that CPF can adversely affect male reproduction, as indicated by decreased levels of serum testosterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone, as well as reduced sperm count and quality.”
• “CPF has been found to induce structural abnormalities in the seminiferous tubules. An investigation of the mechanisms underlying the CPF-induced impairment of male reproductive function revealed that CPF caused oxidative damage to the testes. The reduced levels of superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione peroxidase, and glutathione (GSH) contribute to the observed damage.” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• Studies show that “exposure to toxicants during the prepubertal stage has detrimental effects on the development and maturation of the male reproductive system. These effects can persist into adulthood and lead to abnormal spermatogenesis.” (See studies here, here, and here.)

As Beyond Pesticides shared in a recent Daily News article, pesticides can cause spermiotoxicity, which is defined as toxic effects of a substance on sperm cells, leading to reduced sperm quality or function. The referenced research, published in Toxics, was the first study to evaluate the cytotoxic effect of the triazole ipconazole on mammalian spermatozoa, ending in the conclusion that exposure causes spermiotoxicity through significantly reduced sperm viability, as well as alterations in enzyme and gene expression related to fertility.

The scientific evidence presented in all of these studies, 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 effects that EPA does not consider in their chemical registration processes. (See more on EPA failures and regulatory deficiencies here.)

The threats to public health, as well as to the environment and all organisms it supports, from harmful chemicals require mitigation in the form of a systemic, holistic solution. An alternative land management option, through the organic production system, exists that can replace petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, which endanger all life. Learn more about the health and environmental benefits of organic here and here.

Beyond Pesticides’ mission of fully transitioning to organic land management is rooted in protecting healthy air, water, land, and food for ourselves and future generations. To help support this work, 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.

Sources:

Chiang, C.-Y. et al. (2025) Chlorpyrifos Induces Apoptosis in Macrophages by Activating Both Intrinsic and Extrinsic Apoptotic Pathways, Environmental Toxicology. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tox.24515.

Fu, Y. et al. (2025) Chlorpyrifos induces spermatogenic dysfunction via ferroptosis in Sertoli cells, Genes & Diseases. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235230422500090X.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2025) In examining prenatal residential proximity of documented pesticide spraying in California to the menstrual cycle characteristics of 273 Latina adolescents, researchers report in the American Journal of Epidemiology a positive association between exposure to the insecticide methomyl and heavy bleeding. Other pesticides appear to influence menstrual symptoms as well. “Adolescents’ menstrual cycle characteristics can be ‘vital signs’ of health and impact quality of life,” the authors share. They continue, “To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the association between prenatal pesticide exposure and menstrual outcomes in adolescents of any demographic group.”

Menstrual cycle characteristics, such as dysmenorrhea (painful or uncomfortable menstrual cramps), irregularity, and heavy menstrual bleeding, can also be indicators of underlying health conditions, including endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), thyroid dysfunction, and bleeding disorders. By associating the pesticide exposure of mothers during pregnancy to impacts on their children, the researchers highlight important health risks for women and young girls that are often disregarded.

“The prenatal period is a critical period of reproductive development that may be particularly sensitive to endocrine disruption,” the researchers share. As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, endocrine-disrupting chemicals are any synthetic or natural compounds that hinder endocrine system functions and create harmful effects on organisms, which includes many pesticides. The Endocrine Society emphasizes, “There are nearly 85,000 man-made chemicals in the world, many of which people come into contact with every day. Only about one percent of them have been studied for safety; however, 1,000 or more of these chemicals may be EDCs [endocrine-disrupting chemicals] based on their probable endocrine-interfering properties.”

The authors of the article in American Journal of Epidemiology, affiliated with the University of California Berkeley and San Francisco (particularly through the Center for Environmental Research and Community Health), focus their research on California residents within the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) study. California represents an area of intensive cultivation, utilizing many agricultural pesticides, since the state “grows over a third of the United States’ vegetables and over three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts,” according to the researchers.

The study participants, with an average age of 16.3 years, were evaluated through a questionnaire regarding menstrual characteristics, including cycle length irregularities, painful menstruation, and heavy bleeding. These characteristics, in referencing their maternal residential addresses, were compared to California’s Pesticide Use Reporting database to determine the association between prenatal residential proximity to 11 agricultural pesticides and any menstrual cycle symptoms. The chemicals were evaluated singularly and adjusted for co-exposure since “[a]gricultural pesticide use practices often result in simultaneous and sequential exposure to multiple highly correlated active ingredients from different classes,” the authors state.

The pesticides included in the study are from six different pesticide classes. “These active ingredients were permethrin [pyrethroid insecticide], methomyl [carbamate insecticide], imidacloprid [neonicotinoid insecticide], maneb/mancozeb [ethylenebisdithiocarbamate (EBDC) fungicides], and glyphosate [herbicide]. For the organophosphate insecticides, multiple active ingredients met our inclusion criteria: acephate, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, oxydemeton-methyl, and dimethoate,” the researchers note.

As a result, the authors report, “We found evidence that prenatal exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides may impact certain adolescent menstrual cycle characteristics.” The most notable association in the single exposure model is that a 2-fold increase in prenatal methomyl exposure correlates to a 29% increase in heavy menstrual flow. The researchers share that this relationship also “approached statistical significance in our joint exposure model.”

They continue, “Other instances where results approached statistical significance in joint exposure models were: permethrin exposure and increased odds of painful cycles [and] oxydemeton-methyl [organothiophosphate insecticide] exposure and increased odds of pain medication use during cycles.” These findings suggest prenatal pesticide exposure is associated with subsequent menstrual cycle symptoms in children.

As the authors point out, these symptoms can have a strong negative impact on individuals’ quality of life and mental health. One study from Australia reports that teens with menstrual problems have significantly lower quality of life scores than healthy teens. Additional studies find that dysmenorrhea (painful or uncomfortable menstrual cramps) is “positively associated with academic absenteeism, depression, body image issues, and social isolation.” (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.) Symptoms that include heavy and prolonged menstrual bleeding can also be markers of bleeding disorders, interfere with mental and physical health, and lead to anemia and period-related stress. (See here and here.)

“Many currently used pesticides contain active ingredients that are known or suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which may interact with the endocrine system, preventing proper function by mimicking or blocking hormonal interactions,” the researchers note. Within the study, evidence of endocrine disruption in scientific literature is shared, including:

• “Carbamate insecticides, organophosphate insecticides, pyrethroids insecticides, glyphosate herbicides, and manganese fungicides can disrupt normal hormonal signaling along the estradiol, progesterone, and thyroid pathways and dysregulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis, all of which are important to the function of the female reproductive system.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)
• Oxidative stress, as a result of organophosphates and neonicotinoid insecticides, can alter the epigenome, resulting in hormonal imbalances. (See here and here.)
• “In rodent models, exposure to commonly used pesticides such as imidacloprid and chlorpyrifos have been shown to alter estrous cyclicity and adversely affect the structure and function of the uterus and ovaries.”
• “In vivo and in vitro studies on prenatal EDC exposures consistently find associations with deleterious effects on female reproductive health.” (See studies here, here, and here.)
• Studies in rodents, with pesticide exposure from pregnancy to lactation, find “differences in time to puberty, age at first estrous, sex hormone concentrations, uterine and ovarian function, and fertility in female offspring.” (See here, here, here, and here.)
• “[A] study in a mouse model found that exposure to methomyl and another carbamate, carbofuran, disrupted estrous cycle length.”
• “Maternal exposure to pyrethroid insecticides has been associated with delayed sexual maturation, abnormal estrous cycle, and altered ovarian and uterine function in female rats and with delayed puberty onset and diminished ovarian reserve in humans.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.)
• Studies of the metabolites of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, confirmed in urinary concentrations, are associated with “increased odds of endometriosis, a disease characterized by menstrual pain, heavy menstrual bleeding, and other cycle irregularities.”
• “Organophosphate pesticide exposure disrupted estrous cycle cyclicity in rats and mice and shorter duration of menstrual bleeding and higher odds of irregular menstrual cycles among Chinese women.” (See here, here, here, and here.)

As was shared in a Beyond Pesticides’ article titled “Multiple Studies Link Adverse Effects on Female Reproductive Health with Endocrine Disrupting Chemical Exposure,” research in Frontiers in Public Health showcases the wide body of science connecting adverse effects to the female reproductive system, such as infertility, with exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. As the researchers conclude from these results: “The impact of EDCs extends beyond lowering the rate of a successful pregnancy and increasing the risk of miscarriage in women; they also impair the future reproductive health of the fetus.” This highlights how infants and children are at a disproportionate risk with pesticide exposure, as this is a crucial developmental window.

Additional Beyond Pesticides’ coverage, following International Women’s Day this year, shares excerpts from 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, that was delivered to the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in July 2024. He states: “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… [P]esticides 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.”

Also shared in Daily News regarding International Women’s Day was a compilation of studies on women’s health to emphasize the disproportionate risks women face from toxic chemicals that are often unaccounted for and even dismissed throughout pesticide regulatory review processes. The inequalities in pesticide threats to women include health effects ranging from cancer, sleep disorders, gut dysbiosis, and diabetes to epigenetic effects, developmental delays, neurotoxicity, and reproduction dysfunction, including infertility and negative birth outcomes.

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 stressed 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.)

To mitigate the endocrine-disrupting effects of pesticides that display detrimental long-term health effects both directly and indirectly, implementation of the holistic solution of organic land management is necessary. By eliminating the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, organic methods safeguard public health, for women, men, and children, as well as mitigate the crises of climate change and biodiversity.

To learn more about endocrine disruption, listen to keynote speaker Tracey Woodruff, PhD, from the second session of the 41st National Forum Series — Imperatives for a Sustainable Future and to learn more about the benefits of organic land management, see here and here.

Take action by helping to transition your community to organic practices through the Parks for a Sustainable Future program as a Parks Advocate and become a member of Beyond Pesticides to add your voice to the organic solution. Stay informed by signing up for our Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates, delivered straight to your inbox!

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

Source:

Paul, J. et al. (2025) Prenatal residential proximity to endocrine disrupting agricultural pesticides and menstrual cycle characteristics among Latina adolescents in California, American Journal of Epidemiology. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaf059/8083004.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2025) With the second largest award of nearly $2.1 billion (see reporting on largest), a jury in Georgia state court on March 21 found the pesticide manufacturer Bayer/Monsanto guilty of causing a man’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after use of the company’s glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup^TM product. The jury’s award includes $65 million in compensatory and $2 billion in punitive damages, as reported by the Associated Press and Courtroom View Network.

This verdict in Barnes v. Monsanto (2025) comes amid a concerted effort by Bayer and other chemical and agribusiness groups to take away the main legal argument, “failure-to-warn,” for the type of litigation that pesticide exposure victims have commonly used to hold companies accountable. This is happening as Governor Brian Kemp of Georgia considers signing into state law a pesticide immunity bill that will prevent future litigation like this in the state. In a deregulatory environment, the courts and state governments are viewed as critical backstops, given the dismantling of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulatory apparatus and extremely limited Congressional oversight.

History of Litigation

Bayer has lost almost all of the cases filed against it for compensation and punitive damages associated with the plaintiffs’ charge that its products caused them harm. The U.S. Supreme Court twice rebuffed the company’s plea to have its appeal heard, as reported by Beyond Pesticides and news outlets. Its legal strategy, pursued through the entire court system, has failed to fend off ongoing litigation for harm associated with its glyphosate-based products. As Bayer’s website has touted in a five-point strategy to mitigate the company’s financial “risks” from future litigation, “A favorable ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the federal preemption question could largely end the Roundup litigation.” The main question here is whether state-based “failure-to-warn” claims are preempted by federal law since the EPA concluded glyphosate does not cause cancer and approved the Roundup™ label without a warning. Bayer is vigorously pursuing a judicial decision or the adoption of legislation at the federal or state level that preempts, or takes away, plaintiffs’ right to sue the company when they are harmed by the company’s products.

Bayer is not giving up on the current U.S. Supreme Court in seeking to overturn current law, as established by previous court decisions, including Bates v Dow (2005). However, that strategy is not succeeding, at least not yet. The string of Bayer losses includes a judication decision on February 5, 2024, when the decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals came down in favor of the plaintiff in Carson v. Monsanto on Bayer’s claim that FIFRA preempts a “failure-to-warn” claim. (See Daily News here for further analysis.)

There were several other significant developments in 2024, including the Oregon Court of Appeals decision on July 10, ruling that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not preempt pesticide exposure victims’ claims in state court against pesticide manufacturers, based on reporting from The New Lede. An Appellate court overturned a 2022 local court ruling and remanded the case (for a retrial) in part because the judge had failed to consider the expert witness testimony of Chuck Benbrook, PhD, a scientist specializing in agricultural economics with over 40 peer-reviewed articles, reports, and book chapters on pesticide regulation and risk assessment. (See Daily News here.)  

Bayer has doubled down on the safety of its weedkiller, even though investors are sounding the alarm and as the company announced that it could pull Roundup from the U.S. market due to ongoing legal risks. For an in-depth history and related developments for Bayer-Monsanto litigation, see this tracker developed by the Lawsuit Information Center.  

Connection to “Failure-to-Warn”

State legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their “failure to warn” about the hazards of their pesticide products is moving forward in six state legislatures (Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, and North Dakota).

Four bills have failed to pass (Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, and Oklahoma). See a recent Daily News, Flying Through States, Industry Seeks To Stop Lawsuits Over Failure to Warn of Pesticide Dangers, for a legislative update of where the bills stand as of March 31, 2025.

Meanwhile, in August 2024, the Republican Attorney General of North Dakota jointly filed a petition to EPA with 10 other Republican Attorneys General (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and South Dakota) requesting that the agency promulgate rulemaking to prevent states like California from adding additional warning labels to pesticide and chemical products that disclose more hazard information than is required on warning labels under federal pesticide law. The proposed petition would prompt the agency to “modify its requirements such that any state labeling requirements inconsistent with EPA’s findings and conclusions from its human health risk assessment on human health effects, such as a pesticide’s likelihood to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm, [would] constitute misbranding.” This rule would consider any add-on label requirement that considers scientific literature not recognized by EPA (such as the 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designation of glyphosate as a “probably carcinogenic to humans”) in violation of FIFRA’s misbranding clause. If finalized into regulations, this petition would preempt the ability of states like California to continue its add-on cancer warning label language for products under its state law, Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986).

See the Action of the Week, As Fed Cuts Protections, Petition Would Prohibit State Pesticide Warnings and Restrictions, for an archive of the EPA public comment docket for the proposed petition. Beyond Pesticides will continue to provide updates as information becomes available.

Language establishing chemical company immunity from “failure-to-warn” litigation and local and state authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than EPA is included in the 2024 Republican Farm Bill draft, escalating the fight over federal preemption of state and local standards and protective authority of the courts. The Senate GOP framework alludes to preemption of state and local governance of pesticides, food systems and production, and public health in Title X, Horticulture title: “Restates and reaffirms U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) obligation with respect to the federal and state regulatory process.” Moreover, Title XII, Miscellaneous states: “Protects the ability of livestock producers to raise and sell products into interstate commerce without interference from other states.”

Environmental and health advocates point to preemption provisions having been adopted by the House in the previous Congress in the form of stand-alone legislation, including the Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (See Daily News here for analysis) and Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act (See Daily News here for analysis), and would effectively prohibit “failure-to-warn” claims and prohibit state and local ordinances and policies more stringent than weaker federal standards, respectively. (See Daily News here.)

These bills have yet to be reintroduced in the current Congress, but advocates expect the language to be included in future Republican Farm Bill text.

Call to Action

Through grassroots efforts, coalitions and communities across the nation have successfully beat back this legislation in Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, and Oklahoma this year after a successful defense in Missouri, Idaho, and Iowa in the 2024 legislative session. The public’s voice is pivotal at this time!

See the Failure-to-Warn resource hub that Beyond Pesticides updates in real time to account for legislative movement, public hearing timelines, and other background information so that communities and organizations can speak out on these bills.

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

Source: Associated Press, ABC News.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2025) This week, Beyond Pesticides is urging the public to contact their Governor and local officials to respond to a new report on the serious decline of bird populations by eliminating the use of toxic pesticides in the management of state and local public property. The latest study on bird declines is the 2025 edition of the State of the Birds report, written by scientists in the U.S. Committee of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), a forum of government agencies, private organizations, and bird initiatives. The study finds “[s]obering evidence that America’s birds continue to decline across the board.”

Furthermore, the report says: “Birds are telling us that the habitats people depend on are vanishing. Declines are happening across the board: in grasslands, aridlands, western and eastern forests, in Hawaii’s fragile ecosystems; and with our shorebirds and seabirds. Even waterfowl, which had rebounded strongly thanks to decades of conservation work, are seeing sharp recent declines.” 

>> Tell your governor and mayor to protect birds by adopting policies that support organic land management. 

Not only are bird species important for preserving biodiversity, but many species provide ecosystem services such as pollination and mosquito management. The protection of birds and their habitats allows for other organisms, including humans, to prosper. The assessment reveals that although overall, about one-third of U.S. birds, or 229 species, are of high or moderate conservation concern, impacts to bird species in some habitats face greater threats than others. Grassland and aridland species have both lost more than 40 percent of their total populations over that period.

The report notes particular species of highest concern, labeled as “tipping point” species that have lost more than half their populations in the past 50 years. In total, 112 tipping point species are identified, the highest being shorebirds with the highest number of tipping point species (19) and grassland birds with more than half of bird species in steep decline.  

The State of the Bird report, which focuses on long-term population changes for 246 total species of North American birds, highlights just one piece of the larger picture; as bird species face population threats, so do other organisms within terrestrial and aquatic food webs and across all ecosystems.

Many scientific studies tie impacts on bird species to the interconnected issues of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change. From higher insecticide levels in pesticide-laden nests linked to increased offspring mortality to the threats to seed-eating birds from neonicotinoid treated seeds, agricultural intensification harms bird species within the U.S. and throughout the world.  

It has become clear that we cannot count on EPA to protect birds—or the rest of us— from the interconnected threats of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change.  The alternative is to promote policies at the state and local level that move towards organic land management in agriculture, communities, and homes. 

Beyond Pesticides has established its Parks for a Sustainable Future program to assist communities and states in transitioning their public land to organic land management. With a cost-effective approach to managing land without petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, Beyond Pesticides provides horticultural services to evaluate current land management programs and put together a plan for organic management that cycling nutrients naturally, reduces vulnerability to disease and infestations, and support greater plant resiliency. The program is specifically designed to protect wildlife and biodiversity, while protecting the health of the community and its ecosystem, and contributing to mitigation measure to reverse global climate change.

>> Tell your governor and mayor to protect birds by adopting policies that support organic land management. 

Letter to Mayor
The 2025 edition of the State of the Birds report by scientists in the U.S. Committee of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) finds “[s]obering evidence that America’s birds continue to decline across the board.” Furthermore, the report says, “Birds are telling us that the habitats people depend on are vanishing. Declines are happening across the board: in grasslands, aridlands, western and eastern forests, in Hawaii’s fragile ecosystems, and with our shorebirds and seabirds. Even waterfowl, which had rebounded strongly thanks to decades of conservation work, are seeing sharp recent declines.”

It has become clear that we cannot count on the EPA to protect birds—or the rest of us—from the interconnected threats of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change.   We must promote policies at the state and local level moving towards organic land management in agriculture, communities, and homes. 

Not only are bird species important for preserving biodiversity, but many species provide ecosystem services such as pollination and mosquito management. The protection of birds and their habitats allows for other organisms, including humans, to prosper. The assessment reveals that although overall, about one-third of U.S. birds, or 229 species, are of high or moderate conservation concern, impacts to bird species in some habitats face greater threats than others. Grassland and aridland species have both lost more than 40 percent of their total populations over that period.” 

The State of the Bird 2025 report, which focuses on long-term population changes for 246 total species of North American birds, highlights just one piece of the larger picture; as bird species face population threats, so do other organisms within terrestrial and aquatic food webs and across all ecosystems. 

Many scientific studies tie impacts on bird species to the interconnected issues of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change. From higher insecticide levels in pesticide-laden nests linked to increased offspring mortality to the threats to seed-eating birds from neonicotinoid treated seeds, agricultural intensification harms bird species within the U.S. and throughout the world. 

States should adopt a strategy promoting natural and working lands as a critical yet currently underutilized sector in the fight against climate change. These lands can sequester and store carbon emissions, limit future carbon emissions into the atmosphere, protect people and nature from the impacts of climate change, and build resilience to future climate risks. The strategy should define the state’s natural and working landscapes; describe how these lands can deliver on climate change goals; highlight priority nature-based climate solutions to address the climate crisis; explore opportunities for regional climate smart land management; identify options to track nature-based climate action and measure progress; and outline opportunities to scale climate-smart land management across regions and sectors in the state. States should set a pesticide-free goal for state parks. 

To be effective, the strategy must include ambitious targets focused on reduction of agricultural chemicals and support for organic agriculture. These measures also address other crises, including microbial support for ecosystem health and biodiversity. Industrial farming systems dependent on synthetic fertilizers and other chemical inputs must be replaced with organic systems that do not use chemicals in which animals and feed sources are fully integrated.

I urge you to take the lead in creating policies that move our state to organic agriculture and land management.

Thank you.

Letter to Governor
The 2025 edition of the State of the Birds report by scientists in the U.S. Committee of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) finds “[s]obering evidence that America’s birds continue to decline across the board.” Furthermore, the report says, “Birds are telling us that the habitats people depend on are vanishing. Declines are happening across the board: in grasslands, aridlands, western and eastern forests, in Hawaii’s fragile ecosystems, and with our shorebirds and seabirds. Even waterfowl, which had rebounded strongly thanks to decades of conservation work, are seeing sharp recent declines.”

It has become clear that we cannot count on the EPA to protect birds—or the rest of us—from the interconnected threats of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change.   We must promote policies at the state and local level moving towards organic land management in agriculture, communities, and homes. 

Not only are bird species important for preserving biodiversity, but many species provide ecosystem services such as pollination and mosquito management. The protection of birds and their habitats allows for other organisms, including humans, to prosper. The assessment reveals that although overall, about one-third of U.S. birds, or 229 species, are of high or moderate conservation concern, impacts to bird species in some habitats face greater threats than others. Grassland and aridland species have both lost more than 40 percent of their total populations over that period.” 

The State of the Bird 2025 report, which focuses on long-term population changes for 246 total species of North American birds, highlights just one piece of the larger picture; as bird species face population threats, so do other organisms within terrestrial and aquatic food webs and across all ecosystems. 

Many scientific studies tie impacts on bird species to the interconnected issues of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change. From higher insecticide levels in pesticide-laden nests linked to increased offspring mortality to the threats to seed-eating birds from neonicotinoid treated seeds, agricultural intensification harms bird species within the U.S. and throughout the world. 

States should adopt a strategy promoting natural and working lands as a critical yet currently underutilized sector in the fight against climate change. These lands can sequester and store carbon emissions, limit future carbon emissions into the atmosphere, protect people and nature from the impacts of climate change, and build resilience to future climate risks. The strategy should define the state’s natural and working landscapes; describe how these lands can deliver on climate change goals; highlight priority nature-based climate solutions to address the climate crisis; explore opportunities for regional climate smart land management; identify options to track nature-based climate action and measure progress; and outline opportunities to scale climate-smart land management across regions and sectors in the state. States should set a pesticide-free goal for state parks. 

To be effective, the strategy must include ambitious targets focused on reduction of agricultural chemicals and support for organic agriculture. These measures also address other crises, including microbial support for ecosystem health and biodiversity. Industrial farming systems dependent on synthetic fertilizers and other chemical inputs must be replaced with organic systems that do not use chemicals in which animals and feed sources are fully integrated.

I urge you to take the lead in creating policies that move our state to organic agriculture and land management.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2025) The Rhine Valley in southwestern Germany is renowned for the agricultural bounty it has provided for centuries. Today, the area is home to dense wine, vegetable, fruit, and cereal cultivation. However, a study shows that current regulation of pesticides, even in the relatively progressive European Union, is inadequate to protect humans and all the other organisms that produce the environment necessary for human life and civilization. 

The study goal was to determine how far—and which—pesticides traveled beyond the croplands of vegetables, fruit orchards, and cereals, as well forested lands, into nontarget areas that should serve as refugia for plants, animals, and invertebrates not considered pests. Based at the Landau Institute for Environmental Sciences at the University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, the researchers used innovative methods to measure the types, concentrations, and distribution of pesticides.

They took samples from three landscape categories—vegetation, topsoil, and surface water—at 78 sites distributed along six transects, each reaching from the valley floor to the tops of the mountains on either side. Samples were taken from grasses, shrub leaves, and topsoils along each transect, together with water samples from rivers, small streams, ponds, and puddles. They tested for 93 current-use pesticides (CUPs).

There was no site where all samples of vegetation, topsoil, or water were free of all pesticides. Of the 93 CUPs tested, the researchers found 63 in the samples. CUPs were found in 97 percent of all the vegetation and topsoil samples and 83 percent of the water samples. The mixture of pesticides was wildly varied; the scientists found 140 different combinations of at least two pesticides. Fungicides were most prominent overall, and the pesticides most commonly found together were the fungicides fluopyram and spiroxamine. Fluopyram appeared in the vast majority of samples. Others in the samples with lesser frequency included the bee-killing neonicotinoids clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiacloprid. See Beyond Pesticides’ rich archive of information on these very dangerous pesticides.

Fluopyram is a member of the PFAS family of “forever chemicals,” of which the authors point out there are 37 authorized for use in the European Union. They add that the Rhine Valley sits atop a very large aquifer that provides water to more than seven million people; thus, PFAS use on the surface presents a high risk of contaminating drinking water. While there is not a large body of research on fluopyram’s health hazards, the authors note that fish exposed to it exhibit behavioral alterations, implying neurological damage. Another study found high toxicity in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans.

Both fluopyram and spiroxamine are registered for use in the European Union (E.U.) and the U.S. E.U. evaluations found that residues are of little concern, but other research suggests otherwise. A survey of residues in the environment in Argentina and Europe comparing chemical-intensive (conventional) and organic farms found high concentrations in the conventional soils, principally fungicides, including boscalid (another fungicide) and spiroxamine, both of which were present in the Rhine Valley study. A 2021 Indian study of fluopyram residues on pomegranates found that they were concentrated in the outer peel but that the fruit was free of it. However, these authors noted that this should not be reassuring, as pomegranate peel, like every other part of the pomegranate, is of high value owing to the antioxidant polyphenols it contains. The peel is used to augment other fruit juices and has potential as a preservative. Thus, the principle of utilizing naturally-occurring plants to support health also carries a risky downside if the plants are treated with pesticides. The Rhine Valley study shows that wildlife and ecosystems run the same risks and that distance from the application site is not necessarily protective.

Spiroxamine, used against powdery mildew, is almost absent from the scientific literature on pesticide health effects, meaning it has also achieved registration based on data that at least in part are considered proprietary studies by chemical companies, and has not truly been evaluated for human or environmental risks based on exposures that are chronic, low-dose or in combination with other chemicals. However, even regulatory toxicology studies have shown it is highly toxic to birds and moderately toxic to mammals (rats).

One of the innovative, striking, and tragic results of the Rhine study was finding that puddles pose severe risks to insects, especially honey bees, birds, and mammals wherever they are found. This is because as puddles dry out, the concentrations increase, “which turns puddles in agricultural areas into toxic soups,” they wrote. “Puddles in human-modified landscapes are an important drinking water source for birds, and honey bees actively forage in ‘dirty’ water sources for minerals that may be lacking in their floral diet. We emphasize the critical exposure pathway for birds and mammals…especially when contaminated puddles are the only source of water in hot seasons or during increasingly frequent droughts.” Even worse, “Natural puddles in non-target areas contained the highest contamination levels and are so far not included in environmental risk assessment procedures.”

The Rhine Valley study firmly establishes that pesticides do not stay where they are applied, even when the application area is bounded by higher altitudes that might be expected to confine them. The researchers found significant deposition of pesticides even at the highest point of the surrounding mountains. There was no environmental compartment—soil, water, vegetation—that was protected. This means that refugia, even those assumed to be far enough away to escape contamination, will not suffice to maintain a functional ecosystem while proceeding with business as usual in agriculture.

Further, other research clearly demonstrates that pesticides travel around the world in and on agricultural products. Within Germany, the country’s Beer Purity Law, or “Reinheitsgebot,” in place for 500 years, is routinely broken by the near-universal use of glyphosate. As Beyond Pesticides noted in its 2016 News Brief, the law requires brewers to produce beer using only malt, hops, yeast, and water. Yet the Munich Environmental Institute found glyphosate in 14 popular German beers. The highest concentration was 300 times the legal limit for drinking water in Germany.

The best way to avoid pesticide residues in food is to buy organic food and support organic agriculture. See our database, Eating With a Conscience (EWAC), for information on the pesticides that could be present in the food we eat and why food labeled organic is the right choice. The choice of organic food is also a good way to help protect ecosystems.

Consuming organic foods and protecting organic agriculture, along with continuing to communicate the importance of pesticide elimination to policymakers, are the best ways to push back at the conflict-ridden industrial hegemony that keeps the world at risk. The Landau scientists conclude that “the current pesticide authorization and risk management practices do not protect terrestrial biodiversity….[t]ogether with the aim of transforming 25 percent of the agricultural land to organic production by 2030, as formulated originally in the EU Green Deal and integrated in national and international policies, synthetic pesticide use could be substantially lowered leading to a reduction of pesticide exposure of biodiversity and humans.”

The Rhine Valley study also illustrates why regulatory toxicology is both inadequate and actively harmful. Regulators rely on the self-interested studies performed by the commercial interests producing and marketing the pesticides. These types of studies have been shown to have outlived their usefulness, requiring new regulatory protocols to include the breakthroughs in assessing chemicals’ health effects developed by academic and public health researchers—such as those demonstrating the role of inflammation in nearly every chronic health condition, and which has been shown to result from pesticide exposures. See Beyond Pesticides’ analyses here, here, and here. Products are registered and used long before independent scientists can study their long-term, transgenerational, and synergistic effects. Nevertheless, there has now accumulated a large body of peer-reviewed science demonstrating pesticides’ serious harms. The pesticides identified in the Rhine Valley study have been studied far less than the “usual suspects,” such as glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, and atrazine, and may not be in widespread international use yet, but they have already been labeled as low-risk without a truly responsible assessment of their ecotoxicological and human health effects. We already know there is a high likelihood that they will join most other pesticides in the “harmful” column.

Sign up here to receive our Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox, and stay informed with the Daily News Blog.

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

Sources:

Current-use pesticides in vegetation, topsoil and water reveal contaminated landscapes of the Upper Rhine Valley, Germany
Mauser et al.
Communications Earth & Environment, 2025
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02118-2

Landscape Scale Pesticide Pollution Detected In Upper Rhine Region, From Agricultural Lowlands To Remote Areas
Eurasia Review March 17, 2025
https://www.eurasiareview.com/17032025-landscape-scale-pesticide-pollution-detected-in-upper-rhine-region-from-agricultural-lowlands-to-remote-areas/

Landscape scale pesticide pollution detected in the Upper Rhine region, from agricultural lowlands to remote areas
News Release March 12, 2025
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1076460

Glyphosate Residues in Popular German Beers
Beyond Pesticides, February 29, 2016
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2016/02/glyphosate-residues-in-popular-german-beers/

Flooding Transports Pesticides from Streams to Soil and Plants, Threatens Terrestrial Food Webs
Beyond Pesticides, October 22, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/10/flooding-transports-pesticides-from-streams-to-soil-and-plants-threatens-terrestrial-food-webs/

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2025) In Ecotoxicology, results of a study on Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) exposed to florpyrauxifen-benzyl (FPX) suggest the new herbicide causes oxidative stress (imbalances affecting the body’s detoxification abilities that lead to cell and tissue damage), with specific genotoxic (damage to genetic material) and hepatotoxic (damage to the liver) effects on nontarget species. The authors state: “According to the available literature, no data exist on the toxicity of FPX in fish. Therefore, this study aims to investigate, for the first time, the potential toxicity and associated mechanistic effects of the pyridine-carboxylic acid herbicide (FPX) on the non-target species, Nile tilapia.”

According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, “Florpyrauxifen-benzyl is a systemic herbicide (i.e., it moves throughout the plant tissue). It is a WSSA Group 4 herbicide, meaning that the mechanism of action is by mimicking the plant growth hormone auxin and causing excessive elongation of plant cells, ultimately killing the plant.”

The researchers, from Menoufia University, the Agricultural Research Center, and Cairo University in Egypt, focus on FPX as it is the active ingredient in Divixton 2.5% EC, a newly released herbicide used in rice fields and applied directly to freshwater aquatic bodies for emergent aquatic vegetation. Studying the effects in Nile tilapia is crucial for the area, as the species “accounts for about 80% of Egyptian fish production,” the authors share, and “can be used as an environmental indicator of xenobiotic biotransformation and biomarker response, making it a valuable model for various monitoring programs,” they continue.

As has been extensively documented, the excessive use of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals poses a significant threat to both terrestrial and aquatic environments. (See Daily News coverage here.) The researchers note that, “Water-borne derivatives of herbicides strongly affect the well-being of aquatic animals, their productivity, and safety of aquatic organisms for human consumption.” Water contamination occurs through various sources such as runoff, soil leaching, and aerial drift. When chemicals reach bodies of water, “they may interact with other pollutants, increasing their toxicity to aquatic organisms” and cause, even in very low concentrations, “morphological, histological, and biochemical changes in their tissues,” the authors state.

The active ingredient FPX was unconditionally registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2017 and is a selective herbicide used to kill post-emergent weeds. In studying this herbicide in a nontarget aquatic species, the researchers highlight disrupted hepatic (liver) functions and antioxidant responses of Nile tilapia that represent the threat to other aquatic species and biodiversity. Hepatotoxic implications can leave organisms susceptible to further health impacts, as the liver is “responsible for the detoxification of xenobiotics and other pollutants” and is “a histologically extraordinarily sensitive organ that is used to evaluate the toxic effects of different contaminants on fish, as it is the major site for pesticide’s storage, biotransformation, and excretion,” the researchers note.

Through blood samples, dissections, and analyses performed on 400 fish after exposure periods of 7 and 15 days to sublethal concentrations of FPX, the results identify oxidative, genotoxic, and hepatic changes within the organisms. The researchers find that at both durations of exposure to FPX, levels of malondialdehyde (MDA) were elevated. MDA is a biomarker associated with lipid peroxidation and oxidative stress (leading to cell damage), and elevated levels of MDA in the liver are associated with liver damage and fibrosis. The authors also report: “Concentrations of FPX induced oxidative stress in fish by altering activities of antioxidant enzymes and their transcripts. The genotoxic effect of FPX was evidenced by a significant increase in micronuclei (MNs) and ENA [erythrocytic nuclear abnormalities] frequencies.” 

The researchers attribute these results to FPX causing changes to hematopoiesis (the process of producing blood cells) in the fish. They report that the “oxidative stress caused vigorous damage in the mitochondrial DNA of hepatocytes resulting in the rupture of blood sinusoids and pushing of blood in the liver which resulted in the hepatopathological [liver tissue] changes.” These findings, while very complex, highlight the intricacies of health effects from pesticide exposure that are often overlooked or dismissed during pesticide regulation processes. (See more on regulatory deficiencies of EPA here.)

Additional results of the study suggest FPX toxicity may alter cell wall elasticity and gene expression, cause the enlargement of the gallbladder, encourage degeneration of the pancreatic area, alter blood vessels, cause hemorrhaging, and lead to necrosis (death of body tissue). While this is a novel study for FPX, previous research supports herbicides inducing oxidative stress in Nile tilapia and causing alterations in antioxidant activity and mRNA expression. (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.)

Of note is another study from 2024 in mice, published in the Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology, which found similarly that FPX exposure “exhibited apoptosis [cell death], oxidative stress, immunosuppression, and inflammatory response in a dose-dependent manner, leading to spleen tissue damage and immunotoxicity.”

As Beyond Pesticides previously reported, pesticide contamination inflicts devastating effects on the food web and overall biodiversity. The health of aquatic ecosystems is at risk with indirect effects on nontarget species from pesticides in the environment. This includes impacts on species of fish, invertebrates, microbial communities, and marine mammals. There is an overwhelming body of science that shows the negative implications associated with pesticide exposure on the environment, including in soil, water, and air, as well as detrimental effects on human health.

Alternatives, such as organic agriculture, offer a path forward that eliminates these threats and also mitigates the current climate change crisis. Beyond Pesticides’ mission is to lead the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides. To join in this holistic solution, you can start by buying organic products and making The Safer Choice to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides. Stay informed with the Daily News Blog and take action to create meaningful change with Action of the Week.

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

Source:

Nabet, N. et al. (2025) The induced hepatotoxicity and genotoxicity in Oreochromis niloticus exposed to a newly released florpyrauxifen-benzyl herbicide, Ecotoxicology. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10646-025-02864-1.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2025) State legislation to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their “failure to warn” about the hazards of their pesticide products is moving forward in seven state legislatures (Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Oklahoma) across the United States. After three bills failed to pass (Mississippi, Wyoming, and Montana) and one bill is awaiting signature into law by the Governor’s Office (Georgia), Beyond Pesticides, working with a broad coalition, is pushing back. (See Beyond Pesticides’ Failure to Warn resource hub, background materials, and opportunities for action.) If adopted, the “immunity from litigation” legislation would set a dangerous precedent for state common law claims against any manufacturers of products with toxic ingredients. Currently, pesticide labels under federal and state law generally do not warn of potential chronic effects, such as cancer, reproductive effects, infertility, birth defects, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, cardiovascular damage, and more (see Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database), but warn of acute effects, such as rashes, headaches, stinging eyes, and more.

After years of large jury awards, preemptive settlements, and lost appeals in cases involving exposure to the weedkiller glyphosate, Bayer/Monsanto is trying to stop the company’s financial hemorrhaging with a state-by-state strategy to deny victims access to the courts. To accomplish this, Bayer has founded, along with agribusiness groups including state Farm Bureaus, a coalition to stop “failure-to-warn” lawsuits with state legislation. Bayer’s coalition, Modern Ag Alliance, says it is fighting what they describe as “scientifically unsound lawsuits” on the weedkiller glyphosate. The alliance says, “If we don’t act, the future of glyphosate and other valuable crop protection tools and critical innovations may be at stake.” As has been reported widely, Bayer/Monsanto has lost numerous multimillion-dollar lawsuits because of its “failure to warn” of its product’s hazard by those who have been harmed. The company’s defeats include a U.S. Supreme Court denial (denial of certiorari) to hear their appeal. With this, Bayer has taken its campaign to the states to strip away peoples’ (including farmers) ability to hold corporations accountable through a common law duty to warn claims associated with pesticide products.

Despite decades of lobbying by the agrichemical industry to ensure an extremely weak and unprotective federal pesticide registration law, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the industry argues that federal law should preempt people’s right to sue and communities’ right to restrict pesticides more stringently than the paltry federal and state laws that the industry has a hand in writing. So far, the U.S. Supreme Court in Bates et al. v Dow Agrosciences (544 U.S. 431, 2005) has found that citizens damaged by pesticides have the right to sue producers of toxic products, saying that federal pesticide law does not offer adequate protection from “manufacturers of poisonous substances.” Importantly, “failure-to-warn” claims serve as the de-facto legal backstop to hold pesticide companies accountable, given the limitations of the federal and state regulatory systems. Litigation is not only for holding chemical manufacturers accountable, but also incentivizes more responsible corporate behavior across the board, resulting in safer products.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also upheld the right of communities to restrict pesticides more stringently than the federal government in Wisconsin Public Intervenor  v. Mortier (501 U.S. 597, 1991), but that victory for local democratic process to protect residents’ and ecosystems’ health has been thwarted by laws in at least 44 states that preempt the authority of their local municipalities. The question now is whether the chemical industry playbook will yield a similar result and preempt people’s right to sue in cases of “failure-to-warn.”

In the U.S. Congress, pesticide immunity language has been included in previous Farm Bill language and in the Fiscal Year 2025 Appropriations bill (See Daily News here), as well as in an ongoing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking, advanced by 11 Republican Attorneys General. (Although the public hearing comment period ended on March 24, see Action of the Week here for more background.) So, the industry campaign is aggressively playing out at the state and federal level.

Public opinion does not support the chemical industry

Accountable Iowa conducted a survey of 875 Iowa voters in the 2024 election cycle on their views on the pesticide immunity bill, and the results do not support the industry’s position.

Across all surveyed voters, regardless of political affiliation or demographic makeup, the public overwhelmingly distrusts chemical corporations and opposes giving them legal shields from lawsuits. This opposition is built upon shared concerns about the corrupt entanglements and history of EPA and Bayer/Monsanto. There is also the shared preference to hold chemical companies accountable for causing serious health issues.

Breaking it down by the numbers, 87% of registered Republican respondents oppose giving chemical companies like Bayer-Monsanto immunity from lawsuits. 94% of surveyed Republican voters agreed that it is very concerning that the EPA relies on industry-funded data to carry out safety studies.

Where the Bills Stand

Idaho

The legislature of this state was the first to see the introduction of a pesticide immunity bill in 2024, which some local advocates attribute to the pesticide industry’s political power in Idaho, given that it is home to one of the few domestic phosphate production facilities in the United States. (See Daily News from last year here.)

At the beginning of the session, the Idaho Conservation League released a press release with relevant information and polling data on how Idahoans feel about corporate immunity from litigation:

“An independent survey of 2,678 registered voters was conducted in September 2024 by Embold Research, including 878 from Idaho, finding:

• 90% of Idahoans oppose chemical company immunity;
• 88% of Idahoans are concerned that the Environmental Protection Agency does not conduct its own safety studies to evaluate new pesticides;
• 96% support warning people when lawsuits show products can cause serious health problems;
• 85% of Idahoans are concerned that foreign corporations are trying to limit their access to the courts when chemicals threaten their health.”

In this year’s session, the scope of the bill has been expanded to preempt “failure-to-warn” claims on any agricultural products that produce “feed and fiber.” The bill, HB 303, is also similar to bills from other states in setting up an exception process where “failure-to-warn” claims can still be advanced “by a showing that:

1. The clear weight of scientific evidence does not support the scientific basis on which the required warning is based; and,
2. The manufacturer or seller knows or should have known at the time the product was sold that the required warning was not supported by the clear weight of scientific evidence.”

Advocates find this inclusion strange given the significant amount of publicly available knowledge surrounding EPA’s inability to adequately assess pesticide risks for humans, pollinators, and ecosystems, issues of industry interference in the regulatory process, allegations of industry ghostwriting scientific papers to rationalize rubberstamping pesticide registration reviews, and ongoing unresolved issues on pesticide-related regulations (see Daily News here) and scientific integrity. If passed, this would inevitably put the onerous on pesticide exposure victims—disproportionately farmers, farmworkers, and working class and majority communities of color—to prove that their legal claims have merit.

To tell your state Representatives to VOTE NO on HB 303, you can take action here.

Iowa

The Iowa legislature failed to pass this legislation last year, having passed in the Senate, but failing in the House after several attempts.

At the beginning of this year’s legislative session, over 150 Iowans mobilized a “cancer vigil” in the Iowa Capitol in protest of the bill (Senate File 394). According to reporting by Des Moines Register, “Demonstrators held a vigil in the Iowa Capitol’s rotunda Monday to honor the lives lost to cancer each year in Iowa and demanded lawmakers kill the bill.”

Local advocates point to the 2024 Iowa Cancer Registry in their opposition to this bill, referencing the fact that Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in the nation.

The language remains nearly identical to last year’s attempt—a label provides sufficient warning (meaning “failure-to-warn” does not apply) if that label was approved by EPA, the label is consistent with FIFRA human health assessment, and the label is consistent with EPA carcinogenicity classification.

You can take action here and tell your state Senators to VOTE NO on SF 394.

Missouri

The battle in Missouri over pesticide immunity bills (HB 544/SB 14) hits home given that Bayer’s U.S. headquarters is in the state, with the multinational corporation employing several thousand Missourians.

There has been steadfast opposition to pesticide immunity from a broad coalition of public health, environmental, and rural community advocacy groups, as well as from far-right Senators in the Missouri Freedom Caucus. The Missouri Independent reported in February that “direct mail pieces sent out in at least nine state Senate districts accuse lawmakers of failing to protect the state’s food supply from ‘Chinese Communist Party chemicals[.]’”

This effort, it has been alleged by the nine targeted Senators, is a “propaganda” campaign that “Bayer is paying for the flyers but have no solid evidence.” A follow-up article by the same outlet on March 13 reported “Bayer within a week will lift the veil of secrecy on some documents detailing its campaign to influence public opinion regarding the safety of its herbicide Roundup, attorneys said Wednesday [, March 12].” Matt Clement, a lawyer representing a Wisconsin-based man claiming Roundup gave him non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, argued that 46 Bayer records “should be unsealed as an emergency measure to show how the German chemical giant is trying to influence lawmakers and potential jurors.”

Advocates view these moves as representative of a strategy employed by pesticide companies that is reliant on muscle and money, rather than facts and fairness, to avoid further lawsuits.

HB 544 passed the House on February 20 [85-72], however you can take action here and tell your state Senators to VOTE NO on SB 14.

North Dakota

The legislation moved through the state very quickly, with the House unanimously voting in favor of HB 1318 early in the session. After several public hearings, farmers, environmental advocates, and legal professionals expressed their concerns with allowing federal agencies to have the final say in matters of public health and environmental stewardship.

“The EPA is at the same time perfectly suited to regulate this but overbearing and killing business at the same time and must be cut,” says Sam Wagner, food and agriculture organizer at Dakota Resource Council, in written testimony on this bill in a public hearing before the Senate Agriculture and Veteran Affairs Committee on March 14. “Every time we talk about regulation we get into a game of hot potato, the federal government tells us the state and local governments should handle this, and the state and local government tells us that the federal government should handle this and in the meantime the people suffer from this.”

This bill is problematic because it inevitably would take away the primary legal argument used to hold pesticide companies accountable in the face of regulatory failure to adequately assess full pesticide formulations and conduct human health risk assessments. In the case of loosening regulations on a potent fumigant pesticide 1,3-Dichloropropane (Telone), a 2022 EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report found multiple failures in how it conducted the full human health assessment, including EPA staff’s failure to conduct an open scientific literature review on the chemical at the start of the investigation, applying a novel approach to evaluate 1,3-D’s carcinogenicity that the agency itself went on to question its validity, and the open knowledge that “not all members possessed the appropriate scientific expertise for using and implementing the…approach for evaluating the evidence of the carcinogenic potential of 1,3-D,” according to OIG interviews. (See Daily News here.) As of June 2024, EPA OIG reported that the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention has still failed to “[c]onduct an external peer review on the 1,3-Dichloroproene cancer-risk assessment.” (See Daily News here.)

You can take action here by telling your state Senators to VOTE NO on HB 1318.

Florida

There was a version of the pesticide immunity bill in Florida last year, however it failed to move forward. This year, however, there are active bills in both chambers (HB 129/SB 992).

This year, there is an additional liability shield for any “agricultural employer” who may face “failure-to-warn” claims in court moving forward. Like some of the other states, the Florida legislation offers carveouts for when “failure-to-warn” could apply:

• If the product was altered, if the label was not followed, among other clauses; and
• Builds in a carveout for “foreign” manufacturers, most notably Syngenta/ChemChina.

These bills are problematic for Florida because they not only apply similar repercussions as the North Dakota legislation, but also attempt to pit farmers against farmworkers by shielding “agricultural employers” from liability. Farmworkers, farmers, and anyone living near areas sprayed with pesticides or holding mixtures of pesticide residues will have this legal argument taken away from them if this legislation is signed into law by Governor Ron Desantis (R). The Florida bills would also set a dangerous precedent by establishing contradictory policies for domestic versus foreign pesticide manufacturers, when in reality the four top pesticide companies – Syngenta (China), Bayer (Germany), Corteva (U.S.), and BASF (Germany) – “controlled around 70 percent of the global pesticide market in 2018,” based on reporting in the 2022 Pesticide Atlas. In other words, advocates across the state and the country are frustrated that the majority of pesticide companies are already foreign-owned, and yet their pesticides are registered for use in the United States without regulatory repercussions. This law would only worsen the problem.

You can take action here and tell your state Senators and Representatives to VOTE NO on HB 129 and SB 992.

Georgia

The bills moved through the Senate and the House, passing both chambers.

SB 144, if signed into law by Governor Brian Kemp (R), gives foreign chemical corporations like Syngenta/ChemChina legal immunity from future lawsuits—even if they fraudulently hide the risks and violate federal misbranding rules. Just like the other bills, SB 144 strips farmers and families of their right to hold pesticide companies accountable when the label is a lie.

This legislation if passed would set a dangerous precedent for all state legislatures to contend with the ability to immunize certain industries from legal accountability in the face of federal and state inaction on regulatory matters vital to the public interest. There is also the problematic and revisionist nature of lines 40-44 in the bill to attempt providing an exception for when “failure-to-warn” claims can still apply,

“provided, however, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply when a determination has been made by the Environmental Protection Agency that a manufacturer knowingly withheld, concealed, misrepresented, or destroyed material information regarding the human health risks of such pesticide in order to obtain or maintain approval of its label by the Environmental Protection Agency.”

This legislative language is dangerous because it ignores the institutionalized pattern of corruption in various EPA offices that go back to the creation of the agency in the 1970s. During the 1970’s and 1980’s, there was the Industrial Biotest and Craven Laboratories scandals that brought to public attention fraudulent laboratory animal test data that supported the registration and tolerances (acceptable residues), respectively, of pesticides. Then corruption was called out in 1984 when Congress held hearings on another corruption blow-up dubbed the “cut-and-paste” scandal, where EPA staff were found to use verbatim chemical company toxicology review analyses, pasting them on to EPA letterhead as if they were independently reviewed by Office of Pesticide Programs staff. (See Daily News here.)

Fast forward to 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voided EPA’s “interim registration review” decision approving continued use of glyphosate, issued in 2020 saying, “EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate cause[s] cancer and shirked its duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).” On this matter, the Supreme Court refused to consider a Bayer petition to throw out cases against cancer victims alleging harms from their glyphosate-based herbicide products. (See Daily News for more context here and here.)

There is a clear pattern of corruption that demonstrates the importance of protecting “failure-to-warn” claims. You can take action here and tell Governor Kemp to VETO SB 144.

Debunking Myths

Proponents of this legislation rely on several buckets of arguments to legitimize this effort, including putting trust in the regulators and the risk assessment process.

Myth One: These bills do not prevent anyone from suing pesticide manufacturers.

These bills undermine the foundational legal argument used in thousands of previous and pending cases filed by those who have been harmed by pesticide use and exposure.

Myth Two: EPA’s registration process for pesticides is robust, involves rigorous testing, and ultimately leads to safe products

Substantial scientific literature, inspector general reports, and litigation going up to U.S. Supreme Court point to limitations of pesticide registration, including safety claims.

Myth Three: The weedkiller glyphosate in Roundup will be taken off the market if state legislation is not passed. We need a fair legal climate!

“Failure-to-warn” claims have been a basic right in state courts going back to 1947. Users of pesticides are better protected by fair warning of product hazards in the marketplace.

Myth Four: Farmers will be reliant on unsafe products developed in foreign countries if legislation is not adopted.

The current ability to sue for a manufacturer’s failure to warn protects farmers, gardeners, and users of chemical products because it incentivizes truthful labeling of products, which enables informed consumer choices with full information.

See the Myths & Facts sheet for more information and context.

Call to Action

Through grassroots efforts, coalitions and communities across the nation have to-date successfully beat back this legislation in Mississippi, Wyoming, and Montana this year after defending the public’s right to sue in Missouri, Idaho, and Iowa in the 2024 legislative session. Your voice is pivotal at this time!

See the “failure-to-warn” resource hub, which is updated by Beyond Pesticides in real time to account for legislative movement, public hearing timelines, and other background information so that your communities and organizations can speak out against these bills and protect the right to sue.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2025) An editorial in Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy finds that triazole fungicides pose a significant risk of cardiotoxicity with “growing concerns regarding their safety for human health, especially in long-term exposure,” the authors share. After analyzing the known mechanisms of cardiotoxicity of triazole pesticides in mammals, they conclude that “the most effective approach to mitigating triazole-induced cardiotoxicity lies in prevention.” 

Triazoles, a class of fungicides, target fungi by inhibiting the biosynthesis of ergosterol, an essential component of their cell membranes. As the researchers share, “Compounds such as tebuconazole, propiconazole, and difenoconazole are among the most used triazoles in agriculture.” Triazoles are utilized as antifungal medications, despite the rise of resistant infections, in addition to their use as systemic pesticides on many fruit and vegetable crops, including grapes, wheat, corn, and soybeans.  

As Beyond Pesticides’ previous coverage indicates, many triazole fungicides in the U.S. are registered for use despite evidence of endocrine disruption established over a decade ago in a U.S. Geological Survey report. These pesticides exhibit common mechanisms of toxicity often disregarded in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk assessments, with a multitude of studies showcasing the myriads of health threats that the agency does not consider in its chemical registration processes. (See more on EPA failures and regulatory deficiencies here.)   

Within the editorial, the authors examine the scientific literature linking triazole exposure to cardiotoxicity, including heart damage and cardiovascular system impacts, tying together the mechanisms of toxicity between chemicals within this class of pesticides. They report: 

• The toxicity of triazoles, while classically defined due to their ability to impact ergosterol biosynthesis, “arises from the ability of the fungicide to bind to distinct proteins of off-target organisms, including humans.” 

• “Triazole pesticides can induce cardiotoxicity through various mechanisms: oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, inflammation, and electrophysiological alterations in the heart.” (See studies here, here, here, here, and here.) 

• “[I]n vivo exposure of rats to tebuconazole induces cardiac toxicity through oxidative stress.” (See studies here and here.)  

• Exposure to triazoles, confirmed with urine analyses in humans, is associated with oxidative stress. 

• A study, using the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from 2004 to 2022, finds 53,864 adverse effects attributed to triazole antifungal agents, 6,174 of which were cardiac adverse effects. 

• “Exposure to triazoles can compromise mitochondrial function. In vivo studies in rats have demonstrated that tebuconazole modulates the mitochondrial pathway of apoptosis [cell death].” (See studies here, here, and here.) 

• “[I]n vitro and in vivo exposure to triazoles can trigger inflammatory responses in cardiac tissue, resulting in the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Chronic inflammation can cause adverse cardiac remodeling, fibrosis, and heart failure.” (See studies here and here.) 

• In triazoles changing mitochondrial function, it can result in “decreased ATP production, release of pro-apoptotic factors, increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, and intracellular calcium dysregulation.” These impacts, especially involving ROS production in cardiac cells, can lead “to oxidative stress, which can damage proteins, lipids, and DNA, resulting in cellular dysfunction and programmed cell death (apoptosis), as observed in rats orally in vivo treated with triazole (tebuconazole).” (See studies here, here, here, and here.) 

• Triazoles “can directly interfere with ion channels in mammal cardiac cells, altering the action potential and electrical conduction in the heart, leading to arrhythmias, which are potentially fatal disturbances in heart rhythm, as shown in studies conducted in vitro and ex vivo.” (See studies here, here, and here.) 

• Tebuconazole exposure in rats results in increased heart weight, which indicates cardiac hypertrophy that makes it harder for the heart to pump blood. 

Aside from cardiotoxicity, scientific literature links triazole pesticides to numerous health threats. Previous coverage of a study in Environmental Pollution highlights four triazoles pesticides, detected in blood, that can cross the blood-brain barrier and infiltrate cerebrospinal fluid due to their ability to affect a steroid synthesis pathway. Research finds ipconazole, in a recent Toxics study, to cause spermiotoxicity through significantly reduced sperm viability, as well as alterations in enzyme and gene expression related to fertility. (See Beyond Pesticides’ coverage here.) 

The solution to adverse health impacts from pesticide exposure, as the Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy article authors state, is prevention. By transitioning away from the use of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in land management, the threats to health and the environment are mitigated. Adopting organic practices, and relying on an organic diet, provides numerous health benefits and has a significantly lower environmental impact than conventional food production, as Beyond Pesticides has reported. 

Research finds that organic diets can also promote heart health. A study in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology states that organic food consumption lowers the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. These findings reinforce scientific understanding that negative effects on the heart from pesticide exposure are preventable and eliminating toxic chemicals within food can play an important role in reducing a major public health threat. 

Organic agriculture lowers cardiovascular disease risks, as well as brain and nervous system disorders, cancer, endocrine disruption, and many more. Be part of the organic solution by buying organic products, growing your own organic food, and advocating for the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies. 

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

Source: 

Souza, D. and Roman-Campos, D. (2025) Cardiotoxicity and triazole pesticides: therapeutic options for a neglected heart disease, Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14779072.2025.2476124. 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 24, 2025) In establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission in February, the President tapped Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to chair the interagency panel. The stated goal, as described in the founding proclamation, is “drastically lowering chronic disease rates and ending childhood chronic disease.” The commission document states, “Overall, the global comparison data demonstrates that the health of Americans is on an alarming trajectory that requires immediate action.”

In this context, on March 10, Secretary Kennedy directed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Acting Commissioner Sara Brenner, MD to take steps to explore potential rulemaking to revise its Substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Final Rule and related guidance to eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS pathway—allowing the food and chemical industry to assign GRAS status to food ingredients without oversight. This “pathway” to allowing food additives has long been recognized as a loophole that allows unidentified and potentially harmful additives in food, including by the 2010 U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) report, Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safety. 

Beyond Pesticides launched an effort this week to tell FDA to eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS loophole and tell Congress to pass the Toxic Free Food Act of 2024. 

In 2016, FDA finalized a rule allowing food companies to add new ingredients to the food supply with almost no federal oversight. Thousands of substances have been added under the rule, which has been in effect since it was first proposed in 1997. The rule, which was meant to provide guidance for companies seeking to classify new food ingredients as GRAS, has been widely criticized because it puts consumers at risk by allowing the food industry to bypass crucial safety checks for new ingredients.  

The GRAS designation is rooted in 1958 amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which were meant to require companies to demonstrate the safety of prospective ingredients but created an exemption for common ingredients like vinegar and baking soda that were already widely used and known to be safe. Although the provision was intended to exempt only the most time-tested substances from rigorous pre-market approval requirements, FDA introduced a new rule in 1997 allowing companies to decide for themselves what ingredients qualify as GRAS and whether to report the designations to FDA. 

For example, according to a Consumer Reports article, “GRAS: The hidden Substances in Your Food,” “… the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) has classified several possible carcinogens as GRAS, and when pressed has failed to produce peer-reviewed safety data on those chemicals.” However, the unknown ingredients, which have never been reported at all, pose the greatest concern. With the number of food additives reaching several thousand, found in virtually every processed food, there is no way to guarantee that food is free from toxic chemicals or allergens. They can be found in virtually any processed food—from breakfast cereals and energy drinks to frozen dinners and all manner of snacks. 

An independent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that from 2003-2013, almost all new chemicals added were deemed by manufacturers to be GRAS. As a result of the adoption of the GRAS process, the Center for Food Safety estimates that 3,000 chemicals that have never been scrutinized by the FDA are in use today.  

In September 2024, U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) re-introduced the Toxic Free Foods Act, to overhaul FDA’s process for determining the safety of chemicals used in the food supply. The Toxic Free Food Act would require FDA to close the GRAS loophole and make the industry’s chemical food additives subject to FDA approval. The legislation failed to pass in the last (118th) Congress but should be reintroduced and passed in order to provide a more permanent solution to the problem.

>> Tell FDA to eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS loophole. Tell Congress to pass the Toxic Free Food Act of 2024. 

For more information, please see the Daily News from March 17, 2025—Can FDA Step In When EPA Fails to Ensure Safety from Pesticide Mixtures in Food?

Letter to the U.S. Congress
On March 10, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. directed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take steps to explore potential rulemaking to revise its Substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Final Rule and related guidance to eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS pathway. This “pathway” to allowing food additives has long been recognized as a loophole that allows unidentified and potentially harmful additives in food, including by the 2010 U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) report, Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safety.

In 2016, FDA finalized a rule allowing food companies to add new ingredients to the food supply with almost no federal oversight. Thousands of substances have been added under the rule, which has been in effect since it was first proposed in 1997. The rule, which was meant to provide guidance for companies seeking to classify new food ingredients as GRAS, has been widely criticized because it puts consumers at risk by allowing the food industry to bypass crucial safety checks for new ingredients. 

The GRAS designation is rooted in 1958 amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which were meant to require companies to demonstrate the safety of prospective ingredients but created an exemption for common ingredients like vinegar and baking soda that were already widely used and known to be safe. Although the provision was intended to exempt only the most time-tested substances from rigorous pre-market approval requirements, FDA introduced a new rule in 1997 allowing companies to decide for themselves what ingredients qualify as GRAS and whether to report the designations to FDA.

For example, according to a Consumer Reports article, “GRAS: The hidden Substances in Your Food,”  “the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) has classified several possible carcinogens as GRAS, and when pressed has failed to produce peer-reviewed safety data on those chemicals.” However, the unknown ingredients, which have never been reported at all, pose the greatest concern. With the number of food additives reaching several thousand, found in virtually every processed food, there is no way to guarantee that food is free from toxic chemicals or allergens. They can be found in virtually any processed food—from breakfast cereals and energy drinks to frozen dinners and all manner of snacks.

An independent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that from 2003-2013, almost all new chemicals added were deemed by manufacturers to be GRAS. As a result of the adoption of the GRAS process, the Center for Food Safety estimates that 3,000 chemicals that have never been scrutinized by the FDA are in use today. 

Please eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS loophole.

Thank you.

Letter to the Food and Drug Administration
On March 10, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. directed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take steps to explore potential rulemaking to revise its Substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Final Rule and related guidance to eliminate the self-affirmed GRAS pathway. This “pathway” to allowing food additives has long been recognized as a loophole that allows unidentified and potentially harmful additives in food, including by the 2010 U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) report, Food Safety: FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safety.

In 2016, FDA finalized a rule allowing food companies to add new ingredients to the food supply with almost no federal oversight. Thousands of substances have been added under the rule, which has been in effect since it was first proposed in 1997. The rule, which was meant to provide guidance for companies seeking to classify new food ingredients as GRAS, has been widely criticized because it puts consumers at risk by allowing the food industry to bypass crucial safety checks for new ingredients. 

The GRAS designation is rooted in 1958 amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which were meant to require companies to demonstrate the safety of prospective ingredients but created an exemption for common ingredients like vinegar and baking soda that were already widely used and known to be safe. Although the provision was intended to exempt only the most time-tested substances from rigorous pre-market approval requirements, FDA introduced a new rule in 1997 allowing companies to decide for themselves what ingredients qualify as GRAS and whether to report the designations to FDA.

For example, according to a Consumer Reports article, “GRAS: The hidden Substances in Your Food,” the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) has classified several possible carcinogens as GRAS, and when pressed has failed to produce peer-reviewed safety data on those chemicals. However, the unknown ingredients, which have never been reported at all, pose the greatest concern. With the number of food additives reaching several thousand, found in virtually every processed food, there is no way to guarantee that food is free from toxic chemicals or allergens. They can be found in virtually any processed food—from breakfast cereals and energy drinks to frozen dinners and all manner of snacks.

An independent study by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that from 2003-2013, almost all new chemicals added were deemed by manufacturers to be GRAS. As a result of the adoption of the GRAS process, the Center for Food Safety estimates that 3,000 chemicals that have never been scrutinized by the FDA are in  use today. 

In September 2024 Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) re-introduced the Toxic Free Foods Act, to overhaul the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) process for determining the safety of chemicals used in the food supply. The Toxic Free Food Act would require FDA to close the GRAS loophole and make the industry’s chemical food additives subject to FDA approval. The legislation failed to pass in the 118th Congress but should be re-introduced and passed in order to provide a more permanent solution to the problem.

Please cosponsor a reintroduced Toxic Free Foods Act.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2025) Sin maíz, no hay país – “Without corn, there is no country” (Mexican saying)

In the face of U.S. efforts to require Mexico, under a trade agreement, to import genetically engineered corn, last week the Mexican legislature approved a constitutional amendment identifying native corn as “an element of national identity” and banning the planting of GE seeds. This brings to a head a clash over issues of food sovereignty and security, genetic integrity, health protection, and environmental safety.

In 2020, the Mexican government committed to phasing out the importation of genetically engineered (GE) corn by 2024. Mexico had also planned to ban by April 1, 2025, the weed killer glyphosate, integral to GE corn production—but recently delayed its decision. These actions by Mexico triggered vigorous pushback by the U.S., resulting in the formation of a panel under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) to decide which country was in the right. The USMCA, negotiated in 2018 during President Trump’s first term, replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Under USMCA, parties can adopt measures to protect human animal or plant life or health. However, in December 2024, the USMCA panel ruled in favor of the U.S., rejecting Mexico’s comprehensive scientific analysis in support of its position that GE corn presents unacceptable risks to Mexico’s 9,000 years of indigenous stewardship of carefully bred and wild varieties of corn. The constitutional amendment adopted last week does not ban all GE corn products, only seeds, and therefore complies with the panel’s decision. Mexico is allowing the continued importation of $5 billion of U.S. GE corn, most of which is used for livestock.  

The move by the Mexican government is likely to spur yet more conflict with the U.S. on issues of science, international relations, and environmental health.

The scientific documents submitted by both sides present a snapshot of the intractable (to date) divide between the pesticide industry and the community of organic, regenerative, indigenous, and scientific advocates for rationalization of the regulatory process. The Mexican Scientific Dossier on Genetically Modified Corn and its Effects (dossier) notes that “there is no scientific consensus on the safety of human or animal consumption of GE crops” or their release into the environment. Yet, the dossier says, there is plenty of evidence that “transgenesis is an imprecise technology with unexpected and undesired effects.”

This is exactly what industry proponents deny. They create the impression that genetic engineering is as precise and efficient as the creation of a Swiss watch. It is not. “[T]hese techniques are imprecise and inefficient, giving rise to undesired gene and epigenetic expressions,” according to the dossier. The insertion of foreign genes into a host genome is a haphazard process, with little precision as to exactly where in the genome the package will end up. Despite the impression conveyed by biotechnologists that corn is a simple form of grass, corn is a complex organism, with approximately twice the number of genes that humans have. There are hundreds of varieties. Changing its genome is a process “embedded in a myriad of conditions mediated by cellular and extracellular metabolism and the environment,” according to the dossier. GE is a form of horizontal gene transfer, naturally common in bacteria and viruses, which can make genes that are stable in the donor unstable and unpredictable in the recipient. In addition, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes, the toxin-producing bacterial source most commonly used in plants incorporated with the insecticide (so-called “plant incorporated protectants”), have been shown to harm not just the target pests, but all kinds of insects and arachnids.

Genes also migrate across distances—especially in wind-pollinated plants like corn. It is incorrect to assume that genetic drift of GE organisms into other varieties never occurs. According to a report from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN) detailed here by Beyond Pesticides, “[S]ignificant levels of transgenic DNA in native corn varieties were found in the remote mountains of Oaxaca in 2001, with further contamination found in nine states in 2003.” This highlights the danger that not only does commercial planting of GE corn replace cultivation of other varieties, but the GE genes may also be directly altering wild and Indigenous varieties, impoverishing the gene pool curated by Indigenous peoples. This loss is not just an inconvenience, and the Mexican government is right to protect the country’s cultural heritage as well as its agricultural economy.

Genetic engineering is complex. The desired gene, such as Bt, must be embedded between two other genetic sequences, one to start and one to stop the transcription. According to the dossier, these “cassettes” are often made up of genetic material from three different species. A common practice is to take the promoter component from the cauliflower mosaic virus and the terminator from Agrobacterium tumorifaciens, the pathogen of crown gall disease in plants. Sometimes these helper components remain in the host genome as well as the target gene(s), with unpredictable results. Because single-gene herbicide-resistance mechanisms rapidly lose effectiveness, GE packages are often “stacked” with up to seven functional genes, each with its own promoter and terminator companions.

One of the red herrings pesticide advocates frequently push is the idea that GE crops increase yields and reduce pesticide use. As the Mexican dossier details, these assertions are flat-out lies. Corn production has in fact risen between 1980 and 2020, but only because the amount of land under cultivation has increased. If actual yield had risen, increasing cultivated land would not be necessary. In fact, according to a study by Jack Heinemann, PhD, of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand and colleagues, yields of maize, rapeseed, and wheat have been higher in Europe, where GE crops were very rare during the study period (1961-2009). Furthermore, the dossier states that industry claims of higher yields are based on greenhouse or small-scale field trials “and are not possible under real agrosystem conditions.”

As to reduction in pesticide use, Beyond Pesticides’ May 2013 analysis shows that after an initial decline when Bt-toxin-carrying corn was introduced in 2003, resistance to GE crops developed in pests like the western corn rootworm (monoculture creates ideal habitat for pests), and there was a subsequent surge in pesticide sales, along with revenue increases and stock price jumps. The CBAN report cites data showing that herbicide sales in Canada increased by 244% between 1994 and 2021.

The Mexican dossier also frequently emphasizes that its scientific sources are free of conflicts of interest, unlike the arguments proffered by the U.S. This refers to the dependence of U.S. regulatory and political systems on studies performed by the product manufacturers or their contracted companies. These studies are not part of the public record. With respect to GE corn, Friends of the Earth submitted comments to the USMCA panel. They pointed out the absurdity of expecting Mexico to “trust the completeness and accuracy of the initial GE corn safety assessments carried out 15 to 30 years ago by the companies working to bring GE corn events to market.”

This skewing of evidence is a severe and deeply embedded problem that ignores independent and academic research into the cellular, metabolic, and whole-organism effects of pesticides in the real-world environment. According to an investigation by Carey Gillam and Johnathan Hettinger in The New Lede, international trade agreements are now a strong focus of the pesticide industry’s attempts to ensure the dominance of their products and friendly policies. The New Lede reports on emails exchanged between Corteva AgriScience (a merger of Dow and DuPont) and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) handling the Mexico dispute. Other emails show that CropLife America began to implant the concept of using the USMCA to achieve its goals through EPA assistant administrator Alexandra Dunn, who forwarded to USTR colleagues a CropLife letter proposing the idea. Ms. Dunn is now president of CropLife America.

Considering the shambolic state of U.S. politics and international relations at the moment, and the likelihood of further attacks from U.S. industry, Mexico will have to stand very firm in its defense of its agricultural and cultural sovereignty to maintain its constitutional integrity.

For information on the alternative to genetically engineered crops, see Beyond Pesticides webpages on organic production standards, which prohibit genetically engineered plants.

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

Sources:

2024 FINAL REPORT – AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES, AND CANADA
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Panel
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Final%20Report%20ENG.pdf

Scientific Dossier on Genetically Modified Corn and Its Effects
Government of Mexico 2024
https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DOSSIER-MAIZ-2024-ENGfinal-5.pdf

Rebuttal Submission from Mexico on Measures Concerning Genetically Engineered Corn
(MEX-USA-2023-31-01) dated May 28, 2024
https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/EscritodReplicadeMexicoENGPublicVersion.pdf

Government Report Pushes Genetically Engineered Crops, Despite Failure and Effective Alternatives
Beyond Pesticides, May 31, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/05/government-report-pushes-genetic-engineered-crops-despite-failure-and-effective-alternatives/

Federal Framework Seeks to Accelerate Adoption of Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops with Exemptions from Regulation
Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/06/federal-framework-seeks-to-accelerate-adoption-of-genetically-engineered-ge-crops-with-exemptions-from-regulation/

New scientific analyses underpin Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn and glyphosate due to health risks
Timothy A. Wise and Stacy Malkan
U.S. Right to Know
January 14, 2025
https://usrtk.org/gmo/new-scientific-analyses-mexicos-restrictions-on-gm-corn-glyphosate-health-risks/

‘We are defending your products:’ Emails reveal coordination between US government, industry in foreign trade disputes
The New Lede March 21, 2024
Johnathan Hettinger and Carey Gillam
https://www.thenewlede.org/2024/03/we-are-defending-your-products-emails-reveal-coordination-between-us-government-industry-in-foreign-trade-disputes/

Insecticide Sales Rise with Failure of GE Corn
Beyond Pesticides, May 24, 2013
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2013/05/insecticide-sales-rise-with-failure-of-ge-corn/

Comments Submitted to the USMCA Genetically Engineered Corn Dispute Resolution Tribunal
Friends of the Earth 2024
https://policycommons.net/artifacts/12036056/comments-submitted-to-the-usmca-genetically-engineered-corn-dispute-resolution-tribunal/12929635/

Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years
Charles Benbrook
The Organic Center 2009
https://organic-center.org/reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf

Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest
Heinemann et al
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2014
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263223620_Sustainability_and_innovation_in_staple_crop_production_in_the_US_Midwest

The U.S.-Mexico Genetically Engineered Corn Dispute
Congressional Research Services
06/05/2024
Author:              Tsui, Benjamin
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48083

Commentary: Novel strategies and new tools to curtail the health effects of pesticides
Charles Benbrook, Melissa J. Perry, Fiorella Belpoggi, Philip J. Landrigan, Michelle Perro, Daniele Mandrioli, Michael N. Antoniou, Paul Winchester & Robin Mesnage
Environmental Health volume 20, Article number: 87 (2021)
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-021-00773-4

(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2025) An article, published by the National Audubon Society, titled “A Sweeping New Report Shows U.S. Birds Declining Sharply Across a Range of Habitats” reviews the latest State of the Birds 2025 report and finds concerning news for bird species across the country. As the article says: “Whether they hop around the prairie, dabble in wetlands, flit through forests, or forage along the shore, birds are suffering rapid population declines across the United States… If these habitats are struggling to support bird species, it’s a sign that they’re not healthy for other wildlife, or even humans—but working to restore them will have benefits across ecosystems.”

The 2025 edition of the State of the Birds report, showcasing a status assessment of the health of the nation’s bird populations, was cultivated by scientists from bird conservation groups through the U.S. Committee of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The report notes, “Despite ample evidence that conservation can work, the status quo approach to conservation is not turning bird populations around.”

As NABCI shares, the report contains “[s]obering evidence that America’s birds continue to decline across the board.” They continue, saying: “Birds are telling us that the habitats people depend on are vanishing. Declines are happening across the board: in grasslands, aridlands, western and eastern forests, in Hawaii’s fragile ecosystems; and with our shorebirds and seabirds. Even waterfowl, which had rebounded strongly thanks to decades of conservation work, are seeing sharp recent declines.”

Not only are bird species important for preserving biodiversity, but many species provide ecosystem services as pollinators. Protecting bird species, and their habitats, allows for other organisms, including humans, to prosper. The National Audubon Society shares their mission in saying, “For 120 years and counting, the National Audubon Society has preserved bird habitats, conducted scientific research, influenced policymakers to enact commonsense conservation laws, and engaged communities across the hemisphere to protect the natural resources upon which birds—and we—depend.”

The assessment reveals that impacts to bird species are not limited to select habitats but does note that some face heightened threats in comparison to others. Within the Audubon article, the author highlights: “The 2025 report shows that birds across most habitats have suffered major losses since 1970. Grassland and aridland species have been dealt the heaviest blow: Both groups lost more than 40 percent of their total populations over that period.”

The article continues, “Overall, around one-third of U.S. birds, or 229 species, are of high or moderate conservation concern, according to the report—dealing with low population levels, declining trends, or other threats that call for conservation action to step up.” The State of the Birds 2025 report, which focuses on long-term population changes for 246 total species of North American birds, highlights just one piece of the larger picture; as bird species face population threats, so do other organisms within terrestrial and aquatic food webs and across all ecosystems.

The report notes particular species of highest concern, labeled as “tipping point” species that have lost more than half their populations in the past 50 years. In total, 112 tipping point species are identified, with shorebirds having the highest number of tipping point species (19) out of all of the identified habitat groups. The report emphasizes the importance of these findings in saying, “Rates of shorebird declines exceed thresholds for listing as vulnerable/endangered under national and international conservation standards.”

The impacts to grassland birds are also perilous, with more than half of bird species that depend on grasslands for breeding habitats in steep decline. The report shares: “In America’s Heartland, more than 320 million acres of grasslands support people’s livelihoods, Indigenous cultures, and ecosystem functions. Yet this crucial biome is in collapse—and grassland birds are rapidly disappearing—due to conversion for row-crop agriculture, woody-plant invasion, and drought.”

Beyond Pesticides has reported on many scientific studies that tie impacts on bird species to the interconnected issues of pesticide exposure, habitat loss, and climate change. From higher insecticide levels in pesticide-laden nests linked to increased offspring mortality to the threats to seed-eating birds from neonicotinoid treated seeds, agricultural intensification harms bird species within the U.S. and throughout the world. (See additional coverage here.)

Previous research in 2019, published in Science, estimated a net loss of nearly 3 billion birds since 1970. The authors “report wide-spread population declines of birds over the past half-century, resulting in the cumulative loss of billions of breeding individuals across a wide range of species and habitats.” The study shows that “declines are not restricted to rare and threatened species—those once considered common and wide-spread are also diminished. These results have major implications for ecosystem integrity, the conservation of wildlife more broadly, and policies associated with the protection of birds and native ecosystems on which they depend.” Despite these staggering results that had advocates calling for action, over five years later bird populations are still declining.

As mentioned in Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of this study, the decline in bird populations reflect overall ecosystem health that is directly impacted by harmful agricultural practices. These issues have been of concern for decades, back to when Rachel Carson warned the world how insidious pesticide use can be. She wrote in Silent Spring: 

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

The latest State of the Birds 2025 report is more than just an assessment of population effects for birds—it indicates environmental decline in critical ecosystems that impact all organisms. Whether directly or as part of ecological ripples throughout the food web, a trophic cascade that affects all life is clearly occurring. A driving factor for these declines, as has been well-documented in scientific literature, is industrial agriculture. In order to protect all organisms, from birds to mammals to insects, eliminating the use of harmful chemicals is essential.

Despite compelling scientific findings, officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have not felt compelled to act. Beyond Pesticides, in comments to EPA in February 2024, cited a dramatic regulatory failure to address the effects of endocrine disrupting pesticides on bird populations and other wildlife. As far back as 1988, a report on the Great Lakes ecosystem found a range of adverse effects to fertility, eggshell thinning, metabolic function, birth defects, and more. These findings and others less than a decade later led to the adoption of amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act which required EPA to regulate endocrine disrupting pesticides. However, the agency has not acted, despite the empirical evidence that is mounting to unsustainable levels. (See more on endocrine disruption and EPA failures here and here.)

While efforts to reduce harm to species are reflected in proposed legislation, they are often weakened throughout the process, such as with the recent Birds and Bees Protection Act, and do not sufficiently mitigate the threats from toxic chemicals. As an alternative, transitioning to organic land management practices, and focusing on soil health, can reverse these threats and subsequent population declines noted in species such as birds. (See previous coverage on organic farming reducing pesticide load in bird species here.)

Join this effort by purchasing organic products, planting diverse pesticide-free vegetation, and advocating for your local community to follow suit. We must take action to prevent the complete loss of species before it is too late. Ensure your voice is heard in promoting the holistic solution of organic land management and help Beyond Pesticides achieve the goal of eliminating petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 2032 by becoming a member today.

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

Sources:

Burakoff, M. (2025) A Sweeping New Report Shows U.S. Birds Declining Sharply Across a Range of Habitats, Audubon. Available at: https://www.audubon.org/magazine/sweeping-new-report-shows-us-birds-declining-sharply-across-range-habitats.

Rosenberg, K. et al. (2019) Decline of the North American avifauna, Science. Available at: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw1313.

State of the Birds Report (2025) North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Available at: https://www.stateofthebirds.org/2025/download-pdf-report/.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2025) In a major win for small-scale food producers and peasant farmers in Kenya, “the Kenya Court of Appeal blocked the Kenyan government from importing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the country[,]” according to a press release by Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)—an alliance of organizations and movements across the continent advocating for agroecology and food sovereignty. 

“We celebrate this ruling as a major victory for small-scale farmers across Kenya,” said David Otieno, a small-scale farmer and member of the Kenyan Peasants League, a social movement consisting of consumers, farmers, pastoralists, and fishers rallying against the multinational corporate takeover of food systems in Kenya. Mr. Otieno continued: “GMOs are not the solution to food insecurity in our country. Instead, they deepen dependency on multinational agribusinesses, threaten biodiversity, and compromise farmers’ ability to control their food systems.”

Genetically engineered seeds are designed to be resistant to commonly used pesticides, including the weedkiller glyphosate, which locks farmers into dependence on multinational corporations rather than their own ability to practice seed saving and enhance their food sovereignty.

This battle for control over the ownership of land and seeds in Kenya resonates with the growing movement of consumers, farmers, land stewards, and public health professionals in the United States facing similar industry-fed arguments about the necessity for pesticide use in agriculture as a matter of food insecurity and national security. Despite industry and government claims of increased productivity and reduced pest control costs, GMO cropping systems have led to a dramatic increase in the use of herbicides and the fast development of weed and insect resistance.

History

“The ruling comes in response to an appeal by the Kenya Peasants League, Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya (BIBA) and 18 other parties, which challenged the government’s October 2022 decision to lift its [10-year GMO] ban,” according to the press release.

The press release continues, “Following this ruling, all government actions related to the introduction and promotion of GMOs in Kenya must cease immediately. The case will proceed to a full hearing, where the Court of Appeal will determine whether the lifting of the GMO ban was lawful and in the best interests of the country.”

“President William Ruto had on October 3, 2024, announced that the government had lifted the ban on GMO foods after a Cabinet meeting to boost the country’s food security following [a] prolonged drought,” according to reporting by The Standard.

Political leaders continue to rely on the food security argument to rationalize deregulation and continuous use of genetically engineered foods, despite mounting evidence from peasant farmers across the globe that this is a false choice. A 2024 report, Food From Somewhere: Building food security and resilience through territorial markets, found that relying on pesticide-free food systems rooted in agroecological and organic principles “in many cases help[s] to provide market outlets for farmers using natural fertilizers and pesticides that work with nature, rather than the fossil-fuel based synthetic inputs associated with corporate value chains.” (See full Daily News here.) An analysis published in the International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews found that Kenyan farmers who included the integration of cover crops and legumes, which is otherwise undermined by introducing genetically modified seeds into ecosystems, into their farming systems found that these organic practices “not only enhances soil fertility through nitrogen fixation but also contributes to improved food security by providing multiple harvests throughout the year.” (See full Daily News here.) On the topic of food security, for decades, scientists have raised alarm about the implications of mass pollinator die-off for food supply chain resilience and economic security. A two-year study commissioned by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) found that roughly $235 to $577 billion in annual value of global crop production is directly impacted by pollinators.

This court decision arrives as some policymakers in Kenya continue to protect their sovereignty from industry interference. In early 2024, the Kenyan parliament introduced a resolution to ban hazardous pesticides including glyphosate-based herbicide products such as Roundup^® Ready sold by Bayer/Monsanto, leading to a fiery debate on the state of agricultural uses moving forward. Hon. Gladys Boss, Deputy Speaker for the National Assembly, speaks to the rationale for introducing the petition:

“The issue of carcinogenic pesticides and Round-Up herbicides is of significant concern to our country. This challenge is known in all levels of Government. The ‘Pesticide Atlas,’ a document developed by 20 scientists from the University of Nairobi, confirms that 267 pesticides banned in Europe and America are still in use in Kenya.”

See the full Daily News, Countries in Global South Lead and Face Challenges in Human Rights, Health, and Environmental Protections, for additional context.

In 2024, the Kenyan government, alongside six other Global South nations, launched the Financing Agrochemical Reduction and Management (FARM) Programme—a $379 million initiative that “will realign financial incentives to prevent the use of harmful inputs in food production.” This international cohort aims to phase out the use of “toxic persistent organic pollutants (POPs)—chemicals which don’t break down in the environment and contaminate air, water, and food.” While it remains to be seen the impact of this initiative as of today’s publication, it departs significantly from the status quo of increasing synthetic and pesticide use. (See Daily News here.)

The impacts of business-as-usual pesticide use have had devastating impacts on human and ecological health in Kenya, as covered previously. As a result of rampant glyphosate and malathion usage, farmers have gone pesticide-free and instead use toothbrushes and sponges as a substitute for pollinators who suffered the consequences. (See Daily News here.) According to a Scientific Reports-published study conducted by Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) and the Kenya-based International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), pesticide run-off from nearby farmland indirectly increased the rate of the tropical disease schistosomiasis, which infected over 280 million people in 2018. (See Daily News here.)

There are examples, however, of ecologically grounded solutions that have yielded very positive results. For instance, Lake Victoria—a body of water shared by Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda—suffered from a water hyacinth infestation in the 1990s. Scientists collaborated and responded in turn by introducing two species of weevils, which are natural predators of the hyacinth: Neochetina bruchi and Neochetina eichhorniae. The initiative was so successful that it resulted in a 90 percent decrease in hyacinth cover; consequently, this nature-based strategy continues to serve as the blueprint for many other African countries facing similar dilemmas. (See previous Daily News here.) 

Call to Action

Advocates across the globe continue to push for a world beyond the use of toxic petrochemical-based pesticides and fertilizers, leaning into the importance of Indigenous food systems based in agroecology and autonomy rather than reliance on multinational corporations.

One of the first steps advocates can take to fight for a pesticide-free future is arming themselves with the facts. Consider reviewing the robust selection of peer-reviewed, independent scientific literature at the Pesticide-Induced Disease Database. This resource provides the public with free and easy access to learn more about the linkages between cumulative and individual pesticide exposure and biodiversity loss, chronic illness, and climate catastrophe. It is a powerful tool when advocating that communities move away from using toxic land management practices in parks and on playing fields and schoolyards, replacing them with organic practices. See Parks for a Sustainable Future.

It was Nelson Mandela who said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Consider applying your knowledge for the greater good by signing up for Action of the Week to apply this new-found knowledge into action!

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

Source: Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA)

(Beyond Pesticides, March 18, 2025) The November 2024 press release by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its Rodenticide Strategy includes the final biological evaluation (BE) of 11 rodenticides. Prior to the finalization of the BE, Beyond Pesticides commented to EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs in early 2024, disagreeing with the categorical no effect (NE) determinations for all freshwater and marine fish, aquatic mammals, aquatic amphibians, aquatic reptiles, and aquatic invertebrates. (See related Daily News and Action of the Week.) The latest scientific literature highlights the impacts of rodenticides on nontarget organisms, including aquatic organisms that the agency failed to evaluate due to harm that was, as EPA says, “not reasonably certain to occur.”

Many rodenticides, intended to target rats, mice, squirrels, nutria, and more, are anticoagulants and stop normal blood clotting. Active ingredients in these pesticides can include bromadiolone, chlorophacinone, difethialone, brodifacoum, and warfarin. Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs), contrary to the agency’s assertions, can be transported to aquatic ecosystems, including both freshwater and marine environments. As mentioned in Beyond Pesticides’ comments, ARs have been detected in raw and treated wastewater, sewage sludge, estuarine sediments, suspended particulate matter, and liver tissues of sampled fish, demonstrating that the aquatic environment experiences a greater risk of anticoagulant rodenticide exposure than EPA claims.

In a Science of The Total Environment study, the authors find evidence of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) in frog species. Brodifacoum was found in four of the six frog species analyzed by the researchers, and they share, “This is the first report of anticoagulant rodenticide detected in wild amphibians, raising concerns about potential impacts on frogs and extending the list of taxa shown to accumulate rodenticides.” SGARs were developed after first-generation anticoagulants created resistance in rodents. These compounds contain properties that “pose greater risks to nontarget species” due to their potency, EPA states.

Prior research, also published in Science of The Total Environment, designates SGARs as “(very) persistent, (very) bioaccumulative, and toxic.” While new research is continuing to emerge regarding rodenticides, the authors highlight the previous lack of focus on aquatic species: “So far, worldwide monitoring of AR residues mainly focused on terrestrial and avian non-target species and their routes of exposure… AR residue screening in aquatic compartments is challenging, and accordingly little is known about direct and indirect exposure routes as well as anticoagulants’ distribution and fate in the aquatic environment.”

The researchers also share: “Further research should investigate the potential risks and hazards of ARs in the aquatic environment in order to pave the way for scientific-based, targeted, and effective regulatory decisions. Until then, the ecological implications for aquatic organisms as well as fish-eating predators remain largely unknown.” This highlights the many data gaps that call in to question EPA’s ability to declare risks to aquatic organisms as “not reasonably certain to occur.”

The risk of pesticide exposure to nontarget organisms, including both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, is often disregarded in regulatory assessments. Wildlife can be adversely affected by pesticides through their direct or indirect application, such as pesticide drift, secondary poisoning, runoff into local water bodies, or groundwater contamination. It is possible that some animals can be sprayed directly, while others consume plants or prey that have been exposed to pesticides.

As documented by Lohr, M. et al., “Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) have been detected in non-target wildlife species worldwide… Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) pose a particular threat to scavengers and top-order carnivores because their long half-lives allow for biomagnification and bioaccumulation beyond their intended rodent targets.” In analyzing liver tissues from carnivorous and scavenging mammals, 50% tested positive for the presence of ARs. Multiple samples showed more than one AR compound as well.

“This study is the first to document widespread and pervasive AR exposure in native Australian marsupial carnivores, including those in remote locations away from towns,” the researchers share. They continue: “The frequency and severity of exposure, sometimes from multiple ARs, suggest potential population-level impacts on these threatened species. These findings provide further evidence that ARs should be listed as a key threatening process under state and federal legislation.”

A similar study, in Environmental Chemistry Letters, reports: “We analyzed residues of eight anticoagulant rodenticides in liver samples of 96 great cormorants, 29 common mergansers, various fish species, and coypu, in different German regions. Results show that hepatic residues of anticoagulant rodenticides were found in almost half of the investigated cormorants and mergansers due to the uptake of contaminated fish from effluent-receiving surface waters.” This highlights the presence of ARs in aquatic organisms that are then transferred through the aquatic food web to predators and adds to the concern about ARs’ propensity for biomagnification and bioaccumulation.

The authors conclude that: “Our biomonitoring study demonstrated that piscivorous avian predators in anthropogenically influenced landscapes are exposed to second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides via their fish prey. Transfer of second-generation active ingredients along the aquatic food chain was thus confirmed. Without doubt, future improvements of regulatory measures concerning biocides will be required to mitigate the yet unknown consequences for aquatic wildlife from the nowadays almost exclusive application of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides during chemical rodent control.”

Also documenting secondary exposure to ARs, a study in The Journal of Wildlife Management shows how anticoagulant rodenticides cause “the death of mammalian predators and scavengers directly and indirectly through sublethal effects that reduce fitness.” In quantifying AR exposure in carcasses of 365 urban and suburban coyotes in southern California, the researchers report, “Nearly all urban coyotes (98.1%) were exposed to at least 1 AR, compared to 41.7% of rural coyotes, and most individuals had residues of both first-generation (FGAR) and the more potent second-generation (SGAR) compounds, often at concentrations exceeding thresholds considered lethal in other mammals.”

The authors also share that the “adults tended to have residues of more compounds and at higher concentrations than juveniles, suggesting repeated and chronic exposure.” They continue, “[S]ome coyotes showed evidence of internal bleeding consistent with AR toxicosis and were in poorer body condition,” raising additional concerns for mechanisms of toxicity. (See more research on ARs and carnivores here and here.)

As Beyond Pesticides notes in a previous Daily News, reliance on toxic rodenticides also poses threats to human health. In 2023, guests at a Pittsburgh, PA extended-stay hotel were evacuated by health officials due to a contamination and poisoning incident caused by an unidentified rodenticide. Officials confirmed that the particular rat poison involved in the incident, when exposed to water, releases the highly toxic phosphine gas. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the gas causes many symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, diarrhea, thirst, muscle pain, difficulty breathing, and the accumulation of fluid in the lungs, with acute and prolonged exposure potentially leading to more severe consequences.

There is a wide body of science highlighting the impacts of pesticides on human health and biodiversity. Many of these effects, however, are not taken into account in risk assessments by EPA and other regulatory agencies. (See more on EPA failures here.) Without fully evaluating the potential for chemicals to impact the health of organisms and the environment, both singularly and in mixtures, advocates are calling for a transformation toward an ecologically sustainable land management system rooted in organic principles.

Safety advocates do not consider the risks of using toxic chemicals in agriculture and land management ”reasonable,” under the legal standard of federal pesticide law, given the availability of a safe and effective alternative. Studies show organic practices lower the environmental impact of agriculture, provide human health benefits, enhance biodiversity, and more.

As Beyond Pesticides reported earlier this year, the current health, biodiversity, and climate crises are the most profound problems humanity has yet encountered and calls for dismantling siloes, integrating knowledge among disciplines and between actions, and committing to changing some of our most basic beliefs and dogmas. This is not an optional process; it is life or death, not only for human civilization but for the environmental processes that sustain it. But we can take beneficial steps across the broad spectrum of human activity as long as we consider their effects on the multiple health and environmental elements that intersect and keep our eyes on the prize of a healthy, abundant, and sustainable planet.

All of this is possible with organic as a holistic solution. To learn more, visit the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management, as well as how to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides with The Safer Choice. To help support Beyond Pesticides’ mission, become a member today and take action to have your voice heard on governmental actions that are harmful to the health of the environment and all organisms.

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

Sources:

Lohr, M. et al. (2025) Widespread detection of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in Australian native marsupial carnivores, Science of The Total Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972500467X.

Regnery, J. et al. (2020) Heavy rainfall provokes anticoagulant rodenticides’ release from baited sewer systems and outdoor surfaces into receiving streams, Science of The Total Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720334252.

Regnery, J. et al. (2024) Rodenticide contamination of cormorants and mergansers feeding on wild fish, Environmental Chemistry Letters. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-024-01762-y.

Rowley, J. et al. (2024) Broad-scale pesticide screening finds anticoagulant rodenticide and legacy pesticides in Australian frogs, Science of The Total Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896972402672X.

Stapp, P. et al. (2024) Patterns of exposure of coyotes to anticoagulant rodenticides in California, USA, The Journal of Wildlife Management. Available at: https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.22696.

(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).

Background on the Lawsuit

“On January 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) ordered its staff to ‘identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change[,]’” reads the complaint filed on behalf of Northeast Organic Farmers Association-New York (NOFA-NY), Environmental Working Group, and Natural Resources Defense Council. “Within hours, and without any public notice or explanation, USDA purged its websites of vital resources about climate-smart agriculture, forest conservation, climate change adaptation, and investment in clean energy projects in rural America, among many other subjects. In doing so, it disabled access to numerous datasets, interactive tools, and essential information about USDA programs and policies.”

The websites purged of climate data include the general USDA website, as well as dedicated pages for the Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency, USDA Rural Development, and Farmers.gov. Listed in the lawsuit are several examples of purged data sets that farmers rely on, including the now-removed “Climate Risk Viewer” – a geospatial tool often leveraged to “[a]ssess the impacts of climate change on wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers,” “[h]ighlight watersheds where future predicted climate change and demands on water supply will be the greatest,” and “[i]dentify areas where mature and old-growth forests on Forest Service . . . lands are most threatened by future climate change.” Vital information for financial and technical assistance has also been scrubbed, including webpages on the Climate-Smart Agriculture and Farm Loan Programs, which explained specifics on “how the programs work, specified loan purposes and amounts, and provided examples of covered activities.”

The lawsuit continues, “Without access to the removed webpages, NOFA-NY’s technical service providers are unable to connect participating farmers with resources explaining how to fund, implement, and measure climate-smart practices. NOFA-NY is also unable to assist farmers with USDA interactive tools, such as those on the now-purged ‘Climate Solutions’ landing page, to help them incorporate climate change into their planting and land management decisions.”

The lawsuit alleges the violation of The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

In terms of alleged PRA violations, the plaintiff alleges that USDA “provided no advance public notice before removing these webpages or rendering them inaccessible, it failed to comply with its obligation under the PRA to ‘provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products.’”

Regarding APA violations, the plaintiff alleges that “[b]y removing webpages from its websites solely because they focused on climate change, by failing to consider the significant public reliance on those pages, and by failing to provide any justification for doing so, USDA took agency action that was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law, in contravention of the APA.”

Farmer Testimonials

As the administration keeps freezing and cutting federal government programs, spearheaded by the multibillionaire Elon Musk and his handpicked group of acolytes at the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), this inevitably undermines the ability for farmers to adequately plan for the 2025 crop season.

“An active agricultural infrastructure project affecting hundreds of farmers in NY-21 and across New York is now on pause, costing the district and state millions of dollars in rural economic development,” shares Noah Simon of Breadtree Farms on the funding freeze of a $1.9 million grant (reimbursement) “to develop markets and infrastructure and reduce barriers-to-entry for organic chestnut farmers in New York and New England.” Dozens of farmers will be adversely impacted on upfront investments they already made with the assumption that USDA would follow through on the approved grant through the Organic Market Development (OMD) program. Simon goes on to share the multi-million dollar impact of other affected programs in the state, including funding through the Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities Program in support of organic and transitioning farmers in the state.

NOFA-NY, represented by Earthjustice and partners, is also directly impacted by funding freezes. “The Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY) has 2 USDA grants that comprise about 75% of our 2025 budget,” says Katie Baildon, policy manager at NOFA-NY. “The Climate Smart project funding has stopped flowing and USDA is in breach of contract but the status of the Organic Transition program is unknown.” The Climate-Smart Farming & Marketing program is a $400,000 previously approved grant, as well as the $236,968 grant through the Transition to Organic Partnership Program (TOPP) for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Region.

There is a publicly available repository of farmer stories impacted by federal funding freezes that you can submit to if your farming operations have been impacted. See here for a National Resource Guide for Producers 2025 organized by American Farmland Trust, with relevant resources as of March 7, 2025. There are grassroots, volunteer-led efforts by data scientists to archive and preserve critical environmental justice and climate data tools, including the Environmental Justice Screening Tool. These efforts are led by groups such as Public Environmental Data Partners (PEDP).

“At the Public Environmental Data Partners, we’re thinking about this work in phases,” says Jonathan Gilmour, data scientist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and PEDP coordinator. “The first phase is to identify tools and datasets at risk and save what we can. The second phase is to work to strengthen data governance, advocate for better data infrastructure, and increase public engagement with these informational goods.”

There is also a separate, soon-to-be-launched data tool, Federal Cuts Tracker Map, to serve as “an interactive visualization of impacts felt across the country as the result of federal firings” more broadly, based on one of the lead organizers of that initiative.

Call to Action

There has been a series of lawsuits filed as a response to the unrelenting rollout of executive orders undermining public health and the environment. There has been some pushback on federal staffing cuts, including the news that the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Chair ordered USDA to reinstate over 5,600 probationary employees for at least 45 days as the Board reviews the firings, based on reporting by The Independent on March 7, 2025. And just yesterday, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled “that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is wielding so much power that its records will likely have to be opened to the public under federal law,” according to reporting by Politico. Under President Trump’s first term, the courts were often utilized to roll back the most aggressive attacks on environmental and public health statutes. (See Daily News here.)

Amid the uncertainty, Beyond Pesticides is stepping in to archive and preserve vital peer-reviewed, independent research documenting not only the epidemiological studies based on real-world exposure scenarios that link public health implications of fossil fuel-derived pesticide exposure, but also the benefits of applied organic principles and practices on improving public health resilience, regenerating microbial life in soil systems, and bolstering ecosystem stability across the board.

See the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database to access hundreds of pieces of scientific literature with no paywalls. We urge the public to send studies to [email protected] that are recommended for inclusion in the database.

To stay updated as more information emerges, see Keeping Organic Strong.

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

Source: Earthjustice