(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2026) An article titled “The science of staying bite-free: Balancing natural essential oils, DEET safety and permethrin,” calls attention to insect management options and the subsequent consequences for health and the environment. “While DEET has long been the go-to standard for warding off bugs, concerns over its strong chemical scent, greasy feel, and ability to dissolve plastic gear and synthetic fabrics have driven a massive surge in alternative options,” the article says. The use of DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) dates back to 1946 when it was developed by the U.S. military and is the most common and widely used active ingredient in commercial insect repellents applied to the skin with a warning to wash off when indoors and take special precautions with use on children. Despite widespread use, long-standing and mounting scientific evidence finds adverse effects with exposure to DEET and other insect repellents like the synthetic pyrethroid permethrin.

Health Risks

While regulatory bodies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claim insect repellents are safe for the general public, research connects DEET and permethrin to a wide array of adverse health effects. Cases of severe reactions, such as neurological symptoms or seizures, have also occurred.

Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management documents the science on DEET, finding effects including, but not limited, to neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, birth/developmental effects, and water contamination. Cited in the current article, additional health risks of DEET include:

• “High skin absorption. Unlike newer alternatives, DEET penetrates human skin easily. Studies show that between 9 percent and 56 percent of a dose passes into the outer skin layers, with roughly 17 percent entering the bloodstream. It also pools in the skin, absorbing long after application. This absorption speeds up dramatically if DEET is mixed with alcohol or commercial sunscreens.
• Nervous system sensitivity: A 2009 study found that DEET is more than just a simple scent deterrent; it can actively interfere with a vital nervous system enzyme responsible for nerve signal regulation in both insects and mammals. This cell-level impact explains the localized numbness or tingling you feel if the spray accidentally touches your lips.
• Vulnerable groups: Health data has tracked rare instances of brain swelling, tremors and seizures in small children following repeated overapplication, which is worsened by their small body mass relative to their skin surface area. Furthermore, individuals with rare, undiagnosed metabolic conditions (specifically urea cycle disorders) are highly susceptible to severe chemical stress from DEET.
• Daily overexposure: Long-term data gathered from park rangers and outdoor employees who used high-concentration DEET daily over entire summer seasons documented higher rates of chronic headaches, dizziness, sleep disturbances and cognitive disorientation compared to unexposed workers.”

EPA requires the following statements on all DEET product labels:

1. Read and follow all directions and precautions on this product label.
2. Do not apply over cuts, wounds, or irritated skin.
3. Do not apply near eyes and mouth. Apply sparingly around ears.
4. Do not apply to children’s hands.
5. Do not allow children to handle this product.
6. When using on children, apply to your own hands and then put it on the child.
7. Use just enough repellent to cover exposed skin and/or clothing.
8. Do not use under clothing.
9. Avoid over-application of this product.
10. After returning indoors, wash treated skin with soap and water.
11. Wash treated clothing before wearing it again.
12. Use of this product may cause skin reactions in rare cases.
13. If you suspect a reaction to this product, discontinue use, wash treated skin, and call your local poison control center.
14. If you go to a doctor, take this product with you.
15. ACTIVE INGREDIENTS: DEET…….XX.XX%
16. A toll-free telephone number for consumers to call for additional product information and to report incidents. (See Toxicological Profile for DEET (N,N-DIETHYL-METQA-TOLUAMIDE.)

Permethrin is an insect-killing compound often used for camping and hiking. This chemical is not meant to be applied to skin but for use on clothing, tents, boots, and other outdoor gear. Skin repellents, like DEET, are meant to deter insects via scent while permethrin is used to kill insects on contact. Permethrin is a synthetic pyrethroid, which is a class of highly toxic chemicals with acute and chronic health impacts. Permethrin is linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, toxicity to fish/aquatic organisms and bees, and more. (See the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management.)

As referenced in the current article, permethrin can threaten not only public health but also aquatic organisms, wildlife, and pets. For example, “Acute exposure to wet, liquid permethrin is highly toxic to cats because they lack the specific liver enzymes required to break down the compound safely.” (See DEET and Permethrin: A Dangerous Combination for additional research.)

Safer Alternatives and Effectiveness

To eliminate exposure to insecticides that have elevated health and environmental risks, organic products and management strategies serve as viable, effective alternatives. ManageSafe™ explains how to use pest prevention practices, nonchemical and mechanical controls, and least-toxic chemical options as a last resort. Least-toxic chemicals have low human and environmental health hazards, as many are botanicals, essential oils, or derived from other plant or natural mineral sources. Beyond Pesticides maintains a list of products it considers to be least-toxic pesticides through its list of Products Compatible with Organic Landscape Management.

For mosquito management in yards and public spaces, prevention is key. Remove any standing water where mosquitoes can breed (such as plant pots, leaky hoses, clogged gutters, empty buckets, toys, and old tires), trim back overgrown vegetation, and encourage natural predators like bats, birds, dragonflies, and frogs. When outside, wear long-sleeved, loose, light colored clothing, which is the preferred method for protecting against mosquito bites but not always a realistic solution. Use an oscillating fan or burn citronella candles to also help repel mosquitoes. As a last line of defense, employ least-toxic mosquito repellents such as essential oils, including oil of lemon eucalyptus, soybean oil, citronella oil, lemongrass oil, castor oil, catnip oil, geraniol oil, cedarwood oil, peppermint oil, or clove oil. (See How to Repel Mosquitoes Safely and Mosquito Management and Insect-Borne Diseases for more information.)

The effectiveness of alternative repellents is widely debated. As a rule, the essential oil products require more frequent reapplication than the more toxic chemical products. A study, Comparative Repellency of 38 Essential Oils against Mosquito Bites, provides some insight into the efficacy times of various substances. For example, different formulations of citronella have a range of efficacy from two to 12 hours. Picaridin is also considered a least-toxic alternative to DEET for managing mosquitoes but is a synthetic chemical that should only be used as a last resort.

When hiking or camping and concerned about mosquitoes, ticks, or other insects, proper clothing and the use of essential oils can also be beneficials. As The River Reporter article adds: “Research indicates that citronella, peppermint, lemongrass and catnip essential oils are highly effective at repelling flying insects. Studies have shown that blends containing lemongrass or peppermint oil can offer localized protection for up to two to three hours. Cinnamon bark oil, clove oil and thyme oil have demonstrated strong success in laboratory settings for repelling ticks. Furthermore, commercial formulations featuring oil of lemon eucalyptus (OLE) or concentrated geraniol offer documented, long-lasting deterrence against deer ticks, which are notorious vectors for Lyme disease.”

Virginia cedarwood oil (Juniperus virginiana) is also an essential oil that is highly effective against ticks. Rigorous testing from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) “demonstrated exceptional performance against the aggressive nymph stages of blacklegged ticks (deer ticks), matching the effectiveness of DEET.” The research finds that 80-94 percent of ticks encountering surfaces with this oil are immediately repelled. (See Least-Toxic Control of Ticks.)

As covered in previous Daily News Coconut-Derived Insect Repellent More Effective than the Hazardous DEET, scientists working for USDA’s Agricultural Research Service in Lincoln, Nebraska discovered natural compounds derived from coconut oil that are more effective than DEET at repelling mosquitoes, ticks, biting flies, bed bugs and other insects. Given the long-lasting efficacy of the compounds researchers tested, commercialization could make the regular use of toxic insect repellents, like DEET, obsolete. Advocates are praising USDA researchers for the results, indicating that this is exactly the type of research government agencies should be funding and promoting.

Take Action

This summer, take action to management mosquitoes and other insects through safe, effective organic methods. Help spread the word with Beyond Pesticides’ mosquito doorknob hanger to start the discussion about alternative methods for controlling mosquito populations in your community. The simple, basic information that the mosquito doorknob hanger provides can go a long way toward eliminating mosquitoes at the source, and controlling those that persist with least-toxic means. The hanger also refers back to Beyond Pesticides’ least-toxic mosquito management website, where hazard information and more detailed steps on individual and community mosquito management techniques can be found.

You can also urge your state and community to adopt biodiversity conservation principles that include ecological mosquito management practices. >> Tell your Governor and Mayor to ensure ecological management of mosquitoes by eliminating the use of pesticides that threaten mosquito predators.

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

Source:

Schneller, H. (2026) The science of staying bite-free: Balancing natural essential oils, DEET safety and permethrin, The River Reporter. Available at: https://www.riverreporter.com/stories/the-science-of-staying-bite-free,265744.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2026) In a study published in PLOS One, researchers identify “ecological cascades triggered by intensive, calendar-based pesticide applications,” resulting in “agricultural pesticide regimes [that] fundamentally restructure insect foraging networks through complex, poorly understood community-level pathways.” In comparing chemical-intensive apple orchards with adjacent pesticide-free cemeteries, this study documents the impacts on insect biodiversity with exposure to pesticides, noting that in areas without pesticide applications insect abundance and richness is higher and plant-pollinator networks are stronger.

When applying pesticides during peak insect activity, apple orchards create ecological traps and insect pollinator foraging network disruption with cascading effects through the ecosystem that extend beyond acute toxicity. As the authors explain: “The resulting exposure drives sublethal behavioural changes, forcing insects into narrower dietary niches and collapsing the complex web of plant-pollinator interactions. The final outcome is a functionally homogenized insect community, stripped of its diversity and resilience.” To sustain ecological integrity and insect biodiversity, as well as the subsequent ecosystem services they provide, such as pollination, pesticide-free habitats are essential. This study adds to the wide body of science that supports the urgent need for a widescale transition to organic agriculture and land management.

Study Importance and Background

Nontarget and beneficial species can be adversely affected by pesticides through direct or indirect routes, such as water contamination and runoff, pesticide residues, and by consuming food that has been sprayed. This exposure has led to insect extinction and ecological collapse, as documented by peer-reviewed scientific literature. (See What the Science Shows on Biodiversity for more information.)

Insect abundance and biomass are critical for ecosystem functioning but have been in decline due to intensive pesticide use and the resulting “insect apocalypse.” As Dave Goulson, PhD, says, this insect apocalypse that is occurring threatens all ecosystems. In an essay in Current Biology, he states, “Insects are integral to every terrestrial food web, being food for numerous birds, bats, reptiles, amphibians and fish, and performing vital roles such as pollination, pest control and nutrient recycling. Terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems will collapse without insects… we may have failed to appreciate the full scale and pace of environmental degradation caused by human activities in the Anthropocene.” (See Daily News Pesticide Contamination Moves Through the Food Web, From Aquatic Insects to Terrestrial Birds and Bats.)

As the current study authors note: “Global insect populations are facing an unprecedented crisis, with recent analyses indicating alarming rates of decline that threaten ecological stability and food security worldwide. This erosion of biodiversity is increasingly linked to agricultural intensification, particularly the widespread application of pesticides whose sublethal and cascading effects remain critically understudied.” This occurs frequently in fruit production, as systems such as apple orchards utilize calendar-based pesticide sprays while also relying on healthy pollinator communities to pollinate the crop. Through spray drift, non-crop flowering plants that these pollinators forage become ecological traps, habitats that attract organisms but then reduce their survival or fitness with exposure to toxic chemicals.

Methodology and Results

“This study employs a replicated, paired-comparison design in the apple-producing region of District Shopian, Kashmir Valley, India, one of South Asia’s most intensively managed fruit production landscapes to examine how pesticide-driven management restructures insect foraging communities across multiple ecological levels,” the researchers state. In evaluating apple-growing regions during one growing season from March to August 2025, they compare insect biodiversity in apple orchards and the surrounding land. The cemeteries adjacent to the apple orchards act as refuges, as they are “open, undisturbed areas with abundant vegetation… [with] no pesticide or herbicide applications [able to] maintain a diverse, unmanaged flora that provides a sanctuary for biodiversity.”

Pesticide application information was compiled from orchard owners and cross-referenced with local horticulture department extension records while floral resource assessments and insect foraging sampling was conducted by the researchers in the orchard and cemetery habitats. Data analyses were performed to assess differences in insect diversity, interaction networks, and temporal patterns between habitats. As a result, the pesticide-free cemetery areas show “a significantly higher floral abundance and species richness compared to orchards.”

According to the authors: “This resource disparity was reflected in the insect communities. Overall insect abundance was 68% lower in orchards, with species richness showing a parallel 55% reduction. This decline was not uniform across taxa; hoverflies (Syrphidae) and solitary bees (Apidae) were disproportionately affected, showing reductions of 78% and 72% in abundance, respectively, suggesting a heightened vulnerability to habitat perturbation.” The plant-pollinator networks also differed between the two habitats. The cemetery areas “exhibited a dense, interconnected web characteristic of a resilient and functionally diverse community,” while the orchard network “was sparse and linear, indicating a collapse of complex interactions.”

As the researchers summarize, “The structural collapse of the plant-pollinator network in the orchard evidenced by reduced connectance, nestedness, and increased specialization is a hallmark of an ecosystem under severe stress.” These findings highlight how areas without the use of chemical-intensive practices can support substantially richer pollinator communities, protecting insect biodiversity and ecological functioning.

Previous Research

As documented in Daily News entitled Continued Decline in Insect Species Biodiversity with Agricultural Pesticide Use Documented, science continues to mount on the threat to nontarget species and the biodiversity of insects that occur as a result of pesticide use. The authors of a literature review in Environments summarize the decline in insect species richness and abundance, linking the reliance on petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers to cascading negative impacts. Insects provide many important services, such as maintaining healthy soil, recycling nutrients, pollinating flowers and crops, and controlling pests. These nontarget and beneficial species are at risk through pesticide exposure, both directly and indirectly, which then affects these essential functions.  

Danilo Russo, PhD—a speaker during the first session of our 42nd National Forum, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health: Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature—continues to add to the existing literature on the threats to ecosystem services from environmental contaminants and climate change. Dr. Russo’s interests include habitat selection, resource partitioning, sensory ecology, social behavior, evolutionary biology, biogeography, and invasion ecology. Much of his research focuses on bats, but he also works on a range of other model organisms that perform ecosystem services, and has published over 200 scientific articles in internationally respected journals, including Nature Communications, Current Biology, Ecology Letters, and Biological Reviews.

In the book, Biological Control Systems and Climate Change, Dr. Russo’s chapter, entitled “Impact of Climate Change on Bats Involved in Biological Control,” explains one of the lost benefits of ecological balance attributable to the climate crisis. (See Climate Change Threat to Ecosystem Management of Insects Focus of New Book for more information.) In additional research on ecological traps, Dr. Russo, PhD documents the harm caused to wildlife from well-intentioned efforts to establish habitat on chemical-intensive farms or areas otherwise subject to chemical exposure. In this research, he writes: “[W]hen restoring habitats for bats in conventional farmland, potential unintended outcomes must be considered, particularly if restoration actions are not accompanied by mitigation of key threats. These threats include the persistent and widespread use of pesticides.” (See more coverage on Dr. Russo’s work here and here.)

An Organic Solution

While peer-reviewed, independent science captures the threats to health and the environment from exposure to petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, research also documents the benefits of organic methods. The Daily News, Study Adds to Wide Body of Science Highlighting Benefits of Organic for Insect Biodiversity, critiques a study in Conservation Genetics, entitled “Organic farming fosters arthropod diversity of specific insect guilds—evidence from metabarcoding,” showcases the negative effect of chemical-intensive, conventional farm management on insect populations when compared to organically managed meadows. The researchers find that the diversity and biomass of flying insects are higher with organic land management by 11% and 75%, respectively.

With large numbers of insects at risk, the reliance on pesticides in agriculture and land management continues to threaten biodiversity, a key driver of ecosystem services. (See more on the importance of biodiversity here and here.) The evidence implicating pesticide use in the loss of insect biodiversity is both staggering and unsurprising. Insecticides kill insects, often indiscriminately and with devastating consequences for biodiversity, ecosystem stability, and critical ecosystem services. Herbicides and chemical fertilizers extinguish invaluable habitat and forage critical to insect survival. Taken together, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers make large and growing swaths of land unlivable for vast numbers of insect species and the plants and animals they sustain.

As previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, studies upon studies upon studies show that pesticides are a major contributor to the loss of insect biomass and diversity, particularly in combination with climate change. Insects are important as pollinators and as part of the food web that supports all life, so the loss of insects is a threat to life on Earth. Promoting ecological balance and restoring biodiversity can be achieved through the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and with the adoption of organic practices. Studies show that organic farming has five times higher plant biodiversity and 20 times higher insect species richness compared to conventional farming and that higher biodiversity of insects is seen in fields with genetically diverse crops.

Take action to protect biodiversity and keep organic strong with a focus on the health of all organisms. Be part of the organic solution by becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides and stay informed with the Daily News Blog. Join the Parks for a Sustainable Future program as a Parks Advocate to transition your community to organic and make 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:

Riyaz, M. et al. (2026) Pesticide-induced ecological traps and insect pollinator foraging network disruption in apple orchards compared to adjacent graveyard refugia, PLOS One. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0350940.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 8, 2026) This piece reports on yet additional new studies linking pesticides to breast cancer. Numerous recent reviews make it clear that pesticide exposure per se raises the risk of breast cancer, across a wide swath of pesticide types. One would think that with the body of science linking breast cancer with pesticide exposure, covered extensively by Daily News and the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, a scientific-based regulatory system would respond with a sense of urgency. And yet, that is not the case, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes “acceptable” rates of disease for individual chemicals or chemical families, but does not evaluate patterns of disease linked to multiple chemical exposure. And so, breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in U.S. women, and women turn to medical intervention with drugs, early surgical intervention, and targeted radiation. Yet, the disease, principally associated with environmental rather than hereditary factors, and treatment cause severe disruption to the lives of women and their loved ones and are devastating to quality of life, while clinical responses can have adverse side effects.

Many different pesticides affect cellular processes and structures, including alteration of genetic material, endocrine disruption, cell apoptosis, cell signaling disruption and oxidative stress. Breast tissue is perhaps one of the most sensitive of all organs to the insults of pesticide exposure, in part because it accumulates lipophilic chemicals. Nearly 400,000 women will be diagnosed with it this year, and more than 40,000 will die. In the U.S. and globally, 80% of women have no specific risk factors beyond sex and age; family history accounts for only a small percentage of cases. While mortality has been dropping in high-income countries, incidence in the U.S between 2010 and 2019 increased at 0.5% per year.

The world recently read a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell (June 25, 2026) that exclaimed, “[B]efore registering a pesticide, EPA must evaluate a pesticide and its proposed label—and must determine that the proposed label incudes all warnings necessary and adequate to protect human health and the environment. . .” Continuing, the Court majority professes, “. . .EPA critically evaluates the pesticide’s label to ensure that the label contains all warnings necessary to protect human health.” And, it does this without requiring a warning about the potential risk of breast cancer, or other types of cancer and chronic effects. Some have characterized the Court’s ruling as spinning a narrative, including former EPA officials, who submitted to the Court an amicus brief.

While the pesticide connection to breast cancer is broad, recent studies have linked the disease to exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos, a chemical widely used in agricultural food production, including soybeans, fruit and nut trees, broccoli, cauliflower, and other row crops, as well as for public health mosquito control and on golf courses. A study reported at a scientific meeting by a group of Indian researchers examined breast cancer tissues for pesticide residues, finding 49 distinct organophosphate residues in both tumor tissue and surrounding adipose tissue. Organophosphates (OP), long considered primarily neurotoxicants, have also been associated with cancer. While chlorpyrifos is the most prominent example, due to its enormous global use, the class also includes acephate, diazinon, dimethoate, and others. A study of more than 30,000 spouses of pesticide applicators analyzed in a report by Pamela Ferdinand of U.S. Right to Know found that “Any OP use was associated with an elevated risk of breast cancer” (emphasis added).

Organophosphates may also contribute to breast cancer induction indirectly through gut microbiota. Scientists at two Chinese institutions found that, in mice, chlorpyrifos exposure at environmentally relevant levels elevated certain gut microbes’ metabolites, and these promoted breast tumor growth. While mammals can detoxify organophosphate compounds to some degree, gut microbes are far more vulnerable. “The alterations in gut microbe-derived metabolites resulting from chlorpyrifos exposure may significantly contribute to the promotion of breast tumor growth, even at environmental doses,” the authors write. Other studies have shown that chronic low-dose exposure shortens tumor latency and contributes to the proliferation of estrogen-dependent breast cancer cells.

Clearly, all women are at considerable risk of contracting some form of breast cancer, and there are some subgroups at even higher risk. For African-American and Hispanic women, breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Studies of occupational exposures, especially in agriculture, show that women working in and living near agricultural operations have a significantly greater risk of contracting breast cancer than those in other developed environments. Women in agricultural areas are often diagnosed with more aggressive forms of breast cancer, according to a study led by Carolina Panis, PhD, of women in the Parana region of Brazil analyzed in the February 26 Daily News Blog. A 2024 Brazilian study found that among women with early-onset breast cancer (under 50 years old at diagnosis), exposure to pesticides led to more severe disease and raised the risk of recurrence and death.

A study by Dr. Panis and colleagues in Brazil and the University of Arizona found that glyphosate and atrazine in drinking water at levels below or within maximum residue levels in the U.S and Brazil altered breast cancer cells’ RNA expression, DNA repair and cell metabolism. Gene expression was different between lower and higher doses. “Our findings indicate that low-level glyphosate and atrazine exposures induce subtle structural and transcriptomic changes without overt cytotoxicity,” the authors write. These changes may affect breast cancer induction and progression.

Similarly, a Chilean in vitro study exposed estrogen receptor sensitive and triple-negative breast cancer cells to low-dose glyphosate for eight weeks. The cells tended to lose their anchorage, migrate, and exhibit enhanced resistance to doxorubicin, a chemotherapeutic agent. “These findings indicate that sustained exposure to glyphosate, at a concentration within the reported human exposure range, is associated with features consistent with a cancer stem [cell]-like and adaptive phenotype in breast cancer cells,” the authors write.

Pyrethrins, touted as “safe” insecticides because of their low acute toxicity in mammals, are used against numerous household and garden pests. An innovative Chinese study used machine learning to analyze chemical data on the relationships between cellular compounds and various pyrethrin compounds. The researchers found numerous proteins and enzymes “capable of influencing multiple carcinogenic pathways,” [with] “broad toxicological significance and highlighting the need for further risk assessment in environmental and pharmaceutical contexts,” including “oncogenic potential toward breast cancer-related proteins.”

One of the ironies of the pesticide problem is that consumption of fruits and vegetables in general is an excellent way to lower cancer risk, but fruits and vegetables are the principal way people are exposed non-occupationally to pesticides. With respect to breast cancer in particular, a striking study by researchers from the Sorbonne and Aix Marseille University in France found a direct link between organic fruit and vegetable consumption and reduction of postmenopausal breast cancer. The researchers followed more than 31,000 people, 75% of them female, for an average of 7.3 years. They note that occupational associations between pesticides and cancer are well established, but dietary exposure data are much murkier. They state that only three studies directly investigated consumption of organic foods and cancer risk, and the results were conflicting. The British Million Women Study found a slightly raised risk of breast cancer among consumers of organic food, while a Danish study found lower risk of stomach cancer and slightly higher risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. All the cited studies used “relatively rudimentary questions about the frequence of organic consumption.”

To refine the questionnaire method and clarify the issue, the French researchers derived their data from the Nutri-Net-Santé cohort of French residents, a web-based questionnaire program begun in 2009. The study collects detailed demographic information along with “a self-administered semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire…aiming to assess organic (i.e., complying with official European Union standards and carrying the European label) and conventional food consumption.” To assess the consistency of self-reported estimates, they compared this information to data from previous research that included urinary biomarkers of pesticide exposure, which would indicate the relative consumption of organic versus non-organic fruits and vegetables.

The researchers found a robust relationship between organic fruit and vegetable consumption and reduced risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. For each 100 grams per day of organic foods substituted for non-organic, there was a 10% reduction of risk.

There are many issues with determining the clarity of such studies, as the authors note. People who eat mostly organic may have other habits healthier than the general population, and tend toward higher consumption of fruits and vegetables overall. The authors cite a large U.S. study finding no association between highly contaminated fruits and vegetables and overall cancer risk except glioma, but importantly, that study also found a “marked reduction in the risk of death with elevated consumption of low-contaminated fruits and vegetables,” along with a 36% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality among high consumers of uncontaminated produce.

It is clear that eating organic food is the most direct way to reduce the numerous risks associated with pesticides, despite the murky results of some studies. One in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime; the disease comprises a third of all cancer diagnoses in women annually. For women, exposure to toxic chemicals creates not only physical distress and financial burdens, but also enormous anxiety, particularly about breast cancer, for which the purveyors of such chemicals bear heavy responsibility.

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

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

Sources:

Consumption of organic compared with conventional fruits and vegetables in relation to cancer risk: findings from the NutriNet-Santé cohort study
Berlivet et al.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2026
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916526000936?via%3Dihub=

Nearly 300 studies link the common pesticide chlorpyrifos to multi-organ damage, DNA disruption, and chronic disease
Pamela Ferdinand
U.S. Right to Know 2026
https://usrtk.org/healthwire/chlorpyrifos-multi-organ-damage-dna-disruption-and-chronic-disease/

Beyond Pesticides
Breast Cancer Archive
https://www.beyondpesticides.org/resources/pesticide-induced-diseases-database/search-the-database?cat45=45&catcount=1&searchlogic=OR&searchbutton=SEARCH

An integrated environmental toxicity risk assessment framework combining deep learning and molecular simulation: A case study on pyrethrins and breast cancer
Sung et al.
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports 2025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405580825002286?via%3Dihub

Environmental-dose chlorpyrifos disrupts gut microbiota and microbial metabolite profiles: An indirect mechanism promoting breast tumor growth
Yuan et al.
Journal of Environmental Sciences 2026
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1001074225007090

Genome-wide gene expression changes in breast cancer cells following very low-dose exposure to pesticides (glyphosate and atrazine) at drinking water levels
Panis et al.
Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 2025
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1382668925001772?via%3Dihub

Effect of pesticides on breast cancer tumor
Marcoccia et al.
BMC Biology Direct 2026
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13062-025-00709-9

Detection of organophosphorus pesticide residues in breast cancer tissue: A translational integrated environmental exposure study.
Sekar et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology 2026
https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1200/JCO.2026.44.16_suppl.e12580

Chlorpyrifos and Chlorpyrifos-Oxon: A Widening Spectrum of Toxicity
Kalenik et al.
International Journal of Molecular Science 2026
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13164365/

(Beyond Pesticides, July 7, 2026) An analysis of scientific literature on pesticide contamination in infant formula reveals a public health issue of food safety for young children with potential lifelong impacts, as published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. Through a systematic review of research from 1975 to 2025, the authors, from the Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases at the Sapienza University of Rome (Italy), find residues of pesticides that are linked to deleterious health impacts in infant formula, including insecticides such as organochlorines, organophosphates, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids, and many herbicides.

As the researchers share, the results highlight that: “[T]he contamination of infant formula does not concern a single class of substances, but manifests itself as a heterogeneous and simultaneous set of risks: pesticide residues, heavy metals, persistent environmental contaminants, mycotoxins and compounds released from packaging materials can coexist within the same product. This co-presence of contaminants of different origins confirms that the problem cannot be traced back to a single critical point, but reflects a complex supply chain context, in which each stage—from raw material production to industrial processes, storage and packaging—can contribute to the infant’s final exposure.” In confirming the presence of multiple pesticides within infant formula, this research shows how pesticides are not encountered in isolation and can lead to additive or synergistic effects with greater health risks for children that already experience disproportionate risks from pesticides.

Study Importance

As documented on the Beyond Pesticides’ Hazards of Pesticides for Children’s Health page, infants and children face much higher hazards than adults from pesticide exposure. Their small size and developing organ systems, propensity to crawl and play near the ground, tendency for frequent hand-to-mouth motion, and greater intake of air and food relative to body weight make them particularly susceptible. The hazards borne by children in the “windows of vulnerability” at a young age have critical implications for long-term health. For additional information, see Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix and Daily News coverage related to infants and children here.

Infant formula is widely used as a partial or total substitute for breast milk, serving as a critical food source with formulations for different stages of growth. “Special formulas, intended for specific nutritional needs, such as formulas for preterm infants, protein hydrolysate-based formulas for infants with cow’s milk protein allergy, hypoallergenic formulas, soy-based formulas, lactose-free formulas, and formulas enriched with additional functional components (e.g., prebiotic/probiotic additives),” the authors note.

Throughout the entire production chain for these formulas, contamination can occur. For example, pesticide residues can contaminate food products used in formulas. The researchers state: “Food contamination by chemicals, and in particular pesticides, is an extremely important public health issue, as it can also affect essential nutritional sources in the first months of life, such as breast milk and infant formula, with infants being particularly vulnerable to the toxic and endocrine-disrupting effects of these substances due to their immaturity. In infant formula, pesticide contamination is mainly caused by the raw materials used, such as cow’s milk, soy, or cereals, which may contain agricultural residues, as well as possible contamination during processing and storage.”

Methodology and Results

The present systematic review analyzes relevant articles published up to August 7, 2025, regarding contamination of infant formula. Of the 26 studies included, 22 reveal pesticide contamination. The scientific literature captures a wide geographical distribution, highlighting the global issue of infant health risks. Ten studies were conducted in Europe, specifically in Spain, Italy, Romania, and Turkey. The remaining studies were conducted in the U.S., India, Brazil, China, New Zealand, Venezuela, Kenya, and Iran. The majority of the studies use samples of powdered formula, while liquid preparations and specialized formulas were also incorporated.

“The data collected show contamination by a variety of active ingredients belonging to different classes of pesticides, with a prevalence of organochlorine, organophosphate, pyrethroid and neonicotinoid compounds and other less frequently found contaminants,” the authors write. They continue, saying the analysis: “…reveals a clear prevalence of organochlorine compounds (present in 16 articles), confirming their historical use and environmental persistence. These are followed by organophosphate pesticides, detected in 7 studies, pyrethroids (in 4 studies) and triazine herbicides (in 3 studies), all representative of chemical classes widely used in agriculture and potentially detectable in food products intended for young children.”

Additional studies (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) utilize a multi-class approach, including compounds belonging to classes of insecticides including neonicotinoids and pyrethroids, herbicides including triazines, and fungicides including triazoles. This reflects cumulative exposure and the heightened synergistic effects that can occur when encountering pesticide mixtures.

The results also highlight the role of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in infant formula. In one study, “[T]he authors identified pesticides among the substances potentially capable of interfering with hormonal balance, detected in both infant formula and baby bottles.” The researchers continue: “This evidence reinforces the idea that newborns may be subject to combined exposure to multiple contaminants of different types, with the possibility of synergistic effects on the endocrine system… The inclusion of pesticides in the group of endocrine disruptors identified by the study suggests that the production and packaging chain of infant foods may constitute a significant route of exposure.” These EDCs can cause hormonal and reproductive disorders, including early puberty, longer menstrual cycles, and early menopause. Exposure to EDCs early in life can also interfere with organ formation and the development of the immune, respiratory, nervous, and reproductive systems. (See here and here.)

Previous Research

As documented in Daily News coverage in 2016, entitled Organic Consumers Association Sues to Keep Synthetics Out of Organic Infant Formula, there is a history of concern about food safety for infants and children, particularly when labeled as certified organic but containing contaminants. When companies like The Honest Co. and Hain Celestial undermine the integrity of the organic label by including chemicals that do not meet the organic standards set out by the National Organic Program in their products, public trust in the system is compromised, creating devastating damage to the program as a whole. The Organic Consumers Association and Beyond Pesticides are doing their part to keep the organic label strong, and we encourage consumers to do the same. (See more on national organic standards and labeling here, as well as previous comments to the National Organic Standards Board regarding organic infant formula here.)

A study published in Pediatrics by the American Academy of Pediatrics raises serious concerns about children’s dietary exposure to pesticides, particularly the weed killer glyphosate, that are heavily used in the production of genetically engineered crops. This calls attention to the widespread use of genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the U.S. food supply and the potential associated health risks for children and consumers. Residues of not only the weed killer glyphosate, but also other herbicides, are detected in corn silage and animal feeds that are made from herbicide-tolerant crops, increasing the risk of contamination of meat and dairy products. Infant formula is a concern, as “most contain some amount of corn syrup, soy, or other products that may be made from GMO components.” As the authors say, “The presence of glyphosate and other toxic herbicides in food products is the main hazard to children’s health associated with the consumption of GMO-based foods.” (See Daily News Genetically Engineered Food Products Increase Risks to Children’s Health, Medical Doctors Say for more information.)

The Organic Solution

As infants and children are particularly vulnerable to pesticides and other contaminants, it is imperative to ensure food safety to protect their short-term and long-term health. Current maximum residue limits (MRLs) in food products are “not sufficient to guarantee an adequate margin of safety,” as the current review authors say. To ensure that infant formula, as well as baby food and all other crop-based products, are free from pollutants, a widescale transition to organic is necessary.

Learn more about the health benefits of organic, as well as how to Grow Your Own Organic Food, Buying Organic Products (on a budget!), and Eating with a Conscience. To further support the organic movement, see Keeping Organic Strong. Beyond Pesticides is working for holistic change in food production and land management—from farms to homes, gardens, parks, playing fields, and schools. Consider becoming a member or supporting this mission today!

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

Source:

Antonucci, A. et al. (2026) Pesticide contamination in infant formula: a systematic review, Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1382668926001559.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2026) In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June preventing lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers for their failure to display a cancer (and other chronic effects) warning on their products, two members of Congress moved quickly last week with a bill to reverse the decision. U.S. Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the People Over Poison Act. The legislation, H.R. 9528, is intended to restore the right of consumers to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable under state law when they fail to warn about the full range of potential harm associated with their products. Beyond Pesticides has joined with other environmental, health, farm, and farmworker groups to mobilize a nationwide effort to educate on the legislation, which may be subject to clarifying amendments. The mobilization is asking Congressional Representatives to cosponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act.

The Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell allows companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities—to warn consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases. “In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. 

The ability to sue pesticide manufacturers for their failure to warn product users of the potential risks associated with their products has been identified by former EPA officials as an important right to protection. Beyond Pesticides has called the warning especially important with staff cutbacks and an overall reported reduction in science-driven safety standards at EPA.

A June 2025 Declaration of Dissent sent from EPA employees to the EPA administrator said, “EPA employees join in solidarity with employees across the federal government in opposing this administration’s policies, including those that undermine the EPA mission of protecting human health and the environment. Since the Agency’s founding in 1970, EPA has accomplished this mission by leveraging science, funding, and expert staff in service to the American people. Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise. Since January 2025, federal workers across the country have been denigrated and dismissed based on false claims of waste, fraud, and abuse. Meanwhile, Americans have witnessed the unraveling of public health and environmental protections in the pursuit of political advantage.” Within days of the document’s release, it was reported that EPA fired or had taken disciplinary action against the 270 signatories to the letter.

Last week, on June 30, 2026, 22 Democratic Senators, led by Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), sent a letter to the EPA administrator, stating: “In light of recent evidence showing a violation of constitutional and whistleblower rights, we demand that you reverse the firings and disciplinary actions imposed on employees for signing a “Declaration of Dissent” in defense of scientific integrity, whistleblower rights, and constitutional protections.”

The current weakened state of EPA—on top of what numerous reports have cited as inadequate pesticide regulatory review under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—makes the loss of a judicial remedy for forcing an honest disclosure of hazards especially troubling for safety advocates.

In an amicus brief submitted in Monsanto v. Durnell by former EPA officials, they wrote, “Under FIFRA and EPA’s procedures, mere one-­time acceptance of labeling confers no defense to liability for misbranding. To avoid such liability, the manufacturer must keep both EPA and the product labeling up to date with necessary safety information. . .  Pesticides registered by EPA may carry risks that are not adequately addressed by the registration of the EPA-accepted labeling.” With this, in a dissenting opinion, Justices Kentanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch said that the EPA approved label, which the majority refers to as “prima facie evidence” of safety, is not “conclusive evidence” of safety.

In the case, Monsanto (bought by Bayer), the manufacturer of the weed killer glyphosate, sold as Roundup^TM, claimed immunity from litigation by a cancer patient, John Durnell, with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who was awarded $1.25 million in 2023 because the product label information provided no warning. Mr. Durnell helped manage his local park in St. Louis. For about 20 years he used the weed killer Roundup^TM (glyphosate). The decision nullifies billions of dollars in jury verdicts against Monsanto that are still in the appeals process.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision shields manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticides’ adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. The court establishes liability immunity under federal pesticide law, finding that FIFRA “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by EPA, where the agency has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.” 

State tort law has served as a critical backstop when federal regulators fail to fully protect the public from dangerous products. The Supreme Court’s ruling threatens to upend that balance by removing the ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable through state failure-to-warn claims.

The implications extend far beyond Roundup^TM and glyphosate. The ruling will affect future claims involving other pesticides and chemical products, including cases where farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and consumers allege they were not adequately warned about serious health risks. 

As stated by Rep. Pingree in introducing the bill, “The Supreme Court just handed Big Chemical the legal immunity its lobbyists and millions of dollars couldn’t buy in Congress. Federal pesticide law was never supposed to be a liability waiver for corporations, and not a permission slip to hide behind insufficient labels while people get sick. For all the Trump Administration’s talk about ‘Making America Healthy Again,’ it keeps siding with chemical companies in court, dragging its feet on long-overdue safety reviews, and even boosting glyphosate production. Enough with the empty slogans and broken promises. If this Administration won’t put people’s health over corporate profits, Congress must. The right to seek justice in court is one of our most foundational freedoms, ensuring that every American has a fair chance to be heard and hold powerful interests accountable.” 

Mobilization action: Tell your Congressional Representative to cosponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act. 

Letter to supporters of Luna amendment to Farm Bill stripping out manufacturer protection from liability 
In view of your vote to remove sections 10205-10207 of the Farm Bill (Luna amendment), I am requesting that you co-sponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act, introduced by Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY)—legislation intended to restore the right of Americans to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable under state law when they fail to warn consumers about the risks of their products. 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Durnell says that current federal law bars those harmed by pesticides from suing manufacturers for their failure to warn consumers of potential hazards on their product labels. The decision effectively shields manufacturers from failure to warn lawsuits.

The Court’s decision allows companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities—to warn consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases. In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily. The decision nullifies billions of dollars in jury verdicts against Monsanto that are still under appeal. 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision shields manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticides’ adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses—including thousands of successful lawsuits and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto for the company’s failure to warn about long-term hazards on their Roundup product label. The court establishes liability immunity under federal pesticide law, finding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] EPA, where the agency has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.” 

The People Over Poison Act is intended to reverse the Monsanto v. Durnell ruling by explicitly stating that FIFRA does not block or limit state tort claims related to pesticide labeling or packaging—preserving the right of people harmed by pesticides to seek accountability in court. 

State tort law has served as a critical backstop when federal regulators fail to fully protect the public from dangerous products. The Supreme Court’s ruling threatens to upend that balance by removing the ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable through state failure-to-warn claims. 

The implications extend far beyond Roundup and glyphosate. The ruling could affect future claims involving other pesticides and chemical products, including cases where farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and consumers allege they were not adequately warned about serious health risks. 

As stated by Rep. Pingree in introducing the bill, “The Supreme Court just handed Big Chemical the legal immunity its lobbyists and millions of dollars couldn’t buy in Congress. Federal pesticide law was never supposed to be a liability waiver for corporations, and not a permission slip to hide behind insufficient labels while people get sick. . . The right to seek justice in court is one of our most foundational freedoms, ensuring that every American has a fair chance to be heard and hold powerful interests accountable.” 

Please co-sponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act.

Thank you. 

Letter to all other Congressional Representatives
The Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Durnell says that current federal law bars those harmed by pesticides from suing manufacturers for their failure to warn consumers of potential hazards on their product labels. The decision effectively shields manufacturers from failure to warn lawsuits. I am requesting that you co-sponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act, t, introduced by Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY)—legislation intended to restore the right of Americans to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable under state law when they fail to warn consumers about the risks of their products. 

The Court’s decision allows companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities—to warn consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases. In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily. The decision nullifies billions of dollars in jury verdicts against Monsanto that are still under appeal.  

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision shields manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticides’ adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses—including thousands of successful lawsuits and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto for the company’s failure to warn about long-term hazards on their Roundup product label. The court establishes liability immunity under federal pesticide law, finding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] EPA, where the agency has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.” 

The People Over Poison Act is intended to reverse the Monsanto v. Durnell ruling by explicitly stating that FIFRA does not block or limit state tort claims related to pesticide labeling or packaging—preserving the right of people harmed by pesticides to seek accountability in court. 

State tort law has served as a critical backstop when federal regulators fail to fully protect the public from dangerous products. The Supreme Court’s ruling threatens to upend that balance by removing the ability to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable through state failure-to-warn claims. 

The implications extend far beyond Roundup and glyphosate. The ruling could affect future claims involving other pesticides and chemical products, including cases where farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, groundskeepers, and consumers allege they were not adequately warned about serious health risks. 

As stated by Rep. Pingree in introducing the bill, “The Supreme Court just handed Big Chemical the legal immunity its lobbyists and millions of dollars couldn’t buy in Congress. Federal pesticide law was never supposed to be a liability waiver for corporations, and not a permission slip to hide behind insufficient labels while people get sick. . . The right to seek justice in court is one of our most foundational freedoms, ensuring that every American has a fair chance to be heard and hold powerful interests accountable.” 

Please co-sponsor H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act. 

Thank you. 

Letter to Representatives Pingree and Massie: 
Thank you for introducing H.R. 9528, the People Over Poison Act, legislation intended to restore the right of Americans to hold pesticide manufacturers accountable under state law when they fail to warn consumers about the risks of their products. 

The Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Durnell allows companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities—to warn consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases. In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily. 

The Court’s decision is a tragic setback for public and environmental health, allowing companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities: warning consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases. In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily. 

Thank you for your leadership in protecting public and environmental health. 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2-3, 2026) Our call on Independence Day for freedom from the toxic chemicals that tear apart our families and the ecosystems on which all life depends is proclaimed this July 4th with even greater urgency than last year. The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Monsanto v. Durnell—releasing Monsanto-Bayer of liability for failing to warn those harmed by pesticides—enshrines in our daily lives the power of chemical companies to poison and contaminate with impunity. What did the majority of the Supreme Court justices say in supporting the right of chemical companies to poison without warning? The justices opined that, if they were to support the original plaintiff diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using the Monsanto weedkiller Roundup^TM without any cancer warning on the label, it would “expose manufacturers to potentially massive tort liability for doing what EPA required.”

And that is exactly what happened when juries across the U.S. issued verdicts against Monsanto amounting to billions of dollars since 2018. The justices could not let that stand. Instead, the justices, in putting the freedom of chemical companies to poison for profit without notification above the rights of people to be warned, have codified a new tragic low in the protection of life and freedom from pesticides. This happens all in the context of chemical industry-influenced federal law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act/FIFRA) being interpreted by the Court to take away the right to hold companies accountable through state common law, failure to warn lawsuits, when EPA only requires labeling for acute effects (e.g., headaches, nausea, dizziness, respiratory and eye damage) and is silent on requiring labeling for chronic effects like cancer, neurological, immunological, and reproductive harm, obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, and more.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthy food starts with agricultural systems that protect people, pollinators, wildlife, and the environment. Independence means the ability to live, work, play, and raise families in healthy communities with clean air and water, healthy soil, a safe workplace, and food grown without toxic pesticides. As we celebrate Independence Day, communities across the country are seeking freedom from the toxic chemicals linked to chronic diseases. With the continued failure of our laws, legislators, and regulators to respond to the wide body of science linking harmful contaminant exposure to a myriad of adverse health and environmental effects, and a Supreme Court that took away our protection, there is an escalating urgency for the widescale transition to organic agriculture and land management. Freedom from pesticides will happen when we stop buying toxic products and transition to organic in our purchasing and in the management of our parks, playing fields, and schoolyards.

On Independence Day, Beyond Pesticides calls for holistic solutions that, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, move the nation to ensure “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” And yet, the foundational principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have been challenged under the current administration.

Altogether, “moneyed” interests, such as the fossil fuel sector, petrochemical pesticide and fertilizer manufacturers, industrial agriculture, and their political allies, continue to weaponize the three branches of government and undermine the distribution of powers between local, state, and federal governments (principle of federalism). Environmental advocates maintain that economic interests must not harm the public good but should prioritize investments and regulations to protect and regenerate clean water, air, soil, and ecosystems through organic systems. (See Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: Protecting Health and the Environment This Independence Day.)

Attacks on Public Health

When the branches of government forego their responsibilities to serve the public interest, the significance of an independent judiciary becomes all the more important to the protection of democratic traditions and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court decision in the Monsanto case effectively shields manufacturers from failure to warn lawsuits.

Beyond Pesticides’ release on the decision said the following: “The Court’s decision today is a tragic setback for public and environmental health, allowing companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities, warning consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a national health and environmental group. “In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily,” Mr. Feldman continued. For more information, see Daily News Supreme Court Gives Pesticide Makers Immunity from Litigation for Omitting Cancer Warning on Products and visit the Failure-to-Warn Resource Hub.

On June 23, Senator Boozman (R-AK), chair of the Senate Agriculture, Forestry, and Nutrition Committee, unveiled the Senate GOP Farm Bill, the Agricultural Act of 2026, with provisions that undermine public and environmental health, according to farm, farmworker, and environmental advocates. Rather than investing sufficiently in organic agriculture and supporting farmers’ transition to nontoxic practices—in response to health, biodiversity, and climate crises, as well as the high cost of synthetic fertilizers—the bill reduces oversight of organic production by loosening inspection and certification requirements.

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

During these unprecedented times, Beyond Pesticides urges sending a message even to those who refuse to listen. As we strive to adopt the changes essential for a livable future, we must create a record that is based on science, even when the science and the facts are dismissed by those in power. To this end, the failure of action to address the existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises by those in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches empowers lower levels of government to step into the void left by those whose actions or inaction threaten life. This Independence Day, make your voice heard with your elected representatives by (1) urging them to protect principles of democratic decision making that protect health and the environment, and (2) engage with local decisions that restrict pesticides in your community.

Current Science

An assessment in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems published this month reaffirms that organic farming reduces pollution, protects biodiversity, and safeguards public health. The review synthesizes numerous studies on organic production, with the authors concluding that the environmental improvements translate into public health benefits and a stronger food production system. As recently documented in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, research finds that replacing even 100 grams per day of conventionally grown fruits and vegetables with organic equivalents is associated with ~10% reduction in postmenopausal breast cancer risk. (See additional health benefits of organic here.)

Earlier this year, a study published in Nature Sustainability finds that long-term organic management improves soil health, increases carbon retention, and eliminates reliance on synthetic inputs. This highlights how healthy soils support more resilient food production systems, while also removing threats to public health, wildlife, and the environment from pesticide exposure.

Recent Daily News, entitled Benefits of U.S. Organic Production Highlighted in Evidence-Based Research that Supports an Expedited Transition, documents findings from researchers at Prairie View A&M University in Texas, published in the journal Sustainability, in a study of organic agricultural systems from 1960 to 2021. The authors conclude that “the outlook for U.S. organic fruit and vegetables is encouraging, supported by expanding consumer demand, government support, and improved conditions for international trade.” While delivering upbeat findings, including health benefits, the study identifies tremendous obstacles to entry into organic farming, including the limited support for alternative pest management and pest control systems in the United States in recent modern history, compared to the assistance provided for highly subsidized, petrochemical-dependent agricultural practices. Public health and environmental advocates continue to advocate for a wholesale transition to organic pest management, including calls for U.S. Representatives and Senators to cosponsor the Opportunities in Organic Act!

An Organic Future

In the spirit of protecting all life, Beyond Pesticides works with communities across the country to transition their neighborhoods—specifically public parks, green spaces, and playing fields—to organically-managed, pesticide-free spaces. The Parks for a Sustainable Future Program has worked with roughly 26 states across dozens of cities and towns across the country since its inception. (See here for a map highlighting the reach and impact.) To become a Parks Advocate and encourage your community to transition to organic, contact Rika Gopinath, Community Policy and Action Manager at [email protected]!

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

Sources:

Berlivet, J. et al. (2026) Consumption of organic compared with conventional fruits and vegetables in relation to cancer risk: findings from the NutriNet-Santé cohort study, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916526000936.

García-Velázquez, L. et al. (2026) Optimizing biodiversity, multifunctionality and yield when transitioning to organic farming, Nature Sustainability. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-026-01791-1.

Nepali, S. (2026) Assessment of the environmental and nutritional benefits of organic rice farming: a Nepalese case study, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2026.1841047/full.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2026) A review in the International Journal of Cancer links pesticide exposure, particularly in areas with high agricultural crop density, to increased risks for childhood cancers. The team of researchers from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and University of Nebraska Medical Center, in analyzing epidemiologic studies published between January 1980 and September 2022, says that “this scoping review affirms that a robust body of epidemiology literature already informs how parental and childhood exposure to environmental chemical exposures can be associated with children’s incidence of pediatric leukemia and brain cancer.”

The scientific literature shows that pediatric cancer, which is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in children, is associated with exposure to residential pesticides, pesticides ingested through drinking water, parental exposure, and in areas with close proximity to agricultural areas where pesticides are used.

Background

According to the American Childhood Cancer Organization, over 15,000 children in the U.S. are diagnosed with cancer each year, with pediatric cancer as the second leading cause of death in children 5–9 years of age and the third leading cause of death in children ages 10–14. (See here.) In agricultural states, such as Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri, incidence rates for pediatric cancer are increasing. This also places an economic burden on families, as the “total cost incurred for one child with cancer can approach a million dollars when accounting for medical expenses and lost parental income.”

Two of the most common childhood cancers, leukemia and brain cancer, can be attributed to pesticide exposure. Types of leukemia, which are cancers originating in tissues, such as the bone marrow and the lymphatic system, are among the most prevalent cancers in children ages 0–14, with 25%–35% of all childhood cancers being acute lymphocytic leukemia. Brain cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in children, but also the number one disease-related cause of child mortality in the U.S., according to research in Cancer Epidemiology. Childhood brain tumors (CBTs) are masses of abnormal cells found in the brain or tissues and structures surrounding the brain.

“Given the short latency period (time between exposure and symptoms of disease) inherent in pediatric cancer, carcinogenesis may be uniquely linked to high-intensity environmental exposure and/or highly susceptible individual genotypes,” the authors note. They continue: “Residential or agricultural pesticide use in spaces where children spend most of their time poses a significant risk to their well-being and physical development. Different types of pediatric cancers have varying latency periods, with bone cancers tending to occur in older children. In contrast, blood and brain cancers typically occur in children below the age of 10. Heredity is expected to play a role, but geographic disparities suggest that pediatric cancer may be affected by something other than inherited genetics, and something is disproportionately affecting the young population.”

Children face much higher hazards than adults from pesticide exposure. Their small size and developing organ systems, propensity to crawl and play near the ground, tendency for frequent hand-to-mouth motion, and greater intake of air and food relative to body weight make them particularly susceptible. (See Hazards of Pesticides for Children’s Health for more information.) Since children are more at risk from environmental exposures, areas with increased pesticide use further threaten their health.

Scientific Literature Review

To identify the links between children and environmental contaminants, the researchers conducted a review of scientific literature on leukemia and CBTs associated with exposure to pesticides. While 88 papers met the study criteria, the review focuses on 30 studies that report statistically significant associations, with common themes of pesticide exposure within the home or nearby environment and parental occupational exposure.

Residential Exposures

Within the home, multiple chemical exposures can occur during fetal development, infancy, and childhood. As the authors state: “Parents with occupations in the agricultural industry can bring home trace amounts of chemicals on their shoes and clothing, which can lead to child exposure through inhalation, dermal contact, or ingestion. Children are also exposed through contact with pets treated with insecticides to prevent/kill fleas and ticks.” Additional exposures can occur with in-home applications of insecticides, in outdoor playing areas, and through maternal exposure that crosses the placental barrier.

Notable research includes:

• Childhood exposure to insecticides used in the home is associated with increased risk of leukemia. In particular, residential pest control treatments during the 12 months before conception are “associated with a 1.5-fold increase in CBT risk… The risk for high-grade glioma was highest, over 4-fold above baseline, when pest control treatments were performed during pregnancy.” (See studies here and here.)
• Increased risk for pediatric brain tumors, especially in children under five years of age, is associated with prenatal exposure to flea and tick products. (See here.)
• “The Northern California Childhood Leukemia Study reported that the use of professional pest control services from 1 year before birth to 3 years after was more common among households where a child was eventually diagnosed with leukemia, either in aggregate (n = 162) or specifically acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (n = 135).”
• A study in Maryland of four types of childhood cancers (leukemia, brain and spinal cord, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and bone) alongside four commonly detected pesticides in Maryland groundwater shows that children encountering pesticide mixtures have a risk of developing one of the four types of cancer at a rate 7.56 times greater than unexposed children.

Proximity to Agriculture

Disproportionate risks have long been documented for farmworkers and their children, as well as individuals living in close proximity to agricultural fields. (See Daily News coverage here.) Within the literature review, a wide body of science further supports this, including:

• One study finds a statistically significant increased risk for childhood cancers in counties with moderate (20–< 60%) to high (≥ 60%) total cropland. Specifically, leukemia risks are elevated in counties with > 60% cropland, most notably with lymphoid leukemias and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). “Central nervous system tumor risk was also associated with high cropland counties, particularly astrocytoma, with 1.5 times higher odds for astrocytoma and 1.9 times higher odds for primitive neuroectodermal tumor (PNET).”
• A study of children living within a half mile of pesticide applications in California shows increased risks for leukemia. (See here.)
• Research finds AML risk increases in areas with soybean production and central nervous system tumors are linked to individuals residing in a county with oat crops.
• “A study of 3350 cases and 20,365 controls, aged 0–14, in two regions of Spain reported an increased risk for childhood cancers when living close to agricultural fields (within 1 km).”
• Another study links brain tumors, particularly astrocytoma, to residential herbicide and insecticide usage. When combined with residential and occupational exposure, the research shows elevated risks.
• “Children in Denmark were at 2 times increased risk of leukemia when their mothers lived in areas with > 24 ha [hectare] of total crop area within 500 m of their home. The risk increased to almost 3 times after adjustment for livestock farms within 1000 m of their residence.” (See study here.)
• A study in Costa Rica finds an increased risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in boys “whose mothers reported exposure to insecticides inside the home during the year before pregnancy, during pregnancy, or while breastfeeding.”
• “A Norwegian study reported that children aged zero to 14 years exposed to pesticides and poultry farming had a two-fold risk for brain tumors and a three-fold risk for neuroepithelial tumors.”

As the authors summarize, this research highlights that “exposure to both occupational and household pesticides is significantly associated with increased risks of leukemia and brain cancer in children, and risk for specific cancer types appears to be related to parental exposure during the prenatal period.” As childhood is a critical window for development and is considered a window of vulnerability, these risks can have life-long implications.

Previous Coverage

As documented in scientific literature, captured in Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, pesticides threaten human health through various mechanisms, with heightened risks to children. As noted in coverage entitled Pesticide Exposure Again Linked to Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, as Rates Rise, a new study, published this year in Cancers, is the first to assess the effect of pesticide exposures on the survival of children with leukemia. The study finds a statistically significant link between residential rodenticide exposure and a higher risk in children of death from acute lymphoblastic leukemia, with about 10% of the exposed children dying within five years of diagnosis. Crucially, pre- and post-natal periods were the most critical exposure windows—and the intervals when residents were most likely to use rodenticides.

Another study of Nebraska pesticide use and pediatric cancer incidence by researchers from the University of Nebraska Medical Center and the University of Idaho Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences finds positive associations between pesticides and overall cancer, brain and central nervous system cancers, and leukemia among children (defined as under age 20). The study’s lead author, Jabeen Taiba, PhD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, spoke at the second session of Beyond Pesticides’ 42nd National Pesticide Forum, The Pesticide Threat to Environmental Health – Advancing Holistic Solutions Aligned with Nature. (See the recording here.)

A Holistic Future

To reduce the burden of pediatric cancer and protect children’s health, the elimination of all petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers is a necessity. Organic agriculture and land management offer a holistic solution that does not endanger children or adults, pets, wildlife, and the environment.

With the availability of safer alternatives to toxic chemicals, whether in agriculture, parks, homes, or gardens, the allowance of substances with documented harm to health and the environment is unreasonable under the standard of federal and state pesticide law. Organic practices are proven to provide numerous health benefits, as well as more nutritious food, that can both protect and enhance biodiversity and mitigate the effects of climate change.

To learn more about organic land management and the benefits, see here and here. Take action to advance the organic movement and contribute your voice to the holistic, systems-based solution that protects the health of all.

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

Source:

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2026) A peer-reviewed article, published in Scientific Reports, focuses on the link between exposure to pesticide mixtures and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) prevalence at the county-level across the United States. Alzheimer’s, a type of dementia that affects memory, thinking, and behavior, accounts for 60-80% of dementia cases.

In conducting a novel cross-sectional analysis of data on pesticide application intensity and disease prevalence, the researchers, from the Medical University of South Carolina, are able to identify exposure clusters with significant associations to the occurrence of AD. The strongest positive associations, where AD prevalence increases as pesticide exposure increases, are “observed for a soil fumigation/nematicide system, an herbicide-dominant vegetation control regime, and a neuroactive insecticide system,” the authors note. These findings link pesticide mixtures to increased AD rates. (See the full PDF of the study here.)

Study Importance and Background

AD is a condition that gradually damages and destroys neurons in the brain, with disproportionate risks across the U.S. in certain geographical areas. (See here and here.) “These spatial patterns suggest that contextual and environmental determinants may contribute to disparities in dementia burden beyond established individual-level risk factors,” the researchers state. They continue, “Although AD dementia is the leading cause of dementia worldwide and currently affects more than seven million older adults in the U.S., its environmental drivers remain incompletely characterized.”

The existing literature focuses on individual active ingredients, while an agricultural pesticide application rarely occurs in isolation, and these analyses fail to evaluate the additive or synergistic effects of mixtures. As the authors highlight: “[M]odern agricultural datasets include hundreds of active ingredients, creating an exposure space characterized by significant intercorrelation… As a result, associations attributed to individual compounds may instead be indicative of unaccounted for co-application schemes and regional agricultural practices.”

To address this data gap, the current study uses county-level pesticide exposure patterns across the U.S. in relation to AD dementia prevalence to analyze pesticide mixtures. “Through this mixture-aware approach, we seek to provide a structured understanding of how agricultural pesticide exposures may contribute to geographic variation in AD dementia prevalence across the U.S. and highlight potentially modifiable environmental risks relevant to public health policy and prevention strategies,” the researchers state.

Methodology and Results

Over 3,000 data points for county-level estimates of AD dementia prevalence are utilized in this study, derived from the neuropsychological assessments through the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP), while county-level agricultural pesticide use data was obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey National Pesticide Synthesis Project. Pesticide estimates from 2010 to 2018 are incorporated, capturing 462 unique pesticide active ingredients.

After assembling the data on disease prevalence and pesticide exposures, the pesticides were screened and analyzed for consistent associations with AD. The selected pesticides were then grouped into correlated exposure clusters for further analysis. As a result, 20 clusters are significantly associated with AD dementia prevalence.

AD develops over decades, which the authors point out is a limitation of the study, saying, “[T]he current cross-sectional analysis may not fully capture the long-term neurodegenerative effects of pesticide exposure, and observed associations may reflect both recent and historical exposures.” While potentially underestimated, the findings do show a nationwide association between pesticide mixtures and AD prevalence. “Our findings demonstrate that by evaluating pesticide exposures as coordinated mixtures instead of individual compounds, we can better resolve the agricultural and land-use contexts that shape real world exposures,” the authors conclude.

Previous Research

As cited in the current study, a growing body of evidence “suggests that broader environmental factors may contribute to population-level patterns of cognitive decline.” Research shows that environmental contaminants are associated with an elevated risk of AD. (See scientific literature here.) “Within this environmental context, exposure to pesticides is of particular concern because of their widespread agricultural use and neurotoxicity,” the authors state.

As pesticides are often designed to disrupt critical neurobiological processes such as neurotransmission, mitochondrial function, and cell division, these compounds are linked to deleterious effects such as oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and direct neuronal damage. (See here and here.) Studies examining pesticide mixtures also find that combined exposures lead to synergistic neurotoxicity that is greater than effects from individual compounds. (See research here and here.)

Research on population-based investigations, such as the French PAQUID (“Personnes Âgées Quid” or elderly) cohort (landmark epidemiologic study) and the U.S. Agricultural Health Study, report “significant associations between occupational pesticide exposure and neurodegenerative outcomes in extended follow-up analyses.” (See studies here, here, here, and here.) In another study of AD risk, increased risks among individuals with occupational organophosphate and organochlorine pesticide exposure are seen in an agricultural community cohort. Analyses of biomarkers “have linked elevated serum organochlorine pesticide levels to a higher likelihood of AD dementia diagnosis.”

As shared in recent Daily News coverage, entitled Pesticide Exposure Again Linked to Neurotoxic Effects in Humans and Wildlife in Comprehensive Review, a study in Discover Toxicology highlights neurotoxic pollutants as significant environmental threats, showcasing the adverse impacts on vertebrates’ neurological health from pesticides, including organophosphates, carbamates, and organochlorines. “These substances disrupt normal neurophysiological functions by impairing neurotransmission, generating oxidative stress, provoking neuroinflammation, and initiating neuronal cell death,” the authors say. They continue, “Such disturbances are linked to cognitive deficits, motor impairments, and abnormal neural development.”

This review mentions the “cocktail effect,” which refers to the combined or interactive effects of multiple contaminants that can be additive (total effect equals the sum of each individual effect) or synergistic (total effect is greater than the sum, amplifying toxicity). With this increase in toxicity as multiple pesticides are encountered as mixtures, further health threats occur.

Daily News, Cross-Sectional Study Finds Connection Between Pesticide Exposure and Alzheimer’s Disease, documents a 2024 study published in Psychiatry Research of individuals living near chemical-intensive agricultural environments with heightened risks of Alzheimer’s disease relative to the general population. This finding builds on existing peer-reviewed studies that document the relationship between chronic pesticide exposure and elevated risk of neurodegenerative disorders including Alzheimer’s disease, as well as Parkinson’s disease, dementia, multiple sclerosis (MS), and Huntington’s disease. (See additional coverage on Alzheimer’s here.)

A Path Forward

As documented in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, the nervous system is an integral part of the human body and includes the brain, spinal cord, a vast network of nerves and neurons, all of which are responsible for a majority of bodily functions—from senses to movement. However, exposure to certain chemicals, like pesticides, can cause neurotoxic effects or exacerbate preexisting chemical damage to the nervous system. The impacts of pesticides on the nervous system, including the brain, are extremely hazardous, especially for chronically exposed individuals or during critical windows of vulnerability and development. With the mounting evidence of pesticide-induced neurological diseases, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Parkinson’s disease, along with cognitive function and dementia-like diseases like Alzheimer’s, the solution lies in the elimination of petrochemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.

Join the organic movement by buying organic products (on a budget!), growing your own organic food, and taking action through Action of the Week, where you can have your voice heard on governmental actions that are harmful to the environment and public and worker health, increase overall pesticide use, or undermine the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies. >> Tell Congress, FDA, and EPA that it is past time to stop the manufacture and use of all organophosphate pesticides, which damage the nervous system and brain at low levels.

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

Source:

Wang, L. et al. (2026) Agricultural pesticide use and Alzheimer’s disease dementia prevalence across US counties in a mixed supervised–unsupervised analysis, Scientific Reports. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-026-55678-4.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2026) With the release of the Republican Farm Bill in the U.S. Senate on June 23 and passage of a bill with nearly identical provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 30, Beyond Pesticides and allies are calling on U.S. Senators to reject the GOP Farm Bill as drafted, citing an undermining of public and environmental health.

In addition to severe criticism of the bill language, the Chair of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, Senator John Boozman (R-AR), is being criticized by farm, farmworker, health, and food security groups for characterizing the House bill as “bipartisan” and a “significant achievement” because both the House and Senate bills were drafted without input from Democrats. 

U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), a Senate Agriculture Committee member, said: “The draft Farm Bill released today by Senate Republicans fails to meet this moment of crisis that American farmers and families are facing. . . [I]nstead, it goes backward, by undermining USDA support for regenerative agriculture and creating loopholes for pesticides to avoid safety oversight. I will not vote for a Farm Bill that leaves small farmers without a functioning safety net, does not make healthy, clean food more affordable, and does not reverse a meaningful amount of harm caused by H.R. 1 [known as “One, Big, Beautiful Act,” enacted July 4, 2025 as Public Law 119-21], including by delaying the shift of SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] costs to state budgets.”

The Senate GOP Farm Bill, the Agricultural Act of 2026, which had not been officially filed before the Senate’s Independence Day recess, redefines underlying standards and practices, resulting in increased dependency on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture. Rather than responding to health, biodiversity, and climate crises, as well as the high cost of synthetic fertilizers, by investing in organic agriculture and supporting farmers’ transition to nontoxic practices, the bill raises a wide range of social and conservation concerns, including issues affecting family farms, food security, and environmental and public health. It threatens the integrity of organic food by reducing oversight of organic production by loosening inspection and certification requirements. 

The text is largely the same as the Farm Bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in April—the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026 (H.R. 7567). The House vote made history when 73 Republicans joined the majority of the Democratic caucus to strip out a pesticide manufacturers’ liability shield (Sections 10205), federal preemption of state and local pesticide laws (Section 10206), and the weakening of bedrock environmental laws and their ability to regulate pesticides (Section 10207). [In its opinion in Monsanto v. Durnell on June 25, the Supreme Court agreed with Bayer/Monsanto’s argument that chemical manufacturers have no responsibility under pesticide law to provide a warning of chronic health effects like cancer on their product labels.] 

The draft Senate Republican Farm Bill ignores the current hunger and food insecurity crisis (with a historically large $186 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program/SNAP), dismisses the notion of a fair, responsible, and accessible family farm safety net, and rolls back successful conservation investments. The Agriculture Committee markup (debate and vote) of the Senate Farm Bill is expected before the Senate’s August recess. 

Poison Pill Provisions in Senate GOP Bill 
Subtitle B of Title X, entitled Regulatory Reform, contains the following provisions that weaken the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), undermine environmental protections, and threaten the health of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers.  

• Section 10201 [Section 10201 in House bill]: Exemption of safety review. Permanently exempts dozens of hazardous chemicals used in industrial agriculture from human health and environmental safety reviews that are currently required under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In addition, by expanding the incorporation of biological material in plants as pesticides, with Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs), target and nontarget organism resistance builds, undermining the value of organic-compatible materials in organic agriculture.  
• Section 10203 [Section 10203 in House bill]: Weakens protection of endangered species. Undermines the integrity of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in an unprecedented manner by delaying protections for threatened and endangered species against dangerous pesticides by giving an internal interagency workgroup a de facto veto on any efforts to protect endangered species from pesticides. The provision will certainly delay and weaken critical conservation measures despite the “no take” prohibition under the ESA for threatened and endangered species.  
• Section 10207 [Section 10204 in House bill]: Pushes back deadline for pesticide reviews and years of missing critical safety reviews. Delays the review of hundreds of pesticides for harms to human health, endangered wildlife, and endocrine disruption until 2031, leaving potentially dangerous pesticides on the market and in widespread use without any updated protective measures.   
• Section 10209 (Section 10202 in House bill]: Diminishes and delays regulatory authority under pesticide law. Weakens and delays efforts to protect children, farmworkers, and public health, from dangerous pesticides by giving unprecedented authority to the USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy and pesticide manufacturers to review and potentially veto any environmental or human health safeguards determined to be necessary by EPA. Undermines health-based standard for the setting of allowable pesticide residues (tolerances) in food by considering the availability of alternative chemicals.  
• Section 10210 [Section 10211 in House bill]. Threatens collection of information on farming practices. Discontinues statutory funding of the previous Farm Bill for surveys that provide baseline information to communities and farmers to inform practices and outcomes—particularly problematic during a period of severe budget cuts and agency dismantling. 

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

• Focus on Precision Agriculture as the Alternative Food System Approach. The Senate Farm Bill—throughout the Conservation Title (Title II), including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program subtitle (Subtitle B), the Credit Title (Title V), in the Rural Development Title (Title VI), in the Research Title (Title VII), and the Miscellaneous Title (Title XII) —will codify continued reliance on petrochemical fertilizers through the promotion of “precision agriculture.” With the use of drones, satellites, and artificial intelligence, precision agriculture is touted by the industry and USDA as a great environmental achievement, focused on lower or variable application rates of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers—but ignores the dramatic damage it causes to soil biology, complex biological communities, and the economic value of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services that naturally cycle plant nutrients.  
• Closing of USDA Beltsville National Bee Laboratory and Related Research. This Farm Bill does not address the USDA reorganization plan, including the devastating implications of shutting down research facilities at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Beltsville, Maryland, including the Bee Research Laboratory (aka Bee Lab). Maryland’s Congressional delegation has pointed out that the closing of BARC is also illegal. By moving forward with the decommissioning of BARC, USDA is violating several provisions laid out in the Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture Appropriations Act, enacted into law on November 12, 2025, including a clear directive to USDA to keep BARC open.  
• SNAP Cuts Remain in this Bill. The Senate GOP Farm Bill would continue to codify the initial statutory changes from last summer’s reconciliation bill H.R.1, including shifting the costs to state governments while minimizing cost-share from the federal government from 50 percent to 25 percent, expanding work requirements to 64 years of age from 54 years of age, prohibiting non-citizens from accessing the program, among other deleterious impacts that could be address in this legislation. 

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

• Section 10205: Immunizes pesticide companies from their duty to warn the public about dangerous chemicals in their pesticide formulations, potentially eliminating access to the federal courts for thousands of individuals with cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and other health issues scientifically linked to pesticide exposure. See Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards.   
• Section 10206: Eliminates the six-decade-old authority of state and local governments to implement additional local and state focused restrictions on the use of dangerous pesticides to protect children, farmworkers, pollinators, public health, and the environment.  
• Section 10207: Erases important, long-standing safeguards to protect people and wildlife from pesticide pollution discharged directly into waterways through the Clean Water Act‘s Pesticide General Permit (“PGP”) and includes broad language that would exempt pesticide approvals from the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and other bedrock environmental laws. 

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

• Use of undefined terms that will “require judicial interpretation to determine their exact meaning and application, creating lengthy uncertainty for producers and regulators.”
• Broad implications beyond “covered livestock,” which could implicate sectors ranging from “animal feed, animal vaccines, livestock reproductive materials, and other livestock input industries.”
• Preempts +700 state food laws, undermining the authority of local governments to respond to crises and support their own constituents.

Tell your U.S. Senators to reject the GOP Farm Bill. 

Letter to U.S. Senators: 
Rather than responding to health, biodiversity, and climate crises, as well as the high cost of synthetic fertilizers, by investing in organic agriculture and supporting farmers’ transition to nontoxic practices, the GOP Farm Bill released by the Senate Agriculture Committee raises a wide range of social and conservation concerns, including the protection of family farms, food

security, and environmental and public health—including these provisions:  

*Section 10201 permanently excludes dozens of hazardous chemicals used in industrial agriculture, including some genetically engineered “plant incorporated protectants” (pesticide incorporated plants), from human health and environmental safety reviews currently required under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.  

*Section 10203 undermines the integrity of the Endangered Species Act in an unprecedented manner by delaying protections for endangered species against dangerous pesticides by allowing an internal interagency workgroup to veto any efforts to protect endangered species from pesticides and delay and weaken critical conservation measures.   

*Section 10207 delays the review of hundreds of pesticides for harms to human health, endangered wildlife, and endocrine disruption until 2031, leaving potentially dangerous pesticides in widespread use without any updated protective measures.  

*Section 10209 weakens and delays efforts to protect children, farmworkers, and public health, from dangerous pesticides by giving unprecedented authority to the USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy to review and potentially veto any environmental or human health safeguards determined to be necessary by EPA.  

*Section 10210. Discontinues statutory funding of the previous Farm Bill for surveys that provide baseline information to communities and farmers to inform practices and outcomes—particularly problematic during a period of severe budget cuts and agency dismantling.   

In addition,  

*Focus on Precision Agriculture as the Alternative Food System Approach: The Senate Farm Bill will codify continued reliance on petrochemical fertilizers through the promotion of “precision agriculture,” which ignores the dramatic damage it causes to soil biology, complex biological communities, and the economic value of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services that naturally cycle plant nutrients.  

*Closing of USDA Beltsville National Bee Laboratory and Related Research is not addressed, including the devastating implications of shutting down research facilities at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Beltsville, Maryland, which violates the Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture Appropriations Act, which includes a directive to keep BARC open.  

*SNAP Cuts are not eliminated, causing deleterious impacts that could be addressed in this legislation.  

While the most toxic sections of the House-passed bill were removed, please stop attempts to include the following type of language from the original House Agriculture Committee bill into the Senate version through the conference committee process.  

*Section 10205 immunizes pesticide companies from their duty to warn the public about dangerous chemicals in their pesticide formulations.  

*Section 10206 eliminates the authority of state and local governments to implement additional local and state-focused restrictions on the use of dangerous pesticides.  

*Section 10207 exempts pesticides from provisions of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and other bedrock environmental laws.  

Please oppose the GOP Farm Bill and invest in organic agriculture and farmers’ transition to nontoxic practices.  

Thank you. 

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2026) In a study published in Aquatic Toxicology, researchers in Brazil determined that the cumulative toxicity of acetamiprid (a neonicotinoid insecticide) and cyanobacteria (photosynthetic microbes that can produce toxins) has a synergistic effect on the health of aquatic water fleas, or Daphnia. The implications of these findings paint a troubling picture for broader aquatic food webs, as they serve as a bridge species across trophic levels, serving as a primary consumer of plants and algae while also providing energy to secondary and tertiary consumers up the chain. In this context, public health and environmental advocates argue that the combined toxicity of synthetic agrichemicals and naturally occurring toxins is often considered an externality (external cost) borne by the public rather than a direct cost of agricultural production or nonagricultural pest management.

“When ecosystems are undermined, so are the economic systems that are relied upon to grow food,” says Max Sano, senior policy and coalitions associate at Beyond Pesticides. “The need for a wholesale transition to organic land management acknowledges this fundamental mismatch and seeks to account for these discrepancies, although policy must ensure that organic farmers have the resources they need to thrive.”

Methodology and Main Findings

The goal of this study is to examine the chronic impacts of singular and cumulative toxicity of acetamiprid and the cyanobacterium (Raphidiopsis raciborskii strain LETC-CY-05). This strain is known to produce saxitoxin, a toxin that can contribute to “red tide” algal blooms, disrupting entire aquatic ecosystems if not properly managed. In the study, researchers test two species of Daphnia, one kept in lab culture for approximately 30 years (D. similis) and one found in Lake Jacaré in Minas Gerais, Brazil (D. laevis). The test organisms were exposed for a 15-day period with sublethal exposure concentrations set below the observed lethal range. The combined toxicity of cyanobacterium and acetamiprid is analyzed using the MIXTOX model (Jonker et al., 2005) to consider synergistic interactions based on differences between estimated and observed values.

The study yields the following main findings:

• Reproductive Health Implications. For one of the test species of aquatic organisms (D. similis), the combined exposure delays the first reproduction cycle and cuts total offspring by 60 to 90 percent. For D.laevis, it is only acetamiprid as an isolated compound that impacts reproductive health and population growth.
• Combined Exposure Shows Non-Linear Interactions. A 1:1 mixture of cyanobacteria and acetempairid is synergistic and kills all D. similis organisms, whereas for D.laevis, “this occurred at 1:1 and 2:1 proportions.” As the abstract points out, “These results demonstrate that the interaction between acetamiprid and cyanobacteria can lead to enhanced toxicity in zooplankton, underscoring the importance of assessing multiple stressors and their interactive effects in aquatic ecosystems, as single-exposure assessments may fail to capture the full scope of ecological risks.”
• Complementary Modes of Actions. Acetamiprid is shown to disrupt nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) while saxitoxins, as produced by certain cyanobacteria, can block voltage-gated sodium channels. The combined impacts of this exposure can potentially compound both membrane disruption and oxidative stress in aquatic organisms. For previous studies cited by the authors on chemical interaction-enhancing cyanobacteria toxicity, see here and here.

Previous Coverage

There is a large body of peer-reviewed research documenting the synergistic effects and enhanced toxicity of chemical mixtures, including those with naturally occurring toxins, that requires assessment when allowing the application of synthetic agrichemicals into the environment.

A review published in Toxics finds that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) can heighten the risks of environmental contaminants to exposed organisms. Mixtures of these compounds can negatively impact the nervous, cardiovascular, immune, and reproductive systems, particularly in aquatic organisms, and threaten overall biodiversity. “The objectives were to evaluate the toxicological effects of mixtures of the selected contaminants with PFAS on aquatic organisms to understand biological responses in animals better,” the study authors explain. “Based on our review, data suggest that PFAS can modify the toxicity of co-occurring pollutants.” (See Daily News here.) Research also finds that widespread agricultural pesticide use increases chronic dietary exposure in poultry and leads to adverse reproductive effects, despite meeting legal residue limits. As published in Poultry Science by researchers at Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences (Wrocław, Poland), low-dose pesticide exposure of harmed the reproductive system of roosters (Gallus gallus domesticus) exposed to the fungicide tebuconazole (TEB), the insecticide imidacloprid (IMI), and the weed killer glyphosate (GLP) individually and in mixtures, with all concentrations at or below the maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the European Union (EU). “Sub-MRL pesticide exposure impaired male reproductive function, with the most pronounced effects observed following combined treatments,” the authors report. They continue: “[E]xposure resulted in reduced semen quality, decreased fertility and hatchability, and increased embryo mortality, particularly in groups receiving IMI alone or in combination. These functional impairments were accompanied by detectable pesticide residues in reproductive tissues and body fluids, as well as modulation [modification/alteration] of local and systemic immune parameters.” (See Daily News here.)

These synergistic risks are not reflected in regulatory systems in the United States, according to recent scientific reports. In Chemical Research in Toxicology, for example, researchers from the Universitat Rovira i Virgili (Catalonia, Spain) highlight the threats to human and environmental health with “combined exposures to multiple chemical toxicants, including industrial chemicals, heavy metals, pesticides, endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).” As the authors point out, “This leads to a systematic underestimation of health risks, particularly for vulnerable populations. Despite robust evidence on mixture toxicity, major regulatory frameworks such as the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the EU’s [European Union] REACH [Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals] program continue to assess chemicals in isolation.” (See Daily News here.)

On the topic of the failures of the current U.S. regulatory system, researchers studied the effect of multiple climate stressors and pesticides in the environment and published their disturbing findings of elevated harm in “Double trouble: The synergistic threat of environmental stressors and pesticide mixtures,” Journal of Hazardous Materials (December, 2025). The researchers document synergism that is 70 times stronger than for the single chemical. The work is a follow-up to a previous study covered in Beyond Pesticides’ October 25, 2024, news brief. Researchers at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig and the Department of Evolutionary Ecology and Environmental Toxicology at Goethe University in Frankfurt identify the interactions between two types of environmental stress—food deprivation and heat stress—and pesticides, both individually and in mixtures. In their laboratory study, the researchers exposed the water flea Daphnia magna, a tiny crustacean, to both types of stress in combination with exposure to the pyrethroid insecticide esfenvalerate and a mixture of 13 other pyrethroids. The degree to which the combination of pesticides and climate stresses exacerbates damage to the Daphnia adds to the real-world hazards that are not captured in required regulatory reviews for pesticide registration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (See Daily News here.)

Cumulative pesticide exposure is linked to numerous adverse health effects, including cancer. A novel study mapping pesticide mixtures and cancer risk, published earlier this year in Nature Health, “reveals a robust spatial association between environmental pesticide exposure risk and cancer incidence.” The team of international researchers incorporates pesticide risk modeling with Peruvian National Cancer Institute (INEN) registry data to map pesticide-induced cancer clusters in Peru, finding significant associations between pesticide mixtures and cases of carcinogenicity. The study analyzes 31 active pesticide ingredients to identify pesticide-associated cancer hotspots, none of which are classified as carcinogenic on their own by international standards. “Collectively, these findings strongly support a mechanistic [causal] link between pesticide exposure and cancer, challenging assumptions of human non-carcinogenicity derived from reductionist experimental models,” the authors state. “This study redefines the exposome [measure of all environmental, dietary, lifestyle, and social exposures of an individual] as a lineage-conditioned, mechanistically tractable framework and shows how complex pesticide mixtures can contribute to carcinogenic trajectories, with profound and far-reaching implications for global health policy and socio-ecological equity.” (See Daily News here.)

There are also neurotoxic implications for the continuous use of synthetic pesticides. A study in Discover Toxicology highlights neurotoxic pollutants as significant environmental threats, showcasing the adverse impacts on vertebrates’ neurological health from pesticides, including organophosphates, carbamates, and organochlorines. “These substances disrupt normal neurophysiological functions by impairing neurotransmission, generating oxidative stress, provoking neuroinflammation, and initiating neuronal cell death,” the authors say. They continue, “Such disturbances are linked to cognitive deficits, motor impairments, and abnormal neural development.” (See Daily News here.)

Call to Action

You can all subscribe to receive the Action of the Week and Weekly News Update in your inbox so that you can take strategic actions calling for change from the local to international.

For example, you can tell EPA, FDA, and Congress that regulations must consider the effects of pesticides in the context in which they are used and with reference to the organic alternative.

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

Source: Aquatic Toxicology

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2026) The Supreme Court today, in a 7-2 decision, issued a ruling that prohibits, under current federal law, the right of those harmed by pesticides to sue manufacturers for their failure to warn consumers of potential hazards on their product labels. The decision effectively shields manufacturers from failure to warn lawsuits. See opinion here.

“The Court’s decision today is a tragic setback for public and environmental health, allowing companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities, warning consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a national health and environmental group. “In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily,” Mr. Feldman continued.

The Supreme Court case, Monsanto v. Durnell [24-1068], pits the manufacturer of the weed killer glyphosate, sold as Roundup^TM, against a cancer patient with non-Hodgkin lymphoma who was awarded $1.25 million in 2023 because the product label information provided no warning. The decision will vacate, or undo, billions of dollars in jury verdicts against Monsanto.

Before the Supreme Court heard the case on April 1, a statement decrying chemical company secrecy was released by over 200 grassroots, health, farm, farmworker, environmental, and consumer groups, socially responsible corporations, over 385 citizens from 47 states and the District of Columbia, and international partners. With support of the Trump administration, Bayer/Monsanto argues it should not be required to disclose on its product labels the potential cancer hazards of its pesticide products. Decades of jurisprudence have upheld the legal argument that chemical companies are liable for their failure to warn users of their pesticides about the harm that they could cause. Bayer/Monsanto wants to stop litigation and reverse years of case law and billions of dollars in jury verdicts in which the company has been held liable for causing cancer but not warning product users. [See statement, Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards.]

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision shields manufacturers from liability associated with those who are harmed but not warned about pesticides’ adverse effects like cancer, neurological or immunological conditions, reproductive dysfunction, and other chronic illnesses. The court establishes liability immunity under federal pesticide law, finding that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act “preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim concerning a pesticide registered by [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] EPA, where the agency has determined that a particular warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product label without EPA approval.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is preceded by thousands of successful lawsuits and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto for the company’s failure to warn about long-term hazards on their Roundup^TM product label. While EPA does not recognize glyphosate to be cancer-causing, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, finds it to be “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Lawyers for plaintiffs against Monsanto argued that the company sought to hide behind a weak regulatory review process, while juries issued verdicts that held the company responsible for failing to warn of the chemical product’s potential adverse effects. The total number of jury verdicts amounts to billions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages that the Supreme Court is wiping away with its decision, while putting end to pending cases of over a hundred thousand additional plaintiffs. 

The Court is overturning (reversing) its 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, 544 U.S. 431 (see analysis), which affirmed EPA’s approved pesticide product label as minimum protection, without releasing manufacturers of the responsibility to seek approval for a label that exceeds EPA’s minimum requirements. Pesticide manufacturers propose the text for their product labels and EPA ensures compliance with its minimum requirements, which does not preclude them from disclosing potential adverse effects they know or should have known about. EPA does not require a cancer warning (or other chronic effects) typically on pesticide product labels, even when the agency and the chemical manufacturer have identified a harm, including cancer, under EPA’s risk assessment review that it deems “acceptable.”

The Court in the Bates case made the important point that the notion of liability “emphasizes the importance of providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in the business of distributing inherently dangerous items.”

Beyond Pesticides joined an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court in April and led by Center for Food Safety (CFS), which challenged Bayer/Monsanto’s position that it should not be held liable for failing to warn consumers that the use of their pesticide products could cause cancer or other diseases.

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

For more information, please visit the Failure to Warn Resource Hub; the latest version of this release is available at https://bp-dc.org/supreme-court-monsanto-v-durnell-pr-6-2026.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2026) In a study comparing pesticide active ingredients (isolated single chemicals) with full pesticide product formulations containing added ingredients (the packaged products that can contain carriers, sticking agents, emulsifiers, etc.), researchers find the full formulation to be generally more toxic. The research evaluates acute and chronic exposures of four mosquito adulticide active ingredients (AIs), three product formulations, and one biological larvicide pesticide formulation containing Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) on honey bee larvae in vitro and finds that three of the four exceed levels of concern (LOCs) set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA publishes Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees in which it identifies levels of harm. The scientists who conducted the study, published in Environmental Challenges, are based at the University of Florida and Auburn University.

This study references Bti (Vectobac12AS) as the least toxic product, since the acute LD₅₀ (lethal dose that kills 50% of the test population) is well below EPA-set LOCs. However, the study only focused on whether Bti harms honey bees. In contrast, there are some indications of its potential adverse effects on other beneficial insects, moths, and butterflies (see fact sheet here) and aquatic life, including studies (see here and here) indicating Bti-induced reductions in benthic macroinvertebrate communities in freshwater bodies (specifically chironomids, or non-biting midges) that serve as biological indicators of water quality and compounding climate impacts.

The study does not assess the impacts of spinosad-based mosquito adulticides, another widely used “biological” pesticide with demonstrable adverse effects on nontarget organisms, as indicated by the ecological risk assessment conducted by the U.S. Forest Service for the active ingredient published in 2016. There is also evidence of adverse impacts on aquatic life, including oxidative stress, as identified in a recent scientific report. (See here.) Additionally, a recent study published in 2026 (see here) finds that sublethal doses of spinosad can impact the flight capabilities of honeybees.

While the degree of ecosystem disruption caused by mosquito control products varies considerably by chemical, the harm caused to organisms at any level elevates the need for alternative strategies. Critical to the protection of public health and the environment is the adoption of source reduction programs that reduce or eliminate mosquito breeding sites and public education on the importance of practices that reduce insect bites with the use of repellents, proper clothing, and other preventive techniques.

Methodology and Main Findings

The researchers tested four adulticide active ingredients (chlorpyrifos, naled, prallethrin, sumithrin), three commercial formulations (chlorpyrifos-based Mosquito Mist II, naled-based Dibrom, and Duet, which contains prallethrin, sumithrin, and a synergist called piperonyl butoxide), and Vectobac12AS—a Bti-based larvicide formulation.

They split up the testing between acute and chronic exposure buckets for each compound. The first approach was to test a single dose in the diet on day 3 of the larval developmental stage in terms of calculating the lethal dose that eliminated 50 percent of the population (LD₅₀). The second approach was to conduct repeated dosing across days 2-5 to assess the no-observed-adverse-effect-dose (NOAEDs)/lowest-observed-adverse-effect-dose (LOAEDs). Researchers determined the risk quotient (RQ) for each compound through EPA’s BeeREX tool in their screening-level risk assessment. They note that the RQs are deliberately conservative since, among other factors, “in colonies, larvae are fed by nurse bees, and this may dilute residues through food processing and selective foraging, potentially altering exposure magnitude and bioavailability.” Acetone (1-2 percent) or water were used as solvents “to accommodate the higher stock solution volumes needed for single-dose exposure, while remaining below levels known to affect larval survival or feeding.”

In terms of the main findings for isolated active ingredients, naled is the most acutely toxic to larvae, with the researchers finding that this AI is roughly 147 percent more toxic than chlorpyrifos. However, researchers flag that none of the four active ingredients exceed the LOC for acute or dietary risk within the context of field-detected pollen or nectar residue levels—otherwise considered low risk based on this regulatory approach.

However, three of the four adulticide formulations exceed one or both levels of concern. Dibrom (naled) breaches both thresholds, and Mosquito Mist II (chlorpyrifos) exceeds the chronic threshold, but not the acute threshold. The results for Duet are concerning, given that the RQs remain under both acute and chronic thresholds according to EPA-set levels and yet are still documented as highly toxic to larvae in the dose-response assays.

There are some notable citations that the researchers incorporate into the study that may be of value, not only from the advocacy perspective, but also in terms of literature gaps and opportunities for future scientific exploration:

• A 2010 study published in PLOS One and a 2022 study published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry identify various miticides and agricultural pesticides in apiaries throughout the United States and Canada, establishing the ubiquitous nature of organophosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos that are found in the beeswax, pollen, and honey of surrounding beehives, suggesting widespread contamination.
• The European Food Safety Authority, the EU-equivalent agency to the U.S. EPA, calls for regulatory risk assessments to incorporate whole product formulations rather than isolated active ingredient analyses in a 2021 revision of its regulatory approach for risk assessment of pesticide products on various honey bee species. (See here.)
• The prevailing scientific literature on mosquito adulticides on honey bees has largely “focused on adult bees or colony-level outcomes in field settings” rather than increasing research on the “susceptibility of developing honey bee brood [eggs, larvae, and pupae of developing bee offspring] to these compounds.” For example, two studies (here and here) find that larvae “may be exposed to pesticide residues indirectly” when nurse bees deliver food to these baby bees from sources outside the hive, “leading to sustained, low-dose exposure during sensitive developmental periods.”

Previous Coverage

With Pollinator Week coming up the week of June 22, there is a plethora of peer-reviewed science connecting pesticide exposure to adverse effects on honey bees, native pollinators, and other beneficial insects that support the foundation of global biodiversity and agricultural productivity. Many of the studies reviewed below have been published within the past year, building on decades of existing research.

A study, Pesticides detected in two urban areas have implications for local butterfly conservation, published in partnership with researchers at Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Binghamton University (New York), and University of Nevada, reports widespread pesticide residues in the host plants of butterflies located in green spaces in the cities of Sacramento, California, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Just 22 of the hundreds of collected samples had no detectable residues, with all other samples containing some combination of 47 compounds of the 94 tested pesticides in the plant tissue. Of the 47 compounds, 4 are neonicotinoid insecticides linked to adverse effects for bee and pollinator populations based on previous peer-reviewed research. The fungicide azoxystrobin and the insecticide chlorantraniliprole were detected at lethal/sublethal concentrations, according to the report authors. (See Daily News here.)

In a study conducted on Swiss farmland published in Environmental Pollution, researchers detected 15 currently used pesticides (CUPs)—including 10 pesticide compounds detected but not applied within the study’s managed fields—in the pollen of beehives in an environment meant to reflect a typical honey bee foraging range. Out of the 50 target currently-used pesticides (CUPs) screened by the researchers, 15 (or 30 percent) were detected across both sampling seasons, including the neonicotinoid insecticide Acetamiprid, herbicides Prosulfocarb, Terbuthylazine, and fungicides Difenoconazole and Mandipropamid. (See Daily News here.)

A study of two pollinator species, honey bees (Apis mellifera) and small carpenter bees (Ceratina calcarata), finds oxidative stress — an imbalance between antioxidant defenses and excess reactive oxygen molecules (species), or ROS—resulting from exposure to non-living (abiotic) stressors, such as synthetic chemicals, leading to cell damage. Regulatory bodies, including EPA, do not routinely evaluate oxidative stress as a standalone or required endpoint in standard pesticide registration protocols. In comparing pollinator responses to different pesticides and pest control management practices, the lowest levels of oxidants are exhibited in organically managed systems, as described in the research published in Physiological Entomology. (See Daily News here.) There is also a study of ecotoxicity risk from neonicotinoid insecticides, published in Environmental Chemistry and Ecotoxicology, which finds that chemicals in this class of pesticides, particularly dinotefuron, increase the body temperature of Apis mellifera (European honey bee) and subsequently accelerate the translocation (movement) of contaminants into hives by the honey bees. The research indicates that neonicotinoids affect acetylcholine receptors in the nervous system, leading to an “elevation in octopamine titer [neurotransmitter/hormone] and subsequent increase in the body temperature of honeybees,” the authors report. They continue: “Furthermore, we observed a considerable upregulation [of] the expression of a flight gene, flightin, in honeybees. This gene accelerates the homing behavior of honeybees and facilitates the rapid and frequent transport of neonicotinoid pesticide-contaminated nectar to the hive.” (See Daily News here.)

In addition, a study published in Insects finds threats to Italian honey bees (Apis mellifera ligustica) following exposure to insecticides with contrasting toxicity levels. Both the high toxicity and low toxicity compounds impact honey bee gut bacteria and gut microbial composition, showing how even “reduced risk” insecticides can have sublethal effects and jeopardize pollinator health. As the authors point out, “Honey bees depend on a small but highly specialized community of gut bacteria that help them digest food, resist infections, and cope with environmental stress.” Because of this, chemicals that disrupt the honey bee gut microbiome can threaten their survival. In the current study, the researchers analyze two compounds to determine adverse impacts on honey bees’ gut microbiota: emamectin benzoate-lufenuron (EB-LFR), an avermectin insecticide with high toxicity, and RH-5849 (1,2-dibenzoyl-1-tert-butylhydrazine), a non-steroidal ecdysone agonist (mimicking the action of the insect molting hormone) and insect growth regulator with reported lower toxicity. (See Daily News here.)

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

Call to Action

To track the latest science on pesticide impacts on pollinators, please see What the Science Shows on Biodiversity. Also, check out our 2026 Pollinator Week page for activities and actions to take this week!

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

You can all subscribe to receive the Action of the Week and Weekly News Update in your inbox so that you can take strategic actions calling for change from the local to international. For example, you can tell EPA, FDA, and Congress that regulations must consider the effects of pesticides in the context in which they are used and with reference to the organic alternative. 

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

Source: Environmental Challenges

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2026) Yesterday, Senator Boozman (R-AK), chair of the Senate Agriculture, Forestry, and Nutrition Committee, released the Senate GOP Farm Bill, the Agricultural Act of 2026, with provisions that undermine public and environmental health, according to farm, farmworker, and environmental advocates. Rather than investing sufficiently in organic agriculture and supporting farmers’ transition to nontoxic practices—in response to health, biodiversity, and climate crises, as well as the high cost of synthetic fertilizers—the bill reduces oversight of organic production by loosening inspection and certification requirements.

“The bill, drafted without input from Senate Democrats, redefines underlying statutory standards, increasing dependency on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers in agriculture at a time when we urgently need to shift to sustainable and cost-effective agricultural and land management practices,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, a national public interest group representing farmers, consumers, and environmentalists. “We are facing health and environmental crises, demanding leadership—not exhibited in this Republican Farm Bill—that ensures a livable future,” Mr. Feldman said.

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

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

Poison Pill Provisions in Senate GOP Bill

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

• Section 10201 [Section 10201 in House bill]: Exemption of safety review. Permanently exempts dozens of hazardous chemicals used in industrial agriculture from human health and environmental safety reviews that are currently required under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. In addition, by expanding the incorporation of biological material in plants as pesticides, with Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs), target and nontarget organism resistance builds, undermining the value of organic-compatible materials in organic agriculture.
• Section 10203 [Section 10203 in House bill]: Weakens protection of endangered species. Undermines the integrity of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in an unprecedented manner by delaying protections for threatened and endangered species against dangerous pesticides by giving an internal interagency workgroup a de facto veto on any efforts to protect endangered species from pesticides. The provision will certainly delay and weaken critical conservation measures despite the “no take” prohibition under the ESA for threatened and endangered species.
• Section 10207 [Section 10204 in House bill]: Pushes deadline for pesticide reviews and years of missing critical safety reviews. Delays the review of hundreds of pesticides for harms to human health, endangered wildlife, and endocrine disruption until 2031, leaving potentially dangerous pesticides on the market and in widespread use without any updated protective measures.
• Section 10209 (Section 10202 in House bill]: Diminishes and delays regulatory authority under pesticide law. Weakens and delays efforts to protect children, farmworkers, and public health, from dangerous pesticides by giving unprecedented authority to the USDA’s Office of Pest Management Policy, and pesticide manufacturers to review and potentially veto any environmental or human health safeguards determined to be necessary by EPA. Undermines health-based standard for the setting of allowable pesticide residues (tolerances) in food by considering availability of alternative chemicals.
• Section 10210 [Section 10211 in House bill]. Threatens collection of information on farming practices. Discontinues statutory funding of the previous Farm Bill for surveys that provide baseline information to communities and farmers to inform practices and outcomes—particularly problematic during a period of severe budget cuts and agency dismantling.

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

• Focus on Precision Agriculture as the Alternative Food System Approach: The Senate Farm Bill—throughout the Conservation Title (Title II), including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program subtitle (Subtitle B), the Credit Title (Title V), in the Rural Development Title (Title VI), in the Research Title (Title VII), and the Miscellaneous Title (Title XII) —will codify continued reliance on petrochemical fertilizers through the promotion of “precision agriculture.” With the use of drones, satellites, and artificial intelligence, precision agriculture is touted by the industry and USDA as a great environmental achievement, focused on soil biology and lower or variable application rates of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers—but ignores the dramatic damage it causes to soil biology, complex biological communities, and the economic value of healthy ecosystems and ecosystem services that naturally cycle plant nutrients.
• Closing of USDA Beltsville National Bee Laboratory and Related Research. This Farm Bill does not address the USDA reorganization plan, including the devastating implications of shutting down research facilities at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Beltsville, Maryland, including the Bee Research Laboratory (aka Bee Lab). Maryland’s Congressional delegation has pointed out that the closing of BARC is also illegal. By moving forward with the decommissioning of BARC, USDA is violating several provisions laid out in the Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture Appropriations Act, enacted into law on November 12, 2025, including a clear directive to USDA to keep BARC open.
• SNAP Cuts Remain in this Bill. The Senate GOP Farm Bill would continue to codify the initial statutory changes from last summer’s reconciliation bill R.1, including shifting the costs to state governments while minimizing cost-share from the federal government from 50 percent to 25 percent, expanding work requirements to 64 years of age from 54 years of age, prohibiting non-citizens from accessing the program, among other deleterious impacts that could be address in this legislation.

Poison Pill Provision To Monitor

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

• Section 10205: Immunizes pesticide companies from their duty to warn the public about dangerous chemicals in their pesticide formulations, potentially eliminating access to the federal courts for thousands of individuals with cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and other health issues scientifically linked to pesticide exposure. See Stop Chemical Company Secrecy of Pesticide Product Hazards.
• Section 10206: Eliminates the six-decade-old authority of state and local governments to implement additional local and state focused restrictions on the use of dangerous pesticides to protect children, farmworkers, pollinators, public health, and the environment.
• Section 10207: Erases important, long-standing safeguards to protect people and wildlife from pesticide pollution discharged directly into waterways through the Clean Water Act Pesticide General Permit (“PGP”), and includes broad language that would exempt pesticide approvals from the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, and other bedrock environmental laws.

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

• Use of undefined terms that will “require judicial interpretation to determine their exact meaning and application, creating lengthy uncertainty for producers and regulators.”
• Broad implications beyond “covered livestock,” which could implicate sectors ranging from “animal feed, animal vaccines, livestock reproductive materials, and other livestock input industries.”
• Preempts +700 state food laws, undermining the authority of local governments to respond to crises and support their own constituents.

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

Source: Senate GOP Farm Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

Monday—Juneteenth and Environmental Justice 

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

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

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

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

Tuesday—Cultivating An Organic Safe Haven for Pollinators 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday—Spread the Buzz 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday—Pollinator Protection Starts with Organic Practices 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Pollinator Week!  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are additional key findings relevant to this discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methodology and Main Findings

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

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

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

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

The main findings for this study include:

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

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

Source: Cancer Causes & Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

Ten Years of Scientific Studies Find Association Between Childhood Cancer and Pesticide Exposure
Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2024
https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2024/04/ten-years-of-scientific-studies-find-association-between-childhood-cancer-and-pesticide-exposure/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Main Findings

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

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

The main findings include:

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

Source: Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences

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

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

Background

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

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

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

Study Methodology and Results

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

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

Additional results include:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Research

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

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

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

The Organic Solution

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

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

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

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

Source:

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

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

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

Background on Paraquat 

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

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

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

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

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

Paraquat Emissions 

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

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

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

Previous Research 

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Holistic Solution 

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

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

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

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

Source: 

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

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

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

Main Findings

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

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

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

Previous Coverage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call to Action

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

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

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

Source: Florence Nightingale Journal of Nursing